text:
# Systematics of the Relationship between Vacuum Energy Calculations and Heat Kernel Coefficients

## I Introduction

The aim of this paper is to bring order and completeness into a welter of observations in the physics literature about various contributions to quantum vacuum energy (before renormalization) and their relations to the heat-kernel expansion. The primary tool is the systematic theory of Riesz means of spectral densities and their relation to the asymptotic expansions of various integral kernels associated with the central partial differential operator of the field theory (e.g., \[riesz, \]); the Casimir energy, regularized by an exponential ultraviolet cutoff, is identifiable with certain terms in these expansions naples . Both total energy and local energy density are considered; for the latter, we concentrate on the singular asymptotic behavior near a boundary, which was the subject of considerable calculational attention and physical controversy two decades ago (e.g., \[DC, ; KCD, \]), when the Casimir effect was of great interest as a model of quantum effects in cosmology (and in the bag model of hadrons). Interest in Casimir energy has recently resurged because of greatly improved experiments Lamo ; MR ; RM ; BCOR  and hints of technological application CAKBC . With it, the controversies have also reemerged (e.g., \[Milton, ; GJ4, ; Miltalk, \]). (More complete bibliographical citations appear later in their proper contexts.)

Section II sets up notation and summarizes the needed background information about the asymptotic expansions of integral kernels and the Riesz means of eigenvalue densities. Section III concerns the energy density of a scalar field, with emphasis on the instructive example of parallel plates with Robin boundary conditions; to avoid confusion in the quantum theory later, it is important to note that the scalar field’s energy contains, already at the classical level, a term concentrated on the boundary, unless the conformal-coupling parameter is given the nonstandard value $`\frac{1}{4}`$. The heart of the paper is Section IV, where the structures of the asymptotic expansions of the heat kernel and the total regularized energy (as functions of an auxiliary “time”) and of the renormalized energy density (as function of the distance from the boundary) are presented and then correlated in dimensions $`1`$, $`2`$, and $`3`$. In Section V we review the controversies over infinite boundary terms in the energy and draw some conclusions on the basis of the observations in the previous section.

## II Notation and framework

Let $`H`$ be a self-adjoint, elliptic, second-order differential operator, independent of $`t`$. (To avoid some extraneous complications later, let us also assume that the spectrum of $`H`$ is nonnegative.) Then the (hyperbolic) wave equation

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{t^2}=H\varphi $$
(1)
defines a field theory with time-translation invariance. Here we consider only scalar fields, but the extension to, for instance, the electromagnetic field would be straightforward. Also, we are primarily concerned here with cavities in flat space, without potentials, so that $`H`$ is just the negative of the Laplacian equipped with certain boundary conditions; however, most of what follows applies with only minor complications to more general operators

$$H=g(x)^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^A_\nu ^A+V(x)$$

with gravitational, gauge, and scalar potentials.

For present purposes, we take the regularized vacuum energy of the quantum field to be defined as

$$E(t)\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\omega _ne^{\omega _nt},$$
(2)
where $`\omega _n^2`$ are the eigenvalues of $`H`$, and $`t`$ is a parameter with dimensions of time — not the physical time in (1). (Of course, at this point one is assuming that $`H`$ has only discrete spectrum. Continuous spectrum is normally associated with an unbounded region in space, for which one would not expect a finite total energy to exist.) The physical (renormalized) energy is identified with the constant term in the asymptotic expansion of $`E(t)`$ as $`t0`$, in keeping with the expectation that each mode of the field with frequency $`\omega `$ should contribute energy $`\frac{1}{2}\omega `$. Formula (2) is a standard, but admittedly arbitrary, and recently somewhat unfashionable, way of regularizing the energy. The relation of this and other “ultraviolet” or “cutoff” regularizations to the now more popular “analytic” methods (notably dimensional regularization and zeta functions) has been clarified by several authors \[CVZ, ; Kay, ; SS1, ; SS2, ; SS3, ; BS, ; Sant, \].

In quantum field theory one has not only a total energy but also a local energy density, $`T_{00}(x)`$ (and, indeed, an energy-momentum (stress) tensor, $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$). The energy density remains meaningful in unbounded regions, where the total energy is not defined (and $`H`$ may have continuous spectrum). There is a formal expression for $`T_{00}(x)`$ as a sum or integral over the spectrum, the summand being built out of the eigenfunctions, or the spectral projection kernel, and their derivatives at $`x`$; for the details we refer to the literature (e.g., \[BD, \]) and Sec. III. From that expression a regularized quantity $`T_{00}(x;t)`$ is defined by inserting an exponential cutoff in precise analogy with (2). In fact, it is known that this approach is not quite adequate when spatial curvature, or indeed any potential, is present, because trace anomalies arise; the conceptually closest adequate approach is then covariant point splitting (e.g., \[BCF, \]). That complication is irrelevant, however, to cavities in flat space without potentials, which are our concern at present.

Let $`d`$ be the spatial dimension, let $`M`$ denote the $`d`$-dimensional region in question (where $`H`$ acts), and let $`t`$ be an auxiliary variable ranging from $`0`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. The well known heat kernel, $`K(t,x,y)x|e^{tH}|y`$, solves the heat equation associated with $`H`$, in the sense that

$$u(t,x)_MK(t,x,y)f(y)𝑑y$$

is the unique solution of the (parabolic) initial-value problem

$$\frac{u}{t}=Hu,u(0,x)=f(x).$$

It is well known that $`K`$ possesses an asymptotic expansion of the form

$$K(t)\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_st^{\frac{d}{2}+\frac{s}{2}}.$$
(3)
More precisely: (a) If $`x`$ is a point in the interior of $`M`$, then the diagonal value $`K(t,x,x)`$ has an expansion of form (3), where $`b_s`$ depends on $`x`$. (b) When $`M`$ is bounded, the “trace” $`_MK(t,x,x)𝑑x`$ has an expansion of form (3). (The second statement is not a trivial consequence of the first, because expansion (a) is nonuniform in distance from the boundary. In fact, for a flat-space cavity $`b_s(x)`$ in (a) is zero for all $`s>0`$, but the same is not true for the number $`b_s`$ in (b).) For a cavity, $`b_0`$ in (b) is proportional to the volume of $`M`$, and the higher coefficients are integrals over the boundary of $`M`$ whose details depend on the boundary conditions and on the curvature of the boundary. For a more general $`H`$, similar local integral formulas for $`b_s`$ in terms of the potentials, curvature, etc. inside $`M`$ and on its boundary are known in great detail for small values of $`s`$, their calculation for ever-increasing $`s`$ being a major mathematical industry (e.g., \[Kirsten, \]).

The less well known cylinder kernel, $`T(t,x,y)x|e^{t\sqrt{H}}|y`$, can be defined similarly:

$$u(t,x)_MT(t,x,y)f(y)𝑑y$$

is the unique bounded solution of the (elliptic) boundary-value problem

$$\frac{^2u}{t^2}=+Hu,u(0,x)=f(x).$$

(The region in $`(t,x)`$-space is a semiinfinite cylinder with base $`M`$.) The counterpart of (3) is

$$T(t)\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_st^{d+s}+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s=d+1}{sd\text{ odd}}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_st^{d+s}\mathrm{ln}t.$$
(4)
(Again, (4) has both (a)- and (b)-type interpretations.) The central fact relating these expansions (which in essence appears in \[CVZ, , Sec. III\]) is:

Theorem.

1. If $`sd`$ is even or negative,

$$e_s=\pi ^{1/2}2^{ds}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\frac{s}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)b_s$$
(5)
(and $`f_s=0`$).
2. If $`sd`$ is odd and positive,

$$f_s=(1)^{(sd+1)/2}\pi ^{1/2}2^{ds+1}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{s}{2}\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)}b_s,$$
(6)
whereas $`e_s`$ is undetermined by the heat kernel expansion.

Before explaining where this theorem comes from, we make some remarks upon it. First, in (5) and (6) the gamma functions have no zeros or poles for the relevant values of the parameters; therefore, a zero or nonzero $`b_s`$ is always associated, respectively, with a zero or nonzero value for the coefficient on the left-hand side of the equation. Second, the “new” coefficients $`e_s`$ ($`sd`$ odd and positive) are inherently global in their dependence on the geometry of $`M`$: There are no local integral formulas like those for $`b_s`$ (and hence for the left-hand sides of (5) and (6)) GG . Third (see Sec. IV), the renormalized vacuum energy is equal to $`\frac{1}{2}e_{1+d}`$ (the first of the new, nonlocal coefficients) from expansion (b), plus possible local terms. (Note that a purely local formula for vacuum energy would imply that the energy associated with parallel plates is independent of their separation, hence that there is no Casimir force!) Fourth, for a particular $`H`$ any or all of the logarithmic coefficients $`f_s`$ may happen to vanish, but the nonlocal, independent nature of the corresponding $`e_s`$ persists in such a case.

The theorem can be proved by relating the two expansions, (3) and (4), to certain “moments” (in a generalized sense of the word) characterizing the asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalue density (or of a local spectral density, the inverse Laplace transform of $`K(t,x,x)`$, in the “untraced” (a) situation). One suitable set of such quantities consists of residues and values, at certain points, of the zeta functions associated with the operators $`H`$ and $`\sqrt{H}`$. In that case the proof is an adaptation and generalization of the proof of Lemma 2.2 of \[Gil4, \]. (See also \[CVZ, \].) We omit the details, citing only the crucial equation

$$\zeta _\sqrt{H}(2s)=\zeta _H(s).$$
(7)
An alternative set, with more direct spectral and physical significance, consists of the Riesz means of the eigenvalue density. These are the rigorous counterpart of the formal high-frequency asymptotic expansions of the eigenvalue density whose term-by-term Laplace transforms yield the expansions (3) and (4). The importance of Riesz means in understanding (4), and vice versa, has been developed in \[leipzig, ; riesz, ; FGR, \]. (Papers \[E, ; EF, ; EGV, \] are related.) The present paper demonstrates the usefulness of that work in physics. We shall review it here, using the language appropriate to the “traced” (b) situation.

