the weak energy condition of general relativity , the requirement that there be no negative energy densities , is sufficient to prevent the appearance of exotic features such as compactly generated closed timelike curves @xcite and superluminal travel @xcite .
quantum field theory appears to violate this condition , however .
one example is the standard casimir system of parallel plates , for which there is a negative energy density between the plates .
however , this is an idealized system , which assumes a perfect conductor with an infinitely sharp and flat edge .
a real material will have a rough surface at the atomic scale and will also appear transparent to very high energy modes .
since the casimir energy is a sum over all energies , it will always include modes for which these effects are relevant , so this idealization could affect the value of the sum .
in addition , since the boundary condition is imposed externally , there is no measure of the energy that would be required to maintain it .
although there are other ways to produce negative energy densities , for example a superposition of states with zero and two photons , these cases are constrained by averaged energy conditions , which require the energy to be positive when averaged along an entire geodesic .
they are also constrained by quantum inequalities @xcite , which limit the total negative energy that can exist when averaging over a certain period of time .
thus it is important to understand problems of the casimir type if we want to know whether quantum field theory protects general relativity against negative energies .    in this paper , we reconsider the question of the energy density in such systems . to avoid the subtleties associated with the casimir problem
, we consider a quantum field in the presence of a background potential ( i.e. , a field with a mass that depends on position ) .
in such an approach , one can choose a potential that depends only on one spatial dimension , and simulate the parallel plates in the casimir problem . by generalizing the approach of @xcite to local densities
, we can precisely cancel the divergences in the calculation in a definite renormalization scheme .
@xcite considered similar problems for the special case of reflectionless potentials , such as the potentials for the supersymmetric kink and sine - gordon models . here
we present a general approach suitable for numerical computation , in addition to analytic calculations in exactly solvable models @xcite .
these techniques are also useful for the study of casimir forces and stresses @xcite .
to illustrate our method , we will first consider a simple model .
we take a real , massless scalar field in 2 + 1 dimensions in the background of a repulsive potential @xmath1 that depends on one spatial dimension but not the other .
we start with the hamiltonian density = 12and expand the field @xmath2 in terms of small oscillations , giving ( x , y , t ) = _ -^ _ 0^_=+ , - ( _ k^(x ) e^ipy e^-i(p ) ta_k , p^+_k^(x)^e^-ipy e^i(p ) ta^_k , p^ ) . where @xmath3 .
the @xmath4 are normal mode wave functions , which can be taken to be real .
the sum is over the symmetric mode , @xmath5 , and the antisymmetric mode , @xmath6 .
they satisfy [ eqn : eom ] -^_k(x ) + v(x)_k^(x ) = k^2_k^(x ) where prime denotes differentiation with respect to @xmath7 , with the normalization _ -^dx _ k^+(x ) _
k^-(x ) = 0 _ = + , - _ -^dx _
k^(x ) = 2(k - k ) , which gives @xmath8 and @xmath9 as the solutions in the free case , @xmath10 .
the energy density is then = _ -^ _ 0^_=+ , - 12 .
we write (x)^2 = 12d^2dx^2 ( x)^2-(x)(x ) and then use eq .
( [ eqn : eom ] ) to obtain = _ -^ _ 0^_=+ , - .
the integral is highly divergent , but by using dimensional regularization and introducing counterterms into the hamiltonian , as discussed in sec .
[ sec : method ] , we can render the integral finite .
we then integrate out the transverse modes , giving _ = - _ 0^ _ = + , - \{&&^n+1 & & + n+14^n-1d^2dx^2(_k^(x)^2 ) } , where @xmath11 is the number of transverse dimensions , later to be set to 1 .
the hamiltonian has been renormalized by subtracting a constant term for the vacuum energy and a term proportional to the potential , which is sufficient to render it finite in 2 + 1 dimensions .
we can relate the norms of the mode wavefunctions to the green s function by ( see for example @xcite ) _
= + , -_k^(x)^2 = 2k g(x , x , k ) , where @xmath12 is the green s function , which satisfies -g(x , x,k ) + v(x)g(x , x,k ) - k^2g(x , x,k ) = ( x - x ) and has only outgoing waves ( @xmath13 ) at infinity .
the green s function has the symmetry property @xmath14 , so for real @xmath15 we can write _
= + , -_k^(x)^2 = kig(x , x , k)-ki g ( x , x , -k ) .
thus we can compute the energy by extending the range of integration to @xmath16 , and using @xmath17 , _ = - _ -^^n+1 dk , [ eqn : contourextend ] where , since we are taking the massless limit , @xmath18 .
next we would like to convert this expression into a contour integral by closing the contour at infinity in the upper half plane .
the contour at infinity does not contribute , because for large , positive @xmath19 , g(x , x , k ) 1+v(x)2k^2 + o ( k^-4 ) .
singularities in the green s function in the upper half plane correspond to normalizable eigenfunctions of the hamiltonian , which represent bound states .
since the hamiltonian is hermitian , the bound states must have real energies , so the singularities must lie on the imaginary axis and have @xmath20 where @xmath21 is the mass . in this example , we have a repulsive potential and a massless particle , each of which is sufficient to ensure that there are no bound states at all .
thus the green s function has no singularities for @xmath22 , and the only contribution to the integral comes from the branch cut along the positive imaginary axis coming from @xmath23 . integrating around the branch cut and using eqs .
