text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Improved determinations of the $`b`$-quark fragmentation distribution have been obtained by ALPEH , DELPHI , OPAL  and SLD  collaborations which measured the fraction of the beam energy taken by a weakly decaying $`b`$-hadron in $`e^+e^{}b\overline{b}`$ events registered at, or near, the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ pole.

This distribution is generally viewed as resulting from three components: the primary interaction ($`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair in the present study), a perturbative QCD description of gluon emission by the quarks and a non-perturbative QCD component which incorporates all mechanisms at work to bridge the gap between the previous phase and the production of weakly decaying $`b`$-mesons. The perturbative QCD component can be obtained using analytic expressions or Monte Carlo generators. The non-perturbative QCD component is usually parametrized phenomenologically via a model.

To compare with experimental results, one must fold both components to evaluate the expected $`x`$-dependence111In the present analysis, $`x=\frac{\sqrt{x_E^2x_{min}^2}}{\sqrt{1x_{min}^2}}`$ where $`x_E=\frac{2E_B}{\sqrt{s}}`$ is the fraction of the beam energy taken by the weakly decaying hadron and $`x_{min}=\frac{2m_B}{\sqrt{s}}`$ is its minimal value.:

$$𝒟_{predicted}(x)=_0^1𝒟_{pert.}(z)\times 𝒟_{nonpert.}^{model}(\frac{x}{z})\frac{dz}{z}$$
(1)
The final and the perturbative components are defined over the $`[0,1]`$ interval. As explained, in the following, the non-perturbative distribution must be evaluated for $`x>1`$, if the perturbative component is non-physical. The parameters of the model are then fitted by comparing the measured and predicted $`x`$-dependence of the $`b`$-quark fragmentation distribution. Such comparisons have already been made by the different experiments using, for the perturbative component, expectations from generators such as the JETSET or HERWIG parton shower Monte-Carlo. It has been shown, with present measurement accuracy, that most of existing models, for the non-perturbative part, are unable to give a reasonable fit to the data . Best results have been obtained with the Lund and Bowler models .

In the following, a method is presented to extract the non-perturbative QCD component of the fragmentation function directly from data, independently of any hadronic model assumption. This distribution can then be compared with models to learn about the non-perturbative QCD transformation of $`b`$-quarks into $`b`$-hadrons. It can then be used in another environment than $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, as long as the same parameters and methods are taken for the evaluation of the perturbative QCD component. Consistency checks, on the matching between the measured and predicted $`b`$-fragmentation distribution, can be defined which provide information on the determination of the perturbative QCD component itself.

In Section 2, the method used to extract the non-perturbative QCD component is presented.

In Section 3, the extraction is performed for two determinations of the perturbative QCD component using:

* the JETSET 7.3 generator , tuned on DELPHI data , running in the parton shower mode,
* an analytic computation based on QCD at NLL order .

In Section 4 these results are discussed and insights obtained with the present analysis are explained. A parametrization for the non-perturbative QCD component is proposed.

## 2 Extracting the $`𝒙`$-dependence of the non-perturbative
QCD component

The method is based on the use of the Mellin transformation which is appropriate when dealing with integral equations as given in (1). The Mellin transformation of the expression for $`𝒟(x)`$ is:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(N)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{N1}𝒟(x)$$
(2)
where $`N`$ is a complex variable. For integer values of $`N2`$, the values of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(N)`$ correspond to the moments of the initial $`x`$ distribution 222By definition $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(1)(=1)`$ corresponds to the normalization of $`𝒟(x)`$.. For physical processes, $`x`$ is restricted to be within the $`[0,1]`$ interval. The interest in using Mellin transformed expressions is that Equation (1) becomes a simple product:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(N)=\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{pert.}(N)\times \stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{nonpert.}(N)$$
(3)
Having computed, in the $`N`$-space, distributions of the measured and perturbative QCD components, the non-perturbative distribution, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{nonpert.}(N)`$ is obtained from Equation (3). Applying the inverse Mellin transformation on this distribution one gets $`𝒟_{nonpert.}(x)`$ without any need for a model input:

$$𝒟_{nonpert.}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}𝑑N\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{meas.}(N)}{\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{pert.}(N)}x^N$$
(4)
in which the integral runs over a contour in the complex $`N`$-plane. The integration contour is taken as two symmetric straight half-lines, one in the upper half and the other in the lower half of the complex plane. The angle of the lines, relative to the real axis, is larger or smaller than 90 degrees for $`x`$ values smaller or larger than unity, respectively. These lines are taken to originate from $`N=(1.01,0)`$. The contour is supposed to be closed by an arc situated at infinity in the negative and positive directions of the real axis, for the two cases respectively 333It has been verified that the result is independent of a definite choice for the contour in terms of the slope of the lines and of the value of the arc radius. The result is also independent of the choice for the position of the origin of the lines, on the real axis, as long as the contour encloses the singularities of the expression to be integrated and stays away from the Landau pole present in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{pert.}(N)`$ which is discussed in the following..

In practice, the Mellin transformed distribution of present measurements, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{meas.}(N)`$, has been obtained after having adjusted an analytic expression to the measured distribution in $`x`$, and by applying the Mellin transformation on this fitted function. The following expression, which depends on five parameters and gives a good description of the measurements (see Figure 1-left), has been used.

$$D(x)=p_0\times \left[p_1x^{p_2}(1x)^{p3}+(1p_1)x^{p_4}(1x)^{p5}\right]$$
(5)
where $`p_0`$ is a normalisation coefficient. Values of the parameters have been obtained by comparing, in each bin, the measured bin content with the integral of $`D(x)`$ over the bin.

Measurements of the $`b`$-fragmentation distribution, in , have been published in a binned form, after unfolding of the experimental energy resolution. Values in the bins are correlated and, as the bin width is smaller than the resolution, the error matrix is singular. Only positive eigenvalues of this matrix have been used in the present analysis, when fitting parameters.

The distribution of moments obtained with data from , and computed using the fitted distribution corresponding to Equation (5), is given in Figure 1-Right. The corresponding analytic expression is:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}(N)=p_0\left[p_1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_2+N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_2+p_3+N+1)}+(1p_1)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_4+N)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p_4+p_5+N+1)}\right]$$
(6)
Quoted uncertainties, in Figure 1-Right, correspond to actual measurements and are highly correlated. They have been obtained by propagating uncertainties corresponding to the covariance matrix of the $`p_{1,.,5}`$ fitted parameters. When computing the moments, very similar results are obtained, for $`N<10`$, using directly the measured $`x`$-binned distribution. For higher $`N`$ values effects induced by the variation of the distribution within a bin, as expressed by Equation (5), have to be included.

The Mellin transformed distribution of the JETSET perturbative QCD component has been obtained in a similar way, whereas the NLL QCD perturbative component is computed directly as a function of $`N`$ in . At large values of $`N`$, this last distribution is equal to zero for $`N=N_041.7`$ and has a Landau pole situated at $`N_L44.`$ 444Values for $`N_0`$ and $`N_L`$ depend on the exact values assumed for the other parameters entering into the computation; see Section 3.2 where values of these parameters have been listed.

## 3 $`𝒙`$-dependence measurement of the non-perturbative QCD component

The $`x`$ distribution of the non-perturbative QCD component extracted in this way depends on the measurements and also on the procedures adopted to compute the perturbative QCD component. In the following two approaches have been considered. The first one is generally adopted by experimentalists whereas the second is more frequent for theorists.

