text:
# Remark on multi-particle observables and entangled states with constant complexity

## I Introduction

In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics the states are the positive operators with trace 1 on the system’s Hilbert space***Here we ignore the case of a quantum system with superselection rules.. The observables are the self-adjoint operators and their eigenvalues represent the possible measurement outcomes. The question of how to design a preparation procedure corresponding to a given trace-one operator or a measurement procedure corresponding to a self-adjoint operator remained unclear for many decades. Why should such preparation or measurement procedures exist at all? Their existence seemed to be just a common belief of the community of physicists. Being aware of the abundance of states and observables corresponding to a many-particle quantum system, one might question this postulate. Since the old problem of Schrödinger’s Cat is essentially the question of the set of states and observables of macroscopic systems , one should even accept this question as a problem of philosophical relevance.

However, in the context of quantum computing research and due to the recent experimental and theoretical progress in quantum optics, this question became a serious subject of research (e.g. ). The connection of the problem described above to the subject of quantum computing research can roughly be sketched as follows: Define an ideal quantum computer as a quantum system fulfilling the following conditions:

1. There is a physical procedure preparing one pure state $`|\psi `$, where $``$ is the system’s Hilbert space.
2. There is a set of (‘basic’) unitary transformations acting on $``$ which can be implemented by a physical process and which are universal in the sense, that any unitary transformation can approximately be obtained by applying a sequence of basic transformations.
3. There is a read-out mechanism given by the measurement of one non-degenerated observable $`a`$ acting on $``$.

In an ideal quantum computer, every pure state can approximately be prepared by performing the appropriate unitary transformations after having prepared the state $`|\psi `$. Due to the evident operational meaning of convex combination on the set of density matrices, one has preparation procedures for every density matrix on $``$. Analogously, one can find a measurement procedure for any self-adjoint operator $`b`$ by writing it as $`b=uf(a)u^{}`$ for an appropriate unitary operator $`u`$ and an appropriate function $`f`$. Then $`b`$ can be measured by the procedure: ‘implement $`u`$, measureNote that this measurement procedure does not project the state vector into the eigenspaces of $`b`$, it only reproduces the correct probabilities for the measurement outcomes. Stronger senses of measurement procedures will be considered below. $`a`$ afterwards, and apply the function $`f`$ to the result.’

In our opinion this framework allows a formulation of the problem of Schrödinger’s Cat in a way which is more explicit than it has ever been before: On the one hand, one has strong evidence for the belief that a system being composed from many particles has quantum and classical aspects, on the other hand, if the system fulfills the axioms of the ideal quantum computer, there is no non-trivial observable which is compatible with all the other ones.

But the oversimplified answer ‘we can measure and prepare everything’ is a result of idealized assumptions. One may even state that these assumptions ignore in some sense the laws of thermodynamics: If $``$ is the state space of a many particle system, the preparation of a pure state $`|\psi `$ would even violate the Third Law. Furthermore, fundamental bounds on the preparation of states and the measurability might stem from the laws of quantum mechanics itself .

Among other things, a serious analysis has to take into account the following objections to the idealized assumptions:

1. The problem of complexity: Generically, the set of basic transformations will be quite small compared to the whole set of unitary operations. Accordingly, the number of basic transformations needed for the implementation of a generic one will grow rather fast with the size of the state space $``$. The statement ‘every unitary transformation can be implemented in principle’ becomes doubtful for particle numbers of macroscopic order.
2. The problem of reliability: We can neither expect that the preparation procedure leads to a pure initial state nor that any realizable operation acts on the density matrix like a conjugation with a unitary operator. Taking into account a finite error probability it will rather be another completely positive map. If a preparation or measurement procedure relies on a rather complex iteration of basic operations, it is a non-trivial problem to determine whether the procedure is sensitive to errors during the implementation of the basic operations. In , for instance, we have shown that the preparation of states showing quantum uncertainty on the macroscopic level in a sense explained below would require quite small error probabilities for the basic operations.

Of course one could consider these statements rather as statements about ‘practical’ problems of realization of quantum computers and question its relevance with respect to the fundamental question described in the beginning. But one should not ignore that limitations in accuracy of processes might be deeply connected with thermodynamics. In , for instance, we analyzed in which sense the resource requirements for preparing an (approximate) pure state grow for increasing reliability. Whether or not such thermodynamic statements on resource requirements puts fundamental restrictions to the set of accessible states and measurable observables might be answered by the future.

Having in mind the problem of Schrödinger’s Cat, we restrict our attention to mean-field observables (see ) of many particle systems, which are the best candidates for constituting the classical aspect of the system since they represent at least one part of the macroscopic level. Then it is natural to ask the following two questions:

1. How difficult is it to prepare a state showing large quantum uncertainty on the macroscopic level?
2. How difficult is it to measure an observable which is strongly incompatible with a macroscopic one?

Both question cannot really be discussed separately: If one wants to distinguish whether a strong variation of measurement outcomes for any observable stems mainly from a classical statistical mixture or rather from a quantum superposition one has to measure an observable which is incompatible with the first one. On the other hand, a measurement of an observable being incompatible with the first one, could lead to a quantum superposition of macroscopically distinct states.

The question ‘how difficult is it to prepare a superposition of macroscopically distinct states?’ can be understood in various ways: It might be the question for the reliability of the basic operations which would be required for such preparations or measurements (this is partly answered in ), it can also be interpreted as the question of complexity of the required algorithm. This question will be focussed on here.

We will prove lower bounds for the depth of a quantum network producing macroscopic superpositions. Since these bounds are not strong, we do not claim this would be a serious restriction for the realizability, we merely consider it as an important part of pure research to determine such bounds. Furthermore it gives insights in the structure of multi-particle entanglement since we show lower bound for the complexity of the same class of highly entangled states which has been investigated in . Here a quantum network is defined to be a transformation being composed by a sequence of bilocal transformations acting on only two tensor components at once. On the one hand, this is a natural assumption from the computer scientist’s point of view, since it corresponds to the decomposition of logical networks in 2-bit gates in the theory of classical electronic devices. On the other hand, even from the physicist’s point of view, it is less artificial than it may seem at first sight: If one assumes the qubits to correspond to particles, bipartite interaction represent the structure of the fundamental forces of nature.

## II Macrorealism and large quantum computers

Let $`:=_{i=1}^n^l`$ for arbitrary $`l`$ be the Hilbert space of $`n`$ identical quantum systems. Let $`(a_i)_{in}`$ be a family of self-adjoint operators with the property, that every $`a_i`$ acts on the $`i`$-th component of the n-fold tensor product only, i.e.

$`a_i=\underset{i1}{\underset{}{11\mathrm{}1}}c\underset{ni}{\underset{}{1\mathrm{}1}}`$

with an arbitrary self-adjoint $`c`$ acting on $`^l`$. Let $`c1/2`$ where $`.`$ denotes the operator norm defined by $`c:=\mathrm{max}_{|\psi }c|\psi /|\psi `$. Then we call

$`\overline{a}:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i`$

the corresponding averaging observable. In solid state physics, the algebra generated by them is usually referred to as the algebra of mean-field observables . We claim, that they are some of the best candidates for constituting the macroscopic level of the many-particle system. This might be made plausible by taking the following example:

In a system consisting of $`n`$ spin-1/2 particles, the mean-magnetization is described by the observables

$`(1/2)\overline{\sigma }_x,(1/2)\overline{\sigma }_y,(1/2)\overline{\sigma }_z`$

where $`\overline{\sigma }_i`$ with $`i=x,y,z`$ is defined as

$`\overline{\sigma }_i:={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\sigma _i^{(j)}`$

and $`\sigma _i^{(j)}`$ is the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _i`$ acting on the j-th tensor component. Obviously the magnetization represents a physical quantity which has strong direct evidence in every day life.

Let $`._{tr}`$ denote the trace norm of any matrix. It is defined by $`a_{tr}:=tr(\sqrt{a^{}a})`$. In  we argued, that a large value of the expression

$`e_\rho :=\underset{\overline{a},b1}{\mathrm{max}}|tr(\rho [\overline{a},b])|=\underset{\overline{a}}{\mathrm{max}}[\overline{a},\rho ]_{tr}`$

indicates quantum uncertainty on the macroscopic levelNote that we take a definition slightly differing from that one introduced in : Since we are dealing with the space $`^l`$ on each site instead of restricting the proofs to the case of qubits, i.e. $`l=2`$, it does not seem to be appropriate to restrict the one-site-observables to projections.. Here large means that the size of the expression is rather in the order of 1 than of $`1/\sqrt{n}`$, the latter is the case for separable states . If one defines a family of hypersurfaces in the set of density matrices by

$`H_{\overline{a},b,r}:=\{\rho |tr(\rho [\overline{a},b])\}=r\}`$

we find that for every $`r0`$

$`e_\rho r`$

is equivalent to

$`|tr(\rho [\overline{a},b])|rb\text{ with }b1,\overline{a}.`$

Hence the convex set $`\{\rho |e_\rho r\}`$ is enclosed by the family of pairs of hypersurfaces

$`(H_{\overline{a},b,\pm r})_{\overline{a},b},`$

where $`\overline{a}`$ is any averaging observable and $`b`$ and $`b1`$. In the following we will prove lower bounds for the depth of a quantum network required for crossing these hypersurfaces.

To formalize the term ‘quantum network’ we introduce the following terminology:

###### Definition 1

A bilocal or local map on a quantum system with Hilbert space

$`:=(^l)^n\text{ with }l,n`$

is a completely trace preserving map on the set of density matrices on $``$ acting trivially on each tensor component except two or one, respectively, i.e., it is given by a canonical embedding of a completely positive trace preserving map acting on the density matrices on the Hilbert space $`(^l)^2`$ or $`^l`$, respectively. The tensor components $`\{i,j\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ or $`\{i\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ on which the map acts nontrivially is called its support.

