format: text

text:
# Quantum thermodynamic fluctuations of a chaotic Fermi–gas model

## 1 Introduction

Fermi gases confined to small volumes present distinct finite size effects in their thermodynamic properties. Among the different corrections to the bulk behavior, some are smooth functions of the parameters of the system. They typically depend on geometric aspects of the volume occupied by the gas (e.g. surface and curvature terms). In contrast, other corrections are fluctuating functions. These quantum (or mesoscopic) fluctuations are related to the discreteness of the single–particle spectrum, and are sensitive to the nature of the dynamics of the particles in the gas. In many cases they are small compared to the bulk, but may play nevertheless an important role (like, for example, in nuclear physics where shell effects are crucial in the determination of the shape of atomic nuclei ). In other (more spectacular) situations, they provide the dominant contribution. This occurs for example in the electronic orbital magnetism in quantum dots – where they can be larger than the Landau susceptibility  –, or in the persistent currents in mesoscopic rings  – where the bulk contribution vanishes. In all cases the quantum fluctuations disappear when the temperature is raised.

Instead of a detailed computation and description of the quantum fluctuations for a particular system, the aim here is to study their statistical properties. The interest of such an analysis is well known: using a minimum amount of information, a statistical approach allows to establish a classification scheme among the fluctuations of different physical systems. It also allows to distinguish the generic from the specific, and provides a powerful predictive tool in complex systems. A general description of the statistical properties of the quantum fluctuations of thermodynamic functions of integrable and chaotic ballistic Fermi gases, and of their temperature dependence, was developed in Ref..

From a classical point of view, there are two extreme cases of single–particle motion, namely integrable and fully chaotic. The case of a mixed phase space (e.g., coexistence of regular and chaotic motion) being the generic one. In all cases, in a Fermi gas model the quantum thermodynamic fluctuations can be directly related to the fluctuations of the single–particle, discrete, energy levels. Schematically, there are two distinct types of single–particle fluctuations. On the one hand there are the local fluctuations, i.e. those occurring on scales of the order of the single–particle mean level spacing $`\delta `$. For the two extreme dynamics mentioned above, these fluctuations are known to be universal , namely Poisson for integrable motion, random matrix in full chaos. The second type of fluctuations generically present in any single–particle spectrum are long range correlations, that occur on a scale $`E_c`$, where $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ is the energy associated with the shortest classical periodic orbit of the mean field (inverse time of flight across the system). In contrast to the local fluctuations, the long range modulations depend on the short–time specific properties of the dynamics and are therefore non–universal, either for integrable, mixed, or fully chaotic dynamics (thought their importance varies in each case).

Properties related to both types of single–particle fluctuations have been identified in the nuclear behavior. For example, shell effects in the nuclear masses are a clear manifestation of the long range correlations, whereas nearest–neighbor spacing statistics and the distribution of widths of neutron resonances illustrate universal local fluctuations. However, a global and comprehensive picture of the quantum fluctuations has not yet emerged. An important additional ingredient are certainly the variations in the nucleus of the nature of the dynamics as a function of the excitation energy. But even in the case of a scaling mean–field motion where the classical dynamics is energy independent (like when putting a Fermi gas inside a hard wall box or billiard) the physical behavior of the gas can be quite complex and rich, and both types of fluctuations (local and long range) can in fact manifest in different quantities related to the system, or in the same quantity at different temperatures .

One might think that a fully chaotic single–particle dynamics implies universal quantum fluctuations of the thermodynamics of the gas, well described by some random matrix model (Wigner, two–body random, etc). This belief is not true in general. The reason is that the thermodynamic fluctuations are universal only when they are controlled by the local single–particle fluctuations. And this is not always the case. For example, it has been shown, in particular, that the statistical properties of the ground–state energy of a many–body system are controlled by the short periodic orbits (at least in systems with a ground state well described by a mean–field approximation, like the atomic nucleus) . The corresponding distribution is therefore non–universal. As a consequence, it makes no sense to model the ground–state fluctuations by some random matrix model, that possess no information on the specific mean–field short time properties of the dynamics.

Our purpose here is to illustrate the richness of the thermodynamic quantum fluctuations and to explicitly check some of the predictions by considering a particular example of a Fermi gas with a fully chaotic classical dynamics. The system considered is a mathematical model. It is achieved by considering a spectrum of single–particle energy levels constructed from the imaginary part of the complex zeros of the Riemann zeta function. The Fermi gas is obtained by filling the single–particle energy levels with an average occupation number determined by the Fermi–Dirac distribution. This model of a chaotic gas was introduced in Ref., where general motivations as well as dynamical analogies were given. If this Fermi–gas model is viewed as an element of the periodic table, following nuclear physics terminology we referred to it as the Riemannium . Aside its mathematical interest, physically the Riemannium is an important model because it possesses all the typical dynamical properties and characteristics of a realistic chaotic gas, while it greatly facilitates the numerical and analytical computations (e.g., all the ingredients required in a semiclassical description of its thermodynamic properties are known). This is quite unusual in fully chaotic systems, and therefore offers a rather unique model to test general results and ideas.

The basic quantities to be computed are the probability distributions, at a given temperature, of the quantum fluctuations of the grand potential and of the entropy of the gas. We consider a degenerate gas in the grand canonical ensemble; other ensembles (e.g., canonical) may be considered as well. In particular, it can be shown that to leading order in an expansion of large chemical potential, the fluctuations of the energy of the gas at a fixed number of particles coincide with those of the grand potential. Our results therefore apply to the total energy. In a semiclassical approximation, the fluctuations are described by the periodic orbits of the classical dynamics associated with the single–particle motion . In the Riemannium, the role of the periodic orbits is played by the prime numbers. The basic equations and the relevant energy scales of the Riemannium are introduced in §2. In §3 we analyze the fluctuations of the grand potential. The corresponding distribution is non–universal at all temperatures (including $`T=0`$, the case considered in ). The asymptotic moments of the distribution, obtained for a large chemical potential, are well reproduced by some convergent sums dominated by the smaller prime numbers (i.e., short periodic orbits). Odd moments are non–zero, implying an asymmetric distribution at all temperatures. At a finite chemical potential, large prime numbers introduce corrections to the asymptotic moments. These corrections to the non–universal leading–order behavior are, in contrast, universal, and described by random matrix theory.