### 3.1 The perturbative QCD component is provided by a generator

The JETSET 7.3 Monte Carlo generator, with values of the parameters tuned on DELPHI data registered at the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ pole has been used. Events have been produced using the parton shower option of the generator and the $`b`$-quark energy is extracted, after radiation of gluons, just before calling the routines to create a $`b`$-hadron that takes a fraction $`z`$ 555$`z=\frac{E^B+p_L^B}{E^b+p_L^b}`$ is the boost-invariant fraction of the $`b`$-jet energy taken by the weakly decaying B meson. This variable is defined for a string stretched between the $`b`$-quark and a gluon, an anti-quark or a diquark. In the present analysis no distinction has been introduced between $`z`$ and $`x`$ as no string model has been considered. of the available string energy. This distribution is displayed in Figure 2. It has to be complemented by a $`\delta `$-function at $`x=1`$ which contains $`4\%`$ of all events. In this peak, $`b`$-hadrons carry all the energy of the $`b`$-quark as no gluon has been radiated.

Applying the method explained in Section 2, the corresponding non-perturbative QCD component has been extracted, and is displayed also in Figure 2. Above $`x=1`$, it is compatible with zero, as expected. The quoted error bar, for a given value of $`x`$, has been obtained by evaluating the values of $`𝒟_{nonpert.}(x)`$ for different shapes of the $`b`$-quark fragmentation distribution which are obtained by varying parameters $`p_{1,.,5}`$ according to their measured error matrix.

### 3.2 The perturbative QCD component is obtained by an analytic computation based on QCD

The perturbative QCD fragmentation function is evaluated according to the approach presented in . This next to leading log (NLL) accuracy calculation for the inclusive $`b`$-quark production cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, generalises previous calculations by resumming the contribution from soft gluon radiation (which plays an important role at large $`x`$) to all perturbative orders and to NLL accuracy. These computations are done directly in the $`N`$-space. Soft gluon radiation contributes to the logarithm of the fragmentation function large logarithmic terms of the type $`(\mathrm{log}N)^p`$, with $`pn+1`$. These terms appear at all perturbative orders $`n`$ in $`\alpha _s`$. In the calculation at NLL accuracy , the two largest terms, corresponding to $`p=n+1\mathrm{and}n`$, have been resummed at all perturbative orders. The calculation is expected to be reliable when $`N`$ is not too large (typically less than 20). To obtain distributions for the variable $`x`$ from results in moment space, one should apply the inverse Mellin transformation, that consists in integrating over a contour in $`N`$ (Section 2). When $`x`$ gets closer to 1, large values of $`N`$ contribute and thus the perturbative fragmentation distribution is not reliable in these regions. This behaviour affects also values of the distribution at lower $`x`$ as moments of this distribution are fixed. In addition to the break-down of the theory for large values of $`N`$, uncertainties attached to the determination of the theoretical perturbative QCD component are related to the definition of the scales entering into the computation. This component also depends on two parameters: the $`b`$-quark pole mass ($`m_b`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(5)}`$, that have been taken as $`m_b^{pole}=(4.75\pm 0.25)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(5)}=(0.226\pm 0.025)\mathrm{GeV}`$. Scale and parameter depending variations of the moments of the perturbative QCD component are given in Figure 3. These variations are fully correlated versus $`N`$.

The extracted non-perturbative component is given in Figure 4. Its shape depends on the same quantities as those used to evaluate the perturbative distribution, and thus similar variations appear, as drawn also in the Figure.

It has to be noted that the data description in terms of a product of two QCD components, perturbative and non-perturbative, is not directly affected by uncertainties attached to the determination of the perturbative component. This is because the non-perturbative component, as determined in the present approach, compensates for a given choice of method or of parameter values.

To obtain the complete expected $`x`$-distribution of $`b`$-hadrons from the theoretical calculation, one has to be able to evaluate the integral given in Equation (1). When $`x`$ becomes close to 1 there are numerical problems, and consequently, the high-$`x`$ ($`x>0.96`$) behaviour of the perturbative QCD component has been studied. As mentioned before, this region corresponds to high-N values where the perturbative approach fails. As a result, the high-$`x`$ behaviour of the distribution is non-physical; it oscillates. To have a numerical control of the distribution in this region, it has been decided to take into account $`x`$ values which are below a given maximum value, $`x_{max}`$, above which the distribution is assumed to be equal to zero. Moments of this truncated distribution show a small discrepancy when compared with moments of the full distribution. This difference has an almost linear dependence with $`N`$. To correct for this effect, $`x_{max}`$ is chosen such that the difference between moments is a constant value (the slope in $`N`$ being close to zero at this point). This difference can then be corrected by adding simply a $`\delta `$-function at $`x=1`$, so that the total distribution is normalized to 1. A typical value for $`x_{max}`$ is 0.997 and the $`\delta `$ component corresponds to 5$`\%`$ of the distribution. We stress that the truncation at $`x_{max}`$ and the added $`\delta `$-function do not contribute in the determination of the non-perturbative component using Equation (4). But this procedure is necessary for checking that the extracted non-perturbative component in the $`x`$-space, when convoluted with the perturbative distribution, effectively reproduces the measurements and also for testing hadronic models given in the $`x`$-space.

Conversely to the perturbative QCD component which was, by definition in , defined within the $`[0,1]`$ interval, the non-perturbative component has to be extended in the region $`x>1`$. This “non-physical” behaviour comes from the zero of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{pert.}(N)`$ for $`N=N_0`$ which gives a pole in the expression to be integrated in Equation (4). Using properties of integrals in the complex plane, it can be shown that, for $`x>1`$, the non-perturbative QCD distribution can be well approximated by $`x^{N_0}`$.

Errors bars, given in Figure 4, have been obtained using the same procedure as explained in Section 3.2.

## 4 Results interpretation

The $`x`$-dependence of the non-perturbative QCD component, obtained in this way, does not depend on any non-perturbative QCD model assumption but its shape is tightly related to the procedures used to evaluate the perturbative component, and thus, the two distributions have to be used jointly.

### 4.1 Comparison with models

Non-perturbative components of the $`b`$-quark fragmentation distribution, taken from models, have been folded with a perturbative QCD component obtained from a Monte Carlo generator and compared with measurements by the different collaborations . Apart for the Lund and Bowler models, none of the other models provided a good fit to the data. In Figure 5 the directly extracted non-perturbative components are compared with distributions taken from models  whose parameters have been fitted on data from . Results have been obtained by comparing, in each bin, the measured bin content with the integral, over the bin, of the folded expression for $`𝒟_{predicted}(x)`$. They are summarized in Table 1. It must be noted that parameters given in this Table, when the perturbative QCD component is taken from JETSET, may differ from those quoted in original publications as an analytic computation is done in the present study, using Equation (1), whereas a string model is used in the former; other sources of difference can originate from the exact values of the parameters used to run JETSET and from the definition of $`x`$ which varies between 0 and 1 in our case. Numerically, if one compares present results with those obtained by OPAL , in their own analysis, for the values of the parameters of the Lund and Bowler models 666This numerical comparison has been restricted to these two models as other models do not give a good description of the measurements. In addition, only OPAL has fitted the parameters of the two models assuming that the transverse $`b`$-mass was a constant, as done also in our analysis., differences are well within uncertainties.

When the perturbative QCD component is taken from the analytic NLL calculation the Lund and Bowler models give also the best description of the measurements. Values for the parameter $`a`$ in these models are even compatible with zero corresponding to a behaviour in $`1/z^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(A/z)`$, to accomodate the non-zero value of the non-perturbative QCD component at $`x=1`$.