###### Definition 2

A step of a quantum network is a set $`S:=\{G_1,\mathrm{},G_m\}`$ of bilocal or local maps with mutually disjoint supports. Write $`S(\rho )`$ for $`(G_1\mathrm{}G_m)(\rho )`$.

A quantum network of depth $`k`$ is a sequence $`A:=(S_1,\mathrm{},S_k)`$ of $`k`$ steps. Write $`A(\rho )`$ for $`(S_k\mathrm{}S_1)(\rho )`$. By duality, $`A`$ defines a completely positive unital§§§A map $`G`$ on the observables is called unital if one has $`G(1)=1`$ for the trivial observable $`1`$. One can show  that completely positive and unital implies that $`G`$ is norm decreasing, i.e., $`G(a)a`$ for every operator $`a`$. map $`A^{}`$ on the set of observables by

$`tr(A^{}(a)\rho )=tr(aA(\rho )).`$

Furthermore we define:

###### Definition 3

The support of an observable $`a`$ is the set $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of tensor components on which the operator $`a`$ acts nontrivially.

We observe:

###### Lemma 1

Let $`a`$ be an observable with support of size $`l`$. Let $`A`$ be a quantum network of depth $`k`$. Then the support of $`A^{}(a)`$ is $`l2^k`$ at most.

Proof:  By easy induction: Every step of $`A`$ can double the size of the support at most. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are able to prove one of our main statements:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\rho `$ be a separable state. Let $`A`$ be a quantum network of depth $`k`$. Then we have

$`e_{A(\rho )}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}}2^k`$

Proof:  By convexity arguments it is sufficient to proof the theorem for the case that $`\rho `$ is a product state. By Lemma 1 in  it is sufficient to prove

$`\sqrt{tr(\overline{a}^2A(\rho ))(tr(\overline{a}A(\rho )))^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2n}}}2^k`$

for every $`\overline{a}`$. We have:

$`tr(\overline{a}^2A(\rho ))(tr(\overline{a}A(\rho )))^2`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(tr(A^{}(a_i)A^{}(a_j)\rho )tr(A^{}(a_i)\rho )tr(A^{}(a_j)\rho ))`$ (2)
$`=:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}g_{ij}.`$ (3)
Let $`X_i`$ be the support of $`A^{}(a_i)`$. Since $`A^{}(a_i)a_i1/2`$ we have $`|g_{ij}|1/2`$. Since $`\rho `$ is a product state we have $`g_{ij}=0`$ for all those pairs $`i,j`$ with $`X_iX_j=\mathrm{}`$. Now we just have to estimate the number of those areas $`X_j`$ which intersect a given area $`X_i`$. Firstly we show (by induction over $`k`$) that for every site $`y\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ there are at most $`2^k`$ areas $`X_j`$ with $`yX_j`$: For $`k=0`$ the statement is obvious. Let $`B^{}`$ the dual map corresponding to a quantum network $`B`$ obtained from $`A`$ by adding one more step. Let $`W_i`$ be the supports of $`B^{}(a_i)`$. Assume that $`yX_j`$ for at most $`2^k`$ areas $`X_j`$. Let the additional transformation step act on the pair $`(y,x)`$ where $`x\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is an arbitrary site with $`xy`$. Then we have $`yW_j`$ only if $`yX_j`$ or $`xX_j`$. Since both sites are contained in at most $`2^k`$ areas $`X_j`$ we see that $`y`$ can be an element of at most $`2^{k+1}`$ areas $`W_j`$. This completes the induction.

Since every area $`X_i`$ has size $`2^k`$ at most, for every $`X_i`$ there are $`2^k2^k`$ areas $`X_j`$ at most with nonempty intersection. Hence $`g_{ij}0`$ for $`4^k`$ pairs $`(i,j)`$ at most.Actually the latter statement is essentially the dual formulation of Lemma 8 in . We preferred the formulation on the set of observables since it turns out to be appropriate for the proof of a theorem below. Hence the term (1) is less or equal to $`4^k/(2n)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The theorem can be rephrased in terms of the hypersurfaces introduced above:

###### Corollary 1

Let $`r>0`$. Let $`b`$ with $`b1`$ arbitrary and $`\overline{a}`$ an averaging observable. Let $`\rho `$ be a separable initial state and $`A`$ a quantum network such that $`\rho `$ and $`A(\rho )`$ lie on different sides of the hypersurface

$`H_{\overline{a},b,r}.`$

Then the depth of $`A`$ is at least

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}r\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{2/n})}{\mathrm{ln}2}}.`$

Note that the bound given in Theorem 1 is not too far from being tight: Take an $`n`$-qubit quantum computer with $`n=2^k`$ starting with the initial state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|0+|1)|0^{(n1)}.`$

Perform a controlled-not with qubit 1 as control-qubit qubit 2 as target. Than perform two controlled-not with qubit 1 and 2 as control-qubit and 3 and 4 as targets. In the r-th step one takes the qubits $`1,\mathrm{},2^{r1}`$ as control qubits and the qubits $`2^{r1}+1,\mathrm{}2^r`$ as targets. After $`k`$ steps one has the cat state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|0^n+|1^n,`$

i.e., a state with $`e_\rho =1`$ (see : Despite the slight modification in the definition of $`e_\rho `$ one can adopt the proof for the equation $`e_\rho =1`$ given therein.).

Since we have answered the question of the complexity of a quantum network producing states which show large quantum uncertainty on the macroscopic level we shall focus on the second question of the complexity of measurement procedures for observables which are strongly incompatible with the averaging ones.

Firstly we should make clear, what we mean by ‘measurement procedure for an observable $`a`$’, since this will turn out to be essential:

###### Definition 4

Let $`a`$ be a self-adjoint operator acting on a quantum system’s Hilbert space of finite dimension. Let $`a=_{ij}\lambda _iP_i`$ be its spectral decomposition.

* weak sense of measurement:

A procedure is said to be a measurement procedure for $`a`$ if it has outcomes $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _j`$ and the outcome $`\lambda _i`$ has the probability $`tr(\rho P_i)`$ for a system prepared in the state $`\rho `$.
* strong sense of measurement:

If the procedure changes the state in such a way that one obtains the state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_i\rho P_i}{tr(\rho P_i)}}`$

in case of the result ‘$`\lambda _i`$’ we call the procedure a ‘von-Neumann-measurement’. Note that this assumption is much stronger than the requirement that the state vector lies in the eigenspace of the measured eigenvalue after the measurement. It even has to be projected.In the terminology of  this is an ideal measurement and corresponding to every spectral projection one has realized a passive filter.

Now we should make clear which kind of observables we assume to be measurable directly:

###### Postulate 1

In the weak sense, one can measure every observable which is a function of an observable $`a`$ of the form

$`a=_ia_i`$

where every $`a_i`$ is a self-adjoint operator acting on the $`i`$-th component of the tensor product.

###### Postulate 2

In the strong sense one can only measure those observables $`a`$ directly which have the property that every spectral projection $`P_i`$ of $`a`$ is of the form

$`P_i=Q_j^{(i)},`$

where $`Q_j^{(i)}`$ is an orthogonal projection acting on the $`i`$-th tensor component.

These postulates assume, that a quite natural way of a measurement of a many-particle system is given by measuring some or all the particles separately. The set of possible outcomes is then given by the cartesian product of the sets of possible outcomes of the one-particle measurements. Of course it would also be natural to assume that one single measurement apparatus interacts with many particles in the same way. Then one would obtain rather complicated measurements as basic ones. The question ‘which observable can be measured in the most direct way’ is hard to answer and it is not even clear how to give a definite meaning to the term ‘most direct’. Our postulates should merely be considered as a first attempt to formalize the intuitive evidence for the fact that many-particle systems have an abundance of observables which seem to require rather sophisticated measurement procedures (in case they exist at all).

To illustrate that the difference between the weak and the strong sense of measurement is essential we take the observable

$`_i\sigma _x^{(i)},`$

which can be measured directly in the weak sense by measuring every qubit in the eigenbasis of $`\sigma _x`$. This observable is strongly incompatible with the averaging observable

$`\overline{\sigma }_z`$

in the sense that one has

$`[\overline{\sigma }_z,_i\sigma _x^{(i)}]=2.`$

Easy calculation shows, that the observable

$`_i\sigma _x^{(i)}`$

is one of the best for distinguishing between the macroscopic coherent superposition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|0^n0|^n+|1^n0|^n+|0^n1|^n+|1^n1|^n)`$

and the corresponding mixture of macroscopic distinct states:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|0^n0|^n+|1^n1|^n).`$

It is easy to see that our way of measuring $`_i\sigma _x^{(i)}`$ is far away from being a von-Neumann-measurement: Our procedure discriminates $`2^n`$ different measurement outcomes in order to measure an observable with only two different eigenvalues. A measurement in the strong sense can be designed as follows:

1. Perform a unitary transformation $`u`$ such that

$`u^{}(_i\sigma _x^{(i)})u=11\mathrm{}1\sigma _x.`$
2. Measure the observable

$`11\mathrm{}1\sigma _x.`$
3. Perform the transformation $`u^{}`$ .

Essentially, these methods for measuring a highly degenerated observable without destroying ‘too much coherence’ are necessary for quantum error correction since the computation of the error syndrome  must not destroy the encoded quantum information.