The entropy fluctuations are studied in §4. Their character strongly depends on temperature. For a chaotic dynamics without time reversal symmetry, which corresponds to the Riemannium, these fluctuations present several remarkable features, predicted in . For temperatures $`T\delta `$, the variance of the entropy fluctuations increases linearly. In a second regime, when $`\delta TE_\mathrm{c}`$, the variance saturates to a constant value. This initial behavior of the variance (i.e. linear growth followed by a saturation), and more generally of the probability distribution of the entropy fluctuations, was predicted to be universal, namely identical for any chaotic system without time reversal symmetry (with a given single–particle mean level spacing at Fermi energy). It is well described by the fluctuations obtained from a GUE random matrix single–particle spectrum. The shape of the probability distribution strongly depends on temperature, and converges towards a Gaussian as temperature increases. However, this universal behavior disappears for temperatures of the order $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ or higher, where the statistical properties of the gas do not coincide any more with random matrix theory. The probability distribution of the fluctuations is now described by the short periodic orbits, which are system dependent. In this high temperature regime the typical size of the fluctuations shows an overall exponential decay. All these predictions are worked out explicitly for the Riemannium and compared with numerical simulations. We have found very good agreement between theory and numerical experiments in all the regimes.

Although only two particular thermodynamic functions are discussed, they illustrate all the rich possibilities that may be encountered in other functions. Similar methods apply to them.

## 2 Thermodynamic framework

In the grand canonical ensemble the equilibrium properties of a Fermi gas are defined by the grand potential

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\mu ,T)=T𝑑E\mathrm{log}[1+e^{(\mu E)/T}]\rho (E),$$
(2.1)
where $`T`$ is the temperature (we set Boltzmann’s constant $`k_B=1`$), $`\mu `$ the chemical potential, and

$$\rho (E)=\underset{j}{}\delta (EE_j)$$
(2.2)
is the single–particle density of states. In the Riemannium, the single–particle energies are given by the imaginary part of the upper–half complex zeros $`s=1/2+iE_j`$ of the Riemann zeta function $`\zeta (s)`$, $`E_j=14.1347,21.0220,25.0109,\mathrm{}`$ (the values used in all our numerical simulations were obtained from ). They are expressed in arbitrary units, which are also those of temperature (since $`k_B=1`$). From the grand potential, other thermodynamic functions can be computed. We are particularly interested in the behavior of the entropy of the gas,

$$S(\mu ,T)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{T}\right)_\mu .$$
(2.3)
The number of complex zeros with imaginary part less than $`E`$ is ,

$$n(E)=1\frac{1}{2\pi }E\mathrm{log}\pi \frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}i\frac{E}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\pi }Im\mathrm{log}\zeta \left(\frac{1}{2}iE\right).$$
(2.4)
Expanding the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function and using the Euler product representation of $`\zeta `$ in the last term, this expression splits naturally into a smooth plus an oscillatory part, as in the semiclassical approximation in quantum systems. The density of zeros $`\rho (E)=dn/dE`$ is written $`\rho (E)=\overline{\rho }(E)+\stackrel{~}{\rho }(E)`$, with

$`\overline{\rho }(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{2\pi }}\right)+𝒪(E^2),`$ (2.5)
$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}p}{p^{r/2}}}\mathrm{cos}(Er\mathrm{log}p).`$ (2.6)
In the Riemannium, the first term corresponds therefore to the asymptotic average density of the single–particle energy levels. In the fluctuating part $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, the sum is made over the prime numbers $`p`$. The comparison of this equation with the semiclassical Gutzwiller trace formula for the spectral density of a dynamical system , $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(E)=_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{o}.}A_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{o}.}\mathrm{cos}(S_{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{o}.}(E)/\mathrm{})`$ (the sum is over the classical periodic orbits), shows that each prime number may be interpreted as the label of an unstable primitive periodic orbit $`p`$ of a fully chaotic system without time reversal symmetry, of action $`S_p=E\tau _p`$, period $`\tau _p=\mathrm{log}p`$, Lyapounov stability $`\lambda _p=1`$, repetitions labeled by $`r`$, and $`\mathrm{}=1`$ . Because of this mapping, in the following we often refer to the prime numbers as periodic orbits. Putting aside the issue of the very existence of a classical system whose quantum eigenvalues coincide with the imaginary part of the Riemann zeros, it is the formal analogy with the semiclassical theory of dynamical systems that makes the Riemann zeros in general, and the Riemannium in particular, interesting on a physical basis as a model to test general theories of quantum chaotic systems. Additional support for a dynamical interpretation comes from numerical simulations, that clearly indicate  that the sequence of the imaginary part of the Riemann zeros obeys the Bohigas–Giannoni–Schmit conjecture for chaotic systems without time–reversal symmetry : asymptotically, their statistics coincide with those of eigenvalues of the GUE ensemble of random matrices .

Replacing the decomposition (2.5)–(2.6) of the density of states into (2.1) leads to a corresponding decomposition of the grand potential. A similar decomposition for other thermodynamic functions is obtained by derivation. We are interested in the statistical properties of the fluctuating part of those functions, and in their temperature dependence. In the forthcoming analysis, the different relevant scales are the following.

* Largest scale: chemical potential $`\mu `$
* Intermediate scale: shortest periodic orbit

$`\mathrm{Energy}:E_\mathrm{c}=h/\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=2\pi /\mathrm{log}29.06472,`$
$`\mathrm{Time}:\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{log}2,`$
$`\mathrm{Temperature}:T_\mathrm{c}=E_\mathrm{c}/2\pi ^20.459224.`$
* Smallest scale: single–particle mean level spacing

$`\mathrm{Energy}:\delta =1/\overline{\rho }=2\pi /\mathrm{log}(\mu /2\pi ),`$
$`\mathrm{Time}:\tau _H=h/\delta =\mathrm{log}(\mu /2\pi ),`$
$`\mathrm{Temperature}:T_\delta =\delta /2\pi ^2=1/\pi \mathrm{log}(\mu /2\pi ).`$

The intermediate scale is related to the shortest periodic orbit (or time of flight across the system at energy $`\mu `$) which, according to the previous analogy, corresponds here to the period $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{log}2`$ associated with the prime number 2. $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ defines the outer energy scale of oscillations in the density of states (cf Eq.(2.6)). Due to the independence of the periods with energy in the Riemann dynamics, this energy scale is a fixed number. In the definition of the mean level spacing $`\delta `$, we have used the asymptotic leading order approximation of the average density of states. $`\tau _H`$ is the so–called Heisenberg time. The $`2\pi ^2`$ factor (approximately 20) that relates energies and temperatures is dictated by semiclassical arguments , and it has to be taken into account in numerical comparisons. A final important parameter is the ratio of $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ to $`\delta `$, which measures the number of single–particle states contained in a scale $`E_\mathrm{c}`$,

$$g=E_\mathrm{c}/\delta =\mathrm{log}(\mu /2\pi )/\mathrm{log}2.$$

In the semiclassical limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, the three energy scales are well separated, $`\delta E_\mathrm{c}\mu `$, and $`g\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 The grand potential

