text:
# Black Hole Thermodynamics and Riemann Surfaces Expanded version of a talk given in the Math Department, SUNY, Stony Brook and in the Physics Department, University of Maryland.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we use the analytic continuation procedure proposed in  to study the thermodynamics of black hole (BH) solutions of 2+1 gravity with negative cosmological constant. The simplest such black hole was described by Banados, Teitelboim, Zanelli . Later black holes with non-trivial internal topology were discovered .

The standard strategy for studying BH thermodynamics is to analytically continue the hole spacetime. The (exponential of the) classical Einstein-Hilbert action evaluated on the resulting Euclidean metric is then the BH partition function. The later can be used to obtain the BH entropy according to the usual thermodynamic formulas. Let us remind the reader how this works for the usual Schwarzschild BH in 3+1 dimensions, see . The Lorentzian signature metric is given by:

$`ds^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{r}}\right)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{2GM}{r}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.`$ (1.1)
Here $`M`$ is the BH mass, $`G`$ is the Newton’s constant, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the line element on the unit sphere, and $`t,r`$ are the time and radial coordinates correspondingly. The horizon is located at $`r=r_+=2MG`$. To analytically continue the BH spacetime one sends $`ti\tau `$. The imaginary time coordinate $`\tau `$ must be periodic with period $`\beta =1/T`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature. The Euclidean metric one gets is:

$`ds^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2GM}{r}}\right)d\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{2GM}{r}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.`$ (1.2)
The $`r,\tau `$ part of the metric describes a 2-dimensional “plane” with a conical singularity at the origin $`r=r_+`$. The period of $`\tau `$ must be chosen in such a way that there is no conical singularity. For a metric of the form:

$`ds^2=f(r)d\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{f(r)}},f(r_+)=0`$ (1.3)
the condition that there is no conical singularity is that the circumference $`\beta \sqrt{f^{}(r_+)ϵ}`$ of the circle $`r=r_++ϵ`$ is equal to $`2\pi `$ times the proper distance $`2\sqrt{ϵ}/\sqrt{f^{}(r_+)}`$ from the origin to the point $`r=r_++ϵ`$. This gives for the period:

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{f^{}(r_+)}}.`$ (1.4)
For Schwarzschild BH $`f^{}(r_+)=1/r_+`$ and the temperature one gets from (1.4) is the famous Hawking temperature:

$`T_H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi GM}}.`$ (1.5)
To obtain the BH partition function one must evaluate the Einstein-Hilbert action:

$`I[g]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}(KK_0)`$ (1.6)
on the metric (1.2). The first term is identically zero on shell. In the second term $`K`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of the boundary, and $`K_0`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of the boundary embedded in flat space. We have

$`KK_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f^{}/f,`$ (1.7)
where $`f=f(r)`$ is as in (1.3). Then, using $`f^{}=r_+/r^2`$, computing the integral over the boundary and sending $`r`$ to infinity we get:

$`I[g_{\mathrm{cl}}]={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+\beta }{8\pi G}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+^2}{4G}}.`$ (1.8)
The BH partition function is then $`\mathrm{ln}Z=I[g_{\mathrm{cl}}]`$.

The standard thermodynamic relations tell us that the expectation value of the energy in the system is given by:

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }}.`$ (1.9)
It is easy to check that $`E=M`$, as expected. The entropy is given by:

$`S=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }}+\mathrm{ln}Z.`$ (1.10)
The first term here equals twice the quantity (1.8), while the second term is minus (1.8). Therefore, we get for the entropy:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+^2}{4G}}={\displaystyle \frac{A}{4G}},`$ (1.11)
where $`A`$ is the horizon area. This is the famous Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.

We are going to apply the same strategy to study the thermodynamics of 2+1 dimensional black holes. That is, we are going to analytically continue the BH spacetimes to obtain certain spaces of Euclidean signature. To get the BH partition function we evaluate the gravity action on these spaces. The BH entropy is then obtained according to the standard thermodynamic formulas.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section we shall remind the reader some facts about BH in 2+1 dimensions. In section 3 we describe how to analytically continue the BH spacetimes. The BH partition function is discussed in section 4. Finally, we study the BH thermodynamics in 5. We conclude with a short summary.

## 2 Black Holes in 2+1 dimensions

The material reviewed in this section is from . The references for the rotating case are .

Black holes in 2+1 dimensions can have non-trivial internal topology. A general BH has $`g`$ handles hidden behind $`h`$ horizons. Unlike the case with higher-dimensional black holes, BH’s in 2+1 cannot have more than one horizon per asymptotic region. Thus, the number of horizons is also the number of asymptotic regions.

As the gravity theory in 2+1 dimensions does not have local degrees of freedom, solutions of vacuum Einstein equations are spacetimes of constant curvature. The case relevant to us here is that of negative cosmological constant. Only in this case there are BH’s in the theory. Thus, we have to consider the spacetimes of constant negative curvature. They are all locally indistinguishable from the maximally symmetric spacetime AdS3. All (complete) spacetimes are therefore obtainable by identifications of points in AdS acting by transformations from some discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, subgroup of the group of isometries.

Let us briefly remind the reader some basic facts about the Lorentzian AdS3. The spacetime is best viewed as the interior of an infinite cylinder. The cylinder itself is the conformal boundary $``$ of the spacetime. It is timelike, unlike the null conformal boundary of an asymptotically flat spacetime. All light rays propagating inside AdS start and end on $``$. In this picture the constant time slices are copies of the Poincare (unit) disk. The unit disk is isometric to the upper half plane $`𝐔`$; we shall use both models. The isometry group of the Lorentzian signature AdS3 is $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)\times \mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. The spacetimes itself can be viewed as the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ group manifold so that a point $`x\mathrm{AdS}_3`$ is represented by a matrix $`𝐱\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. The isometry group acts by the left and right action: $`𝐱g𝐱h^1,g,h\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$.

Let us now return to the BH spacetimes. It is easiest to describe non-rotating BH’s. In this case there is a plane of time symmetry $`X`$ in the spacetime. In order to have such a plane in the quotient spacetime $`M=\mathrm{AdS}_3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the discrete group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that one uses to identify points must be such that its action fixes the $`t=0`$ plane in AdS. We use such a parameterization of the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ group manifold that the subgroup of isometries that fixes the $`t=0`$ plane is given by: $`𝐱g𝐱g^T,g\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. Note that there is another “diagonal” action of the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ given by: $`𝐱g𝐱g^1`$; such transformations fix the origin of AdS. Transformations that fix the $`t=0`$ plane of AdS act on this plane. The geometry of the time symmetry plane $`X`$ of the quotient spacetime is therefore that of $`𝐔/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`𝐔`$ is the hyperbolic plane. Thus, $`X`$ is a Riemann surface (with holes, see below) uniformized by $`𝐔`$. Once the geometry of the time symmetry plane is understood one just “evolves” the identifications in time to obtain the BH spacetime, see .

Let us see how this works on examples. Consider first the case of the non-rotating BTZ BH. The corresponding discrete group is generated by a single hyperbolic element. Its action on the $`t=0`$ plane can be understood by finding the so-called fundamental region. The fundamental region $`D`$ on the hyperbolic plane $`𝐔`$ for group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is such that any point on $`𝐔`$ can be obtained as an image of a point in $`D`$ under a transformation from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and such that no two points of $`D`$ (except on its boundary) are related. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by a single element $`\gamma `$ the fundamental region is that between two geodesics on $`𝐔`$ mapped into one another by the generator $`\gamma `$, see Fig. 1(a). It is clear that the quotient space has the topology of the $`S^1\times `$ wormhole with two asymptotic regions, each having the topology of $`S^1`$, see Fig. 1(b). It can also be described as the geometry of a sphere with two holes. On Fig. 1(a) the BTZ angular coordinate runs from one geodesics to the other. The distance between the two geodesics measured along their common normal is precisely the horizon circumference. Evolving the identifications in time one obtains a spacetime of a BH with two asymptotic regions. There are two horizons, they both intersect the time symmetry plane along the minimal length geodesic shown in Fig. 1(b). See  for more details on the spacetime picture.

Let us now consider more complicated initial slice geometries. We now consider the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be generated by two hyperbolic elements. For example, let the fundamental region be the part of the unit disk between four geodesics, as in Fig. 2(a). Let us identify these geodesics cross-wise. It is straightforward to show that the resulting geometry has only one asymptotic region, consisting of all four parts of the infinity of the fundamental region. With little more effort one can convince oneself that the resulting geometry is one asymptotic region “glued” to a torus, see Fig. 2(b). The spacetime obtained by evolving this geometry is a single asymptotic region black hole, but the topology inside the event horizon is now that of a torus. See  for more details on this spacetime.

A group generated by two elements can also be used to obtain a three asymptotic region black hole . The fundamental region on the $`t=0`$ plane is again the region bounded by four geodesics. They are, however, now identified side-wise, see Fig. 3(a). One can clearly see that the initial slice geometry has three asymptotic regions, as in Fig. 3(b). Evolving this, one gets a spacetime with three asymptotic regions and corresponding event horizons. See  for more details.

Taking the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be more complicated one constructs a large class of spacetimes. In particular, one can have a single asymptotic region black hole with an arbitrary Riemann surface inside the horizon. More generally, one can have a black hole with any number $`h`$ of asymptotic regions (horizons), and with any number $`g`$ of handles hidden behind the horizon(s). We shall refer to such a general BH as a hole of type $`(g,h)`$. The geometry of the time symmetry plane is that of a genus $`g`$ surface with $`h`$ holes. The holes are in correspondence with asymptotic regions (horizons). We note that for $`g=0`$ the minimal number of holes is 2, which corresponds to the BTZ BH. So we have: $`h2,g=0`$. For $`g1,h1`$.