But, as these models have no contribution above $`x=1`$, their folding with the perturbative QCD component cannot compensate for the non-physical behaviour of the latter. The folded distribution is oscillating at large $`x`$-values (see Figure 6-Left). In particular, the predicted value in the last measured $`x`$-bin, which is found to be in reasonable agreement with the measurements after the fitting procedure when using the Lund and Bowler models, results from a large cancellation between a negative and a positive contribution within that bin. This is more clearly seen when considering the moments of the overall distribution, which are given by Equation (3). For moments of order $`N`$, the weight $`x^{N1}`$ introduces a variation within the $`x`$-bin size, which was not accounted for in the previous fit in $`x`$, and effects are amplified mainly at large $`N`$ values which correspond to the high $`x`$ region. This is illustrated in Figure 6-Right.

From this study, it results that all models have to be discarded when folded with the NLL perturbative QCD fragmentation distribution. The goodness of the fit in $`x`$, as measured by the corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ value, does not reflect all the information because it was not required that the folded distribution remains physical (positive) over the $`[0,1]`$ interval. This folding procedure has thus to be considered only as an exercise and the non-perturbative QCD distribution has to be extracted from data.

### 4.2 Proposal for a new parametrization

As explained in Section 2, the non-perturbative QCD component of the $`b`$-fragmentation distribution, has been extracted independently of any hadronic model assumption but it depends on the modelling of the perturbative QCD component.

When a Monte-Carlo generator is used to obtain the perturbative component, it can be verified if the non-perturbative component has a physical behaviour for all $`x`$-values. In Figure 2, below $`x=0.6`$, $`(4\pm 3)\%`$ of the integrated distribution is negative. A larger deviation would have indicated some inconsistancy between experimental measurements and gluon radiation, as implemented in the generator.

Such a test cannot be made, a priori, when the perturbative QCD component is taken from an analytic computation as this distribution is already unphysical in some regions. The non-perturbative extracted distribution, as given in Figure 4, is precisely expected to compensate for these effects. It can be noted that, also in this case, the distribution is compatible with zero below $`x=0.6`$. This shows that the perturbative QCD evaluation of hard gluon radiation is in agreement with the measurements. The small spike, close to $`x=0`$, related to the multiplicity problem  in the perturbative evaluation, has no numerical effect in practice.

To provide an analytic expression, which agrees better with the extracted point-to-point non-perturbative QCD distribution, the following function has been used:

$`𝒟_{nonpert.}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`N(𝐩)\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)^2}{2\sigma _{}^2}}\mathrm{for}x<x_0;`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`N(𝐩)\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{(xx_0)^2}{2\sigma _+^2}}\mathrm{for}x_0<x<1;`$
$`=`$ $`N(𝐩)x^{N_0}\mathrm{for}x>1;𝐩=(x_0,\sigma _{},\sigma _+)`$
It corresponds, for $`0<x<1`$, to Gaussian distributions with different standard deviations when $`x`$ is situated on either sides of $`x_0`$. As explained in Section 2, the behaviour of the non-perturbative distribution for $`x>1`$ is related to the presence of a zero in $`𝒟_{pert.}(N)`$ located at $`N=N_0`$. When the perturbative distribution is taken from a Monte-Carlo, there is not such a zero and it has been considered that $`𝒟_{nonpert.}(x)=0`$ when $`x>1`$. When the perturbative distribution is taken from theory, the value of $`N_0`$ has been fixed to 41.7. The value for $`N_0`$ depends a lot on the central values for the parameters and the scales, adopted in the perturbative QCD evaluation 777$`N_0`$ is independent on the value assumed for the other scale $`\mu =\mu _F`$.:

$$N_0=41.7_{+4.5}^{5.8}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(5)})\pm 2.5(m_b)_{21.7}^{+34.6}(\mu _0=\mu _{0F})$$
(8)
$`N(𝐩)`$ is a normalisation factor such that the integral of the expression, given in Equation (7), between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ is equal to unity.

The parameter values, obtained when the perturbative QCD component is taken either from JETSET or from theory, are given in Table 2. It can be noted that the shape of the non-perturbative QCD distribution is similar in the two cases, the maximum being displaced to an higher value in the latter.

Comparison, in $`x`$\- and in moment-space, between the measured and fitted distributions are given in Figure 7. For moments higher than 40, the fitted moments strongly deviate from the measurements as one is approaching the Landau pole and the formalism of  is no longer valid.

## 5 Conclusions

The measured $`b`$-quark fragmentation distribution has been analysed in terms of its perturbative and non-perturbative QCD components.

The $`x`$-dependence of the fragmentation distribution has been extracted in a way which is independent of any model for non-perturbative hadronic physics. It depends closely on the way the perturbative QCD component has been evaluated. The obtained distribution differs markedly from those expected from various models.

Below $`x=0.6`$, this distribution is compatible with zero indicating that most of gluon radiation is well accounted by the perturbative QCD component evaluated using the LUND parton shower Monte-Carlo or computed analytically.

As the non-perturbative QCD distribution is evaluated for any given value of the $`x`$-variable it can be verified if it remains physical over the interval $`[0,1]`$ when used with a Monte-carlo generator which provides the perturbative component. The evidence for unphysical regions would indicate that the simulation or the measurements are incorrect. There is not such an evidence in the present analysis.

Above $`x=0.6`$, the obtained distribution is similar in shape with those expected from the Lund symmetric  or Bowler  models, when the perturbative QCD component is taken from JETSET. This is no longer true, also for these two models, when the perturbative QCD component is taken from the analytic result of . It has been found that, because of the analytic behaviour of the perturbative QCD component, the non-perturbative QCD distribution must be extended above $`x=1`$. The $`x`$-behaviour of the non-perturbative component, for $`x>1`$, is determined by the possible existence of a zero in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{pert.}(N)`$, for $`N>0`$. When the perturbative component has non-physical aspects, it is thus not justified to fold it with any given physical model. An approach has been proposed to solve this problem and a parametrization of the obtained distribution has been provided.

The non-perturbative component, extracted in this way, is expected to be valid in a different environment than $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, as long as the perturbative QCD part is evaluated within the same framework (analytic QCD computation or a given Monte Carlo generator), and using the same values for the parameters entering into this evaluation as $`m_b^{pole}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^{(5)}`$ or generator tuned quantities. It is planned to do a similar analysis using the improved analytic computation of the perturbative QCD $`b`$-fragmentation distribution given in .

## 6 Acknowledgements

We thank M. Cacciari, S. Catani and M. Fontannaz for their help to understand physical and technical aspects of the theory of $`b`$-quark fragmentation. We thank also our colleagues from DELPHI, from the Institute for Experimental Nuclear Physics, Karlsruhe University, for fruitful discussions.

The work of E. Ben-Haim is supported by EEC RTN contract HPRN-CT-00292-2002.


format: text

text:
# Transition from Quantum to Classical Information in a Superfluid

## 1 Introduction

In this letter we consider the following two questions:

1) Can information be carried by a superfluid order parameter $`\psi `$ in the same way that information is carried by , say, a radio wave?

and

2) Since the superfluid order parameter $`\psi `$ depends on entanglement a la Bogoluibov, is there any difference between information carried by a superfluid order parameter and quantum information?

The answer to the first question is pretty clearly yes, but the answer to the second is not so obvious. It was shown by Bogoluibov  that superfluids depend on existence of EPR-like correlations between particles of opposite momenta. Since EPR correlations play an important role in quantum computing , one might conjecture that spatial variations in the order parameter qualify as ”quantum informations”.

As was first pointed out by Planck , the Clausius-Boltzmann entropy of any classical system obeying a principle of least action is zero. This serves as a hint that in a search of the answer to the second question one should turn to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics where the principle of least action is not valid anymore. One feature of the path integral formulation which can serve our purposes is an existence of quantum-mechanical paths  that are continuous but non-differentiable everywhere.

