text:
# Particle production in time-dependent gravitational fields: the expanding mass shell

## 1 Introduction

Gradients in a gravitational field may cause the production of particles out of the vacuum; this is similar to the situation in quantum electrodynamics (QED). In the latter case a virtual pair of particles is ripped apart by the electric field. In contrast to QED, the gravitational ‘charge’—the mass—is always positive; in this case, the tidal forces are thus responsible for the separation of the particle pair. But there is also another difference. The energy that is needed for the production of particles in a charged vacuum is taken out of the field energy. Since the energy of the gravitational field cannot be localised, the energy gain must be explained otherwise. One possibility is the existence of a horizon. Another possibility is the time dependence of the gravitational field.

We compute the particle production in a time-dependent gravitational field induced by an expanding mass shell. This is done at a semiclassical level. The gravitational field, which acts through curvature of space-time, is treated as a classical background field in which a quantum field propagates. We consider a massless scalar field. So it is quantum field theory in curved space that we need to apply.

Perhaps the best known result in this field is the thermal radiation emitted by a black hole. This effect, discovered by Hawking , shows a deep connection between gravity, thermodynamics and quantum physics. Hawking’s result was reproduced in several ways, but also other problems such as Unruh’s accelerated observer  or the gravitational analogue to the Casimir effect  were studied.

In cosmological models, the production of particles plays a central role in explaining the origin of the structures observed in the Universe. During an epoch of cosmological inflation, quantum fluctuations of space-time and matter are amplified by the accelerated expansion of the Universe to become the seeds of large-scale structures .

All mentioned examples involve either a horizon, a boundary, or a singularity. To our knowledge, there exists no example in which particle production in an infinite space-time without horizon and without singularity has been calculated. The situation of an expanding mass shell represents such an example. We do not expect this work to have a direct astrophysical application, but the situation under study might be of interest when black holes evaporate. One could imagine that Hawking radiation is emitted from an evaporating black hole in a final burst, which we could then describe as a thin shell, carrying a mass somewhat larger than the Planck mass. If the emitted radiation consists of massive particles, this mass shell moves at a speed slightly below the speed of light and our calculation might be applicable. Since the expanding mass shell itself leads to gravitational particle production, this work might be useful for an estimate of backreaction effects in the final stages of black hole evaporation. We will not study this aspect here, the purpose of this paper being just to calculate the energy spectrum of the particles produced by an expanding mass shell.

There are three main procedures that are used to deal with quantum fields in curved space-time: Hawking’s classical ray-tracing , renormalization of the energy-momentum tensor (e.g. by point-splitting) , particle production in the reference frame of a uniformly accelerated observer , from which we will choose the first one. A useful overview on computational matters can be found in .

The procedure of ray-tracing in a semiclassical limit is appropriate if the energy carried by the quantum field is small with respect to the energy of the source of the gravitational field. Furthermore we have to stay on scales on which possible effects of quantum gravity do not occur. As Wheeler showed in  the characteristic length for this to happen is the Planck length $`l_\mathrm{P}=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}10^{33}`$ cm.

So we have to restrict our results to cases in which the effects of interest take place on scales $`l_\mathrm{P}`$ and $`t_\mathrm{P}`$. However, it seems that there is no reason to restrict the calculation to masses $`M>m_\mathrm{P}`$, as long as the mass shell starts to expand at a radius $`l_\mathrm{P}`$. We set $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$ in the following.

This paper is organized as follows. First we will need to find an observable of particle density in curved space, which will be done in Section 2. After this we will introduce our model of the expanding mass shell and discuss its properties. The computation of the number density operator is presented in Section 4. The results are discussed in section 5, which contains plots of the spectral energy flux and total energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface. We conclude with a short summary.

## 2 Quantum fields in curved space-time

Let us first recall some of the basics of quantum field theory in curved space-time . Physics in flat space-time is invariant under Poincaré transformations. This singles out a set of (Fourier) modes and a vacuum state, which are invariant under Poincaré transformations. In curved space-time there is no global Poincaré symmetry.

In the following we consider a minimally coupled scalar field $`\phi `$. Its Fourier modes in flat space are attached to the energy $`\omega `$ by

$$\mathrm{i}_tu_k=\omega u_k\text{with}\omega >0.$$
(1)
This uniqueness is lost when the coordiates are chosen arbitrarily. In curved space-time we have no distinguished time coordinate, thus no distinguished energy belonging to it, and no distinguished set of modes that can be related to the notion of particles. In general we have to deal with an arbitrary set of modes $`(u_i)`$ and ask for its relation to a different set $`(v_i)`$. The quantum field $`\widehat{\phi }`$ can then be expanded in both sets:

$$\widehat{\phi }=\underset{i}{}(u_i\widehat{a_i}+u_i^{}\widehat{a_i}^{}),\widehat{\phi }=\underset{j}{}(v_j\widehat{b_j}+v_j^{}\widehat{b_j}^{}).$$
(2)
The relations between these sets are given by the so-called Bogoliubov transformations  and have the form:

$$v_j=\underset{i}{}(\alpha _{ji}u_i+\beta _{ji}u_i^{}),u_i=\underset{j}{}(\alpha _{ji}^{}v_j\beta _{ji}v_j^{})$$
(3)
with

$$\alpha _{jk}=(v_j,u_k),\beta _{jk}=(v_j,u_k^{}),$$
(4)
and the scalar product given by

$$(u_i,v_j)=\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[u_i(_\mu v_j^{})(_\mu u_i)v_j^{}\right]\sqrt{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}d\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu .$$
(5)
Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a space-like hypersurface with volume element $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }^\mu =n^\mu \mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`n^\mu `$ is a normal vector of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with norm $`n^\mu n_\mu =1`$.

The creation and annihilation operators (2) depend on the modes, and so does the vacuum state defined with respect to them. The vacuum state $`|0_b`$ belongs to $`\widehat{b}_i`$ and is defined by $`\widehat{b}_i|0_b=0`$. In general, $`|0_b`$ is not identical with $`|0_a`$, for which we have $`\widehat{a}_i|0_a=0`$. It follows that the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator $`\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i`$ must not necessarily vanish when applied to the vacuum $`|0_b`$,

$$0_b|\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i|0_b=\underset{j}{}|\beta _{ji}|^2.$$
(6)
This operator has a well defined meaning as the number (mode) density operator only if the modes used for the expansion can be put in a suitable relation to the known modes of Minkowski space-time to render an interpretation possible. This is possible if we are interested in the change of vacuum between two asymptotically flat regions of space-time.

If the eigenvalues are not discrete $`(i\stackrel{}{k})`$, we have to deal with an integral that may have divergences. These divergences caused by the limit from periodic boundary conditions with discrete spectrum to an infinite volume $`𝐕=0|0`$ can be cured by normalization. This may be accomplished by dividing through the same divergence:

$$0_b|\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}|0_b_{ren}=\frac{1}{𝐕}0_b|\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}|0_b=\frac{1}{𝐕}|\beta _{\stackrel{}{k^{}}\stackrel{}{k}}|^2\mathrm{d}^3k^{}.$$
(7)
If $`0_b|\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\widehat{a}_{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}}|0_b`$ has the form $`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}})f(\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}})`$, one finds

$$0_b|\widehat{a}_{}^{}{}_{\stackrel{}{k}}{}^{}\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}|0_b_{ren}=\frac{1}{𝐕}\underset{\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}}{lim}0_b|\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\widehat{a}_{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{k}}}|0_b=f(\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(8)
which will be useful later on. Now $`0_b|\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}\widehat{a}_\stackrel{}{k}|0_b_{ren}`$ is the well defined spectral number (mode) density.

## 3 The expanding mass shell

We consider a spherical shell of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$. Outside of the shell, space-time is described by the Schwarzschild metric; inside it space-time is flat. We assume that the thickness of the shell in negligible with respect to its radius (thin shell). Originally the shell’s radius is constant, $`R=R_0`$. The shell is ‘ignited’ at some time $`\tau =0`$ (as measured in the rest frame of the total mass inside the shell). Afterwards the shell expands as $`R=R(\tau )`$. The situation is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Our first task is to write down the metric of the space-time describing an expanding mass shell. The surface of the shell is the same whether it is measured from the inside or from the outside. We can thus choose the same radial coordinate $`r`$ on both sides of the shell and we obviously can choose the same angular coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. Outside the shell we denote the time coordinate by $`t`$, which is the time measured by an asymptotic observer, who is at rest with respect to the centre of mass of the shell. The relation between the time coordinates $`t`$ and $`\tau `$ remains to be fixed by the boundary conditions on the mass shell. We take null coordinates and ignore the $`r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ part of the line element for the moment. Inside the shell these coordinates are denoted by $`(U,V)`$, and by $`(u,v)`$ outside, where the line element is given by

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\gamma (r)\mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}v,\gamma (r)=1\frac{2M}{r},$$
(9)
with

$$u+u_0:=t_{R_0}^r\frac{\mathrm{d}r^{}}{\gamma (r^{})},v+v_0:=t+_{R_0}^r\frac{\mathrm{d}r^{}}{\gamma (r^{})}.$$
(10)
Inside we simply have

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V,$$
(11)
with

$$V+V_0:=\tau +rR_0,U+U_0:=\tau r+R_0.$$
(12)
The outgoing light rays run on world lines with constant $`u`$ and $`U`$. We fix the origin of the null coordinates by the convention that the incoming ray $`v=V=0`$ goes through the point $`(\tau =0,R_0)`$ and that $`U=u=0`$ denotes the very same ray on its way out (see Fig. 1). Thus $`v_0=V_0=0`$ and at $`r=0`$ we have $`U+U_0=V+2R_0`$. With our choice for $`U`$ we finally have $`U_0=2R_0`$.