Riesz means Har ; Hor1 ; Hor2  generalize the Cesàro means used in place of partial sums to accelerate the convergence of Fourier series. Let $`\mu (\lambda )`$ be the number of eigenvalues of $`H`$ less than $`\lambda `$ (the counting function, or “spectral staircase”). Write

$$\lambda =\omega ^2(\omega >0).$$
(8)
(Thus, if $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue, $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the normal mode(s) of the wave equation associated with $`\lambda `$; also, $`\omega `$ is the corresponding eigenvalue of $`\sqrt{H}`$.) For a positive integer $`\alpha `$ the Riesz mean $`R_\lambda ^\alpha \mu (\lambda )`$ is defined by averaging $`\mu `$ over an $`\alpha `$-dimensional simplex:

$$R_\lambda ^\alpha \mu (\lambda )\frac{1}{\alpha !}\lambda ^\alpha ^\lambda \stackrel{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\mu (\stackrel{~}{\lambda })𝑑\stackrel{~}{\lambda },$$
(9)
where $`\alpha `$ successive indefinite integrations are implied. (This operation can be reexpressed as a single integral with a nontrivial kernel function.) A different sequence of Riesz means is defined by integration over $`\omega `$:

$$R_\omega ^\alpha \mu (\omega )\frac{1}{\alpha !}\omega ^\alpha ^\omega \stackrel{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\mu (\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2)𝑑\stackrel{~}{\omega },$$
(10)
Starting from the known properties of the heat-kernel expansion (3), one can prove the finite asymptotic approximations

$$R_\lambda ^\alpha \mu =\underset{s=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}a_{\alpha s}\lambda ^{\frac{ds}{2}}+O\left(\lambda ^{\frac{d\alpha 1}{2}}\right),$$
(11)
$$R_\omega ^\alpha \mu =\underset{s=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}c_{\alpha s}\omega ^{ds}+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s=d+1}{sd\text{ odd}}}{\overset{\alpha }{}}d_{\alpha s}\omega ^{ds}\mathrm{ln}\omega +O\left(\omega ^{d\alpha 1}\mathrm{ln}\omega \right).$$
(12)
Here the $`a`$ coefficients are related quite directly to the heat-kernel coefficients:

$$b_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d+s}{2}+1\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}a_{ss}.$$
(13)
(The $`a_{\alpha s}`$ with $`\alpha s`$ have similar formulas, which we ignore here because those coefficients contain no additional information.) Similarly, the $`c`$ and $`d`$ coefficients are related to the cylinder expansion by \[$`\psi (\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}`$\]

$$e_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}c_{ss}\text{if }ds\text{ is even or positive},$$
(14)
$$f_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}d_{ss},e_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)}[c_{ss}+\psi (d+1)d_{ss}]\text{if }ds\text{ is odd and negative}.$$
(15)
The final link is the connection between $`(c_{ss},d_{ss})`$ and $`a_{ss}`$. In \[riesz, \] the ratio of $`c_{ss}`$ to $`a_{ss}`$ was given as a complicated finite sum of gamma functions. However, hidden in the appendix of \[riesz, \] (because the authors did not appreciate their significance at the time) are formulas that, after some routine manipulation, yield the relatively simple result

$$c_{ss}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\frac{s}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}+\frac{s}{2}+1\right)}{2^s\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}+1\right)}a_{ss}\text{if }ds\text{ is even or positive}.$$
(16)
When $`ds`$ is odd and negative (when the first factor in the numerator of (16) has a pole), \[riesz, \] shows that $`c_{ss}`$ is undetermined by $`a_{ss}`$ while $`d_{ss}`$ comes into existence:

$$d_{ss}=\frac{(1)^{d+1}}{(sd1)!d!}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{s}{2}\frac{d}{2}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d}{2}\frac{s}{2}\right)}a_{ss}\text{if }ds\text{ is odd and negative}.$$
(17)
Equations (5) and (6) now follow from (13)–(17) with aid of

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(z+\frac{1}{2}\right)=\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{12z}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2z),\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(z+1)=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sin}\pi z}.$$
(18)
Note that the Riesz means (9) and (10) provide two families of definitions of an “averaged density of states” with certain weightings. More precisely, $`R_\lambda ^\alpha \mu `$ or $`R_\omega ^\alpha \mu `$ somehow describes the averaged asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalue density $`\mu ^{}(\lambda )`$ at high frequency, but it also contains constants of integration summarizing what happens to $`\mu ^{}(\lambda )`$ at low frequency. (As $`\alpha `$ increases, the smoothing out of the eigenvalue distribution becomes more drastic, so that the expansion (11) or (12) can be meaningfully extended to a higher order; but at the same time, the contribution from the lower frequencies becomes more dominant.) The crucial fact is that the coefficients in the omega-mean expansion (equivalently, those in the cylinder-kernel expansion) contain more information than the coefficients in the lambda-mean (or the heat-kernel) expansion. Specifically, $`c_{ss}`$ for $`sd`$ odd and positive is an independent, nonlocal spectral invariant. In particular, $`sd=1`$ corresponds (modulo local terms) to the Casimir vacuum energy.

## III Energy density, Robin boundary conditions, and parallel plates

The energy density of a scalar field in flat space-time is (e.g., \[BD, \])

$$T_{00}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\frac{\varphi }{t}\right)^2+(14\xi )(\varphi )^24\xi \varphi ^2\varphi \right],$$
(19)
where $`\xi `$ is an arbitrary number called the conformal coupling constant. In curved space-time $`\xi `$ derives from a term (in the Lagrangian or the equation of motion) coupling $`\varphi `$ to the curvature; in a gravitational context, therefore, different values of $`\xi `$ correspond to different physical theories. In flat space, however, $`\xi `$ does not appear in the equation of motion, nor in the spectral decomposition of $`H`$, and the terms proportional to $`\xi `$ in (19) form a total divergence, $`2\xi (\varphi \varphi )`$. The facile conclusion is that all values of $`\xi `$ yield the same total energy and hence are physically equivalent. We shall see, however, that subtleties arise at both classical and quantum levels.

Because it leads to nontrivial phenomena even in one dimension, it is instructive to study the Robin boundary condition,

$$\frac{\varphi }{n}=\gamma \varphi .$$
(20)
Here $`\gamma (x)`$ is, in general, a function defined on the boundary of the region $`M`$, and $`\frac{}{n}`$ is the outward normal derivative. Dimensionally, $`\gamma `$ is an inverse length. Romeo and Saharian RS  have recently made an exhaustive study of the Casimir-like situation of two parallel plates with a constant value of $`\gamma `$ on each plate. (A continuing series of papers by Saharian and coworkers address similar issues in more complicated geometries). Of course, the special cases of the Neumann ($`\gamma =0`$) and Dirichlet (formally, $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$) boundary conditions have been understood for a long time. With the sign convention in (20), our condition of nonnegative spectrum for $`H`$ is guaranteed by taking $`\gamma `$ negative; Romeo and Saharian consider both signs of $`\gamma `$ (which they call $`\beta ^1`$), ignoring the contributions to the energy from modes with negative eigenvalues, which do not affect the renormalization theory.

If $`M`$ is bounded, one should be able to integrate $`T_{00}`$ over $`M`$ to obtain a conserved energy. (For parallel plates, integration in the perpendicular dimension yields an energy per unit plate area.) In fact, in the Robin theory it is necessary to include in the energy a surface term concentrated on the boundary:

$$E_MT_{00}(x)d^dx+\frac{1}{2}(4\xi 1)_M\gamma \varphi ^2𝑑S$$
(21)
(where $`dS`$ is the element of $`(d1)`$-dimensional surface area on the boundary, $`M`$). A calculation, using the equation of motion (1) for $`\varphi `$ and an integration by parts, shows that $`\frac{E}{t}=0`$, the boundary term being essential for this result if $`\gamma 0`$ and $`\xi \frac{1}{4}`$. Such a term was apparently introduced into quantum field theory — through a different rationale — in \[KCD, \]. Classically, the term is presumably related to the fact that a one-dimensional Robin problem models a vibrating string attached to a point mass, which can exchange energy with the string (e.g., \[CZ, , p. 15\]).

Three things should be noted about the boundary term in (21). First, it is a completely classical matter; in particular, it is not a renormalization counterterm (at least, not yet). Second, it arises only in the full Robin theory: it vanishes in the pure Neumann case ($`\gamma =0`$) and the Dirichlet case ($`\varphi =0`$, where the conservation of $`E`$ without that term can be easily verified). Third, even in the Robin case it vanishes if $`\xi =\frac{1}{4}`$. Changing $`\xi `$ (in flat space) amounts to redefining some of the boundary energy as spread throughout the interior of $`M`$ by integration by parts, and $`\frac{1}{4}`$ is the choice that moves the energy entirely into the interior. The striking thing about this value of $`\xi `$ is that it is neither the “minimal” choice ($`\xi =0`$) nor the choice that makes the full theory, including gravitation, conformally invariant. The “conformal” value is well known to be

$$\xi _\mathrm{c}\frac{d1}{4d},$$
(22)
which equals $`0`$ when $`d=1`$, equals $`\frac{1}{6}`$ when $`d=3`$, and approaches $`\frac{1}{4}`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$.

