text:
# Role of Bond-Bond Interaction in the Extended Hubbard Chain

## 1 Introduction

The Hubbard model has been considered to be one of the simplest models to describe electrons in metals.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ However, since this model is derived by neglecting elements of the Coulomb integral except for the on-site term,$`^{\text{?)}}`$ it may be unsufficient to describe phenomena where the neglected interactions play essential roles. The most dominant interaction next to the on-site term is considered to be a nearest-neighbor density-density interaction $`V`$. The Hubbard model including the $`V`$ term is usually called “the extended Hubbard model”. In addition, site-off-diagonal elements of the Coulomb integral give bond-charge $`X`$ and bond-bond $`W`$ interactions. Recently, effects of the site-off diagonal terms are pointed out in the real materials.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In this paper, we consider the role of these site-off-diagonal interactions in one-dimensional (1D) cases, where non-perturbative treatment is possible.

For this purpose, we consider the following generalized Hubbard model in the half-filled band,

$``$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}B_{i,i+1}+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i+V{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_{i+1}`$ (1)
$`+W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(B_{i,i+1})^2+X{\displaystyle \underset{i,s}{}}B_{i,i+1,s}(n_{i,s}+n_{i+1,s})`$
$`+X^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,s}{}}B_{i,i+1,s}n_{i,s}n_{i+1,s},`$
where

$$B_{ijs}c_{is}^{}c_{js}+c_{js}^{}c_{is},B_{ij}\underset{s}{}B_{ijs}.$$
(2)
The three body term in eq. (1) ($`X^{}`$ term) is not derived from the generalized Coulomb integral. This term is justified, for example, as an effective interaction in the three band model.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In fact, the $`W`$ term is interpreted as an effective interaction in electron-phonon systems.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$

Analysis of this model ($`X^{}=0`$) in the half-filled band was performed by Campbell et al. ten years ago.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ They discussed the existence of charge-density-wave (CDW), “bond-order-wave (BOW)” and ferromagnetic (FM) phases, but they did not discuss all the phases in this model. Especially, the nature of the “BOW” phase was left ambiguous.

The property of this model can be clarified by the level-crossing approach which is based on the conformal field theory and the renormalization group. This method enables us to determine the phase boundaries with high accuracy from numerical data of the finite-size clusters. Using this technique, one of the authors obtained the phase diagram of the model (1) for $`W=0`$.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In this paper, we apply this approach to the case $`W0`$, and clarify the roles of the $`W`$ term.

The most important purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of the “BOW” phase. Japaridze first pointed out using the bosonization technique that two types of “BOW” phases may appear in half-filled 1D systems by the effect of the site-off-diagonal terms.$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The two “BOW” phases are bond-charge-density-wave (BCDW) and bond-spin-density-wave (BSDW) phases. Their order parameters are given by

$`𝒪_{\mathrm{BCDW}}(j)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^j{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}B_{j,j+1,s},`$ (3)
$`𝒪_{\mathrm{BSDW}}(j)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^j{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}sB_{j,j+1,s}.`$ (4)
Recently, Itoh et al. discovered that the BSDW state gives the exact ground state in some parameter region of a generalized Hubbard model.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ In this paper, by using the same argument, we discuss the exactly solvable cases of the present model (1), and clarify the relation to the numerical results.

## 2 Site-off-diagonal terms

To begin with, we consider the role of the site-off-diagonal terms by intuitive discussion. First, we consider roles of the bond-charge interaction ($`X,X^{}`$) terms. Throughout this paper, we fix the parameters as $`X^{}=2X`$ for simplicity. In this case, the bond-charge interaction terms are rewritten as

$$_X=X\underset{is}{}(c_{is}^{}c_{i+1,s}+\text{H.c.})(n_{i,s}n_{i+1,s})^2.$$
(5)
This term conserves SU(2)$``$SU(2)/Z(2) symmetry of the Hubbard model under the following canonical transformation,

$$c_jc_j,c_j(1)^jc_j^{}.$$
(6)
Hereafter, we call eq. (5) the $`X`$ term. In a hopping process of an electron with spin $`s`$, the hopping term and the $`X`$ term gives $`t`$ when the two sites have zero or two electrons with the opposite spin $`s`$, whereas they give $`t+X`$ when the two sites have one electron with spin $`s`$. Therefore, we can expect that electron pairs are stabilized when $`X<0`$.

Next, we consider roles of the bond-bond interaction ($`W`$) term. This term can be rewritten as

$$_W=4W\underset{i}{}(𝑺_i𝑺_{i+1}+𝜼_i𝜼_{i+1}\frac{1}{4}),$$
(7)
where $`𝑺_i`$ is the usual spin operator, and $`𝜼_i`$ denotes the $`\eta `$-pairing operator whose components are defined by

$$\eta _i^+=(1)^ic_i^{}c_i^{},\eta _i^{}=(1)^ic_ic_i,\eta _i^z=\frac{1}{2}(n_i1).$$
(8)
Thus, the $`W`$ term includes the spin exchange and the pair hopping. Since a pair hopping process gives an energy gain $`2W`$, one can expect that the dimer state is enhanced for $`W/t<0`$. In addition, for $`W/t>0`$, one can expect appearance of ferromagnetism for $`U/t1`$ and a phase separation (ferromagnetism in the $`\eta `$-pairing space) for $`U/t1`$.

Apparently, the $`W`$ term also conserve the SU(2) $``$ SU(2)/Z(2) symmetry of the Hubbard model, so that the present model keeps this symmetry when $`V=0`$. The SU(2) symmetry of the $`\eta `$-pairing is broken when $`V0`$, and the entire symmetry is reduced to U(1)$``$SU(2).

## 3 Weak-coupling region

The instability of the model in the weak-coupling limit can be discussed based on the g-ology.$`^{\text{?)}}`$ The low-energy behavior of eq. (1) at half-filling is described by two sine-Gordon models for the charge and the spin sectors. Then, the phase boundaries are determined in terms of the bare coupling constants. According to the results, the spin sector with SU(2) symmetry has a gap for

$$U<2V\delta g,$$
(9)
where $`\delta g=4X/\pi +8W`$. On the other hand, the charge sector with U(1) symmetry has a gap in the following region

$`V`$ $`>`$ $`0,U<\delta g,`$ (10)
$`U`$ $`>`$ $`2V+\delta g,U>\delta g.`$ (11)
This region is given by two Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition lines. Note that the BKT line given by $`V=0`$ reflects the SU(2) symmetry of the $`\eta `$-paring. In the charge-gap region, there is a valley of the gap, and the gap vanishes on the Gaussian transition line,

$$U=2V+\delta g,V<0.$$
(12)
In the g-ology analysis, both $`X`$ and $`W`$ appear only through $`\delta g`$, so that they play similar roles in the weak-coupling cases. For $`\delta g=0`$, CDW and spin-density-wave (SDW) phases appear in the charge-gap region, while in the metallic region, two phases appear where singlet or triplet superconducting (SS, TS) correlation is dominant. The BCDW appears for $`\delta g<0`$ while the BSDW appears for $`\delta g>0`$, between the CDW and the SDW phases.

Although the result of the g-ology is valid only in the weak-coupling limit, the description by the sine-Gordon model does not break down in the finite-coupling region, due to the concept of the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid. In this case, the instabilities described by the sine-Gordon model can be identified as level-crossings in the excitation spectra in finite-size systems. In this approach, logarithmic corrections are canceled on the transition points, and the dependence of the system size $`L`$ appears as $`𝒪(1/L^2)`$. This correction originates from the deviation from the linearized dispersion relation of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model. Therefore, phase diagrams can be obtained with high accuracy from the numerical data of the finite-size clusters. The detail of the level-crossing approach is discussed in ref. References.

## 4 Strong-coupling region

The differences between the role of the $`X`$ and the $`W`$ terms are clarified in the strong-coupling cases. First, we consider the transition between the phase-separated (PS) state and the SS phase, and the one between the SS and the CDW states. In the $`U/t1`$ region, the model can be mapped onto the spin-$`1/2`$ XXZ spin chain using the $`\eta `$-pairing operators defined in eq. (8) and the second-order perturbation theory:$`^{\text{?}\text{}\text{?}\text{)}}`$

$$_{\mathrm{XXZ}}=J\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\eta _i^+\eta _{i+1}^{}+\eta _i^{}\eta _{i+1}^+)+\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\eta _i^z\eta _{i+1}^z\frac{1}{4}\right)\right],$$
(13)
where

$$J=\frac{4(tX)^2}{|U|}4W,J\mathrm{\Delta }=J+4V.$$
(14)
In the XXZ spin chain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ gives a BKT-type transition between the XY (spin fluid) and the Néel states, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ gives the first-order transition between the XY and the ferromagnetic phases. In the present case, the PS, the SS and the CDW states correspond to the ferromagnetic, the XY and the Néel states, respectively. Therefore, $`V=0`$ gives the SS-CDW transition, and the asymptotic boundary of the SS-PS transition is given by

$$V=\frac{2(1\xi )^2t^2}{|U|}+2W,$$
(15)
where $`\xi X/t`$. Note that this result is valid only for $`W/t0`$, because the SS-PS boundary do not intersect the SS-CDW line ($`V=0`$) due to the property of the XXZ spin chain.

Next, we calculate the energies of the CDW and the SDW states by extending van Dongen’s perturbative expansion.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ Since the CDW state is described as a “Néel-ordered phase” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$) in the $`\eta `$-pairing space, the energy is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{CDW}}}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}+4|W|\epsilon _{\mathrm{XXZ}}(|V/W1|){\displaystyle \frac{2(1\xi )^2t^2}{(3v1)U}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\xi )^2\left[(36v^25v1)(1\xi )^28(3v1)v\right]t^4}{v(3v1)^3(4v1)U^3}},`$
where $`vV/U`$. $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{XXZ}}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the energy density of the XXZ spin chain (13) with $`J=1`$, in the Néel-ordered region ($`1<\mathrm{\Delta }`$),

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{XXZ}}(\mathrm{cosh}\theta )=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\theta }{1+\mathrm{e}^{2|n|\theta }},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. On the other hand, the perturbative expansion for the SDW state can be performed up to the fourth order, using the Bethe-ansatz result for the spin-$`1/2`$ Heisenberg chain as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{SDW}}}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`V\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1\xi )^2t^2}{(1v)U}}W\right]4\mathrm{ln}2`$
$`+9\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{(1\xi )^2\left[2(1\xi )^21+v\right]t^4}{(1v)^3U^3}}.`$
The expansion for the SDW state is valid only for $`W0`$.

The energies for the PS and the FM states are not affected by the perturbation in the thermodynamic limit. In the PS state, the system separates into two domains: doubly occupied sites and a vacuum.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ Then, the energy in the thermodynamic limit is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{PS}}=\frac{U+4V}{2}L.$$
(19)
On the other hand, the energy of the FM state is given by

$$E_{\mathrm{FM}}=VL.$$
(20)
Using the energies obtained above, we determine asymptotic forms of the four first-order transition lines by equating the energies as

$`E_{\mathrm{CDW}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{SDW}},`$ (21)
$`E_{\mathrm{CDW}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{FM}},`$ (22)
$`E_{\mathrm{SDW}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{PS}},`$ (23)
$`E_{\mathrm{FM}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{PS}}.`$ (24)
In the $`U,V\mathrm{}`$ limit, the CDW-SDW phase boundary is $`VU/2=2|W|(2\mathrm{ln}21)`$ for $`W0`$, while the CDW-FM phase boundary is $`VU/2=2W`$ for $`W>0`$. The FM-PS boundary is fixed at $`U=2V`$.

In the present strong-coupling theory, $`X`$ appears in the every order of $`t^{2n}/U^{2n1}`$ in the perturbation series, while $`W`$ appears only in the zeroth order. Therefore, the $`W`$ term plays roles to shift the boundary lines of the phase separation, the CDW-SDW and the CDW-FM transitions.