But why is the difference between the two ways of measurement so important for our main question? – Because their effects on the states with respect to the problem of Schrödinger’s Cat are in some sense even complementary: While the first one destroys macroscopic superpositions, the second one can prepare them. This can be seen as follows: Perform the first measurement procedure. Depending on the measurement outcomes, it will produce one of the $`2^n`$ states

$`_i|\pm x_i,`$

where $`|\pm x_i`$ denotes the eigenstate of the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _x`$ with eigenvalue $`+1`$ or $`1`$ at the i-th qubit. Note that for every initial state the measurement produces a product state. On the other hand, take the initial state

$`|0^n`$

and perform the second procedure. Since the projectors on the eigenspaces of $`_i\sigma _x^{(i)}`$ are given by $`P_{}:=\frac{1}{2}(_i\sigma _x^{(i)}+1)`$ and $`P_+:=\frac{1}{2}(1_i\sigma _x^{(i)})`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|0^n+|1^n)`$

if the measurement outcome was ‘$`+1`$’ and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|0^n+|1^n)`$

if the outcome was ‘$`1`$’. In both cases we get a highly entangled state showing maximal quantum uncertainty with respect to the observable $`\overline{\sigma }_z`$.

One might ask, whether one can go beyond the bound given by Theorem 1 if one uses additional measurements in between some steps of the quantum network. It is easy to see that this possibility is already included in Theorem 1: Every measurement procedure which can be performed directly can be considered as a local map which depends on the measurement outcome. Intermediate local transformations and the preceding or the following bilocal transformation accessing the same site can be contracted to a single bilocal map. Then the additional local maps do not change the depth at all. Roughly speaking, we have found: ‘measurements with constant complexity cannot produce that kind of highly entangled states which have large parameter $`e_\rho `$.’

The following theorem elucidates this result from another point of view by showing that observables which are measurable (in the strong sense) with very low complexity are almost compatible with the averaging ones, in the sense that their spectral projections almost commute with the former ones:

###### Theorem 2

Let $`A`$ be an quantum network of depth $`k`$ consisting of unitary transformations. Let $`c`$ be an observable which can be measured directly in the strong sense. Then we have for every spectral projection $`P`$ of $`c`$:

$`[\overline{a},A^{}(P)]{\displaystyle \frac{2^k}{\sqrt{2n}}}`$

for every averaging observable $`\overline{a}`$.

Proof:  Since $`A^{}`$ is implemented by unitary transformations we have

$`[\overline{a},A^{}(P)]=[A(\overline{a}),P].`$

Set $`c_i:=A(a_i)`$. We find

$$\underset{i}{}c_iPP\underset{i}{}c_i^2=(\underset{i}{}c_iPP\underset{i}{}c_i)^2.$$
(4)
We set $`d_i:=c_iPc_iP`$. Obviously $`[d_i,P]=[c_i,P]`$. Since $`Pd_iP=0`$ we can write expression (4) as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(d_iPPd_i)(d_jPPd_j)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_iP)({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_iP)^{}+({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_iP)^{}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_iP)`$ (6)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Pd_i^22{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}Pd_id_jP.`$ (7)
Easy calculation shows

$`Pd_i=Pc_iP^{}\text{ and }d_jP=P^{}c_jP.`$

Therefore we obtain

$`[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i,P]^22{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}Pc_iP^{}c_jP`$

Now we argue that the sum has to be taken over those pairs $`(i,j)`$ only which have the property that the supports of $`c_i`$ and $`c_j`$ intersect: By assumption $`P`$ has the form

$`P=_iQ_i`$

where every $`Q_i`$ is a projection on the i-th site. The orthogonal projection $`P^{}`$ can be split up into a direct sum in the following way: For any binary word $`b\{0,1\}^n`$ define the projection

$`R_b:=_{in}S_i`$

where $`S_i=Q_i`$ if the $`i`$-th digit of $`b`$ is ‘0’ and $`S_i=Q_i^{}`$ otherwise. Then $`P^{}`$ can be written as:

$`P^{}=_{b\{0,1\}^n\{0\mathrm{}0\}}R_b.`$

Let $`r\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be such that $`b`$ has the digit ‘1’ at the site $`r`$. If the supports of $`c_i`$ and $`c_j`$ are disjoint, the site $`r`$ cannot be an element of both. Hence at least one of the two terms

$`Pc_iR_b\text{ and }R_bc_jP`$

vanishes, since $`Q_r^{}c_jQ_r=0`$ if $`r`$ is not an element of the support of $`c_j`$.

In the proof of Theorem 1 we have shown that for every $`c_i`$ there are at most $`4^k`$ operators $`c_j`$ such that their supports intersect. Since $`c_ia_i1/2`$ we have

$`[A(\overline{a}),P]\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}4^k}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}}2^k.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## III Conclusions

In agreement with our approach in  we introduced a parameter $`e_\rho `$ indicating that a many-particle state $`\rho `$ shows quantum uncertainty on the macroscopic level. We showed that this class of highly entangled states with large $`e_\rho `$ requires a quantum network with depth $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{log}n)`$. In  we could give a set of families of parallel hypersurfaces, where every family is parameterized by $`r[1,1]`$. For the hypersurfaces with increasing $`|r|`$ we could prove increasing lower bounds for the depth of a quantum network preparing states lying outside those pairs corresponding to $`\pm r`$. Since we consider states with large parameter $`e_\rho `$ as those one constituting the philosophical problem of Schrödinger’s Cat in the debate about macrorealism we have proven that states which are prepared by a quantum network of depth $`O(1)`$ are consistent with macrorealism.

In analogy, we investigated the depth of a network required for measuring those observables which constitute the conflict with macrorealism in the sense we had explained. Here we obtained the same $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{log}n)`$ \- bound as for the preparation of states with large $`e_\rho `$.

Our results put strong restrictions on the set of entangled states which can be obtained by networks with constant depth including intermediate measurements. Further understanding of ‘very-low-complexity entanglement’ has to be left to the future. Since any tensor product structure of a state for $`n`$ particles can already be destroyed by a quantum network of depth 2, this seems to be non-trivial at all.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Grassl, M. Rötteler, and P. Wocjan for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the project ‘AQUA’ of the ‘Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’.


format: text

text:
# Vacuum energy in the presence of a magnetic string with delta function profile

## 1 Introduction

Recent developments in the technique for the calculation of the zero point energy of massive fields  have opened interesting possibilities in the study of soft boundaries and smooth potentials with spherical and cylindrical geometry immersed in the vacuum of various quantum fields. The technique uses the Jost function of the scattering problem related to the background potential under examination. The vacuum energy can be expressed as an integral containing the logarithm of a Jost function with imaginary argument:

$$E_B=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\pi s}{\pi }\mu ^{2s}\underset{l}{}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2m_e^2)^{1/2s}\frac{}{k}\mathrm{ln}f_l(ik),$$
(1)
here the subscript $`B`$ represents the background potential, $`_l`$ and $`_k`$ are respectively the integration over the momentum $`k`$ and the summation over all other quantum numbers $`l`$; $`m_e`$ is the mass of the quantum field, $`s`$ is a regularization parameter and $`\mu `$ a mass parameter. The Jost function $`f_l(ik)`$ is unique and easily obtainable for many types of geometries with circular, spherical or cylindrical symmetry and for various types of potential profiles, which is the great advantage of this approach.

Representation (1) for the vacuum energy still needs a renormalization. The zeta functional representation of (1) and its heat kernel expansion are known to be a very effective tool in this context (see for instance ). The basic idea to define unambiguously a renormalized zero point energy, is to impose the condition that the vacuum energy is zero when the mass of the quantum field reaches infinity (see ).

The heat kernel coefficients themselves are also of great interest, they determine the asymptotic behaviour of the renormalized energy ; they are to be considered as an intrinsic local feature of the geometry and of the background under examination.

This renormalization scheme and the above mentioned integral representation have been used to solve some basic configurations: the vacuum energy of scalar, spinor and electromagnetic fields in the background of spherical shells with hard and smooth potentials has been calculated , , , , . The investigation has turned recently to magnetic fields with cylindrical symmetry. In paper  a complete analysis of a spinor field in the background of an homogeneous magnetic flux tube of finite radius was carried out. The vacuum energy was found to be negative and it did not show a minimum for any finite value of the radius. A natural question is if inhomogeneous magnetic fields can minimize the energy and render the string stable. The question was already raised in . The present paper extends the investigation begun in  to an inhomogeneous magnetic string with delta function profile. The delta function, although not a fully realistic physical model, represents a simple example of inhomogeneity, which could give an insight into the problem of vacuum energy in magnetic backgrounds. This kind of “semi-transparent” was already analyzed in  for a sphere. It has some features in common with a smooth potential and some with a hard boundary. In paper  the heat kernel coefficients for a general semi-transparent boundary were calculated. The quantum mechanics of spinor fields in the presence of magnetic fluxes has been elaborated in early works , while more recent investigation in this direction has been motivated by the interest in the Aharonov-Bohm effect , . Singular inhomogeneous magnetic fields were examined in  for the calculation of the fermion determinant and in  for the investigation of the bound states of an electron, however the ground state energy was not calculated in those works. In our paper the ground state energy will be calculated for a scalar and for a spinor field. In the first part of this paper we will calculate the Jost functions for both fields, the heat kernel coefficients will be found and the energy will be renormalized imposing the vanishing of the vacuum fluctuations for fields of infinite mass. In the second part of the paper we will work numerically on the renormalized energy finding its asymptotic behaviour for small and for large values of the radius of the string. We will finally show some plots of the renormalized energy for various values of the strength of the potential.