Let us now consider general, rotating black holes. The idea of  was to unravel the spacetime structure by considering the action of the discrete group at the boundary cylinder, instead of thinking about the action at the $`t=0`$ plane that is no longer preserved by identifications. One gets a rather effective description, which, for example, allows one to calculate horizon angular velocities in terms of traces of group elements generating identifications. The following formula was obtained in  using methods of . To get the angular velocity of a horizon, one must find a group element that generates isometries of the corresponding asymptotic region. The angular velocity is then obtained as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{Arccosh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^L\right)\mathrm{Arccosh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^R\right)}{\mathrm{Arccosh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^L\right)+\mathrm{Arccosh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^R\right)}.$$
(2.1)
Here $`\gamma ^L,\gamma ^R`$ are the left and right parts of an isometry $`\gamma \mathrm{SL}(2,)\times \mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. For example, one makes the wormhole of Fig. 2 rotating by taking two generators $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$ whose left and right parts are not equal. A generator of isometries of the single asymptotic region of this wormhole is then the commutator: $`\gamma =[\gamma _1,\gamma _2]`$. Substituting its left and right parts into the formula (2.1) one gets the horizon angular velocity. Similarly one can compute the angular velocity of any horizon for a BH of a general type.

We also note that there is a similar formula for the horizon size:

$`2\pi r_+=\mathrm{Arccosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^L\right)+\mathrm{Arccosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\gamma ^R\right).`$ (2.2)
Here $`\gamma ^L,\gamma ^R`$ are also the left and right parts of a generator of isometries of the asymptotic region whose horizon size is being computed. Formulas (2.1), (2.2) allow us to calculate all of the horizon properties in terms of the corresponding group elements. An analytically continued version of these formulas will play an important role in what follows.

## 3 Analytic Continuation

The content of this section is from .

Let us now turn to the procedure of analytic continuation. We first describe this procedure for a non-rotating BH. The basic idea is, instead of analytically continuing the metric in some time coordinate, produce a space $``$ by identifying points in the Euclidean AdS3 using the same group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. That is $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We recall that the group of isometries of the Euclidean AdS3 (=hyperbolic space $`𝐇^3`$) is $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. However, $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ is naturally a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on $`𝐇^3`$ and this action can be used to obtain a quotient space. To see what this quotient space is let us give another, equivalent description of the continuation map. Let us take a section of the Poincare ball (a model for $`𝐇^3`$) by a plane passing through the center of the ball. The intersection of the ball with the plane is a unit disk $`𝐔`$. Let us call this $`t=0`$ plane and do on it the same identifications as we do on the time symmetry plane of the spacetime to be analytically continued. Let us then “evolve” these identifications, but now in the Euclidean time. To do this one just constructs geodesic surfaces intersecting the $`t=0`$ plane orthogonally along the geodesics bounding the fundamental region. The geodesic surfaces in $`𝐇^3`$ are hemispheres; they are to be identified.

Let us see how this works for the simplest case of the BTZ black hole. Thus, we require that the geometry of the $`t=0`$ slice of the unit ball is the same as the geometry of the $`t=0`$ slice of BTZ black hole, see Fig. 1. We then have to build geodesic surfaces above and below the two geodesics on the $`t=0`$ plane, see Fig. 4(a). The Euclidean BTZ black hole is then the region between these hemispheres; the hemispheres themselves are identified. It is clear that the space obtained is a solid torus, its conformal boundary being a torus. It is often more convenient to work with another model for the same space, that using the upper half space. The interior of the Poincare ball can be isometrically mapped into the upper half-space. The boundary sphere goes under this map into the $`xy`$ plane. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by a single generator one can always put its fixed points to $`0,\mathrm{}`$, so that the picture of the Euclidean BTZ BH becomes that in Fig. 4(b). It is important that using our procedure we have arrived at the same space as is the one obtained by the usual analytic continuation in the time coordinate, see .

Let us consider another example. We now want to construct the Euclidean version of the single asymptotic region black hole with a torus inside the horizon. The procedure is the same: we require a slice of the unit ball to have the same geometry as the $`t=0`$ slice of the black hole. This gives us four hemispheres inside the unit ball; the Euclidean space is the region between them and they are to be identified cross-wise, see Fig. 5(a). One sees that the Euclidean space is a solid 2-handled sphere. One can again map the whole configuration into the upper half-space, see Fig. 5(b).

One can do a similar analysis for the three asymptotic region black hole (one also gets a solid two-handled sphere), and for any other of the non-rotating black holes of . In all cases the pattern is the same: one requires the $`t=0`$ slice geometry to be the same also in the Euclidean case, and this determines the Euclidean geometry completely. The Euclidean spaces one gets are handlebodies.

We would now like to understand in more detail a relation between the geometry of the time symmetry plane and the conformal boundary $``$ of the Euclidean space. As we shall explain, the later is the so-called Schottky double of the former. Given a Riemann surface $`X`$, closed or with a boundary, its Schottky double is another Riemann surface $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, not necessarily connected, out of which the original surface can be obtained by identifications: $`X=\stackrel{~}{X}/\sigma `$. Here $`\sigma `$ is an anti-holomorphic map of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ into itself. For a surface $`X`$ without a boundary the Schottky double $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is given by two disconnected copies of $`X`$, with orientation of the second copy reversed. For a surface with a boundary one takes two copies of $`X`$ and glues them along the boundary to obtain a connected surface. The anti-holomorphic map $`\sigma `$ fixes the pre-image of the boundary of $`X`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$.

It is not hard to convince oneself that the geometry of the boundary $``$ of the Euclidean space $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ obtained via our analytic continuation prescription is that of the Schottky double of the $`t=0`$ geometry $`X`$. This is related to the fact that the Riemann surface one obtains is uniformized by the complex plane, which is the so-called uniformization by Schottky groups. Let us first recall some basic information about the Schottky groups, see, e.g.,  as a reference. A Schottky group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a discrete subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, freely (that is, no relations) generated by a number $`g`$ of loxodromic (that is $`\mathrm{Tr}(L_i)[0,2]`$) generators $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_g\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. The Schottky group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ acts by conformal transformations on the complex plane $``$. Let us denote by $`𝒞`$ the complement of the set of fixed points of this action. As is not hard to convince oneself, the quotient $`𝒞/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a compact genus $`g`$ Riemann surface. A Riemann surface obtained from the complex plane by identifications from a Schottky group is called uniformized via Schottky. This is a uniformization different from the usual Fuchsian one that uses the hyperbolic plane. We have already encountered surfaces uniformized by Schottky groups. The boundaries of our Euclidean spaces were obtained exactly this way. It is only that we considered Schottky groups that are real, that is, subgroups of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. This is related to the fact that we have so far only considered non-rotating spacetimes. As we explain later, inclusion of rotation would amount to considering general Schottky groups.

Let us illustrate all this on an example. Consider the single asymptotic region wormhole. The $`t=0`$ plane geometry is obtained as a quotient with respect to a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ generated by two elements. The same group, thought of as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ acts in $`𝐇^3`$. In particular, it acts on the boundary of $`𝐇^3`$, that is the complex plane, by fractional linear transformations. The boundary of the Euclidean space is then obtained as the quotient of the complex plane by this action. The fundamental region for this action is shown in Fig. 6. Since all generators are in $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, their fixed points are located on the real axes, and so are the centers of the circles bounding the fundamental region. Removing the circles one gets a sphere with four holes. Identifying their boundaries one gets a genus 2 surface –our Euclidean boundary. Extending the identifications into the bulk of the hyperbolic space one gets the situation depicted in Fig. 5. The $`t=0`$ plane geometry is embedded into this figure as the $`zx`$ plane, that is as a plane orthogonal to the boundary of $`𝐇^3`$ and intersecting it along the real axis. Identifications induced on this $`zx`$ plane are precisely those needed to get $`X`$. It is now clear that the geometry of the Euclidean boundary $``$ is precisely that of the double of $`X`$. Let us note that the two copies of $`X`$ needed to obtain the Euclidean boundary are exactly the “same” (but have opposite orientation). Indeed, the configuration of circles in Fig. 6 is invariant under the reflection on the real line. This reflection is exactly the anti-holomorphic map $`\sigma `$ that is part of the definition of the Schottky double.

Having explained why the boundary of the Euclidean space is the Schottky double of the initial slice geometry, let use this fact to obtain a simple relation between the number of asymptotic regions $`h`$, the number of handles $`g`$ behind the horizon, and the genus of the Euclidean boundary $`G`$. As it is easy to see:

$$G=2g+h1.$$
(3.1)
Let us now describe the spaces obtained as the analytic continuation of rotating BH spacetimes. The main idea is  to analytically continue the identifications in AdS3 into isometries of the hyperbolic space. This is achieved by analytically continuing the coordinates of the fixed points of the Lorentzian isometries on the boundary cylinder. The result of this analytic continuation is a complex group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, so that the Euclidean space that corresponds to a rotating BH spacetime is $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

To understand what class of groups $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may arise we need to understand the meaning of the deformation due to rotation. As is explained in detail in , the complex group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is best thought of as a certain deformation of the group of the non-rotating spacetime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{rot}}\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. The deformation in question is the so-called quasi-conformal deformation due to a Fenchel-Nielsen twist.

The Fenchel-Nielsen twist is a way to change the conformal structure on a Riemann surface. One selects a simple geodesic, cuts the surface along this geodesic, rotates the sides of the cut with respect to each other, and glues back. One obtains a Riemann surface with a different conformal structure. One can describe this new conformal structure either by Fuchsian or quasi-Fuchsian groups. The quasi-Fuchsian description was first given by Wolpert . In this description one starts with a Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to the original surface. The twist along some geodesic corresponds to a particular quasi-conformal $`f^\tau `$ map of the upper half-plane into the interior of a Jordan curve. The image of the real axis is the Jordan curve itself. The resulting deformed group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\tau =f^\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }(f^\tau )^1`$ is a quasi-Fuchsian group, subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$.

As was explained in  the description in terms of quasi-Fuchsian groups is the one relevant in our case. One starts with a non-rotating spacetime. Its analytic continuation is the manifold $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whose boundary $``$ is a Riemann surface: the Schottky double of the time symmetry plane. There is a set of simple closed geodesics on $``$ that correspond to asymptotic regions (horizons). Turning on rotation in one of the asymptotic regions is equivalent to making a Fenchel-Nielsen twist along the corresponding horizon geodesic on $``$, see Fig. 7. As the result of the twist one gets a quasi-Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. The size and angular velocity of all horizons can be easily expressed in terms of traces of certain group elements from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Taking any group element $`A\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose axis projects on a horizon geodesics on $``$ one has:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}A=\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi (r_++i|r_{}|)}{l}}\right),`$ (3.2)
where $`r_+,r_{}`$ are the outer and inner horizon radii correspondingly. The mass and angular momentum of the horizon can be expressed in terms of $`r_+,r_{}`$ by simple formulas, see below. Thus, the analytic continuation of the rotating spacetime is the manifold $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a complex group. The moduli of the Riemann surface $``$, such as (3.2) describe physical properties of the BH.