Replacing $`\rho (E)`$ by $`\overline{\rho }`$ in Eq.(2.1), integrating by parts, and applying Sommerfeld’s approximation (valid when $`T\mu `$), we obtain the usual thermodynamic relation

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mu ,T)=\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(\mu )\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\overline{\rho }(\mu )T^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$ is the grand potential at zero temperature. For the Riemannium

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(E)=\frac{E^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E}{2\pi }\right)+\frac{3}{8\pi }E^2\frac{7}{8}E\frac{\mathrm{log}E}{48\pi }+c+𝒪(E^2).$$

Terms of order up to $`E^2`$ in $`\overline{\rho }`$ have been included in the integration. The determination of the constant $`c`$ is of numerical importance when computing the fluctuations. From the work of Selberg on the function $`S_1(t)`$  (which, up to an overall sign, coincides with the fluctuating part of the grand potential at zero temperature), we can extract its value

$$c=\frac{1}{\pi }_{1/2}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}\left|\zeta (x)\right|dx\underset{E\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{_0^E\overline{n}(x)𝑑x\frac{E^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{E}{2\pi }\right)+\frac{3}{8\pi }E^2\frac{7}{8}E\frac{\mathrm{log}E}{48\pi }\right\},$$

where $`\overline{n}(x)`$ is the exact smooth part of the counting function, computed from equation (2.4). Evaluating numerically the integrals, the value of the constant is found to be $`c0.75575`$.

Replacing $`\rho (E)`$ by (2.6) in Eq.(2.1), the oscillating part of the grand potential is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\mu ,T)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{p}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa (\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{r^2p^{r/2}\mathrm{log}p}\mathrm{cos}(\mu r\mathrm{log}p).$$
(3.2)
The function

$$\kappa (x)=x/\mathrm{sinh}x$$

takes into account temperature effects , and cuts exponentially the contribution of large prime numbers. If $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$, the contribution of each orbit, including the shortest one, is exponentially small.

Equation (3.2) is an oscillatory function of $`\mu `$ that describes the quantum fluctuations of the grand potential. To study their statistical properties we define the average

$$f\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }_{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu /2}^{\mu +\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /2}f(\mu ^{})𝑑\mu ^{},$$
(3.3)
for any thermodynamic function $`f(\mu )`$ associated to the Riemannium. The size of the average window $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ has to be much smaller than $`\mu `$ (in order to extract local properties), but large enough to contain a sufficient number of oscillations to make the statistical approach meaningful, i.e. $`E_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mu `$.

### 3.1 Variance

The most basic feature of the probability distribution of the fluctuations is the variance. The average of the square of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ can be written as an integral

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2(\mu ,T)=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\kappa ^2(\pi T\tau )}{\tau ^4}K(\tau ).$$
(3.4)
The function

$$K(\tau )=\underset{i,j}{}A_iA_j\mathrm{cos}[\mu (r_i\mathrm{log}p_ir_j\mathrm{log}p_j)]\delta (\tau \overline{\tau }),$$
(3.5)
is the form factor, i.e. the Fourier transform of the two–point correlation function of the single–particle spectrum; $`A_i=\mathrm{log}p_i/p_i^{r_i/2}`$, and $`\overline{\tau }=(\tau _{p_i}+\tau _{p_j})/2`$. This function is central in our analysis. In the semiclassical limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ it is conjectured to coincide with the GUE form factor

$$K_{GUE}(\tau )=\mathrm{min}\{\tau ,\tau _H\}.$$
(3.6)
If we naively replace in (3.4) $`K(\tau )`$ by $`K_{GUE}(\tau )`$, the integral diverges at $`\tau 0`$. This is because at finite $`g`$ random matrix theory provides a wrong description of the short–time behavior of the form factor. For low values of $`\tau `$ the diagonal terms in Eq.(3.5) should be used ,

$$K_D(\tau )=\underset{i}{}A_i^2\delta (\tau \tau _i).$$
(3.7)
This shows that the form factor is non–universal at short times, and that $`K(\tau )=0`$ for $`\tau <\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$. The form factor behaves like $`K_{GUE}`$ only for times larger than some $`\tau _{}`$. The intermediate time $`\tau _{}`$ satisfies $`(\mathrm{Re}\gamma )^1<\tau _{}<\tau _H`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the classical resonance (eigenvalue of the Perron–Frobenius operator) with the smallest real part .

Since short times dominate the fluctuations of the grand potential, in the limit $`\tau 0`$ we use in (3.4) the diagonal approximation of the form factor, and neglect for the moment the contributions of longer times,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_\mathrm{D}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\underset{p,r}{}\frac{\kappa ^2(\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{r^4p^r\mathrm{log}^2p}.$$
(3.8)
This is a convergent sum for all temperatures, and is independent of the chemical potential. At $`T=0`$ it gives the value $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_\mathrm{D}0.079290`$ . Since the temperature factor is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\tau `$, the variance exponentially decreases with increasing temperature, and the role of the short orbits (small primes) in the fluctuations is further enhanced. Fig.1 compares Eq.(3.8) evaluated at different temperatures to numerical results obtained for the Riemannium (for reference, in the chemical potential window used to compute the fluctuations we have $`T_\delta 0.013`$).

The agreement with the leading order description of the variance is excellent. However, as the chemical potential is lowered deviations from the asymptotic behavior are observed. The corrections may be obtained from Eq.(3.4), $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_\mathrm{D}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_{\mathrm{off}}`$, by using the GUE form factor (3.6) for times $`\tau >\tau _{}`$. This gives,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_{\mathrm{off}}=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_{\tau _H}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \frac{(\tau _H\tau )\kappa ^2(\pi T\tau )}{\tau ^4}.$$
(3.9)
As temperature goes to zero, the temperature factor $`\kappa ^2`$ tends to 1, and the integral is easily performed giving $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2_{\mathrm{off}}=1/(12\pi ^2\tau _H^2)`$. This provides a finite–$`\mu `$ correction to the variance, which decreases as $`(\mathrm{log}\mu )^2`$. For increasing temperatures the correction is smaller. The off-diagonal terms thus provide a universal correction to the leading non universal diagonal term (namely, the only specific information on the system that enters the correction is the average density of states at Fermi energy, through $`\tau _H=h\overline{\rho }`$).