## 2 Scalar field in the background of a magnetic string

### 2.1 Solution of the field equation

We quantize a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the presence of a classical magnetic field whose form is that of a cylindrical shell with delta function profile. The section of the string is a circle with radius $`R`$. The magnetic field is given by

$$\stackrel{}{B}(r)=\frac{\varphi }{2\pi R}\delta (rR)\stackrel{}{e}_z$$
(2)
where $`\varphi `$ is the magnetic flux, $`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$ and $`z`$ is the axis along which the cylindrical shell extends to infinity. The quantum field obeys the Klein- Gordon equation for the scalar electrodynamics:

$$(D^2+m_e^2)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0$$
(3)
where $`m_e`$ is the mass of the field, and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D^2\hfill & =& _t^2\stackrel{}{}^22ieA^0_t2ie\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{}e^2A^0{}_{}{}^{2}+e^2\stackrel{}{A}^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
here $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`A_\mu `$ is the vector potential of the electromagnetic field and the convention $`g_{\mu \nu }=`$diag$`(1,1,1,1)`$ is used as well as the gauge $`^\mu A_\mu =0`$. We want to find a solution of eq.(3) in cylindrical coordinates $`z,r`$, $`\phi `$, then we take the relevant operators in (4) in the following form

$$\stackrel{}{}(\mathrm{cos}\phi _r\frac{\mathrm{sin}\phi }{r}_\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\phi _r+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\phi }{r}_\phi ,_z)$$
(5)
$$\stackrel{}{}^2\frac{1}{r}_rr_r+\frac{1}{r^2}_\phi ^2+_z^2.$$
(6)
The potential four vector $`A^\mu `$ associated with the magnetic field (2) contains a theta-function:

$$\stackrel{}{A}=\frac{\varphi }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(rR)}{r}\stackrel{}{e}_\phi ,A^0=0;$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}_\phi =(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,0)`$. Therefore operator (4) becomes

$$D^2_t^2\left(\frac{1}{r}_rr_r+\frac{1}{r^2}_\phi ^2+_z^2\right)+\frac{2i\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(rR)}{r^2}_\phi +\frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{\Theta }^2(rR)}{r^2}$$
(8)
here, and in the rest of this paper, $`\beta `$ will represent the strength of the background potential

$$\beta =\frac{e\varphi }{2\pi }.$$
(9)
With the ansatz of the separation of the variables the scalar field is transformed into

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{exp}(ip_0tip_zz+im\phi )\mathrm{\Phi }_m(p_0,p_z,r),$$
(10)
where $`p_\mu `$ is the momentum four vector and $`m`$ is the orbital momentum quantum number. Combining (4), (8) and (10) the new field equation reads

$$(p_0^2m_e^2p_z^2\frac{(m\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(rR))^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}_r+_r^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_m(p_0,p_z,r)=0.$$
(11)
or

$$\left(k^2\frac{(m\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(rR))^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}_r+_r^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_m(k,r)=0,$$
(12)
where $`k=\sqrt{p_0^2m_e^2p_z^2}`$. The solutions of this equation are Bessel and Neumann functions. The kind of function and their coefficients are to be determined by means of physical considerations. We take here the regular solution which in general scattering theory  has the following asymptotic behaviour

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{r0}{}J_m(kr),$$
(13)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{r\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{2}(f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr)),$$
(14)
where $`J_m(kr)`$ is a Bessel function of the first kind, $`H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr)`$ and $`H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)`$ are Hankel functions of the first and of the second kind and the coefficients $`f_m(k)`$ and $`f_m^{}(k)`$ are a Jost function and its complex conjugate respectively. In the case of the delta function profile the regular solution reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=J_m(kr)\mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)+\frac{1}{2}(f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr))\mathrm{\Theta }(rR),$$
(15)
then, we can define a field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ in the region $`r<R`$ inside the cylinder

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m^I(k,r)=J_m(kr)$$
(16)
which is independent of the strength $`\beta `$ of the potential, and a field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^O`$ in the region outside the cylinder $`rR`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_m^O(k,r)=\frac{1}{2}(f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr))$$
(17)
which describes incoming and outgoing cylindrical waves. The conditions for the field at $`r=R`$ will be discussed later.

### 2.2 Ground state energy in terms of the Jost function and normalization condition

A regularized vacuum energy can be defined as

$$E_0^{sc}=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2}ϵ_{(n,\alpha )}^{12s},$$
(18)
where the $`ϵ_{(n,\alpha )}`$ are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian operator associated with (4), $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ being the index for the particle-anti-particle degree of freedom, while $`n`$ includes all oder quantum numbers. $`s`$ is the regularization parameter to be put to zero after the renormalization and $`\mu `$ is a mass parameter necessary to maintain the correct dimensions of the energy. The string is invariant under translations along the $`z`$ axis, therefore the energy density per unit length of the string is

$$^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{2s}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp_z}{2\pi }\underset{(n,\alpha )}{}(p_z^2+\lambda _{(n)}^2)^{1/2s},$$
(19)
where the $`\lambda _{(n)}`$ are the eigenvalues of the operator defined in (12) with $`k=\sqrt{p_0^2m_e^2}`$ . We perform the integration over $`p_z`$ in (19), getting

$$^{sc}=\frac{1}{4}\mu ^{2s}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}\underset{(n,\alpha )}{}(\lambda _{(n)}^2)^{1s}.$$
(20)
The next step is to transform the summation in (20) into a contour integral. We enclose temporarily the system in a large cylindrical quantization box imposing some conditions for the field at this boundary, for instance Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then we can express the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{(n)}`$ by means of the zeros of solution (14), which becomes an exact equation at infinity. The derivative of the logarithm of the solution will then have poles at $`k=\lambda _{(n)}`$. We can express (20) through an integral whose contour encloses these poles which lie on the real axis $`k`$. The deformation of the contour on the imaginary axis and the dropping of the Minkowski space contribution allows to reach the final form.

$$^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}C_s\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2+m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_m(ik),$$
(21)
where $`f_m(ik)`$ is the Jost function with imaginary argument and $`C_s=(1+s(1+2\mathrm{ln}(2\mu )))/(2\pi )`$ is a simple function of the regularization parameter. The renormalization of (21) is carried out by direct subtraction of its divergent part

$$_{ren}^{sc}=^{sc}_{div}^{sc}.$$
(22)
The isolation of the divergent part from the total energy will be performed via heat-kernel expansion as we will see in a moment. The subtracted part should be added in the classical part of the energy resulting in a renormalization of the classical parameters of the string (in paper  this procedure is well explained), however we do not treat the classical energy of the system here but only the vacuum contribution. For the analytical continuation $`s0`$ we split $`_{ren}^{sc}`$ it into a “finite” and an “asymptotic” part.

$$_{ren}^{sc}=_f^{sc}+_{as}^{sc},$$
(23)
with

$$_f^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}C_s\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k[k^2m_e^2]^{1s}\frac{}{k}[\mathrm{ln}f_m(ik)\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as}(ik)]$$
(24)
and

$$_{as}^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}C_s\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k[k^2m_e^2]^{1s}\frac{}{k}\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as}(ik)_{div}^{sc},$$
(25)
where $`f_m^{as}`$ is a portion of the uniform asymptotic expansion of the Jost function. The number of orders to be included in $`f_m^{as}`$ must be sufficient to let the function

$$\mathrm{Sub}\mathrm{ln}f_m(ik)\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as}(ik)$$
(26)
fall as $`m^4`$ (or $`k^4`$) for $`k`$ and $`m`$ equally large, in this case the integral and the summation in (24) converge for $`s0`$. To this purpose three orders in the asymptotics are enough. More orders would only give a quicker convergence. The splitting proposed in (23) immediately permits the analytical continuation $`s=0`$ in $`_f^{sc}`$, furthermore it allows a very quick subtraction of the pole terms in the asymptotic part (24). $`_{as}^{sc}`$ is a finite quantity. For the definition of $`_{div}^{sc}`$ we write the sum (18) as

$$^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1/2)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s3/2}K(t)$$
(27)
where $`K(t)`$ is the heat kernel related to the Hamilton operator , which can be expanded for small $`t`$

$$K(t)=\underset{(n)}{}e^{t\lambda _{(n)}^2}\frac{e^{tm_e^2}}{(4\pi t)^{3/2}}\underset{j}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_jt^j,j=0,\frac{1}{2},1\mathrm{}$$
(28)
The $`A_j`$ are the heat-kernel coefficients related with the Hamiltonian operator. By means of (27) and (28) we can expand the ground state energy in powers of the mass and get

$$^{sc}=\underset{j}{}\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+j2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}m_e^{42(s+j)}A_j$$
(29)
in which the divergent contribution can be isolated

$`_{div}^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^4}{64\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{m_e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)A_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^3}{24\pi ^{3/2}}}A_{1/2}`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{32\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{m_e^2}}1\right)A_1+{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}A_{3/2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^2}{m_e^2}}2\right)A_2.`$
In this definition the poles are all contained in the three terms corresponding to the heat kernel coefficients $`A_0,A_1,A_2`$, however we included in $`_{div}^{sc}`$ two more terms in order to satisfy a normalization condition, namely that the renormalized ground state energy vanishes for a field of infinite mass

$$\underset{m_e\mathrm{}}{lim}_{ren}^{sc}=0.$$
(31)
This condition fixes a unique value for the vacuum energy of a massive field. It is also necessary to eliminate the arbitrariness of the mass parameter $`\mu `$. This normalization condition must of course be changed if one desires to investigate massless fields. In paper  the interested reader can find further details and comments about the procedure briefly summarized in this subsection.

### 2.3 The Jost function and its asymptotics

We focus our attention on the Jost function $`f_m(k)`$ related with the delta function potential of the magnetic string.