## 5 Exactly solvable case

We discuss the exact ground state of the BSDW state in the present model, using the argument in ref. References, where the three body term (the $`X^{}`$ term) is not included. The explicit wave functions for the BCDW and the BSDW states are given by products of “electron-hole dimers” as,

$`|\mathrm{BCDW}_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L/2}{}}}[2i1,2i]_s[2i1,2i]_s|0,`$ (25)
$`|\mathrm{BSDW}_s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{L/2}{}}}[2i1,2i]_s[2i,2i+1]_s|0,`$ (26)
where $`[i,j]_s\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_{is}^{}+c_{js}^{})`$. These “electron-hole dimers” can be interpreted as electrons located on the bonds.

Now, we consider a local operator $`h_{ijs}`$ for spin-$`s`$ which satisfies $`h_{ijs}[i,j]_s|0=0`$, and $`h_{ijs}|\mathrm{otherwise}0`$ for the other configurations. For example,

$`h_{ijs}^a`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ijs}+n_{is}+n_{js},`$ (27a)
$`h_{ijs}^b`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ijs}n_{is}n_{js}+2,`$ (27b)
$`h_{ijs}^c`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ijs}+1,`$ (27c)
$`h_{ijs}^d`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ijs}+B_{ijs}^2.`$ (27d)
If the total Hamiltonian is written in the following form using the local operators as

$$=\underset{ij}{}\lambda _jh_{i,i+1,}^{a_j}h_{i,i+1,}^{b_j},\lambda _j>0,$$
(28)
then $`|\mathrm{BSDW}_s=0`$. Therefore, the BSDW state is the exact ground state of this Hamiltonian.$`^{\text{?}\text{)}}`$ The present model (1) can be written using the above local operators as follows

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\frac{1\lambda }{2}(h_{i,i+1,}^ah_{i,i+1,}^a+h_{i,i+1,}^bh_{i,i+1,}^b)`$ (29)
$`+\lambda (h_{i,i+1,}^ch_{i,i+1,}^d+h_{i,i+1,}^dh_{i,i+1,}^c)],`$
where $`0\lambda 1`$, and the parameters and the ground-state energy of the model are

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`2V=2(1\lambda )t,`$ (30a)
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`X^{}/2=\lambda t,`$ (30b)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\lambda )t/2,`$ (30c)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`(1\lambda )tL.`$ (30d)
The Hamiltonian (1) has SU(2) symmetry under global rotation in the spin space. In other words, the operator for the total spin $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}^\alpha _iS_i^\alpha `$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, so that $`(S_{\mathrm{tot}}^+)^n|\mathrm{BSDW}_s`$ with $`nL/2`$ also gives the ground state. Therefore, the fully ferromagnetic (FM) state ($`n=L/2`$),

$$|\mathrm{FM}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}c_{is}^{}|0,$$
(31)
also degenerates with the BSDW state. This large degeneracy is consistent with the result of the bosonization theory where a BSDW is described as bond-located spins with gapless excitations.$`^{\text{?, ?)}}`$

In finite-size systems, there is no spontaneous breaking of the translational symmetry, so that the actual wave functions of the BSDW states are reconfigured by linear combinations of eq. (26) for $`s=`$ and $``$ as

$$|\mathrm{BSDW}_\pm =|\mathrm{BSDW}_{}\pm |\mathrm{BSDW}_{}.$$
(32)
These two states appear at two different wave numbers $`k=0,\pi `$. When the parameters of the model shifts from the exactly solvable case toward the spin-gapless region, the $`k=0`$ mode remains the ground state, while the $`k=\pi `$ mode gives the lowest excited state.

We can also construct a model which has a BCDW state as an exact ground state, if the local operators in eq. (28) is replaced as $`h_{i,i+1,}^{a_j}h_{i1,i,}^{a_j}`$. In this case, the obtained Hamiltonian includes interactions among three sites.

## 6 Numerical results

Using the level-crossing approach as in the same way of ref. References, we determine the phase diagrams of eq. (1) in the $`U`$-$`V`$ plain for $`W0`$, $`X=X^{}=0`$ by analyzing the numerical data of the exact diagonalization for $`L=12`$ systems. We determine first-order transition lines for the FM and the PS states by comparing the ground-state energies with eqs. (20) and (19). Then, we obtain the results as shown in Figs. 1(d)-(f). For comparison, we also show the phase diagrams for $`W=0`$, $`X=X^{}/20`$ in Figs. 1(a)-(c) which are taken from ref. References.

For $`W<0`$, the BCDW phase appears between CDW and SDW phases, while for $`W>0`$, a BSDW phase appears instead of the BCDW phase. This property is similar to the effects caused by the $`X`$ term. The result is consistent with the estimation that a dimer (BCDW) state is stabilized for $`X,W<0`$ as was discussed in Sec. 2. In ref. References, existence of the “BOW” state is discussed for $`X=X^{}=0,W>0`$, so that this “BOW” phase corresponds to the BSDW state in the present results.

The differences between the roles of the $`X`$ and the $`W`$ terms are clarified in the strong-coupling region. One is a property of the PS boundary in the $`U/t1`$ region. For $`W<0`$, the PS boundary shifts toward the negative-$`V`$ side, and flows into $`(U,V)=(\mathrm{},2|W|)`$. On the other hand, for $`W>0`$, the boundary shifts toward the positive-$`V`$ side, but it does not cross the $`V=0`$ line. Therefore, a direct CDW-PS transition takes place at $`V=0`$.

The other difference is appearance of a FM state for $`W>0`$. For $`W/t=1/5`$, a tetracritical point appears among PS, TS, SDW and FM states. As $`W`$ is increased, the SDW region and the Gaussian line in the charge part are swallowed by the FM region, and a direct BSDW-FM transition takes place.

For $`W/t=1/2`$, an exactly solvable point ($`\lambda =0`$) appears at $`(U/t,V/t)=(2,1)`$. This point is just on the boundary between the BSDW and the FM phases as was discussed in Sec. 5. The exactly solvable point moves on the $`U=2V`$ line as $`\lambda `$ is increased. When $`W/t=X/t=1`$ ($`\lambda =1`$), exactly solvable point appears at $`(U/t,V/t)=(0,0)`$. In this case, CDW, PS, FM and BSDW phases degenerates on this point. The other regions of the phase diagram are occupied only by CDW, PS and FM states (see Fig. 2).

In order to check the validity of the result in the strong-coupling region, we show in Fig. 1 (d), asymptotic forms of the PS boundaries given by eqs. (15) and (23).$`^{\text{?)}}`$ They well agree with the numerical result. In Fig. 3, we show the phase boundaries near the $`U=2V`$ line for $`L=8`$-$`14`$ systems, and asymptotic boundaries given by the perturbation theory up to the second and the fourth orders. In Fig. 3 (a), the CDW-SDW transition line given by eq. (21) agrees with the Gaussian line in the charge part. Although the size dependence of the the spin-gap phase boundary is large, it also approaches to the same line in the strong-coupling regime as the system size is increased. In Figs. 3 (b) and (c), eq. (22) agrees with the CDW-FM transition lines. In Fig. 3 (b), the BCDW phase appears in the very narrow region, and a tetracritical point appears among the BSDW, the BCDW, the SDW and the CDW phases.

## 7 Summary

We have studied the phase diagram of the extended Hubbard chain including the bond-charge $`X`$ and the bond-bond $`W`$ interactions, using the level-crossing approach. We have clarified the similarity of the roles of the $`X`$ and the $`W`$ terms in the weak-coupling case (appearance of BCDW and BSDW phases), and difference in the strong-coupling case (appearance of a FM state, properties of the PS boundary). We have also shown the exact BSDW state appears just on the phase boundary between the BSDW and the ferromagnetic regions.

## 8 Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to M. Ogata and M. Takahashi for useful discussions. The computation in this work was partly done using the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of Tokyo.


format: text

text:
# Structure of the Algebra of Effective Observables in Quantum Mechanics

## Abstract

A subclass of dynamical semigroups induced by the interaction of a quantum system with an environment is introduced. Such semigroups lead to the selection of a stable subalgebra of effective observables. The structure of this subalgebra is completely determined.

1 Introduction
One of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics is the superposition principle which guarantees that any superposition of two distinct pure states is again a legitimate pure state. As an immediate consequence of this and the postulate that proportional vectors describe the same quantum state we obtain that pure states are in one-to-one correspondence with one-dimensional subspaces of a Hilbert space $``$. This is usually taken as a basic ingredient of a mathematical description of a system, which ensures genuine quantum behavior of that system. Alternatively, we may say that physical quantities are in one-to-one correspondence with self-adjoint operators on $``$. Since, without loss of generality, we may restrict to bounded operators so it implies that the von Neumann algebra $`𝒜`$ generated by observables equals to B$`()`$, the algebra of all bounded operators. However, it is evident that some superpositions of quantum pure states do not take place in the real world. Well known examples of such a phenomenon encompass the absence of superpositions of states with different electric charge or with integer and half-integer spin. This fact led to the introduction in 1952 of superselection rules , which axiomatically exclude certain superpositions from being observable. For a review of this subject see a recent paper by Wightman . It follows that the connection between quantum states and rays in $``$ should be changed to: every pure state is represented by a one-dimensional subspace of $``$, but not every such a subspace represents a quantum state. Such a postulate has an immediate consequence for the algebra $`𝒜`$, since now the commutant $`𝒜^{}`$, which consists of superselection operators, is non-trivial.

Further, in 1960, Jauch  introduced a condition that there should exist at least one complete set of commuting observables in $`𝒜`$, which expressed more generally states that $`𝒜`$ should contain a maximal Abelian subalgebra. It implies that all superselection operators belong to $`𝒜`$ or, equivalently, that the center $`𝒵`$ of $`𝒜`$ equals to $`𝒜^{}`$. Clearly, all superselection operators commute with each other since $`𝒜^{}`$ is Abelian in this case. Therefore, the existence of superselection rules makes the center $`𝒵`$ non-trivial yielding a decomposition of Hilbert space $``$ into coherent subspaces. In the discrete case it was concisely written by Wan  as follows:
Let $`𝒮`$ denote the set of all pure states. Then $``$ may be decomposed into a direct sum of mutually orthogonal subspaces $`_n`$ such that $`𝒮=_n𝐂P(_n)`$, where $`𝐂P(_n)`$ denotes the projective space over $`_n`$. There is no further decomposition of $`_n`$.
It is worth noting that a superposition $`\lambda |v>+\lambda ^{}|w>`$, $`|\lambda |^2+|\lambda ^{}|^2=1`$, of vectors from different coherent subspaces is empirically indistinguishable from the mixture $`|\lambda |^2P_v+|\lambda ^{}|^2P_w`$, where $`P_v=|v><v|`$ and $`P_w=|w><w|`$. As a consequence, the algebra $`𝒜`$ consists of all operators $`A\mathrm{B}()`$ such that $`_nP_nAP_n=A`$, where $`P_n`$ denotes the orthogonal projector onto $`_n`$.

A more general situation can also occur. When we drop Jauch’s hypothesis we obtain that in principle $`𝒜^{}`$ has only a partial overlapping with $`𝒜`$. Hence, there are non-commuting superselection operators since $`𝒜^{}`$ cannot be Abelian now. It means that $`𝒜`$, when restricted to a coherent subspace $`_n`$, is still smaller than B$`(_n)`$. Therefore, some different and non-proportional vectors from $`_n`$ may still determine the same quantum state. Such a possibility was explicitly acknowledged by Messiah and Greenberg in 1964 , who introduced the term generalized ray for the set of such vectors. In such a case the lack of knowledge of the state vector is greater than in ordinary quantum mechanics. A generalized ray is represented by an $`r`$-dimensional sphere, $`r`$ being the dimension of an irreducible subspace of commuting physical observables. This inevitably puts additional constraints on the structure of algebra $`𝒜`$. We encounter such a situation when, for example, we want to study symmetry transformations called supersymmetry , which leave all the observables invariant. Let us recall that a unitary operator is a supersymmetry if it is not proportional to the identity operator and commutes with the set of all observables. Clearly, they and the identity form a unitary group of $`𝒜^{}`$, so-called gauge group.

