format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The imaginary parts of the on shell form factors of the electron at two loops in QED (the relevant graphs are shown for completeness in Fig.1) were calculated analytically long ago  in terms of Nielsen’s polylogarithms  of maximum weight $`w=3`$. The real parts however are still missing, as the integration of the dispersion relations for the form factors could not be carried out in closed form within the family of Nielsen’s polylogarithms only.

We show in this paper that the previous calculation can be completed within the family of the Harmonic Polylogarithms (HPL’s) introduced in . The result involves HPL’s of maximum weight $`w=4`$.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall, from , the proper dispersion relations satisfied by the two form factors. In Section 3 we list the results of the analytic integration for arbitrary momentum transfer $`t=Q^2`$ and finite electron mass $`m`$. For positive $`Q^2`$ all the terms are real; as the expression is exact, it can be continued to $`t`$ timelike and above threshold, where the form factors develop their imaginary parts. In Section 4 we give the expansions of the form factors for $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, and in Section 5 the expansions for $`Q^20`$. In the Appendix A we recall the definition and the main properties of the HPL’s, while in Appendix B we derive the analytic formulas which were used in the calculation.

## 2 Dispersion Relations

The imaginary parts of the two on-shell vertex form factors of the electron at two loop in QED, $`\text{Im}F_1^{(2)}(t)`$, $`\text{Im}F_2^{(2)}(t)`$ were evaluated in  for arbitrary value of the momentum transfer $`t`$ and finite electron mass, within the Pauli-Villars regularization scheme for the ultraviolet divergences (needed for the renormalization of the inserted one loop subgraphs) and by using a small fictitious mass $`\lambda `$ for the regularization of the infrared divergences. In the imaginary parts $`t`$ is above the threshold $`4m^2`$, where $`m`$ is the electron mass; by introducing the dimensionless variable $`x`$ through

$$t=m^2\frac{(1+x)^2}{x},x=\frac{\sqrt{t}\sqrt{t4m^2}}{\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{t4m^2}},$$
(2.1)
all the imaginary parts are can be written in terms of $`x`$, $`\mathrm{log}x`$, $`\mathrm{log}(1x)`$, $`\mathrm{log}(1+x)`$ and Nielsen polylogarithms  of maximum weight 3 and of argument $`x,x,x^2`$.

As discussed in Eq.(1.30) of , the corresponding real parts are then given by properly subtracted dispersion relations, which for spacelike momentum transfer $`t=Q^2`$ read

$`F_1^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2Q^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}F_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(0)`$ (2.2)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^4}{Q^2+4m^2}}{\displaystyle _{4m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{t^{}+Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}4m^2}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}F_1^{(2)}(t^{}),`$
$`F_2^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}F_2^{(2)}(0)`$ (2.3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}{\displaystyle _{4m^2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{t^{}+Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^{}4m^2}{t^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}F_2^{(2)}(t^{}).`$
Indeed, the above imaginary parts are singular at $`t=4m^2`$, due to the infrared singularities of the 2-photon ladder graph showing up in the $`\lambda 0`$ limit – hence the subtraction at $`Q^2=4m^2`$ and the factor $`(t^{}4m^2)`$ for making the dispersive integrals convergent at threshold. Note that the charge slope $`F_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(0)`$ and the magnetic anomaly $`F_2^{(2)}(0)`$ are needed for writing the above dispersion relations (which therefore cannot be used, in that form, for their calculation). Let us further observe that Eq.(2.2) gives $`F_1^{(2)}(0)=0`$, the usual renormalization condition of the charge form factor.

Similarly to Eq.(2.1), in the spacelike case we put

$$Q^2=m^2\frac{(1y)^2}{y},y=\frac{\sqrt{Q^2+4m^2}\sqrt{Q^2}}{\sqrt{Q^2+4m^2}+\sqrt{Q^2}};$$
(2.4)
with the change of integration variable $`t^{}=m^2(1+x^{})^2/x^{}`$, the dispersive integrals occurring in Eq.s(2.2,2.3) are seen to be of the form

$$_{4m^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt^{}}{t^{}+Q^2}f(t^{})=_0^1𝑑x^{}\left(\frac{1}{x^{}}\frac{1}{x^{}+y}\frac{1}{x^{}+1/y}\right)\varphi (x^{}).$$
(2.5)
When the actual explicit expressions of the imaginary parts in terms of Nielsen’s polylogarithms are used within the dispersive integrals Eq.(2.2,2.3), it is found that the resulting integrals cannot be evaluated in terms of that same class of functions. The Nielsen’s polylogarithms, however, are special cases of the Harmonic Polylogarithms , HPL’s; when the more general formalism of the HPL’s is used, one finds that not only the imaginary parts, but also the real parts given by the dispersive integrals can all be expressed in terms of HPL’s of argument $`y`$ and 1 (the HPL’s of argument 1 are expressed in turn as combinations of a few mathematical constants like $`\zeta (3)`$, the Riemann $`\zeta `$-function of index 3, $`\pi ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}2`$).

We give in the following paragraphs the explicit results of the integration. The relevant formulae are shortly discussed in the Appendix.

## 3 Results

We present in this section the results of the analytic integration of Eq.(2.2) and Eq.(2.3) as a function of $`Q^2=t`$. As already said, $`\lambda `$ is the “small photon mass” used for the parameterization of the infrared divergences. All the polylogarithms depend on $`Q^2`$ through the variable $`y`$ defined in Eq.(2.4). Let us recall that $`y(Q^2=\mathrm{})=0`$, $`y(Q^2=0)=1`$; when the momentum transfer $`t`$ is positive (timelike) and varies from $`0`$ to the physical threshold $`t=4m^2`$, $`Q^2=(t+iϵ)`$ varies from $`iϵ`$ to $`Q^2=4m^2iϵ`$; correspondingly, $`y=\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi }`$, with $`\varphi =0`$ at $`t=0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ at $`t=4m^2`$ (and the form factors are still real despite the complex value of $`y`$). When $`t`$ is above the threshold, it is convenient to write $`y=x+iϵ`$, where $`x`$ is the variable defined in Eq.(2.1), so that as $`t`$ varies from $`4m^2`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, $`x`$ varies correspondingly from $`1`$ to $`0`$. For $`y=x+iϵ`$ the polylogarithms with rightmost index equal to $`0`$ develop an imaginary part which generates the imaginary parts of the form factors (see  and the Appendix A for more details).

The explicit results are

$`F_1^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\left[H(0,0;y)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}\left[H(0;y)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}[H(0,0;y)]`$ (3.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}\left[2H(0;y)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+H(0,0;y)\}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(0;y)+2H(0,0;y)2H(1,0,0;y)H(0,1,0;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}H(0;y)H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(0,0;y)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(0;y)H(0,0;y)+2H(1,0,0;y)`$
$`+H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2+4H(0;y)2H(1,0;y)+H(0,0;y)\right]`$
$`+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0;y)2H(1,0,0;y)H(0,1,0;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{61}{1440}}\pi ^4\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\pi ^2H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (3)H(0;y)+\zeta (3)H(1;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y)+2H(0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{24}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y)`$
$`2H(1,0,0;y)+H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)2H(0,1,0;y)`$
$`+2H(1,1,0,0;y)+H(1,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(1,0,0,0;y)`$
$`H(0,1,0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}H(0,0,0,0;y)`$
$`+H(0,0,1,0;y)2H(1,0,1,0;y)+2H(1,0,0,0;y)+2H(1,0,1,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1627}{864}}H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{72}}\pi ^2H(0;y)`$
$`2\zeta (3)H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{61}{8}}H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2H(0,1;y){\displaystyle \frac{93}{16}}H(0,0;y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)4H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{12}}H(0,0,0;y)+H(0,1,0,0;y)`$
$`+3H(0,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}H(0,0,0,0;y)2H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`+H(0,1,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^6}{(Q^2+4m^2)^2\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{19}{8}}\pi ^4+7\pi ^2H(0;y)84\zeta (3)H(0;y)`$
$`15\pi ^2H(0,1;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)`$
$`+12\pi ^2H(1,0;y)+42H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`+126H(0,1,0,0;y)192H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`+3H(0,0,0,0;y)+48H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`180H(0,1,0,0;y)+72H(1,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(Q^2+4m^2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{41}{9}}\pi ^2+42\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}\pi ^2H(1;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\pi ^2H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{494}{9}}H(0,0;y)`$
$`63H(1,0,0;y)+96H(0,1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{33}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`24H(0,1,0;y)+90H(1,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(Q^2+4m^2)\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{49}{80}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{178}{9}}H(0;y){\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\pi ^2H(0;y)`$
$`+35\zeta (3)H(0;y)+96H(1,0;y)+4\pi ^2H(0,1;y)`$
$`60H(0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{25}{12}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)24H(1,0;y)`$
$`5\pi ^2H(1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{21}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`38H(0,1,0,0;y)+37H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`+H(0,0,0,0;y)4H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`+35H(0,1,0,0;y)30H(1,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{49}{9}}+3\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{17}{12}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{61}{1440}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}\pi ^2H(1;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{24}}\pi ^2H(0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (3)H(0;y)\zeta (3)H(1;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{71}{3}}H(0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{7}{24}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}H(1,0,0;y)`$
$`15H(0,1,0;y)+4H(0,0,0;y)+5H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}H(1,0,0;y)`$
$`2H(1,1,0,0;y)H(1,0,1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(1,0,0,0;y)`$
$`+H(0,1,0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}H(0,0,0,0;y)`$
$`H(0,0,1,0;y)+2H(1,0,1,0;y)2H(1,0,0,0;y)`$
$`2H(1,0,1,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{11}{90}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{108}}H(0;y){\displaystyle \frac{23}{72}}\pi ^2H(0;y)7H(0;y)\zeta (3)`$
$`4H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2H(0,1;y)+H(0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)`$
$`2H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{23}{12}}H(0,0,0;y)+5H(0,1,0,0;y)`$
$`+3H(0,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}H(0,0,0,0;y)4H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`H(0,1,0,0;y)+2H(1,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1171}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{16}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{61}{1440}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2H(1;y){\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}\pi ^2H(0;y)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta (3)H(0;y)+\zeta (3)H(1;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{533}{72}}H(0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{24}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2H(1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(1,0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{4}}H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}H(0,0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}H(0,1,0;y)`$
$`+`$ $`4H(1,0,0;y)+2H(1,1,0,0;y)+H(1,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(1,0,0,0;y)`$
$``$ $`H(0,1,0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0,1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}H(0,0,0,0;y)+H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$``$ $`2H(1,0,1,0;y)+2H(1,0,0,0;y)+2H(1,0,1,0;y);`$
$`F_2^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\left[H(0,0;y)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}\left[H(0,0;y)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}\left[H(0;y)\right]\right\}`$ (3.7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{Q^2\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{23}{480}}\pi ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\pi ^2H(0,1;y){\displaystyle \frac{7}{24}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(0,1,0,0;y)+H(0,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}H(0,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\pi ^2H(1;y){\displaystyle \frac{17}{48}}\pi ^2H(0;y){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}H(1,0,0;y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{8}}H(0,0,0;y)H(0,1,0;y)H(1,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^6}{(Q^2+4m^2)^2\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{19}{8}}\pi ^47\pi ^2H(0;y)+84\zeta (3)H(0;y)`$
$`+15\pi ^2H(0,1;y){\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)`$
$`12\pi ^2H(1,0;y)42H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`126H(0,1,0,0;y)+192H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`3H(0,0,0,0;y)48H(0,0,1,0;y)`$
$`+180H(0,1,0,0;y)72H(1,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(Q^2+4m^2)^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}\pi ^242\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}\pi ^2H(1;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\pi ^2H(0;y){\displaystyle \frac{166}{3}}H(0,0;y)`$
$`+63H(1,0,0;y)96H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{33}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`+24H(0,1,0;y)90H(1,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^4}{(Q^2+4m^2)\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[4\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{199}{480}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{62}{3}}H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\pi ^2H(0;y)`$
$`28\zeta (3)H(0;y)96H(1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}\pi ^2H(0,1;y)`$
$`+60H(0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{8}}\pi ^2H(0,0;y)+24H(1,0;y)`$
$`+4\pi ^2H(1,0;y)+7H(0,0,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{55}{2}}H(0,1,0,0;y)`$
$`21H(0,0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}H(0,0,0,0;y)`$
$`20H(0,1,0,0;y)+24H(1,0,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2+4m^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}2\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{8}}\pi ^2H(1;y){\displaystyle \frac{47}{48}}\pi ^2H(0;y)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{95}{6}}H(0,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H(1,0,0;y)+3H(0,1,0;y){\displaystyle \frac{19}{8}}H(0,0,0;y)`$
$`H(0,1,0;y)H(1,0,0;y)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{Q^2(Q^2+4m^2)}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{235}{72}}H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}\pi ^2H(0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{41}{2}}H(1,0;y)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{57}{4}}H(0,0;y)8H(1,0;y)+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}H(0,0,0;y)].`$
## 4 Behaviour for $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$