In the quantum field theory one evaluates the expectation values of observables such as $`T_{00}(x)`$ and $`E`$ in the vacuum, or ground state, of the field. The general rule of thumb BD  for doing so, when the observable is classically defined by a quadratic form $`T(\varphi ,\varphi )`$, is to evaluate the associated bilinear form on the normal modes of the field and sum:

$$0|T|0=\underset{n}{}T(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n^{}).$$
(23)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t,x)=(2\omega _n)^{1/2}\varphi _n(x)e^{i\omega _nt}`$, where $`\varphi _n`$ is an eigenvector of $`H`$ with eigenvalue $`\omega _n^2`$; generalization to continuous spectrum is possible. (Henceforth the vacuum bra-ket symbols will be omitted when there is no danger of confusion.) The result of this formal calculation is usually a divergent sum or integral, which must be regularized — perhaps by inserting an exponential ultraviolet cutoff, exactly as in (2) — and ultimately renormalized. (However, the calculations of energy density in \[RS, \] do not require an explicit regularization step; instead, the renormalization is accomplished by isolating and subtracting at the integrand stage the terms corresponding to the vacuum state in infinite flat space.) When such calculations were done some 20–30 years ago for the Dirichlet and Neumann problems with parallel plates, it was found that when $`\xi =\xi _\mathrm{c}`$ the (renormalized) energy density $`T_{00}(x)`$ is constant (and nonzero) everywhere between the plates, thus yielding a finite Casimir energy (per unit area) that must be attributed to the global configuration of the plates, not to an interaction between the field and the boundary per se. (In the Neumann case the contribution of the mode with $`\omega =0`$ is being ignored here. When a zero-frequency mode exists, there is no true vacuum state, but vacuum conditions can be approached arbitrarily closely.) On the other hand, for $`\xi \xi _\mathrm{c}`$ the renormalized energy density includes a contribution strongly concentrated near the plates themselves; that part is, in fact, nonintegrable, hence at least superficially inconsistent with a finite value for the renormalized total energy. When the boundary is curved, there are such near-boundary terms even when the coupling constant takes the conformal value, although the singularity at the boundary is weaker in that case. The recent Robin results RS  are a consistent extension of that picture:

* For a single (flat) plate, the renormalized $`T_{00}`$ vanishes if $`\xi =\xi _\mathrm{c}`$, regardless of $`\gamma `$.
* In general, the energy density around a single plate is proportional to $`\xi \xi _\mathrm{c}`$. If $`x`$ is distance from the plate, $`T_{00}(x)`$ is proportional to $`x^{(d+1)}`$ in the Dirichlet and Neumann cases, and in the general Robin case it has additional terms proportional to $`\gamma ^kx^{k(d+1)}`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$) and $`\mathrm{ln}|\gamma x|`$. (Romeo and Saharian actually find an exact expression for $`T_{00}`$, of which these terms are merely the divergent part of the asymptotic expansion for small $`x`$.)
* For two parallel plates, $`T_{00}`$ is constant in the space between the plates if $`\xi =\xi _\mathrm{c}`$, with a rather complicated dependence on the parameters $`a\gamma _1`$ and $`a\gamma _2`$ ($`a`$ being the plate separation and $`\gamma _i`$ the Robin coefficients on the two plates), which reduces for the pure Dirichlet or Neumann problem to the known $`a^{(d+1)}`$ dependence.
* For parallel plates with $`\xi \xi _\mathrm{c}`$, the result is even more complicated, but it can be written as the sum of the effects of the individual plates (described above) plus an interaction term that is everywhere finite.
* Romeo and Saharian perform an independent calculation of the renormalized total energy by the zeta-function method. This calculation is independent of $`\xi `$, as the eigenvalues do not depend on $`\xi `$. The result includes a term that depends logarithmically on an arbitrary scale parameter — indicating that a logarithmic divergence would appear in some other regularization methods. This term is independent of $`a`$, hence presumably unobservable.
* The authors demonstrate a certain formal consistency between their energy-density and total-energy calculations. In particular, for a single plate they find

$$E_{\mathrm{vol}}_0^{\mathrm{}}T_{00}(x)𝑑x=4d(\xi \xi _\mathrm{c})E,E_{\mathrm{surf}}\frac{1}{2}(4\xi 1)\gamma 0|\varphi (0)^2|0=d(14\xi )E,$$
(24)
where $`E=E_{\mathrm{vol}}+E_{\mathrm{surf}}`$ is the putative total energy per unit area (on one side) of the plate. However, they point out that the integrals defining the three quantities in (24) are actually divergent. One can eliminate the volume term by taking $`\xi =\xi _\mathrm{c}`$, or one can eliminate the surface term by taking $`\xi =\frac{1}{4}`$, but not both at once.

In view of the last point, a strong case can be made that the most convenient choice of $`\xi `$ is $`\frac{1}{4}`$, rather than the traditional values, $`0`$ or $`\xi _\mathrm{c}`$. One can then avoid accounting for and renormalizing the surface term, and one can be confident that any volume contribution must be taken seriously, not dismissed as an artifact.

We have summarized the paper \[RS, \] at some length because the parallel-plate Robin system is such an excellent, explicitly solvable model of the phenomena and issues that arise in more general systems, notably cavities with curved boundaries. The principal extrinsic curvatures of a boundary surface have the dimension of inverse length and enter calculations or expansions of energy density and total energy in very much the same way as does the Robin coefficient $`\gamma `$. The leading divergence in $`T_{00}`$ as the boundary is approached is ubiquitous when $`\xi `$ does not have its conformal value; unlike the Dirichlet case, the classical surface term in the total energy of the Robin system interferes with the facile dismissal of this problem as some kind of artifact of a poor definition of energy density (whereas the nonexistence of the surface term in the Dirichlet case shows that the problem can’t be resolved by a simple cancellation of volume and surface contributions, either). The higher-order terms in the expansion of $`T_{00}`$ near the boundary, which appear for any $`\xi `$ when $`\gamma 0`$, are closely analogous to terms that appear near curved boundaries for the electromagnetic field, as well as the conformally coupled scalar one.

## IV Schematics of the expansions

Consider now a general cavity whose boundary is characterized by an extrinsic curvature tensor, $`\kappa (x)`$, and also equipped with a Robin function, $`\gamma (x)`$. The structure of the heat expansion (3), for the trace, is

$$K(t)t^{d/2}\left[V+St^{1/2}+(\kappa +\gamma )t+(\kappa ^2+\gamma ^2+\kappa \gamma )t^{3/2}+(\kappa ^3+\mathrm{})t^2+\mathrm{}\right].$$
(25)
Here, and in all similar equations later, all the terms are indicated very schematically: all numerical coefficients, the integrations over $`M`$, and the tensorial nature of $`\kappa `$ when $`d3`$ are suppressed, as are terms involving derivatives of $`\gamma `$ or $`\kappa `$ (which are not important in low orders and dimensions). $`V`$ is the volume of $`M`$, and $`S`$ is the surface area of $`M`$ (more precisely, the $`(d1)`$-dimensional volume of $`M`$).

The schematic form of the (traced) cylinder expansion (4) now follows by the theorem in Sec. II. The significance of the structure depends on the dimension. In the following formulas, the coefficients in boldface are the new, nonlocal terms, $`e_s`$, and those in square brackets are constant terms, which do not contribute to the regularized energy,

$$E(t)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{dT}{dt}.$$
(26)
(The trace of the operator $`e^{t\sqrt{H}}`$ is $`_ne^{\omega _nt}`$, so (26) is equivalent to (2).)

$$d=1:T(t)Vt^1+[S]+\gamma t\mathrm{ln}t+𝐄t+\gamma ^2t^2+\gamma ^3t^3\mathrm{ln}t+𝐅t^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(27)
(In dimension $`1`$ there is no curvature, and the “surface area” $`S`$ degenerates to the number of endpoints of the region — usually $`2`$. The $`\gamma `$ terms are also sums over the endpoints.)

$$d=2:T(t)Vt^2+St^1+[\kappa +\gamma ]+(\kappa ^2+\gamma ^2+\kappa \gamma )t\mathrm{ln}t+𝐄t+(\kappa ^3+\mathrm{})t^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(28)
$$d=3:T(t)Vt^3+St^2+(\kappa +\gamma )t^1+[\kappa ^2+\gamma ^2+\kappa \gamma ]+(\kappa ^3+\mathrm{})t\mathrm{ln}t+𝐄t+\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
The untraced kernel expansions can be discussed similarly, but there is less to say. In the cavity setting, where there are no potentials or spatial curvature, the local heat expansion is trivial:

$$K(t,x,x)t^{d/2}+O(t^{\mathrm{}}).$$
(30)
The local cylinder expansion, therefore, has the structure

$$T(t,x,x)t^d+𝐄(x)t+\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
Let $`T_{00}(t,x)`$ be the energy density, regularized by an exponential cutoff as discussed below (23). The relation between $`T_{00}(t,x)`$ and $`T(t,x,x)`$ is less straightforward than that between their global counterparts, $`E(t)`$ and $`T(t)`$. The analogue of (26) yields only the terms in (19) involving time derivatives. The other terms can be obtained naples  by applying appropriate spatial partial derivatives to the integral kernel of the operator

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{H}}e^{t\sqrt{H}},$$
(32)
which has not been as extensively studied as the cylinder operator but has a very similar nature. (Note that the original cylinder kernel is the time derivative of this new one.) For the qualitative considerations of the present paper it is not necessary to delve further into the details; it is not misleading to think of $`T_{00}(t,x)`$ as “essentially” the $`t`$-derivative of $`T(t,x,x)`$.

This is as far as the heat kernel can take us. To find $`𝐄(x)`$ one must do independent calculations. But the literature, notably \[DC, ; KCD, ; RS, \], provides considerable information about the behavior of the renormalized $`T_{00}(x)`$ as $`x`$ approaches a boundary. Our task now is to compare these expansions in distance from the boundary (which we once again denote by $`x`$) to the expansions (in $`t`$) of the regularized total energy, the derivatives of (27)–(29). The point is that the finite, renormalized energy density generally is not integrable up to the boundary, and if such divergent terms are taken seriously (and not compensated by postulated terms concentrated exactly on the boundary KCD , whose discussion we postpone to Sec. V), then for consistency they must somehow be reflected in terms of $`E(t)`$ that become infinite in the limit $`t0`$ and hence would be removed in a conventional renormalization of the energy.