Let us now discuss what is the most general group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ that corresponds to a BH spacetime. The boundary $``$ of the analytically continued BH spacetime is a quotient $`𝒞/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`𝒞`$ is the domain of discontinuity for the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $``$. The surface $``$ is the double of a Riemann surface $`X`$ with $`g`$ handles and $`h`$ holes. The number of moduli describing the conformal geometry of $`X`$ is $`6g+3h6`$, out of which $`h`$ moduli describe the sizes of the holes. The most general $``$ is obtained by taking two surfaces $`X`$ with different conformal geometry, and gluing them across the holes. The only condition is that the sizes of holes in the two copies of $`X`$ must be the same. However, there is an additional parameter –twist– for each hole. Thus, overall, one gets $`2(6g+3h6)`$ real parameters. This equals $`6G6`$, the dimension of the moduli space at genus $`G`$, where $`G`$ is the genus of $``$. Thus, the dimension of the moduli space of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that correspond to BH spacetimes is just the dimension of the Teichmüller space at genus $`G`$.

To describe such $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s more explicitly we need a version of the Bers’ simultaneous uniformization theorem. In its classical version this theorem states that, given two Riemann surfaces $`X,Y`$ of the same genus and opposite orientation, there exists a quasi-Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ that simultaneously uniformizes them. In other words the surface $`𝒞/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where as usual $`𝒞`$ is the domain of discontinuity for the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $``$, is the disconnected sum $`XY`$. The theorem is proved by showing that there exist a quasi-conformal map $`f^1`$, which is conformal in the lower half-plane, such that $`f^1\mathrm{\Sigma }(f^1)^1`$ equals to the Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$ uniformizing $`X`$. Similarly, there exists a quasi-conformal map $`f^2`$, conformal in the upper half-plane, such that $`f^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(f^2)^1`$ is the Fuchsian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y`$ uniformizing $`Y`$.

What we need is a version of this theorem for simultaneous uniformization of two surfaces with holes. Let $`X,Y`$ be two surfaces of type $`(g,h)`$ of opposite orientation. The statement that we need is that given $`X,Y`$ and a set of $`h`$ numbers –twists– that tell us how to glue $`X`$ to $`Y`$ across the holes, there exists a complex group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that uniformizes the surface obtained by gluing $`X`$ to $`Y`$. Similarly to the compact $`X,Y`$ case one expects that there are two quasi-conformal maps, conformal in the lower and upper half-planes correspondingly, such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ “untwisted” by these maps gives the Fuchsian groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y`$ of the second kind uniformizing $`X,Y`$. This would be a natural analog of the classical simultaneous uniformization. Unfortunately, we are not aware of a statement to this effect in the literature. It would be of interest to generalize simultaneous uniformization to the case of surfaces with holes.

The groups $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that arise as a result of such simultaneous uniformization of two surfaces with holes $`X,Y`$ are the most general groups that correspond to BH spacetimes. The physical properties of BH’s can be read off from the group directly using the formula (3.2). The groups arising are finitely generated, free, purely loxodromic Kleinian groups with one component. According to a theorem due to Maskit  these are exactly the Schottky groups. Thus, our $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are Schottky groups, and the moduli space of analytic continuations of BH spacetimes is the Schottky space. We are now ready to calculate the thermodynamic partition function for our BH’s. We do this by evaluating the Einstein-Hilbert action on the Euclidean 3-manifolds $``$ –analytic continuation of BH spacetimes. The partition function will be a certain function on the Schottky space.

## 4 Partition Function

This section is based on . The Einstein-Hilbert action to be evaluated on spaces $``$ is given by:

$`I[g]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}\sqrt{\gamma }K+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}\sqrt{\gamma }.`$ (4.1)
Here $`\gamma `$ is the restriction of the metric $`g`$ on $``$ to the boundary $``$. The last boundary term proportional to the boundary area is necessary to regularize the action. To evaluate the action on $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one must select a regularizing family of surfaces. There is a canonical family in $`𝐇^3`$ with the following properties: (i) it is compatible with identifications one makes to get $``$; (ii) each surface has constant negative curvature. Explicitly, the surfaces are given by:

$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho e^{\phi /2}}{1+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2e^\phi |\phi _w|^2}},`$ (4.2)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`w+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{\overline{w}}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2e^\phi }{1+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2e^\phi |\phi _w|^2}}.`$
Here $`\xi ,y`$ are the usual coordinates in $`𝐇^3`$ in the upper half-space model. Fixing $`\rho =const`$ one gets surfaces in question. Coordinates $`w,\overline{w}`$ (and $`\rho `$) are Gaussian coordinates based on these surfaces.

The key quantity in (4.2) is the canonical Liouville field $`\phi `$. It is a (real) function of the complex coordinate $`w𝒞:\phi =\phi (w,\overline{w})`$. It depends in a certain way on the Schottky group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$: it satisfies the Liouville equation on the Schottky domain $`𝒞`$ (domain of discontinuity of the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $``$) and has the following transformation property:

$$\phi (Lw)=\phi (w)\mathrm{ln}|L^{}|^2.$$
(4.3)
The Liouville field can be constructed if the map between the Schottky and Fuchsian uniformization domains is known, see, e.g.,  for more details.

Evaluation of (4.1) on $``$ reduces to computation of the volume of the part of the fundamental region in $`𝐇^3`$ that lies above a surface $`\rho =ϵ`$. One then subtracts a multiple of the area of this surface, removes a simple logarithmic divergence proportional to the Euler characteristic $`\chi =22G`$, and takes the limit $`ϵ0`$. The result of this computation is the Liouville action on $``$, as defined in , evaluated on the canonical Liouville field $`\phi `$:

$`I[]={\displaystyle \frac{l}{4G}}I_{\mathrm{Liouv}}[\phi ].`$ (4.4)
See  for more details on this computation. As it was shown in , the on-shell Liouville action appearing in (4.4) is the Kähler potential for the Weil-Peterson metric on the Schottky space. In other words, the (logarithm of the) thermodynamic partition function of a BH, as a function of BH physical parameters (encoded by moduli of $``$) is the Kähler potential on the BH moduli space. Knowing the BH partition function we are ready to study the BH thermodynamics.

## 5 Thermodynamics

The content of this section is new. Our goal will be to obtain the BH entropy. We use the standard thermodynamics relations. What we need is analogs of relations (1.9), (1.10). It is instructive to consider the case of the BTZ BH first. Our treatment of the BTZ BH is reminiscent of .

Let us first introduce convenient notations. Define:

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{p}{2b}},p={\displaystyle \frac{r_++i|r_{}|}{l}},`$ (5.1)
and $`b`$ is defined via $`1/b^2=l/4G`$. We remind the reader that $`l`$ is the radius of curvature of AdS, defined as $`l=1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. We set $`\mathrm{}=1`$, so that $`1/b^2`$ is essentially the ratio of radius of curvature of AdS to the Planck length. Semi-classical regime of small curvatures corresponds to $`b0`$. Define:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\alpha ^2.`$ (5.2)
All these quantities have interpretation in terms of Liouville theory: $`b`$ is the Liouville coupling constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the conformal dimension of a “primary state” $`\alpha `$, minus the conformal dimensions of the lowest lying state. This relation to Liouville theory won’t play any role in this paper, we mention it only to provide an explanation for the relations above. The mass and angular momentum of the hole can now be expressed entirely in terms of the quantity $`\alpha `$, more precisely in terms of the conformal dimension. One has:

$`Ml=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)+\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)},`$ (5.3)
$`J/8G=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\overline{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_0)}.`$
Here $`M,J`$ are the BH mass and angular momentum. Thus, we see that $`M,J`$ are completely determined by the parameter $`\alpha `$. It will be much more convenient to use the complex parameter $`\alpha `$ as a physical parameter describing the hole.

To introduce an analog of the relation (1.9) we, following , consider an “off-shell” BTZ BH. In the Euclidean BTZ BH the alpa-cycle on the boundary is not-contractible inside the space, see Fig. 8. The corresponding $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ holonomy is non-trivial and is just the generator of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, the group that we use to obtain the space $`=𝐇^3/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The other, conjugate generator of $`\pi _1()`$, the beta-cycle is contractible inside $``$. The corresponding $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ holonomy is trivial. The off-shell BTZ BH is obtained by allowing the beta-cycle holonomy to be non-trivial. Thus, one takes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}A_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\pi (\varphi +i\chi ),`$ (5.4)
and introduces a variable:

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}}(\varphi +i\chi ).`$ (5.5)
The on-shell BTZ BH is obtained by setting $`\varphi =1,\chi =0`$, in other words $`\beta =1/2b`$.

We should now calculate the partition function for the off-shell BTZ BH. It is a straightforward exercise to do this. First, we note that for the on-shell BTZ the Euclidean action one gets is:

$`I_{\mathrm{BTZ}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{8G}}.`$ (5.6)
It equals to minus half of the corresponding Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. This result can be obtained by evaluating the volume between two hemi-spheres in $`𝐇^3`$, regularized by the family of surfaces (4.2), which in the BTZ case is simply a family of cones with the tip at the origin. See, e.g.,  for this calculation. Modification for an off-shell BTZ is simple. Note that when $`\varphi 1,\chi =0`$, one has to cut out a wedge of angle $`2\pi \varphi `$ out of $`𝐇^3`$. This means that the factor of $`2\pi `$ in (5.6) will be replaced by $`2\pi \varphi `$. One can similarly calculate the action for the general case $`\chi 0`$. The result when written in terms of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ complex variables is:

$`\mathrm{ln}Z=2\pi \left(\alpha \beta +\overline{\alpha \beta }\right).`$ (5.7)
We wrote the result in terms of the partition function: $`\mathrm{ln}Z=I`$. Thus, we have the following relation between the $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ parameters:

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }}.`$ (5.8)
This is the desired analog of the relation (1.9) for BTZ BH. Of course, one could have also take a derivative of the $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ with respect to the usual inverse temperature, as it was done in (1.9). What one would obtain is the BTZ mass (5.3). It is, however, more convenient to work with the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ directly related to the holonomies of the BH.