( [ id1 ] ) and ( [ id2 ] ) below gives _
= - _ 0^^n+1 d and then setting @xmath24 gives [ eqn : m = n=1special ] _
[ eqn : greenn=1 ] once one has computed the green s function , this integral is straightforward , though it may be necessary to resort to numerical techniques .
we show the calculation for some example potentials in sec .
[ sec : examples1 ] below .
we will now consider the more general case of a real scalar field of mass @xmath21 in the background of a potential that is spherically symmetric in @xmath25 nontrivial coordinates , which we label by @xmath7 , and independent of the remaining @xmath11 trivial coordinates , which we label by @xmath26 .
the energy density is = ( ^2 + ( ) ^2 + v(r ) ^2 + ^2 ^2 ) = ( ^2 + ^2(^2 ) - ^2 + v(r)^2 + ^2 ^2 ) , where @xmath27 .
decomposing the quantum field @xmath2 in terms of modes gives ( r,,t ) & = & _ , _ z & & ( _ j ( ^_j(r)^y^m__z()^e^-ipy e^i_j^(p ) t a_j , p^_z^+ ^_j(r ) y^m__z ( ) e^ipy e^-i_j^(p ) t a_j , p^_z ) .
& & + . _ 0^ ( ^_k(r)^y^m__z()^e^-ipy e^i(p ) t a_k , p^_z^+ ^_k(r ) y^m__z ( ) e^ipy e^-i(p ) t a_k , p^_z ) ) , where @xmath28 , the bound state energies are @xmath29 , and the sum over @xmath30 gives the partial wave expansion in the @xmath25 nontrivial dimensions .
the degeneracy factor @xmath31 in each partial wave is given by the dimension of the space of symmetric tensors with @xmath30 indices , each running from @xmath32 to @xmath25 , with all traces ( contractions ) removed @xcite . by the symmetry of the indices ,
this dimension is given by the number of ways to make @xmath30 indices out of 0 or more 1 s , 0 or more 2 s , and so on , which is the number of distinct ways to place @xmath33 dividers into @xmath34 slots .
removing all the traces requires subtracting the same quantity with @xmath30 replaced by @xmath35 .
we thus obtain d^m_= - = ( m+2 - 2 ) .
the wavefunctions @xmath36 are the eigenstates of the time - independent radial schrdinger equation ( - - + + v(r ) ) ^_k(r ) = k^2 ^_k(r ) , which in general comprise both bound and scattering states .
the wavefunctions and creation and annihilation operators are normalized as follows . for the spherical harmonics , y^m__z()^y^m__z ( ) d= _  _ _ z _z , for continuum states , _ 0^r^m-1
^_k(r)^^_k(r ) dr & = & ( k - k ) = [ a_k , p^_z , a_k,p^_z ] = 0 & & [ a_k , p^_z , a_k,p^_z^ ] = ( k - k ) ( p - p ) _  _ _ z _ z , and for bound states _ 0^r^m-1
^_j(r ) ^_j(r ) dr & = & _ j j _  = [ a_j , p^_z , a_j,p^_z ] = 0 & & [ a_j , p^_z , a_j,p^_z^ ] = _ j j ( p - p ) _  _ _ z _ z . using these expressions , we obtain the vacuum expectation value of the hamiltonian , & = & _ d^m _ , where @xmath37 is the radial laplacian .      for positive integer @xmath25 and @xmath11 ,
this quantity diverges , as we expect since we have not yet included the contribution of the counterterms .
therefore we will calculate the result using analytic continuation in @xmath25 and @xmath11 from values where it is convergent . after introducing counterterms also depending on @xmath25 and @xmath11
, we will then let the dimensions go to their physical values while holding the renormalization conditions fixed .
the first counterterm we will introduce renormalizes the cosmological constant .
it is simply an overall constant in the hamiltonian , and is fixed by the renormalization condition that the energy density of the trivial background @xmath38 is zero .
the free wavefunctions are given by _
k^^(0)(r ) = j_+-1(kr ) , which , by the bessel function identity _ = 0^ j_q+(z)^2 = ( ) ^2q , [ besselid ] satisfy the completeness relation _
d^m_|_k^^(0)(r)|^2 = , [ eqn : complete ] independent of @xmath39 . subtracting the energy in the trivial background we have - _ 0 & = & _ d^m _ .