### 3.2 Higher moments and distribution

We already showed that to calculate the variance the diagonal approximation is accurate because the short orbits dominate the fluctuations. A generalization of the diagonal approximation allows to evaluate all the moments of the probability distribution of the grand potential by a method developed in  and . The mechanism is an interference process between repetitions of primitive periodic orbits.

Defining the amplitude

$$𝒜_{p,r}(T)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\kappa (\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{r^2p^{r/2}\mathrm{log}p},$$
(3.10)
the third and fourth moments of the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ are found to be, in the diagonal approximation,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^3`$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒜_{p,r_1}𝒜_{p,r_2}𝒜_{p,r_1+r_2},`$ (3.11)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^4`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}[4{\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2,r_3=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒜_{p,r_1}𝒜_{p,r_2}𝒜_{p,r_3}𝒜_{p,r_1+r_2+r_3}6{\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝒜_{p,r_1}^2𝒜_{p,r_2}^2`$ (3.12)
$`+3{\displaystyle \underset{r_1,r_2=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r_3=1}{\overset{r_1+r_21}{}}}𝒜_{p,r_1}𝒜_{p,r_2}𝒜_{p,r_3}𝒜_{p,r_1+r_2r_3}]+3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2^2.`$
All the sums are convergent. We see explicitly that the third moment and the excess of the fourth moment (the term $`3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2^2`$ being the fourth moment of a Gaussian distribution) are different from zero. The distribution of the fluctuations of the grand potential is therefore a non universal asymmetric function that strongly depends on the small prime numbers. It is displayed, for different temperatures, in Fig.2 .

Higher moments $`k5`$ may also be computed, with increasing complexity of the result. Corrections to the diagonal terms coming from off–diagonal contributions exist, but as already shown they are negligible in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. We thus ignore them.

These results are confirmed to high accuracy by the numerical data from the Riemann zeros (cf Fig.1 and Table 1).

## 4 The entropy

From Eq.(2.3) the entropy of the gas is expressed as,

$$S(\mu ,T)=s\left(\frac{\mu E}{T}\right)\rho (E)𝑑E=\underset{j}{}s\left(\frac{\mu E_j}{T}\right),$$
(4.1)
where

$$s(x)=\mathrm{log}(1+e^x)\frac{x}{1+e^x}.$$
(4.2)
The function $`s(x)`$ is localized around $`x=0`$, and decays exponentially for $`|x|1`$. At very low temperatures ($`TT_\delta `$), the function $`S(\mu ,T)`$ has peaks as a function of $`\mu `$ centered at each single particle energy level (Riemann’s zero) of width $`\delta `$. At these temperatures the entropy is therefore zero for $`\mu E_j`$, and takes the value $`\mathrm{log}2`$ when $`\mu =E_j`$. As the temperature increases, the width increases (while the height remains constant) and the peaks start to overlap. At temperatures $`TT_\delta `$ and at a fixed $`\mu `$, only the energy levels distant by a few mean spacings from the chemical potential contribute to the entropy. The fluctuations are governed by the local statistics of the eigenvalues, which are universal (e.g., GUE). In this regime universality in the entropy fluctuations is expected. In contrast, at higher temperatures $`T\stackrel{>}{}T_\mathrm{c}`$, when peaks separated from $`\mu `$ by a distance of order $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ start to contribute to the entropy, the universality will be lost because information on the scale of the shortest periodic orbit enters. We now substantiate this analysis by an explicit quantitative calculation.

Deriving with respect to temperature Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2), the smooth and fluctuating part of the entropy are given, respectively, by

$`\overline{S}(\mu ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}\overline{\rho }(\mu )T,`$ (4.3)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}(\mu ,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{}(\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{rp^{r/2}}}\mathrm{cos}(\mu r\mathrm{log}p).`$ (4.4)
The function $`\kappa ^{}(x)=d\kappa /dx`$ decreases also exponentially for $`x1`$, producing a cut-off for prime numbers satisfying $`\mathrm{log}p1/(\pi T)`$. When $`x0`$, $`\kappa ^{}(x)`$ vanishes linearly. The maximum of the function is located at $`x1.6061`$. Prime numbers that satisfy $`r\mathrm{log}p1/(\pi T)`$ give therefore the main contribution to the oscillations. At low temperatures large primes (long orbits) are selected. Smaller primes (e.g., short orbits) contribute as the temperature is raised.

### 4.1 Variance

Analogously to the grand potential, the variance of the entropy fluctuations may also be written in terms of the form factor,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^2=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\kappa ^2(\pi T\tau )}{\tau ^2}K(\tau ).$$
(4.5)
We briefly review here the general results obtained in Ref., and check them with the Riemannium.

The two different regimes of the form factor described in §3.1 split the integral (4.5) into three different parts,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\underset{r\mathrm{log}p<\tau _{}}{}\frac{\kappa ^2(\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{r^2p^r}+_\tau _{}^{\tau _H}𝑑\tau \frac{\kappa ^2(\pi T\tau )}{\tau }+\tau _H_{\tau _H}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \frac{\kappa ^2(\pi T\tau )}{\tau ^2}\right\}.$$
(4.6)
The sum corresponds to the non universal short–time regime, whereas the two integrals correspond to the long–time random matrix behavior. These different terms dominate the integral at different temperatures.

* Low temperatures: $`TT_\delta `$. In this regime the maximum of $`\kappa ^{}`$ is centered at times much larger than the Heisenberg time $`\tau _H`$. The dominant term in Eq.(4.6) is the last one. We can extend the integral down to zero with a negligible error. The variance of the entropy is

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^2I_2\overline{\rho }(\mu )T=I_2T/\delta ,$$
(4.7)
where

$$I_2=\pi ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\kappa ^2(x)}{x^2}1.51836.$$
(4.8)
In this initial regime the growth is linear, with a slope proportional to the density of states. No additional specific information on the Riemann zeta is present in this formula. Eq.(4.7) reflects the discreteness of the single–particle spectrum, and is thus a very general result valid for arbitrary systems, independently of their dynamics . The smooth part of the entropy grows also linearly with temperature, and is proportional to the density of states . Compared to the mean value $`\overline{S}`$, the typical size of the fluctuations $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{S}^2}`$ are large (of order $`(T/\delta )^{1/2})`$. In this regime the quantum fluctuations dominate.

* Intermediate temperatures: $`T_\delta TT_\mathrm{c}`$. Now the maximum of $`\kappa ^{}`$ is centered at times in between $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\tau _H`$. The dominant term in expression (4.6) is the second one, where we have introduced the GUE diagonal approximation of the form factor $`K_D(\tau )=\tau `$. Neglecting the contributions of short and long times we extrapolate the integral from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^2I_1=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\kappa ^2(x)}{x}0.0709159.$$
(4.9)
In this regime, the size of the entropy fluctuations are therefore insensitive to temperature variations, they saturate to a universal constant.