We have defined a field in the outer region $`r>R`$ and a field in the inner region $`r<R`$, we now need some matching conditions on the boundary $`r=R`$. As the delta function is a continuous function, we will require that the field is continuous on the boundary. From this condition and from the field equation (12) it follows directly that the first derivative of the field must be continuous on the boundary:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }^O(r)|_{r=R}\hfill & =& \mathrm{\Phi }^I(r)|_{r=R}\hfill \\ _r\mathrm{\Phi }^O(r)|_{r=R}\hfill & =& _r\mathrm{\Phi }^I(r)|_{r=R}\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
and with the use of solution (16) and (17)

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_m(kR)\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}(f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kR)+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kR))\hfill \\ _rJ_m(kr)|_{r=R}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}_r(f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr))|_{r=R}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Solving for $`f_m(k)`$ one finds

$$f_m(k)=\frac{2(_rJ_m(kr)|_{r=R}H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kR)_rH_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr)|_{r=R}J_m(kR))}{H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kR)_rH_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr)|_{r=R}H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kR)_rH_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)|_{r=R}},$$
(34)
which with the use of the Wronskian determinant for the Hankel functions  becomes

$$f_m(k)=\frac{2\pi kR}{4i}\left[J_m(kR)H_{m\beta +1}^{(1)}J_{m+1}(kR)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kR)+\frac{\beta }{kR}J_m(kR)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kR)\right].$$
(35)
The corresponding Jost function on the imaginary axis can be written in terms of modified Bessel I and Bessel K functions

$$f_m(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_mK_{m\beta +1}+I_{m+1}K_{m\beta }\right]+i^\beta \beta I_mK_{m\beta }.$$
(36)
where the arguments $`(kR)`$ of the Bessel functions are omitted for simplicity. Eq. (36) can be written in a more compact form

$$f_m(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_m^{}K_{m\beta }+I_mK_{m\beta }^{}\right].$$
(37)
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the argument. This expression holds for positive and for negative values of $`m`$. On the contrary the uniform asymptotic expansion, which we need for eq.(24) and (25), is a different function for positive or for negative $`m`$. To find it we write the Bessel I and K functions of eq.(36) in the form

$$I_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{}),K_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{}),z^{}=kR/(m+\alpha ),$$
(38)
where $`\alpha `$ can be $`0`$ or $`1`$ for the Bessel I function and $`\beta `$ or $`\beta +1`$ for the Bessel K function. Their expansions for large positive orders are well known , for instance $`K_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{})`$ is expanded as

$$K_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{})\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2(m+\alpha )}}\frac{e^{(m+\alpha )\eta ^{}}}{(1+z^2)^{1/4}}\left\{1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^j\frac{u_j([1+z^2]^{1/2})}{(m+\alpha )^j}\right\},$$
(39)
where $`\eta =\sqrt{1+z^2}+\mathrm{ln}(\frac{z^{}}{1+\sqrt{1+z^2}})`$ and the $`u_j(x)`$ are the Debye polynomials in the variable $`x`$. However we are interested in an expansion in powers of the variable $`m`$ alone: an expansion of the form

$$K_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{})\underset{n}{}\frac{X_n}{m^n},$$
(40)
where the $`X_n`$ are some coefficients depending on $`k,R`$ and $`\beta `$. Therefore we make the substitution $`z^{}z\left(\frac{m}{m+\alpha }\right)`$, with $`z=KR/m`$ in the argument of the Bessel function and we rewrite its expansion as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K_{m+\alpha }((m+\alpha )z^{})\hfill & & \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2(m+\alpha )}}\frac{e^{(m+\alpha )\eta }}{(1+\left(z\frac{m}{m+\alpha }\right)^2)^{1/4}}\hfill \\ & & \left\{1+_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^j\frac{u_j([1+\left(z\frac{m}{m+\alpha }\right)^2]^{1/2})}{m^j\left(1+\frac{\alpha }{m}\right)^j}\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
with the obvious change for $`\eta ^{}`$. Then, re-expanding in powers $`1/m^n`$ we get

$$K_{m+\alpha }(kR)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2m}}\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}m^nS_K(n,\alpha ,t)\},$$
(42)
where $`t=(1+z^2)^{1/2}`$ and the functions $`S_K(n,\alpha ,t)`$ are given explicitly in the Appendix. The corresponding expansion of the Bessel I function in negative powers of $`m`$ will be

$$I_{m+\alpha }(kR)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi m}}\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{n=1}{\overset{3}{}}m^nS_I(n,\alpha ,t)\},$$
(43)
where the functions $`S_I(n,\alpha ,t)`$ are given in the appendix. Inserting these expansions in (36) one finds an asymptotic Jost function valid for positive $`m`$, we name it $`f_m^{as+}(ik)`$. To find the asymptotics for negative $`m`$ we must take the Jost function in its form

$$f_m(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_mK_{m+\beta 1}+I_{m1}K_{m+\beta }\right]+i^\beta \beta I_mK_{m+\beta },$$
(44)
which is identical to (36) because of the property of the modified Bessel functions

$$I_l(x)=I_l(x),K_p(x)=I_p(x),$$
(45)
where $`l`$ is any natural number and $`p`$ any real number. Then in (44) a large positive index always correspond to a large negative $`m`$ and inserting (42) and (43) in (44) we find an asymptotic Jost function valid for negative $`m`$, we call it $`f_m^{as}(ik)`$.

For $`m=0`$, the asymptotic Jost function can be obtained from (36), using the expansions

$$I_\nu (z)\frac{e^z}{\sqrt{2\pi z}}\left\{1\frac{\mu 1}{8z}+\frac{(\mu 1)(\mu 9)}{2!(8z)^2}\mathrm{}\right\},\mu =4\nu ^2;$$
(46)
$$K_\nu (z)\frac{\sqrt{\pi }e^z}{\sqrt{2z}}\left\{1+\frac{\mu 1}{8z}+\frac{(\mu 1)(\mu 9)}{2!(8z)^2}+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(47)
we call this contribution $`f_0^{as}(ik)`$. The finite and the asymptotic part of the energy defined in (24),(25) are also split into three contributions: one for positive $`m`$, one for negative $`m`$ and one for $`m=0`$. The positive and negative contributions can be summed up in a single term, but the contribution coming from $`m=0`$ must be calculated separately and summed just numerically at the end, in fact we have

$`_f^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_s({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}dk(k^2+m_e^2)_k(\mathrm{ln}f_m^\pm (ik)\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik))`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}dk(k^2+m_e^2)_k(\mathrm{ln}f_0(ik)\mathrm{ln}f_0^{as}(ik)),)`$
and

$`_{as}^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_s({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}dk(k^2+m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik)`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}dk(k^2+m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_0^{as}(ik)_{div}^{sc}),`$
where $`f_m^\pm =f_m(ik)+f_m(ik)`$ and $`f_m^{as\pm }(ik)=f_m^{as+}(ik)+f_m^{as}(ik)`$.

Taking the logarithm of $`f_m^{as+}(ik)`$ and $`f_m^{as}(ik)`$ and re-expanding in powers of $`m`$ we find the functions needed in the integrands of (48)(49) up to the desired order. We are interested in $`\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}f_0^{as}(ik)`$ up to the third order, they read

$$\mathrm{ln}f_0^{as}=\frac{\beta ^2}{2kR},$$
(50)
$$\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik)=\underset{n}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{t}{}X_{n,j}\frac{t^j}{m^n},$$
(51)
where $`t=1/(1+(kR/m)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the nonzero coefficients are

$$\begin{array}{c}X_{1,1}=\beta ^2,X_{2,4}=\beta ^2/4,\hfill \\ X_{3,3}=\beta ^2/24\beta ^4/12,X_{3,5}=\beta ^2/2+\beta ^4/4,\hfill \\ X_{3,7}=\beta ^4/16.\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
As we mentioned above three orders are sufficient for the convergence of $`_f^{sc}`$. More orders could have been included in definition (50) and (51) to let the sum and the integral in (48) converge more rapidly<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 We would like to stress that with the introduction of asymptotic expansions in our calculation we do not approximate the vacuum energy. The total energy as defined in (22) remains an exact quantity. The uniform asymptotics of the Jost function is just a mathematical tool which permits the analytical continuation $`s0`$..

### 2.4 The asymptotic part of the energy and the heat kernel coefficients

Having found the Jost function related to the cylindrical delta potential an important part of the calculation is done. We proceed with the analytical simplification of $`_{as}^{sc}`$. The second term in (49) which we name $`_{as0}^{sc}`$, can be quickly calculated inserting in it the result (50). We find

$$_{as0}^{sc}=\frac{\beta ^2m_e}{4\pi R}.$$
(53)
The first term in (49), which we name here $`_{as(m)}^{sc}`$ contains the sum over $`m`$ which can be carried out with the Abel-Plana formula

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F(m)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑mF(m)\frac{1}{2}F(0)+_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}\frac{F(im)F(im)}{i}.$$
(54)
In our case is

$$F(m)=_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2+m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik).$$
(55)
Thus $`_{as(m)}^{sc}`$ is split into three addends:

$$_{as1}^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}C_s_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2+m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_m^{as\pm }(ik)$$
(56)
$$_{as2}^{sc}=\frac{1}{4}C_sF(0),$$
(57)
$$_{as3}^{sc}=\frac{1}{2}C_s_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}\frac{F(im)F(im)}{i}.$$
(58)
The contributions $`_{as1}^{sc}`$ and $`_{as2}^{sc}`$ can be calculated with the formulas given in appendix B. The result is

$$_{as1}^{sc}=\frac{\beta ^2m_e^2}{8\pi }\left(\frac{1}{s}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{m_e^2}\right)1\right)\frac{\beta ^2m_e}{32R},$$
(59)
$$_{as2}^{sc}=\frac{\beta ^2m_e}{4\pi R}\frac{\beta ^2}{96\pi m_eR^3}+\frac{\beta ^4}{48\pi m_eR^3}.$$
(60)
The divergences are all contained in the first term of $`_{as1}^{sc}`$. The first term of $`_{as2}^{sc}`$ will cancel with $`_{as0}^{sc}`$ and it remains only one term containing a positive power of the mass. This term is the contribution to $`_{sc}^{div}`$ corresponding to the heat kernel coefficient $`A_{3/2}`$ (see eq.(30)) and therefore it will be subtracted as well as the pole term.