We present the behaviour of the two Form Factors for $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ (corresponding to $`y0`$), writing for short $`L=\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/m^2)`$. The analytic continuation to large time-like $`t`$ can be carried out with the replacements $`Q^2=(t+iϵ),`$ $`L=\mathrm{ln}(t/m^2)i\pi `$ – so that for instance $`L^2=\mathrm{ln}^2(t/m^2)\pi ^22i\pi \mathrm{ln}(t/m^2)`$.

$`F_1^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^2`$ (4.8)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)\left(2+2L\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2\left(55L+2L^2\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{50}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{68}{3}}L8L^2\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^4({\displaystyle \frac{196}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{183}{2}}L+32L^2)\}`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2L+L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L^3`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}L2L^2\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2\left(6{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{55}{4}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2L+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{4}}L^2L^3\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{212}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{9}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{500}{9}}L{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^2L{\displaystyle \frac{97}{3}}L^2+4L^3\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^4({\displaystyle \frac{13813}{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{61}{8}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{11101}{48}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ^2L+{\displaystyle \frac{1079}{8}}L^216L^3)\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1171}{216}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{32}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{59}{1440}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{1627}{864}}L{\displaystyle \frac{13}{144}}\pi ^2L+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\zeta (3)L`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{229}{288}}L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\pi ^2L^2{\displaystyle \frac{31}{144}}L^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}L^4`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)({\displaystyle \frac{5113}{432}}+3\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{209}{144}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{45}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{283}{48}}L{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\pi ^2L`$
$`+3\zeta (3)L{\displaystyle \frac{61}{16}}L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{24}}L^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}L^4)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{11899}{144}}12\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{101}{144}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{503}{720}}\pi ^4+64\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{3977}{216}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{175}{36}}\pi ^2L`$
$`39\zeta (3)L+{\displaystyle \frac{3541}{144}}L^2{\displaystyle \frac{23}{24}}\pi ^2L^2{\displaystyle \frac{43}{18}}L^3+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}L^4)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^3({\displaystyle \frac{272405}{432}}+48\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{9929}{216}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{227}{36}}\pi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1481}{3}}\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{1655}{108}}L`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1061}{36}}\pi ^2L+304\zeta (3)L{\displaystyle \frac{425}{3}}L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}\pi ^2L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{133}{9}}L^3{\displaystyle \frac{19}{12}}L^4)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^4({\displaystyle \frac{82660981}{20736}}192\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{689557}{1728}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{15409}{360}}\pi ^4+3056\zeta (3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{446243}{864}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{3995}{24}}\pi ^2L1922\zeta (3)L+{\displaystyle \frac{435125}{576}}L^2{\displaystyle \frac{673}{12}}\pi ^2L^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{155}{6}}L^3+{\displaystyle \frac{143}{24}}L^4)`$
$`+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^5\right).`$
The above formula matches with the sum of Eq.s(2.23) and (2.34-2.35a) of , which corresponds to the real part of $`F_1^{(2)}(t)`$ for large timelike $`t`$ expanded in $`m^2/t`$ up to the zeroth order.

$`F_2^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)(L+L^2)`$ (4.9)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2\left(2+6L2L^2\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^3\left(1120L+8L^2\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^4({\displaystyle \frac{134}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{232}{3}}L32L^2)\}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}2\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{24}}\pi ^2+\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{235}{72}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\pi ^2L+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L^3\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{1609}{36}}+8\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{30}}\pi ^456\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{463}{36}}L3\pi ^2L`$
$`+28\zeta (3)L{\displaystyle \frac{205}{12}}L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi ^2L^2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}L^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}L^4)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^3({\displaystyle \frac{33121}{72}}32\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{165}{4}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{143}{30}}\pi ^4+448\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{12}}L`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{125}{6}}\pi ^2L252\zeta (3)L+{\displaystyle \frac{479}{4}}L^2{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}\pi ^2L^2{\displaystyle \frac{71}{6}}L^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}L^4)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^4({\displaystyle \frac{87919}{27}}+128\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{3154}{9}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{359}{10}}\pi ^42828\zeta (3){\displaystyle \frac{6589}{18}}L`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{386}{3}}\pi ^2L+1680\zeta (3)L{\displaystyle \frac{4085}{6}}L^2+51\pi ^2L^2+65L^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L^4)`$
$`+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)^5\right).`$
## 5 Behaviour for $`Q^20`$

We present the behaviour of the two Form Factors around $`Q^2=0`$, corresponding to $`y=1`$.

$`F_1^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{60}}\right)\right\}`$ (5.10)
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{31}{1440}}\right)\right\}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{4819}{5184}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{49}{432}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1889}{6480}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{60}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{8731}{172800}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{11}{40}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{163249}{1814400}}{\displaystyle \frac{113}{1680}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{723901}{33868800}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{113}{1120}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^4\right).`$
$`F_2^{(2)}(Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m}}\right)\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{19}{360}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{73}{5040}}\right)\right\}`$ (5.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{197}{144}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\zeta (3)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1751}{2160}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23}{60}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{13}{120}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{23}{40}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4357}{15120}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{28}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{187}{3150}}\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{56}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{111619}{1209600}}+{\displaystyle \frac{29}{420}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}2{\displaystyle \frac{140951}{5644800}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{29}{280}}\zeta (3)\right)`$
$`+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{m^2}}\right)^4\right).`$
From the above expansions one can easily recover some familiar results, such as the renormalization condition $`F_1^{(2)}(0)=0`$ and the two loop values for the slope $`F_{1}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(0)`$ (the coefficient of the first term in $`Q^2`$ in Eq.(5.10) with an overall minus sign) and of the electron anomaly $`F_2^{(2)}(0)`$.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to J. Vermaseren for his assistance in the use of of FORM  by which all the algebra was processed. We acknowledge the interest of U.D. Jentschura  for the analytic expressions of the derivatives of the form factors at zero momentum transfer, which initiated the present work, the clarifying remarks of R. Bonciani on the asymptotic expansions, and useful discussions with H. Czyż and J.H. Kühn.

## Appendix A The Harmonic Polylogarithms, HPL’s

We recall for convenience of the reader the definition of the HPL’s . The HPL’s form a family of functions depending on an argument, say $`x`$, and on a set of indices, say $`a_i,i=1,..,w`$ or $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ in more compact notation, where each of the $`a_i`$ can take one of the three values $`1,0,1`$ and whose number $`w`$ is called the weight of the HPL. At weight $`w=1`$ there are 3 HPL’s, defined as

$`H(1;x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(1x),`$
$`H(0;x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}x,`$
$`H(1;x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(1+x),`$ (A-1)
whose derivatives can be written as

$$\frac{d}{dx}H(a;x)=f(a;x),$$
(A-2)
where the index $`a`$ can take one of the three values $`(1,0,1)`$ and the rational factors $`f(a;x)`$ are given by

$`f(1;x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}},`$
$`f(0;x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}},`$
$`f(1;x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x}}.`$ (A-3)
At weight $`w>1`$, if all the $`w`$ indices are equal to $`0`$ let us indicate them by $`\stackrel{}{0}_w`$ and define correspondingly

$$H(\stackrel{}{0}_w;x)=\frac{1}{w!}\mathrm{ln}^wx;$$
(A-4)
in all the other cases (i.e..when the indices are not all equal to zero), let us indicate any set of $`w`$ indices by $`(a,\stackrel{}{b})`$, where $`a`$ can take one of the three values $`(1,0,1)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ stands for the set of the other $`w1`$ indices, and define correspondingly

$$H(a,\stackrel{}{b};x)=_0^x𝑑x^{}f(a;x^{})H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{}).$$
(A-5)
Note that in full generality (i.e..also when all the indices are equal to 0) one has

$$\frac{d}{dx}H(a,\stackrel{}{b};x)=f(a;x)H(\stackrel{}{b};x),$$
(A-6)
which can also be written as the equivalent indefinite integration formula

$$^x𝑑x^{}f(a;x^{})H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{})=A+H(a,\stackrel{}{b};x),$$
(A-7)
where $`A`$ is an integration constant.