* High temperatures: $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ and higher. In this regime the diagonal approximation of the form factor is still accurate, but the short time (non universal) structure is now apparent. At this temperatures the entropy fluctuations are also sensitive to the fact that below $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{log}2`$ the form factor is strictly zero. The dominant term in Eq.(4.6) is the first sum. The sum can be extended to all prime numbers and repetitions with negligible error, and gives a variance

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{p}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa ^2(\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)}{r^2p^r}.$$
(4.10)
For $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$, all the terms of this sum are exponentially small, and the fluctuations vanish accordingly.

To have a global description of $`\stackrel{~}{S}^2`$ that interpolates between the different regimes described above a numerical evaluation of Eq.(4.6) is necessary. The result depends on $`\mu `$ through the Heisenberg time.

We have checked these predictions by a direct comparison of Eq.(4.6) to a numerical computation of the entropy variance as a function of temperature. The result is displayed in Fig.3 (for reference, $`T_\delta 0.013`$). There is an excellent agreement with theory for all temperatures. The initial linear growth and the saturation to a plateau are amplified in the inset. The size of the fluctuations almost reaches the theoretical prediction (4.9) at $`T2.5T_\delta 0.03`$. The expected intermediate plateau is however short, because the temperatures $`T_\delta `$ and $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ are not sufficiently well separated (due to the slow logarithmic decrease of $`\delta `$, even at these large values of $`\mu `$ we are not sufficiently asymptotic). The exponential decay is also well described.

### 4.2 Distribution

In the regime $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ the previous results confirm that the behavior of the statistical properties of the entropy fluctuations are universal. They depend only on the structure of the GUE form factor and not on any specific property of Riemann’s zeros. The universality is not expected to be valid only for the variance, but more generally for the full probability distribution. To check this, we compare the probability distribution of the entropy fluctuations obtained from Eq.(4.1) using two different single–particle spectra $`\{E_j\}`$:

* the zeros of the Riemann zeta function,
* the eigenvalues of a GUE ensemble of random matrices.

In the first case the probability distribution is computed by varying the chemical potential in a small window, whereas in the second by averaging over the Gaussian ensemble. Both probability distributions, computed at different temperatures, are plotted in Fig.4. At low temperatures both distributions are almost indistinguishable. Notice the strong sensitivity of the distribution to temperature variations. When temperatures of order $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ are reached (cf part d)), the universality is lost. For $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ the fluctuations are dominated by short orbits, and are system specific. The moments of the distribution can be computed by the same techniques used in §3.2 for the grand potential replacing $`𝒜_{p,r}`$ in Eq.(3.10) by $`𝒜_{p,r}(T)=\kappa ^{}(\pi Tr\mathrm{log}p)/(2rp^{r/2})`$.

## 5 Concluding remarks

The use of the Riemannium as a test model in quantum mechanics is justified by two main reasons. First, by its genericity: the Riemann spectrum possesses all the generic features of a classically chaotic quantum system with no time reversal symmetry. Second, by its practical advantages, namely all the necessary quantum and semiclassical information required to work out accurate computations and comparisons is available. Hence, though this ”number theoretic” model may seem somewhat remote from a realistic system, it provides an excellent arena to verify the non trivial quantum mechanical properties of chaotic systems.

Based on semiclassical techniques and random matrix theory, several aspects of the thermodynamics of a chaotic Fermi gas have been verified. An accurate description of the probability distribution of the quantum fluctuations of the grand potential (or energy) and of the entropy of the Riemannium were obtained. In particular, the universal linear growth of the entropy variance followed by a saturation, with a further non universal exponential decay, were confirmed. The size of the saturation plateau, predicted in the regime $`T_\delta TT_\mathrm{c}`$, was relatively small (see the inset in Fig.3). This is due to the slow logarithmic asymptotic convergence properties of the Riemannium (in spite of the large chemical potential used in the numerical simulations, we are not very deep in the semiclassical limit. In fact, for the window analyzed in the figures the number of particles is around $`10^{12}`$, with $`g35`$. For an atomic nucleus or for electrons in a metallic grain, this value of $`g`$ corresponds to approximately $`4050`$ particles. In the Riemannium, in order to have $`T_\delta `$ and $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ separated by a factor of, say, 100, $`\mu `$ need to be of the order of $`10^{30}`$).

The high accuracy of the results obtained for all the quantities studied confirm the validity of the different approximations employed. The present theory therefore provides a solid ground to go beyond and test realistic systems. Of particular interest is the interplay between mean–field approximations, residual interactions and dynamics. Some encouraging results in this direction were already obtained in the study of nuclear masses .

This work has been supported by the European Commission under the Research Training Network MAQC (HPRN-CT-2000-00103) of the IHP Programme.

|  | T = 0 | T = 0.3 | T = 0.5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2`$ | $`(7.928\pm 0.002)\times 10^2`$ | $`(5.9885\pm 0.0025)\times 10^2`$ | $`(4.2953\pm 0.0015)\times 10^2`$ |
|  | $`7.9290\times 10^2`$ | $`5.9886\times 10^2`$ | $`4.2953\times 10^2`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^3`$ | $`(5.78\pm 0.02)\times 10^3`$ | $`(3.44\pm 0.02)\times 10^3`$ | $`(1.65\pm 0.01)\times 10^3`$ |
|  | $`5.7822\times 10^3`$ | $`3.4377\times 10^3`$ | $`1.6508\times 10^3`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^4`$ | $`(1.480\pm 0.002)\times 10^2`$ | $`(7.625\pm 0.005)\times 10^3`$ | $`(3.586\pm 0.003)\times 10^3`$ |
|  | $`1.4814\times 10^2`$ | $`7.6273\times 10^3`$ | $`3.5869\times 10^3`$ |

Table 1: Moments of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ at different temperatures. The upper values (with the errors) were obtained from the numerical distributions of figure (2.a), (2.c) and (2.d). The lower values are the semiclassical results (3.8), (3.11) and (3.12), respectively.


text:
# The wormhole hazard

## 1 Introduction

According to a widespread belief general relativity is the science of gravitational force. Which means, in fact, that it is important only in cosmology, or in extremely subtle effects involving tiny post-Newtonian corrections.

However, this point of view is, perhaps, somewhat simplistic. Being concerned with the structure of spacetime itself, relativity sometimes poses problems vital to whole physics. Two best known examples are singularities and time machines. In this talk I discuss another, a little less known, but, in my belief, equally important problem (closely related to the preceding two). In a nutshell it can be formulated in the form of two question: What principle must be added to general relativity to provide it (and all other physics along with it) by predictive power? Does not the (hypothetical) existence of wormholes endanger that (hypothetical) principle?