Superselection rules was a useful postulate, but the question about an explanation of its appearance arose. It should be pointed out here that it is not a logical necessity of quantum theory. In 1982 Zurek  proposed a program of environment-induced superselection rules. He showed that when a quantum system is open, interacting with an environment, superselection rules do not need to be postulated. They arise naturally as a result of the decoherence process, which effectively destroys superpositions between macroscopically different states with respect to a local observer, so that the system appears to be in one or the other of those states. By the term “destroys superposition” we understand that the off-diagonal elements of the superposition are unavailable with respect to a specific set of observations. The idea was further developed in .

In order to study decoherence, the analysis of the evolution of the reduced density matrix obtained by tracing out the environment variables is the most convenient strategy. For a large class of interesting physical phenomena the evolution of the reduced density matrix can be described by a dynamical semigroup, whose generator is given by a Markovian master equation. The loss of quantum coherence in the Markovian regime was established in a number of open systems  giving a clear evidence of environment-induced superselection rules. In a recent paper  a thorough mathematical analysis of the superselection structure induced by a dynamical semigroup which is also contractive in the operator norm was presented. It was achieved by the use of the isometric-sweeping decomposition, which singles out a subspace of density matrices, on which the semigroup acts in a reversible, unitary way, and sweeps out the rest of statistical states. The dual space of the isometric part of density matrices is a von Neumann algebra $``$, which we call the algebra of effective observables. This algebra is stable with respect to the process of decoherence, i.e. its elements evolve in a unitary way according to Schrödinger dynamics in the Heisenberg picture. Other elements of B$`()`$ decay in time to elements of $``$. Therefore, when decoherence happens almost instantaneously, then $``$ represents physical observables of the quantum system. The purpose of this paper is to describe the structure of $``$.

The paper is organized as follows. In sec. 2 we introduced the notion of an environment-induced semigroup and discuss its properties. In sec. 3 we briefly recall some basic facts concerning superselection rules induced by the interaction with an environment. Finally, in sec. 4, we describe the structure of the algebra of effective observables.
2 Environment-induced semigroups
The irreversible behavior of the evolution of quantum statistical states (density matrices) is the main consequence of the assumption that they interact with their environments. As was mentioned in Introduction we restrict our considerations to the Markovian regime, and thus assume that the evolution of the reduced density matrix is given by a dynamical semigroup $`T_t`$. By a dynamical semigroup one usually means a strongly continuous semigroup of completely positive trace preserving and contractive operators acting on the Banach space of trace class operators $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ . However, since the semigroup $`T_t`$ is to describe a measurement-like interaction with the environment, the statistical entropy $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$ of an evolving density matrix $`\rho `$ should not decrease. Here, by tr we denote the usual trace on $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$. For a measurement it follows from the following argument. Suppose that the properties of a quantum system are specified by probabilities $`\{p_i\}`$ for the outcomes of the measurement of a discrete observable $`A`$. Therefore, the state of such a system is a mixed state and reads $`\rho =_ip_iP_i`$, where $`P_i=|e_i><e_i|`$ and $`|e_i>`$ are the corresponding eigenvectors of $`A`$. The statistical entropy of $`\rho `$ is a measure of our ignorance of the actual result of the measurement of $`A`$. Suppose further that we perform a measurement of another discrete observable $`B`$. According to the von Neumann projection postulate the state of the system changes to

$$\rho \rho ^{}=\underset{j}{}Q_j\rho Q_j$$
(1)
where $`Q_j=|f_j><f_j|`$, $`|f_j>`$ being eigenvectors of $`B`$. Therefore $`\rho ^{}=_jp_j^{}Q_j`$, where $`p_j^{}=_ip_i\mathrm{tr}(Q_jP_i)`$. Because coefficients tr$`(Q_jP_i)`$ form a doubly stochastic matrix so $`S(\rho ^{})S(\rho )`$. For a more general discussion of the entropy increase during the interaction with the environment see .

However, the concept of dynamical semigroup as defined above is too general to ensure the increase of the statistical entropy, as the following simple example shows. Consider an operator $`L`$ defined by

$$L\rho =A\rho A^{}\frac{1}{2}\{A^{}A,\rho \}$$

where $`\{,\}`$ stands for the anticommutator and

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

Clearly, $`L`$ generates a dynamical semigroup $`T_t`$ on $`2\times 2`$ complex matrices. By direct calculations we obtain that the evolution of the one-dimensional projector

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

is given by $`T_tP=e^tP+(1e^t)P^{}`$, where $`P^{}=IP`$ and $`I`$ denotes the identity matrix. Hence the statistical entropy increases to its maximal value when time approaches $`\mathrm{log}2`$, and then decreases to zero. Although such semigroups may also play some role in theoretical investigations of quantum open systems, they will be excluded from our current considerations. Therefore, we impose on $`T_t`$ an additional assumption, namely that $`T_t`$ is also contractive in the operator norm $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, and we call it environment-induced semigroup. For such a semigroup it follows that a maximal eigenvalue of a density matrix cannot increase during the evolution. Moreover, the following properties can be derived. First, notice that the linear entropy $`S_{\mathrm{lin}}(\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \rho ^2)`$, being a linear approximation of $`S`$ since $`\mathrm{log}\rho =\mathrm{log}(I(I\rho ))=\rho I+\mathrm{}`$, does not decrease. Indeed, for $`t_1t_2`$

$$S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_{t_1}\rho )S_{\mathrm{lin}}(T_{t_2}\rho )=T_{t_2}\rho _2^2T_{t_1t_2}(T_{t_2}\rho )_2^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

since, by Lemma 4 in , $`T_t`$ is also contractive in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm $`_2`$. The statistical entropy does not decrease, either. For finite dimensional quantum systems it follows from the following argument. For a totally mixed state $`\rho _0=\frac{I}{\mathrm{tr}I}`$, all eigenvalues of $`T_t(\rho _0)`$ are not greater than $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{tr}I}`$ and their sum is equal to 1. Hence $`T_t(\rho _0)=\rho _0`$ and so $`T_t(I)=I`$ for all $`t0`$. Thus the function $`tS(T_t\rho )`$ is non-decreasing for any density matrix $`\rho `$. We show that this property also holds in the infinite dimensional case.
Proposition 2.1 Suppose $`T_t`$ is an environment-induced semigroup. Then $`S(T_t\rho )S(\rho )`$ for any density matrix $`\rho `$.
Remark. Since $`S`$ takes values in $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$ so the above inequality means that if $`S(T_t\rho )<\mathrm{}`$, then also $`S(\rho )`$ is finite and not greater than $`S(T_t\rho )`$.
Proof: Let $`\rho `$ be a density matrix. Then $`\rho =_{i=1}p_iP_i`$, $`p_i>0`$, and $`T_t\rho =_{j=1}q_jQ_j`$, $`q_j>0`$, where $`\{P_i\}(\{Q_j\})`$ are spectral projectors of $`\rho (T_t\rho )`$ respectively. Clearly, all of them are finite dimensional. Projectors corresponding to zero eigenvalue we denote by$`P_0`$ and $`Q_0`$ respectively. Then

$$q_j=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(Q_jT_t\rho )}{\mathrm{tr}Q_j}=\underset{i=1}{}p_i\alpha _j(i),\text{where}\alpha _j(i)=\frac{\mathrm{tr}(Q_jT_tP_i)}{\mathrm{tr}Q_j}$$

By Lemma 4 in , $`T_t`$ has a normal extension to a contractive semigroup $`\overline{T}_t`$ on B$`()`$. Suppose $`\{E_n\}`$ is a sequence of mutually orthogonal one-dimensional projectors such that $`_nE_n=I`$.Then

$$\overline{T}_t(I)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}T_t(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_k)I$$

Therefore

$$I\overline{T}_t(I)=\overline{T}_t(P_0+\underset{i=1}{}P_i)=\overline{T}_t(P_0)+\underset{i=1}{}T_tP_i$$

and so $`_{i=1}\alpha _j(i)1`$. Let us define $`\alpha _j(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{i=1}\alpha _j(i)`$. Then we have $`q_j=_{i=0}p_i\alpha _j(i)`$, where $`p_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ and $`_{i=0}\alpha _j(i)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Because function $`xx\mathrm{log}x`$ is convex and continuous with $`f(0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, so

$$q_j\mathrm{log}q_j\underset{i=1}{}\alpha _j(i)p_i\mathrm{log}p_i$$

Assume now that $`S(T_t\rho )`$ is finite. It means that $`T_t\rho \mathrm{log}T_t\rho `$ is a positive and trace class operator. Therefore

$$S(T_t\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\underset{j=1}{}(q_j\mathrm{log}q_j)Q_j)=\underset{j=1}{}q_j\mathrm{log}q_j\mathrm{tr}Q_j$$

$$\underset{i,j=1}{}(p_i\mathrm{log}p_i)\mathrm{tr}(Q_jT_tP_i)$$

Because $`p_iP_i\rho `$ so $`T_t(p_iP_i)T_t\rho `$ and hence tr$`(Q_0T_tP_i)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for all $`i1`$.Therefore

$$S(T_t\rho )\underset{i=1}{}(p_i\mathrm{log}p_i)[\mathrm{tr}(Q_0T_tP_i)+\underset{j=1}{}\mathrm{tr}(Q_jT_tP_i)]$$

$$=\underset{i=1}{}(p_i\mathrm{log}p_i)\mathrm{tr}(T_tP_i)=S(\rho )$$

since $`T_t`$ is trace preserving. $`\mathrm{}`$
Having discussed the properties of environment-induced semigroups, we now turn to a condition which guarantees that a dynamical semigroup $`T_t`$ is also contractive in the operator norm. In order to avoid domain difficulties we restrict ourselves to a uniformly continuous semigroup. Then its generator $`L:\mathrm{Tr}()\mathrm{Tr}()`$ has the following standard form

$$L\rho =i[H,\rho ]+\underset{j=1}{}V_j\rho V_j^{}\frac{1}{2}\{\underset{j=1}{}V_j^{}V_j,\rho \}$$
(2)
where $`H=H^{}\mathrm{B}()`$, $`V_j\mathrm{B}()`$ and $`lim_n_{j=1}^nV_j^{}V_j=V`$ in the strong topology.
Proposition 2.2 A uniformly continuous dynamical semigroup $`T_t`$ is contractive in the operator norm if and only if $`_jV_jV_j^{}_jV_j^{}V_j`$.
Proof: $``$ Suppose $`_jV_jV_j^{}V`$. Then it converges strongly to some positive operator in B$`()`$ and so $`L`$ extends to a bounded operator on B$`()`$. It is clear that such an extension is a complete dissipation and so $`T_t`$ is contractive in the operator norm.
$``$ Suppose that $`T_t\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()`$. Then $`T_t`$ extends to a contractive semigroup $`\overline{T}_t`$ on K$`()`$, the space of compact operators. Clearly, $`\overline{T}_t`$ is strongly continuous with $`\mathrm{Tr}()D(\overline{L})`$, where $`\overline{L}`$ denotes the generator of $`\overline{T}_t`$. In order to show that $`_jV_jV_j^{}_jV_j^{}V_j`$ it suffices to check that for any one-dimensional projector $`P`$ the following inequality holds

$$\mathrm{tr}P\underset{j=1}{}V_jV_j^{}\mathrm{tr}P\underset{j=1}{}V_j^{}V_j$$

Let us fix projector $`P`$. Using the decomposition $`=PP^{}`$ each $`V_j`$ can be written as

$$V_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_j& w_j^{}\\ v_j& A_j\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a_j𝐂`$, $`v_j,w_jP^{}`$ and $`A_j\mathrm{B}(P^{})`$. In consequence, the above inequality is equivalent to $`_jw_j^2_jv_j^2`$. Suppose now $`\varphi =P+E`$, where $`E`$ is a finite dimensional subprojector of $`P^{}`$. Clearly, $`\varphi D(\overline{L})`$. Moreover, since K$`()^{}=\mathrm{Tr}()`$, $`P`$ is a normalized tangent functional to $`\varphi `$ and so, by the assumption and Hille-Yosida theorem, tr$`\overline{L}(\varphi )P\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ or, equivalently,

$$\mathrm{tr}P(\underset{j=1}{}V_j\varphi V_j^{})\mathrm{tr}P(\underset{j=1}{}V_j^{}V_j)$$

Because

$$\mathrm{tr}PV_j\varphi V_j^{}=|a_j|^2+<w_j,Ew_j>$$

and

$$\mathrm{tr}P(\underset{j=1}{}V_j^{}V_j)=\underset{j=1}{}|a_j|^2+\underset{j=1}{}v_j^2$$

we obtain that $`_jEw_j^2_jv_j^2`$. Taking the supremum over $`E`$ ends the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$
3 Environment-induced superselection rules
In this section we briefly presents some basic facts concerning the superselection structure induced by the interaction with an environment. Clearly, there is a difference between them and the traditional superselection rules, which are said to operate between subspaces of a Hilbert space if the phase factors between vectors belonging to two distinct subspaces are unobservable. In the case of environment-induced superselection rules, phase coherence between vectors from some preferred set of pure states is being continuously destroyed by the interaction.