Further, the product of two HPL’s of the a same argument $`x`$ and weights $`p,q`$ can be expressed as a combination of HPL’s of argument $`x`$ and weight $`r=p+q`$, according to the product identity

$`H(\stackrel{}{p};x)H(\stackrel{}{q};x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}}{}}H(\stackrel{}{r};x),`$ (A-8)
where $`\stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{q}`$ stand for the $`p`$ and $`q`$ components of the indices of the two HPL’s, while $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{q}`$ represents all possible mergers of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ into the vector $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ with $`r`$ components, in which the relative orders of the elements of $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ are preserved. The simplest cases of the above identities are

$`H(a;x)H(b;x)`$ $`=`$ $`H(a,b;x)+H(b,a;x),`$
$`H(a;x)H(b,c;x)`$ $`=`$ $`H(a,b,c;x)+H(b,a,c;x)+H(b,c,a;x);`$ (A-9)
more complicated cases are immediately established recursively (all the above formulae can indeed easily be checked by differentiating, repeatedly when needed, with respect to $`x`$). All the $`3^w`$ HPL’s of weight $`w`$ are linearly independent; Eq.(A-9) can however be used for replacing an HPL of weight $`w`$ with products of HPL’s of lower weight (but such that the sum of their weights is equal to $`w`$) and other HPL’s of weight $`w`$.

In the analytic continuation from the argument $`y`$ in the range $`(0,1)`$ to $`y=x+iϵ`$, where $`x`$ is again in the range $`(0,1)`$, one finds that any HPL with rightmost index equal to $`0`$ does develop an imaginary part. It is therefore convenient to exploit Eq.(A-8) for expressing those HPL’s in terms of HPL’s having either no $`0`$’s on the right or only $`0`$’s as indices. One has for instance

$$H(1,0;y)=H(1;y)H(0;y)H(0,1;y),$$

and similar formulae for more general cases. From the very definition one has further $`H(0;x+iϵ)=H(0;x)+i\pi ,`$ and $`H(1;x+iϵ)=H(1;x)=H(1;x),`$ $`H(0,1;x+iϵ)=H(0,1;x),`$ (those last two functions have no imaginary part in that range of values of $`x`$), so that finally one obtains

$$H(1,0;x+iϵ)=H(0;x)H(1;x)+H(0,1;x)+i\pi H(1;x).$$

For a more complete discussion see .

Of particular interest are the values of the HPL’s of argument equal to 1. They can be expressed as combination with rational factors of a limited number of mathematical constants, such as for instance Riemann $`\zeta `$-functions, $`\pi ^2`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}2`$.

## Appendix B The definite integrals occurring in the calculation

The imaginary parts of the form factors at two loops contain Nielsen’s polylogarithms of maximum weight 3 and arguments $`x^{},x^{},x^2`$, which can be expressed in terms of HPL’s of argument $`x^{}`$. Indeed, one has $`Li_2(x)=H(0,1;x)`$, $`Li_2(x)=H(0,1;x)`$, $`Li_3(x)=H(0,0,1;x)`$, $`Li_3(x)=H(0,0,1;x)`$, $`S_{12}(x)=H(0,1,1;x)`$, $`S_{12}(x)=H(0,1,1;x)`$ and

$$S_{12}(x^2)=2H(0,1,1;x)2H(0,1,1;x)2H(0,1,1;x)+2H(0,1,1;x).$$

After the insertion of the explicit analytic expressions of the imaginary parts in Eq.s(2.2,2.3) and full partial fractioning in the integration variable $`x^{}`$, the integrands are found to consist of powers of the rational factors $`x^{},1/(1+x^{}),1/(1x^{}),`$ which depend on $`x^{}`$ only, and $`1/(x^{}+y),`$ $`1/(x^{}+1/y),`$ which depend as well on $`y`$, times HPL’s of argument $`x^{}`$ and maximum weight $`w=3`$.

The integrals with the factors depending on $`x^{}`$ only can be evaluated by parts or by means of the formulas defining the HPL’s; they give end-point values of HPL’s of argument 1 and maximum weight $`w=4`$ (some care may be needed in properly grouping terms whose end-point values are otherwise separately divergent).

For the analytic evaluation of the integrals involving $`1/(x^{}+y)`$ and $`1/(x^{}+1/y)`$, along the lines of Section 7 of , we introduce two families of related functions depending, as the HPL’s, on a set of $`w`$ indices and the argument $`y`$, defined for $`w=1`$ as

$`F(1;y)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+y}}=H(1;y)H(0;y),`$ (B-1)
$`G(1;y)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+\frac{1}{y}}}=H(1;y),`$ (B-2)
and for $`w>1`$ as

$`F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+y}}H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{}),`$ (B-3)
$`G(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+\frac{1}{y}}}H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{}).`$ (B-4)
Note that the first index of the above functions is frozen to the value $`1`$ (a convention suggested by the $`y=1`$ limiting value).

It is easy to see, proceeding by induction on $`w`$, that the functions $`F(1,\stackrel{}{a};y)`$ and $`G(1,\stackrel{}{a};y)`$ with a total of $`w`$ indices are just homogeneous combination of HPL’s functions of weight $`w`$ of argument $`y`$ and of their values at $`1`$.

For $`w=1`$, the result is obvious from the definitions Eq.s(B-1,B-2). Next, assume that the identities are established for $`F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ up to a certain weight $`w11`$ and consider the function of weight $`w`$

$$F(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};y)=_0^1\frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+y}H(a,\stackrel{}{b};x^{}).$$
(B-5)
Its values at $`y=0,1`$, according to the definition of the HPL’s Eq.(A-5) are

$`F(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};1)`$ $`=`$ $`H(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};1),`$
$`F(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};0)`$ $`=`$ $`H(0,a,\stackrel{}{b};1).`$ (B-6)
By differentiating Eq.(B-5) with respect to $`y`$ and integrating by parts on $`x^{}`$ one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}F(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`=`$ $`f(1;y)H(a,\stackrel{}{b};1){\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}}{x^{}+y}}f(a;x^{})H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{}).`$ (B-7)
(We have assumed $`H(a,\stackrel{}{b};0)=0`$, which is the most frequent case; for $`H(a,\stackrel{}{b};0)0`$ see the remarks below.) In the case $`a=0`$, after partial fractioning in $`x^{}`$, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}F(1,0,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`=`$ $`f(1;y)H(0,\stackrel{}{b};1)f(0;y){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x^{}\left(f(0;x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{}+y}}\right)H(\stackrel{}{b};x^{})`$ (B-8)
$`=`$ $`f(1;y)H(0,\stackrel{}{b};1)f(0;y)\left(H(0,\stackrel{}{b};1)F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)\right),`$
where Eq.(A-5) and Eq.(B-3) have been used to carry out the $`x^{}`$-integration.

For $`a=1,1`$ one obtains similarly

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}F(1,1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`=`$ $`f(1;y)F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y),`$ (B-9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}}F(1,1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ $`=`$ $`f(1;y)H(1,\stackrel{}{b};1)+f(1;y)\left(H(1,\stackrel{}{b};1)F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)\right)`$ (B-10)
In the r.h.s. of the previous equations appears the function $`F(1,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ of weight $`w`$; when proceeding by induction in $`w`$ one can substitute the already obtained identities expressing it in terms of $`H`$’s of weight $`w1`$ and argument $`y`$. A final quadrature in $`y`$, carried out according to Eq.(A-5), gives $`F(1,a,\stackrel{}{b};y)`$ in terms of HPL’s of weight $`w`$ up to an additive constant, which can be fixed by one of the Eq.s(B-6).

It is not difficult, following the above lines, to work out all the formulas needed for the calculation. As an example, we give one of the identities of weight $`w=4`$,

$`F(1,1,0,0;x)`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}H(1;x)H(0;x)H(0;x)H(0;x)+2H(1;x)H(0,1;1)H(0;x)`$ (B-11)
$`H(1;x)H(0,0,1;x)+H(1;1)H(0,0,1;1)+H(1;1)H(0,0,1;1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(0,1;x)H(0;x)H(0;x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H(0,1;x)H(0,1;x)`$
$`2H(0,1;1)H(0,1;x)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H(0,1;1)H(0,1;1)+H(0,0,1;x)H(0;x)`$
$`H(0,0,0,1;x)+H(0,0,0,1;1)H(0,0,1,1;1).`$
Essentially the same procedure applies to the other family of functions $`G(1,\stackrel{}{a};x)`$ as well.

For particular values of the arguments, the end-point values occurring in the derivation may give divergent contributions when taken separately; in those cases, one can parameterize the end-point singularities by integrating on $`x^{}`$ from $`\delta `$ to $`1\eta `$ and then take the $`\delta ,\eta 0`$ limit in the final result (which is of course finite).


text:
# Real time localization of Gamma Ray Bursts with INTEGRAL

## THE INTEGRAL MISSION

INTEGRAL is a satellite of the European Space Agency devoted to high-resolution imaging and spectroscopy in the hard X–ray / soft $`\gamma `$-ray energy range (Winkler et al 1999). After a very successful launch from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazachstan by a Russian Proton rocket on October 17, 2002, INTEGRAL has been injected into a three day period orbit with perigee of $``$9,000 km and apogee of $``$153,000 km. Thanks to this highly eccentric orbit, the satellite spends most of the time outside the Earth radiation belts, where it can carry out long, uninterrupted observations.

The INTEGRAL spacecraft carries two main instruments operating in the $``$15 keV – 10 MeV energy range. They are optimized respectively for spectroscopy (SPI, Vedrenne et al. 1999) and imaging (IBIS, Ubertini et al. 1999) performances. Both are able to obtain images of the $`\gamma `$-ray sky using the coded aperture technique.

SPI is based on an array of 19 Germanium detectors cooled to 85 K to provide an energy resolution of $``$2 keV at 1 MeV. It has a wide field of view (diameter $``$30) and an angular resolution of $``$2, adequate for a detailed mapping of the diffuse line emission in the Galactic plane.