Therefore a transition to a classical regime is characterized by smoothing out the ”irregularities” of a quantum-mechanical path. This smoothing was ascribed to the process of averaging ”over a reasonable length of time to produce … an ’average’ velocity” . In fact, the emergence of a classical path is due to a decreased resolution used in measuring the path’s length.

This is clearly seen if one would use for the description of a quantum-mechanical path the concept of Hausdorff length and dimension . It was found that independently of the length definition, the Hausdorff dimension of a quantum-mechanical path is $`D_H=2`$ as compared to the classical dimension $`D_H=1`$. The transition from one regime to another can be demonstrated by explicitly evaluating the Hausdorff length in  for any value of the Hausdorff dimension.

It turns out that for

$$a)<\mathrm{\Delta }l>=__3d^3x|𝐱||\psi _{\mathrm{\Delta }x}(𝐱,\mathrm{\Delta }t)|^2$$

where $`<\mathrm{\Delta }l>`$ is the average distance a particle travels in a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, its path length is

$$<L>(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^{D1}\{\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{\sqrt{2}(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})}{\sqrt{1+4(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}})+\frac{\sqrt{1+4(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}}exp[\frac{(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}{\sqrt{1+4(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}}]\}$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=(2/\sqrt{\pi })_0^ye^{y^2}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=\mathrm{\Delta }x/\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the spatial resolution, $`\lambda =\mathrm{}/p_{av}`$ is the de Broglie wavelength and $`p_{av}`$ is particle’s average momentum. Fig.1 illustrates the dependence given by (1)

If we use another definition of length

$$b)<\mathrm{\Delta }l>=\sqrt{__3d^3x|𝐱|^2|\psi _{\mathrm{\Delta }x}(𝐱,\mathrm{\Delta }t)|^2}$$

then the resulting path length is

$$<L>(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^{D2}\sqrt{16(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2+3}$$
(2)
The respective graph is shown in Fig.2.

In both cases the parameter describing a transition from a classical to quantum regime ( and vice versa) is the dimensionless spatial resolution

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{}/p_{av}}$$
(3)
It has a suggestive physical meaning: a ratio of a resolution (physically implementable by some measuring classical device) used to measure length (a probing scale) and the ”characteristic” length scale intrinsic to quantum process, which can be viewed as De Broglie wave length. In that we made full circle on a spiral, referring to the earlier view of quantum mechanics, but this time on a higher level. Roughly speaking, the magnitude of this parameter indicates how strong(weak) are quantum effects as viewed from the classical world. As will be seen below, this parameter has a universal character, and it will emerge in our discussion of the

## 2 Bose Condensate and the transition from Classical to Quantum Behavior

To illustrate this point we consider a Bose condensate of interacting bosons at zero temperature . Small perturbations to the superfluid order parameter satisfy the linear Schroedinger-like equation:

$$\frac{^2}{t^2}\varphi =v_s^2^2\varphi (\frac{\mathrm{}}{2M})^2^4\varphi $$
(4)
where $`v_s`$ is the speed of sound and $`M`$ is the mass of the fluid.

We will consider the classical- quantum transition with the help of $`2`$ methods which , as will be seen later, turn out to be equivalent:

i) Numerical Calculation

In this approach the average distance $`<\mathrm{\Delta }l>`$ the particle travels in time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be written as follows:

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }l>=_^3d^3x|𝐱||\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,\mathrm{\Delta }t)|^2$$
(5)
Here

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^{3/2}}{\mathrm{}^3}_^3\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}f(\frac{|𝐩|\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{}})e^{i𝐩𝐱/\mathrm{}E\mathrm{\Delta }t/\mathrm{}}$$
(6)
and $`E`$ is given in  as

$$E=\sqrt{(pv_s)^2+\frac{p^4}{4M^2}}$$
(7)
By introducing the dimensionless quantities

$$𝐤=\frac{𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{}},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=\mathrm{\Delta }x\frac{Mv_s}{\mathrm{}},𝐲=\frac{𝐱}{\mathrm{\Delta }x},\alpha =\frac{Mv_s^2\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{}}$$
(8)
and using (7) and (6) we rewrite the expression (5):

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }l>=\mathrm{\Delta }x_^3d^3y|𝐲||_^3d^3kf(k)e^{i𝐤𝐲i\alpha \sqrt{(k/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2+\frac{1}{4}(k/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^4}}|^2$$
(9)
Interestingly enough, the dimensionless quantities $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}`$ have a very simple physical meaning: $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}`$ is the ratio of the classical and quantum momenta (here the classical quantity appears naturally and not introduced by hand as in ) and $`\alpha `$ is the ratio of the respective energies.

If we take the function $`f|𝐤|`$ to be Gaussian , that is $`f|𝐤|=e^{|𝐤|^2}`$ then (9) yields the following Hausdorff length $`<L>`$

$$<L>\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^D_^3d^3y|𝐲||_^3d^3ke^{|𝐤|^2+i𝐤𝐲i\alpha \sqrt{(k/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2+\frac{1}{4}(k/\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^4}}|^2$$
(10)
In 2 limiting cases of

1) a purely classical regime ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}k`$)

and

2) a purely quantum regime ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}k`$)

the above expression can be evaluated analytically. For simplicity sake ( and without any loss of generality) we consider a 1-D realization of (10).

$`1`$) After some algebra, the first case yields the following expression for the Hausdorff length $`<L>`$:

$$<L>(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^D\{\sqrt{\pi }\frac{v_s}{v_{av}}\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{v_s}{v_{av}})2e^{\frac{1}{2}(v_s/v_{av})^2}\}$$
(11)
where we denote $`v_{av}=\mathrm{\Delta }x/\mathrm{\Delta }t.`$ The result is rather trivial, since in this case in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x0`$ the Hausdorff length is the conventional length, whose dimension is $`D=1`$.

$`2)`$ Quite analogously we find that in this case the Hausdorff length is

$$<L>\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^D\sqrt{1+(\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }t}{M\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}^2})^2}$$
(12)
In the limit $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}0`$ Eq.(12) yields

$$L\mathrm{\Delta }x^{D2}$$
(13)
which is the same result as was obtained for quantum case in .

In general, the integrals in Eq.( 10) cannot be found in a closed form. Instead we evaluate them numerically. The result is shown in Fig.$`3`$ where the Hausdorff length is presented as a function of the Hausdorff dimension $`D_H`$ , resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and the following values of sound speed $`v_s=0,2,4,6,8.`$

ii)Heuristic(De Broglie) Construction

To compare the results of the previous section with the calculations based on an heuristic( De Broglie) picture, we begin with the dispersion relation which follows from (4):

$$\omega _k=kv_s\sqrt{1+(\frac{\mathrm{}k}{2Mv_s})^2}$$
(14)
where $`k=2\pi /`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the wave length of the small perturbations which we take as the probing length scale,that is $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In the De Broglie picture the group velocity is considered as a velocity of a quantum ”particle” which in turn would allow us to introduce an analogue of the path length $`<L>`$ travelled by such a particle in a time $`T`$. Moreover, since we are dealing with the quantum path, this path length must be understood in Hausdorff sense:

$$<L_H>=(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^{D1}<L>$$

From (14) we find the group (particle) velocity $`v_g`$

$$v_g=v_s\frac{2+(\frac{\mathrm{}/Mv_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}{2\sqrt{1+(\frac{\mathrm{}/Mv_s}{2\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}}$$
(15)
The path length $`<l>`$ (in its conventional sense) travelled by this particle in a time interval $`T`$ is then

$$<l>=v_gT=Tv_s\frac{2+(\frac{\mathrm{}/Mv_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}{2\sqrt{1+(\frac{\mathrm{}/Mv_s}{2\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}}$$
(16)
We notice that in this case the dimensionless quantity

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\frac{Mv_s\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{}}$$
(17)
emerges which is exactly the same as in the previous (numerical) case (cf. Eq.8). As a result we obtain from (16) the following expression for the Hausdorff length $`<L>_H`$:

$$<L>_H(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^{D2}\frac{1+2(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}{\sqrt{1+(2\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x})^2}}$$
(18)
From Eq.(18) follows that for the limiting case of $`v_s=0`$ (that is purely quantum case) the Hausdorff dimension is $`D=2`$. On the other hand, for another limiting case of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}1`$ , that is $`Mv_s\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ the Hausdorff dimension is $`D=1,`$ corresponding to the classical limit.