We define the expansion velocity of the shell by

$`\nu :={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}\tau }},`$ (13)
which is actually the coordinate velocity as seen from the inside of the shell. In principle $`\nu `$ is a function of time, but we will see below that it is a good approximation to work with a constant expansion velocity. In that case the world line of a point on the shell is given by

$`R(\tau )=\{\begin{array}{ccc}R_0+\frac{\nu }{1+\nu }V=R_0+\frac{\nu }{1\nu }(U+U_0)\hfill & \text{when}& \hfill \tau >0\\ R_0\hfill & \text{when}& \hfill \tau <0\end{array}.`$ (16)
Our result will finally depend on three parameters: $`R_0`$, $`M`$ and $`\nu `$.

From the coordinate transformations (10) and (12) and from the definition of the expansion velocity (13) we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}U}}|_{r=R}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }\frac{\nu }{\gamma (R)}\right)/(1\nu )& \text{when}& \hfill U>U_0\\ 1/\sqrt{\gamma _0}& \text{when}& \hfill U<U_0\end{array},`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}V}}|_{r=R}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }+\frac{\nu }{\gamma (R)}\right)/(1+\nu )& \text{when}& \hfill V>0\\ 1/\sqrt{\gamma _0}& \text{when}& \hfill V<0\end{array},`$ (22)
where

$`\gamma _0:=\gamma (R_0)=1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{R_0}}.`$ (23)
The matching of the inside and outside space-time demands the continuity of the line element

$$(\gamma \mathrm{d}u\mathrm{d}v)|_{r=R}=(\mathrm{d}U\mathrm{d}V)|_{r=R},$$
(24)
which leads, with (19) and (22), to

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=\frac{1}{\gamma (R)}\sqrt{\gamma (R)(1\nu ^2)+\nu ^2},$$
(25)
which describes the relation between $`t`$ and $`\tau `$, and finally fixes the space-time geometry. Note that Eq. (25) describes nothing but the gravitational redshift $`z`$ for a photon that is emitted inside the shell and crosses the shell at time $`\tau `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{d}t/\mathrm{d}\tau =1+z`$.

To trace a radial light ray through space-time, we need to find the transition functions between the two coordinate patches on the surface of the mass shell. The setting is illustrated in Fig. 1. There are three different cases for a ray that arrives at infinity. Let us start with the trivial case (3). Everything happens before the onset of expansion. We do not expect any effect then. For the second case (2) the rays enter the shell before the start of the expansion and the shell is ‘ignited’ while the ray is crossing the interior. Only a final intervall in $`u`$ of length $`u_0`$ is involved. For case (1), entrance and exit of the ray occur while the expansion is taking place.

We obtain a collapsing shell by inverting the setting ($`uu,vv,\tau \tau `$, etc.). To reproduce a collapse to a black hole, we need to take $`R_02M`$ and $`\nu 1`$.111After this change of the time direction the in-vacuum is defined in a different region, but the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator is still given by the same formula. This procedure will allow us to reproduce Hawking’s result from the setting of the expanding shell.

The transition functions, which follow from (19) and (22) by integration, are too complicated for an exact analytic treatment of the problem. We therefore have to find a reasonable approximation. Let us start from the inverse of Eqs. (19) and (22), which reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{U>U_0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\gamma (1\nu ^2)+\nu ^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}+\nu }{(1+\nu )}},`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{V>0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{[\gamma (1\nu ^2)+\nu ^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu }{(1\nu )}}.`$ (27)
As a first approximation we assume that the expansion velocity $`\nu `$ is constant. Secondly, we expect the biggest effect when the space-time curvature is high, thus in the vicinity of the ‘explosion’. Consequently we expand the transition functions in the Newtonian potential difference $`2M(1/R1/R_0)`$, which is a small quantity at the beginning of the expansion. Case (3) is trivial. For case (2) we approximate $`\mathrm{d}U/\mathrm{d}u`$ around the ‘ignition’, $`R=R_0`$. For case (1) we have to consider two points at which the ray crosses the shell. The effect from the entrance of the ray into the shell will be larger than the effect from the exit of the ray. Thus we need to approximate $`\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}v`$ around $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\mathrm{d}U/\mathrm{d}u`$ around $`\gamma (R(U=0))=:\gamma _1`$. Around $`\gamma _0`$ we include terms up to linear order, whereas around $`\gamma _1`$ we keep only the leading term. These expansions yield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{U>U_0}`$ $``$ $`c_0c_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{R(U)}}\text{around}\gamma _0`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{U>U_0}`$ $``$ $`c_1\text{around}\gamma _1`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{V>0}`$ $``$ $`d_0d_0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{R(V)}}\text{around}\gamma _0,`$ (30)
where

$`c_0`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{\gamma _0}+c_0^{}(1\gamma _0),c_0^{}:={\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{\gamma _0},`$ (31)
$`c_1`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}u}}|_{\gamma _1},`$ (32)
$`d_0`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{\gamma _0}+d_0^{}(1\gamma _0),d_0^{}:={\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{\gamma _0}.`$ (33)
As a consequence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}u}{\mathrm{d}U}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_0(1\nu )+\nu (U+U_0)}{c_0[R_0(1\nu )+\nu (U+U_0)]c_0^{}2M(1\nu )}}`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}V}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_0(1+\nu )+\nu V}{d_0[R_0(1+\nu )+\nu V]d_0^{}2M(1+\nu )}}.`$ (35)
We denote the approximate transition functions around $`\gamma _0`$ at the entrance with $`\xi _0(V)`$, around $`\gamma _0`$ at the exit with $`\eta _0(u)`$, and around $`\gamma _1`$ at the exit with $`\eta _1(u)`$. The inverse functions of the last two are written as $`\eta _0^1(U)`$ and $`\eta _1^1(U)`$, respectively. Integration of (34), (32) and (35) provides the functions that will be relevant to our calculation

$`\eta _0^1(U)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{c_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0^{}2M(1\nu )}{c_0^2\nu }}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_0\nu U}{(c_0R_0c_0^{}2M)(1\nu )+c_0\nu U_0}}\right],`$ (36)
$`\eta _1^1(U)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{c_1}},`$ (37)
$`\xi _0(V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{d_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_0^{}2M(1+\nu )}{d_0^2\nu }}\mathrm{ln}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{d_0\nu V}{(d_0R_0d_0^{}2M)(1+\nu )}}\right].`$ (38)
## 4 Particle production

To compute the particle production caused by the moving mass shell, we consider an observer who defines vacuum before the onset of expansion (at I-) and ask how this vacuum is seen by an observer at I+, i.e. we have to calculate the Bogoliubov transformations between the vacua at I- and I+. We can do this by following the track of the light-rays.

We restrict our attention to a massless, minimally coupled scalar field, which obeys the equation of motion $`\mathrm{}\phi =0`$. We expect a damping of the amplitude with $`r^1`$ because of the spherical symmetry. Furthermore we split off an angular component in the form of spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$:

$`\phi (r,t,\theta ,\varphi )={\displaystyle \underset{l,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{\Psi }_l(t,r).`$ (39)
With this ansatz, the wave equation in null coordinates becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }_l}{uv}}=\gamma (r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l.`$ (40)
The right-hand side has a minimum outside the Schwarzschild radius and acts like a potential well. Because of this, incoming rays may be reflected at the gravitational potential. To a good approximation one may neglect this effect of backscattering by simply dropping the right-hand side of (40). In the same way we neglect potential terms in the inside. The index $`l`$ is left out in the following, since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ no longer depends on $`l`$ if the centrifugal potential is neglected.

We are searching for solutions of the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{uv}}=0\text{outside,}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{UV}}=0\text{inside.}`$ (41)
Any function that does not mix the two variables $`u,v`$ or $`U,V`$ respectively is a solution. We are looking for an incoming mode which turns into an outgoing one in a smooth manner and passes through $`r=0`$. These solutions must behave like spherically symmetric Minkowski modes at I-. At $`r\mathrm{}`$ the phase of an incoming wave is given by

$$e^{\mathrm{i}\omega v}.$$
(42)
Inside of the mass shell, the corresponding mode travels on a curve with constant $`V`$. At $`r=0`$ we have $`U=V`$ where the incoming ray $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }V)`$ turns smoothly into the outgoing ray $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }U)`$. At I+, outgoing modes are proportional to

$$e^{\mathrm{i}\omega ^{}u}.$$
(43)
With the help of the transition functions (36) we can now glue curves of constant $`v`$ to curves of constant $`V`$ and curves of constant $`U`$ to curves of constant $`u`$. Figure 2 gives an overview of this procedure. Here we already inserted $`U_0=2R_0`$.