Since IBIS is the instrument more relevant for the accurate localization of GRBs, we will describe it in more detail. IBIS has been optimized for the imaging performances by means of a coded mask, made of square tungsten elements with a thickness of 15 mm, placed at a distance of $``$3 m from the detection plane. The mask, that accounts for about one third of the total IBIS weight ($``$650 kg), absorbs $``$70% of the photons at 1.5 MeV, in correspondence of its closed elements, while the mask mechanical support retains an adequate transparency at low energy for the open elements. The good contrast of the coded aperture pattern is in fact directly related to the instrument sensitivity. The size of the mask elements yields an angular resolution of 12 arcmin, unprecedented at the energies covered by IBIS, and appropriate to resolve sources in crowded regions, such as the Galactic Bulge. The IBIS field of view is very large: $`29^{}\times 29^{}`$ (at zero response), and with a uniform sensitivity within its central part ($`10^{}\times 10^{}`$).

In order to effectively cover an extended energy range, the IBIS detection plane is composed of two layers with different characteristics and based on different technologies. The top layer, ISGRI (Lebrun et al. 2001), consists of an array of 128$`\times `$128 Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) square pixels (4 mm $`\times `$ 4 mm each). It covers the energy range from $``$15 keV up to a few hundreds keV with a total sensitive area of $``$2600 cm2. The CdTe is a semiconductor that can be used at ambient temperature providing a good energy resolution ($``$7% at 100 keV) without the need of complex cooling systems. ISGRI is used in ”photon” mode, i.e. the complete information of each detected event (position, energy and arrival time) is recorded and transmitted to the ground.

Due to the CdTe thickness of 2 mm, the ISGRI detection plane becomes almost transparent for photons above $``$200 keV, but such photons will be efficiently stopped by PICsIT, the second layer of the instrument. PICsIT is based on an array of 64$`\times `$64 scintillators of Caesium Iodide doped with Thallium (CsI(Tl)). Each element is a small bar of CsI(Tl) with dimensions 8.6$`\times `$8.6$`\times `$30 mm3 coupled with a photodiode. Although the two IBIS layers are in principle operating as independent imaging systems, their data will be used in a combined analysis to better study the spectral properties of the observed sources over the whole energy range. In addition, a fraction of the detected photons will undergo a Compton interaction in ISGRI, before being detected by PICsIT. For such ”Compton” events, the energy and position measurements provided by the two layers (which are separated by $``$10 cm), will give some constraints on the possible arrival directions, allowing to increase the signal to noise ratio by appropriate selections aimed at excluding directions not modulated by the mask aperture or not compatible with the position of the source of interest.

The two main INTEGRAL instruments, SPI and IBIS, are complemented by an X-ray monitor (JEM-X, 4-35 keV) and an optical camera (OMC) operating in the V band. All the INTEGRAL instruments are co-aligned and will be used simultaneously to provide a broad energy coverage of the targets in the central part of the IBIS and SPI field of view.

## INTEGRAL AND GRBs

Although the INTEGRAL satellite was not specifically conceived as a mission devoted to GRBs studies, it was soon realized that the excellent imaging performances of IBIS could offer the possibility of rapid localization of the events observed by chance in its large field of view. It was therefore proposed to implement a ”burst alert system” in order to allow rapid multi-wavelength follow-ups. Such a proposal was boosted by the results obtained with the BeppoSAX satellite that clearly demonstrated the excellent capabilities of coded mask instruments to quickly detect and locate GRBs.

Accurate estimates based on the LogN-LogS relations for GRBs derived from BATSE led to a predicted rate of at least one GRB per month in the IBIS field of view (Mereghetti et al. 2001a), for which positions at the arcmin level can be obtained. Note that the source location accuracy and the angular resolution, though related, are two different concepts. Although the IBIS angular resolution (i.e. the width of the point response function) is 12 arcmin, sources can be located with a much better accuracy, which is a function of the signal to noise ratio. For instance, a source with a signal to noise ratio of 30 can be located by ISGRI with an accuracy of 30′′ (90% c.l.).

Exploiting the continuous telemetry downlink of the INTEGRAL satellite, it was decided to carry out the search for GRBs on ground, at the INTEGRAL Science Data Center (ISDC, Courvoisier et al. 1999). The ISGRI data normally reach the ISDC within a few seconds from their detection on board the satellite. When a GRB is detected, its coordinates are automatically distributed via internet to the subscribed clients.

## THE INTEGRAL BURST ALERT SYSTEM

The INTEGRAL Burst Alert System (IBAS) is the automatic software running at the ISDC for the rapid detection and localzation of GRBs (Mereghetti et al. 2001b). In order to optimize the response time, IBAS is independent of the main data processing pipeline of the ISDC.

Fig. 1 gives an overview of the IBAS software architecture. The telemetry, received at the ESA Mission Operation Center in Darmstadt, is continuously transmitted to the ISDC on a 128 kbs dedicated line, where the Near Real Time Data Receipt subsystem extracts the relevant telemetry packets and, after some basics checks, feeds them into the IBAS subsystem. IBAS basically consists of several Detector Programs and the Ibasalertd Program. All these programs run in parallel. The Detector Programs have the task to trigger on possible GRBs and to perform preliminary checks to filter out, as much as possible, spurious events. The Ibasalertd program has the task to further filter the triggers, by combining in an appropriate way the information from the different Detector programs, and to eventually send out the GRB Alerts. All the IBAS processes are multi-thread applications written in C or C++. They run as daemon processes, which means that they do not perform any terminal input/output and run in background. IBAS processes perform several subtasks in parallel, each one handled by a separate thread. With some unavoidable exception, the subtasks are independent and do not block each other.

This architecture allows us to use in parallel different methods for the GRB detection, as well as to run several instances of the same Detector Program with different parameter settings (e.g. timescales, energy cuts, etc…) in order to increase the sensitivity for GRBs with different properties. Currently two algorithms to find and locate GRBs in data from ISGRI are in use, plus one program to detect GRBs seen by the anticoincidence shield of SPI (in this case no directional information is available). Other Detector programs based on data from JEM-X and SPI are under development.

Fig. 1. Main components of the IBAS software.

The Ibasalertd Program is designed to combine the information it receives from the Detector Programs. The basic adopted logic is that triggers with high statistical significance are considered as valid GRBs even if they come from a single Detector Program, while triggers of lower significance require an independent confirmation from different data. The details of the logic of trigger confirmation can be defined in a very flexible way by means of a set of parameters involving significance of detection, tolerance for positional and temporal coincidence, etc…

If the event is genuine, the Ibasalertd Program determines the best available satellite attitude information to derive the GRB sky position, which is then delivered to the IBAS Clients by means of Alert Packets. In addition, if the GRB is located in the central 5$`\times `$5 of the IBIS field of view, which is covered by the OMC, the information is transmitted to the MOC, where an appropriate telecommand is automatically generated and sent to the satellite. This will reconfigure the observing mode of the OMC in order to place a CCD window on the position of the GRB.

### Distribution of the IBAS Alert Packets

IBAS Alert Packets with the GRB information are sent via Internet, using the UDP transport protocol. We have developed a Client Software that allows the users to receive the Alert Packets and to easily use their content in the software commanding their telescopes. The IBAS Client Software, written in standard C language and tested on Sun Solaris, Linux and MacOSX, and its documentation can be downloaded from the ISDC web pages. The package contains one library and two simple programs (one to check the connection with the computer on which IBAS is running and one to print on the screen the content of the Alert Packets). Each packet is 400 bytes long, and consists of several fields, the format and content of which is explained in detail in the Client software documentation.

As described above, the IBAS GRB detection and alert distribution is mostly based on automatic processes. An interactive analysis, to confirm the event and to derive the most accurate GRB position, will generally be performed a few hours after the automatic delivery of the first alert message(s) with the preliminary coordinates. In designing an automatic GRB alert system, one is faced with the trade-off between the requirement to react in the shortest possible time and the desire to get the most accurate results (e.g. reality of the event, dimension of error region, etc…). Considering that the main users of the IBAS Alerts will be robotic telescopes with relatively large fields of view, specifically devoted to GRB afterglow searches, we have privileged the fast alert time requirement. This necessarily implies that some of the IBAS alerts might subsequently be found not related to real GRB events. Users not interested in the fastest reaction time can decide to receive only particular alert types. Five types of Alert Packets have been defined:

Packet type 1 : POINTDIR.

Many automated telescopes can exploit the a priori knowledge of the INTEGRAL pointing direction (e.g. to reduce the slew time in case of a GRB alert, to obtain reference images of the pre-GRB sky, to monitor the counterparts of INTEGRAL targets). IBAS will send a new POINTDIR packet each time a slew to a new pointing direction begins. The POINTDIR packet contains the pointing direction expected at the end of the slew and the expected time of slew end.

Packet type 2 : SPIACS.

Alert packets of type SPIACS will be sent after positive triggers detected with the SPI Anti Coincidence Shield. No position information will be available, unless the same GRB also triggers some of the imaging instruments (in such a case the position will come through other packet types). SPIACS packets contain the name of the file with the GRB light curve that is immediately available on the public ftp server of the ISDC. These light curves can be used in conjunction with those of other satellites to locate the GRB with the time delay triangulation method.

Packet type 3 : WAKEUP.

Packets of type WAKEUP are generated only once for each GRB and only if the GRB position information is available. They contain the preliminary position (R.A., Dec. J2000) derived for the GRB. These are the alerts with the shortest time delay (and consequently the highest chance of not being due to a real GRB event). Any (potential) GRB will generate only one WAKEUP packet. IBAS will then distribute more refined information as soon as it becomes available using packets of type 4.

Packet type 4 : REFINED.

These Packets provide refined information on a GRB event. IBAS will automatically generate a new REFINED packet only if the new information available has significantly smaller uncertainties and/or supersedes the one sent with previous packets. Zero to several REFINED packets can be generated for a given GRB.

Packet type 5 : OFFLINE.

These Packets are generated manually after an interactive analysis of the data performed off-line. The typical time delay can be from one to a few hours (or even longer in some cases). The OFFLINE alert packet represents the final confirmation (or rejection) of a GRB and contains the most accurate GRB properties distributed by IBAS.

## FIRST RESULTS

The first two months after the launch of INTEGRAL have been devoted to the initial set up and activation of the instruments and to the Performance and Verification phase. During this period, the IBAS system has been operated each time suitable data were available (but with the automatic delivery of Alert Packets to external clients switched off). This allowed us to further test the system and to perform minor changes to the software in order to better adapt it to the in-flight performances of the instruments. At the time of writing (December 2002) INTEGRAL has already detected two GRBs in the field of view of IBIS: GRB021125 and GRB021219. The public distribution of the IBAS Alert Packets will begin in January 2003.