Suppose $`\widehat{P}`$ is a linear, bounded and positive operator on $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ such that $`\widehat{P}^2=\widehat{P}`$ and tr$`\widehat{P}\varphi \text{tr}\varphi `$ for all $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()_+`$, the cone of positive elements in $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$. We call such an operator the projection operator (when, in addition, $`\widehat{P}`$ preserves the trace, it is usually called the Zwanzig projection). Then space $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ splits into two linearly independent and closed subspaces $`\widehat{P}\mathrm{Tr}()`$ and $`(\text{id}\widehat{P})\mathrm{Tr}()`$. We start with the following general definition, see ref. 13.
Definition 3.1 We say that the semigroup $`T_t`$ induces a weak superselection structure on $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ if
a) there exists a projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$ such that

$$T_t:\text{im}\widehat{P}\text{im}\widehat{P},T_t|_{\mathrm{im}\widehat{P}}=U_tU_t^{}$$
(3)
where $`U_t`$ is a strongly continuous group of unitary operators,
b)

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}|\mathrm{tr}AT_t\varphi \mathrm{tr}A\widehat{P}(T_t\varphi )|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
(4)
holds for all $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()`$ and any $`A`$ from some -algebra $``$, which is strongly dense in $`\mathrm{B}()`$.
$`T_t`$ induces a strong superselection structure if a) holds together with
b’)

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}T_t\varphi \widehat{P}(T_t\varphi )_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()$$
(5)
where $`_1`$ is the trace norm. A weak(strong) superselection structure is said to be non-trivial if $`\widehat{P}\text{id}`$, conservative, if $`\mathrm{tr}\widehat{P}\varphi =\mathrm{tr}\varphi `$ for all $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()`$.
It follows that environment-induced semigroups always induce (possibly trivial as they can be of purely unitary type) a superselection structure.
Theorem 3.2  Suppose $`T_t`$ is an environment-induced semigroup. Then $`T_t`$ induces a weak superselection structure. If moreover, $`T_t`$ is relatively compact in the strong operator topology, then it induces a strong superselection structure.
Sketch of proof: Let $`K\mathrm{HS}()`$ be a subspace of the Hilbert space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators given by

$$K=\{x\mathrm{HS}():T_tx_2=T_t^{}x_2=x_2t0\}$$

where $`T_t^{}`$ denotes the conjugate with respect to the scalar product in $`\mathrm{HS}()`$. Let $`\widehat{P}:\mathrm{HS}()\mathrm{HS}()`$ be the orthogonal projector onto $`K`$. It turns out that $`\widehat{P}`$ maps trace class operators into trace class operators and tr$`\widehat{P}\varphi \mathrm{tr}\varphi `$ for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()_+`$. Therefore, $`\widehat{P}`$ induces a splitting $`\mathrm{Tr}()=\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}\mathrm{Tr}()_\mathrm{s}`$ to the isometric and sweeping parts which fulfill the conditions from Definition 3.1. $`\mathrm{}`$
Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra having $`\mathrm{Tr}()_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ as its predual space, that is $`=\mathrm{im}\widehat{P}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{P}^{}:\mathrm{B}()\mathrm{B}()`$ is the conjugate projector. We call it algebra of effective observables. The action of the dual semigroup $`T_t^{}:\mathrm{B}()\mathrm{B}()`$, when restricted to $``$, is given by a unitary group of automorphisms. In the next section we describe the structure of $``$.
4 Algebra of effective observables
At first we show the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1 Suppose $`K0`$. Then
a) $`\widehat{P}`$ is completely positive i.e. $`n\widehat{P}\mathrm{id}_{n\times n}:\mathrm{Tr}()M_{n\times n}\mathrm{Tr}()M_{n\times n}`$ maps positive operators on $`𝐂^n`$ into positive ones. Here $`M_{n\times n}`$denotes the algebra of $`n\times n`$ complex matrices.
b) $`\widehat{P}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, $`\widehat{P}_{1,1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$.
c) $`\widehat{P}`$ can be extended to a normal norm one projection $`\overline{P}:\mathrm{B}()\mathrm{B}()`$ onto the von Neumann algebra $``$.
Proof: a) Let $`K_n:=KM_{n\times n}\mathrm{HS}()M_{n\times n}=\mathrm{HS}(𝐂^n)`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}K_n`$, then also $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{y}K_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}K_n`$, since $`K`$ is a -algebra. Suppose $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{~}{x}^{}K_n`$. Because $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator on $`𝐂^n`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{x}=_ia_i\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`a_i𝐑\{0\}`$. Since $`K_n`$ is closed we obtain that $`\stackrel{~}{e}_iK_n`$ for all $`i`$. Suppose now that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\mathrm{Tr}(𝐂^n)_+`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1K_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2K_n^{}=K^{}M_{n\times n}`$. Because $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ is hermitian, so $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1=_ib_i\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`b_i0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_iK_n`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ for any $`i`$, what implies that $`b_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_10`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1=\underset{i}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{tr}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }$$

Hence $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\mathrm{Tr}(𝐂^n)_+`$ and so $`\widehat{P}^{(n)}:\mathrm{Tr}(𝐂^n)_+\mathrm{Tr}(𝐂^n)_+`$, where $`\widehat{P}^{(n)}`$ denotes the orthogonal projection in $`\mathrm{HS}(𝐂^n)`$ onto $`K_n`$. However, $`\widehat{P}^{(n)}=\widehat{P}\mathrm{id}_{n\times n}`$, what implies that $`\widehat{P}`$ is n-positive. Because n was arbitrary, the assertion follows.
b) By point a), $`\widehat{P}\varphi _1\varphi _1`$ for all $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()_+`$. Hence $`\widehat{P}`$ is a bounded operator on $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ with $`\widehat{P}_{1,1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. Because $`\mathrm{Tr}()\mathrm{K}()`$ and $`\mathrm{K}()^{}=\mathrm{Tr}()`$, so for any $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()`$,

$$\widehat{P}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{P}\varphi )\psi =\mathrm{tr}\varphi \widehat{P}(\psi )$$

for some $`\psi \mathrm{Tr}()`$ with $`\psi _1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. Hence

$$\widehat{P}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\widehat{P}\psi _1\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}$$

Therefore, $`\widehat{P}`$ can be extended to a bounded operator on $`\mathrm{K}()`$. Clearly such an extension is also completely positive. In particular, it is strongly positive and so, for any $`v`$, $`v=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, and any $`\varphi \mathrm{Tr}()`$ we have

$$(\widehat{P}\varphi )v^2=<v,(\widehat{P}\varphi )^{}(\widehat{P}\varphi )v><v,\widehat{P}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )v>$$

$$=\mathrm{tr}P_v|\widehat{P}(\varphi ^{}\varphi )=\mathrm{tr}\widehat{P}(P_v)\varphi ^{}\varphi \widehat{P}(P_v)_1\varphi ^{}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2$$

where $`P_v=|v><v|`$. However, $`\widehat{P}`$ is a non-zero projection, hence $`\widehat{P}_\mathrm{},\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. By duality, $`\widehat{P}_{1,1}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, too.
c) The dual operator $`\widehat{P}^{}`$ is a normal contraction on $`\mathrm{B}()`$. It is also a projection. Suppose $`\varphi ,\psi \mathrm{Tr}()`$. Then

$$\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{P}^{}\varphi )\psi =\mathrm{tr}\varphi \widehat{P}(\psi )=\mathrm{tr}(\widehat{P}\varphi )\psi $$

Hence $`\widehat{P}^{}|_{\mathrm{Tr}()}=\widehat{P}`$. However, $`\mathrm{Tr}()`$ is $`\sigma `$-weakly dense in $`\mathrm{B}()`$ so $`\widehat{P}^{}`$ is a normal extension of $`\widehat{P}`$ onto $`\mathrm{B}()`$. We denote it by $`\overline{P}`$. The image of $`\overline{P}`$ equals to the $`\sigma `$-weak closure of $`\mathrm{im}\widehat{P}`$ which coincides with the von Neumann algebra $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$
Therefore, our task reduces to the description of the projection $`\overline{P}`$. By Prop.13 and 14 in  we know that $`=_k_k=_k(_n_{kn})`$,where $`_{kn}`$ are type I factors. Let $`E_{kn}`$ denote the unit in $`_{kn}`$ and let $`\overline{P}_{kn}(A)=E_{kn}\overline{P}(A)`$. Then $`\overline{P}_{kn}`$ is a projection onto $`_{kn}`$ and $`_k_n\overline{P}_{kn}=\overline{P}`$ since $`_k_nE_{kn}=E`$, the unit in $``$. Hence

$$\overline{P}=\underset{k}{}\overline{P}_k=\underset{k}{}(\underset{n}{}\overline{P}_{kn})$$
(6)
where $`\overline{P}_{kn}`$ are normal, norm one, and pairwise orthogonal projections, i.e. $`\overline{P}_{kn}\overline{P}_{lm}=\overline{P}_{lm}\overline{P}_{kn}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ if $`(kn)(lm)`$. Therefore, it suffices to determine the form of projections $`\overline{P}_{kn}`$. Let us recall that each $`_{kn}`$ has a minimal projector $`e_n`$ of a finite dimension $`r(k)`$ for all $`n`$, where $`r(k)`$ is a subsequence of natural numbers. Let $`N=N(k,n)`$ be the degree of homogeneity (possibly infinite) of $`_{kn}`$.
Theorem 4.2 For $`A\mathrm{B}()`$

$$\overline{P}_{kn}(A)=\underset{𝒰(𝒩_{kn})}{}𝑑\mu (U)U(E_{kn}AE_{kn})U^{}$$
(7)
where $`𝒩_{kn}=(_{kn}^{})E_{kn}`$ is the commutant of $`_{kn}`$ in $`\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})`$, $`𝒰(𝒩_{kn})`$ is the group of unitary operators in $`𝒩_{kn}`$, and $`d\mu `$ is a unique normalized Haar measure on $`𝒰(𝒩_{kn})`$.
Proof: First, notice that for any projector $`e`$ in $``$ the von Neumann algebras $`ee`$ and $`_e`$, where

$$_e=\{eA|_{\mathrm{range}e}:A\}\mathrm{B}(e)\}$$

are isomorphic. We use this identification in the proof. Let $`V:E_{kn}\stackrel{~}{}_{kn}=𝐂^N𝐂^{r(k)}`$ be a unitary isomorphism. Here $`\stackrel{~}{}_{kn}`$ denotes a Hilbert space being the direct sum of $`N=N(k,n)`$ copies of range$`e_n`$. $`_{kn}`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra $`M_{N\times N}(e_n_{kn}e_n)`$. Because $`e_n`$ is minimal, so $`e_n_{kn}e_n=𝐂e_n`$. Therefore, $`\alpha (_{kn})=\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{}_{kn})I_{r(k)}`$, where $`\alpha (A)=VAV^{}`$ for $`A\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})`$ and $`I_{r(k)}`$ is the identity $`r(k)\times r(k)`$ matrix. The projection $`\alpha \overline{P}_{kn}|_{\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})}\alpha ^1`$ is the conditional expectation from $`\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{}_{kn})M_{r(k)\times r(k)}`$ onto the first factor. Hence, for any $`B\mathrm{B}(\stackrel{~}{}_{kn})M_{r(k)\times r(k)}`$,

$$\alpha \overline{P}_{kn}|_{\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})}\alpha ^1(B)=\underset{U(r(k))}{}𝑑\mu (U)(\mathrm{𝟏}U)B(\mathrm{𝟏}U^{})$$

and so

$$\overline{P}_{kn}(A)=\underset{U(r(k))}{}𝑑\mu (U)V^{}(\mathrm{𝟏}U)(VAV^{})(\mathrm{𝟏}U^{})V^{}$$

for any $`A\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})`$. However $`V^{}(\mathrm{𝟏}U)V`$ is a unitary operator in $`𝒩_{kn}`$ and $`𝒩_{kn}`$ is isomorphic to $`M_{r(k)\times r(k)}`$. Thus $`𝒰(𝒩_{kn})`$ is isomorphic to $`U(r(k))`$. For a general $`A\mathrm{B}()`$ there is

$$\overline{P}_{kn}(A)=\underset{𝒰(𝒩_{kn})}{}𝑑\mu (U)U(E_{kn}AE_{kn})U^{}\mathrm{}$$