The graph of the general dependence $`Log(<L_H>)=f(D,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x},\overline{v_s})`$ according to Eq.(18), that is according to De Broglie picture, is shown in Fig.4.

A comparison of Figs.(3) and (4) shows a remarkable qualitative similarity between the Hausdorff length $`<L>_H`$ calculated on the basis of the De Broglie picture and the same length found with the help of the numerical analysis. However, this should not be very surprising, if we take into account that the integrand in Eq.(10) contains as a power of the exponent the dispersion relation (5).

It is seen (both from Eq.18 and Figs.$`3`$ and $`4`$) that the transition from quantum to classical regime ( characterized by a change of Hausdorff dimension) is a continuous process, such that a change from a classical to quantum regime is governed by the dimensionless parameter (dimensionless length) $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}(`$ Eq.17) whose physical meaning was given earlier as the ratio of the quantum ”momentum” ( in the De Broglie sense) and the classical momentum of a particle moving with the speed of sound. A gradual increase of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}`$ signals a continuous transition from a purely classical ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\mathrm{}`$) to purely quantum ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=0`$) regime.

## 3 Conclusion

The emerging picture allows us to answer the second question posed at the beginning of this letter. For small perturbations a superfluid order parameter $`\psi `$ is a function of the parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}`$. On the other hand, a continuous change of this parameter from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}\mathrm{}`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}=0`$ describes a transition from the classical regime in a superfluid to the quantum regime. Therefore in the limit $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }x}0`$ there is no difference between the information carried by the superfluid order parameter and the quantum information.

Amazingly enough, the above process describes a continuous transition from a fluid-like coherent state to a coherent state of weakly interacting particles. For ordinary sound velocities this transition occurs for microscopic probing length scales. However, if we are near a quantum critical point where $`v_s0`$, then this transition will occur for macroscopic length scales.

Our results run contrary to the conventional point of view regarding the transition from classical to quantum physics as being necessarily due to decoherence . Indeed, in our view decoherence plays essentially no role in the transition from ordinary classical physics to quantum physics. To the contrary our results strongly support the view  that the validity of classical equations of motion for macroscopic length scales is a consequence of having a vacuum state with a ’stiff’ order parameter. In fact, identifying ordinary spacetime with a superfluid-like quantum state with a small value of $`\mathrm{}/Mv_s`$ would be a natural result in almost any physically reasonable quantum theory of gravity

## 4 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank V.Panico for his valuable help in preparation of this paper.

## 5 Addendum

After completion of this paper we became aware of a recent paper by Y. Shi , that also shows that the transition from quantum to classical behavior in a superfluid is not due to decoherence, but using rather different arguments.


text:
# Fermions scattering in a three dimensional extreme black hole background

## I Introduction

The presence of quantum effects in gravity is known since Hawking’s discovery that a black hole (BH) can evaporate because of such effects hawk . The knowledge of the full theory of quantum gravity will tell us how this process occurs and whether it is possible that the singularities of gravity can be smoothed out.

The full theory of quantum gravity is unknown nowadays, but there are strong evidence suggesting that it originated, in some limit, from string theory. Such conjecture is supported by results that relate BH properties with string theory effects, namely, the BH entropy and its decay rate. For example, it has been established that the entropy of a five dimensional extreme BH corresponds to the degeneracy of BPS states of a string theory strom . Also, the decay rate of a BH agrees with the decay rate of thermally excited strings, both being proportional to the absorption cross section absor .

In addition, the classical absorption cross section (or greybody factor) for non extreme (regular) BH in four dimensions, turns out to be proportional to the area of the horizon area . In this context, great amount of research has been done; regular black holes corresponding to different metrics have been studied semiclassically, coupling local fields to the fixed black hole background, in dimension four D4  and higher higher .

In three dimensions, the existence of a BH solution of the Einstein equations btz  has opened a window into a powerful laboratory to prove results that, in higher dimensions, are very hard to deal with.

Results for the greybody factor and other quantities obtained from the scattering of scalar, fermions and photon fields off such a BH, have been found in $`2+1`$ dimensions birming , ne , DAS . The calculation of the same quantities for extreme BTZ black holes deserves a careful and separate analysis, because regular and extreme BTZ black holes correspond to different physical objects teitel  ; they are associated to different topologies of spacetime: the non-extreme $`2+1`$-dimensional black hole has the topology of the cylinder, while the extreme case has the topology of an annulus.

The spinless relativistic particle in an extreme BTZ background was discussed in detail in a recent paper gm , where it was shown that the absorption cross section for such black hole is zero (the same result can be deduced from Keski ). From the thermodynamic point of view, this result can be interpreted as a signal of zero entropy, in agreement with previous results found in the literature teitel .

In this paper we show that the absorption cross section for massive spin $`1/2`$ particles in a $`2+1`$-dimensional extreme black hole is zero, as was observed in the scalar case. We discuss how to construct the states at spatial infinity, where there is no plane wave solutions. The Dirac equation is solved for a special case where $`\omega `$ and $`n`$, the energy and azimuthal eigenvalues, respectively, satisfy a fine tuning condition.

The paper is organized as follows. In the following section we review the Dirac equation in a curved space time and a $`2+1`$\- dimensional extreme black hole. Section III is devoted to specify explicitly the Dirac equation in this background and to examine their asymptotic solutions. In Section IV the flux is constructed and the cross section is calculated; the reciprocal space approach is also discussed in this context. Finally, in Section V discussion and conclusions are presented.

## II The Dirac equation in a 2+1-dimensional black hole background

Let us consider a three dimensional Riemann manifold with Minkowski signature $`(,+,+)`$ and line element

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(1)
The non-coordinate basis one-form $`e^a=e_\mu ^adx^\mu `$ and the affine spin connection $`\omega _b^a=\omega _{b\mu }^adx^\mu `$ are defined by egu

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^ae^b\eta _{ab},`$ (2)
$`de^a+\omega _b^ae^b`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
where $`\eta _{ab}=\text{diag}(,+,+)`$; latin indices denote tangent space components and greek indices stand for components of objects defined on the manifold.

The Dirac equation for a particle with mass $`m`$ in the curved background (1) is given by naka

$$\gamma ^aE_a^\mu \left(_\mu \frac{1}{8}\omega _{bc\mu }[\gamma ^b,\gamma ^c]\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=m\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(4)
where $`E_a^\mu `$ is the inverse triad which satisfies $`E_a^\mu e_\mu ^b=\delta _a^b`$ and $`\delta _a^b`$ stands for the identity. $`\left\{\gamma ^a\right\}`$ are the Dirac matrices in the tangent space defined by the Clifford algebra

$$\{\gamma ^a,\gamma ^b\}=2\eta ^{ab}.$$
(5)
### II.1 Extreme $`2+1`$ black hole metric

In order to compute the absorption cross section we must solve (4) in the three dimensional extreme black hole background.