In the following we restrict our analysis to the most interesting case (1), which provides the result for the extended expansion phase of the mass shell. Case (2) is restricted to a short time after the ignition of the shell, and thus is only characteristic of the ignition phase of our problem. Its importance depends on the velocity of the shell. So we now calculate the coefficients $`\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1`$. We expand the outgoing modes into plane waves. The outgoing modes are functions that depend on $`u`$ only, and we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{2\omega }}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega \xi _0(\eta _1(u))}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A_\omega ^1(\omega ^{})\frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{2\omega ^{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega ^{}u}d\omega ^{}\text{for}u>0,$$
(44)
with

$`A_\omega ^1(\omega ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1\omega ^{}>0& \\ \hfill \mathrm{i}\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1\omega ^{}<0& \end{array}.`$ (47)
This is a Fourier transformation, which allows us to compute the Bogoliubov coefficients without evaluatiing the scalar product (5). A Fourier transformation of the outgoing modes gives

$$I:=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\omega ^{}}}A_\omega ^1(\omega ^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega \xi _0(\eta _1(u))}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega ^{}u}du.$$
(48)
Using the approximations for $`\xi _0(V)`$ and $`\eta _1(u)`$, and introducing the notation $`\lambda :=d_0^{}2M(1+\nu )/(d_0^2\nu )`$, we find

$$I=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega \frac{c_1}{d_0}\omega ^{})u}\left[\frac{(R_0d_0^{}2M/d_0)(1+\nu )/\nu +c_1u}{(R_0d_0^{}2M/d_0)(1+\nu )/\nu }\right]^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }du.$$
(49)
We further define $`xx_0:=c_1u/d_0`$ and $`x_0:=(R_0d_0^{}2M/d_0)(1+\nu )/(\nu d_0)`$. The transition coefficients then become

$$\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}x_0^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }\frac{d_0}{c_1}_{x_0}^{\mathrm{}}x^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x}dx,$$
(50)
where $`\omega _+:=\omega +\omega ^{}\frac{d_0}{c_1}`$.

The vacuum expectation value of the number density operator is given by

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2d\omega ^{}=\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi ^2c_1^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }\left|_{x_0}^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x}x^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dx\right|^2d\omega ^{}.$$
(51)
This quantity is divergent and has to be regularized. First we will shift the $`\omega ^{}`$-integration into the complex plane for some $`ϵ`$. We do this because, for $`\mathrm{Im}\omega _+<0`$, the inner integrations are well defined and may be expressed as incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-functions . Further we regularize the number density with the help of a ‘frequency split’

$`|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2=\underset{\omega \stackrel{~}{\omega }}{lim}\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1\beta _{\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega }^{1}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ (52)
Finally, we take the difference to the limit $`x_00`$, which allows us to subtract the divergent part in a well defined manner. The point is that (51) reduces in this limit to the expression for the number density that shows up in the Hawking effect ,

$$\underset{x_00}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2d\omega ^{}=\underset{\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega }{lim}\frac{\delta (\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega )}{e^{2\pi \omega \lambda }1}.$$
(53)
The only difference is that $`\lambda `$ replaces the inverse of the surface gravity, $`1/\kappa =4M`$, that would show up in the situation of a collapsing mass shell.

As a first step we rotate the integration variable $`x`$ in the complex plane and obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2d\omega ^{}=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{d_0^2}{4\pi ^2c_1^2}_{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }\left|_{x_0}^{x_0\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x}x^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dx\right|^2d\omega ^{}.$$
(54)
Introducing $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+=\stackrel{~}{\omega }+\omega ^{}\frac{d_0}{c_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }:=\omega +\epsilon `$, we regularize the product of the inner integrations by a frequency split,

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2c_1^2}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x}x^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dx{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{}\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{~}{x}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\lambda }d\stackrel{~}{x}d\omega ^{},`$ (55)
where we took the limit partially. In the first of the inner integrals we further substitute $`\mathrm{i}\omega _+x=:y`$ and in the second $`\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{}\stackrel{~}{x}=:\stackrel{~}{y}`$,

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2c_1^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle _{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}}\omega ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _+^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \omega }}{\omega _+}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{})^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\omega }}}{\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^yy^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dy{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{}x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_+^{}x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\lambda }d\stackrel{~}{y}d\omega ^{}.`$
Since

$`(\omega _+^{}+\epsilon )^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\lambda }=(\omega _+^{})^{\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\lambda }+O(\epsilon ),`$ (57)
and ignoring terms $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$, we can write

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d_0^2}{4\pi ^2c_1^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}}\omega ^{}\omega _+^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon 2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^yy^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dy{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+^{}x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+^{}x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }d\stackrel{~}{y}d\omega ^{}.`$ (58)
Let us now take the difference to the $`x_00`$ limit (53),

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}\underset{x_00}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d_0^2}{4\pi ^2c_1^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}}\omega ^{}\omega _+^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon 2}\left[\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda )|^2\right]\text{d}\omega ^{}.`$
Note that the expression inside the square bracket is well defined for all $`\omega ^{}`$. We now replace the integration variable $`\omega ^{}`$ by $`\omega _+`$, using its definition from above, and obtain (we omit $`ϵ`$ and $`\epsilon `$ in the discussion of the following step)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\{{\displaystyle _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}}\omega _+^1\left[\right|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y|^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda )|^2]\text{d}\omega _+`$
$`\omega {\displaystyle _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}}\omega _+^2\left[\right|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y|^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda )|^2]\text{d}\omega _+\}.`$
The second term is finite (see Appendix) and, since we expect a divergent result, we can neglect it. The first term can be written as the integral from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ minus the integral from $`0`$ to $`\omega `$. The latter integration is finite as well, since the difference of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-functions vanishes as $`\omega _+0`$. We are left with

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}\underset{x_00}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\text{finite}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\omega _+^1\left[\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|^2|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda )|^2\right]\text{d}\omega _+.`$
Now we neglect all finite terms and use the fact that the second term inside the square bracket is again (up to finite terms) the result of the $`x_00`$ limit (53). We thus see that the divergent part of (58) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{0\mathrm{i}ϵ}^{\mathrm{}\mathrm{i}ϵ}}\omega _+^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon 1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^yy^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }dy{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}\omega _+^{}x_0}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+^{}x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }d\stackrel{~}{y}d\omega _+.`$ (59)
For positive $`\epsilon `$ we can replace the contour parallel to the positive real axis by an integration along the negative imaginary axis. Then we substitute $`e^z=\mathrm{i}\frac{\omega _+}{\omega }`$ and have

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{\epsilon 0}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2\omega }}e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ϵ}{\omega }\right)}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon z}{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega e^z}^{x_0\omega e^z+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega e^z}^{x_0\omega e^z+\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\text{d}\stackrel{~}{y}\text{d}z.`$ (60)
We can now take the limit $`ϵ0`$ and see that, since the integration is along the real axis, our integral can be written as

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2d\omega ^{}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon z}h(z)\text{d}z,$$
(61)
with

$`h(z):={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda }}{4\pi ^2\omega }}{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega e^z}^{\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega e^z}^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\text{d}\stackrel{~}{y},`$ (62)
for any complex $`z`$. For real $`z`$, as we integrate over on the r.h.s. of Eq. (61), this yields the quantity we search for; $`h(z)`$ is identical to the product of the inner integrations in (60) for real $`z`$. This function is holomorphic in $`z`$. It has an upper bound $`B`$ for any real $`z`$ in $`[R,R]`$. Thus

$`\left|{\displaystyle _R^R}h(z)\text{d}z\right|2RB,`$ (63)
and, because the function is holomorphic,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\gamma _R^u}}h(z)\text{d}z\right|2RB\text{and}\left|{\displaystyle _{\gamma _R^d}}h(z)\text{d}z\right|2RB,`$ (64)
where the path $`\gamma _R^d`$ is the half-circle of radius $`R`$ in the lower complex plane and $`\gamma _R^u`$ the half-circle of radius $`R`$ in the upper complex plane. From this we find

$`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}|{\displaystyle _{\gamma _R^u}}{\displaystyle \frac{h(z)}{z^2}}\text{d}z|`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (65)
$`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}|{\displaystyle _{\gamma _R^d}}{\displaystyle \frac{h(z)}{z^2}}\text{d}z|`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (66)
Our integral of interest can now be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon z}h(z)\text{d}z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^2}}_\epsilon ^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon z}{\displaystyle \frac{h(z)}{z^2}}\text{d}z,`$ (67)
which allows us to make use of the residue theorem. Now for $`\epsilon >0`$ we may close the contour in the lower plane. To compute the integral we shift the pole into the lower plane. This yields

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\lambda \epsilon z}{\displaystyle \frac{h(z)}{z^2}}\text{d}z=2\pi \left(\lambda \epsilon h+\mathrm{i}_zh\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(\epsilon ).`$ (68)
With this we now get

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2d\omega ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\lambda }}h(0)\delta (\epsilon )`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda }}{2\pi \omega \lambda }}\delta (\epsilon ){\displaystyle _{x_0\omega }^{\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega }^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\text{d}\stackrel{~}{y},`$ (70)
with the differentiation on the $`\delta `$-function interpreted as $`0`$.222It is an even function. If we now put all pieces together, we finally find for the vacuum expectation value of the number density operator $`N(\omega )`$ \[in case (1)\]:

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}|\beta _{\omega ^{}\omega }^1|^2\text{d}\omega ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda }}{2\pi \lambda \omega }}\delta (\epsilon )|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda ,x_0\omega )|^2+\text{finite}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N(\omega )}{𝐕}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda }}{2\pi \lambda \omega }}|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda ,x_0\omega )|^2.`$ (71)
The spectral energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface $`\rho (\omega )`$ then reads