Let us consider some particular cases of the projection $`\overline{P}`$.
Corollary 4.3 If $`r(1)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, then $`\overline{P}_1`$ is given by

$$\overline{P}_1(A)=\underset{n}{}\overline{P}_{1n}(A)=\underset{n}{}E_{1n}AE_{1n}$$
(8)
where $`\{E_{1n}\}`$ is a sequence (possibly finite) of pairwise orthogonal projectors of arbitrary dimensions. Let $`J=\{(kn):N(k,n)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$. Then for any $`(kn)J`$, $`\mathrm{dim}E_{kn}<\mathrm{}`$ and

$$\underset{J}{}\overline{P}_{kn}(A)=\underset{J}{}\mathrm{tr}(E_{kn}A)\frac{E_{kn}}{\mathrm{dim}E_{kn}}$$
(9)
where $`\{E_{kn}\}_J`$ is a sequence of pairwise orthogonal finite dimensional projectors.
Proof: For $`r(1)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ any $`U𝒰(𝒩_{1n})`$ is of the form $`U=e^{ia}E_{1n}`$. Hence (6) and (7) implies (8). If $`N(k,n)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$, then $`E_{kn}`$ is a minimal projector in $`_{kn}`$ with dim$`E_{kn}=r(k)`$. Therefore, $`\overline{P}_{kn}|_{\mathrm{B}(E_{kn})}`$ is the conditional expectation onto $`𝐂E_{kn}`$ and formula (9) follows. $`\mathrm{}`$
Thus, if $`r(1)=1`$ we recover the Wan scheme , while for any $`r(k)>1`$ the minimal projectors in a corresponding coherent subspace are of dimension $`r(k)`$ and so we meet the case of generalized rays. The restriction of the gauge group to subspace $`E_{kn}`$ is isomorphic to the unitary group $`𝒰(r(k))`$. Therefore, the whole gauge group equals to $`_{r(k)>1}𝒰(r(k))`$. In particular, if $`N(k,n)=1`$ for some $`r`$ and $`k`$ such that $`r(k)>1`$, then the restriction of algebra $``$ to $`E_{kn}`$ consists only of numbers, i.e. $`E_{kn}=𝐂E_{kn}`$. Hence we recover in formula (9) the coarse graining projection .

We meet another interesting case when $`N(k,n)=r(k)`$. Then, $`E_{kn}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝐂^{r(k)}𝐂^{r(k)}`$ and the restriction of $``$ to $`E_{kn}`$ is isomorphic to $`M_{r(k)\times r(k)}I_{r(k)}`$, that is effective observables act on the first factor, and so are isomorphic with their commutant in B$`(E_{kn})`$. Such a situation was discussed by Giulini  in the context of the quantization of a system whose classical configuration space is not simply connected.

It is worth pointing out that all cases discussed above are of the discrete type, that is all self-adjoint superselection operators have discrete spectral decompositions.

Finally, we discuss the conservativeness of the induced superselection structure.
Proposition 4.4 The induced superselection structure is conservative if and only if $`I`$.
Proof: $``$ If the identity operator belongs to $``$, then $`\overline{P}(I)=I`$. Hence $`\mathrm{tr}\widehat{P}\rho =\mathrm{tr}\overline{P}(I)\rho =\mathrm{tr}\rho `$ for all $`\rho \mathrm{Tr}()`$.
$``$ Suppose now that tr$`\widehat{P}\rho =\mathrm{tr}\rho `$ for all $`\rho \mathrm{Tr}()`$. Let us assume on the contrary that $``$ does not contain $`I`$. Then $`_{k,n}E_{kn}`$ is a non-trivial projector. Let $`E^{}=I_{k,n}E_{kn}`$. For a state $`\rho _0=E^{}\rho _0E^{}`$ we have that $`\widehat{P}(\rho _0)=0`$ and so tr$`\widehat{P}(\rho _0)=0`$, the contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$
Corollary 4.5 Suppose $`T_t`$ is relatively compact in the strong operator topology. Then the induced superselection structure is conservative.
Proof: By Prop. 4.4 it suffices to show that $`I`$. Suppose on the contrary that $`I`$ does not belong to $``$. Then again for a state $`\rho _0=E^{}\rho _0E^{}`$ we have that $`\widehat{P}(\rho _0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. However, by (5)

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}T_t\rho _0\widehat{P}(T_t\rho _0)_1=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}T_t\rho _0_1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

the contradiction, since $`T_t\rho _0_1=\mathrm{tr}T_t\rho _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ for all $`t0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$
Consequently, a strong superselection structure is always conservative and so the projection $`\overline{P}`$ is a tr-compatible conditional expectation from $`\mathrm{B}()`$ onto $``$.
References
$`[1]`$ Wick, G.C., Wightman, A.S., Wigner, E.P.: The intrinsic parity of elementary particles. Phys. Rev. 88, 101-105 (1952)
$`[2]`$ Wightman, A.S.: Superselection rules; old and new. Il Nuovo Cimento B 110, 751-769 (1995)
$`[3]`$ Jauch, J.: System of observables in Quantum Mechanics. Helv. Phys. Acta 33, 711-726 (1960)
$`[4]`$ Wan, K.: Superselection rules, quantum measurement, and Schrödinger’s cat. Canadian J. Phys. 58, 976-982 (1980)
$`[5]`$ Messiah, A.M.L., Greenberg, O.W.: Symmetrization postulate and its experimental foundation. Phys. Rev. 136B, 248-267 (1964)
$`[6]`$ Jauch, J.M., Misra, B.: Sypersymmetries and essential observables. Helv. Phys. Acta 34, 699-709 (1961)
$`[7]`$ Zurek, W.H.: Environment-induced superselection rules. Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862-1880 (1982)
$`[8]`$ Joos, E., Zeh, H.D.: The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment. Z. Phys. B 59, 223-243 (1985)
$`[9]`$ Paz, J.P., Zurek, W.H.: Environment-induced decoherence, classicality, and consistency of quantum histories. Phys. Rev. D 48, 2728-2738 (1993)
$`[10]`$ Joos, E.: Decoherence through interaction with the environment. In: Giulini, D. et al. (eds.) Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Berlin: Springer 1996
$`[11]`$ Unruh, W.G., Zurek, W.H.: Reduction of a wave packet in Quantum Brownian motion. Phys. Rev. D 40, 1071-1094 (1989)
$`[12]`$ Twamley, J.: Phase-space decoherence: a comparison between consistent histories and environment-induced superselection. Phys. Rev. D 48, 5730-5745 (1993)
$`[13]`$ Olkiewicz, R.: Environment-induced superselection rules in Markovian regime. Commun. Math. Phys. (in press)
$`[14]`$ Davies, E.B.: Quantum Theory of Open Systems. Academic Press: London (1976)
$`[15]`$ Partovi, M.H.: Irreversibility, reduction and entropy increase in quantum measurement. Phys. Lett. A 137, 445-450 (1989)
$`[16]`$ Kupsch, J.: Open quantum systems. In: Giulini, D. et al. (eds.) Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory. Berlin: Springer 1996
$`[17]`$ Giulini, D.: Quantum Mechanics on spaces with finite fundamental group. Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 438-469 (1995)


text:
# Nonstatic global string in Brans-Dicke theory

## I Introduction

In the recent years there has been a rapid growth of research in the interface between particle physics and cosmology resulting in several exciting ideas concerning the unification of forces of nature. One of the most important features in the early universe, particle physicists and cosmologists have speculated, is the ”Grand Unification”- unification of the strong and electroweak forces. It was soon realised that this grand symmetery presented in the early universe at very high energy scale had to be broken in order to account for the electroweak and nuclear forces as different fields in the present day low energy universe. One of the immediate and inescapable consequences of this symmetry breaking is the formation of topological defects. They can be monopoles, cosmic strings or domain walls .

Among these defects, cosmic strings are particularly interesting in view of their capability to produce direct observational effects such as gravitational lensing and also because they are possible seeds of galaxy formation . Strings are said to be local or global depending on their origin from the breakdown of local or global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. While local strings are well behaved , having an exterior representing a flat Minkowskian spacetime with a conical defect, global strings, however, have strong gravitational effects at large distances. The static global string spaectime is found to have a singularity at a finite distance  from the string core. Later Gregory  showed that the time dependence of the metric might remove the singular behaviour of the global string spacetime.Very recently Sen and Banerjee have shown that one can also have nonsingular static spacetime outside the core of the global string if the spacetime does not admit Lorentz boost along the symmetry axis .

Discussions in the previous paragraphs have been confined within the context of General Relativity(GR). But at sufficiently high energy scales, it seems likely that gravity is not given by the Einstein action but becomes modified by the superstring terms. In the low energy limits of this string theory, one recovers Einstein’s gravity along with scalar dilaton field which is nonminimally coupled to the gravity . On the other hand, scalar tensor theories, such as Brans-Dicke theory(BD) , which is compatible with the Mach’s principle, have been considerably revived in the recent years. In these theories, the purely metric coupling of matter with gravity is restored and hence the equivalence principle is ensured. Moreover these models exhibit an attractor mechanism towards GR, so that the expansion of the universe during matter dominated epoch tends to drive the scalar field towards a state where these models are indistinguishable from GR . Although dilaton gravity and BD theory arise from entirely different motivations, it can be shown that the former is special case of the later, at least formally . The implications of the BD theory for topological defects have been studied by many authors. Gundlach and Ortiz  obtained analytical solutions for a local gauge string in BD theory. These solutions are not satisfactory because here the BD theory was used to solve for the exterior, while in the interior, the solutions were given for Einstein’s field equations, ignoring the BD scalar field completely. The other solutions in BD theory for a local gauge string have been given by Barros and Romero  and Guimaraes . Later Sen et.al  have shown that for a local gauge string, Vilenkin’s prescription for the energy momentum tensor due to the string is inconsistent with BD theory. Gravitational field of a $`U(1)`$ global string has also been studied by many authors. Sen et.al  have presented two kind of solutions for the specetime outside the core of a static global string, one of which was in closed form and was nonsingular at a finite distance from the string core while the other one could not be written in a closed form and moreover contained singularity at a finite distance from the string core. More general solutions for static global string in BD theory have been provided by Boisseau and Linet . In another interesting work, Dando and Gregory  have examined field equations of a self gravitating nonstatic global string in low energy string gravity allowing for an arbitary coupling of the global string to the dilaton field. Both massive and massless dilaton fields were considered. In both cases, they had demonstrated the existence of a nonsingular spacetime for the string if one includes a time dependence of the form $`e^{b_0t}`$ along the length of the string where $`b_0>0`$. But here the dilaton scalar field itself was not time dependent. In this work, we have studied the gravitational field of a nonstatic global string in BD theory where the BD scalar field is also time depenedent along with the metric components. Moreover the metric components are not separable functions of time and space which was the assumption for most of the previous works.