The entropy can now be obtained using:

$`S=\left(\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }}+\overline{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\overline{\beta }}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}Z=2\pi \left(\alpha \beta +\overline{\alpha \beta }\right)+\mathrm{ln}Z.`$ (5.9)
Here we have used (5.8) to write the second equality. To obtain the on-shell BTZ BH entropy we must set $`\beta =1/2b`$ in the above expression. One obtains:

$`S_{\mathrm{BTZ}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{4G}}.`$ (5.10)
This is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy equal to the horizon length devided by $`4G`$.

Using this example as a guide, let us now consider a general BH of type $`(g,h)`$. Its analytic continuation is the 3-manifold $``$, whose boundary $``$ is a Riemann surface of genus $`G=2g+h1`$. The boundary is marked with a set of $`h`$ simple closed geodesics: horizon geodesics. We shall refer to these geodesics as alpha-cycles. In addition, there is a set of beta-cycles on $``$. These are such that the $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ holonomy along them is trivial. They are contractible inside $``$. Each beta-cycle is intersected by exactly two alpha-cycles, see Fig. 9 for a drawing of the cycles for a 3-asymptotic region BH.

The first step towards general BH thermodynamics would be to evaluate the partition function for a general off-shell BH, in which both alpha- and beta-cycles are non-trivial. This is equivalent to a problem of evaluating the action (4.1) on a 3-manifold with a set of conical singularities inside. The moduli space of such manifolds is parameterized by homomorphisms of $`\pi _1()`$ into $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, modulo conjugations by $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$. This moduli space has the real dimension $`12G12`$. The on-shell Euclidean BH’s form a submanifold of real dimension $`6G6`$ in it. The moduli space of off-shell BH’s is naturally a symplectic manifold. The symplectic form is that of CS theory on $``$. Some properties of this phase space were studued in , where also a relation to the most general solution of 2+1 gravity with negative cosmological constant was established. However, those details will not be of importance for us here.

Let us denote by $`I_{\mathrm{off}\mathrm{shell}}`$ the result of the evaluation of the action (4.1) on an off-shell BH. Introducing the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta `$ for all alpha- and beta-cycles, the off shell action becomes a function of these parameters. The on-shell result (4.4) suggests that the general off-shell action is the Kähler potential on the general moduli space

$`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(),\mathrm{SL}(2,))/\mathrm{SL}(2,).`$ (5.11)
As $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are the canonically conjugate quantities on this moduli space, this would imply that

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }},`$ (5.12)
exactly like what we had in the BTZ BH case. Note, however, that the function $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ in the general case is much more complicated and is not given by a simple product of $`\alpha \beta `$ like in the BTZ case. In fact, it is an outstanding problem to compute $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ in some explicit fashion.

Assuming that our conjecture about the off-shell $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$ being the Kähler potential on (5.11) is correct, we can compute the BH entropy. It is given by an analog of the formula (5.9):

$`S={\displaystyle \left(\beta \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }+\overline{\beta }\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\overline{\beta }}\right)}+\mathrm{ln}Z=2\pi \left(\alpha \beta +\overline{\alpha \beta }\right)+\mathrm{ln}Z.`$ (5.13)
Here the sum is taken over all the horizon geodesics, and we have used (5.12) to write the second equality. We are interested in the on-shell BH entropy. To get this, we need to set all $`\beta =1/2b`$ in (5.13). We get:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{8G}}+\mathrm{ln}Z.`$ (5.14)
Thus, the on-shell entropy is given by the sum of horizon circumferences over $`8G`$ plus the logarithm of the partition function, proportional to the Kähler potential on the Schottky space. This is our main formula for the entropy of a general BH. We see that the entropy is not given by a simple sum of length of the horizons. There is a contribution depending non-trivially on the other moduli. It would be of interest to study this dependence in detail.

We could have derived (5.14) without any recourse to the off-shell BH. Indeed, we could have written for the entropy:

$`S={\displaystyle \left(\beta M+\mathrm{\Phi }J\right)}+\mathrm{ln}Z,`$ (5.15)
where the sum is taken over all horizons, and $`M,J`$ are the usual mass and angular momentum in an asymptotic region, and $`\beta ,\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are the thermodynamically conjugate quantities. Since every asymptotic region is indistinguishable from that of the BTZ BH, the quantity in brackets in (5.15) is equal to $`2\pi r_+/8G`$, which gives (5.14).

Let us now note that physical considerations, namely the Bekenstein bound for the entropy of a system, suggest that the entropy of a general BH of type $`(g,h)`$ is bounded by the sum of horizon circumferences over $`4G`$:

$`S{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi r_+}{4G}}.`$ (5.16)
In view of (5.14) the bound (5.16) becomes a bound on the Kähler potential that can be written as:

$`I_{\mathrm{Liouv}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }]{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}|m|}.`$ (5.17)
Here $`I_{\mathrm{Liouv}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$ is the Kähler potential on the Schottky space that appears in (4.4), and is equal to the Liouville action evaluated on the canonical Liouville field; $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a point in the Schottky space. The sum is taken over all horizon geodesics, and $`m`$ is the mutliplier of the corresponding transformation, that is the modulus greater than 1 eigenvalue of the corresponding $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ matrix. The formula (5.14), together with the bound (5.17) that it suggests for the Kähler potential, is our main result.

## 6 Summary

We have obtained that the entropy of a general BH of type $`(g,h)`$ is given by (5.14). In words, the entropy is given by the sum of half of Bekenstein-Hawking entropies for every horizon, plus the logarithm of the partition function. In the case of the BTZ BH the logarithm of the partition function equals to the half of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which gives the entropy equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking value. For a general BH the entropy is not given by a simple sum of horizon circumferences. Indeed, the function $`\mathrm{ln}Z`$, which has the meaning of the Kähler potential on the Schottky space (moduli space of BH’s) depends non-trivially on the geometry of the BH interior. At best, the entropy can be expected to be bounded from above by the Bekenstein-Hawking value, which leads us to conjecture a very interesting bound (5.17) on the Kähler potential. It would be of considerable interest to establish this bound by pure mathematical means, without any reference to BH physics. It would also be of interest to find if (and when) the bound can be saturated. In other words, are there any other BH’s apart from the BTZ whose entropy is equal to the sum of horizon circumferences over $`4G`$? We leave these interesting questions to future work.

We conclude with a brief discussion of the physical interpretation of the entropy (5.14) we obtained. Let us first note that the analytic continuation procedure that we used was non-standard. So is the entropy result (5.14) that we obtained. Indeed, instead of analytically continuing the discrete group of identifications, we could have continued the time coordinate. Even though there is no global KVF whose affine parameter can serve as a time coordinate covering the whole spacetime (such a KVF exists only in the BTZ BH case), there is such a coordinate in every asymptotic region. Indeed, every such region is indistinguishable from that of the BTZ BH. Thus, one can analytically continue the metric in some asymptotic region. The resulting space would be a solid torus, whose modular parameter is determined by the horizon size of the continued asymptotic region. The entropy in that asymptotic region would be equal to the corresponding horizon circumference over $`4G`$. One can argue that this is the entropy that is “observable” by an observer that lives in that asymptotic region. In contrast, the entropy obtained using our analytic continuation procedure is that associated to the whole spacetime, not just a single horizon or a single asymptotic region. As such it is not a quantity that can be detected or measured by an observer in a single asymptotic region. Instead, this is what a super-observer that knows about the existence of all asymptotic regions (and about the topology inside the BH) would call the BH entropy. The entropy (5.14) is that for a BH of a particular internal geometry, and it depends on this geometry non-trivially.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank D. Brill, S. Gukov, T. Jacobson, L. Takhtajan and P. Zograf for interesting discussions about this work. I am grateful to the IAS, Princeton for hospitality during the time that this paper was written.


format: text

text:
# Evidence for Thermally Activated Spontaneous Fluxoid Formation in Superconducting Thin-Film Rings

## Abstract

We have observed spontaneous fluxoid generation in thin-film rings of the amorphous superconductor Mo3Si, cooled through the normal-superconducting transition, as a function of quench rate and externally applied magnetic field, using a variable sample temperature scanning SQUID microscope. Our results can be explained using a model of freezout of thermally activated fluxoids, mediated by the transport of bulk vortices across the ring walls. This mechanism is complementary to a mechanism proposed by Kibble and Zurek, which only relies on causality to produce a freezout of order parameter fluctuations.

A number of years ago Zurek zurek  proposed that condensed matter systems can be used as models for testing ideas, first introduced by Kibblekibble ; kibble2 , concerning the quenching of topological defects in the early evolution of the universe. The principal picture developed by Kibble and Zurek was that, as a system approaches the critical temperature of a phase transition from above, the system slows down until at some temperature different regions cannot communicate with each other quickly enough to have correlated order parameters. As the transition proceeds further, fluctuations between different regions are “frozen in”, leading to relatively long-lived topological defects. Although this was only one of several mechanisms for freezout of topological defects considered by Kibble and Zurek, for brevity we will refer to this as the “Kibble-Zurek” mechanism in this paper. The advantage of using condensed matter systems to test these ideas is clear: while it is impossible to do experiments on a cosmological scale, there are a number of well understood phase transitions into macroscopic quantum states in condensed matter that are experimentally accessible.

The results of a number of experimental tests of these ideas have been mixed: Although vortex generation was at first observed in 4He upon rapid quenching into the superfluid state hendry , a refinement of the original experiment by the same group dodd  found a residual vortex density two orders of magnitude smaller than the Kibble-Zurek prediction. Experiments on vortex formation upon rapid quenching in 3He bauerle ; ruutu  found good agreement with the Kibble-Zurek predictions. A search for spontaneous vortex generation in a bulk superconductor upon rapid quenching carmi  was unsuccessful, although sensitivity of 10-3 of the Kibble-Zurek prediction was reported. However, tests on superconducting loops interrupted by Josephson weak links have found good agreement with the Kibble-Zurek predictions, both for high-Tc carmi2  and low-Tc kavoussanaki ; monaco ; monaco2  superconductors.