### IV.1 Dimension 1

The energy density found by Romeo and Saharian RS  near a Robin endpoint (with $`\xi =\frac{1}{4}`$) can be correlated with the derivative of (27) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\hfill T_{00}& & \mathrm{}& +& \frac{S}{x^2}& +& \frac{\gamma }{x}& +& \gamma ^2\mathrm{ln}x& +& \text{finite}\hfill \\ & & & & \underset{\mathrm{?}}{}& & & & & & \\ \hfill E& & \frac{V}{t^2}& & & +& \gamma \mathrm{ln}t& +& (𝐄+\gamma )& +& \gamma ^2t+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
The leading $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`T_{00}`$ is the universal, $`x`$-independent formal vacuum energy of infinite empty flat space, which everyone agrees should be discarded in renormalization. It is included here because it clearly corresponds directly to the volume divergence in $`E`$. The arrows indicate how other terms in the two series might be related, on the basis of their dependence on $`\gamma `$. (Whether all these arrows represent genuinely existing relationships remains to be investigated by a thorough and rigorous calculation of $`T_{00}(t,x,x)`$, followed by an integration over $`x`$ with $`t`$ finite but approaching $`0`$. That project is beyond our present scope.) The most striking observation is that the “surface” term in the density has completely disappeared from the total energy. (Recall that the corresponding term in (27) was destroyed by the differentiation.) The $`1/x`$ term in the density might be held responsible for the $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ term in the energy, as well as part of the finite term. The $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ term is integrable, and its integral is presumably included in $`𝐄`$. Finally, we note that all the explicitly $`\gamma `$-dependent terms in $`E`$ will be independent of the length of the cavity, so they will not contribute to the Casimir force between the endpoints (usually considered the only quantity of experimental relevance). The force must come entirely from $`𝐄`$.

### IV.2 Dimension 2

From now on, for brevity, the Robin function, $`\gamma `$, will not be explicitly indicated in the displays (34) and (35), because it enters in the same way as the curvature, $`\kappa `$. I do not know a reference for the dependence of $`T_{00}(x)`$ upon $`\kappa `$ in dimension $`2`$, but it appears to be dictated by dimensional analysis and analogies with the Robin formula RS  and the three-dimensional results DC .

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\hfill T_{00}& & \mathrm{}& +& \frac{S}{x^3}& +& \frac{\kappa }{x^2}& +& \frac{\kappa ^2}{x}& +& \kappa ^3\mathrm{ln}x& +& \text{finite}\hfill \\ & & & & & & \underset{\mathrm{?}}{}& & & & & & \\ \hfill E& & \frac{V}{t^3}& +& \frac{S}{t^2}& & & +& \kappa ^2\mathrm{ln}t& +& (𝐄+\kappa ^2)& +& \kappa ^3t+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
Most noteworthy here are the term $`\kappa ^2/x`$ in the density and the corresponding term $`\kappa ^2\mathrm{ln}t`$ in the total energy. The analogous terms in dimension 3 are proportional to $`\kappa ^3`$. When total energy calculations are done for both the inside and the outside of a boundary surface (a “shell” modeling a thin electrical conductor), it has often been noted that divergent contributions proportional to odd powers of $`\kappa `$ will cancel, because $`\kappa `$ has opposite signs on the two sides. This fact gives rise to an important difference between even and odd dimensions. In even dimensions, the $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ term in $`E`$ is proportional to an even power of $`\kappa `$, so it survives even for thin shells. Logarithmic terms in $`E(t)`$ regularized by ultraviolet cutoff are precisely the divergences that persist in analytic regularization schemes, giving rise, under even the most liberal interpretation BVW , at least to ambiguous finite terms in the renormalized energy that depend logarithmically on an arbitrary mass scale. In dimensional regularization, the $`\kappa ^d`$ divergence shows up as a pole at each even value of $`d`$ in the total Casimir energy associated with a spherical shell Milton . Here we have seen in a more direct, elementary way that such a term is dictated by the known form of the heat kernel.

### IV.3 Dimension 3

We are now in the domain of the classic results of Deutsch and Candelas DC  and Kennedy, Critchley, and Dowker KCD , which also apply to the electromagnetic field.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}\hfill T_{00}& & \mathrm{}& +& \frac{S}{x^4}& +& \frac{\kappa }{x^3}& +& \frac{\kappa ^2}{x^2}& +& \frac{\kappa ^3}{x}& +& O(\mathrm{ln}x)\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \underset{\mathrm{?}}{}& & & & \hfill \\ \hfill E& & \frac{V}{t^4}& +& \frac{S}{t^3}& +& \frac{\kappa }{t^2}& & & +& \kappa ^3\mathrm{ln}t& +& (𝐄+\kappa ^3)+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
Let us review the litany of special features DC ; Cand1  that make the Casimir force on a spherical conducting shell finite, even when calculated by integrating the energy density right up to the boundary: The volume term is removed by the local renormalization. The surface term vanishes for electromagnetism because of a cancellation between electric and magnetic contributions. The $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa ^3`$ terms cancel (between inside and outside) for any thin shell. That leaves $`\kappa ^2`$. In dimension 2, $`\kappa `$ is a symmetric matrix with two eigenvalues, $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ (the principal curvatures). There are thus two independent quadratic invariants to be integrated over $`M`$, which may be chosen as

$$D\kappa _1\kappa _2,\mathrm{\Delta }(\kappa _1\kappa _2)^2.$$
(36)
For a sphere, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identically zero. For any closed surface, $`_MD(x)𝑑S`$ is a topological invariant by the Gauss–Bonnet theorem, so its derivative with respect to the sphere’s radius vanishes. (More generally, for any bounded region $`M`$, any quadratic integral of the type $`_M\kappa ^2𝑑S`$ is constant under a shape-preserving magnification of $`M`$, even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is involved. Note that this observation does not settle how the energy per unit length of an infinitely long cylinder depends on the radius, since the scaling of the area is different in that case.) As emphasized by Candelas DC ; Cand1 ; Cand2 , one would nevertheless expect infinite energy differences to result from shape-changing deformations of a closed surface, because of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term. It is therefore significant that no term of the type $`\kappa ^2/t`$ can appear in the regularized total energy, $`E(t)`$, because of the structure of the traced cylinder expansion, (4) or (29). We return to this issue in the next section.

## V Implications

The theory of vacuum energy in electromagnetism has increasing experimental verification and many indirect implications for observable phenomena. Nevertheless, the simplest and crispest theoretical models tend to be idealizations that are not directly testable. Perhaps for this reason, controversies persist about renormalization procedures and the physical significance of various divergences. These disputes fall into two main categories.

First, there is the broad question of whether “logarithmic” divergences are a sign of a bad model, or just an inherent renormalization ambiguity. Among the divergences that arise in energies regularized by point-splitting or ultraviolet cutoffs, such as the second line of (35), only those proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ survive Kay ; BVW ; CVZ  in analytic regularization schemes, where they appear as poles at the physical values of the regularization parameters. The analytic methods therefore give finite energies automatically in many problems, without a need for a renormalization subtraction, but in some other problems are embarrassed by a surviving divergence whose removal introduces an unavoidable ambiguity parametrized by an arbitrary length or mass scale. Some authors KCD ; BVW  regard this as not at all a problem, while others regard the poles as “truly disturbing” \[Milton, , p. 199\] or at least puzzling.

Second, and specific to Casimir calculations, is the question of whether the nonintegrable divergences in the renormalized energy density near boundaries must be taken seriously, even in cases when the renormalized total energy (or the observable force) is finite. In fact, how can such a divergence even be regarded as logically consistent with a finite total energy? Both Kennedy et al. KCD  and Milton and coworkers MdRS ; Milball ; Milton  trust the calculations of finite total energies and forces more than the calculations of local energy densities. Kennedy et al. argued that the infinities in $`T_{00}(x)`$ must be compensated by delta-function terms concentrated exactly on the boundary itself, so that the finite total energy predicted by zeta-function calculations will result. (The boundary term in (21) originated in this discussion in \[KCD, \], without a clear explanation of how it could be relevant when $`\xi =\frac{1}{4}`$ or $`\gamma =0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.) Milton writes \[Milton, , p. 237\], “… \[T\]he local vacuum-fluctuation energy density is to a large extent meaningless.… \[D\]ivergences in the energy which go like a power of the cutoff are probably unobservable, being subsumed in the properties of matter.”

On the other side, Candelas and Deutsch DC ; Cand1 ; Cand2  argued that the boundary infinities in the energy density are real (within the theory) and must be regarded as a defect of an overly idealized model. This position has recently been reexpressed by Graham, Jaffe, and coworkers GJ2 ; GJ3 ; GJ4 ; GO ; OG . The argument, stated in electromagnetic terms, is that no real material is perfectly conducting at arbitrarily high frequencies. When an idealized boundary is replaced by a more realistic model of the interaction of the quantized field with other matter, the infinite pileup of energy near the boundary will become finite, but possibly very large and definitely physically real. A strong argument for this position is that the energy-momentum tensor acts as the source of the gravitational field, so a nonintegrable singularity in it is physically unacceptable, even if the total energy comes out finite by virtue of a cancellation (as happens in some scenarios involving thin shells).

The present paper does not resolve all these issues, but it casts some light on them and suggests some directions for future research that will clarify them further, as indicated in the following remarks.

### V.1 Thin shells; Robin divergences

Much has been made of the disappearance of some divergences by cancellation in the case of thin shell boundaries. The dimensional dependence (even vs. odd) of this effect is quite clear from (33)–(35) and their antecedents. Those formulas also indicate analogous divergences specific to boundaries with nontrivial Robin coefficients, which were discovered in \[RS, \] but could have been anticipated from an understanding of the relation between vacuum energy and the heat kernel. Note that there is no reason to expect any cancellation of exterior and interior Robin effects for a thin boundary.

### V.2 Disappearing $`x^2`$ terms; total derivatives; conductors with anisotropic curvature

A pervasive feature of (33)–(35) is that terms in $`T_{00}`$ proportional to $`x^2`$ ($`x`$ being distance to the boundary) never have counterparts in the regularized total energy. On grounds of dimensional analysis such terms would be expected to appear in $`E(t)`$ and be proportional to $`t^1`$, but the derivation of $`E(t)`$ from the heat and cylinder kernels shows that they are not there! (The crucial fact is that terms proportional to $`t^n\mathrm{ln}t`$ occur in the cylinder kernel only if $`n`$ is odd and positive — in particular, not for $`n=0`$.) This absence of $`t^1`$ terms was noted by Cognola et al. CVZ , and very recently by Bernasconi et al. BGH , who found that it persists when the exponential cutoff is replaced by a Gaussian one.