In section II, we have constructed the field equations for the time dependent global string in BD theory and have presented the solutions for the field equations. In section III, we have analysed our solutions where we have studied the presence of the physical singularity in our spacetime and also have shown that the spacetime represents both incoming and outgoing gravitational radiations. The paper ends with a conclusion in section IV.

## II Field equations and their solutions

The gravitational field equation in BD theory is given by

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{T_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }^{,\alpha })+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu ;\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi })$$
$`(1.1),`$
together with the wave equation for the BD scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{T}{(2\omega +3)}$$
$`(1.2),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the BD scalar field, $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy momentum tensor for the matter field and $`\omega `$ is the BD parameter. The conservation relation for the matter field $`T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$ follows identically. Sometimes it is more convenient to use a nonphysical metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ which is conformally related to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ by

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Phi }^1\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }$$
$`(1.3),`$
and the corresponding field equations are

$$\overline{G}_{\mu \nu }=\overline{T}_{\mu \nu }+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\nu }\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{,\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }_{,\alpha })$$
$`(1.4),`$
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\overline{T}}{2\omega +3}$$
$`(1.5),`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ operator is calculated with respect to $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and also now $`\overline{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the conformally transformed energy momentum tensor given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{T}_{\mu \nu }$$
$`(1.6).`$
But now the conservation equation for the matter field does not follow identically. The rest mass of the particles vary depending on the spacetime locations and hence the paths of the massive particles are no longer geodesics.

We have taken the line element as

$$ds^2=e^{2(ku)}(dt^2dr^2)e^{2u}dz^2w^2e^{2u}d\theta ^2$$
$`(1.7),`$
where $`k,u,w`$ are functions of both $`t`$ and $`r`$. Assuming that the complex scalar field for the global string is independent of the radial distance $`r`$ outside the core radius $`\delta =(\eta \sqrt{\lambda })^1`$, where $`\eta `$ is the symmetry breaking energy scale and $`\lambda `$ is a constant, one can calculate the energy momentum tensor for the global string in the original version of BD theory as

$$T_t^t=T_r^r=T_z^z=T_\theta ^\theta =\frac{\eta ^2}{2}\frac{e^{2u}}{w^2}$$
$`(1.8).`$
In our case the $`T_\nu ^\mu `$s are conformally transformed as (1.6), hence we assume $`\overline{T}_\nu ^\mu `$ in the conformally transformed version as

$$\overline{T}_t^t=\overline{T}_r^r=\overline{T}_z^z=\overline{T}_\theta ^\theta =\overline{\sigma }(r,t)$$
$`(1.9)`$
With (1.7) and (1.9), equations (1.4) and (1.5) become

$$\frac{\dot{k}\dot{w}}{w}\dot{u}^2\frac{w^{^{\prime \prime }}}{w}+\frac{k^{^{}}w^{^{}}}{w}u^{}_{}{}^{}2=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(\dot{\psi }^2+\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2)$$
$`(1.91a)`$
$$\frac{\ddot{w}}{w}\frac{\dot{k}\dot{w}}{w}+\dot{u}^2\frac{k^{^{}}w^{^{}}}{w}+u^{}_{}{}^{}2=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(\dot{\psi }^2+\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2)$$
$`(1.91b)`$
$$\dot{u}^2+\ddot{k}u^{}_{}{}^{}2k^{^{\prime \prime }}=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(\dot{\psi }^2\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2)$$
$`(1.91c)`$
$$\frac{\ddot{w}}{w}\frac{2\dot{u}\dot{w}}{w}2\ddot{u}+\dot{u}^2+\ddot{k}\frac{w^{^{\prime \prime }}}{w}+\frac{2u^{^{}}w^{^{}}}{w}+2u^{^{\prime \prime }}k^{^{\prime \prime }}u^{}_{}{}^{}2=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(\dot{\psi }^2\psi ^{}_{}{}^{}2)$$
$`(1.91d)`$
$$\frac{k^{^{}}\dot{w}}{w}\frac{\dot{w}^{^{}}}{w}+\frac{\dot{k}w^{^{}}}{w}2u^{^{}}\dot{u}=\frac{(2\omega +3)}{2}\dot{\psi }\psi ^{^{}}$$
$`(1.91e)`$
$$\ddot{\psi }+\frac{\dot{\psi }\dot{w}}{w}\psi ^{^{}}\frac{\psi ^{^{}}w^{^{}}}{w}=\frac{2\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}}{(2\omega +3)}$$
$`(1.91f)`$
where we have assumed $`\psi =ln(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and overdot and prime represent differentiation with respect to $`t`$ and $`r`$ respectively. After some straightforward calculations one can get

$$(\dot{u}w)^.=(u^{^{}}w)^{^{}}$$
$`(1.92).`$
One of the possible solutions of (1.92) is that both $`(\dot{u}w)`$ and $`(u^{^{}}w)`$ are functions of $`(r+t)`$. In what follows, we have assumed that $`k,u,w,\psi ,\sigma `$ are functions of $`(at+br)`$ in our subsequent calculations where $`a,b`$ are arbitary constants.

Defining $`x=at+br`$, equations (1.91a)-(1.91f) become

$$(a^2+b^2)\frac{k_xw_x}{w}(a^2+b^2)u_x^2b^2\frac{w_{xx}}{w}=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(a^2+b^2)\psi _x^2$$
$`(1.93a)`$
$$a^2\frac{w_{xx}}{w}(a^2+b^2)\frac{k_xw_x}{w}+(a^2+b^2)u_x^2=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(a^2+b^2)\psi _x^2$$
$`(1.93b)`$
$$(a^2b^2)u_x^2+(a^2b^2)k_{xx}=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(a^2b^2)\psi _x^2$$
$`(1.93c)`$
$$(a^2b^2)\frac{w_{xx}}{w}2(a^2b^2)\frac{u_xw_x}{w}2(a^2b^2)u_{xx}+(a^2b^2)u_x^2+(a^2b^2)k_{xx}$$

$$=\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}+\frac{(2\omega +3)}{4}(a^2b^2)\psi _x^2$$
$`(1.93d)`$
$$(a^2b^2)(\psi _{xx}+\frac{\psi _xw_x}{w})=\frac{2\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}}{2\omega +3}$$
$`(1.93e)`$
It can be shown that equation (1.91e) is now no longer indepenedent but can be achieved with the help of other equations. After some straightforward calculations one can get from (1.93a)-(1.93e) the following equations:

$$(a^2b^2)\frac{w_{xx}}{w}=2\overline{\sigma }e^{2(ku)}$$
$`(1.94a)`$
$$\frac{w_{xx}}{w}\frac{2k_xw_x}{w}+2u_x^2=\frac{(2\omega +3)}{2}\psi _x^2$$
$`(1.94b)`$
$$u_x=\alpha /w$$
$`(1.94c)`$
$$k_x=\beta /w$$
$`(1.94d)`$
$$e^\psi =Bw^{1/(2\omega +3)}$$
$`(1.94e)`$
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`B`$ are arbitary integration constants. So we have five equations and five unknowns namely, $`w,k,u,\psi `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$. Also one should note from equation (1.94a) that $`a^2b^2`$ in order to have nonvanishing $`\overline{\sigma }`$. Using (1.94c)-(1.94e), (1.94b) becomes

$$ww_{xx}2\beta w_x+2\alpha ^2\frac{1}{2(2\omega +3)}w_x^2=0$$
$`(1.95).`$
To have an exact analytical solution for the equation (1.95), we make a simplified assumption that $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ which means

$$u_x=k_x=0$$
$`(1.96).`$
Then one can integrate equation (1.95) to get

$$w=w_0(xx_0)^{1/(1A)}$$
$`(1.97)`$
where $`w_0`$ and $`x_0`$ are arbitary constants and $`A=\frac{1}{2(2\omega +3)}`$. One can now calculate the expressions for the energy density $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and the BD scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\overline{\sigma }=\frac{p(p1)(b^2a^2)}{2(xx_0)^2}$$
$`(1.98a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }_0(xx_0)^{2A/(A1)}$$
$`(1.98b)`$
where we have taken the constants $`e^k=e^u=1`$ without any loss of generality and $`p=1/(1A)`$. Using (1.3) and (1.6) one can now calculate the expression for the line element and the energy density in the original BD theory which are given by

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}(at+brx_0)^{2A/(1A)}(dt^2dr^2dz^2)\frac{w_0^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}d\theta ^2$$
$`(1.99a)`$
$$\sigma =\frac{p(p1)(b^2a^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{2}(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}$$
$`(1.99b).`$
One can check that the energy density $`\sigma 1/g_{33}`$ which is true for global string according to (1.8). To recover the corresponding solution for Einstein’s General Relaivity one has to take the limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ . In the present case, in this limit, the BD scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes constant and the line element (1.99a) becomes a flat metric with an angular deficit.

One can also calculate the angular deficit in the spacetime for a constant time which becomes

$$2\pi \left[1\frac{bw_0(at+brx_0)^{(1+A)/(1A)}}{(1A)[(at+brx_0)^{1/(1A)}(atx_0)^{1/(1A)}]}\right].$$

Hence it is clear from the above expression that the angular deficit is a function of both $`r`$ and $`t`$.

## III Analysis of the solution

To check the occurance of the curvature singularity in the spacetime, one has to calculate the Kretschmann curvature scalar for the line element (1.99a):

$$R^{ijkl}R_{ijkl}=4\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2\left[\frac{(a^2b^2)^2(80\omega ^2+248\omega +198)(at+brx_0)^{8(2\omega +3)/(4\omega +7)}}{(16\omega ^2+40\omega +25)^2}\right]$$
$`(2.1)`$
One can see that for $`x_00`$, the spacetime does not have any curvature singularity at any finite distance from the string core if $`(2\omega +3)>0`$ which is a physical assumption so as to make the energy contribution from the scalar field positive . There may be singularity at $`r=0`$ but line element (1.99a) is valid for $`r>\delta `$ because the form of the energy momentum tensor given in (1.8) is valid only for outside the string core that is $`r>\delta `$. For $`x_0>0`$ the spacetime may have singularity at a finite distance from the string core. But there is always a physical singularity at a particular time in the spacetime depending on the choice of the constant as the range of $`t`$ is $`\mathrm{}t\mathrm{}`$.