[ eqn : nolevsub ]    by completeness , in each partial wave we have _
j |^_j(r)|^2 + _ 0^ ( |^_k(r)|^2 - |^_k^(0)(r)|^2 ) = 0 , so we can implement a local version of the levinson s theorem subtraction used in @xcite , giving - _ 0 & = & _ d^m _ .
[ eqn : yeslevsub ] this subtraction is necessary to avoid the appearance of spurious infrared singularities in calculations in one space dimension . these singularities also appear in dimensions less than one , which we will need to consider as part of the dimensional regularization process .
next we carry out the @xmath40 integral , using ( ) ^a = _ 0^p^n-1 dp ( ) ^a = , where we have done the integral by analytic continuation from values of @xmath41 and @xmath11 where it converges .
we thus obtain - _ 0 & = & - _ d^m _ , where @xmath42 for the scattering states and @xmath43 for the bound states with @xmath44 .
next , we must include the contribution of the counterterm proportional to @xmath45 , which is introduced to cancel the tadpole graph .
in dimensional regularization , the contribution to the hamiltonian from this counterterm is _ 1 = ^m+n-1
v(r ) , so by using _ 0^ ( ^n+1-^n+1 ) k^m-3 = ^m+n-1 and eq .
( [ eqn : complete ] ) we have _ 1 = - _ d^m__0^ ( ^n+1- ^n+1)(2-m ) |^_k^(0)(r)|^2 so that _ & & - _ 0 - _ 1 & = & - _ d^m_[eqn : e1sub ] .
we will use |^_k(r)|^2 = 2 k g_(r , r , k ) , [ eqn : normtogreen ] where the green s function is defined by -d_r^2 g_(r , r,k ) + ( v(r ) + - k^2 ) g_(r , r,k ) = ^(m)(r - r ) with the boundary conditions that it is regular at the origin and and has only outgoing waves ( @xmath46 ) at infinity . using @xmath47 ,
we can rewrite eq .
( [ eqn : e1sub ] ) as _ & & - _ 0 - _ 1 & = & - _ d^m_[eqn : e1subgreen ] .    these subtractions are sufficient to render the theory finite for @xmath48 .
however , it appears that if we set @xmath24 , the gamma function will cause eq .
( [ eqn : e1subgreen ] ) to diverge .
in fact , as we will see in appendix  [ sec : localsum ] , it does not , because the quantity in brackets vanishes .
but here we will keep @xmath11 general and instead close the contour of integration in the upper half @xmath15 plane . for sufficiently small
@xmath11 the contour at infinity does not contribute .
there is a pole for each bound state at @xmath49 , where @xmath50 is the bound state energy , and the contributions from these poles exactly cancel the sum over bound states @xcite in eq .
( [ eqn : e1subgreen ] ) . thus the final result is just given by the contribution from the branch cut along the imaginary axis from @xmath21 to @xmath51 resulting from @xmath23 , which contributes ^n+1 ( i^n+1 - ( -i)^n+1 ) = 2i^n+1 , [ id1 ] where @xmath52 and @xmath53 .
then using the identity z = - [ id2 ] we have _ & & - _ 0 - _ 1 & = & - _ d^m__^d 2^n+1 .
[ eqn : e1subimag ] we can now put in integer values of @xmath25 and @xmath11 without any divergence , as long as @xmath48 .
( [ eqn : e1subimag ] ) can also be efficiently evaluated numerically @xcite .
when we have @xmath54 space dimensions , we will need to introduce a second counterterm , @xmath55 .
the first subtraction is particularly easy to define because there is a natural scheme , specified by the complete cancellation of the tadpole graph .
higher subtractions require a definition in terms of a renormalization scale , which can be chosen arbitrarily . in choosing this scale
, we must be able to relate it to physical inputs , such as masses and coupling constants , in order to define a predictive theory .    to define the counterterm precisely , we consider the two - point function @xmath56 in dimensional regularization .
it diverges as we approach the physical dimension .
the divergence is canceled by the contribution of the counterterm to the two - point function , which is just @xmath57 .
we define the renormalization scale @xmath58 by taking @xmath59 . with this definition , we have c & = & _ 0 ^ 1 d & = & _ 0^ dq , [ eqn : cterm ] where @xmath60 is the total momentum and we have integrated over the feynman parameter @xmath61 and the loop energy @xmath62
. typically we will choose @xmath63 , except in the case of massless theories , where to avoid infrared singularities we will choose a spacelike renormalization point @xmath64 .
this regulated expression is defined precisely as an analytic function of the dimension .
our goal is now to rewrite it in a way that allows us to incorporate it into our expression for the energy , eq.([eqn : e1subimag ] ) , which is also given as an analytic function of the dimension .
we express eq .