## 2 Global hyperbolicity and predictive power

### 2.1 Globally hyperbolic spacetimes

The globally hyperbolic spacetimes are the spacetimes with especially simple and benign causal structure, the spacetimes where we can use physical theories in the same manner as is customary in the Minkowski space.

1. Definition. A spacetime $`M`$ is *globally hyperbolic* if it contains a subset $`𝒮`$ (called a *Cauchy surface*) which is met exactly once by every inextendible causal curve in $`M`$.

2. Remark We shall not need the concept of a globally hyperbolic *subset* of a spacetime, so below, whenever I call a subset $`U`$ of $`M`$ globally hyperbolic111A more rigorous term would be *intrinsically globally hyperbolic* ., I mean that $`U`$ is globally hyperbolic, when considered as an (extendible) spacetime by itself, not as a part of $`M`$.

Topologically globally hyperbolic spacetimes are ‘dull’  in the following sense.

3. Property. All Cauchy surfaces of a given globally hyperbolic spacetime $`M`$ are homeomorphic. Moreover,

$$M=𝒮\times \mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^1,$$

where $`𝒮`$ is a three-dimensional manifold, and $`𝒮\times \{x\}`$ are Cauchy surfaces of $`M`$ for all $`x\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}^1`$.

The causal structure of globally hyperbolic spacetimes is also nice.

4. Property. Globally hyperbolic spacetimes do not contain closed causal curves (for, if such a curve $`\mathrm{}`$ meets a set $`𝒫`$ once, then the causal curve $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ meets $`𝒫`$ twice).

5. Examples. The Minkowski and Friedmann spacetimes are both globally hyperbolic. And a ‘conical’ spacetime

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x^2+\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\phi ^2,r>0,\phi [0,\phi _0<2\pi ),$$

which describes a cosmic string, is not. For, consider a ball $`B=\{p:r(p)\pi /2\}`$. By definition a Cauchy surface must be *achronal* (i. e. no its points can be connected by a timelike curve). But the $`t`$-coordinates of all points of $`𝒫B`$, where $`𝒫`$ is achronal and passes through the origin of the coordinate system, are bounded from above by some $`t_0>0`$. So, the inextendible causal curve

$$x=\varphi =0,t=2t_0+\mathrm{tan}r$$

will never intersect $`𝒫`$. Whence $`𝒫`$ is not a Cauchy surface.

Note that global hyperbolicity is not directly related to the absence of singularities. For example, the (two-dimensional) anti-de Sitter spacetime, which is a strip

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{sec}^2x(\mathrm{d}t^2+\mathrm{d}x^2),\pi /2<x<\pi /2$$

(see Fig. 1a), is non-globally hyperbolic, though it is singularity free (the lines $`x=\pm \pi /2`$ are infinities rather than singularities — it would take infinitely large time for an observer moving with a finite acceleration to reach them). At the same time the Schwarzschild spacetime (see Fig. 1b) *is* globally hyperbolic in spite of the singularities.

Let us call a system (i. e. a set of fields, and/or particles) *predictable* if there is a spacelike surface such that the state of the system on that surface uniquely determines its state at any future point. A theory is *prognostic* if all systems described by that theory are predictable. A non-prognostic theory, i. e. a theory unable to predict the outcome of an experiment, is of doubtful practical value.

The importance of globally hyperbolic spacetimes lies in the fact that all usual relativistic theories (mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.) are prognostic in such spacetimes. If the knowledge of everything that takes place at $`𝒮`$ is insufficient for determining the state of the system at $`p`$, it means that the necessary additional information either comes to $`p`$ just out of nowhere (and so the corresponding theory is indeterministic), or reaches $`p`$ after propagating along spacelike curves (only such curves can avoid meeting $`𝒮`$). In the latter case the theory admits superluminal signalling.

The reverse is also true: in a prognostic theory information does not propagate faster than light. Indeed, take a point $`p^{}`$ slightly to the future from $`p`$ and consider the set $`I^{}(p^{})`$ of all points reachable from $`p^{}`$ by past-directed timelike curves. It turns out that $`I^{}(p^{})`$ is globally hyperbolic, if so is the whole spacetime (this is not obvious from Definition 2.1, but can be easily established from another definition of global hyperbolicity , the equivalence of which to ours is a highly non-trivial fact). Thus in a prognostic theory a state of the system in $`p`$ is uniquely determined by what takes place in $`I^{}(p^{})`$ (in fact, even by those events that lie on its Cauchy surface). In this sense no information from $`MI^{}(p^{})`$ is available to an observer in $`p`$. Our assertion then follows by continuity.

6. Example. Consider a field obeying the equation

$$(\mathrm{}+\mu )\varphi =0.$$

This is a second-order linear hyperbolic equation. The Cauchy problem for such equations is known to be well-posed in any globally hyperbolic spacetime . So, $`\varphi `$ is predictable and hence, in particular, is unsuitable for superluminal signaling (at least on the classical level). Which is noteworthy, because, when $`\mu >0`$, such a field is traditionally referred to as ‘tachyonic’.

When a spacetime is globally hyperbolic and all material fields are predictable222Actually, for a rigorous proof a few additional mild assumptions are necessary, see chapter 7 in Ref. ., general relativity itself is also a prognostic theory: the metric of a spacetime is uniquely determined by the Einstein equations, if it is known on a Cauchy surface.

### 2.2 The general case

If the condition of global hyperbolicity is relaxed the situation with predictability is *much worse*. Let us illustrate it by a few simple examples.

Remove the points $`(t=\pm 1,x=\pm 1)`$ from the Minkowski plane. Next, make the cuts along the two spacelike segments $`\{t=\pm 1,1<x<1\}`$ connecting them (see Fig. 2a). Now, preserving their orientation, glue the banks of the cuts — the upper bank of the lower cut to the lower bank of the upper cut and vice versa. The obtained spacetime $`M`$ — called the Deutsch–Politzer (DP) space — is a combination of a cylinder and a plane with two holes (see Fig. 2b). The holes result from excising the ‘corner’ points (we cannot glue them back into the spacetime) and form singularities of a somewhat unusual kind333In many respects they resemble the conical singularity from Example 1.: the spacetime is flat and thus the singularities are not associated with the divergence of curvature, or its derivatives. In addition to singularities the spacetime contains closed causal curves, which makes it one of the simplest models of the time machine . These are the images of the causal curves which in the original (Minkowski) space start from the lower segment and terminate at the upper.