$`\rho (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda }\omega ^2}{4\pi ^3\lambda }}|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda ,x_0\omega )|^2.`$ (72)
We have made several assumptions, but some of them may be relaxed. First, we assumed that the velocity $`\nu `$ of the mass shell is constant. In a realistic scenario we would expect a high velocity at the beginning, decreasing towards a constant value (inertial motion), in contrast to a collapse where the velocity would increase. Secondly, we approximated around the space-time points that cause the maximal amount of particle production. Therefore, our result is only correct in the vicinity of $`u=0`$. To obtain a result for later times, we would have to approximate around other points. This gives rise to different values of the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`x_0`$, which actually become functions of $`R`$ and $`\nu (R)`$. These functions then are \[cf. (33)\]:

$`\lambda (R)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+\nu )Md^{}}{\nu d^2}}\text{and}`$
$`x(R)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\nu )R}{\nu d}}\lambda ,\text{with}`$
$`d^{}(R)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma (R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{\gamma (R)}`$
$`d(R)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}v}}|_{\gamma (R)}+d^{}(R)[1\gamma (R)],`$ (73)
from which we obtain a spectral energy flux that depends on the actual radius and the actual velocity of the mass shell:

$`\rho (\omega ,R)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi \omega \lambda (R)}\omega ^2}{4\pi ^3\lambda (R)}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }[1+\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda (R),x(R)]|^2.`$ (74)
The quality of this generalization mainly depends on the assumption that the change of velocity is small, so that $`\ddot{R}`$-contributions can be neglected. Should the acceleration of the mass shell get too high, the patches in which the velocity can be treated as nearly constant would get too small and effects from the boundaries would grow important.

## 5 Discussion

The particle production of an expanding mass shell depends on the velocity of the mass shell $`\nu `$, its mass $`M`$, and its radius $`R`$. In the spectral energy flux, these three quantities enter only through the functions $`\lambda (\nu ,M,R)`$ and $`x(\nu ,M,R)`$. To get a feeling for the behaviour of the function $`\rho (\omega )`$ we will first turn to a discussion of these quantities. In Table 1 we provide the values of $`\lambda `$ and $`x`$ for some limits. The limit $`\nu 1`$ together with $`R2M`$ reproduces Hawking’s result.

In the Hawking limit we have $`\lambda \kappa `$, the so-called surface gravity. Additionally $`x0`$, and we obtain exactly the expected Planck spectrum (cf. (74)). Figures 4 and 4 show $`1/\lambda `$ as a function of $`R`$ for three different values of $`R`$ and $`x`$ as a function of $`\nu `$ for different values of $`R`$.

We normalize all quantities to the Schwarzschild radius $`R_\mathrm{S}=2M`$; $`1/\lambda `$ decreases rapidly with decreasing velocity. As is shown below, this implies a decrease of the spectral energy flux and a shift of the maximum towards smaller frequencies as the velocity decreases; $`\lambda `$ is less sensitive to changes of the radius at high velocities. Particle production ceases, as expected, at large radii, because $`x`$ increases with large $`R`$ and small velocity.

### 5.1 The spectral energy flux

We now study the behaviour of the spectral energy flux (72) as a function of $`\lambda /R_\mathrm{S}`$ and $`x/R_\mathrm{S}`$. Figures 6 and 6 show $`\rho (\omega )`$ for different values of $`x/R_\mathrm{S}`$, and for different values of $`\lambda /R_\mathrm{S}`$ with the second parameter fixed at a representative value each time.

Let us first turn to Fig. 6. When $`x=0`$ we find a Planck spectrum with temperature $`T=(2\pi k_B\lambda )^1`$. For $`x/R_\mathrm{S}>0`$ the spectrum is non-thermal. It is interesting to note that in the non-equilibrium situation more hard particles and less soft particles are produced at a fixed value of $`\lambda `$.

In Fig. 6 we see, as expected, that an increase in $`\lambda /R_\mathrm{S}`$ causes a shift of the maximum towards smaller frequencies. Furthermore the whole curve flattens quickly for increasing $`\lambda /R_\mathrm{S}`$.

Remember that, according to the considerations presented in the last section, an increasing radius (which changes $`\lambda `$ and $`x`$) dominates the evolution of the spectral energy flux during the expansion. This can be seen in Fig. 8.

### 5.2 The energy flux

Finally we come to the emitted energy flux through a 2-dimensional surface, $`\epsilon \rho (\omega )d\omega `$.

In Fig. 8 we see the energy flux as a function of radius for different values of $`\nu `$. At large values of $`R/R_S`$ no particles are produced, since the mass shell moves inertially (the tidal forces go to zero). However, more interesting is the maximum of the curve that appears for ultra-relativistic velocities $`\nu `$. This reflects the fact that two effects are working against each other during the expansion. The probability of particle production depends on the strength of the tidal forces acting on the vacuum locally. The tidal forces decrease monotonically as the mass shell expands. Once particles have been created, they have to climb out of the gravitational potential well of the mass shell itself (gravitational redshift). This effect reduces the energy of the produced particles. At the Schwarzschild radius the energy would be reduced to zero. For an ultrarelativistic mass shell the tidal forces change very quickly and thus the particle production is large. Close to the Schwarzschild radius however, this is counteracted by the gravitational redshift, giving rise to a maximum slightly away from $`R_\mathrm{S}`$.

## 6 Summary

We computed the spectrum of particles produced by the time-dependent gravitational field of an expanding mass shell. This system is—as long as no horizon forms—invariant under time-reversal, so that we can describe an expanding shell as well as a collapsing shell before the formation of a horizon. If the horizon is formed, the system gets quasi-static for the asymptotic observer and the effect is “frozen”. In this way we can reproduce the result of Hawking radiation.

In the situation of an expanding mass shell the spectrum is non-thermal. Our result might be of relevance for the discussion of evaporating black holes. In the situation of a collapsing mass shell, we obtain the deviations from the Planck spectrum of Hawking radiation, which is produced just before the horizon forms.

## Acknowledgements

DJS thanks the Austrian Academy of Sciences for financial support.

## Appendix A

To show that

$`{\displaystyle _\omega ^{\mathrm{}}}\omega _+^2\left[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{y}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^{\stackrel{~}{y}}\text{d}\stackrel{~}{y}|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda )|^2\right]\text{d}\omega _+`$ (75)
is finite (for $`\omega >0`$), it is sufficient to show that

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|\text{const.},`$ (76)
which means that it has an upper bound for $`\omega _+\mathrm{}`$ since the second term in (75) does not depend on $`\omega _+`$ anyhow. We are then left with an integral over $`\omega _+^2`$ that is finite. If we succeed in showing that (76) is true, we know that the first term does not increase faster for large $`\omega _+`$ and therefore is finite too. It is

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda \mathrm{ln}|y|\omega \lambda \mathrm{arg}(y)}e^y\text{d}y\right|`$ (77)
$``$ $`\underset{y\gamma }{sup}\left|e^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda \mathrm{ln}|y|\omega \lambda \mathrm{arg}(y)}\right|\left|{\displaystyle _{x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+\mathrm{}}}e^y\text{d}y\right|,`$ (78)
$`\gamma `$ being the path of integration in the upper right quadrant of the complex plane and therefore is $`\mathrm{arg}(y)[\frac{3}{2}\pi ,2\pi ]`$ on $`\gamma `$. This yields

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|`$ $``$ $`e^{2\pi \omega \lambda }\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+x_0+\mathrm{}}}e^y\text{d}y\right|`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`e^{2\pi \omega \lambda }\left|e^{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}\right|.`$ (80)
Putting this together we have

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{i}x_0\omega _+}^{\mathrm{i}\omega _+\mathrm{}}}y^{\mathrm{i}\omega \lambda }e^y\text{d}y\right|e^{2\pi \omega \lambda },`$ (81)
which shows that (75) is finite, as claimed.

## References


format: text

text:
# Quantum suppression of shot noise in field emitters

## I Introduction

Almost a century ago, Schottky pointed out that if electrons are emitted as discrete particles independently of each other, current fluctuations are to be expected with the noise power: $`S_I=2qI`$, with $`q`$ the elementary charge and $`I`$ the mean current. schottky18  This phenomenon, called the “shot effect” by Schottky, was later observed in vacuum tubes hartmann21 ; hull25  in nice agreement with his prediction.

During the last two decades, the shot effect (now called shot noise) has been discovered and intensively studied in mesoscopic phase-coherent conductors. blanter00  In a quantum point contact (QPC), for instance, the current-noise power was found to be $`S_I=2qI(1𝒯)`$, where $`𝒯`$ is the transmission probability (for one-channel transmission). In this formula, the noise is suppressed by the factor $`1𝒯`$ relative to the Schottky result, thereby predicting zero noise for perfect transmission (see experimental evidence reznikov95 ; kumar96 ; vandenbrom99 ). In both cases, in QPCs and vacuum tubes, the granularity of charge is manifested in the shot noise, although the source of randomness is different: oberholzer02  In QPC, the randomness appears in the transmission process due to the quantum partitioning between the incoming and outgoing states (the incoming carriers are noiseless). In contrast, in vacuum tubes, the randomness is an inherent property of the emitter caused by thermal fluctuations.