In a $`2+1`$-dimensional spacetime the Einstein equations with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}^2`$ have a solution btz

$$ds^2=N^2\left(r\right)dt^2+N^2\left(r\right)dr^2+r^2\left[d\varphi +N^\varphi \left(r\right)dt\right]^2,$$
(6)
where the lapse $`N^2(r)`$ and shift $`N^\varphi (r)`$ functions are given by

$`N^2\left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{4r^2}},`$ (7)
$`N^\varphi \left(r\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2r^2}}.`$ (8)
Here $`M`$ and $`J`$ are the mass and angular momentum of the black hole, respectively.

The lapse function vanishes when

$$r_\pm =r_{ex}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{J^2}{M^2\mathrm{}^2}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(9)
and therefore, the solution (6) is defined for $`r_+<r<\mathrm{}`$, $`\pi <\varphi <\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$.

The extreme solution corresponds to $`J^2=M^2\mathrm{}^2`$, in which case $`r_\pm =r_{ex}=\mathrm{}\sqrt{M/2}`$. Hence the line element can be written as

$$ds_{ex}^2=\left(\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}2\frac{r_{ex}^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\right)dt^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2r^2}{\left(r^2r_{ex}^2\right)^2}dr^22\frac{r_{ex}^2}{\mathrm{}}dtd\varphi +r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(10)
Instead of solving (4) with this metric, it is convenient to define a dimensionless set of coordinates $`\{u,v,\rho \}`$ as follows

$$u=\frac{t}{\mathrm{}}+\varphi ,v=\frac{t}{\mathrm{}}\varphi ,e^{2\rho }=\frac{r^2r_{ex}^2}{\mathrm{}^2},$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{}<\{u,v\}<\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}<\rho <\mathrm{}`$. In the space $`\{u\times v\}`$, two points $`(u_1,v_1)`$ and $`(u_2,v_2)`$ are identified if they satisfy $`u_1=v_2`$ and $`v_1=u_2`$, for any value of $`\rho `$.

The line element (10) in these new coordinates reads

$$ds^2=r_{ex}^2dv^2\mathrm{}^2e^{2\rho }dudv+\mathrm{}^2d\rho ^2,$$
(12)
and according to (2) we have the triads

$$e^1=\frac{\mathrm{}^2e^{2\rho }}{2r_{ex}}du,e^2=r_{ex}dv\frac{\mathrm{}^2e^{2\rho }}{2r_{ex}}du,e^3=\mathrm{}d\rho ,$$
(13)
and from (3) the connections

$$\omega _2^1=d\rho ,\omega ^1{}_{3}{}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}e^{2\rho }}{2r_{ex}}du+\frac{r_{ex}}{\mathrm{}}dv,\omega ^2{}_{3}{}^{}=\frac{\mathrm{}e^{2\rho }}{2r_{ex}}du.$$
(14)
The non vanishing components of the inverse triad are

$$E_1^u=\frac{2r_{ex}e^{2\rho }}{\mathrm{}^2},E_1^v=\frac{1}{r_{ex}}=E_2^v,E_3^\rho =\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(15)
In the next section we write the Dirac equation in these coordinates and will find its solution.

## III  The Dirac equation and its solution

### III.1 The Dirac Equation

We choose the Dirac matrices as follows

$$\gamma ^1=i\sigma ^3,\gamma ^2=\sigma ^1,\gamma ^3=\sigma ^2,$$
(16)
where $`\sigma ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices. This choice satisfies (5).

The Dirac equation (4) can be obtained directly using (13) through (15). If we write the solution as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(u,v,\rho )=\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒰(u,v,\rho )\\ 𝒱(u,v,\rho )\end{array}\right),$$

then (4) becomes

$`\left[i\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_{ex}e^{2\rho }}{\mathrm{}^2}}_u+{\displaystyle \frac{_v}{r_{ex}}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}+m)\right]𝒰+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_v}{r_{ex}}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\left(_\rho 1\right)\right]𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (17)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_v}{r_{ex}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}\left(_\rho 1\right)\right]𝒰+\left[i\left({\displaystyle \frac{2r_{ex}e^{2\rho }}{\mathrm{}^2}}_u+{\displaystyle \frac{_v}{r_{ex}}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}+m)\right]𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (18)
In order to solve this equation, let us look for solutions of the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(u,v,\rho )=e^{i\left(\alpha u+\beta v\right)}\left(\begin{array}{c}F(\rho )\\ G(\rho )\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants related to the angular and temporal eigenvalues of the solution of (4) in the coordinates $`\{t,\varphi ,r\}`$; namely if the solution behaves like $`e^{i(n\varphi +\omega t)}`$, then

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega \mathrm{}+n\right),\beta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega \mathrm{}n\right).$$
(20)
For the $`\rho `$-dependent part of the equation it is more convenient to define $`z=e^{2\rho }`$. Therefore, using the Ansatz (19), the $`z`$-part of (17) and (18) becomes

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha r_{ex}}{\mathrm{}^2}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{r_{ex}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}m\right]F\left(z\right)+i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{r_{ex}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(2z{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}+1\right)\right]G\left(z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
$`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{r_{ex}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\left(2z{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}+1\right)\right]F\left(z\right)\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha r_{ex}}{\mathrm{}^2}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{r_{ex}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{}}}+m\right]G\left(z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (22)
Here we have used the same notation for the functions $`F`$ and $`G`$, independently whether they depend either on $`\rho `$ or $`z`$. The notation will be used through out the text unless it becomes confusing.

One can find a solution of this set of first order coupled differential equations by rewriting them as a second order one. For example, if we solve (21) for $`F(z)`$ and replace this result in (22) we find that $`G(z)`$ satisfies a second order differential equation. By defining the variable $`x=\alpha (r_{ex}/\mathrm{})z`$ one finds that $`G(x)`$ satisfies

$$A(x)G^{\prime \prime }(x)+B(x)G^{}(x)+C(x)G(x)=0,$$
(23)
with

$`A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta x)x^2,`$ (24)
$`B(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\delta x)x,`$ (25)
$`C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^3+(\delta \stackrel{~}{\beta })x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1)^2+4\delta (2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )\right]x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{4}}\left((2\delta +\stackrel{~}{\beta })^21\right),`$ (26)
where the constant $`\delta `$, $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are given by

$$\delta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{}m_{\text{eff}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right),m_{\text{eff}}=m+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\frac{\mathrm{}\beta }{r_{ex}}.$$
(27)
The same procedure yields a similar equation for $`F\left(z\right)`$.

Note that this equation has three singular points for $`\delta 0`$. Two of them are regular ($`0`$ and $`\delta `$) while the other one located at infinity is irregular (corresponding to the horizon in radial coordinates).

In order to solve the equation we must consider two cases: $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta 0`$. In the first case, the equation has one regular singularity, while in the second one, it has the three singularities. Therefore, we will be able to completely solve the $`\delta =0`$ case, while the other one must be treated in an approximate way.

The physical meaning of such cases is as follows. For s-waves, the $`\delta =0`$ condition corresponds to particles with energies satisfying the relation $`\omega =2m_{\text{eff}}r_{ex}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1/\mathrm{}`$ is the angular velocity of the horizon. One can think of the previous condition as fixing the energy of the particle to the (classical) energy of a particle with mass $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ rotating in a circular orbit of radius $`r_{ex}`$ with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . For waves with $`n0`$, the above relation holds, but now the energy has a contribution from the angular part.

Note that this condition yields a precise relation between the energy and the azimuthal eigenvalue and is a fine tuning condition that, for a generic wave, should be hard to fulfill.

In the next section we will discuss all cases in detail.

### III.2 Solutions of Dirac equation

As we said previously, there exist two distinct cases. We will prove that, despite different solutions for both cases, they share a common characteristic related to their behaviour near the horizon.