GRB021125 (Bazzano and Paizis 2002) occurred during an observation in which most of the the available satellite telemetry was allocated to PICsIT for calibration purposes. Thus only a limited fraction of the events recorded with ISGRI could be transmitted to the ground. Unfortunately, due to the resulting gaps in the ISGRI data, the IBAS Detector Programs were in idle mode at the time of the burst and did not trigger in real time. The IBAS imaging programs were used in the off-line interactive analysis to locate the burst (see Figure 2). Further analysis resulted in a localization with an uncertainty of only 2 arcmin (Gros and Produit 2002), consistent with that independently derived with the IPN (Hurley et al. 2002a). After this event, we introduced some changes in the IBAS Detector Programs in order to be able to detect GRBs also during observations with limited ISGRI telemetry allocation (note, however, that such an instrument configuration is not supposed to occur often during routine operations).

The second GRB in the IBIS field of view, GRB021219 (Mereghetti et al. 2002), was found and correctly localized by the IBAS software in real time. The position derived by the IBAS software within $``$10 seconds of the burst occurrence had an accuracy of $``$20 arcmin, largely dominated by systematic uncertainties. In less than four hours these could be significantly reduced resulting in a 4 arcmin error box (Götz et al. 2002), which was subsequently confirmed with the IPN (Hurley et al. 2002b), as shown in Figure 3.

Fig. 2. Localization of GRB021125. The large circle (20 radius) is the first error region obtained with the IBAS programs, while the small one is the refined position (2 radius) obtained after a preliminary boresight correction (Gros and Produit 2002). The parallelogram is the IPN error box (Hurley et al. 2002a).

Fig. 3. Localization of GRB021219. The first IBAS error circle has a radius of 20 (Mereghetti et al. 2002), The final localization obtained with an off-line analysis, shown by the small circle (4 radius, Götz et al. 2002) is consistent with the IPN annulus (Hurley et al. 2002b).

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Davide Cremonesi and Don Jennings for their contribution to the initial development of the IBAS software. SM and DG acknowledge the support of the Italian Space Agency. JB acknowledges support from the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research (grant number 2P03C00619p02). We thank the ISWT for permission of using PV data for the testing of IBAS.


text:
# Galactic Potentials

## Abstract

The information contained in galactic rotation curves is examined under a minimal set of assumptions. If emission occurs from stable circular geodesic orbits of a static spherically symmetric field, with information propagated to us along null geodesics, observed rotation curves determine galactic potentials without specific reference to any metric theory of gravity. Given the potential, the gravitational mass can be obtained by way of an anisotropy function of this field. The gravitational mass and anisotropy function can be solved for simultaneously in a Newtonian limit without specifying any specific source. This procedure, based on a minimal set of assumptions, puts very strong constraints on any model of the “dark matter”.

There now seems to be wide spread belief that “dark matter” is a major constituent of our universe Bergstrom . Whereas the need for dark matter in some galactic halos has a long history faber , it is fair to say that at present we are quite far away from a universally accepted solution to the dark matter problem. Indeed, empirically motivated modifications of Newtonian dynamics have been developed as an alternative to dark matter mond . Despite the profound implications of the problem, it is essentially trivial to understand. Assuming the non-relativistic Doppler effect and emission from stable circular orbits in a Newtonian gravitational field, it follows that $`V^2\frac{M(r)}{r}`$ where $`V`$ is the orbital speed and $`M(r)`$ is the dynamical mass. But since $`V^2`$ levels off at large $`r`$ for many galactic halos, $`M`$ must continue to grow like $`r`$. Since in many cases the observed galactic components do not produce this growth, what unseen material does?

The approach used here breaks the problem down into three steps: (i) the determination of the galactic potential, (ii) the construction of the effective gravitational mass from this potential with the aide of an anisotropy function, and (iii) the simultaneous solution of the effective gravitational mass and the anisotropy function. Here we completely solve steps (i) and (ii) for all metric type theories of gravity under a minimal set of assumptions. Assuming only that emission occurs from stable timelike circular geodesic orbits in a static spherically symmetric metric with information propagated to us along null geodesics, it is shown that the potential follows directly from observed galactic rotation curves without any specific reference to a theory of gravity. Further, without specifying any model of the background, the introduction of an anisotropy function allows the determination of the effective gravitational mass without using Einstein’s equations. Step (iii) is completed with the aide of a Newtonian limit and the non-relativistic Doppler effect. This last step makes it clear that the dynamical mass $`M`$ is not the effective gravitational mass against which observed galactic components should be compared to see if indeed any mass is “missing” papers .

First we construct stable circular timelike geodesic orbits in a static spherically symmetric field relativity . In terms of “curvature” coordinates the field takes the form metric

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{1\frac{2m(r)}{r}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}dt^2,$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the metric of a unit sphere. The use of “curvature” coordinates plays no essential role in what follows as it provides merely a basis for calculation. Throughout we refer to the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ as the “potential” and $`m(r)`$ ($`M(r)`$) as the effective gravitational mass. A central point of this analysis is the fact that this potential can be obtained without knowledge of $`m(r)`$. It is immediately clear from (1) that all geodesic orbits are stably planar (say $`\theta =\pi /2`$) and have two constants of motion, the “energy” $`\gamma =e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}\dot{t}`$ and “angular momentum” $`l=r^2\dot{\varphi }`$ dot . In the timelike case then

$$\dot{r}^2f(r)+𝒱(r)=\gamma ^2,$$
(2)
where

$$f(r)=\frac{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}}{1\frac{2m(r)}{r}}$$
(3)
and

$$𝒱(r)=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}(1+\frac{l^2}{r^2}).$$
(4)
Setting $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0,r>0`$ it follows from the timelike geodesic equations that henceforth

$$\gamma =\frac{e^\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sqrt{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}}$$
(5)
and

$$l=\frac{r\sqrt{r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}}{\sqrt{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}}$$
(6)
where the time orientation has been chosen so that $`\gamma >0`$ and all particles are assumed to rotate in the same sense with $`\varphi `$ chosen so that $`l>0`$. Note that the existence of these circular orbits requires

$$0<r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}<1.$$
(7)
Next, we require that the timelike circular geodesics be stable. Let $`r_0`$ be a circular orbit and consider $`r=r_0+\delta `$ where $`\delta <<r_0`$. Taking expansions of $`𝒱(r)`$ and $`f(r)`$ about $`r=r_0`$ it follows from (2) that

$$\ddot{\delta }+\frac{𝒱^{^{\prime \prime }}(r_0)}{2f(r_0)}\delta =0$$
(8)
so that $`𝒱^{^{\prime \prime }}(r_0)>0`$ for stability. (The requirement $`𝒱^{^{}}(r_0)=0`$ merely reproduces (6)). From (4) then

$$3\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}>2r(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2$$
(9)
for stable circular orbits, a refinement of the Newtonian condition $`3\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}>0`$ for conservative central fields stability .

Under the assumption that information travels to us along null geodesics, it follows, without further assumption, that sch

$$1+z\frac{\lambda _o}{\lambda _e}=\frac{(u_\alpha k^\alpha )_e}{(u_\alpha k^\alpha )_o}$$
(10)
where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength, $`e`$ stands for the emitter, $`o`$ for the observer, $`u_\alpha `$ is the timelike four-tangent, and $`k^\alpha `$ is tangent to the null geodesic (N) connecting $`e`$ and $`o`$. The emitter is assumed to be on a stable circular timelike geodesic in (1). Along N define

$$b\frac{l_N}{\gamma _N}.$$
(11)
The constant $`\gamma _N`$ is positive by construction but $`l_N`$ is both positive and negative. The observer is taken to be a static observer at infinity ($`u_o^\alpha =e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})}\delta _t^\alpha `$). Specifically, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})𝒞`$ where $`𝒞`$ is a finite constant which we can set to zero without loss in generality gauge . (The “fitting” problem associated with the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})`$ is finite is discussed briefly below.) Then $`b`$ represents the impact parameter at infinity. That is, $`|b|`$ gives the observed radial distance either side of the observed center ($`b=0`$). The construction of a mapping $`b(r)`$ (the mapping between the observer and coordinate planes) is an important part of this analysis bending . Evaluation of (10) now gives

$$1+z_ϵ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}}(\frac{1}{e^\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\sqrt{r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}ϵ|b|}{r})$$
(12)
where $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. Rather than (12), we consider shifts either side of the central value ($`b=0`$) central

$$1+z_c=\frac{1}{e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}}.$$
(13)
Defining

$$Zz_+z_c=z_cz_{}$$
(14)
we have

$$Z^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}b^2}{r(1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})}.$$
(15)
We now construct the mapping $`b(r)`$. At fixed $`b`$ (that is, at a fixed offset from the observed center of the galaxy) choose the maximum observed value of $`Z`$. From (15) it follows that if $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}}{r(1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})}`$ is monotone decreasing with increasing $`r`$ then the maximum observed value of $`Z`$ corresponds to the minimum value of $`r`$ along $`N`$. This minimum value follows from the null geodesic equation and is given by

$$b^2=\frac{r^2}{e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}}.$$
(16)
The monotone requirement gives us monotone

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}>r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+2r(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2.$$
(17)
With this restriction the mapping $`b(r)`$ is given by (16).

Observations of galactic rotation curves are reported by way of the “optical convention”

$$v\frac{\lambda _o\lambda _e}{\lambda _e}$$
(18)
so that

$$Z=v(b)v(b=0)$$
(19)
with Z given by (15) subject to the mapping (16). It is important to note that no “velocity” has entered the procedure velocity . Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ follows directly from the observations, by way of a differential equation, under a minimal set of assumptions: emitters on stable circular orbits of the static field (1) and emission along null geodesics potential . Whereas it has become customary to decompose galactic potentials into various parts persicsalucci , such decompositions insert further assumptions. We continue here with the full function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ taken as given directly from the observations assuming only that $`v`$ is corrected for all systematic effects and reflects an intrinsic property of the galaxy alone.