An interesting question then arises: Is it possible to observe the quantum partition noise in electron emission, in the same way as in QPCs, with the noise power suppressed below the $`2qI`$ value? The related question—whether the shot noise in Schottky’s vacuum tube is classical—has been addressed recently by Schönenberger, Oberholzer, Sukhorukov, and Grabert. schonenberger01 ; oberholzer01  The authors showed that for the vacuum tube parameters typical for the earlier stages of development of vacuum electronics, hull25  the quantum partitioning in electron emission is absent, and consequently the shot noise observed in Schottky’s vacuum tubes is classical.

In this paper we show that in new generation electron emitters, scaled down to the nanometer dimensions, shot noise much smaller than the Schottky noise, due to a quantum partitioning effect, is observable. Moreover, two different sources of randomness—thermal agitations and quantum partitioning—may act together governing the electron emission noise. remark0  A rapidly growing field of nanoscale electronics suggests to us various examples of electron emitters in which this phenomenon may be tested: the nanotube field emitters, saito99 ; fransen99 ; cumings02  the composite emitters coated by wide-band-gap, low-work-function, and/or negative-electron-affinity materials, modukuru00 ; binh00 ; sugino02  diamondlike emitters, geis98 ; auciello01  among others.

## II Shot noise in electron emission

We start by considering the electron emission as a quantum scattering problem within the Landauer-Büttiker framework. The transverse and longitudinal motion of electrons are assumed to be separable, so that one can specify the quantum channels associated with transverse modes, and define the scattering states. The equation for the mean current in a phase-coherent conductor attached to two electron reservoirs with different chemical potentials reads buttiker92

$$I=\frac{q}{\pi \mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon (f_Lf_R)\mathrm{Tr}(𝐭^{}𝐭),$$
(1)
where $`f_{L,R}(\epsilon )`$ are the energy distribution functions at the left ($`L`$) and right ($`R`$) reservoirs, $`𝐭`$ is the matrix of the transmission amplitudes, buttiker92 ; blanter00  and the trace is taken over all the transmission channels at energy $`\epsilon `$. For definiteness, the left reservoir is considered as an emitter, and the right reservoir, to which an external positive bias is applied, as a collector. We assume that the “quantum conductor” between the two reservoirs could also be a vacuum gap. At the surface of the emitter—between the emitter-vacuum or emitter-semiconductor interface—a potential barrier exists, which limits the current and scatters the emitted electrons (only elastic scattering is assumed). Thus the transmission matrix $`𝐭`$ is referred to the scattering on the potential barrier.

The zero-frequency current-noise power for a two-terminal quantum conductor is given by buttiker92 ; kogan

$$\begin{array}{c}S_I=2G_0d\epsilon \{[f_L(1f_L)+f_R(1f_R)]\mathrm{Tr}(𝐭^{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐭}^{}𝐭)\hfill \\ \hfill +[f_L(1f_R)+f_R(1f_L)][\mathrm{Tr}(𝐭^{}𝐭)\mathrm{Tr}(𝐭^{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐭}^{}𝐭)]\},\end{array}$$
(2)
with $`G_0=q^2/\pi \mathrm{}`$ the unit of conductance. For sufficiently high biases, all the states in the collector at energies corresponding to the occupied states at the emitter (that contribute to the emission) are empty. Hence one can take $`f_R=0`$. In this case, the steady-state emission current in the basis of eigen-channels becomes

$$I=\frac{q}{\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{n}{}𝑑\epsilon f𝒯_n,$$
(3)
where $`𝒯_n`$ are the transmission probabilities associated with $`n`$ quantum channels at energy $`\epsilon `$. Hereafter, we drop the subindex $`L`$ at the occupation numbers $`f`$, since only the emitter contact contributes to the current and noise. The noise power (2) for the unidirectional injection becomes

$`S_I`$ $`=2G_0{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon [f(1f)𝒯_n^2+f𝒯_n(1𝒯_n)]}`$
$`S_I^{\mathrm{em}}+S_I^{\mathrm{part}}.`$ (4)
This formula describes the spectral density of current fluctuations of an electron emitter. It unifies two sources of randomness: (i) the probabilistic occupation of states in the emitter (through the function $`f`$) and (ii) the probabilistic reflection and transmission at the interface barrier (through the probabilities $`T_n`$). The first source of randomness is intimately related to intrinsic thermal agitations of the emitter and can be associated with the first term in Eq. (II). Since $`f(1f)=k_BT(f/\epsilon )`$, this term is related to a thermal broadening of the occupation numbers at the Fermi level. Note that it vanishes at zero temperature, but dominates in the absence of partitioning when all transmission coefficients $`T_n`$ are either $`0`$ or $`1`$, and hence can be interpreted as the emission shot noise. The second source of randomness associated with the last term in Eq. (II) is caused by quantum partitioning and the fact that charge is carried by discrete portions (shot effect). It only contributes for transmission probabilities $`𝒯_n0,1`$, it does not vanish at zero temperature, and can be called the partition shot noise. It is clear that both noise sources act together and cannot be separated, in general. schonenberger01 ; oberholzer01  For future analysis, it is convenient, however, to introduce the notations for the emission noise $`S_I^{\mathrm{em}}`$ and the partition noise $`S_I^{\mathrm{part}}`$ according to the above discussion.

Equation (II) can be used to calculate the noise power of the emitter with an arbitrary number of quantum channels. The problem can be simplified by assuming that the interface of the emitter is plane and its transversal area is large compared with wavelength (a large number of channels). Then, the summation over the transverse channels can be replaced by integration over the transversal energy $`E_{}`$, which can be performed giving

$$\begin{array}{c}S_I=2G_S\frac{k_BT}{E_F}\{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{𝒯^2(E)}{1+e^{(EE_F)/k_BT}}dE\hfill \\ \hfill +_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒯(E)[1𝒯(E)]\mathrm{ln}[1+e^{(E_FE)/k_BT}]dE\},\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`G_S=(k_F^2A/4\pi )G_0`$ is the Sharvin conductance, $`E_F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/(2m)`$ is the Fermi energy, $`A`$ is the cross sectional area, and $`𝒯(E)`$ is the transmission probability at the longitudinal energy $`E=\epsilon E_{}`$. Now, we can verify Eqs. (II) and (5) for two practical cases: thermionic emission and field emission.

### II.1 Thermionic emission

When the potential barrier is wide on the scale of the wavelength, one can neglect tunneling. In this case, an appreciable emission current can be achieved, for instance, by heating the emitter, so that thermally excited electrons escape above the barrier. The transmission probability takes the values 1 for $`E>\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ and 0 for $`E<\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ is the barrier height (quantum reflection for overbarrier electrons is negligible for a sufficiently smooth potential). Thus the partition term vanishes and the noise contains only the emission (thermionic) contribution:

$$S_IS_I^{\mathrm{em}}=2G_0\underset{n^{}}{}𝑑\epsilon f(1f),$$
(6)
where the summation is taken for open channels only. For wide multichannel emitters with equilibrium Fermi-Dirac electrons \[see Eq. (5)\], Eq. (6) is reduced to

$$S_I=2G_S\frac{(k_BT)^2}{E_F}\mathrm{ln}[1+e^{(E_F\mathrm{\Phi }_b)/k_BT}].$$
(7)
This formula gives the $`2qI`$ Schottky value, whenever $`E_F<\mathrm{\Phi }_b3k_BT`$, which is a condition for a nondegenerate Maxwell-Boltzmann injection (Richardson-Laue-Dushman regime of thermionic emission modinos ). For a degenerate injection, $`E_F\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$, the noise is suppressed below the Schottky value by the factor prb01  $`_0(\zeta )/_1(\zeta )`$, where $`\zeta =(E_F\mathrm{\Phi }_b)/k_BT`$, and $`_k`$ is the Fermi-Dirac integral of index $`k`$. This suppression is caused by Fermi correlations imposed by the Pauli exclusion principle (see Ref. prb01,  for the details). Note that for metallic cathodes used in vacuum tubes, hull25  the work function is about 4 eV, which is much larger with respect to $`k_BT`$, so that only nondegenerate injection with the full shot noise is possible, remark2  as was observed in the experiment. hull25

### II.2 Field emission

The potential barrier at the emitter can be narrowed by applying a strong electric field, so that electrons can be pulled out from the cold emitter via quantum tunneling. fowler28  In this case, the partition noise is expected to be the dominating source of noise:

$$S_IS_I^{\mathrm{part}}=2G_0\underset{n}{}𝑑\epsilon f𝒯_n(1𝒯_n).$$
(8)
By applying this formula again to Fermi-Dirac electrons in a wide emitter under the condition $`k_BTE_F`$, we obtain the noise which is independent of temperature,

$`S_I=2G_S{\displaystyle _0^{E_F}}𝒯(E)[1𝒯(E)]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_F}}\right)𝑑E.`$ (9)
In the Fowler-Nordheim regime of field emission, fowler28  when the Fermi energy of the emitter is much below the barrier top, the transmission probability for electrons at the Fermi level (which mostly contribute to the emission) is small, modinos  $`𝒯1`$. It can be verified that in this regime, Eq. (9) gives the Schottky $`2qI`$ law.