To check whether the spacetime represents the emission and absorption of gravitational radiation, one has to calculate the corresponding Weyl tensor, which is thought of as representing the pure gravitational field . Introducing the null tetrad frame by

$$L^\mu =\frac{e^{uk}}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta _t^\mu \delta _r^\mu )$$
$`(2.2a)`$
$$N^\mu =\frac{e^{uk}}{\sqrt{2}}(\delta _t^\mu +\delta _r^\mu )$$
$`(2.2b)`$
$$M^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^u\delta _z^\mu +\frac{i}{w}\delta _\theta ^\mu )$$
$`(2.2c)`$
$$\overline{M}^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^u\delta _z^\mu \frac{i}{w}\delta _\theta ^\mu )$$
$`(2.2d)`$
one can find that the two of the nonvanishing components of the Weyl tensor for the line element (1.99a) are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=C_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }L^\mu M^\nu L^\lambda M^\sigma $$
$`(2.3a),`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_4=C_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }N^\mu \overline{M}^\nu N^\lambda \overline{M}^\sigma $$
$`(2.3b).`$
The reason for calculating these two components in null frame is that these components in this frame have a direct physical meaning that is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ represents an outgoing cylindrical gravitational wave along the null hypersurface defined by $`N^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ represents the incoming cylindrical gravitational wave propagating along the null hypersuface defined by $`L^\mu `$ . Using the line element (1.99a) and (2.2) and (2.3) these components become

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{3A\mathrm{\Phi }_0^3(a^2+b^2)(at+brx_0)^{2(1+2A)(1A)}}{24(1A)^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}}{w_0^2}+1\right]$$

$$\frac{abA\mathrm{\Phi }_0^3(a^2+b^2)(at+brx_0)^{2(1+2A)(1A)}}{24(1A)^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}}{w_0^2}+1\right]$$
$`(2.4a)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }_4=\frac{3A\mathrm{\Phi }_0^3(a^2+b^2)(at+brx_0)^{2(1+2A)(1A)}}{24(1A)^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}}{w_0^2}+1\right]$$

$$+\frac{abA\mathrm{\Phi }_0^3(a^2+b^2)(at+brx_0)^{2(1+2A)(1A)}}{24(1A)^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0(at+brx_0)^{2(1+A)/(1A)}}{w_0^2}+1\right]$$
$`(2.4b)`$
The first terms in the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ are equal and are nonvanishing for $`a=0`$ i.e for static spacetime. They represent the gravitational field for the global string. The second terms in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4`$ are of opposite sign and does not exist for $`a=0`$ i.e for static spacetime. These terms represent the outgoing and incoming gravitational radiation respectively. For a particular case $`ab=3`$ one can see that there is no outgoing radiation from the string but only the incoming radiation exists.

## IV Conclusion

In this work we have studied the gravitational field outside the core of a nonstatic global string in BD theory of gravity. The solution presented here are not the general one as we have made some assumptions but this may be the first example of such investigations where the BD scalar field is itself time dependent and also where the metric components are not the separable function of $`t`$ and $`r`$. The previous work in this line by Dando and Gregory , assumed the metric components are separable functions of time and space and also the BD scalar field was time independent. The solution presented here may or may not have singularity at a finite distance from the string core depending upon the value of arbitary constant but it has singularity at a particular time. One can also check from the expression of Kretschmann scalar that the spaceime is asymtotically flat both in time and space for $`(2\omega +3)>0`$ which is a physical assumption . As the components of Weyl tensor in null frame are nonzero hence there are incoming as well as outgoing gravitational radiation in our spacetime. Also the fact that the weyl tensor has non zero components combined with the non zero Ricci tensor leads to the fact that these strings may produce some gravitational lens effects for null rays passing near the strings. Hence there may be distortion and amplifications of distance objects seen along the lines of sight passing near the string .

## V Acknowledgement

One of the authors (AAS) gratefully acknowledge the hospitality provided by the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, where part of the work has been done.


text:
# A Spacetime Foam Approach to the Schwarzschild-de Sitter Entropy

## 1 Introduction

Black holes have many properties analogous to those of thermodynamics. In particular, four laws of black holes combined with the generalized second law make up a main framework of the black hole thermodynamics. In these laws, black hole entropy is defined as

$$S_{BH}=\frac{A}{4G},$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the area of black hole horizon. This formula is known as Bekenstein-Hawking formula, since the concept of black hole entropy was first introduced by Bekenstein as a quantity proportional to the horizon area and the proportionality coefficient was fixed by Hawking’s discovery of thermal radiation with temperature given by

$$k_BT_{BH}=\frac{\mathrm{}\kappa }{2\pi c}.$$
(2)
$`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity of a background black hole. This thermal radiation and its temperature are called Hawking radiation and Hawking temperature, respectively. Let us recall basic properties of the black hole thermodynamics by taking the example of a one-parameter family of Schwarzschild black holes, parameterized by the mass $`M`$. The first law of thermodynamics, in this case is

$$\delta E_{BH}=T_{BH}\delta S_{BH},$$
(3)
where $`E_{BH}`$, $`S_{BH}`$ and $`T_{BH}`$ are quantities that are identified with the energy, the entropy and the temperature of a black hole, respectively. The energy of the black hole is simply given by $`E_{BH}=M_{BH}`$. A simple relation exists also for the temperature $`T_{BH}`$. Hawking showed that a black hole with surface gravity $`\kappa `$ emits thermal radiation of a quantum matter field (which plays the rôle of a thermometer) at temperature given by Eq. $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ . Since $`\kappa =c^4/4GM_{BH}`$, it is natural to define the temperature of a Schwarzschild black hole with mass $`M_{BH}`$ by

$$k_BT_{BH}=\frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{8\pi GM_{BH}}.$$
(4)
Then from Eqs.$`\left(\text{2}\right)`$-$`\left(\text{4}\right)`$, we get

$$S_{BH}=\frac{k_Bc^3}{4\mathrm{}G}A+C,$$
(5)
where $`A16\pi G^2M_{BH}^2/c^4`$ is the area of the event horizon and $`C`$ is some constant. Since a value of $`C`$ is not essential in our discussions, we shall set hereafter $`C=0`$. This is a special case of the Bekenstein-Hawking formula. It can be shown that classically the area of the event horizon cannot decrease in time (the area law or the second law of black hole) just as the ordinary thermodynamical entropy. This observation was the real motivation of introducing a black-hole entropy. Moreover, when quantum effects are taken into account, it is believed that a sum of the black hole entropy and matter entropy does not decrease (the generalized second law). The zeroth law of black hole thermodynamics states that surface gravity of a Killing horizon is constant throughout the horizon. This is expected for the Schwarzschild black hole, because it is a static black hole. What is unexpected is that the same result is valid also for a Kerr black hole, which is dependent by its temperature, while the surface gravity is not. Of course we could just check this result but the point is that it is. This supports the choice of the black-hole temperature. The third law does hold in the sense of Nernst: it is impossible by any process, no matter how idealized, to reduce the surface gravity to zero in a finite sequence by operations . Thermodynamics has a well-established microscopic description: the quantum statistical mechanics. In the thermodynamical description, information on each microscopic degree of freedom is lost, and only macroscopic variables are concerned. However, the number of all microscopic degrees of freedom is implemented in a macroscopic variable: entropy $`S`$ is related to the number of all consistent microscopic states $`N`$ as

$$S=k_B\mathrm{ln}N.$$
(6)
In analogy, it is expected that there might be a microscopic description of the black hole thermodynamics, too. In particular, it is widely believed that the black hole entropy might be related to a number of microscopic states. This microscopic description seems to require a yet to be developed quantum theory of gravity. Actually a microscopic derivation of the black hole entropy was given in superstring theory by using the so-called D-brane technology. In this approach, the black hole entropy is identified with the logarithm of the number of states of massless strings attached to D-branes, with D-brane configuration and total momentum of the strings along a compactified direction fixed to be consistent with the corresponding black hole. The analysis along this line was extended to the so-called M-theory. Recently a different approach based on a foamy structure of space-time has been proposed . In this approach space-time foam is described by a collection of $`N`$ coherent wormholes, whose energy density (Casimir energy) at its minimum, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_s\left(M\right)N_w^2\frac{V}{64\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{e}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an U.V. cut-off, $`V`$ is the volume of the space and $`N_w`$ is the wormholes number. When we apply the wormhole model to the area, we obtain the mass quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole, namely111Units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=k=1`$ are used throughout the paper.

$$S=4\pi M^2G=4\pi M^2l_p^2=N\pi M=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{2l_p}.$$
(7)
A second consequence is that in de Sitter space, the cosmological constant is quantized in terms of $`l_p`$, i.e.

$$S=\frac{3\pi }{l_p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=\frac{A}{4l_p^2}=\frac{N4\pi l_p^2}{4l_p^2}=N\pi \frac{3}{l_p^2N}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c.$$
(8)
In this paper we would like to apply the same wormhole model of spacetime foam, to compute the entropy of a black hole embedded in a de Sitter space whose line element is described by the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric (SdS). We will also look at its extreme version, the so-called Nariai metric.

The plan of the paper is the following: in section 2, we will briefly report our model of space-time foam, in section 3, we give a simple example of application of the resulting discretized (foamy) spacetime to the computation of the entropy in the Schwarzschild and in de Sitter case; in section 4, we discuss the entropy quantization in the case of the SdS case. We summarize and conclude in section 5.

## 2 Constructing the Foam

When we try to merge General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory at the Planck scale, spacetime could be subjected to topology and metric fluctuations 222It is interesting to note that there are also indications on how a foamy spacetime can be tested experimentally.. Such a fluctuating spacetime is known under the name of “spacetime foam” which can be taken as a model for the quantum gravitational vacuum. At this scale of lengths (or energies) quantum processes like black hole pair creation could become relevant. To establish if a foamy spacetime could be considered as a candidate for a Quantum Gravitational vacuum, we can examine the structure of the effective potential for such a spacetime. There are some examples showing that flat space cannot be considered as the true ground state for General Relativity . In the case of Ref., the whole spacetime has been considered as a black hole-anti-black hole pair formed up by a black hole with positive mass $`M`$ in the coordinate system of the observer and an anti black-hole with negative mass $`M`$ in the system where the observer is not present. In this way we have an energy preserving mechanism, because flat space has zero energy and the pair has zero energy too. However, in this case we have not a cosmological force producing the pair: we have only pure gravitational fluctuations. The black hole-anti-black hole pair has also a relevant pictorial interpretation: the black hole with positive mass $`M`$ and the anti black-hole with negative mass $`M`$ can be considered the components of a virtual dipole with zero total energy created by a large quantum gravitational fluctuation. Note that this is the only physical process compatible with the energy conservation. The importance of having the same energy behaviour (asymptotic) is related to the possibility of having a spontaneous transition from one spacetime to another one with the same boundary condition . This transition is a decay from the false vacuum to the true one. However, if we take account of a pair of neutral black holes living in different universes, there is no decay and more important no temperature is involved to change from flat to curved space. To see if this process is realizable we need to compute quantum corrections to the energy stored in the boundaries. These quantum corrections are pure gravitational vacuum excitations which can be measured by the Casimir energy, formally defined as

$$E_{Casimir}\left[\right]=E_0\left[\right]E_0\left[0\right],$$
(9)
where $`E_0`$ is the zero-point energy and $``$ is a boundary.

We begin to consider the following line element (Einstein-Rosen bridge) related to a single wormhole

$$ds^2=N^2\left(r\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1\frac{2MG}{r}}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(10)
We

wish to compute the Casimir-like energy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\left(M\right)=E\left(M\right)E\left(0\right)$$

$$=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H^{Schw.}H^{Flat}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|H_{ql}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(11)
by perturbing the three-dimensional spatial metric $`g_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}+h_{ij}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\left(M\right)`$ is computed in a WKB approximation, by looking at the graviton sector (spin 2 or TT tensor) in a Schrödinger representation with trial wave functionals of the Gaussian form by means of a variational approach. The Spin-two operator is defined as

$$\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)_j^a:=\mathrm{}\delta _j^a+2R_j^a$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Laplacian on a Schwarzschild background and $`R_j^a`$ is the mixed Ricci tensor whose components are:

$$R_j^a=diag\{\frac{2MG}{r^3},\frac{MG}{r^3},\frac{MG}{r^3}\}.$$
(13)
The total energy at one loop, i.e., the classical term plus the stable and unstable modes respectively, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_{q.l.}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_s+\mathrm{\Delta }E_u$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{q.l.}`$ is the quasilocal energy. For symmetric boundary conditions with respect to the bifurcation surface $`S_0`$ (such as this case $`E_{q.l.}=E_+E_{}=0`$. When the boundaries go to spatial infinity $`E_\pm =M_{ADM}`$. The Stable modes contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_s=\frac{V}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{3MG}{r_0^3}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r_0^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{3MG}\right).$$
(14)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a cut-off to keep under control the $`UV`$ divergence, we can think that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }m_p`$. For the unstable sector, there is only one eigenvalue in S-wave. This is in agreement with Coleman arguments on quantum tunneling: the presence of a unique negative eigenvalue in the second order perturbation is a signal of a passage from a false vacuum to a true vacuum. The Rayleigh-Ritz method joined to a numerical integration technique gives $`E^2=\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}175\hspace{0.17em}41}/\left(MG\right)^2`$, to be compared with the value $`E^2=\mathrm{.\hspace{0.17em}19}/\left(MG\right)^2`$ of Ref..