We now seek information on the function $`m`$. On the basis of the Lovelock theorem lovelock  we know that properties of the Einstein tensor are of central importance (even without invoking Einstein’s equations). Indeed, for spaces of the form (1) the entire structure of the space can be specified by a single “anisotropy” function

$$G_\theta ^\theta G_r^r$$
(20)
where $`G_\alpha ^\beta `$ is the Einstein tensor. It follows that lake1

$$m=\frac{be^{{\scriptscriptstyle a𝑑r}}𝑑r+𝒞}{e^{{\scriptscriptstyle a𝑑r}}}$$
(21)
where

$$a\frac{2r^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2)3r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}3}{r(r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+1)},$$
(22)
and

$$b\frac{r(r(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}})}{r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+1},$$
(23)
with $`𝒞`$ a constant h . Under the assumption of spatial isotropy ($`=0`$) $`m`$ is determined, up to quadrature, knowing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}`$. Moreover, any function $`m`$ can be generated by a suitable choice for $``$. However, $`m`$ and $``$ cannot be determined simultaneously without further assumptions. Whereas it is a straightforward matter to specify $``$ via a specific decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor (and many recent papers do exactly this), such a procedure is not unique in the sense that the same function $``$ is derivable from inequivalent decompositions. We proceed here in a different way by invoking an assumption based on a Newtonian limit.

To place the forgoing analysis in Newtonian terms we introduce a potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ defined by landl

$$^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}R_t^t$$
(24)
where $`R_t^t`$ is the time component of the Ricci tensor of (1) notnewton . In the usual way decompose  we find that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{^{}}=\frac{m}{r^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}{3}+\frac{3}{r^2}_0^r(r\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\frac{m}{r})𝑑r+\frac{1}{r^2}_0^rr^2𝑑r,$$
(25)
where we have set $`r>>2m`$ and introduced the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ newtonterms . The dynamical mass is defined by $`Mr^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{^{}}`$ and the balance of Newtonian forces for circular motion gives

$$M=rV^2,$$
(26)
where $`V`$ is the orbital speed. If the frequency shift is assumed to be due to the non-relativistic Doppler effect then $`V=v`$ and since $`v`$ is known, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{^{}}`$ is known and we now have two equations, (25) and (21), from which we determine a solution ($`m`$,$``$). Note that no decomposition of any energy-momentum tensor has been used.

Let us now define the energy density $`8\pi \rho G_t^t`$ so that

$$m=_0^r4\pi r^2\rho 𝑑r$$
(27)
just as in Newtonian mechanics (though there $`\rho `$ stands for the mass density). Equation (25) now provides the link between the dynamical mass $`M`$ and the density $`\rho `$. The traditional “missing mass” problem derives from the fact that since $`v^2`$ levels off at larger values of $`r`$ for many galactic halos, assuming $`V=v`$ then according to (26) $`M`$ must continue to grow in that region like $`r`$. Assuming $`M=m`$ it then follows from (27) that there must be unseen material if the inclusion of all observed contributions to $`\rho `$ does not produce this continued growth. However, $`Mm`$, and it is possible that the observed contributions to $`\rho `$ are compatible with $`m`$ while $`M`$ continues to grow like $`r`$ according to (25). In this sense there would be no mass “missing” at all. Mass should be considered “missing” when all observed contributions to $`\rho `$ are incompatible with $`m`$, not $`M`$, and such an incompatibility could arise whether or not $`v^2`$ levels off.

To finish we mention the fitting problem, but only briefly. This involves the smooth junction of (1) at a finite value of $`r`$ (say $`R`$) onto an external field in which we can set $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})=0`$. This boundary condition is required by the definition of $`b`$ and by the fact that the rotation curves are considered intrinsic (corrected for all other effects). Geometrically this junction is examined by way of the Darmois-Israel conditions musgrave . The smooth junction of metrics of the form (1) only requires the continuity of $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}`$, assuming the continuity of $`r`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, so that $`G_r^r`$, but not $`G_\theta ^\theta `$ nor $`G_t^t`$, is necessarily continuous at $`R`$. In general relativity if the external field is taken as vacuum then in a suitable gauge $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=12m(R)/r\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2/3`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})=0`$ only for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

In summary, assuming only that emission occurs from stable timelike circular geodesic orbits in a static spherically symmetric metric with information propagated to us along null geodesics, it has been shown that galactic potentials follow directly from the observed rotation curves via the relation $`Z^2=v^2`$ where, subject to the mapping (16), $`Z^2`$ is given by (15). Neither the gravitational mass $`m`$ nor any metric theory of gravity enters this determination of the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Next, in terms of a single anisotropy function ($``$ given by (20)) $`m`$ follows directly from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Both $`m`$ and $``$ can be solved for, without using any specific decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor, by constructing a Newtonian limit and by now assuming that the frequency shift is due to the non-relativistic Doppler effect. This procedure naturally defines a dynamical mass $`Mm`$ with respect to which the “missing mass” problem is usually defined. With $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $``$ and $`m`$ determined, the “dark matter”, should it be required, is highly constrained, but not identified since the same function $``$ is derivable from inequivalent decompositions of the energy-momentum tensor.

###### Acknowledgements.

I thank Judith Irwin and Roberto Sussman for useful remarks. This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Portions of this work were made possible by use of GRTensorII grt .


text:
# Quantum Mechanics of the Early Universe and its Limiting Transition

## 1 Introduction

In this paper Quantum Mechanics with Fundamental Length (QMFL) is considered as Quantum Mechanics (QM) of the early Universe. The main motivation for this choice is the presence in the theory of General Uncertainty Relations (GUR) appropriated to describe the behavior of the early Universe and unavoidable conducting to the concept of fundamental length. Here QMFL is obtained as a deformation of QM, choosing the quantity $`\beta =l_{min}^2/x^2`$ (where $`x`$ is the scale) as the parameter of deformation of the theory. The main difference between presented approach and previous ones lies on the fact, that we propose a density matrix deformation, as well as so far commutator’s deformation had been proposed. Obtained in such a way density matrix (generalized density matrix) is called here and throughout this paper density pro-matrix. Within our approach two very important features of QM have been conserved. Namely, the probability interpretation and exact predefined measurement procedure, corresponding to this interpretation have been transferred to QMFL. It was shown that in the paradigm of expanded universe model there are two different (unitary non-equivalent) Quantum Mechanics: the first one named QMFL is describing nature on Planck’s scale or on the early Universe and it is based on GUR. The second one named QM and representing passage to the limit from Planck’s to low energy scale is based on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relations (UR). Consequently, some well-known quantum mechanical concepts could appear only in the low energy limit. Further, within the proposed approach some dynamical aspects of QMFL are described. In particular, a deformation of the Liouville’s equation, the Shrödinger’s picture in QMFL as well as some implications of obtained results are presented. Mentioned implications deal with the problem of singularity, the hypothesis of cosmic censorship, a possible improvement of the statistical entropy definition and also with the problem of information loss in black holes.

## 2 Fundamental Length and Density Matrix

Using different approaches (String Theory , Gravitation , Quantum Theory of black holes  , etc.) the authors of numerous papers issued over the last 14-15 years have pointed out that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Relations should be modified. Specifically, a high energy correction has to appear

$$\mathrm{}x\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}p}+\alpha L_p^2\frac{\mathrm{}p}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(1)
Here $`L_p`$ is the Planck’s length: $`L_p=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}1,\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^{35}m`$ and $`\alpha >0`$ is a constant. In  it was shown that this constant may be chosen equal to 1. However, here we will use $`\alpha `$ as an arbitrary constant without giving it any definite value. The inequality (1) is quadratic in $`\mathrm{}p`$:

$$\alpha L_p^2(\mathrm{}p)^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}x\mathrm{}p+\mathrm{}^20,$$
(2)
from whence the fundamental length is

$$\mathrm{}x_{min}=2\sqrt{\alpha }L_p.$$
(3)
Since in what follows we proceed only from the existence of fundamental length, it should be noted that this fact was established apart from GUR as well. For instance, from an ideal experiment associated with Gravitational Field and Quantum Mechanics a lower bound on minimal length was obtained ,  and improved in  without using GUR to an estimate of the form $`L_p`$. Consider equation (3) in some detail. Squaring both sides of the equation, we obtain

$$(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{X}^2})4\alpha L_p^2,$$
(4)
Or in terms of density matrix

$$Sp[(\rho \widehat{X}^2)Sp^2(\rho \widehat{X})]4\alpha L_p^2=l_{min}^2>0,$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{X}`$ is the coordinate operator. Expression (5) gives the measurement rule used in QM. However, in the case considered here, in comparison with QM, the right part of (5) cannot be done arbitrarily near to zero since it is limited by $`l_{min}^2>0`$ where due to GUR $`l_{min}L_p`$.

Apparently, this may be due to the fact that QMFL with GUR (1) is unitary non-equivalent to QM with UR. Actually, in QM the left-hand side of (5) can be chosen arbitrary close to zero, whereas in QMFL this is impossible. But if two theories are unitary equivalent, the form of their traces should be retained. Besides, a more important aspect is contributing to unitary non-equivalence of these two theories: QMFL contains three fundamental constants (independent parameters) $`G`$, $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, whereas QM contains only one $`\mathrm{}`$. Within an inflation model , QM is the limit of QMFL (QMFL turns to QM) for the expansion of the Universe and low energy limit. In this case the second term in the right-hand side of (1) vanishes and GUR turn to UR. A natural way for studying QMFL is to consider it as a deformation of QM, which turns to the last one at the low energy limit (during the Universe’s expansion after the Big Bang). We will consider precisely this option. However differing from authors of papers , and others we will deformed not commutators, but density matrix, leaving at the same time the fundamental measure quantum mechanical rule (5) without changes. Here the following question may be formulated: how should be deformed density matrix conserving Quantum Mechanics’ measuring rules in order to obtain self-consistent measuring procedure in QMFL? For answering to the question we will use the wave packet formalism. For starting let’s consider a wave packet moving from Planck’s energy region to low energy one. Then the initial measurement is of the order of Planck’s scale $`ail_{min}`$ or $`aiL_p`$. Further $`a`$ tends to infinity and we obtain for density matrix

$$Sp[\rho a^2]Sp[\rho a]Sp[\rho a]l_{min}^2orSp[\rho ]Sp^2[\rho ]l_{min}^2/a^2.$$

Therefore:

1. When $`a<\mathrm{}`$, $`Sp[\rho ]=Sp[\rho (a)]`$, $`Sp[\rho ]Sp^2[\rho ]>0`$, and then
$`Sp[\rho ]<1`$. This corresponds to the QMFL case.
2. When $`a=\mathrm{}`$, $`Sp[\rho ]`$ does not depend on $`a`$, $`Sp[\rho ]Sp^2[\rho ]0`$, and then $`Sp[\rho ]=1`$. This corresponds to the QM case.