In dimension $`1`$ the $`x^2`$ term is precisely the one associated with nonconformal coupling — that is, the leading boundary divergence, which (in any dimension, but for a scalar field) does not occur for $`\xi =\xi _\mathrm{c}`$ and arises for other values of $`\xi `$ from a term proportional to $`(\xi \xi _\mathrm{c})(\varphi \varphi )`$ in the formal energy density (cf. (19) and ensuing discussion). Since this term is a total derivative, it ought to give $`0`$ when integrated. Effectively this seems to be true, since the renormalized total energy is finite and independent of $`\xi `$. As has been recognized (if not “understood”) since \[DC, \] and \[KCD, \], integration over $`x`$ somehow does not commute with renormalization. There is a simpler and completely understood analogous situation with the heat kernel: The local heat expansion (30) is nonuniform in $`x`$, and hence integrating it over $`M`$ does not yield the correct trace expansion, (25). The interesting terms in the latter come from a part of $`K(t,x,x)`$ that concentrates entirely on the boundary in the limit $`t0`$. It is tempting to think of the boundary terms in $`T_{00}`$ (see (33)–(35)) as the cylinder-kernel analogues of these boundary terms in $`K`$, but they are not: they are nonvanishing even when $`t=0`$. More likely, there is some other part of $`T(t,x,x)`$ that concentrates right on the boundary in the limit and partly or wholly compensates the integrals of the energy divergences near the boundary. This would corroborate, within the framework of ultraviolet regularization, the proposal of Kennedy et al. KCD , made in the framework of zeta-function regularization. (It would not, however, solve the problem of a singular Einstein equation.)

We propose, therefore, a program to calculate $`T(t,x,x)`$ in various models for finite $`t`$ and to integrate it over $`x`$, and then to examine the limit $`t0`$. The expectation is that the results (including contributions from the kernel of (32) if necessary) will be fully consistent with the direct regularization and renormalization of the total energy, and that the details of the process will demonstrate precisely how the terms in the expansion of the renormalized $`T_{00}(x)`$ near the boundary are related, consistently, with the divergent terms in $`E(t)`$. Some steps in this program can already be extracted from the literature: Parentani Par  has made a similar observation in the context of a uniformly accelerating boundary. Ford and Svaiter FS , also with an eye to resolving the paradox of the total energy of the nonconformally coupled scalar field, studied a statistically fluctuating boundary. Their formulas seem mathematically identical to the results of ultraviolet regularization with an arbitrary (not necessarily exponential) cutoff function, with a fluctuation parameter in the place of $`t`$. They find (in dimension $`3`$) that the nonconformal term of $`T_{00}`$ oscillates from negative to positive and back to negative, in such a way its integral is indeed zero. Finally, Graham et al. GJ3 ; GJ4 ; OG ; GO  replace the ideal boundary with an extended object modeled by a second quantized field. Their results are very similar to those of \[FS, \] in dimension $`3`$ and have one fewer oscillation in dimension $`2`$. (Olum and Graham OG  also point out that the boundary itself, as a physical object, has an energy density of its own that can be expected to swamp the energy induced in the scalar field; nevertheless, they conclude that the total energy density remains negative in a small region displaced slightly from the boundary.) All the available results suggest that the cancellation is insensitive to the functional form of the ultraviolet cutoff, and also to its physical interpretation (fluctuating boundary, soft boundary, or mere mathematical device).

In dimensions greater than $`1`$ the leading boundary divergence associated with a nonconformal stress tensor does not go as $`x^2`$, so the additional boundary terms that render the regularized energy $`\xi `$-independent are not related (at least, not directly) to the $`x^2`$-versus-$`t^1`$ phenomenon. Instead, that phenomenon would appear to have some other implications. In particular, in dimension $`3`$ it indicates that $`E`$ contains no term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\kappa _1\kappa _2)^2`$. This conclusion seems to be robust against changes in the form of the ultraviolet cutoff BGH . But local density calculations indicated to Candelas and Deutsch DC ; Cand1 ; Cand2  that that term would be not only large but negative (persisting into the renormalized energy for a physical conductor), thereby rendering a conducting foil unstable against wrinkling. This may well be true for a physical, imperfect conductor. However, in the framework of formal ultraviolet regularization of the idealized theory, our conjecture is that there is a compensating positive term that concentrates right on the boundary as the regularization parameter is taken to $`0`$, thereby removing the apparent conflict between local and global calculations. Clearly, detailed calculations are needed to verify this conjecture and to establish its relevance to realistic conductors. (Incidentally, the sharp-eyed modern reader may notice that the original argument concerning the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term in Appendix A of \[DC, \] incorrectly assumed that it is correlated with a term of order $`\omega ^1`$ in a formal expansion of the counting function $`\mu `$. Indeed, Candelas pointed out in a later paper (Cand1, , Sec. 7.3) that no such term exists in $`\mu `$, but that its alleged effects can still arise in the integrated contribution of the oscillatory part of the eigenvalue distribution. In the terminology of our Sec. II, the relevant terms in the cylinder kernel and in $`T_{00}`$ are associated with constants of integration in Riesz means rather than with the local behavior of $`\mu ^{}(\lambda )`$, or even $`\mu (\lambda )`$, at large $`\lambda `$. Therefore, this tangential technical issue in no way invalidates the physical conclusions of \[DC, \].)

### V.3 Genuine surface effects

On the other hand, almost certainly there are some real near-boundary energies. In (33)–(35) one observes terms of order $`x^1`$ in the renormalized energy density, which appear to be related to the divergent terms of order $`\mathrm{ln}t`$ in the regularized total energy (although explicit calculations, of the sort described above, should be performed to confirm this). As previously mentioned, terms of the latter type are agreed to yield terms with inherently ambiguous coefficients in the renormalized energy. Also, terms of order $`\mathrm{ln}x`$ in $`T_{00}`$ are integrable and presumably contribute part of the finite term in $`E`$.

### V.4 Nonrelativistic Casimir energy?

On p. 30 of \[Milton, \], Milton raises the question of why, mathematically, there is no Casimir energy in nonrelativistic quantum theory. (Physically, such energy can’t exist because the relativistic effect vanishes exponentially with large field mass.) He mimics the relativistic zeta-function calculation — for parallel plates with Dirichlet conditions — and finds an expression containing a gamma function in the denominator, whose pole forces the quantity to vanish in the relevant limit. The same conclusion can be reached more transparently from our point of view. The formal energy is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\frac{\omega _n^2}{2m},$$

which can be regularized in analogy with (26) as

$$\frac{1}{4m}\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\underset{n}{}e^{t\omega _n}.$$

But the sum here is simply $`T(t)`$, which has, as in (33)–(35), the schematic form

$$T(t)\text{divergent terms}+𝐄t+(\kappa ^{d+1}+\mathrm{}+\gamma ^{d+1})t^2+𝐅t^3+\mathrm{},$$

the coefficient of the $`t^2`$ term being dictated by the heat-kernel expansion. Therefore, in the renormalized energy one gets

$$\frac{d^2T}{dt^2}|_{t=0}=0$$

because $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$ are zero in the system studied.

In summary, what we have shown is that various results for specific models that previously emerged from forests of gamma and Riemann zeta functions now are easy consequences of the known general forms of the heat and cylinder expansions. There are, to be sure, enough gamma functions in \[riesz, \] and Sec. II to satisfy anyone, but they are handled once and for all in the general theory, rather than arising in each concrete calculation out of some physically opaque analytic continuation. With respect to the controversies over global surface-energy renormalization versus local energy-density calculations, we have not taken a position squarely on either side. Rather, we have presented evidence that each side is correct in certain respects. In particular, a mechanism of partial surface cancellation has been pointed out that shows promise of reconciling the two points of view. For the leading boundary divergence of the scalar field, this mechanism has been fairly well established by other researchers Par ; FS ; GO ; for the $`x^2`$ divergence, it is conjectured by the present author as the only visible way of restoring consistency between the mathematical structures of the local and global asymptotic expansions.

###### Acknowledgements.

This material was first presented at the Workshop on Casimir Forces at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; I am grateful to the organizers for the invitation and to many of the participants, especially Larry Ford, Nami Svaiter, and Kim Milton, for comments and bibliographical information. The manuscript was written during a semester at MSRI, and I acknowledge the financial generosity of both that Institute and my home department that made that stay possible. Joel Bondurant aided in the study of the energy density and its boundary term in their dependence on $`\xi `$ and $`\gamma `$.


format: text

text:
# Optimal multiqubit operations for Josephson charge qubits

Currently at \]VTT Information Technology, Microsensing, POB 1207, 02044 VTT, Finland

## Abstract

We introduce a method for finding the required control parameters for a quantum computer that yields the desired quantum algorithm without invoking elementary gates. We concentrate on the Josephson charge-qubit model, but the scenario is readily extended to other physical realizations. Our strategy is to numerically find any desired double- or triple-qubit gate. The motivation is the need to significantly accelerate quantum algorithms in order to fight decoherence.

quantum computation, Josephson effect, numerical optimization  preprint:

Quantum computing algorithms are realized through unitary operators that result from the temporal evolution of the quantum system under consideration. Typically, these are achieved with a sequence of universal gates elementary  which act analogously to the elementary gates of digital computers. Quantum computers hold the promise of exponential speedup with respect to classical computers owing to the massive parallelism arising from the superposition of quantum bits, qubits; for introductions to quantum computing and quantum information processing, see Refs. gruska . Several different physical implementations of quantum computing have been suggested; in particular quantum computing with Cooper pairs has been proposed averin .

Superconducting circuits schon  feature controlled fabrication and scalability You ; their drawback is that the leads inevitably couple the qubit to the environment, thereby introducing decoherence zurek . In a superconductor, the number of the Cooper pairs and the phase of the wavefunction constitute conjugate variables. The majority of investigations has focused either on the charge regime where the number of Cooper pairs is well defined nakamura , or on the flux regime where the phase is well defined pc . Qubits utilizing current-driven large Josephson junctions have been tested experimentally martinis . The decisive experimental progress reported in Ref. vion  has demonstrated that it is possible to realize $`10^4`$ elementary quantum gates with Josephson-junction qubits. Here we consider Josephson charge qubits.