The last contribution to $`_{as}^{sc}`$ is $`_{as3}^{sc}`$, whose calculation demands a little more work. Using the formula displayed in appendix B to calculate the integral over $`k`$, we we find

$$_{as3}^{sc}=(1)\frac{1}{2}C_s\underset{n,j}{}X_{n,j}\left[m_e^{22s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s)\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,j}(m_eR),$$
(61)
where the functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,j}(m_eR)`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,j}(x)\hfill & =& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+j/21)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j/2)x^j}[_0^x\frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}\frac{m^{jn}2\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\pi }{2}(jn)\right]}{\left[1\frac{m^2}{x^2}\right]^{s+j/21}}\hfill \\ & & +_x^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm}{1e^{s\pi m}}\frac{m^{jn}2\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi (1sn/2)\right]}{\left[\frac{m^2}{x^2}1\right]^{s+j/21}}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
We have calculated these functions by partial integration for $`n3`$ and $`j7`$ and we show them explicitly in the appendix B. By means of those functions and of the coefficients (52) we find

$`_{as3}^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\sqrt{m_e^2(m_eR)^2}`$ (63)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{24\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{12\pi R^2}}\right){\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m_e^2(m_eR)^2}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6\pi R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{12\pi R^2}}\right){\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m_e^2(m_eR)^2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{24\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left(\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m_e^2(m_eR)^2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2m_e}{16R}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi m_eR}}},`$
where the prime in the integrands denotes derivative with respect to $`m`$. The last term in (63) goes to zero for $`m_e\mathrm{}`$ and therefore must be included in the renormalized energy, however, given its exponential behaviour, it does not contribute to the heat kernel coefficients. The heat kernel coefficients, which we have calculated up to the coefficient $`A_{7/2}`$ (including four more orders in $`\mathrm{ln}f^{as\pm }(ik)`$), read

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}A_0\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& A_{1/2}& =& 0\hfill \\ A_1\hfill & =& 4\pi \beta ^2\hfill & ,& A_{3/2}& =& \frac{\beta ^2\pi ^{3/2}}{2R}\hfill \\ A_2\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& A_{5/2}& =& \frac{[(3\pi 128)\beta ^2+(25618\pi )\beta ^4]\pi ^{1/2}}{384R^3}\hfill \\ A_3\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& A_{7/2}& =& \frac{(27\beta ^2100\beta ^4+80\beta ^6)\pi ^{3/2}}{24576R^5}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We perform the subtraction proposed in (22) and we obtain the final result

$`_{as}^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{\pi R^2}}h_1(m_eR)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{24\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{12\pi R^2}}\right)h_2(m_eR)`$ (64)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{6\pi R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{12\pi R^2}}\right)h_3(m_eR)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{24\pi R^2}}h_4(m_eR){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{96\pi m_eR^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{48\pi m_eR^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2m_e}{16R}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi m_eR}}}.`$
The functions $`h_n(x)`$ are given by

$`h_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`h_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`h_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`h_4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left(\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2};`$ (65)
they are all convergent integrals which can be easily numerically calculated. The finite part of the ground state energy given by (48) can be integrated by parts giving

$`_f^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[f_m^\pm (ik){\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}X_{n,j}{\displaystyle \frac{t^j}{m^n}}\right]`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[f_0(ik){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2kR}}\right],`$
where the coefficient $`X_{n,j}`$ are given by (52), $`t=1/(1+(kR/m)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and

$$f_m^\pm (ik)=kR\left[i^\beta \left(I_m^{}K_{m\beta }+I_mK_{m\beta }^{}\right)+i^\beta \left(I_m^{}K_{m+\beta }+I_mK_{m+\beta }^{}\right)\right],$$
(67)
$$f_0(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_0^{}K_\beta +I_0K_\beta ^{}\right].$$
(68)
Equations(65) and (67) are to be considered the main analytical result of this paper concerning the scalar field. Their sum gives the total renormalized vacuum energy. The sum will be performed in the numerical part of this paper.

## 3 Spinor field in the background of a magnetic string

### 3.1 Solution of the field equation

The analysis of a spinor field in the background of a cylindrical magnetic field with an arbitrary profile has been performed in . The field equation for a spinor field

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1(r)\\ g_2(r)\end{array}\right)$$
(69)
in the background of a translationally invariant potential, with delta function profile is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}p_0m_e\hfill & _r\frac{m\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)}{r}\hfill \\ _r\frac{m+1\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)}{r}\hfill & p_0+m_e\hfill \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1(r)\\ g_2(r)\end{array}\right)=0.$$
(70)
The reader is referred to paper  for a derivation of this equation. Let us find the solution to (71) for one component of the spinor<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2We are not interested here in the complete set of solutions to eq.(71), the solution for $`g_2(r)`$ is sufficient to find the Jost function of the scattering problem. The decoupled equation for the component $`g_1(r)`$ is however indispensable and it will be used later.. The decoupled equation for the component $`g_2`$ is

$$\left(k^2\frac{\left[m\beta \mathrm{\Theta }(Rr)\right]^2}{r^2}+\frac{\beta }{r}\delta (Rr)+\frac{1}{r}_r+_r^2\right)g_2(r)=0,$$
(71)
where $`k=\sqrt{p_0^2m_e^2}`$. The solution in the region $`r<R`$ is

$$g_2^I(r)=J_m(kr).$$
(72)
and in the region $`r>R`$

$$g_2^O(r)=\frac{1}{2}\left[f_m^{spin}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}(kr)+f_m^{spin^{}}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}(kr)\right],$$
(73)
here $`f_m^{spin}(k)`$ and $`f_m^{spin^{}}(k)`$ are the Jost function and its conjugate related to the scattering problem for the spinor field. Solutions (73) and (74) have the same form as those found in the scalar case for the inner and outer space. However at $`r=R`$ the field has not the same form, as we discuss below, owing to the presence of the term $`\frac{\beta }{r}\delta (Rr)`$ in the field equation (72).

The ground state energy of the spinor field in the background of the magnetic string is

$$E_0=\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\underset{n,\alpha ,\sigma }{}ϵ_{(n,\alpha ,\sigma )}^{12s},$$
(74)
where the minus sign accounts for the change of the statistics, and the $`ϵ_{(n,\alpha ,\sigma )}`$ are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian

$$H=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^l\left(_{x^l}ieA_l(x)\right)+\gamma ^0m_e.$$
(75)
The degree of freedom $`\sigma `$ accounts for the two independent spin states. As in the scalar case we calculate the energy for a section of the string. The ground state energy density per unit length of the string in terms of the Jost function is given by

$$^{spin}=C_s\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2m_e^2)^{1s}_k\mathrm{ln}f_m^{spin}(ik).$$
(76)
The renormalization scheme is the same we introduced for the scalar case. The expansion of the ground state energy in powers of the mass and the definition of $`_{div}^{spin}`$ are the same as in (29), (30), apart from a factor $`1`$ coming from the change of the statistics. The heat kernel coefficients will be of course not the same, we call them $`B_n`$ to distinguish them from those of the scalar problem. The normalization condition (31) remains unchanged. The ground state energy is split into the two parts

$$_f^{spin}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k[k^2m_e^2]\frac{}{k}[\mathrm{ln}f_m^{spin}(ik)\mathrm{ln}f_m^{asspin}(ik)]$$
(77)
and

$$_{as}^{spin}=C_s\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k[k^2m_e^2]^{1s}\frac{}{k}\mathrm{ln}f_m^{asspin}(ik)_{div}^{spin},$$
(78)
where $`f_m^{asspin}(ik)`$ is the uniform asymptotic expansion of the Jost function taken up to the third order in $`m`$. In (78) the analytical continuation $`s0`$ has already been performed, while in $`_{as}^{spin}`$ it will be performed after the subtraction of the divergent portion. (79) is a finite quantity for $`s=0`$.