#### III.2.1 $`\delta =0`$.

In this case, equation (23) reads

$$x^2G^{\prime \prime }+xG^{}+\left[x^2+\stackrel{~}{\beta }x\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1)^2\right]G=0,$$
(28)
with the following solution

$$G(x)=e^{ix}x^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1}{2}}\left(PF[1+\frac{1}{2}(1+i)\stackrel{~}{\beta },2+\stackrel{~}{\beta };2ix]+QU[1+\frac{1}{2}(1+i)\stackrel{~}{\beta },2+\stackrel{~}{\beta };2ix]\right),$$
(29)
where $`F[c,d;x]`$ and $`U[c,d;x]`$ are confluent hypergeometric functions (Kummer’s solution); $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are complex constants. These functions provide a set of linearly independent solutions of (28) only if $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is non integer htf .

The confluent hypergeometric $`F[c,d;x]`$ is regular at $`x=0`$, while the confluent hypergeometric $`U[c,d;x]`$ is regular at infinity. Thus, the regular piece of the solution at infinity (that is, near the horizon in radial coordinate) is

$`G(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ix}x^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1}{2}}QU[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+i)\stackrel{~}{\beta },2+\stackrel{~}{\beta };2ix],`$ (30)
$``$ $`e^{ix}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\alpha _nx^{n1/2}(x\mathrm{}),`$
where the $`\alpha _n`$ depend on $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and $`N`$ is an arbitrary integer controlling the order of the expansion.

The regular solution for $`x0`$ (that is, at spatial infinity) is $`F[c,d;x]`$ and has a series expansion in positive powers of $`x`$. However, the flux associated with this solution is not straightforwardly defined because the BTZ spacetime is not asymptotically flat; this is a subtle point because as was shown in birming . We will discuss this issue in section IV.

#### III.2.2 $`\delta 0`$.

In this case, the equation has three singular points, being $`x\mathrm{}`$ of irregular type. We can write (23) in a more transparent way by defining the variable $`y=x/\delta `$ and

$$G(y)=\frac{1y}{\sqrt{y}}D(y).$$
(31)
The equation for $`D(y)`$ turns out to be

$`y^2(1y)^2D^{\prime \prime }+y(1y)(12y)D^{}+[\delta ^2y^4+\delta (\stackrel{~}{\beta }2\delta )y^3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{4}}\left(2+\stackrel{~}{\beta }+12\delta \right)y^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(5(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )^2+2\stackrel{~}{\beta }(1+\delta )4)y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )^2]D`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (32)
This is the equation of a spheroidal wave function which has analytic solution for some particular cases only murphy .

We are interested in the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions in order to define flux near the horizon and far from it. So, let us study the asymptotic form of (32).

We first analyse the $`y0`$ case. Keeping terms up to first order, equation (32) can be written as

$$y^2D_0^{\prime \prime }+(1y)yD_0^{}+\left(\frac{1}{4}(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )^2+\frac{1}{4}\left(\stackrel{~}{\beta }(2+4\delta )3(\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2\delta ^24)\right)y\right)D_0=0,$$
(33)
whose solution is

$$D_0(y)=P_0y^{\frac{b}{2}}F[\frac{1}{2}\left(a+b\right),1b,y]+Q_0y^{\frac{b}{2}}F[\frac{1}{2}\left(ab\right),1+b,y],$$
(34)
where $`P_0`$ and $`Q_0`$ are complex constants, $`a=2+\frac{3}{2}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2\delta ^2)\stackrel{~}{\beta }(1+2\delta )`$ and $`b=2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta `$ and $`F[c,d;x]`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function.

Again, the states that define the incoming flux will be a superposition of this solutions.

In order to discuss the region $`y\mathrm{}`$, we make a series expansion of (32) about infinity and discard all terms of order $`𝒪(y^1)`$ and beyond. The resulting equation is

$$y^2D_{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }+2yD_{\mathrm{}}^{}+\left(\delta ^2y^2+\delta \stackrel{~}{\beta }y\frac{1}{4}\left(2\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta ^2+(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+3\delta )\right)\right)D_{\mathrm{}}=0,$$
(35)
whose solutions turn out to be

$`D_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\delta y}y^{\frac{1}{2}(a1)}(P_{\mathrm{}}F[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+i\stackrel{~}{\beta }+a),1+a,2i\delta y]+`$ (36)
$`Q_{\mathrm{}}U[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+i\stackrel{~}{\beta }+a),1+a,2i\delta y]),`$
where $`a=\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1)^2+4\delta (\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\delta )}`$. $`F[c,d;y]`$ and $`U[c,d;y]`$ are the confluent hypergeometric functions discussed previously for the case $`\delta =0`$.

As we said in the previous section, the regular part of the solution is given by the $`U[c,d;y]`$ function. By the same arguments given there, we can write

$$D_{\mathrm{}}(y)e^{i\delta y}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma _ny^{n1},$$
(37)
where $`\gamma _n`$ are complex constants. Therefore, the solution $`G(x)`$ turns out to be

$$G(x)e^{ix}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_nx^{n1/2}.$$
(38)
Finally, let us point out that the previous results can be understood from a physical point of view as follows. Because of our choice of radial coordinate, the near horizon region corresponds to the irregular singular point $`x\mathrm{}`$. But the horizon is not a physical singularity, and therefore one should find well behaved solutions near this point. Hence, the solution can be written as

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(x)\frac{1}{x^s}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1}{x}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2}{x^2}+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(39)
where $`s`$ is a positive real number. This is just the result found for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta 0`$ with $`s=1/2`$. Note that the exponential $`e^{ix}`$ cannot be obtained with this argument.

To close this section, let us comment on a question that may be confusing, that is, the fact that the Dirac equation can be exactly solved in the regular rotating BTZ background (see e.g. exact ). The difference with the case studied here is that the redefinition DAS

$$r^2=r_+^2cosh^2\mu r_{}^2sinh^2\mu ,$$
(40)
made to find the exact solution, has no meaning in the limit $`r_{}r_+`$, that is, in the extreme BTZ background. This may be another expression that regular and extreme BTZ black holes correspond to different physical objects and should be studied separately.

## IV Ingoing and incoming fluxes and the absorption rate

As was mentioned before, it is not clear how to prepare an initial scattering state (incoming flux) in an AdS background because the solution of the equations of motion at infinity ($`r\mathrm{}`$) are not plane waves. If one needs to find a consistent expression for the incoming flux at infinity, one could define the incoming flux by following the procedure developed in birming  for a scalar field but this is of no help here, as we will show below. The problem can be circumvented arguing that the incoming flux, must be non zero because it represents particles that are sent to the black hole. Therefore, we only must care to be far enough from the horizon. We will use here the arguments given in DAS  for the case of fermions scattering off a regular BH: since in an asymptotically flat space $`\sqrt{g_{oo}}1`$ at infinity, and since $`\sqrt{g_{oo}}r`$ for a BTZ background, one chooses a point in space a location such that $`\sqrt{g_{oo}}1`$; this occurs for $`rl`$.

### IV.1 The current

In order to calculate the absorption cross section, it is necessary to prepare the incoming flux (initial state) and to obtain the ingoing flux (near $`r_{ex}`$) later. The current along $`\rho `$\- direction is

$`j^\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa \overline{\psi }\gamma ^aE_a^\rho \psi ,`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}\text{e}(𝒰^{}𝒱),`$ (42)
where $`\kappa `$ is a coupling constant.