In addition to the standard Kibble-Zurek mechanism, which only relies on the satisfaction of the principle of causality to “freeze in” topological defects, it is also possible for thermally activated defects to appear and be trapped in the system during cooldown zurek . Detailed calculations of trapping of thermally activated fluctuations have been made in the hot Abelian Higgs modelhindmarsh , and for the case of superconducting ringsghinovker . In this paper we report on measurements of spontaneous fluxoid formation in arrays of thin film superconducting rings with various ring dimensions and compositions. SQUID imaging of such arrays allowed the performance of a number of cooling experiments simultaneously. The film thicknesses and compositions were chosen to obtain large magnetic penetration depths and inductances, which produce favorable conditions for thermally activated behavior. The experiments provide evidence for the thermally activated appearance of topological defects (in this case vortices and antivortices) in systems undergoing a sufficiently rapid phase transition into an ordered state. We argue that such processes should be considered as a complementary mechanism in tests of the Kibble-Zurek predictions.

Although we obtained qualitatively similar results on rings fabricated from the low-Tc superconductor Nb, and the cuprate superconductor YBa2Cu3O7-δ, we will report in this paper on thin-film ($`d`$=50nm) rings of the amorphous superconductor Mo3Sitsueirev , which showed the largest spontaneous fluxoid generation, and on which the most detailed measurements were taken. The films were fabricated by rf-sputtering on sapphire substrates and photolithographically defined using ion-beam etching. Results will be presented here on two sets of rings. One set consisted of 25 circular rings, with inside diameter 2$`a`$=40 $`\mu `$m and outside diameter 2$`b`$=80 $`\mu `$m, spaced by 160 $`\mu `$m in a 5$`\times `$5 square array. The second set had 144 rings with 2$`a`$=20 $`\mu `$m and 2$`b`$=30 $`\mu `$m, spaced by 60 $`\mu `$m in a 12$`\times `$12 square array. The films had a resistive superconducting critical temperature Tc=7.81 K, with a transition width (10%-90%) $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$=0.03 K wide. Magnetic imaging measurements were made with a variable sample temperature, scanning SQUID microscopevartapl , with a square pickup loop 8 $`\mu `$m on a side. The sample was mounted with a thin layer of GE varnish on a saphire substrate to which a silicon diode thermometer and non-inductive resistive heater were attached. Both sample and SQUID were inside an evacuated can surrounded by liquid 4He. The thermal time constant of the sample mount was varied by changing the amount of 3He exchange gas between it and the 4He bath. Fits to SQUID images of the rings with fluxoid number $`N`$=1 at zero field gave a Pearl length pearl  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=2$`\lambda _L^2`$/d ($`\lambda _L`$ the London penetration depth) =7 $`\mu `$m at 4.4 K.

Our experiments consisted of cooling the sample in a given field at a controlled rate, and then imaging the rings with the SQUID microscope to determine the final fluxoid state. The spacing between rings was large enough that ring-ring interactions were not important in the cooldown dynamics.

Figure 1 shows SQUID microscope images of the 20 $`\mu `$m/30 $`\mu `$m ring array, cooled through Tc at zero field with varying cooling rates. In this image the rings with final fluxoid number $`N`$=0 are not visible; rings with positive fluxoid number (counter-clockwise circulating supercurrents) are white; and those with negative fluxoid number (clockwise supercurrents) are black. Most of the rings with non-zero fluxoid number have N=+1 or -1, but a few rings also have N=+2 or -2. For example, the upper left most ring in Fig. 1 (d) has N=2.

Figure 2 displays the results, plotted as the probability for a ring to be in the N=+1 fluxoid state, for a number of cooling rates, for both ring sizes. The error bars are assigned by setting the standard deviation of the number of N=+1 rings to be the square root of the number of N=+1 rings observed in each experiment. This plot shows that P(N=+1) varies roughly linearly with the logarithm of the cooling rate.

The Kibble-Zurek prediction for the expected fluxoid number for a quenched superconducting ring due to freezout of order parameter fluctuations is zurek

$$N=\frac{1}{2\pi }\sqrt{C/\xi _0}(\tau /\tau _Q)^{\frac{1}{8}},$$
(1)
where $`C`$ is the circumference of the ring, $`\xi _0`$ is the zero temperature coherence length, $`\tau =\pi \mathrm{}/16k_BT_c`$ is the Ginzburg-Landau relaxation time, and $`\tau _Q^1=dT/dt/T_c`$ is the normalized cooling rate. The dashed curve in Fig. 2 is this prediction for the 20 $`\mu `$m/30 $`\mu `$m rings, using $`\xi _0`$=4.9nmsamoilov , and taking $`C`$ to be the inside circumference of the rings. The corresponding prediction for the 40 $`\mu `$m/80 $`\mu `$m rings would be scaled vertically by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. The Kibble-Zurek mechanism predicts more spontaneous fluxoid generation than is observed, as well as a strong increase with ring size which is not observed. Moreover, the Kibble-Zurek prediction, although it has a weak (T$`{}_{c}{}^{1}`$dT/dt$`)^{1/8}`$ dependence, nevertheless varies more rapidly with cooling rate than experiment. We should note that the Kibble-Zurek predictions for a superconducting ring were for ring walls much thinner than the ring diameterzurek . However, we do not believe that our finite ring wall widths would effect the Kibble-Zurek predictions qualitatively.

We suggest that our observed logarithmic dependence of non-zero fluxoid probability on cooling rate is due to spontaneous changes in the ring fluxoid number by thermal activation in, and transport across, the ring wall of bulk vortices. Such a model has been used to qualitatively explain measurements on telegraph noise and fluxoid transition rates in superconducting thin-film rings of underdoped cuprate Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8-δringcond ; ringprb , which have penetration depths and coherence lengths comparable to the present samples. Physically our picture is that, as the rings cool through Tc thermally activated fluctuations rapidly change the fluxoid number. The thermal activation barrier to this process becomes large as the temperature is reduced further, eventually turning this process off, leaving the rings with some probability of being in energetically excited states.

We calculate the probability $`P_N`$ of a ring being in the Nth fluxoid number state as follows: Consider a set of ring fluxoid states $`N`$, with ring energies $`E_N`$, and with barrier energies $`E_B`$ (in our model the energy required to nucleate a vortex in the ring wall) that must be overcome to make the transition between them. The transition rate $`\nu _{NN^{}}`$ is given by

$$\nu _{NN^{}}=P_N\nu _0e^{(E_BE_N)/k_BT},$$
(2)
where $`\nu _0`$ is an attempt frequency, and we neglect the dependence of the transition rate on the final state energy. At high temperatures, in equilibrium, $`\nu _{NN^{}}=\nu _{N^{}N}`$ for all $`N`$, $`N^{}`$. This implies that

$$P_N=e^{E_N/k_BT}/\underset{N^{}}{}e^{E_N^{}/k_BT}.$$
(3)
The ring energies $`E_N=E_r(N\varphi _a)^2`$, with $`\varphi _a=\mathrm{\Phi }_a/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ the normalized externally applied flux, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$ the superconducting flux quantumbarone . Eq. 3 implies that the probability of a ring having a non-zero fluxoid number depends on the ratio $`E_r/k_BT`$. As the ring cools down, the transition rates slow down when $`E_B(T)k_BT`$, fixing the ring fluxoid number. We can assign a “freezing” temperature TF by insisting that the probability of there being a further fluxoid jump, obtained by integrating the transition rates over temperature from T=TF to T=0, be less than 1. It can then be shown that

$$k_BT_F=E_B(T_F)/\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\gamma dT/dt}{k_B\nu _0T_F}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\gamma =dE_B(T)/dT_{T=T_F}`$. We then rewrite Eq. 3 to obtain the probability $`P_{N,F}`$ that a ring is frozen into a state with fluxoid number $`N`$:

$$P_{N,F}=e^{\chi _r(N\varphi _a)^2}/\underset{N^{}}{}e^{\chi _r(N^{}\varphi _a)^2},$$
(5)
with $`\chi _rE_r(T_F)/k_BT_F`$. For the parameters of our system, $`P_{N,F}`$ varies nearly linearly with $`\chi _r`$, and therefore depends roughly logarithmically on cooling rate through Eq. 4.

The upper solid line in Fig. 2 is a fit of Eq. 5 to the 20 $`\mu `$m/30 $`\mu `$m ring data, resulting in best fit values of $`E_r(T_F)/E_B(T_F)`$=0.097$`\pm 0.1`$ and $`\gamma /k_B\nu _0`$=2.4$`\times `$10-7 sec., with upper and lower limits of 17.5$`\times `$10-7 sec. and 0.4$`\times `$10-7 sec. respectively on the latter value, using a doubling of $`\chi ^2`$ as a criterion. In the temperature range of interest, 1-t=(Tc-T)/T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 1, the Pearl length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(T)\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)/(1t^4)`$ is larger than typical ring dimensions. In this limitringprb

$$E_r(\mathrm{\Lambda }>a,b)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/(8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(6)
The energy $`E_B`$ required to nucleate a vortex in a thin film strip of width $`W`$ is given by koganprb

$$E_B=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2}{8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2W}{\pi \xi }\right).$$
(7)
Combining Eq.’s 6 and 7 we estimate $`E_r/E_B1/\mathrm{ln}(2W/\pi \xi )`$. Using Eq. (7), Eq. (4), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(0)=7 $`\mu `$m, $`\xi (T)=\xi (0)/\sqrt{1t}`$, and $`W=ba`$ = 5 $`\mu `$m, leads to $`(T_cT_F)/T_c`$= 2$`\times `$10-3, $`\gamma `$=2.7$`\times `$10-14 erg/K, leading to $`E_r/E_B`$=0.30, a factor of three larger than our fit value. Our fit value for $`\gamma /k_B\nu _0`$ implies $`\nu _0`$=8.3$`\times `$108 sec.-1, with upper and low limits of 6.1$`\times `$109 sec.-1 and 1.1$`\times `$108 sec.-1 respectively, in reasonable agreement with attempt frequencies obtained from fluxoid dynamics of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8-δ rings with similar penetration depths ringcond ; ringprb . The lower solid line in Fig. 2 is a fit to the 40 $`\mu `$m/80 $`\mu `$m ring data, using the value for $`\gamma /k_B\nu _0`$ obtained from the 20 $`\mu `$m/30 $`\mu `$m rings, and allowing $`E_r(T_F)/E_B(T_F)`$ to vary. The best fit value in this case is $`E_r(T_F)/E_B(T_F)`$=0.12, with upper and lower limits of 0.15 and 0.105, to be compared with a calculated estimate for these rings of $`E_r/E_B`$=0.2. Note, however, that the predicted dependence on wall width does not match the experimental results: doubling the size of the ring wall should decrease the value for $`E_r/E_B`$ by 30%, but our fit values increase by about that amount.