### II.3 Poissonian versus non-Poissonian emission

Summarizing these two examples, one can conclude that the Schottky noise, which is the noise produced by independently injected electrons (Poissonian process), may occur under two physically different conditions: blanter00  (i) the low occupation numbers, $`f1`$, when electrons are initially Poissonian and remain Poissonian after passing the barrier with whatever probability; (ii) the low transmission probability, $`𝒯1`$, when the incoming electrons may be initially noiseless, but after tunneling through the barrier, the outgoing flow becomes diluted and obeys a Poissonian statistics. Although in both cases, the noise power is given by the Schottky law $`S_I=2qI`$, in the former case its value is sensitive to the temperature, while in the latter case it is not. This fact may be used in the experiment to distinguish these two mechanisms.

Now it is clear under which conditions one should expect a deviation from the $`2qI`$ law. It is the case when both the occupation numbers $`f`$ and the transmission probabilities $`𝒯`$ are not small with respect to 1. This is precisely the situation that may occur in novel field emitters. The requirements of strong electric currents under low voltages led research interests towards low-work-function materials (low potential barriers) and sharp emitter tips (narrow potential barriers). For instance, extremely high electric fields $`10^8\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$ are achieved in nanotube emitters due to a geometric field enhancement in high-aspect-ratio tips. collins96  For combinations of work function, field, and temperature parameters in many of these emitters, an appreciable part of electron emission originates from energy levels in the vicinity (below and above) of the potential barrier. To estimate the noise in this case, one should use general formulas given by Eq. (II) or (5), in which the transmission coefficients must be known in a wide energy range,—below and above the barrier.

## III Shot noise for emission through a triangular barrier

In this paper, we consider the model that consists of a simplified triangular representation of the barrier with only two parameters: the height of the barrier $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ and the slope determined by the electric field $`F`$:

$$V(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & x<0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_bqFx,\hfill & x0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
The potential barrier height $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ is equal to the electron affinity for semiconductors, and for metals it is a sum of the work function and the chemical potential. modinos  We neglect the rounding off the barrier due to the image interaction. Although this may cause some quantitative error, such a consideration enables the exact solution of the Schrödinger equation in terms of Airy functions and thus an exact evaluation of the electron transmission probability in the whole energy range including the barrier top, which is not allowed in the WKB scheme. remark3  The transmission probability $`𝒯(E)`$ for an arbitrary incident energy $`E`$ (below and above the barrier top) can be represented by a unique analytical formula (see the Appendix).

To illustrate the results for the current emission noise, consider the emitter at $`T`$=300 K with $`E_F=4\mathrm{eV}`$ in which, for simplicity, the electron effective mass for the emitter and the barrier is the same. The noise spectral densities $`S_I`$ calculated from Eq. (5) are plotted in Fig. 1 as functions of the electric field $`F`$ for different barrier heights (work functions) $`W=\mathrm{\Phi }_bE_F`$. The zero-field limit $`F0`$ corresponds to the emission over a rectangular-step barrier with no tunneling, for which $`𝒯(E<\mathrm{\Phi }_b)0`$. In this limit, the noise power is determined by the relative position of the Fermi level with respect to the barrier top. For $`W0.15`$ eV, the injection is nondegenerate and, consequently, $`S_I^{\mathrm{em}}_{\mathrm{\Phi }_b}^{\mathrm{}}𝒯^2e^{E/k_BT}𝑑E`$ and $`S_I^{\mathrm{part}}_{\mathrm{\Phi }_b}^{\mathrm{}}𝒯(1𝒯)e^{E/k_BT}𝑑E`$. Their sum gives the full Schottky noise: $`S_I_{\mathrm{\Phi }_b}^{\mathrm{}}𝒯e^{E/k_BT}𝑑E=2qI`$. Since the transmission probabilities are not exactly equal to 1 for all the energies $`E>\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ (there is a finite reflection due to a sharp potential change), both terms contribute to the noise. It is also seen from Fig. 1 that for $`W0.15`$ eV, the noise at low fields is expected to be smaller than the Schottky value. This is the case of a degenerate injection, for which the quadratic terms $`𝒯^2`$ in the two contributions do not cancel, in contrast to the previous case of a nondegenerate injection. The noise suppression effect here originates from the Fermi statistical correlations under the condition of current partitioning.

Although the case $`W<0.15`$ eV for the field emitters is likely to occur, binh00 ; gohda00  the most typical case in practice is the opposite condition $`W>0.15`$ eV. In this case, at low fields, the current noise is the full Schottky noise. Our prediction is that when the electric field increases, there exists a threshold value, at which the noise starts to drop down the Schottky value (see Fig. 1). It can be explained by the fact that as the electric field increases, the barrier becomes thinner, the transmission probability increases, and the noise starts to drop down due to the $`1𝒯`$ factor \[see Eq. (9)\]. It is worth noting that this drop is a quantum phenomenon. The quantum uncertainty of whether the electron has been transmitted through or reflected by the barrier is a source of randomness which produces the partition noise $`𝒯(1𝒯)`$. For pure classical transmission, when the probabilities of transmission at different energies are either 0 or 1, the quantum partition noise does not appear and the noise of the emitted electrons is governed by the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (5) which gives the $`2qI`$ law with no drop. We would like to highlight that the suppression effect caused by quantum partitioning is independent of the degeneracy of electrons. Even for a fully degenerate case at zero temperature, for which electrons initially are noiseless, after passing the barrier they acquire a partition noise with a suppression level sensitive to the transmission coefficient.

The threshold value for the electric field, for which the shot-noise suppression becomes clearly visible, may be roughly estimated from Eq. (14) by taking the value for the tunneling probability at the Fermi energy to be $`𝒯(E_F)0.1`$. It is seen from Fig. 1 that for the work function 4 eV, this threshold field is about $`3\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{nm}`$, for the work function 3 eV, it is $`2\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{nm}`$, and for 2 eV, it is $`1\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{nm}`$, values that do not seem unrealistic. fransen99 ; cumings02  The threshold field may also be decreased by choosing the emitter with a high effective mass of electrons (e.g., of heavy-fermion materials), since the transmission probability (14) is sensitive to the ratio of the effective masses. The barrier lowering due to a self-consistent potential redistribution may also decrease the threshold field value. Note that for negative affinity materials, the quantum suppression of shot noise should be observed for arbitrarily small fields.

## IV Conclusions

In conclusion, we have calculated the shot noise power of electron emission under the action of strong applied electric fields. Within the Landauer-Büttiker scheme, we have shown that the emission noise is governed by two different stochastic processes acting together—thermal agitations and quantum partitioning. The analytical formula for the noise power, which unifies these two sources of randomness, has been analyzed. This formula, in the limit of a wide potential barrier (no tunneling), describes the shot noise of thermionic emission, which may be either Poissonian for a nondegenerate injection (Richardson-Laue-Dushman regime), or non-Poissonian for a degenerate injection. Under field-emission conditions, the noise recovers the full Schottky noise in the Fowler-Nordheim regime.

Our results indicate that in order to observe the shot-noise suppression in field emitters below the Schottky level, there are at least two possibilities: (i) by lowering the work function $`W`$; then, the noise starts to be sub-Poissonian below some value $`W`$ at arbitrarily small fields; (ii) for high-work-function materials, by increasing the electric field $`F`$ at the emitter tip, e.g., by employing the nanotube emitters; then, the noise starts to be sub-Poissonian above some threshold value $`F`$. Note that precisely in the regime when the shot noise deviates from the Schottky law, the Fowler-Nordheim plots \[$`\mathrm{ln}(I/F^2)`$ vs $`1/F`$\] no longer follow the straight lines. modinos ; fransen99  The measurements of the noise suppression value (with respect to the Poissonian value) may provide additional data on the work function and the electric field at the emitter tip—important information not available from the current-voltage characteristics alone (especially for new unknown materials). fransen99  Since the noise is sensitive to the injection energy profile, pe02  the noise measurements may serve as a substitution for direct field-emission energy profile measurements.

It is clear why the quantum partitioning has not been observed in noise measurements on metal-cathode vacuum tubes a long time ago, at the earlier stages of the development of vacuum electronics. hull25  In those experiments, the electric-field values at the emitter were no more than 0.003 V/nm, which is too low to see the effect on 4 eV work function materials. We are not aware of shot-noise measurements under field emission at stronger fields. The typical values obtained from old literature modinos  indicate fields of about 2—5 V/nm, and in novel nanotube field emitters they are even greater. fransen99 ; cumings02  We believe that in such conditions, the quantum suppression of shot noise is observable. Besides the nanotube emitters, the suitable candidates to observe the shot-noise suppression could be the composite emitters coated by wide-band-gap, low-work-function, and/or negative-electron-affinity materials, modukuru00 ; binh00 ; sugino02  or diamond-like emitters. geis98 ; auciello01

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Eugene Sukhorukov for valuable discussions. This work has been partially supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología of Spain through the “Ramón y Cajal” program, and by the DGICYT and FEDER under Grant No. BFM2002-01267.

## Appendix A Transmission probability

The transmission coefficient can be found as a solution of the scattering problem for a one-dimensional potential barrier, since it depends only on the energy of the longitudinal motion $`E`$. The time-independent Schrödinger equation is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\frac{d^2\psi }{dx^2}+V(x)\psi =E\psi ,$$
(11)
in which the potential $`V`$ is defined by Eq. (10). We assume that, in general, the electron effective mass $`m^{}`$ in Eq. (11) may differ for the emitter and the barrier: $`m^{}=m_e`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`m^{}=m_b`$ for $`x>0`$.