In this Letter we propose a method to construct arbitrary two- or three-qubit quantum gates by solving the numerical optimization problem of control parameters for a Josephson charge qubit register. We show that it is possible to numerically find the required control-parameter sequences even for nontrivial three-qubit gates without employing elementary gates. Recently, it has been suggested ours  how to solve a similar problem in the context of holonomic quantum computation zanardi , where time does not appear as an explicit parameter. In the present context, the time evolution appears through the Schrödinger equation.

The motivation underlying the investigation of this approach is the need to overcome effects of decoherence. The implementation of a quantum algorithm which is composed of elementary gates is rarely optimal in execution time since the majority of qubits is most of the time inactive, see Fig. 1. The decomposition into elementary gates works extremely well with classical digital computers. However, in the context of quantum computing the number of consecutive operations is strictly limited by the short time window set by interactions with the environment. It is therefore of prime importance to concentrate on the implementations of quantum algorithms siewert ; palao ; wang . We consider the construction of quantum algorithms out of larger building blocks. Whereas careful design and manufacturing can significantly increase the decoherence time, our scenario can serve to reduce the number of the operations needed.

The Josephson charge qubit utilizes the number degree of freedom of a nanoscale Josephson-junction circuit. The states of the qubit correspond to either zero or one extra Cooper pair residing on the superconducting island, usually denoted by $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, respectively. The Cooper pairs can tunnel coherently to a superconducting electrode. The charging energy of the qubit can be tuned with the help of an external gate voltage, whereas tunneling between the states is controlled with the help of an external magnetic flux.

The explicit single-qubit Hamiltonian for the qubit $`i`$ is

$$H_{\text{single}}^i=\frac{1}{2}B_z^i\sigma _z\frac{1}{2}B_x^i\sigma _x,$$
(1)
where the standard notation for Pauli matrices has been utilized. Here $`B_z^i`$ is a tunable parameter which depends on the gate voltage, while $`B_x^i`$ can be controlled with the help of a flux through the SQUID. Note that setting $`B_z^i=B_x^i=0`$ results in degeneracy. At the degeneracy point, there will be no change in the physical state of the system. In the case of single-qubit gates, it is easy to see from this model that any rotation in $`SU(2)`$ can be performed on the qubits. Note that $`U(2)`$ is not available since the Hamiltonian is traceless. In general, we cannot achieve $`U(2^N)`$ for $`N`$ qubits since the Hamiltonian of the entire quantum register turns out to be traceless. However, the global phase factor is not physical since it corresponds to a redefinition of the zero level of energy.

Qubits can be coupled by connecting them in parallel to an inductor, see Fig. 2. This scenario has the benefit of allowing for a longer decoherence time and that of being tunable. The resulting coupling term in the Hamiltonian between the qubits $`i`$ and $`j`$ is then of the form

$$H_{\text{coupling}}=CB_x^iB_x^j\sigma _y\sigma _y,$$
(2)
where $`C`$ is a positive parameter depending on the capacitances of the qubits and also on the inductance. It follows from Eqs. (12) that one can apply nontrivial two-qubit operations by simultaneously turning on the SQUIDs of the two qubits, although the $`\sigma _x`$-term will be turned on as well. All the other qubits must have their SQUIDs turned off. On the other hand, one-qubit $`\sigma _x`$-operations require that all but one SQUID is turned on. Note that in the present context it is actually impossible to perform independent operations on any two subsets of the quantum register due to the inductive coupling. Since one must also take into account the decoherence mechanism, it is not practical to let most qubits reside at their degeneracy point. The question arises whether it would rather prove more efficient to try and find some scheme of finding larger quantum operations, instead of using elementary gates.

To tackle the challenge posed above, we concentrate on finding quantum gates numerically. The structure of the Josephson-qubit Hamiltonian is such that it is not immediately transparent how one would actually construct even the basic controlled-NOT gate. We accomplish this by considering loops $`\gamma (t)`$ in the control-parameter space spanned by $`\{B_x^j(t)\}`$ and $`\{B_z^j(t)\}`$. Therefore, the function $`\gamma (t)`$ is of the vector form

$$\gamma (t)=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}B_z^1(t)& \mathrm{}& B_z^N(t)& B_x^1(t)& \mathrm{}& B_x^N(t)\end{array}\right]^T,$$
(3)
where we have assumed a register of $`N`$ qubits. The temporal evolution induces the unitary operator

$$U=𝒯\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{\gamma (t)}H(\gamma (t))𝑑t\right),$$
(4)
where $`𝒯`$ stands for the time-ordering operator and we choose $`\mathrm{}=1`$. The integration is performed along the path formed by $`\gamma (t)`$ where the loop starts at the origin, i.e., at the degeneracy point. We will restrict the path to a special class of loops, which form polygons in the parameter space. Thus the parameters vary in time at a piecewise constant speed, and none of the parameters is turned on or off instantaneously. We further set the time spent in traversing each edge of the polygon equal to unity. This limitation could be relaxed, in which case the length of each edge in time would be an additional free parameter. We also set $`C=1`$ in Eq. (2). This can be achieved by properly fabricating the inductor, but we have every reason to believe that the algorithm will work for other choices of $`C`$ as well. Hence, in order to evaluate Eq. (4) one only needs to specify the coordinates of the vertices of the polygon, which we denote collectively as $`X_\gamma `$. Numerically, it is easy to evaluate the unitary operator in a stable manner by further dividing the loop $`\gamma (t)`$ into tiny intervals that take the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to traverse. If $`\gamma _i`$ denotes all the values of the parameters in the midpoint of the $`i^{th}`$ interval, and $`m`$ is the number of such intervals, then we find to a good approximation

$$U_{X_\gamma }\mathrm{exp}(iH(\gamma _m)\mathrm{\Delta }t)\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(iH(\gamma _1)\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(5)
We now proceed to transform the problem of finding the desired unitary operator into an optimization task. Namely, any $`\widehat{U}`$ can be found as the solution of the problem of minimizing the error functional

$$f(X_\gamma )=\widehat{U}U_{X_\gamma }_F$$
(6)
over all possible values of $`X_\gamma `$. Here $`_F`$ is the Frobenius trace norm defined as $`A_F=\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}\left(A^{}A\right)}`$. The number of adjustable vertices of the polygon $`\nu `$ is kept fixed from the beginning. One needs to have enough vertices to parameterize the unitary group $`SU(2^N)`$. The dimension of this group is $`2^{2N}1`$ and there are $`2N`$ parameters for each vertex. Thus, we must have $`2N\nu 2^{2N}1.`$ We use $`\nu =12`$ for the three-qubit gates and $`\nu =4`$ for the two-qubit gates. Within this formulation the method of finding the desired gates is similar to the recently introduced method of finding holonomic quantum gates ours . Thus we again expect the minimization landscape to be rough and we apply the robust polytope algorithm poly  for the minimization.

We concentrate on finding two- and three-qubit gates, since one-qubit gates can be trivially constructed with the help of Euler angles. A larger quantum gate could be performed by factoring it into two- and three-qubit operations, and the implementation for these could be found numerically. It seems that quantum operations for four, five or more qubits could be found with the same method, assuming that sufficient computing resources are available. However, even in the case of three-qubit gates the optimization task becomes challenging and we need to use parallel programming. In the parallel three-qubit program, since the function evaluations of $`f(X_\gamma )`$ require a major part of the computation, we distribute the workload such that each processor calculates the contribution of a single edge of the polygon. In addition, one processor handles the minimization routine.

Let us turn to the results. First, we attempt to construct a gate equivalent to the controlled-NOT, namely

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{4}\right)\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right].$$
(7)
The phase factor is needed in order for the gate to belong to $`SU(4)`$. It is already hard to see from the form of the Hamiltonian how this gate would be carried out in the present setting. Figure 3 illustrates an implementation of this gate that has been obtained by minimizing the error function in Eq. (6); the error is negligible. This example clearly illustrates the potential of our method.

As a second example, we construct the two-qubit Fourier transform. The quantum Fourier transform (see e.g., Ref. gruska ) is given in the case of two qubits by

$$F_2=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& i& 1& i\\ 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& i& 1& i\end{array}\right].$$
(8)
Furthermore, we need to multiply this by $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{8}\right)`$ in order to find a gate that belongs to $`SU(4)`$. Figure 4 shows the resulting loop that has been found with the help of the algorithm.

In general, the optimization task for two-qubit gates can be performed quite easily with the help of personal computers. However, finding three-qubit gates is already quite time-consuming. It proves worth the extra effort to do this, though.

The three-qubit quantum Fourier transform is gruska

$$F_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}& & & & & & & \\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& \omega & \omega ^2& \omega ^3& \omega ^4& \omega ^5& \omega ^6& \omega ^7\\ 1& \omega ^2& \omega ^4& \omega ^6& 1& \omega ^2& \omega ^4& \omega ^6\\ 1& \omega ^3& \omega ^6& \omega & \omega ^4& \omega ^7& \omega ^2& \omega ^5\\ 1& \omega ^4& 1& \omega ^4& 1& \omega ^4& 1& \omega ^4\\ 1& \omega ^5& \omega ^2& \omega ^7& \omega ^4& \omega ^1& \omega ^6& \omega ^3\\ 1& \omega ^6& \omega ^4& \omega ^2& 1& \omega ^6& \omega ^4& \omega ^2\\ 1& \omega ^7& \omega ^6& \omega ^5& \omega ^4& \omega ^3& \omega ^2& \omega \end{array}\right],$$
(9)
where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{4}\right)`$. Since $`det(F_3)=i`$ we must set $`\widehat{U}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\pi }{16}\right)F_3`$ such that $`\widehat{U}SU(8)`$. As an evidence of the success of the three-qubit algorithm, we have in Fig. 5 plotted the implementation of the three-qubit Fourier transform. We conclude from these three examples that it is possible to find far more powerful optimal implementations of multiqubit quantum gates with the help of the minimization scheme.