### 3.2 Matching conditions and Jost function

The matching conditions for the field on the surface of the string are not the same as in the scalar case. More exactly the condition for the first derivative of the field at $`r=R`$ is different from the one in the scalar case. The field is free inside the magnetic cylinder i.e. independent from $`\beta `$, then from eq.(71) and (73) we have

$$kg_1^I(r)+_rg_2^I(r)\frac{m}{r}g_2^I(r)=0$$
(79)
and outside the cylinder

$$kg_1^O(r)+_rg_2^O(r)\frac{m\beta }{r}g_2^O(r)=0,$$
(80)
the continuity of the field on the boundary is required as in the scalar case:

$$g_2^I(r)|_{r=R}=g_2^O(r)|_{r=R},g_1^I(r)|_{r=R}=g_1^O(r)|_{r=R},$$
(81)
therefore, combining (80),(81) and (82) we find

$$(_rg_2^I(r))|_{r=R}(_rg_2^O(r))|_{r=R}=\frac{\beta }{r}g_2^I(r).$$
(82)
Finally, the matching conditions at $`r=R`$ read

$$\{\begin{array}{c}g_2^I(r)|_{r=R}=g_2^O(r)|_{r=R}\hfill \\ (_rg_2^I(r))|_{r=R}(_rg_2^O(r))|_{r=R}=\frac{\beta }{r}g_2^I(r)|_{r=R}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(83)
Inserting in (84) solutions (73) and (74) we get the system

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_m^{}\frac{1}{2}\left[f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}\right]=\frac{\beta }{kR}J_m\hfill & & \\ J_m=\frac{1}{2}\left[f_m(k)H_{m\beta }^{(2)}+f_m^{}(k)H_{m\beta }^{(1)}\right]\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(84)
for positive $`m`$, and the system

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_m^{}\frac{1}{2}\left[f_m(k)H_{\beta m}^{(2)}+f_m^{}(k)H_{\beta m}^{(1)}\right]=\frac{\beta }{kR}J_m\hfill & & \\ J_m=\frac{1}{2}\left[f_m(k)H_{\beta m}^{(2)}+f_m^{}(k)H_{\beta m}^{(1)}\right]\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(85)
for negative $`m`$. In (85) and (86) the argument $`(kR)`$ of the Bessel and of the Hankel functions has been omitted for simplicity and the prime symbol indicates derivative with respect to this argument. Much in the same way as we did in the scalar case we find the Jost functions on the imaginary axis

$$f_m^{spin+}(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_mK_{m\beta +1}+I_{m+1}K_{m\beta }\right],m>0$$
(86)
$$f_m^{spin}(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_mK_{m\beta +1}+I_{m+1}K_{m\beta }\right],m<0.$$
(87)
The two Jost functions are identical apart form the sign on the exponent of the imaginary factor. However formula (77) for the ground state energy contains the logarithm of the Jost function and the derivative with respect to $`k`$, then the imaginary factor $`i^{\pm \beta }`$ which is independent of $`k`$ will not contribute to the energy.

For the calculation of the asymptotic Jost function we found more convenient to use instead of $`m`$ the expansion parameter $`\nu `$ given by

$$\nu =\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m+1/2& rmfor& m=0,1,2\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill m1/2& rmfor& m=1,2,\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(88)
with $`\nu =\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}`$ in both cases. Then the Jost functions (87) and (88) become

$$f_\nu ^+(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu \frac{1}{2}\beta }+I_{\nu \frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}\beta }\right],m0$$
(89)
which can be expanded for large positive $`m`$

$$f_\nu ^{}(ik)=i^\beta kR\left[I_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu \frac{1}{2}+\beta }+I_{\nu \frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}+\beta }\right],m<0$$
(90)
which can be expanded for large negative $`m`$. The asymptotic expansions of the Bessel I and K functions for $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ equally large are given by

$$I_{\nu +\alpha }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \nu }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}x^nS_I(n,\alpha ,t)\right\},$$
(91)
$$K_{\nu +\alpha \pm \beta }\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{2\nu }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\underset{n=1}{}x^nS_K(n,\alpha ,t)\right\},$$
(92)
where $`x1/\nu `$, the functions $`S_I(n,\alpha ,t)`$, $`S_K(n,\alpha ,t)`$ are the same as in the scalar case and $`\alpha `$ takes the values $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ for the Bessel I function and $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\pm \beta `$ for the Bessel K function. From these formulas the logarithm of the asymptotic Jost function can be easily calculated up to the third order and we define

$$\mathrm{ln}f_\nu ^{asspin}(ik)=\underset{j,n}{\overset{3}{}}Y_{j,n}\frac{t^j}{\nu ^n},$$
(93)
where $`t=1/(1+(kR/\nu )^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the nonzero coefficients are

$$\begin{array}{c}Y_{1,1}=\beta ^2,Y_{2,2}=\beta ^2/4,Y_{2,4}=\beta ^2/4,\hfill \\ Y_{3,3}=\beta ^2/6\beta ^4/12,Y_{3,5}=7\beta ^2/8+\beta ^4/4,\hfill \\ Y_{3,7}=5\beta ^2/8.\hfill \end{array}$$
(94)
### 3.3 The asymptotic and the finite part of the energy

The asymptotic part of the energy can be written, using result (94), as

$$_{as}^{spin}=C_s\underset{\nu =\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k[k^2m_e^2]^{1s}\frac{}{k}\underset{j,n}{\overset{3}{}}Y_{j,n}\frac{t^j}{\nu ^n}_{div}^{spin},$$
(95)
we calculate the sum over $`\nu `$ with the help of the Abel Plana formula for half integer variables which can be found in the appendix. The case $`m=0`$ i.e. $`\nu =1/2`$ does not need to be treated separately. We have only the two contributions

$$_{as1}^{spin}=\frac{\beta ^2m_e^2}{4\pi }\left(\frac{1}{s}+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{m_e^2}\right)1\right)\frac{\beta ^2m_e}{16R}$$
(96)
and

$$_{as2}^{spin}=C_s\underset{n,j}{\overset{3,7}{}}Y_{n,j}(m_e^{22s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s))\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,j}(m_eR).$$
(97)
The functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,j}(x)`$ are given in the appendix. They correspond to the functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,j}(x)`$ found in paper  for a generic smooth background potential. The only pole term is contained in $`_{as1}^{spin}`$ and the term proportional to $`m_e`$ will be subtracted as well as the pole term, thus (97) cancels completely with the subtraction of $`_{div}^{spin}`$. The heat kernel coefficients which we have calculated up to the coefficient $`B_4`$, read

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}B_0\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& B_{1/2}& =& 0\hfill \\ B_1\hfill & =& 8\pi \beta ^2\hfill & ,& B_{3/2}& =& \beta ^2\pi ^{3/2}/R\hfill \\ B_2\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& B_{5/2}& =& \frac{(3\beta ^2+2\beta ^4)\pi ^{3/2}}{64R^3}\hfill \\ B_3\hfill & =& 0\hfill & ,& B_{7/2}& =& \frac{(135\beta ^268\beta ^4+16\beta ^6)\pi ^{3/2}}{12288R^5}\hfill \\ B_4\hfill & =& \frac{5\beta ^8}{1281R^6}\hfill & .& & & \end{array}$$

After the subtraction of $`_{div}^{spin}`$ the asymptotic part of the energy reads

$`_{as}^{spin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta ^2}{\pi R^2}}q_1(m_R)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{3\pi R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{6\pi R^2}}\right)q_2(m_eR)`$ (98)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{7\beta ^2}{12\pi R^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^4}{6\pi R^2}}\right)q_3(m_eR){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{12\pi R^2}}q_4(m_eR),`$
the functions $`q_n(x)`$ are

$`q_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`q_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`q_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu \left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`q_4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu \left(\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^3}{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}.`$ (99)
It is interesting to note how in both scalar and spinor cases we found the final expression for the asymptotic part of the energy to depend only on even powers of $`\beta `$. This was to expect for physical reasons, infact, inverting the direction of the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ the ground state energy should not change.

The finite part of the energy $`_f^{spin}`$ can be hardly analytically simplified. We can only integrate expression (78) by parts to obtain a final form which is suitable for the numerical calculation:

$`_f^{spin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[\mathrm{ln}f_\nu ^\pm (ik){\displaystyle \underset{n,j}{\overset{3,7}{}}}Y_{n,j}{\displaystyle \frac{t^j}{\nu ^n}}\right],`$ (100)
where

$`f_\nu ^\pm (ik)`$ $`=`$ $`kR\{(I_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu \frac{1}{2}\beta }+I_{\nu \frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}\beta })`$ (101)
$`+(I_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu \frac{1}{2}+\beta }+I_{\nu \frac{1}{2}}K_{\nu +\frac{1}{2}+\beta })\}`$
.

## 4 Numerical evaluations

In this section we show some graphics of $`_{as}`$, $`_f`$ and of the complete renormalized vacuum energy $`_{ren}`$ as a function of the radius of the string, for the scalar and for the spinor field. We calculate also the asymptotic behavior of $`_{as}`$ and $`_f`$ for large and for small $`R`$. Since we want to study here only the dependence on $`R`$ and on $`\beta `$, we set $`m_e=1`$ for all the calculations of this section.

### 4.1 Scalar field

As a first step we rewrite $`_{as}^{sc}`$ in a form in which the dependence on the relevant parameters is more explicit:

$$_{as}^{sc}=\frac{1}{\pi R^2}\left[\beta ^2g_1(m_eR)+\beta ^4g_2(m_eR)\right],$$
(102)
with

$`g_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_1(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}h_2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h_3(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}h_4(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{96x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{16(1e^{2\pi x})}}\right),`$
$`g_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}h_2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}h_3(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48x}}\right).`$ (103)
the asymptotic behaviour of the $`h_n(x)`$ functions for $`x0`$ is found to be

$`h_1(x)`$ $``$ $`1/24+𝒪(x),`$
$`h_2(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x0.0575+𝒪(x),`$
$`h_3(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x+0.442+𝒪(x),`$
$`h_4(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x+1.826+𝒪(x);`$ (104)
the corresponding behaviour of the functions $`g_n(x)`$ is

$`g_1(x)`$ $``$ $`0.0317+𝒪(x),`$
$`g_2(x)`$ $``$ $`0.0417+𝒪(x).`$ (105)
The logarithmic contributions have cancelled. This was to expect also from the vanishing of the heat kernel coefficient $`A_2`$. $`_{as}^{sc}`$ is proportional to $`R^2`$ for $`R0`$ and for an arbitrary $`\beta `$. For $`R\mathrm{}`$ all the $`h_n(x)`$ functions fall exponentially and so does $`_{as}^{sc}`$.