The solutions of the Schrödinger equation for the constant potential are the plain waves, while for the linear potential the solutions are given by the Airy functions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi (x<0)& =ae^{ikx}+be^{ikx},\hfill \\ \hfill \psi (x>0)& =t\left\{\mathrm{Bi}[k_A(wx)]+i\mathrm{Ai}[k_A(wx)]\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`k=\sqrt{2m_eE}/\mathrm{}`$ is the momentum of the incident electron, $`k_A=(2m_bqF/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/3}`$ is the characteristic momentum in the arguments of the Airy functions dependent on the field, and $`w=(\mathrm{\Phi }_bE)/(qF)`$ is the coordinate where the Airy functions change from monotonic to oscillatory behavior (for positive values, $`w`$ is just the barrier width at energy $`E`$). Since we calculate the transmission, the solution $`\psi (x>0)`$ corresponds to the outgoing wave at $`x\mathrm{}`$. remark4

From the continuity of the wave function and the current conservation at the interface, we obtain the transmission amplitude

$$t=\frac{4a}{\mathrm{Bi}(z)\sigma \mathrm{Ai}^{}(z)+i[\mathrm{Ai}(z)+\sigma \mathrm{Bi}^{}(z)]},$$
(13)
where $`\sigma =(k_A/k)(m_e/m_b)`$ and the prime on the Airy functions indicates a derivative with respect to the argument $`z=k_Aw`$. The incident and transmitted current densities corresponding to the wave functions (12) are found as $`j_{\mathrm{inc}}=(\mathrm{}k/m_e)|a|^2`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{trans}}=(\mathrm{}k_A/\pi m_b)|t|^2`$. Therefore, the transmission coefficient for a given incident momentum $`k`$ is $`𝒯=j_{\mathrm{trans}}/j_{\mathrm{inc}}=(k_Am_e/\pi km_b)|t|^2/|a|^2`$, which finally gives

$$𝒯(E)=\frac{4}{2+(\pi /\sigma )[\mathrm{Ai}^2(z)+\mathrm{Bi}^2(z)]+\pi \sigma [\mathrm{Ai}^2(z)+\mathrm{Bi}^2(z)]},$$
(14)
in which the energy dependence appears through both the momentum $`k`$ in the parameter $`\sigma `$ and the argument of the Airy functions $`z=2m_b(\mathrm{\Phi }_bE)/(\mathrm{}^2k_A^2)`$.


text:
# Light Mesons from Heavy B and Hyperon Decays

## 1 Introduction

In this talk, I consider the two body decays of heavy mesons and of heavy hyperons $`B_sJ/\psi M`$ and  $`B_dJ/\psi M`$, $`B\eta (\eta ^{^{}})K(K^{})`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta (\eta ^{^{}})`$ and the semileptonic $`D`$ decays. Tests of the standard $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing and of properties of radially excited mesons are given.

## 2 Relations for two body $`BJ/\psi `$ Decays and tests for $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing.

Nonleptonic two–body decays $`B^0J/\psi M`$ and $`B_sJ/\psi M`$ are of particular interest since one of these is the “golden channel” - $`J`$/$`\psi K_S`$, important for CP violation. In the inactive spectator approach the analysis of large groups of different decays related by symmetries is simplified since the bound $`c\overline{c}`$ pair is a singlet under color, isospin and flavor SU(3) and is an eigenstate of $`C`$ and $`P`$. The two-meson final state has an unique color coupling so that there are selection rules for all decays without the spectator quark in the final state:

$$A[B^0J/\psi M(\overline{q}s)]=0,A[B_sJ/\psi M(\overline{q}d)]=0$$

The following relations for amplitudes are tests of these selection rules:

$`A_L(B^0J/\psi \rho ^o)`$ $`=`$ $`A_L(B^0J/\psi \omega ),`$
$`A_L(B_sJ/\psi \rho ^o)`$ $`=`$ $`A_L(B_sJ/\psi \omega )`$
$`=`$ $`A_L(B^0J/\psi \varphi )=0`$
($`L`$ denotes any partial wave for the vector-vector final state)

All other decays are described by the two transitions:

$`B(\overline{b}q)`$ $`J/\psi \overline{d}q`$ $`J/\psi M(\overline{d}q)`$
$`B(\overline{b}q)`$ $`J/\psi \overline{s}q`$ $`J/\psi M(\overline{s}q)`$
where the decay amplitudes are described as the product of a $`\overline{b}`$ decay amplitude and a hadronization function for the combination of a quark-antiquark pair making the final meson. Charge conjugation symmetry implies no $`SU(3)`$ breaking in the final state interactions and

$$A(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K}^0)_L=F_{CKM}^LA(B_dJ/\psi K^0)_L$$

where $`F_{CKM}^L`$ is a factor depending on the ratios of the $`CKM`$ matrix elements and the ratio of various weak interaction diagrams contributing to $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ decays. For the (dominant) tree– and penguin–diagram contributions with a charmed quark loop, $`F_{CKM}^L=V_{cd}/V_{cs}`$.

Including SU(3) symmetry gives an additional set of predictions

$`A_L(B_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi \rho ^o)`$ $`=`$ $`A_L(B_{d}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi \omega )`$
$`=`$ $`A_L(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K}^0)/\sqrt{2}`$
$`A_L(B_sJ/\psi \varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`A_L(B^0J/\psi K^0)`$
## 3 B decays into charmonium and a pseudoscalar meson

Decays involving $`\eta `$ or the $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ mesons in the final state have been unexplained by the standard treatments of these decays. Mixing, in general, involves four different radial wave functions and cannot be described by diagonalizing a simple $`2\times 2`$ matrix with a single mixing angle. Write the normalized $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ wave functions as

$`|\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi |N\mathrm{sin}\varphi |S`$
$`|\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}|N^{}+\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}|S^{}`$
where $`|N`$, $`|N^{}`$, $`|S`$ and $`|S^{}`$ are respectively arbitrary isoscalar non-strange and strange quark-antiquark wave functions. When, traditionally, the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing is described by a single mixing angle,

$$|N=|N^{},|S=|S^{},\varphi =\varphi ^{},$$

and, including phase space effects, gives the experimentally measurable quantities,

$`r_d`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\eta ^{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta )}{p_\eta ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta ^{})}}=\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi ,`$
$`r_s`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\eta ^{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi \eta )}{p_\eta ^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}J/\psi \eta ^{})}}=\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi ,`$
with

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{r_dr_s}=1.`$
Any large deviation of $`\mathrm{r}`$ from 1 would indicate evidence of non-standard $`\mathrm{\eta }\mathrm{\eta }^{^{}}`$ mixing.

If the pseudoscalar mesons have the same radial wave functions $`SU(3)`$ symmetry relates the amplitudes:

$`A(B_dJ/\psi N)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K^0})/\sqrt{(}2)`$
$`=`$ $`A(B_sJ/\psi \pi ^0),`$
$`A(B_sJ/\psi S)`$ $`=`$ $`A(B_dJ/\psi K^0)`$
and gives sum rules for standard mixing that are independent of the mixing angle

$`|A(B_dJ/\psi \eta )|^2+|A(B_dJ/\psi \eta ^{})|^2`$
$`=|A(B_sJ/\psi \overline{K}^0)|^2/2`$
$`|A(B_sJ/\psi \eta )|^2+|A(B_sJ/\psi \eta ^{})|^2`$
$`=|A(B_dJ/\psi K^0)|^2.`$
Charge conjugation relates the ratios of $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ decays to $`J/\psi \eta `$ and $`J/\psi \eta ^{}`$,

$`r_\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{B_s\eta }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_dJ/\psi \eta )}{p_{B_d\eta }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_sJ/\psi \eta )}}=(F_{CKM})^2\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi ,`$
$`r_\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{B_s\eta ^{}}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0J/\psi \eta ^{})}{p_{B_d\eta ^{}}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_sJ/\psi \eta ^{})}}=(F_{CKM})^2\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi ,`$
where $`F_{CKM}=A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{d})/A(\overline{b}J/\psi \overline{s})`$, and predicts

$`r_B`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{r_\eta r_\eta ^{}}=(F_{CKM})^2.`$
We can also describe the branching ratios for eight transitions in terms of three parameters $`F_{CKM}`$, $`\varphi `$ and an overall normalization.

If these relations hold experimentally, the standard mixing and the value of the mixing angle will be confirmed and established, the validity of SU(3) symmetry for these transitions will be confirmed, and the value of $`F_{CKM}`$ will determine the ratio of the penguin to tree contributions to the decay $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ which is the “golden channel” for CP violation experiments. Otherwise, we get clues to new physics.

## 4 $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing in semileptonic charmed meson decays

In addition to $`B`$ decays we can also use $`D(D_s)\eta (\eta ^{^{}})l\nu `$ to get clean tests for mixing. Define the two ratios

$`r_\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D\eta l\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s\eta l\nu )}}`$
$`r_\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D\eta ^{}l\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D_s\eta ^{}l\nu )}}`$
In the U spin limit,

$`r_D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{r_\eta r_\eta ^{}}=1`$
A large deviation of $`r_D`$ from 1 would indicate evidence of non standard $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ mixing since such a deviation is unlikely to originate from U spin breaking.