From (19) and (21) we obtain

$$j^\rho (x)=𝒜\left(\frac{x}{\delta x}\right)\mathrm{}\text{e}\left\{iG(x)\frac{d}{dx}G^{}(x)\right\},$$
(43)
where $`𝒜`$ is a constant.

### IV.2 Flux and cross section

The black hole absorption rate $`\sigma _{abs}`$ could be defined as in quantum mechanics, where it is related to the ratio of the ingoing flux at the horizon (total number of particles entering the horizon) and incoming flux at infinity.

$$\sigma _{abs}=\frac{\left(x\mathrm{}\right)}{\left(x0\right)},$$
(44)
where

$$=\sqrt{g}j^\rho (x),$$
(45)
with $`g`$ the determinant of the metric.

It is straightforward to prove that

$$=𝒜\sqrt{r_{ex}^2+\frac{\alpha \mathrm{}r_{ex}}{x}}\left(\frac{x}{1x}\right)\mathrm{}\text{e}\left\{iG(x)\frac{d}{dx}G^{}\left(x\right)\right\}.$$
(46)
Now we must evaluate this quantity for $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta 0`$, near the horizon and at spatial infinity. As we showed in the previous section, however, there is a general form of the solution given by (39), as we showed in the previous section for the near horizon region.

It is straightforward to evaluate the flux near the horizon:

$``$ $`=`$ $`𝒜\sqrt{r_{ex}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{}r_{ex}}{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1x}}\mathrm{}\text{e}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{x^{2s}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2}{x^2}}+\mathrm{}\right)\left(\kappa _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{x^2}}\mathrm{}\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒜\sqrt{r_{ex}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}\mathrm{}\text{e}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{x^{2s1}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha _0}\kappa _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0\kappa _1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1\kappa _0}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0\kappa _2+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1\kappa _1+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\kappa _0}{x^2}}\mathrm{}\right)\right\}.`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$ and $`\kappa _0=i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0^{},\kappa _1=i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{}s\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0^{},\kappa _2=i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{}s\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{},\mathrm{}`$, are numerical constants.

The last expression shows that for $`s1/2`$

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}0.$$
(47)
In order to define the incoming flux in a consistent way, one could define the ingoing and outgoing states as a complex linear combination of the asymptotic solutions at infinity, as done in birming  for a scalar field. In the present case, ($`\delta =0`$) this means to consider

$$G_r\mathrm{}(x)=e^{ix}x^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }+1}{2}}(PF[1+\frac{1}{2}(1+i)\stackrel{~}{\beta },2+\stackrel{~}{\beta };2ix]\pm QU[1+\frac{1}{2}(1+i)\stackrel{~}{\beta },2+\stackrel{~}{\beta };2ix]),$$
(48)
where $`P`$ y $`Q`$ are complex constants and the positive (negative) sign corresponds to the ingoing (outgoing) waves. It is straightforward to show that, by replacing this expression into Eq. (46), the flux diverges (to leading order) as $`x^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ at infinity, a result that is valid for $`\delta =0`$ as well as $`\delta 0`$.

Given that the previously defined flux is divergent, we can use the argument found in DAS  in order to define the incoming flux. Choosing $`x\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡}.l`$ (corresponding to $`rl`$) we find

$$\underset{rl}{lim}\text{constant}.$$
(49)
Finally, from (44) one proves that

$$\sigma _{abs}=0.$$
(50)
for the extreme 2+1 dimensional black hole.

Let us point out that this result has no contradictions with the non-extreme black hole. The reason is that our argument about the form of the function $`G(x)`$ is still valid in the regular black hole background, but the damping factor in front of (43) is different for such case because Eqs. (21) and (22) are not the same for the extreme and non-extreme cases and hence one cannot map one into the other in a continuous manner.

### IV.3 Reciprocal space

In gm  we argued that it is possible to circumvent the problem of defining the flux of particles at infinity in a AdS spacetime by working in a sort of reciprocal space, which means to map the original problem into another one, where the concept of free particles at infinity holds.

In the present case this can also be performed. The arguments given before –in gm – are still valid and much of the discussion in this section is based on it.

The main issue is to write the equation (23) in its canonical form

$$u^{\prime \prime }(x)+I(x)u(x)=0,$$
(51)
where $`I(x)`$ is the invariant.

Again, Ii our problem we must distinguish two cases: $`\delta =0`$ and $`\delta 0`$.

For $`\delta =0`$, one defines

$$G(x)=\frac{u_0(x)}{\sqrt{x}},$$
(52)
where $`u_0(x)`$ satisfies the equation

$$u_0^{\prime \prime }+\left(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{x}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2)}{4x^2}\right)u_0=0.$$
(53)
For $`\delta 0`$, defining $`\xi =x/\delta `$ and

$$G(\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{\xi 1}}{\xi }u_1(\xi ),$$
(54)
one finds that $`u_1(\xi )`$ satisfies

$$u_1^{\prime \prime }+\left(\delta ^2+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }(2\delta +1)1}{2\xi }+\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\beta }+2\delta )^21}{4\xi ^2}+\frac{1\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{1\xi }+\frac{(3/4}{(\xi 1)^2}\right)u_1=0.$$
(55)
In (53) and (55), $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ play the role of radial coordinates, respectively, in a Schrödinger-type equation. The reciprocal spaces are then $`_0=\{\varphi ,x\}`$ and $`_1=\{\varphi ,\xi \}`$, where $`\varphi `$ is an angular coordinate.

Additionally, one must impose that

$$u_0(x=0)=0=u_1(\xi =0),$$

in order to have continuous solutions everywhere elipticos .

Finally, one note that the potential terms in (53) and (55) vanish as $`x\mathrm{}`$ and $`\xi \mathrm{}`$, respectively. Therefore, it is possible to define asymptotic states as in the usual scattering theory; meaning solutions like $`A_0(\varphi )e^{ix}`$ for $`u_0`$ and $`A_1e^{i\delta \xi }`$ for $`u_1`$, where $`A_i`$ are the scattering amplitudes and the exponential terms, are the asymptotic states.

However, invoking the optical theorem, one can directly prove that this gives rise to a vanishing total cross section (see gm  for details). This implies a zero absorption cross section as was calculated in the previous section when returning to the original space

## V Conclusions

In this work we have discussed the problem of fermions scattering off a 2+1-dimensional extreme black hole background.

We showed that the Dirac equation can be solved when the fine tuning condition is satisfied.

We also gave a general argument in order to show that the solutions of the Dirac equation near the horizon need to have a precise form, what was checked by solving them.

With these solutions we were able to prove that the flux of incoming particles near the horizon vanishes and therefore that the absorption cross section becomes zero, which agrees with previous results for scalar particles.

The previous result is not contradictory with the well known fact that for a regular BH background, the cross section is proportional to the area (entropy) of the horizon. In fact, our result is consistent with the fact that both solutions of the Einstein equations (the regular and the extreme black holes) define different topologies of the spacetime.

We also proved that the description in terms of the reciprocal space yields the same results implying that it could be considered as the space where the scattering in AdS should be defined.

Finally, let us remark that our main result agrees with arguments that show that the extreme black hole entropy is zero and therefore can be considered as fundamental objects.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by UCV-VRIEA-DI under Grant N<sup>0</sup> 123.763/2002 (SL)and FONDECYT under Grants N<sup>0</sup> 3000005 (FM) and N<sup>0</sup> 1020061(LV). One of us (SL) acknowledges the Departamento de Física, Universidad de Santiago de Chile for hospitality. LV and FM would like to thanks M. Bañados for enlightening discussions. JS and FM would like to thank J. Zanelli and R. Troncoso for several discussions. FM acknowledges also useful discussions with J. Gamboa who suggested this problem. We thank Dr. U. Raff for a careful reading of the manuscript.