7. Remark. We described the DP space as a result of some ‘cut-and-paste’ procedure. This, however, gives *no* grounds at all to consider it as something defective and unphysical. In fact, it is exactly as ‘physical’ as the Minkowski space, being the solution of the Einstein equations with exactly the same (zero) source and exactly the same initial conditions (see below). If desired, one could start from the Deutsch–Politzer spacetime and obtain the Minkowski space by a similar surgery.

The *whole* spacetime $`M`$ is not globally hyperbolic (by property 2.1). However, all its ‘pathologies’, i. e. singularities and time loops, are confined to a region $`P`$ (in Fig. 2a it is shown gray) bounded by null geodesics emerging from the lower ‘holes’. The remaining part $`NM\overline{P}`$ of $`M`$ is a ‘nice’ spacetime. Specifically, $`N`$, considered as a spacetime (see remark 2.1), *is* globally hyperbolic, the line $`𝒮_N=\{p:t(p)=2\}`$ being one of its Cauchy surfaces. We have thus a spacetime that ‘looses’ its global hyperbolicity in the course of evolution. This lost, as can be easily seen, is fatal for the predictability of material systems.

8. Example. Suppose our subject matter are pointlike sterile particles, which is, probably, the simplest possible subject. Let us fix the simplest possible initial data — no particles at all at $`𝒮_N`$. It is easy to check that neither these initial data, nor the equations of motion444Nor, of course, any their consequences, like the energy conservation. give us any clue about what will happen later. Possibly the spacetime will always remain empty. But exactly as well later there may appear some particles. Such ‘new’ particles (‘lions’ in terminology of ) may have the world lines emerging from a singularity (as with particle 4), or rolled into a circle (particle 3).

Moreover, it may happen that quite an innocent Cauchy problem in a non-globally hyperbolic spacetime does not have *any solution* whatsoever. This fact is known as the ‘time travel paradox’ .

9. Example. Consider a spacetime which is constructed exactly as the Deutsch–Politzer space, except that before gluing the cuts, one of them is twisted by 180 (see Fig. 3a).

Such a spacetime — called the twisted DP space — is especially convenient for constructing paradoxes, because the world lines even of free falling particles have self-intersections. Our concern is with the behaviour of massless particles whose dynamics is determined by the following rules. Each particle is characterized by two integer parameters — we shall call them ‘color’ and ‘flavor’ — that take three and two values, respectively. The particles are assumed to be sterile with a *single* exception: if two identical (i. e. with the same values of both parameters) particles meet, they both change their flavor. Suppose now that at some moment $`t<1`$ there are three particles of different colors, all moving to the left, as shown in Fig. 3b. If the spacetime remained globally hyperbolic at later times, these initial conditions would just determine the evolution of the particles, but not in this case. In the twisted DP space *no* evolution (governed by the formulated laws of interaction) is consistent with the initial data .

The situation with the evolution of the spacetime geometry is also bad in the general case. Note, for example, that any sufficiently small region of the DP space — including the vicinity of $`𝒮_N`$ — is isometric to the corresponding region of the Minkowski space. Which means, in particular, that if the Minkowski space is a solution of some Cauchy problem (i. e. of a system {some local — Einstein’s, say — equations + conditions on $`𝒮_N`$}), then the DP space is also a solution of the same Cauchy problem. And this is always the case: whenever a Cauchy problem in general relativity has a globally hyperbolic solution $`M`$, it also has infinitely many non-globally hyperbolic solutions (remove from $`M`$ a two-sphere $`𝕊`$ lying to the future from $`𝒮`$; the double covering of $`M𝕊`$ is an example of such ‘spurious’ solution). Within classical relativity (complemented, if desired, with any additional local laws) all these solutions are equipollent.

## 3 Cosmic censorship hypothesis

Summing up the preceding we can state that physics is a nice (prognostic) theory if it is known somehow that our spacetime is globally hyperbolic. Otherwise, not so much can be said about anything whatsoever. Strictly speaking, in the general case we cannot give a substantiated answer even to the question: Where a car, moving at 60 km per hour, will find itself in 20 minutes? The honest answer would be: If the car is lucky enough it will pass 20 km, but exactly as well it may happen that (after 10 minutes, say) a singularity will appear out of thin air (as in the DP case) and the car will vanish in it, or will be attacked by a monster that will have emerged from the singularity, etc. All such possibilities are in perfect agreement with both the initial data and the known physical laws.

In everyday life people cope with this difficulty by assuming (*implicitly* as a rule) that the spacetime, indeed, is globally hyperbolic. So, it seems tempting to solve the whole problem by just explicitly adopting global hyperbolicity as an additional *postulate*. The spacetimes of the DP type would then be ruled out and general relativity would consider only globally hyperbolic maximal solutions of the Einstein equations as appropriate models of the universe.

Such a program, however, immediately meets two problems. The first is of the philosophical nature: it is hard to justify such a *non-local* postulate (indeed, as we saw in example 2.2, our ability to perform some experiments *now* may depend on whether or not a causal loop will appear somewhere in the *future*). The second problem is more serious: this new postulate can come into contradiction with the ‘old’ ones. Spacetimes are conceivable (see below) where the lost of global hyperbolicity is an *inevitable* consequence of the Einstein equations (for specific initial conditions, of course, and with maximality required). So, the best one can hope is that such situations are impossible in ‘realistic’ circumstances. And it is this hope — known as the Cosmic censorship hypothesis — that is endangered by the wormholes.555If one discovered how to create a timelike singularity, it also would violate the Cosmic censorship hypothesis. This possibility, however, is much better known (see, for example, in ) and I shall not discuss it here

## 4 Wormholes

Pick in the Minkowski space two close cylinders $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, of which the second has a bend between, say, $`t=1`$ and $`t=1`$. Except for that bend both cylinders must be parallel to the $`t`$-axis (see Fig. 4a). On the boundaries of the cylinders $`_{1,2}\mathrm{Bd}C_{1,2}`$ define a function $`\tau `$ as follows: $`\tau (p)`$ is the length of the longest (recall that the metric is Lorentzian) timelike curve that lies in $`_{1,2}`$ and connects $`p`$ with the surface $`t=2`$. Clearly, $`\tau (p)=t(p)`$ for all $`p_1`$, but not for $`p_2`$. Now remove the interiors of the cylinders and identify the boundaries $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ so that

$$p_1=p_2\tau (p_1)=\tau (p_2),p_{1,2}_{1,2}.$$
($``$)
Finally, smooth out the junction by curving appropriately a close vicinity of $`_1=_2`$ (to remove the discontinuities in derivatives of the metric).