Hence the properties of density matrix in these two theories have to be different. The only reasoning in this case may be as follows: QMFL must differ from QM, but in such a way that in the low energy limit a density matrix in QMFL be coincident with the density matrix in QM. That is to say, QMFL is a deformation of QM and the parameter of deformation depends on the measuring scale. This means that in QMFL $`\rho =\rho (x)`$, where $`x`$ is the scale, and for $`x\mathrm{}`$ $`\rho (x)\widehat{\rho }`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the density matrix in QM.

Since on the Planck’s scale $`Sp[\rho ]<1`$, then for such scales $`\rho =\rho (x)`$, where $`x`$ is the scale, is not a density matrix as it is generally defined in QM. On Planck’s scale we name $`\rho (x)`$ a ”density pro-matrix”. As follows from the above, the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ appears in the limit

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho (x)\widehat{\rho },$$
(6)
when GUR (1) turn to UR and QMFL turns to QM.

Thus, on Planck’s scale the density matrix is inadequate to obtain all information about the mean values of operators. A ”deformed” density matrix (or pro-matrix) $`\rho (x)`$ with $`Sp[\rho ]<1`$ has to be introduced because a missing part of information $`1Sp[\rho ]`$ is encoded in the quantity $`l_{min}^2/a^2`$, whose specific weight decreases as the scale $`a`$ expressed in units of $`l_{min}`$ is going up.

## 3 QMFL as a deformation of QM

Here we describe QMFL as a deformation of QM using the above-developed formalism of density pro-matrix. Within this formalism, the density pro-matrix should be understood as a deformed density matrix in QMFL. As a fundamental parameter of deformation we use the quantity $`\beta =l_{min}^2/x^2`$, where $`x`$ is the scale.

Definition 1.

Any system in QMFL is described by a density pro-matrix of the form $`\rho (\beta )=_i\omega _i(\beta )|i><i|`$, where

1. $`0<\beta 1/4`$;
2. The vectors $`|i>`$ form a full orthonormal system;
3. $`\omega _i(\beta )0`$ and for all $`i`$ the finite limit $`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\omega _i(\beta )=\omega _i`$ exists;
4. $`Sp[\rho (\beta )]=_i\omega _i(\beta )<1`$, $`_i\omega _i=1`$;
5. For every operator $`B`$ and any $`\beta `$ there is a mean operator $`B`$ depending on $`\beta `$:

$$<B>_\beta =\underset{i}{}\omega _i(\beta )<i|B|i>.$$

Finally, in order that our definition 1 agree with the result of section 2, the following condition must be fulfilled:

$$Sp[\rho (\beta )]Sp^2[\rho (\beta )]\beta .$$
(7)
Hence we can find the value for $`Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$ satisfying the condition of definition 1:

$$Sp[\rho (\beta )]\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\beta }.$$
(8)
According to point 5), $`<1>_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$. Therefore for any scalar quantity $`f`$ we have $`<f>_\beta =fSp[\rho (\beta )]`$. In particular, the mean value $`<[x_\mu ,p_\nu ]>_\beta `$ is equal to

$$<[x_\mu ,p_\nu ]>_\beta =i\mathrm{}\delta _{\mu ,\nu }Sp[\rho (\beta )].$$
(9)
We denote the limit $`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}\rho (\beta )=\rho `$ as the density matrix. Evidently, in the limit $`\beta 0`$ we return to QM.

As follows from definition 1, $`<(j><j)>_\beta =\omega _j(\beta )`$, from whence the completeness condition by $`\beta `$ is
$`<(_i|i><i|)>_\beta =<1>_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$. The norm of any vector $`|\psi >`$ assigned to $`\beta `$ can be defined as
$`<\psi |\psi >_\beta =<\psi |(_i|i><i|)_\beta |\psi >=<\psi |(1)_\beta |\psi >=<\psi |\psi >Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$, where $`<\psi |\psi >`$ is the norm in QM, i.e. for $`\beta 0`$. Similarly, the described theory may be interpreted using a probabilistic approach, however requiring replacement of $`\rho `$ by $`\rho (\beta )`$ in all formulae.

It should be noted:

1. The above limit covers both Quantum and Classical Mechanics. Indeed, since $`\beta L_p^2/x^2=G\mathrm{}/c^3x^2`$, we obtain:

1. $`(\mathrm{}0,x\mathrm{})(\beta 0)`$ for QM;
    2. $`(\mathrm{}0,x\mathrm{})(\beta 0)`$ for Classical Mechanics;
2. As a matter of fact, the deformation parameter $`\beta `$ should assume the value $`0<\beta 1`$. However, as seen from (8), $`Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$ is well defined only for $`0<\beta 1/4`$. Some problems can be associated with the point, where $`\beta =1/4`$. If $`x=il_{min}`$ and $`i2`$, this problem vanishes. At the point where $`x=l_{min}`$ there is a singularity related to complex values assumed by $`Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$ , i.e. to the impossibility of obtaining a diagonalized density pro-matrix at this point over the field of real numbers. For this reason definition 1 has no sense at the point $`x=l_{min}`$. We will come back to the question appearing in this section when we will discuss singularity and hypothesis of cosmic censorship in section 5.
3. We consider possible solutions for (7). For instance, one of the solutions of (7), at least to the first order in $`\beta `$, is

$$\rho ^{}(\beta )=\underset{i}{}\alpha _iexp(\beta )|i><i|,$$

where all $`\alpha _i>0`$ are independent of $`\beta `$ and their sum is equal to 1. In this way $`Sp[\rho ^{}(\beta )]=exp(\beta )`$. Indeed, we can easily verify that

$$Sp[\rho ^{}(\beta )]Sp^2[\rho ^{}(\beta )]=\beta +O(\beta ^2).$$
(10)
Note that in the momentum representation $`\beta =p^2/p_{max}^2`$, where $`p_{max}p_{pl}`$ and $`p_{pl}`$ is the Planck momentum. When present in matrix elements, $`exp(\beta )`$ can damp the contribution of great momenta in a perturbation theory.
4. It is clear that within the proposed description the states with a unit probability, i.e. pure states, can appear only in the limit $`\beta 0`$, when all $`\omega _i(\beta )`$ except for one are equal to zero or when they tend to zero at this limit. In our treatment pure state are states, which can be represented in the form $`|\psi ><\psi |`$, where $`<\psi |\psi >=1`$.
5. We suppose that all the definitions concerning a density matrix can be transferred to the above-mentioned deformation of Quantum Mechanics (QMFL) through changing the density matrix $`\rho `$ by the density pro-matrix $`\rho (\beta )`$ and subsequent passage to the low energy limit $`\beta 0`$. Specifically, for statistical entropy we have

$$S_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )\mathrm{ln}(\rho (\beta ))].$$
(11)
The quantity of $`S_\beta `$ seems never to be equal to zero as $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho (\beta ))0`$ and hence $`S_\beta `$ may be equal to zero at the limit $`\beta 0`$ only.

Some Implications:

1. If we carry out measurement on the pre-determined scale, it is impossible to regard the density pro-matrix as a density matrix with an accuracy better than particular limit $`10^{66+2n}`$, where $`10^n`$ is the measuring scale. In the majority of known cases this is sufficient to consider the density pro-matrix as a density matrix. But on Planck’s scale, where the quantum gravitational effects and Plank energy levels cannot be neglected, the difference between $`\rho (\beta )`$ and $`\rho `$ should be taken into consideration.
2. Proceeding from the above, on Planck’s scale the notion of Wave Function of the Universe (as introduced in ) has no sense, and quantum gravitation effects in this case should be described with the help of density pro-matrix $`\rho (\beta )`$ only.
3. Since density pro-matrix $`\rho (\beta )`$ depends on the measuring scale, evolution of the Universe within the inflation model paradigm  is not a unitary process, or otherwise the probabilities $`p_i=\omega _i(\beta )`$ would be preserved.

## 4 Dynamical aspects of QMFL

Let’s suppose that in QMFL density pro-matrix has the form $`\rho [\beta (t),t]`$, or in other words it depends on two parameters: time $`t`$ and parameter of deformation $`\beta `$, which also depends on time $`\beta =\beta (t)`$. Then we have

$$\rho [\beta (t),t]=\omega _i[\beta (t)]|i(t)><i(t)|.$$
(12)
Differentiating the last expression on time we obtain the equation

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\underset{i}{}\frac{d\omega _i[\beta (t)]}{dt}|i(t)>i[H,\rho (\beta )]=d[ln\omega (\beta )]\rho (\beta )i[H,\rho (\beta )].$$
(13)
Where $`ln[\omega (\beta )]`$ is a row-matrix and $`\rho (\beta )`$ is a column-matrix. Thus we obtain a prototype of the Liouville’s equation.

Let’s consider some particular cases.

1. First we consider the process of time evolution at low energies, or in other words, when $`\beta (0)0`$, $`\beta (t)0`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$. Then it is clear that $`\omega _i(\beta )\omega _iconstant`$. The first term in (13) vanishes and we obtain the Liouville’s equation.
2. We obtain also the Liouville’s equation when we turn from inflation to big scale. Within the inflation approach the scale $`ae^{Ht}`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble’s constant and $`t`$ is time. Therefore $`\beta e^{2Ht}`$ and when $`t`$ is quite big $`\beta 0`$. In other words $`\omega _i[\beta ]\omega _i`$, the first term in (13) vanishes and we again obtain the Liouville’s equation.
3. At very early stage of inflation process or even before it takes place $`\omega _i[\beta ]`$ was not a constant and therefore the first term in (13) should be taking into account. This way we obtain a deviation from the Liouville’s equation.
4. At last let’s consider the case when $`\beta (0)0`$, $`\beta (t)>0`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$. In this case we are going from low energy scale to high one and $`\beta (t)`$ grows when $`t\mathrm{}`$. In this case the first term in (13) is significant and we obtain an addition to the Liouville’s equation in the form

$$d[ln\omega (\beta )]\rho (\beta ).$$

This case could take place when matter go into a black hole and is moving in direction of the singularity (to the Planck’s scale).