A further test of our model is provided by measurements of the final state fluxoid number probability as a function of applied field. Figure 3 shows the results of such experiments for the 20 $`\mu `$m/30 $`\mu `$m rings, cooled at a cooling rate of 15 K/sec. At first these results are startling: the fluxoid number probabilities depend only weakly on applied field. This is in contrast to pioneering work by Davidović et al. davidovic1 ; davidovic2  on 1.6 $`\mu `$m outside diameter thin film aluminum rings, which showed, e.g. P1,F stepping up sharply from 0 to 1 at $`\varphi _a`$=0.5. This difference can be explained qualitatively as follows: our rings, which have large values for $`a,b`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, have small ring energy spacings (scaled by $`E_r`$). Therefore $`k_BT_F`$ is comparable to $`E_r(T_F)`$ and it is probable that energetically unfavorable final fluxoid numbers will be populated. On the other hand, the rings of Davidović have much smaller values for $`a,b`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the ring energy spacings will be correspondingly larger. The solid line in Fig. 3 is a fit to the data using Eq. 5, with $`\chi _r`$ as a fitting parameter. The best fit is obtained for $`\chi _r=1.75`$, compared to a value of 4.3 calculated from Eq. 4.

In conclusion, we have found that our results for the spontaneous generation of energetically unfavorable final fluxoid numbers in cooled thin-film rings of the amorphous superconductor Mo3Si can be explained using a model of thermally activated bulk vortices. This mechanism occurs over a much different time and temperature scale than the conventional Kibble-Zurek mechanism, which predicts that freezout of order parameter fluctuations occurs at $`\widehat{ϵ}(TT_c)/T_c=\sqrt{\tau _0/\tau _Q}1\times 10^7`$. For our rings the thermally activated processes persist to $`\widehat{ϵ}1\times 10^3`$. In this case any fluxoids generated by the conventional Kibble-Zurek mechanism would be “washed out” by the thermally activated vortex mechanism. Our rings are exceptionally susceptible to thermally activated vortex processes: they have very large magnetic penetration depths and inductances, which make nucleation of vortices not too energetically costly at temperatures relatively far from Tc. Nevertheless, the possibility of thermally activated processes should be considered, keeping in mind that not only short coherence lengths, but also short penetration depths, are desirable when using superconductors for tests of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism for topological defect formation in quenched macroscopic quantum systems.

We would like to thank V.G. Kogan, and K.A. Moler for useful discussions during the course of this work. F.T. acknowledges the support of the ESF Project “VORTEX”.


text:
# 𝐽𝑠 the 𝑎₀(1450) a candidate for the lowest 𝑞𝑞̄³𝑃₀ state ?

## 1 Two possible candidates for the ground $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state

At present a few low-lying $`P`$-wave light mesons, both in isovector and isoscalar channels, were experimentally observed , however, theoretical identification of these states faces with serious difficulties, first of all, because the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ member of the lowest $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet is still not identified in unambiguous way. Here we shall discuss only more simple isovector multiplet.

As it is well known the $`a_0(980)`$ couples strongly to $`\eta \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ channel and therefore this state was suggested to be interpreted as a multiquark meson  or $`K\overline{K}`$ molecula . Then under such assumptions the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ $`q\overline{q}`$ state is to be identified with the $`a_0(1450)`$ meson . There exist also many arguments in favour to consider the $`a_0(980)`$ as the ground $`q\overline{q}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, which however has large $`K\overline{K}`$ component in its wave function .

We shall discuss here both possibilities performing the fine structure (FS) analysis of the lowest $`q\overline{q}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet. It is evident that a identification of the members of this multiplet should be in accord with values and sign of FS parameters. We shall show here that in two cases depending on whether the $`a_0(980)`$ or the $`a_0(1450)`$ is $`q\overline{q}1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, the drastic difference in value and even sign of tensor splitting takes place. In particular, if the $`a_0(1450)`$ is identified as the $`q\overline{q}1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state then large magnitude and negative sign of tensor splitting appears to be in contradiction with conventional QCD theory of the FS. Also in this case the center of gravity of the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet $`M_{cog}`$ has large value and large shift with respect to the mass of the $`b_1(1235)`$ meson (see the discussion in Ref. ). In other case if the $`a_0(980)`$ is the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, FS splittings and $`M_{cog}`$ appear to be in agreement with theoretical picture and the value of the hadronic shift is strongly correlated with the strong coupling in spin-dependent interaction. For large $`\alpha _s(1loop)=0.53`$ the hadronic shift appears to be equal zero and the masses of the $`a_0,a_1,a_2`$ mesons just coincide with their experimental values. For the $`\alpha _s(2loop)=0.43`$ the hadronic shift about 100 MeV is obtained.

## 2 Fine-structure splittings

For any $`n^3P_J`$ multiplet the FS parameters: spin-orbit (SO) splitting $`a(nP)`$ and tensor splitting $`c(nP)`$ can be expressed through the masses $`M_J(J=0,1,2)`$ of the members of the multiplet in the standard way :

$$a=\frac{5}{12}M_2\frac{1}{4}M_1\frac{1}{6}M_0,$$
(1)
$$c=\frac{5}{6}M_1\frac{5}{18}M_2\frac{5}{9}M_0.$$
(2)
where the experimental values of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ for the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ mesons are well known ,

$$M_1=(1230\pm 40)\text{MeV},M_2=(1318\pm 0.6)\text{MeV},$$
(3)
while the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state can be identified either with the $`a_0(1450)`$ with the mass $`M_{0A}`$ ,

$$\text{Case A:}M_{0A}=(1452\pm 8)\text{MeV}$$
(4)
or with the $`a_0(980)`$ having the mass $`M_{0B}`$ :

$$\text{Case B:}M_{0B}=(984.8\pm 1.4)\text{MeV}$$
(5)
Then from Eqs.(1)-(4) in case A the following “experimental” values of SO and tensor splittings can be extracted,

$$a_A(exp)=(0.3\pm 11.6)\text{MeV}$$
(6)
$$c_A(exp)=(148\pm 38)\text{MeV},$$
(7)
i.e SO splitting is compatible with zero or even small negative value while tensor splitting (7) is always negative and has large magnitude:

$$186\text{MeV}c_A(exp)110\text{MeV}$$
(8)
Note that large experimental error in $`c_A`$ (exp) (7) comes from the error in the $`a_1(1260)`$ mass (3).

In case B, if the $`a_0(980)`$ is the ground $`q\overline{q}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, the situation is complicated by strong coupling of the $`q\overline{q}`$ channel with other hadronic channels, $`\eta \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$, and for our analysis it is convenient to introduce the mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ of the $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state in one-channel approximation. Then

$$M_{0B}(exp)=985\text{MeV}=\stackrel{~}{M}_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{had},$$
(9)
where the hadronic shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}`$ is an unknown value while the mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ can be calculated in different theoretical approaches, e.g. in the paper  of Godfrey, Isgur $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(GJ)=1090`$ MeV which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}(GJ)=105`$ MeV. In QCD string approach our calculations give close number for the choice of $`\alpha _s(FS)=0.42.`$

It is of interest to note that if the $`a_0(980)`$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state then both SO and tensor splittings are positive and the situation looks like in charmonium. For the $`\chi _c(1P)`$ mesons $`a_{exp}(c\overline{c})`$ and $`c_{exp}(c\overline{c})`$ are both positive with tensor splitting being by 13% larger than SO one :

$$a_{exp}(c\overline{c})=(34.6\pm 0.2)\text{MeV}$$

$$c_{exp}(c\overline{c})=(39.1\pm 0.6)\text{MeV}$$
(10)
## 3 Theory of the $`P`$-wave fine structure

Spin–dependent interaction in light $`n\overline{n}`$ mesons for the $`L`$-wave multiplets with $`L0`$ can be considered as a perturbation since FS splittings are experimentally small with compare to the meson masses. It is also assumed that the short-range one-gluon-exchange (OGE) gives the dominant contribution to perturbative potentials, in particular, to SO potential $`V_{SO}^P(r)`$ and tensor potential $`V_T^P(r)`$ . As a result the matrix elements (m.e.) $`a_P=V_{SO}^P`$ and $`c_P=V_T^P`$in light mesons are defined as the first order terms in $`\alpha _s`$:

$$a_P(nP)=a_P^{(1)}=\frac{2\overline{\alpha }_s}{m_n^2}r^3_{nP},$$

$$c_P(nP)=c_P^{(1)}=\frac{2}{3}a_P^{(1)}=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\overline{\alpha }_s}{m_n^2}r^3_{nP},$$
(11)
These expressions contain the constituent mass $`m_n`$ of a light quark, which was supposed to be fixed and just the same for all states with different quantum numbers $`nL`$; $`m_n300÷350`$ MeV is usually taken .

More detailed analysis of spin-dependent potentials for light mesons, both perturbative and nonperturbative (NP), was done in Ref.  where Feynman-Schwinger-Fock (FSF) representation of light meson Green’s function was used. Keeping only bilocal correlators of the fields, the spin–dependent potentials were expressed through these correlators (see Appendix) from which perturbative SO and tensor splittings are given by the expressions:

$$a_P^{(1)}(nL)=\frac{2\overline{\alpha }_s}{\mu ^2(nL)}r^3_{nL},c_P^{(1)}(nL)=\frac{2}{3}a_P^{(1)}(nL),$$
(12)
and NP contributions are

$$a_{NP}(nL)=\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2(nL)r}r^1_{nL}$$
(13)
$$c_{NP}(nL)\text{is compatible with zero}$$

It is important to stress that in FSF representation the expansion in inverse quark masses as in heavy quarkonia is not used, and the constituent mass $`\mu (nL)`$ in Eqs.(12),(13) is defined by the average over the kinetic energy term of the string Hamiltonian . This “constituent”, or dynamical, mass $`\mu (nL)`$ for light quark with current mass $`m=0`$ appears to be

$$\mu (nL)=\sqrt{p^2}_{nL}=\frac{1}{2}\sigma r_{nL}\text{for linear}\sigma r\text{potential}$$
(14)
and can be expressed only through string tension $`\sigma `$ and the universal number.