Including $`q^2`$ phase space gives the two ratios

$`R_d(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\eta ^{}^3}{p_{\eta ^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}(D_d\eta l\nu )}{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}(D_d\eta ^{}l\nu )}}=\mathrm{cot}^2\varphi ,`$
$`R_s(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_\eta ^{}^3}{p_{\eta ^3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}(D_s\eta l\nu )}{\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}(D_s\eta ^{}l\nu )}}=\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi ,`$
with standard mixing, and

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`R_d(q^2)R_s(q^2)=1`$
for any value of $`q^2`$. Again, a deviation of $`R`$ from 1 or a $`q^2`$ dependence for $`R`$, $`R_d`$ and $`R_s`$ would indicate evidence of non-standard mixing.

## 5 Charmless B Decays to Final States with Radially Excited Vector Mesons

A meson in the final state of a nonleptonic decay could be in a radially excited state. Define the ratios

$`R_{\rho ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`BR(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\rho ^+)/BR(\overline{B}^0\pi ^{}\rho ^+),`$
$`R_{\rho ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\rho ^0)/BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\rho ^0),`$
$`R_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\omega ^{})/BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\omega ),`$
$`R_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\varphi ^{})/BR(\overline{B}^{}\pi ^{}\varphi ),`$
where $`\rho ^{},\omega ^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are radially excited states.

We need to diagonalize the mass matrix,

$`<q_a^{}\overline{q}_b^{},n^{}|M|q_a\overline{q}_b,n>=`$
$`(m_a+m_b+E_n)`$
$`+\delta _{aa^{}}\delta _{bb^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{m_am_b}}\stackrel{}{s}_a\stackrel{}{s}_b\psi _n(0)\psi _n^{}(0),`$
where $`\stackrel{}{s}_{a,b}`$ and $`m_{a,b}`$ are the quark spin operators and masses. Here $`n=0,1,2`$ and the basis states for the isovector mesons are chosen as $`|N,I=1,I_3=1=|u\overline{d}`$, $`|N,I=1,I_3=0=|u\overline{u}d\overline{d}/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|N,I=1,I_3=1=|d\overline{u}`$. $`E_n`$ is the excitation energy of the $`n^{th}`$ radially excited state and $`B`$ is the strength of the hyperfine interaction. For $`\omega \varphi `$ mixing, the mass matrix has the additional flavor mixing term

$`+`$ $`\delta _{ab}\delta _{a^{}b^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{m_am_b}}\psi _n(0)\psi _n^{}(0).`$
(The basis states for the isoscalar mesons $`|N>_n=|u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}>_n/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|S>_n=|s\overline{s}>_n`$ for the non–strange and strange wave functions). Different models have only a slight effect. Typically,

$$R_{\rho ^+}:R_{\rho ^0}:R_\omega :R_\varphi =2:2:2.5:6$$

There are two main conclusions:– Although mixing between radially excited states and the ground state is small, decays to excited states are enhanced and, in particular, there is a large enhancement for Rϕ. (This decay is suppressed in the standard model)

## 6 Non Standard $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing and Nonleptonic $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ Decays

Mixtures of the ground state and radially excited $`q\overline{q}`$ states can alter the high momentum behavior of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ wave functions. The decays $`B\eta (\eta ^{})K(K^{})`$ are dominated by the penguin diagrams since the tree term is color and CKM suppressed. With factorization we can have the kaon leaving the weak vertex with its full momentum and the remaining quark combining with the spectator quark to form the final $`\eta (\eta ^{})`$ meson, or the $`\overline{s}`$ quark in the QCD penguin combining with the $`s`$ quark from the $`bs`$ transition to form the $`\eta (\eta ^{})`$. Another possibility is one in which a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair (where $`q=u,d,s`$) appearing in the same current in the effective Hamiltonian, hadronizes to the $`\eta (\eta ^{})`$. This is often referred to the OZI suppressed term. However, it is not as simple as this when the $`\eta ^{}`$ is in the final state because the OZI suppressed terms add constructively. We expect the OZI suppressed terms to be more important in $`BKP`$ than in $`BKV`$ decays since in $`J/\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays we know that the OZI-forbidden process requires three gluons for coupling to a vector meson and two gluons for coupling to a pseudoscalar. Thus the OZI suppressed terms should have a smaller contribution to the $`BK\rho ^0(\omega )`$ and $`BK\varphi `$ decays than to $`BK\eta `$ and $`BK\eta ^{}`$ decays. In the absence of a model independent extraction of $`\varphi `$ we will use the Isgur mixing, $`\varphi =45^0`$, as our standard.

$`|\eta _{std}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[N_0S_0\right],`$
$`|\eta ^{}_{std}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[N_0+S_0\right].`$
For the $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ system, including radial excitations, we diagonalize the mass matrix as in the $`\omega \varphi `$ case. The value of the parameter $`A`$ is significantly changed. Nonet symmetry is broken; members of the pseudoscalar nonet do not all have the same radial wave function. This non–standard mixing gives important differences for the nonleptonic decays $`B\eta (\eta ^{^{}})K(K^{})`$.

$`|\eta _g`$ $`=`$ $`0.85|\eta _{std}+0.23|\eta ^{}_{std},`$
$`|\eta ^{}_g`$ $`=`$ $`0.91|\eta ^{}_{std}0.025|\eta _{std}.`$
For $`B\eta (\eta ^{^{}})K(K^{})`$ we find that they are dominated by the penguin diagrams and that the tree term is color and CKM suppressed. The ratio $`r`$ can be a small as $`0.2`$. In the absence of OZI terms there are definite predictions about the branching ratios $`B\eta K`$/$`B\eta ^{^{}}K`$ and $`B\eta K^{}`$/$`B\eta ^{^{}}K^{}`$. A parity selection rule for the decays $`B\eta (\eta ^{^{}})K^{()}`$ fixes the relative phase between the amplitudes for the strange and non–strange penguins causing interference.

$`R_K`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{f_KF_\eta ^++f_\eta ^sF_K^+}{f_KF_\eta ^{}^++f_\eta ^{}^sF_K^+}}\right|^20.03,`$
$`R_K^{}`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{f_K^{}F_\eta ^+f_\eta ^sF_K^{}^+}{f_K^{}F_\eta ^{}^+f_\eta ^{}^sF_K^{}^+}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_K}}=33,`$
the last from neglecting form factor differences. The small value for $`R_K`$ is consistent with the current experimental limits.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ only one diagram contributes:

$`R_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{f_\eta ^sF_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{f_\eta ^{}^sF_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right|^21`$
Additional sum rules connect $`B`$ decays to $`K\eta (\eta ^{})`$ and $`K\pi `$ final states. One such sum rule is,

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \eta ^{}]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \eta ]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0]}}3`$
Standard mixing gives $`R`$ 3. Non–standard $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing gives $`R6`$, consistent with experiment. Similarly, for $`K^{}`$ final states,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \eta ]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0]}}`$ $``$ $`|\sqrt{2}+1|^26,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \eta ^{}]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[B^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0]}}`$ $``$ $`|\sqrt{2}1|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}.`$
New radial admixtures in the wave functions of the $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{^{}}`$ can increase the $`BK\eta ^{^{}}`$ decay but not the $`BK^{}\eta ^{^{}}`$ decay, as in other OZI-violating models. Thus there is a suppression for $`BK^{}\eta ^{^{}}`$ decay, an enhancement for $`BK^{}\eta `$ decay relative to $`BK^{}\pi `$ and an enhancement for $`BK\eta ^{^{}}`$ decay relative to $`BK\pi `$.

For the OZI suppressed contribution,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{A_\eta ^{}^{OZI}K(K^{})}{A_\eta ^{OZI}K(K^{})}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}{(1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_\eta ^{}^{OZI}\mathrm{\Lambda }}{A_\eta ^{OZI}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}6`$
A complete calculation gives

$$R_K=0.035,R_K^{}=5.6,R_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.4.$$

in reasonable agreement with experiment.

## 7 Summary and Conclusions

Two body decays of $`B_dJ`$/$`\psi M`$ and $`B_sJ`$/$`\psi M`$ have interesting relations among decay amplitudes. We propose tests for the standard $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing. $`SU(3)`$ symmetry gives additional relations among the eight CP eigenstates $`J`$/$`\psi K_S`$, $`J`$/$`\psi \eta `$, $`J`$/$`\psi \eta `$’ and $`J`$/$`\psi \pi ^0`$ and the value of the $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing angle. Semileptonic $`D`$ decays can also give important information about the standard $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ mixing. Weak decays of a B meson to final S-wave radially excited give ratios of nonleptonic decays $`B\rho ^{^{}}\pi /B\rho \pi ,B\omega ^{^{}}\pi /B\omega \pi `$ and $`B\varphi ^{^{}}\pi /B\varphi \pi `$ transitions to the excited states comparable, or enhanced relative, to ground state transitions. Radial mixing in the $`\eta \eta ^{^{}}`$ system leads to appreciable effects that gives a good description of the existing data on $`B\eta (\eta ^{^{}})`$. There are predictions for as yet unobserved decays unique to our model. Finally another unique prediction of our model is that there is a modest enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta ^{}`$ relative to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$, unlike in the B system.