To further assess the strength of the technique, we compare the number of steps that are required to carry out the three-qubit Fourier transform using only two-qubit gates with the number of steps required when using the full three-qubit implementation of Fig. 5. The two-qubit implementation 111We assume that one-qubit operations are embedded into two-qubit gates. requires effectively four gates, see Fig. 1. Since these gates would have to be performed sequentially, we would need five polygon edges per two-qubit operation. This results in 20 edges for the whole operation. Using elementary gates would require far more edges. Our optimized three-qubit Fourier transform, though, only requires 13 edges. Since each edge contributes the same amount to the operation time, we conclude that our implementation is improved. What is more, not all multiqubit gates can be decomposed as conveniently as the Fourier transform. For them the gain is higher. Thus, increasing the amount of classical computing resources should yield even better results.

In conclusion, we have described how to efficiently construct two- and three-qubit quantum gates for the Josephson charge qubit using numerical optimization. An immediate strength of the present scenario is that one avoids unnecessary idle time during the logical quantum operations. Since the loops are traversed at a piecewise constant speed, and no fields are instantaneously switched, this method of constructing quantum gates should be viable from the experimental point of view as well. The effect of finite fall and rise times of pulses on the quality of quantum gates has been studied recently oh . Since we do not use pulses but instead interpolate along linear paths in the parameter space, such errors can be avoided. It seems reasonable to construct large-scale quantum algorithms in multiqubit blocks. This can be accomplished by optimizing the gate realization with the help of classical computers.

The authors would like to thank M. Nakahara for useful discussions. AON and JJV thank the Research Foundation of Helsinki University of Technology and the Graduate School in Technical Physics for financial support; this work is supported by the Academy of Finland through a Research Grant in Theoretical Materials Physics. We also thank the Center for Scientific Computing (CSC, Finland) for computing resources.


text:
# Inflation versus Cyclic Predictions for Spectral Tilt

## Abstract

We present a nearly model-independent estimate that yields the predictions of a class of simple inflationary and ekpyrotic/cyclic models for the spectral tilt of the primordial density inhomogeneities that enables us to compare the two scenarios. Remarkably, we find that the two produce an identical result, $`n_s0.95`$. For inflation, the same estimate predicts a ratio of tensor to scalar contributions to the low $`l`$ multipoles of the microwave background anisotropy of $`T/S20`$%; the tensor contribution is negligible for ekpyrotic/cyclic models, as shown in earlier papers.

The recent measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy by WMAP wmap  is consistent with a primordial power spectrum of density fluctuations that is scale-invariant, gaussian and adiabatic. These characteristics coincide with the predictions of the simplest inflationary scenarios Guth .

In this paper, we show that these are also predicted by the simplest ekpyrotic/cyclic scenarios orig ; seiberg ; ST1 . We compare the density fluctuation spectra obtained in inflationary Guth  and ekpyrotic/cyclic models by computing their predictions for an important, well-motivated class of simple models. We find surprisingly similar predictions for the spectral index of the scalar density fluctuations g4 . Both predict a red spectrum with index $`n_s0.95`$. For inflation, the same argument predicts a ratio of tensor to scalar contributions to the low $`l`$ multipoles of roughly 20 percent. Our results for inflation are not new; the particular form of the argument presented here is a variant of the discussion in Ref. snow  and by V. Mukhanov Mukh1  and gives a similar result to other estimates. But our result for the ekpyrotic/cyclic models and the similarity to the inflationary prediction is both new and unexpected.

For the ekpyrotic/cyclic models, scale-invariant fluctuations are generated during a period of slow contraction. The notion is that these imprint themselves as temperature fluctuations in the current expanding phase ekperts . The validity of this idea has been debated ekperts ; durrer ; brand , with different answers obtained depending on assumptions about the precise matching conditions at the bounce. Here we use the recent results of Tolley et al. tolley , which treat the bounce as a collision of branes in five dimensions, derive a unique matching condition, and find a scale-invariant spectrum of temperature fluctuations after the bounce.

Both inflation and the ekpyrotic/cyclic models rely on the equation of state parameter $`w`$ having a specific qualitative behavior throughout the period when fluctuations are generated, including the interval when fluctuations with wavelengths within the present horizon radius were produced (corresponding to the last $`𝒩60`$ e-folds in wavelength). For inflation, the condition on $`w`$ is that $`1+w1`$ and for ekpyrotic/cyclic models it is $`w1`$ ekperts ; gratton . Correspondingly, the Hubble constant $`H`$ is nearly constant during inflation and the four dimensional scale factor $`a`$ is nearly constant during ekpyrosis. Since these conditions must be maintained for the duration of an epoch spanning many more than $`𝒩`$ e-folds, the simplest possibility is to suppose that $`w`$ (and correspondingly $`H`$ or $`a`$) change slowly and monotonically during that last $`𝒩`$ e-folds. More precisely, we take “simplest” to mean that (i) $`dw/d𝒩`$ is small, and $`d^2w/d𝒩^2`$ or $`(dw/d𝒩)^2`$ negligible and (ii) in order for inflation (ekpyrosis) to end, $`H`$ during inflation (or $`a`$ during ekpyrosis) decays by a factor of order unity over the last $`𝒩`$ e-folds. Tilts or spectral features that differ from those presented here can only be produced by introducing by hand unnecessary rapid variations in $`w`$ – unnecessary in the sense that they are not required for either model to give a successful account of the standard cosmology.

Note that our condition on the time-variation of $`w`$ does not refer directly to any particular inflaton or cyclic scalar field potential. In fact, it does not assume that either scenario is driven by a scalar field at all. But, one might ask: how does our condition on the equation of state translate into a condition on an inflaton potential? The answer is simple: it means that the potential is characterized by a single dimensionful scale, typically $`H_I`$, the Hubble parameter during inflation. For example, for many models the effective potential is well characterized as $`M^4f(\varphi /M)`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the inflaton field, $`H_IM^2/M_{Pl}`$ where $`M_{Pl}`$ is the Planck mass, and $`f(x)`$ is a smooth function which, when expanded in $`\varphi /M`$, has all dimensionless parameters of the same order wang . In these cases, to produce inflationary models in which there are rapid changes in the equation of state in the last $`𝒩`$-folds, sharp features have to be introduced in the inflaton potential: bumps, wiggles, steep waterfalls, etc. But recall that the inflaton field is rolling very slowly throughout inflation, including the last $`𝒩`$ e-folds. Typically, $`\varphi `$ rolls a short distance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi M`$, during the last $`𝒩`$ e-folds. Hence, any sharp features must take place over a range $`\delta \varphi \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi M`$, or equivalently, by introducing new fields or new mass scales much greater than $`M`$ in the inflaton potential. For the purposes of comparing the inflationary and ekpyrotic/cyclic predictions, it makes most sense to consider the class with fewest parameters and simplest uniform behavior of the equation of state, a class which is also well-motivated in both models.

Recently, Gratton et al. gratton  analyzed the conditions on the equation of state $`w`$ required in order for quantum fluctuations in a single scalar field to produce nearly scale-invariant density perturbations, including models which (in the four dimensional effective description) bounce from a contracting to an expanding phase. Their analysis showed that there are only two cases which avoid extreme fine-tuning of initial conditions and/or the effective potential: $`w1`$ (inflation) and $`w1`$ (the ekpyrotic/cyclic scenario).

Following Gratton et al. gratton , we shall discuss the production of long wavelength perturbations in the gauge invariant Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which completely characterizes the density perturbation. Defining $`ua\mathrm{\Phi }/\varphi ^{}`$ (henceforth, primes denote differentiation with respect to conformal time $`\tau `$), then a Fourier mode of $`u`$ with wavenumber $`k`$, $`u_k`$, obeys the differential equation

$$u_k^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{\beta \left(\tau \right)}{\tau ^2}\right)u_k=0,$$
(1)
with

$`\beta \left(\tau \right)\tau ^2H^2a^2\{\overline{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{ϵ}^2)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{ϵ}^2)}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1\overline{ϵ})^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩^2}}\},`$ (2)
where $`H=a^{}/a^2`$ is the Hubble parameter, and where $`\overline{ϵ}`$ is related to the equation of state parameter $`w`$ by

$$\overline{ϵ}\frac{3}{2}(1+w).$$
(3)
We have introduced the dimensionless time variable $`𝒩`$, defined by

$$𝒩\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_{end}H_{end}}{aH}\right),$$
(4)
where the subscript “end” denotes that the quantity is to be evaluated at the end of the inflationary expansion phase or ekpyrotic contraction phase (corresponding to $`w1`$). Note that $`𝒩`$ measures the number of e-folds of modes which exit the horizon before the end of the inflationary or ekpyrotic phase. (N.B. $`d𝒩=(\overline{ϵ}1)dN`$ where $`N=\mathrm{ln}a`$ in Ref. gratton .) Indeed, defining as usual the moment of horizon-crossing as $`k_𝒩=aH`$ for a given Fourier mode with comoving wavenumber $`k_𝒩`$, then

$$𝒩=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_{end}}{k_𝒩}\right),$$
(5)
where $`k_{end}`$ is the last mode to be generated.

For nearly constant $`w`$ (or constant $`\overline{ϵ}`$), the unperturbed equations of motion have the approximate solution

$$a(\tau )(\tau )^{1/(\overline{ϵ}1)},H=\frac{1}{(\overline{ϵ}1)a\tau }.$$
(6)
Substituting the second of these expressions in $`\beta `$, we find

$$\beta (\tau )\frac{1}{(1\overline{ϵ})^2}\left\{\overline{ϵ}\frac{(1\overline{ϵ}^2)}{2}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩}\right)\right\},$$
(7)
where we have assumed that the higher-order derivative terms $`d^2\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}/d𝒩^2`$ and $`(d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}/d𝒩)^2`$ are much smaller than $`d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}/d𝒩`$.

With the approximation that $`\beta `$ is nearly constant for all modes of interest, Eq. (1) can be solved analytically, and the resulting deviation from scale invariance is simply given by the master equation

$$n_s12\beta \frac{2}{(1\overline{ϵ})^2}\left\{\overline{ϵ}\frac{(1\overline{ϵ}^2)}{2}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩}\right)\right\}.$$
(8)
Inflation. Inflation is characterized by a period of superluminal expansion during which $`w1`$; that is, $`\overline{ϵ}1`$. In this case, Eq. (8) reduces to

$$n_s12\overline{ϵ}+\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩},$$
(9)
as derived by Wang et al. wang .