How to eliminate the instability? We consider $`N_w`$ coherent wormholes (i.e., non-interacting) in a semiclassical approximation and assume that there exists a covering of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=_{i=1}^{N_w}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=\mathrm{}`$ when $`ij`$. Each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ has the topology $`S^2\times R^1`$ with boundaries $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i^\pm `$ with respect to each bifurcation surface. On each surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, quasilocal energy is zero because we assume that on each copy of the single wormhole there is symmetry with respect to each bifurcation surface. Thus the total energy for the collection is $`E_{|2}^{tot}=N_wH_{|2}`$ and the total trial wave functional is the product of $`N_w`$ t.w.f.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{tot}^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{N_w}^{}$$
(15)
By repeating the same calculations done for the single wormhole for the Nw wormhole system, we obtain

The total Casimir energy (stable modes), at its minimum, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_s\left(M\right)N_w^2\frac{V}{64\pi ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{e}.$$

The minimum does not correspond to flat space $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_s\left(M\right)0.`$

The initial boundary located at $`R_\pm `$ will be reduced to $`R_\pm /N_w.`$

Since the boundary is reduced there exists a critical radius $`\rho _c=\mathrm{1.\hspace{0.17em}113\hspace{0.17em}4}`$ such that : $`NN_{w_c}`$ $`r_c`$ $`s.t.`$ $`r_0rr_c,\sigma \left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right)=\mathrm{}`$. This means that the system begins to be stable. To be compared with the value $`\rho _c=1.445`$ obtained by B. Allen in Ref..

## 3 Area Spectrum, Entropy and the Cosmological constant

Bekenstein has proposed that a black hole does have an entropy proportional to the area of its horizon $`S_{bh}=const\times A_{hor}`$. In natural units one finds that the proportionality constant is set to $`1/4G=1/4l_p^2`$, so that the entropy becomes $`S=A/4G=A/4l_p^2.`$ Another proposal always made by Bekenstein is the quantization of the area for nonextremal black holes $`a_n=\alpha l_p^2\left(n+\eta \right)`$ $`\eta >1`$ $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ The area is measured by the quantity

$$A\left(S_0\right)=_{S_0}d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }.$$
(16)
We would like to evaluate the mean value of the area

$$A\left(S_0\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_F\left|\widehat{A}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}{\mathrm{\Psi }_F|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_F\left|\widehat{_{S_0}d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}{\mathrm{\Psi }_F|\mathrm{\Psi }_F},$$
(17)
computed on the foam state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_F=\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{N_w}^{}.$$
(18)
Consider $`\sigma _{ab}=\overline{\sigma }_{ab}+\delta \sigma _{ab}\overline{\sigma }_{ab}`$ is such that $`_{S_0}d^2x\sqrt{\overline{\sigma }}=4\pi \overline{r}^2`$ and $`\overline{r}`$ is the radius of $`S_0`$

$$A\left(S_0\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_F\left|\widehat{A}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}{\mathrm{\Psi }_F|\mathrm{\Psi }_F}=4\pi \overline{r}^2.$$
(19)
Suppose to consider the mean value of the area $`A`$ computed on a given macroscopic fixed radius $`R`$. On the basis of our foam model, we obtain $`A=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_i`$, with $`A_iA_j=\mathrm{}`$ when $`ij`$. Thus

$$A=4\pi R^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}4\pi \overline{r}_i^2.$$
(20)
When $`\overline{r}_il_p`$, $`A_iA_{l_P}`$ and

$$A=NA_{l_P}=N4\pi l_p^2S=\frac{A}{4l_p^2}=\frac{N4\pi l_p^2}{4l_p^2}=N\pi .$$
(21)
Thus the macroscopic area is represented by $`N`$ microscopic areas of the Planckian size. In this sense we will claim that the area is quantized. The first consequence is the mass quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole, namely

$$S=4\pi M^2G=4\pi M^2l_p^2=N\pi M=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{2l_p}.$$
(22)
To be compared with Refs.. A second consequence is that in de Sitter space, the cosmological constant is quantized in terms of $`l_p`$, i.e.

$$S=\frac{3\pi }{l_p^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}=\frac{A}{4l_p^2}=\frac{N4\pi l_p^2}{4l_p^2}=N\pi \frac{3}{l_p^2N}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c.$$
(23)
It is possible to give an estimate of the total amount of Planckian wormholes needed to fill the space beginning from the Planck era $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(10^{16}10^{18}GeV\right)^2\right)`$ up to the space in which we now live $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(10^{42}GeV\right)^2`$.

$$\frac{1}{N}10^{38}GeV^2=10^{84}GeV^2N=10^{122},$$
(24)
in agreement with the observational data $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c10^{122}l_P^2`$ coming from the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology constraining the cosmological constant.

## 4 Entropy for black holes in de Sitter space

The Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric (SdS) is defined as

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2MG}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{3}r^2\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2MG}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{3}r^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(25)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=0`$ the metric becomes

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2MG}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2MG}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(26)
and it describes the Schwarzschild metric, while for $`M=0`$, we obtain

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{3}r^2\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{3}r^2\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(27)
namely the de Sitter metric (dS). The gravitational potential $`g_{00}\left(r\right)`$ of $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$ admits three real roots. One is negative and it is located at

$$r_{}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{3}+\frac{2\pi }{3}\right),$$
(28)
while the other ones are associated to the black hole and cosmological horizons respectively located at

$$r_+=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{3}\right),r_{++}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta }{3}+\frac{4\pi }{3}\right),$$
(29)
where

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =3MG\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c},$$
(30)
with the condition

$$09\left(MG\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c1.$$
(31)
Eq.$`\left(\text{30}\right)`$ implies that $`\theta `$ $`[\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{3\pi }{2}]`$. In this interval $`r_+`$ is a monotonic decreasing function of $`\theta `$, while $`r_{++}`$ is a monotonic increasing one with

$$\{\begin{array}{c}r_+^{}[0,\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}]\\ r_{++}^{}[0,\sqrt{3/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}].\end{array}$$
(32)
They have a common value when $`r_+=r_{++}=1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}`$, where $`9\left(MG\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. This means that the cosmological horizon and the black hole horizon have merged. The relation between the three roots is

$$r_{}+r_++r_{++}=0$$
(33)
and furthermore

$$\{\begin{array}{c}3/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=r_+^2+r_+r_{++}+r_{++}^2\\ 6Ml_p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\left(r_+r_{++}\right)\left(r_++r_{++}\right).\end{array}$$
(34)
The gravitational entropy in the SdS case is

$$S=\frac{A_{bh}+A_c}{4l_p^2}=\frac{\pi }{l_p^2}\left(r_+^2+r_{++}^2\right),$$
(35)
namely it is the sum of the black hole and cosmological entropy. By means of Eqs.$`\left(\text{29}\right)`$ one gets,

$$S=\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\theta }{3}\right)+\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\theta }{3}+\frac{4\pi }{3}\right)\right)=\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}c\left(\theta \right).$$
(36)
For $`\theta [\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{3\pi }{2}]`$, $`c\left(\theta \right)[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4}]`$ and the entropy is bounded by

$$\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}S\frac{3\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}.$$
(37)
The lower bound of inequality $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$ corresponds to the entropy of the Nariai metric, whose (Lorentzian) line element is

$$ds^2=\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }p^2\right)dt^2+\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }p^2\right)^1dp^2+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(38)
Thus the entropy in the SdS case has an upper bound represented by the de Sitter entropy and a lower bound represented by the Nariai entropy. By means of Eq.$`\left(\text{23}\right)`$, the Nariai entropy is

$$S=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}=\frac{2\pi N}{3}$$
(39)
and the relative black hole mass is

$$M=\frac{\left(r_+r_{++}\right)\left(r_++r_{++}\right)}{2l_p^2\left(r_+^2+r_+r_{++}+r_{++}^2\right)},$$
(40)
where we have used Eqs.$`\left(\text{34}\right)`$ to express the mass and the cosmological constant in terms of the roots of the gravitational potential $`g_{00}\left(r\right)`$. When $`r_+=r_{++}=\overline{r}`$, the black hole mass is equal to the “cosmological mass$`M_c`$

$$M_c=M=\frac{2\overline{r}^2\overline{r}}{6l_p^2\overline{r}^2}=\frac{\overline{r}}{3l_p^2}=\frac{1}{3l_p^2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}},$$
(41)
i.e. Eq. $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$ for $`\theta =\pi `$. Recalling Eq.$`\left(\text{23}\right)`$ we obtain

$$M=\sqrt{\frac{1}{9l_p^4\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}=\sqrt{\frac{N}{27l_p^2}}M=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{3\sqrt{3}l_p}.$$
(42)
Therefore the black hole mass is bounded by

$$0M\frac{1}{3l_p^2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}}=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{3\sqrt{3}l_p}.$$
(43)
Note that the black hole mass in the Nariai case is lower than the Schwarzschild case: this is the effect of having a spacetime with a positive cosmological constant which describes a $`S^3`$ topology. This means that also the black hole radius cannot exceed the cosmological radius. Thus the black hole mass has an upper bound deriving from the extreme case.

## 5 Conclusions

On the basis of the model of spacetime foam described in section 3, in this paper an attempt to compute the entropy for the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric has been performed including also its extreme case or Nariai metric. It is known that semiclassically, one can assign a probability measure that leads to computing the logarithm of the number of microstates as in the case of a thermal system with an entropy

$$S=\mathrm{log}P.$$
(44)
The SdS case entropy is described by Eq.$`\left(\text{35}\right)`$. The associated probability is

$$P_{SdS}\mathrm{exp}S=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\pi }{l_p^2}\left(r_+^2+r_{++}^2\right)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_cl_p^2}c\left(\theta \right).$$
(45)
This value interposes two special cases, as seen. The first is the de Sitter case where $`M=0`$ and $`S=3\pi /l_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, i.e.

$$P_{dS}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3\pi }{l_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\pi N$$
(46)
and the second is the Nariai case where $`M=M_c`$ and $`S=2\pi /l_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ with probability

$$P_N\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{l_P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi N}{3}.$$
(47)
Thus the probability is an exponentially decreasing function in terms of the mass parameter and

$$P_NP_{SdS}P_{dS}\mathrm{exp}\frac{2\pi N}{3}\mathrm{exp}\frac{4\pi N}{3}c\left(\theta \right)\mathrm{exp}\pi N,$$
(48)
where we have expressed the probability in terms of the wormholes number. As expected the presence of the cosmological constant modifies the property of the black hole mass and consequently of its horizon. This modification is given by directly comparing the Schwarzschild metric and the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric. Moreover from Eq.$`\left(\text{48}\right)`$, we realize that the de Sitter space has the best probability to be realized when compared with the SdS or Nariai spaces. Nevertheless, we can see that the SdS space has a probability that can be driven close to the de Sitter probability. Moreover, when we compare $`P_{SdS}`$ with $`P_N`$ we can see that the SdS space has a major probability with respect to the extreme space, namely the Nariai space. This conclusion seems to be in conflict with the request that only regular Euclidean Einstein solutions close to the horizon have to be considered; in this case only the Nariai solution. A possibility that can be investigated to better understand this situation is given by the computation of the Casimir-like energy for the SdS space with the de Sitter space as a reference space. This has been done for the Schwarzschild space with flat space as a reference space in Ref. and it has led to the N-wormhole approximation of the foam we have used to compute the entropy for the SdS and Nariai spaces. The same steps can be repeated to better understand the process of black hole pair creation in presence of a cosmological term and its consequences on the foam structure.

References and Notes