## 5 Singularity, Entropy and Information Loss in Black Holes

It follows to note that remark II in section 3 about complex meaning assumed by density pro-matrix at the point with fundamental length has straightforward relation with the singularity problem and cosmic censorship in General Theory of Relativity . Indeed, considering, for instance, a Schwarzchild’s black hole (, p.9) with metrics:

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2M}{r})dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{(1\frac{2M}{r})}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{II}^2,$$
(14)
we obtain, as it is well-known a singularity at the point $`r=0`$. In our approach this corresponds to the point with fundamental length ($`r=l_{min}`$). At this point we are not able to measure anything, since at this point $`\beta =1`$ and $`Sp[\rho (\beta )]`$ becomes complex. Thus, we carry out a measurement, starting from the point $`r=2l_{min}`$ corresponding to $`\beta =1/4`$. Consequently, the initial singularity $`r=l_{min}`$, which cannot be measured, is hidden of observation. This confirms the hypothesis of cosmic censorship in this concrete case. This hypothesis claims that ”a naked singularity cannot be observed”. Thus QMFL in our approach feels the singularity. (In comparison with QM, which does not feel it).

Statistical entropy, connected with density pro-matrix and introduced in the remark V section 3

$$S_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )\mathrm{ln}(\rho (\beta ))]$$

may be interpreted as density entropy on unity of minimal square $`l_{min}^2`$ depending on the scale $`x`$. It could be quite big nearby the singularity. In other words, when $`\beta 1/4`$. This does not contradict the second law of Thermodynamics since the maximal entropy of a determined object in the Universe is proportional to the square of their surface $`A`$, measured in units of minimal square $`l_{min}^2`$ or Planck’s square $`L_p^2`$, as it was shown in some papers (see for instance ). Therefore, in the expanded Universe since surface $`A`$ grows, then entropy does not decrease.

The obtained results enable one to consider anew the information loss problem associated with black holes , at least for the case of primordial ones. Indeed, when we consider the black holes, Planck’s scale is a factor. And it was shown that the entropy of matter absorbed by a black hole on this scale is not equal to zero, supporting the data of R.Myers . According to his results, a pure state cannot form a black hole. Then it is necessary to reformulate the problem per se, since so far in all the publications on information paradox zero entropy of the initial state has been compared to nonzero entropy of the final state. Besides, it should be noted that in some recent papers for all types of black holes QM with GUR is considered at the very beginning . As a consequence of this approach, stable remnants with masses of the order of Planck’s ones $`M_{pl}`$ emerge during the process of black hole evaporation. From here it follows that black holes should not evaporate fully. We arrive to the conclusion that results given in  are correct only in the semi-classical approximation and they should not be applicable to the quantum back hole analysis.

Based on our results, we can elucidate (at least qualitatively) the problem associated with information loss on black holes formed when a star collapses. Actually, near the horizon of events the entropy of an approximately pure state is practically equal to zero: $`S^{in}=Sp[\rho \mathrm{ln}(\rho )]`$ that is associated with the value $`\beta 0`$. When approaching the singularity $`\beta >0`$ (i.e. on Plank’s scale), its entropy is nonzero for $`S_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )\mathrm{ln}(\rho (\beta ))]`$. Therefore, in such a black hole the entropy increases, whereas information is lost.

On the other hand, from the results obtained above, at least at the qualitative level, it can be clear up the answer to the question how may be information lost in big black holes, which are formed as result of star collapse. Our point of view is closed to the R. Penrose’s one . He considers (in opposition to S. Hawking) that information in black holes is lost when matter meets a singularity. In our approach information loss takes place in the same form. Indeed, near to the horizon of events an approximately pure state with practically equal to zero initial entropy $`S^{in}=Sp[\rho \mathrm{ln}(\rho )]`$, which corresponds to $`\beta 0`$, when approaching a singularity (in other words is reaching the Planck’s scale) gives yet non zero entropy $`S_\beta =Sp[\rho (\beta )\mathrm{ln}(\rho (\beta ))]>0`$ when $`\beta >0`$. Therefore, entropy increases and information is lost in this black hole. We can (at the moment, also at the qualitative level) evaluate entropy of black holes. Indeed, starting from density matrix for a pure state at the ”entry” of a black hole $`\rho _{in}=\rho _{pure}`$ with zero entropy $`S^{in}=0`$, we obtain, doing a straightforward calculation at the singularity in the black hole density pro-matrix $`\rho _{out}=\rho (\beta )\rho (1/4)`$ with entropy

$$S^{out}=S_{1/4}=Sp[\rho (1/4)\mathrm{ln}(\rho (1/4)]=1/2\mathrm{ln}1/20.34657.$$

Taking into account that total entropy of a black hole is proportional to quantum area of surface A, measured in Planck’s units of area $`L_p^2`$ , we obtain the following value for quantum entropy of a black hole:

$$S_{blackhole}0.34657A.$$
(15)
This formula differs from the well-known one given by Bekenstein-Hawking for black hole entropy $`S_{blackhole}=\frac{1}{4}A`$ . This result was obtained in the semi-classical approximation. At the present moment quantum corrections to this formula are object of investigation . As it was yet above-mentioned we carry out a straightforward calculation. Namely, using the anzats of the remark III in section 3 and assuming the density pro-matrix equal to $`Sp[\rho ^{}(\beta )]=exp(\beta )`$, we obtain for $`\beta =1/4`$ that entropy is equal to

$$S^{out}=S_{1/4}^{}=Sp[exp(1/4)\mathrm{ln}exp(1/4)]0.1947,$$

and consequently we arrive to the value for entropy

$$S_{blackhole}0.1947A$$
(16)
which is in good agreement with the result given in . Our approach, leading to formula (16) is at the very beginning, based on the quantum nature of black holes. Let us to note here, that in the approaches, used up to now to modify Liouville’s equation, due to information paradox , the added member appearing in the right side of (13) has the form

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \beta 0}{}(Q^\beta Q^\alpha \rho +\rho Q^\beta Q^\alpha 2Q^\alpha \rho Q^\beta ),$$

where $`Q^\alpha `$ is a full orthogonal set of Hermitian matrices with $`Q^0=1`$. In this case either locality or conservation of energy-impulse tensor is broken down. In the offered in this paper approach, the added member in the deformed Liouville’s equation has a more natural and beautiful form in our opinion:

$$d[ln\omega (\beta )]\rho (\beta ).$$

In the limit $`\beta 0`$ all properties of QM are conserved, the added member vanishes and we obtain Liouville’s equation.

## 6 Some comments on Shrödinger’s picture

A procedure allowing to obtain a theory from the transformation of the precedent one is named ”deformation”. This is doing, using one or a few parameters of deformation in such a way, that the original theory must appear in the limit, when all parameters tend to some fixed values. The most clear example is QM being a deformation of Classical Mechanics. The parameter of deformation in this case is the Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$. When $`\mathrm{}0`$ QM passages to Classical Mechanics. As it was indicated above in the remark 1 section 3, we are able to obtain from QMFL two limits: Quantum and Classical Mechanics. The described here deformation should be understood as ”minimal” in the sense that we have deformed only the probability $`\omega _i\omega _i(\beta )`$, whereas state vectors have been not deformed. In a most complete consideration we will be obligated to consider instead $`|i><i|`$, vectors $`|i(\beta )><i(\beta )|`$ and in this case the full picture will be very complicated. It is easy to understand how Shrodinger’s picture is transformed in QMFL. The prototype of Quantum Mechanical normed wave function $`\psi (q)`$ with $`|\psi (q)|^2𝑑q=1`$ in QMFL is $`\theta (\beta )\psi (q)`$. The parameter of deformation $`\beta `$ assumes the value $`0<\beta 1/4`$. Its properties are $`|\theta (\beta )|^2<1`$,$`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}|\theta (\beta )|^2=1`$ and the relation $`|\theta (\beta )|^2|\theta (\beta )|^4\beta `$ takes place. In such a way the full probability always is less than 1: $`p(\beta )=|\theta (\beta )|^2=|\theta (\beta )|^2|\psi (q)|^2𝑑q<1`$ and it tends to 1 when $`\beta 0`$. In the most general case of arbitrarily normed state in QMFL $`\psi =\psi (\beta ,q)=_na_n\theta _n(\beta )\psi _n(q)`$ c $`_n|a_n|^2=1`$ the full probability is $`p(\beta )=_n|a_n|^2|\theta _n(\beta )|^2<1`$ and $`\underset{\beta 0}{lim}p(\beta )=1`$.

It is natural that in QMFL Shrodinger’s equation is also deformed. It is replaced by the equation

$$\frac{\psi (\beta ,q)}{t}=\frac{[\theta (\beta )\psi (q)]}{t}=\frac{\theta (\beta )}{t}\psi (q)+\theta (\beta )\frac{\psi (q)}{t},$$
(17)
where the second term in the right side generates the Shrodinger’s equation since

$$\theta (\beta )\frac{\psi (q)}{t}=\frac{i\theta (\beta )}{\mathrm{}}H\psi (q).$$
(18)
Here $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian and the first member is added, similarly to the member appearing in the deformed Loiuville’s equation and vanishing when $`\theta [\beta (t)]const`$. In particular, this takes place in the low energy limit in QM, when $`\beta 0`$. It follows to note that the above-described theory is not time-reversal as QM, since the combination $`\theta (\beta )\psi (q)`$ breaks down this property in the deformed Shrodinger’s equation. Time-reversal is conserved only in the low energy limit, when quantum mechanical Shrodinger’s equation is valid.

## 7 Conclusion

It follows to note, that in some well-known papers on GUR and Quantum Gravity (see for instance ) there is not any mention about the measuring procedure. However, it is clear that this question is crucial and it cannot be ignored or passed over in silence. Taking into account this state of affairs we propose in this paper a detailed tratment of this problem. In the present paper the measuring rule (5) is proposed as a good initial approximation to the exact measuring procedure in QMFL. Corrections to this procedure could be defined by an adequate and fully established description of the space-time foam (see ) on Planck’s scale. On the other hand, as it was noted in (see ) all known approaches dealing with Quantum Gravity one way or another lead to the notion of fundamental length . Involving that notion too, GUR (1) are well described by the inflation model . Therefore, it seems impossible to understand physics on Planck’s scale disregarding the notion of fundamental length. One more aspect of this problem should be considered. As it was noted in , advancement of a new physical theory implies the introduction of a new parameter and deformation of the precedent theory by this parameter. In essence, all these deformation parameters are fundamental constants: $`G`$, $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ (more exactly in  $`1/c`$ is used instead of $`c`$). As follows from the above results, in the problem from  one may redetermine, whether a theory we are seeking is the theory with fundamental length involving these three parameters by definition: $`L_p=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}`$. Notice also that the deformation introduced in this paper is stable in the sense indicated in .

In the present paper the approach first developed in  is improved.