To see what thus obtained spacetime $`M_W`$ presents, consider its section $`𝒮_N=\{p:t(p)=2\}`$. According to the procedure described above, $`𝒮_N`$ is obtained from the Euclidean space $`𝔼^3`$ by removing two open balls, identifying the boundaries of the holes, and smoothing out the junction. So, $`𝒮_N`$ is a wormhole (in the two-dimensional case, see Fig. 4b, we would call it a handle). The former holes are called *mouths* and the ‘conduit’ connecting them the *throat*. The form of the throat depends on just how we have smoothed out the junction, but — and this is important — it can be made (almost) constant (that is what the condition ($``$4) was imposed for). So, $`M_W`$ describes a wormhole one of whose mouths is somehow pushed away from the other (without changing the length and the form of the throat) and then returned back .

This spacetime, proposed by Morris, Thorne, and Yurtsever (MTY) , received much attention, because at one time it was believed to describe the creation of a time machine. Indeed, the identified points of $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ initially (i. e. at $`t=2`$) have the same $`t`$-coordinate, but later, according to ($``$4), each $`p_1_1`$ is identified with a $`p_2_2`$ such that $`t(p_2)>t(p_1)`$. As soon as $`t(p_2)t(p_1)`$ becomes greater than $`x(p_2)x(p_1)`$ the identified points turn out to be causally connected in the ‘initial’ (i. e. Minkowski) space. Which means that $`M_W`$ contains closed causal curves.

As with the DP space, the causal loops are confined to a region $`Q`$ (the gray cone in Fig. 4a) that lies to the future of a globally hyperbolic (when considered in itself) spacetime $`LM_W\overline{Q}`$. So, we again have a spacetime loosing its global hyperbolicity in the course of evolution. However, there is also a striking difference with the previous case. The additional postulate — to the effect that the whole (i. e. maximal) spacetime must be globally hyperbolic — only required that $`N`$ would evolve into the Minkowski (and not Deutsch–Politzer, say) space, something that intuitively is quite acceptable and even appealing. But $`L`$ *does not* have globally hyperbolic extensions and therefore makes us choose between maximality and global hyperbolicity.

Thus the wormholes (if they exist, if they are stable, if their mouths can be separately moved, etc.) refute the Cosmic censorship hypothesis. Just take a wormhole, push one of its mouths, and pull it back. Whatever results666As has been proved recently, it need not be a time machine: among the possible extensions of $`L`$ there always are causal ones ., it will be in any case non-globally hyperbolic.

## 5 Global hyperbolicity protection

How serious is the wormhole hazard and do wormholes exist in nature, in the first place? The wormholes are often considered as ‘a marginal idea’ , as something ‘too exotic’, that is, essentially, as something that unlikely exists. The reasons for such a belief are not always clear, but, at any rate, they are neither experimental, nor theoretical.

The idea at the heart of general relativity is that the spacetime we live in is a curved four-dimensional manifold. Which immediately provokes a question: What is it so special in $`\text{IR}^4`$, that one would believe it to be the only possible topology of the universe? The answer (as of today, at least) is obvious — nothing. One hardly would be surprised, for example, if it turn out that we live in a spatially closed universe.

The argument: “We haven’t ever seen any wormholes, so they don’t exist” does not, of course, stand up. The wormholes do not shine like stars and are not supposed to be ‘seen’. The presence of a wormhole surely would strongly affect the surrounding matter, but to what observable effects it must lead, is yet to be learned. Some progress in this direction has been achieved by Cramer *et al.* , who noticed that the gravitational lensing of wormholes may differ from that of stars. By Birkhoff’s theorem the gravitational field of a static spherically symmetric wormhole (in the empty region around it) is that of a pointlike massive source. The value $`m`$ of the corresponding mass depends on what wormhole is considered and at present there are no reasons to regard any $`m`$ as ‘more realistic’. It is important, however, that *in particular* $`m`$ may be negative. Such wormholes would act more like diverging lenses in contrast to the stars with their positive masses. These considerations enabled Torres *et al.*  to find some (though not too restrictive) bounds on the possible abundance of wormholes with negative $`m`$.

In a globally hyperbolic spacetime only primordial wormholes may exist (see property 2.1). So, the most direct way to support the Cosmic censorship hypothesis would be to find a mechanism excluding their existence at the onset of classical physics (i. e. at the end of the Planck era). Needless to say that no such mechanism is known yet.

Another way out would be to prove that realistic wormholes cannot be *traversable* , i. e. large and long-lived enough to pass a macroscopic object through the throat777A standard example of a *non*-traversable wormhole is the Schwarzschild solution. Even though there are two asymptotically flat regions (I and II in Fig. 1b) connected with a ‘bridge’, a traveler cannot get from one of them to the other because the bridge collapses too fast.. Indeed, the Einstein equations ensure  that to be traversable a wormhole must be maintained by the ‘exotic matter’ (i. e. the matter whose energy density is negative in some points). Which means, in fact, that at the classical level the traversable wormholes *are* prohibited (except for a few rather exotic possibilities such as the classical scalar field , or ghost radiation  as a source). So, if it turns out that quantum effects (which are known to produce negative energy densities as, for example, in the Casimir effect ) also fail to support macroscopic wormholes, the problem would be solved. Actually, however, the quantum fields seem to be well suited for the task. In particular, a wormhole was found such that the zero point fluctuations of the electro-magnetic or neutrino fields in its throat produce just enough exotic matter to sustain the wormhole .

Lastly, it may happen that traversable wormholes do exist, but, nevertheless, the MTY scenario does not work because the mouths cannot be moved appropriately. The point is that in the spacetimes of that type there always exist ‘almost closed’ null geodesics. In Fig. 4a such a geodesic goes from the left mouth, enters the right one, comes again from the left, etc. Though always remaining in $`L`$, a photon with this world line makes infinitely many trips between the mouths getting more and more blue . This may indicate that the process is unstable in the sense that an occasional photon can prevent one from bringing the mouths close enough — the closer are the mouths the stronger is the resistance offered by the photon. Of course, classically such an instability can be cancelled by just placing an opaque screen between the mouths, but one does not expect the *quantum* modes to be counteracted as easily. Which suggests that the MTY process may suffer quantum instability. To verify this hypothesis it is instructive to study the behavior of the vacuum expectation of the stress-energy tensor near $`\mathrm{Bd}L`$ and to check whether or not it is bounded . This has been done in a few simplest (two-dimensional) cases and no evidence for the quantum instability was found — exactly as with the Minkowski space the energy density in some cases blows up  and in other cases  does not.