The finite part $`_f^{sc}`$ is also proportional to $`R^2`$ in the limit $`R0`$, it can be seen substituting $`kk/R`$ in the integrands of expression (67)

$`_f^{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[f_m^\pm (ik)|_{kk/R}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t}{}}X_{n,j}{\displaystyle \frac{t^j}{m^n}}\right]`$ (106)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle _{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[f_0(ik)|_{kk/R}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2k}}\right],`$
where the Jost functions are now independent of $`R`$. We name the first addend in (108) $`_{fm}^{sc}`$ and second addend $`_{f0}^{sc}`$, in the plots we will display them separately. For large $`R`$ we found numerically $`_f^{sc}R^3`$, which is in agreement with the heat kernel coefficient $`A_{5/2}`$ shown in (64), in fact the first non vanishing heat kernel coefficient after $`A_2`$ determines the behaviour of the renormalized energy for $`R\mathrm{}`$. Below we show the plots of all the contributions to the renormalized ground state energy. The functions $`g1(x)`$ and $`g1(x)`$ are shown as well. Each contribution has been multiplied by $`R^2`$ so that all the curves take a finite value at $`R=0`$. We found necessary to sum up to $`20`$ in the parameter $`m`$ an to integrate up to $`1000`$ in the $`k`$ variable in order to obtain reliable plots. All the calculations where performed with computer programming relying on a precision of $`34`$ digits.

### 4.2 Spinor field

The asymptotic part of the energy is rewritten in the form

$$_{as}^{spin}=\frac{1}{12\pi R^2}\left[\beta ^2e_1(m_eR)+\beta ^4e_2(m_eR)\right],$$
(107)
with

$`e_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(24q_1(x)4q_2(x)+7q_3(x)q_4(x)\right),`$
$`e_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(q_2(x)q_3(x)\right).`$ (108)
The asymptotic behaviour of the $`q_n(x)`$ functions for $`x0`$ is

$`q_1(x)`$ $``$ $`1/48+𝒪(x),`$
$`q_2(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x+0.635+𝒪(x),`$
$`q_3(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x+1.135+𝒪(x),`$
$`q_4(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}x+3.906+𝒪(x)`$ (109)
and the corresponding behaviour of the $`e_n(x)`$ functions is

$`e_1(x)`$ $``$ $`2+𝒪(x),`$
$`e_2(x)`$ $``$ $`1+𝒪(x);`$ (110)
therefore $`_{as}^{spin}`$ behaves like $`R^2`$ for small values of $`R`$. For $`R\mathrm{}`$ $`_{as}^{spin}`$ falls like $`e^R`$.

The finite part of the energy can be rewritten as

$`_f^{spin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =\frac{1}{2}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{m_eR}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\left[\mathrm{ln}f_\nu ^\pm (ik)|_{kk/R}{\displaystyle \underset{n,j}{\overset{3,7}{}}}Y_{n,j}{\displaystyle \frac{t^j}{\nu ^n}}\right],`$ (111)
which is proportional to $`R^2`$ for $`R0`$ and to $`R^3`$ for $`R\mathrm{}`$ in agreement with the heat kernel coefficient $`B_{5/2}`$. We give the plots of the functions $`e_1(x)`$, $`e_2(x)`$ of $`_{as}^{spin}`$, $`_f^{spin}`$ and of $`_{ren}^{spin}`$, for small and for large values of the potential strength. The same remarks which we made in the scalar case about the numerical limits of summation and integration and about the precision employed in the computer graphics are valid here.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have carried out a complete calculation of the vacuum energy of two different fields in the background of a magnetic string with delta function profile. The renormalized vacuum energy is given in terms of convergent integrals (eq.(65) and (67) for the scalar field, eq.(100) and (102) for the spinor field). A first remark can be made about the vanishing of the heat kernel coefficient $`A_2`$ in both scalar and spinor cases. This coefficient, contributing to $`_{div}`$, is not zero for a generic background potential. The vanishing of $`A_2`$ is also observed in a dielectric spherical shell with a squared profile . It could be argued that singular profiles possess less ultraviolet divergences than smooth profiles. This statement is also confirmed by the heat kernel coefficients calculated in .

The dependence of the sign of the energy on the radius $`R`$ of the string and on the potential strength $`\beta `$ is non trivial. In the scalar case the energy is negative only for large values of the potential strength, while for $`\beta `$ smaller than one, the energy shows a positive maximum (Fig. 5). In the spinor case we have almost an opposite situation (Fig. 10): in the region $`R<1`$ the energy shows a negative minimum for $`\beta <1`$, while it is positive for $`\beta >1`$. However, when $`R`$ becomes large the vacuum energy shows the same behaviour for the scalar and for the spinor field: it is negative for large $`\beta `$ and positive for small $`\beta `$. This strong dependence on the parameter $`\beta `$ was not observed in paper , where an homogeneous field inside the flux tube was investigated. In fact the most relevant result of our calculation is that the energy numerically shows a dependence on $`\beta ^4`$ for large $`\beta `$. In  the contributions proportional to $`\beta ^4`$ cancelled and the parts proportional to $`\beta ^2`$ dominated the renormalized energy. The proportionality $`_{ren}\beta ^4`$ opens the possibility that the inhomogeneity of the magnetic field could render the vacuum energy larger than the classical energy of the string, when the boundary becomes sufficiently hard. The total energy of the system could, then, be dominated by the quantum contribution, in fact we have

$$E_{TOT}\underset{E_{class}}{\underset{}{\frac{\beta ^2𝒜}{\alpha R^2}}}+\underset{E_{vacuum}}{\underset{}{\frac{\beta ^2+\beta ^4𝒞}{R^2}}},$$
(112)
where $`𝒜`$, $``$ and $`𝒞`$ are numbers and $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant. However in the model studied here, the profile of the potential contains a delta function and the classical energy is infinite. It would be interesting to study an inhomogeneous magnetic field which does not contain singularities in order to have a finite classical energy and possibly a vacuum energy depending on $`\beta ^4`$. Unfortunately with more realistic potentials the calculations become more difficult. A feasible model would be that of a cylindrical shell with finite thickness and with a profile given by a finite height box. In this case the Jost function would be expressed in terms of Bessel functions and hypergeometric functions. This problem is left for future investigation.

## 6 Acknowledgments

I thank M. Bordag for advice.

## 7 Appendix A: List of the functions used for the asymptotic expansions of the modified Bessel functions

The functions $`S_I(n,\alpha ,t)`$ and $`S_k(n,\alpha ,t)`$ used in (42)(43) and (92)are

$`S_I(1,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1t}{1+t}}\right),`$
$`S_I(0,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}t{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{1t}}\right),`$
$`S_I(1,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{24}}(3+12\alpha ^2+12\alpha t+5t^2),`$
$`S_I(2,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{48}}[8\alpha ^3t+12\alpha ^2(1+2t^2)+\alpha (26t+30t^3)+3(16t^2+5t^4)],`$
$`S_I(3,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128}}(((25104\alpha ^2+16\alpha ^4)t^3)/3+16\alpha (7+4\alpha ^2)t^4`$ (113)
$`(531/5224\alpha ^2+16\alpha ^4)t^5(32\alpha (33+8\alpha ^2)t^6)/3`$
$`(221+200\alpha ^2)t^7240\alpha t^8(1105t^9)/9);`$
$`S_K(1,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1t}{1+t}}\right),`$
$`S_K(0,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}t+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+t}{1t}}\right),`$
$`S_K(1,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{24}}(3+12\alpha ^2+12\alpha t+5t^2),`$
$`S_K(2,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{48}}[8\alpha ^3t+12\alpha ^2(1+2t^2)+\alpha (26t+30t^3)+3(16t^2+5t^4)],`$
$`S_K(3,\alpha ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128}}((25104\alpha ^2+16\alpha ^4)t^3)/3+16\alpha (7+4\alpha ^2)t^4`$ (114)
$`(531/5+224\alpha ^216\alpha ^4)t^5(32\alpha (33+8\alpha ^2)t^6)/3`$
$`(221200\alpha ^2)t^7240\alpha t^8+(1105t^9)/9,`$
where $`t=1/(1+(kR/m)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in the scalar case and $`t=1/(1+(kR/\nu )^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in the spinor case.

## 8 Appendix B: Calculation of the integrals

The transformation of the sum in (96) into an integral has been done with the Abel-Plana formula for the summation over half integer numbers

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F(m+\frac{1}{2})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu F(\nu )+_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\nu }{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}\frac{F(i\nu )F(i\nu )}{i}.$$
(115)
The following formulas, taken from , have been used for the integration over $`m`$ and $`k`$ in $`_{as1}^{sc}`$, $`_{as2}^{sc}`$ and in $`_{as(1)}^{spin}`$ (eq.(56),(57) and (97))

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2m_e^2)^{1s}_k\frac{t^j}{m^n}=\frac{m_e^{22s}}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1+jn}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{n3}{2})}{(Rm_e)^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(j/2)},$$
(116)
where $`t=1/(1+(kR/m)^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in the scalar case and $`t=1/(1+(kR/\nu )^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in the spinor case. For the calculation of the integrals over $`k`$ in $`E_{as}^{(1)}`$ (eq. (58)) and in $`E_{as(2)}^{spin}`$ (eq.(98)) we used

$$_{m_e}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k(k^2m_e^2)^{1s}_k\frac{t^j}{m^n}=\frac{m_e^{22s}}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1+jn}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+\frac{n3}{2})}{(Rm_e)^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(j/2)},$$
(117)
from which one can derive expression (61) and the analogous expression for the spinor field. The functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n,j}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,j}(x)`$ up to $`n=3,j=7`$ read

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,4}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi x}}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,3}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1e^{2\pi m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,5}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{3,7}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\left(\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{1e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)^{}\sqrt{m^2x^2};`$ (118)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu }{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,3}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,5}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{1+e^{2\pi m}}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,7}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{15}}\left(\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^3}{1+e^{2\pi \nu }}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu }}\right)^{}\sqrt{\nu ^2x^2};`$ (119)