In contrast to the constant mass $`m_n`$ in Eqs.(11), the mass $`\mu (nL)`$ depends on the quantum numbers $`n,L`$ of a given state and it is increasing with growing $`n`$ and $`L`$.

In light mesons which have large radii linear static potential $`\sigma r`$ dominates for all states with exception of the 1S and 1P states where Coulomb term turns out to be important .

The choice of the string tension $`\sigma `$ and coupling $`\alpha _{st}`$ in static potential can be fixed from the slope and the intercept of leading Regge $`L`$ – trajectory which is defined for spin-averaged masses $`M_{cog}(L)`$ for the multiplets $`1L`$. As shown in Ref.  the experimental values of $`M_{cog}(L)`$ put strong restrictions on $`\sigma `$ and also strong coupling $`\alpha _{st}`$: $`\sigma =(0.185\pm 0.005)`$ GeV2, $`\alpha _{st}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.40`$. Here we present our calculations for linear $`\sigma r`$ potential with $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 and also for linear plus Coulomb potential with

$$\alpha _{st}=0.42,\sigma =0.18\text{GeV}^2$$
(15)
and take into account that the experimental Regge $`L`$-trajectory : $`M_{cog}^2(L)=(1.60\pm 0.04)`$ GeV2 gives

$$M_{cog}(1P)=1260\pm 10\text{MeV}$$
(16)
Linear potential with $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 fits very well the orbital excitations with $`L2`$. From Ref.  the m.e. can be taken,

$$\mu _0(1P)=448\text{MeV},r^1_{1P}=0.236\text{GeV},r^3_{1P}=0.0264\text{GeV}^3.$$
(17)
and the constituent mass for the 1S state,

$$\mu (1S)=335\text{MeV},$$
(18)
coincides with the conventional value $`m_n300÷350`$ MeV, usually used in potential models. For the 1P state calculated m.e. for Cornell potential are

$$\mu (1P)=486\text{MeV},r^1_{1P}=0.260\text{MeV},r^3=0.0394\text{GeV}^3$$
(19)
so here $`r^3_{1P}`$ turns out to be by 50% larger than for linear potential.

NP contributions to SO and tensor potentials can be correctly defined in bilocal approximation (see Appendix) when the Thomas term dominates in NP SO splitting,

$$a_{NP}(nP)=\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2(nP)}r^1_{nP},$$
(20)
while NP tensor splitting $`c_{NP}(1P)`$ for light mesons (as well as for heavy mesons) is compatible with zero:

$$0c_{NP}(1P)<5\text{MeV}$$
(21)
and therefore can be neglected in our later analysis. This result follows from the fact, established in lattice QCD, that vacuum correlator $`D_1`$, which defines $`c_{NP}`$, is small ,.

Thus NP contribution is present only in SO splitting so that total SO splitting,

$$a=a_P+a_{NP}=\frac{2\overline{\alpha }_s}{\mu ^2(1P)}r^3_{1P}\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2(1P)}r^1_{1P}$$
(22)
Due to the negative Thomas precession term a cancellation of perturbative and NP terms in $`a(total)`$ takes place and in principle $`a(total)`$ could be small or even negative number.

In contrast to that, NP tensor splitting is small and positive, so that total tensor splitting appears to be always positive,

$$c=c_P=\frac{4\overline{\alpha }_s}{3\mu ^2(1P)}r^3_{1P}$$
(23)
Note that in the $`\chi _c`$ mesons the correction of order $`\overline{\alpha }_s^2`$ to $`c_P`$ was obtained to be also positive and small .

## 4 Remarks about strong coupling $`\alpha _s`$

In heavy quarkonia strong coupling $`\alpha _s(\mu _{ren})`$ at the renormalization scale $`\mu _{ren}`$ can explicitly be extracted from experimental values of FS splittings due to rather simple, renorm-invariant relation between $`\alpha _s(\mu _{ren})`$ and the combination $`\eta =\frac{3}{2}ca`$ . In light mesons one-loop perturbative corrections ($`\alpha _s^2`$ order) are still not calculated and OGE contributions (12) with a fitting $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ are assumed to be dominant.

However, at present we know some useful features of $`\alpha _s`$.

1. The strong coupling freezes at large distances and therefore $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ in OGE terms have to be less, or equal, the critical value $`\alpha _{cr}`$ ,.

2. The critical value $`\alpha _{cr}`$ was calculated in background field theory  and obtained $`\alpha _{cr}(r)`$ have appeared to be in good agreement with lattice measurement of static potential in quenched approximation . For QCD constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(0)}=(385\pm 30)`$ MeV, defined in lattice calculations , in Ref. calculated $`\alpha _{cr}`$ is

$$\alpha _{cr}(1loop)=0.59;\alpha _{cr}(2loop)=0.43_{0.04}^{+0.05}(n_f=0)$$
(24)
3. The characteristic size of FS interaction in the $`P`$-waves, $`R_{FS}`$, can be defined as

$$R_{FS}=\left[\sqrt[3]{r^3_{1P}}\right]^10.60\text{fm}$$
(25)
From the study of $`\alpha _s(r)`$ in coordinate space  it was observed that at distances $`r0.6`$ fm strong coupling $`\alpha _s(r)`$ is already close to the critical value (24) being only by about 10% smaller. Therefore one can expect that $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ in OGE splittings (22),(23) has to be equal

$$\overline{\alpha }_s(R_{FS})=0.41\pm 0.02$$
(26)
4. The size $`R_{FS}`$ (25) remarkably coincides with the radius of the 1P $`c\overline{c}`$ and also of the 2P $`b\overline{b}`$ state which both are about $`0.60`$ fm. For them the extracted from experiment strong coupling is

$$\alpha _{exp}(c\overline{c},1P)=0.38\pm 0.03(exp),$$
(27)
i.e. this number is very close to that in Eq.(26). To check a sensitivity of FS splitting to the choice of $`\overline{\alpha _s}`$ here in our calculations we shall take

$$\overline{\alpha }_s(2loop)=43,\overline{\alpha }_s(1loop)=0.530.9\alpha _{cr}$$
(28)
## 5 The $`a_0(1450)`$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state

We start with $`NP`$ contribution to SO splitting $`a_{NP}`$ and for $`\sigma =0.18`$ GeV2 $`(\mu (1P)=448`$ MeV)

$$a_{NP}=106\text{MeV}$$
(29)
It can be shown that $`a_{NP}`$ is weakly dependent on the choice of the parameters of static interaction varying in the range 99 MeV – 106 MeV.

From Eq.(6) $`a_A(exp)`$ is compatible with zero and from the Eq.(22) this condition can be reached only if $`a_P=a_{NP}`$ from which

$$a_P=106\text{MeV},\mathrm{and}\mathrm{therefore}\overline{\alpha }_s(fit)=0.40.$$
(30)
Note that this $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ is in agreement with expected values (26). Correspondingly, from (23) in theory tensor splitting $`c_P=\frac{2}{3}a_P`$ is positive,

$$c=71\text{MeV}$$
(31)
Thus positive sign of $`c(1P)`$ appears to be in contradiction with the “experimental” number (7): $`c_A(exp)=(148\pm 38)`$ MeV.

The second discrepancy is that spin-averaged mass in considered case A,

$$M_{cog}=1303\text{MeV},$$
(32)
is larger than the experimental number (16) following from linear Regge $`L`$-trajectory for spin-averaged masses .

## 6 The $`a_0(980)`$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state

Here the mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(^3P_0)`$ will be calculated in one-channel approximation,

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_0=M_{cog}(1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{})2ac$$
(33)
with $`M_{cog}(1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{})=(1260\pm 10)\text{MeV}`$ from experimental Regge trajectory. We give below FS splittings $`a(1P)`$ and $`c(1P)`$ for two values of strong coupling (24).

For $`\alpha _s=0.43`$ when radiative corrections of $`\alpha _s^2`$ order were supposed to be small, $`r^3_{1P}=0.0394`$ GeV3, one obtains ($`a_p=143`$ MeV, $`a_{NP}=99`$ MeV)

$$a=44\text{MeV},c=96\text{MeV}$$
(34)
and from the definition (33)

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_0(\alpha _s=0.43)=(1076\pm 10)\text{MeV},$$
(35)
so that corresponding hadronic shift of the $`a_0`$ meson, according to the definition (9), is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}(\alpha _s=0.43)=(91\pm 10)\text{MeV},$$
(36)
If radiative corrections are not suppressed then it would be more consistent to take in OGE terms the strong coupling in one-loop approximation when from Ref.

$$\overline{\alpha }_s(1loop)0.9\alpha _{cr}(1loop)=0.53$$
(37)
Then FS splittings appear to be in good agreement with the experimental numbers

$$a=78\text{MeV},c=118\text{MeV},$$
(38)
which correspond to the hadronic shift equal zero and,

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_0=(986\pm 10)\text{MeV},$$
(39)
coincides with the mass of the $`a_0(985)`$. Thus the hadronic shift turns out to be very sensitive to the choice of strong coupling and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}(\alpha _s=0.53)(3\pm 10)\text{MeV}$$
(40)
It is essential that in Ref., as well as in eqs.(37), large value of one-loop coupling was used. It assumes that $`\alpha _s^2`$ corrections to FS splitting are not small being about $`(30÷`$ 20)%. To understand which choice of $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ is preferable one needs to study many other $`P`$-wave multiplets. In any case one can conclude that predicted value of hadronic shift is correlated with the choice of strong coupling in SO and tensor potentials.

For FS splittings (38) the masses of the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ mesons are equal 1242 and 1325 MeV, i.e. very close to their experimental values.

## 7 Hyperfine shift as a tool to identify the members of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet

Hyperfine (HF) splitting of the $`P`$-wave multiplet which comes from spin-spin interaction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}(1P)`$, is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}(nP)=M_{cog}(n{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{})M(n{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{})$$
(41)
where $`M_{cog}`$ is not sensitive to taken value $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ since it enters $`M_{cog}`$ with small weight equal 1/9. In (43) $`M(1{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{})`$ is the mass of the $`b_1(1235)`$.