The next step consists in rewriting the above in terms of $`𝒩`$ only. For this purpose, we need a relation between $`\overline{ϵ}`$ and $`𝒩`$. During inflation, the Hubble parameter is nearly constant, but the “end” means that $`H`$ begins to change significantly. So, if we are considering the last $`𝒩`$ e-folds, then, using Eqs. (6) and the definition of $`𝒩`$ (see Eq. (4)), it must be that $`H`$ decays by a factor of order unity over those $`𝒩`$ e-folds or

$$\frac{H_{end}}{H}=\left(\frac{a}{a_{end}}\right)^{\overline{ϵ}}e^{\overline{ϵ}𝒩}e^1,$$
(10)
or

$$\overline{ϵ}\frac{1}{𝒩}.$$
(11)
Assuming that this relation holds approximately for all relevant modes, we may substitute in Eq. (9) and obtain

$$(n_s1)_{inf}\frac{2}{𝒩}\frac{1}{𝒩}=\frac{3}{𝒩}.$$
(12)
Note that, in this approximation, the two terms on the right hand side of Eq. (12) are both of order $`1/𝒩`$. Figuring that our approximation is good to order $`1/𝒩`$ or a few percent, the result is in agreement with the tilt predicted by simple inflationary models phi4 .

To obtain a numerical estimate of $`n_s`$, we may derive an approximate value for $`𝒩`$ from the observational constraint that the amplitude of the density perturbations, $`\delta \rho /\rho `$, be of order $`10^5`$. In the simplest inflationary models, $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ is given by g4

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }\left(\frac{T_r}{M_{Pl}}\right)^2\overline{ϵ}^{1/2}\left(\frac{T_r}{M_{Pl}}\right)^2𝒩^{1/2}10^5,$$
(13)
where $`T_r`$ is the reheat temperature. On the scale of the observable universe today, $`𝒩`$ has the value (see Eq. (4))

$$𝒩=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_{end}H_{end}}{a_0H_0}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_r}{T_0}\right),$$
(14)
where $`a_0`$, $`H_0`$ and $`T_0`$ are respectively the current values of the scale factor, Hubble parameter and (photon) temperature. For simplicity, we have assumed that $`H_{end}T_r^2/M_{Pl}`$. Combining Eqs. (13) and (14), we obtain the constraint

$$e^𝒩𝒩^{1/4}10^{5/2}\frac{M_{Pl}}{T_0},$$
(15)
which implies $`𝒩60`$. It follows that $`T_r10^{16}`$ GeV.

If we substitute $`𝒩60`$ in Eq. (12), we obtain $`n_s0.95`$, within a percent or two of what is found for the simplest slow-roll and chaotic potentials Cope ; hodges .

The prediction for the ratio of tensor to scalar contributions to the quadrupole of the CMB for a model with 70% dark energy and 30% matter is, then, Cope ; hodges ; knox

$$T/S13.8\overline{ϵ}\frac{13.8}{𝒩}23\%,$$
(16)
which is very pleasing because it is in the range which is potentially detectable in the fluctuation spectrum and/or the CMB polarization in the near future clt . (The WMAP collaboration peiris  uses a different convention for $`T/S`$, defining $`(T/S)_{WMAP}`$ as the ratio of tensor to scalar amplitude of the primordial spectrum. The conversion factor to our $`T/S`$ is $`(T/S)_{WMAP}1.16(T/S)`$.)

It is sometimes said that it is easy to construct models where $`T/S`$ is very small, less than 1%, say. The argument is that the amplitude of tensor fluctuations is proportional to $`H^2`$, and a modest decrease in the energy scale for inflation reduces the tensor amplitude significantly. However, one must also consider Eq. (16) combined with Eq. (11). From Eq. (16), making $`T/S`$ less than 1%, for instance, requires $`\overline{ϵ}<10^3`$, which implies $`𝒩>1000`$. Since we are interested in $`T/S`$ at $`𝒩60`$, however, the only way to accommodate such a small $`\overline{ϵ}`$ at $`𝒩60`$ is to have $`\overline{ϵ}`$ make a rapid change at some point between $`𝒩60`$ and the end of inflation. This is precisely what is done in models which yield a small $`T/S`$ ratio. (Restated in terms of the inflation potential $`V(\varphi )`$, in order to have $`T/S13.8\overline{ϵ}28(d\mathrm{ln}V/d\varphi )^21\%`$, it must be that $`d\mathrm{ln}V/d\varphi 0.02`$, which is too small if inflation is to end in 60 e-folds unless one introduces a very rapid change in the slope during the last 60 e-folds.)

Ekpyrotic/cyclic models. The ekpyrotic phase is characterized by a period of slow contraction with $`w1`$; that is, $`\overline{ϵ}1`$. In this case, Eq. (8) reduces to gratton

$$n_s1\frac{2}{\overline{ϵ}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{ϵ}}{d𝒩}.$$
(17)
Notice that this relation can be transformed into the expression for inflation, Eq. (9), by replacing $`\overline{ϵ}1/\overline{ϵ}`$. Note further that, for all cosmologies, the scale factor is $`at^{1/\overline{ϵ}}H^{1/\overline{ϵ}}`$, where $`t`$ is proper time. Hence, inflation ($`\overline{ϵ}1`$) has $`a`$ rapidly varying and $`H`$ nearly constant, whereas the ekpyrotic/cyclic model ($`\overline{ϵ}1`$) has $`H`$ varying and $`a`$ nearly constant. This suggests an interesting duality between the inflationary and ekpyrotic/cyclic models that reflects itself in the final results.

If the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ is nearly constant during the ekpyrotic (contraction) phase, then the phase ends when $`a(\tau )`$ begins to change significantly. In particular, the condition that the scale factor $`a(\tau )`$ decays by a factor of order unity during the last $`𝒩`$ e-folds reads

$$\frac{a_{end}}{a}=\left(\frac{aH}{a_{end}H_{end}}\right)^{1/(\overline{ϵ}1)}e^{𝒩/\overline{ϵ}}e^1$$
(18)
(the analogue of Eq. (10) for inflation), which implies

$$\overline{ϵ}𝒩$$
(19)
(to be compared with Eq. (11) for inflation). Substituting this expression into Eq. (17), one obtains

$$(n_s1)_{ek}\frac{2}{𝒩}\frac{1}{𝒩}=\frac{3}{𝒩}.$$
(20)
This is the key relation for the ekpyrotic/cyclic models.

In the inflationary case, we estimated $`𝒩`$ by using the constraint on the amplitude of density perturbations, $`\delta \rho /\rho 10^5`$. For ekpyrotic and cyclic models, this constraint involves more parameters and is therefore not sufficient by itself to fix $`𝒩`$ tolley ; design . To estimate $`𝒩`$, we rewrite Eq. (4) as

$$𝒩\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{T_r}{T_0}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_{end}H_{end}}{a_rH_r}\right),$$
(21)
where the subscript $`r`$ denotes the onset of the radiation-dominated phase. In inflation, we have $`a_{end}a_r`$ and $`H_{end}H_r`$. In the ekpyrotic/cyclic model, however, the end of ekpyrosis occurs during the contracting phase whereas the onset of radiation-domination is during the expanding phase. To estimate the ratio $`a_{end}H_{end}/a_rH_r`$, we note that, from approximately the end of ekpyrosis, through the bounce, and up to the onset of radiation-domination, the universe is dominated by scalar field kinetic energy, i.e., $`w1`$ seiberg ; ST1 . From Eqs. (3) and (6), we find $`a(\tau )^{1/2}H^{1/3}`$, and therefore

$$\frac{a_{end}H_{end}}{a_rH_r}\left(\frac{H_{end}M_{Pl}}{T_r^2}\right)^{2/3}.$$
(22)
Substituting in Eq. (21), we find

$$e^𝒩=\left(\frac{H_{end}^2}{T_rM_{Pl}}\right)^{1/3}\frac{M_{Pl}}{T_0},$$
(23)
which is the analogue of Eq. (15).

The constraints on $`H_{end}`$ and $`T_r`$ in cyclic models are analyzed in Ref. design  and the range of allowed values is presented. Central values are $`T_r10^5`$ GeV and $`H_{end}10^5`$ GeV, which, from Eq. (23), implies $`𝒩60`$. (By pushing parameters, $`𝒩`$ can be made to vary 20% or so one way or the other.) Substituting $`𝒩=60`$ in the expression for the tilt gives $`n_s0.95`$, the same estimate obtained for inflation.

Conclusions. Remarkably, our estimates for the typical tilt in the inflationary and ekpyrotic/cyclic models are virtually identical. Both models predict a red spectrum, with spectral slope

$$n_s1\frac{3}{𝒩}.$$
(24)
Furthermore, when adding observational constraints such as the COBE constraint that the amplitude of density fluctuations be of order $`10^5`$, both models yield $`𝒩60`$. This results in an identical prediction for the spectral tilt of $`n_s0.95`$. Furthermore, in both models, the time-variation of the equation of state contributes a correction of $`𝒪(1)`$ that reddens the spectrum. We have seen that this occurs because there is fascinating duality ($`\overline{ϵ}1/\overline{ϵ}`$) between inflationary and ekpyrotic/cyclic conditions. This result was neither planned nor anticipated and suggests a deep connection between the expanding inflationary phase and the contracting ekpyrotic/cyclic phase. The key difference is that inflation also predicts a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of gravitational waves with a detectable amplitude. The predicted ratio of tensor to scalar CMB multipole moments at low $`l`$ is $`T/S20`$%. The tensor spectrum from cyclic models is strongly blue and exponentially small on cosmic scales orig ; boyle .

We thank V. Mukhanov for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by US Department of Energy grants DE-FG02-91ER40671 (PJS) and DE-FG02-92ER40699 (JK), the Columbia University Academic Quality Fund (JK), the Ohrstrom Foundation (JK), and PPARC, UK (NT).