Then if the $`a_0(1450)`$ belongs to the lowest $`q\overline{q}{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet, $`M_{cog}=1303`$ MeV and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}^{(1P)}=(73\pm 3(exp))\text{MeV},\text{case A}$$
(42)
Identifying the $`a_0(980)`$ as the $`q\overline{q}`$ ground $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, one obtains $`M_{cog}=1252`$ MeV and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}^{(1P)}=28\pm 6(th)\pm 3(exp)\text{MeV},\text{case B}$$
(43)
i.e. essentially smaller. One can compare these numbers with theoretical predictions from Ref. where perturbative contribution to HF shift was shown to be small and negative while NP term is positive and not small,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}(th)=(30\pm 10)\text{MeV}.$$
(44)
In $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}(th)`$ (44) theoretical error comes from uncertainty in our knowledge of gluonic correlation lenghth $`T_g`$ in lattice calculations: $`T_g=0.2`$ fm in quenched QCD and $`T_g=0.3`$ fm in full QCD . ¿From comparison (44) and (43) one can see that theoretical number (44) appears to be in good agreement with experimental one (43) if the $`a_0(980)`$ is the $`q\overline{q}1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ and this statement does not depend on a value of hadronic shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}`$.

On the contrary if the $`a_0(1450)`$ is taken as the $`q\overline{q}1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state, then “experimental” value (42) is two times larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{HF}(theory)`$.

## 8 Conclusions

Experimental data on FS splittings in light mesons appear to be a useful tool to identify the members of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ multiplet. Our study of the FS has shown that

The $`a_0(1450)`$ cannot be a candidate for the ground $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state since under such identification
i)“experimental” value of tensor splitting turns out to be negative (with large magnitude), $`c_{exp}=(150\pm 40)`$ MeV, in contradiction with the conventional theory.
ii) Also for such interpretation spin-averaged mass $`M_{cog}=1303`$ MeV would be too large and lie above linear Regge trajectory for spin-averaged masses.
iv) Hyperfine shift of the $`b_1(1235)`$ with respect to $`M_{cog}`$ would be two times larger than predicted number in Ref..

There is no such discrepancies if the $`a_0(980)`$ is the $`q\overline{q}`$ $`1{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ state. In this case the mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(^3P_0)`$ can be calculated in one-channel approximation and from the difference $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(^3P_0)M_0(a_0(980))=\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}`$ hadronic shift is found to be very sensitive to the chosen value of strong coupling $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$.

If radiative corrections of $`\alpha _s^2`$ order are small, as in charmonium, and $`\overline{\alpha }_s0.40`$ is used, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}`$ is large, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{had}=(100\pm 10)`$ MeV. If for $`\overline{\alpha }_s`$ the value $`\overline{\alpha }_s(1loop)=0.53`$ is taken, the hadronic shift appears to be equal zero.

The author is grateful to Yu.A.Simonov for fruitful discussions. This work has been supported by RFFI grant 00-02-17836 and INTAS grant 00-00110.

Appendix.

Spin-dependent potentials in light mesons

In Refs.  all NP spin-dependent potentials in light mesons: $`\widehat{V}_{LS}=\mathrm{𝐋𝐒}V_{LS}`$; tensor potential $`\widehat{V}_T=\widehat{S}_{12}V_T`$, and HF potential $`\widehat{V}_{HF}=𝐒_1𝐒_2V_{HF}`$ were obtained being expressed through bilocal vacuum correlation functions (v.c.f.) $`D(x)`$ and $`D_1(x)`$

$$V_{LS}^{NP}(r)=\frac{1}{\mu _0^2r}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu \underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}𝑑\lambda \left(1\frac{4\lambda }{r}\right)D(\sqrt{\lambda ^2+\nu ^2})+\frac{3}{2\mu _0^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu D_1^{NP}(\sqrt{r^2+\nu ^2})$$
(A.1)
$$V_T^{NP}(r)=\frac{2r^2}{3\mu _0^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu \frac{}{r^2}D_1^{NP}(\sqrt{r^2+\nu ^2})$$
(A.2)
$$V_{HF}^{NP}(r)=\frac{2}{\mu _0^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu \left[D(\sqrt{r^2+\nu ^2})+D_1^{NP}(\sqrt{r^2+\nu ^2})+\frac{2r^2}{3}\frac{D_1^{NP}(\sqrt{r^2+\nu ^2)}}{r^2}\right]$$
(A.3)
Here v.c.f. $`D`$ and $`D_1`$ are defined though the gauge-invariant bilocal vacuum correlators:

$$\frac{g^2}{N_c}F_{\mu \nu }(x)\varphi (x,y)F_{\lambda \sigma }(y)\varphi (y,x)=$$

$$(\delta _{\mu \lambda }\delta _{\nu \sigma }\delta _{\mu \sigma }\delta _{\nu \lambda })D(xy)+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \{[h_\lambda \delta _{\nu \sigma }h_\sigma \delta _{\nu \lambda })+\text{permutation}]D_1(xy)$$
(A.4)
where $`h_\mu =x_\mu y_\mu `$ and the factor

$$\varphi (x,y)=Pexp\underset{y}{\overset{x}{}}A_\mu (z)𝑑z_\mu $$
(A.5)
provides the gauge invariance of the correlators (A.4). In Ref. it was shown that in bilocal approximatiom there is no perturbative contribution to v.c.f. $`D(x)`$ while the correlator $`D_1`$ contains both perturbative and NP contributions:

$$D_1=D_1^{NP}+D_1^{\text{pert}}$$
(A.6)
with

$$D_1^{\text{pert}}(x)=\frac{16}{3\pi }\frac{\alpha _s}{x^4}$$
(A.7)
To derive the expressions (A.1)-(A.3) the meson Green’s function in FSF representation (which is gauge – invariant) was studied and spin terms enter $`G_M(x,y)`$ through the exponential factors,

$$exp(g\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}𝑑\tau \sigma _{\mu \nu }^{(1)}F_{\mu \nu })exp(g\underset{0}{\overset{\overline{s}}{}}𝑑\overline{\tau }\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{(2)}F_{\mu \nu })$$
(A.8)
Here $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength, and $`s(\overline{s})`$ is the proper time of the quark (antiquark). The proper time $`\tau (\overline{\tau })`$ plays the role of ordering parameters along the quark (antiquark) trajectory $`z(\tau )(\overline{z}_\mu (\tau ))`$.

To obtain Hamiltonian and potentials from the meson Green’s function it is necessary to go over from the proper time to the actual time $`t`$ of the quark thus defining the new quanity $`\mu (\tau )`$:

$$2\mu (t)=\frac{dt}{d\tau },2\overline{\mu }(\overline{t})=\frac{dt}{d\overline{\tau }}$$
(A.9)
Then in (A.8) the integrals can be rewritten as

$$J_q=\underset{0}{\overset{s}{}}𝑑\tau \sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }=_0^T\frac{dt}{2\mu (t)}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{(1)}F_{\mu \nu }(z(t))$$
(A.10)
and correspondingly the integral

$$\overline{J}_q=\underset{0}{\overset{T}{}}\frac{dt}{2\overline{\mu }(t)}\sigma _{\mu \nu }^{(2)}F_{\mu \nu }$$
(A.11)
is defined for the antiquark. In bilocal approximation after averaging the exponents (A.8) will contain the bilocal correlators, or the cumulants. To obtain spin-dependent potentials the important approximation is that the spin factors (A.8) are considered as a perturbation and therefore $`\mu (t)`$ and $`\overline{\mu }(t)`$ in (A.9),(A.10) can be changed by corresponding values $`\mu _0`$ and $`\overline{\mu }_0`$ $`(\mu _0=\overline{\mu }_0)`$ calculated for the unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_R`$ which is defined for a meson with spinless quark and antiquark. Notice that in FSF representation to derive spin-dependent potentials (in light mesons) the expansion in inverse powers of quark mass was not used.

The derivation of the meson relativistic Hamiltonian $`H_R`$ and the definition of the constituent mass,

$$\mu _0=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}_{nL}$$
(A.12)
is discussed in details in Refs. \[12-13\].

The v.c.f. $`D`$ and $`D_1`$ were calculated in lattice QCD  where it was shown that $`D_1^{NP}`$ is small with compare to $`D(x)`$ and even compatible with zero in full QCD. Therefore in the potentials (A.1)-(A.3) the terms containing $`D_1^{NP}`$ can be omitted, in particular, NP contribution to tensor splitting

$$c_{NP}=V_T\text{is compatible with zero}$$
(A.13)
The perturbative contribution to SO and tensor potentials which are defined by v.c.f. (A.7) just corresponds to OGE terms (12),(13).

Lattice measurements has also shown that v.c.f. $`D`$ can be parametrized with a good accuracy as the exponent at the distances $`x\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.2`$ fm, i.e.

$$D(x)=dexp\left(\frac{x}{T_g}\right)$$
(A.14)
Then from (A.1) and (A.9)

$$V_{LS}^{NP}(r)=\frac{\sigma }{\mu _0^2r\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{r/T_g}{}}tK_1(t)+\frac{4\sigma }{\pi \mu _0^2}\left[\frac{2T_g}{r^2}\frac{1}{T_g}K_2\left(\frac{r}{T_g}\right)\right]$$
(A.15)
where the string tension,

$$\sigma =2\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\nu \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\lambda D(\sqrt{\lambda ^2+\nu ^2}),$$
(A.16)
for the exponential form of $`D(x)`$ is

$$\sigma =\pi dT_g^2.$$
(A.17)
From the expression (A.15) it can easily be shown that

$$V_{LS}^{NP}(rT_g)\frac{\sigma }{2\mu ^2r},$$
(A.18)
i.e. coincides with the Thomas precession term if $`T_g`$ is supposed to be small. We shall not take into account here the positive correction to the Thomas potential coming from second term in (A.15) since there exist two other contributions; from the interference of perturbative and NP terms  and from Coulomb term with correct strong coupling in background fields $`\alpha _B(r)`$ which imitates linear $`\sigma ^{}r`$ potential at $`r\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.3`$ fm ,.