( [ eqn : complete ] ) in terms of green s functions and analytically continue to express eq .
( [ eqn : cterm ] ) as c & = & _ ^^n+1 f(,m ) d & = & _ d^m__^^n+1 f(,m ) 2g_^(0)(r , r , i ) d , [ eqn : ctermrot ] where @xmath65 is given in terms of the hypergeometric function as f(,m ) = _ 2 f_1(,3 - , , ) [ eqn : fkappa ] as we show in appendix  [ sec : fderivation ] .    since we will eventually take the limit where @xmath25 becomes an integer , we note that f ( , m ) = & & f ( , m ) = ( 1 + ) & & f ( , m ) = & & [ eqn : fkappa1 ] eq .  ( [ eqn : ctermrot ] ) is now in a form where we can include it under the integral sign in eq .
( [ eqn : e1subimag ] ) and obtain _ & & - _ 0 - _ 1 - _ 2 & = & - _ d^m__^d 2 .
[ eqn : e2subimag ]    before we can take the limit where @xmath54 , however , there is one more potential divergence in eq .
( [ eqn : e2subimag ] ) .
our subtraction has cancelled the terms of order @xmath32 , @xmath66 and @xmath67 in the large-@xmath68 expansion of the norm of the wavefunctions .
but there could also be a term of order @xmath69 , which will generate a divergence in this case . in the renormalization of the composite operator @xmath70
, we have a renormalization counterterm @xmath71 @xcite .
since we are considering just @xmath72 here , this counterterm becomes @xmath73 , exactly the form needed to cancel the remaining divergence . in the original lagrangian ,
the divergent term would have cancelled automatically between the bulk term and the surface term and no renormalization would be necessary .
however , conformally coupled theories have _ classical _ violations of the energy conditions @xcite . ]
we fix this counterterm by subtracting the tadpole diagram with the composite operator carrying momentum @xmath74 . aside from this change , it is analogous to the tadpole subtraction above , with @xmath75 replaced by @xmath76 .
the scale @xmath77 is then specified through the renormalization condition on the composite operator ( and would typically be chosen equal to @xmath58 ) . as with @xmath58 ,
a massless theory will require spacelike @xmath78 , while in a massive theory we may set @xmath79 .
thus we obtain the contribution _ 2 = - _ d^m__^d ^n-1 2g_^(0)(r , r , i ) ( 2-m ) .
this term is a total derivative , so it does not contribute to the total energy .
we can split the contribution of this term beween the bulk and derivative terms so that it renders them both separately finite at integer dimensions , giving _ & = & - _ d^m__^d 2 . by eq .
( [ eqn : complete ] ) , the sum over @xmath30 of the free green s function weighted by the degeneracy factor is independent of @xmath39 , so we can pull the derivative outside in the last line , giving _ & = & - _ d^m__^d 2 .    in this form , we see explicitly that the subtraction has cancelled the leading terms for large @xmath68 : in the surface term , inside the derivative we have implemented the same subtraction of the leading behavior of the green s function as we found for the tadpole graph in the bulk term ; in the bulk term , we have subtracted the leading term proportional to @xmath76 ( which is derived explicitly for @xmath80 in eq.([eqn : asymp1d ] ) ) . for the purposes of calculation , however , it is often easier to work with the combined expression _ & = & - _ d^m__^^n+1 d. [ e2subimag2 ]
to illustrate our method , we would like to carry out some sample calculations in the case of @xmath80 and @xmath24 .
since we are in @xmath81 dimensions , we only need one subtraction , proportional to @xmath82 . for @xmath80 ,
the sum over partial waves reduces to a sum over the symmetric and antisymmetric channels .
the free wavefunctions thus become ^+_k ^(0)(x ) = kx ^-_k ^(0)(x ) = kx , so that |^+_k^(0)(x)|^2 + |^-_k^(0)(x)|^2 = 1 . we can sum over the two modes to get the overall green s function , g(x , x , k)=g^+(x , x , k)+g^-(x , x , k ) , with g^(0)(x , x , k)=. then from eq .
( [ eqn : e1subimag ] ) we have [ eqn : m=1 ] _ = - _ ^d ^n+1 and for @xmath24 we have _ = - _ ^d ^2 , which reduces to eq .
( [ eqn : m = n=1special ] ) when @xmath83 . for simplicity
, we will consider the massless case for the remainder of this section .
we next consider a potential that vanishes for all @xmath84 and calculate the energy density in this region . in this case , the only counterterm is the vacuum energy , and we get _
= -18_0^d .
the green s function for @xmath85 is g(x , x , k ) = i2k(e^-ikx_<+r(k)e^ikx_<)e^ikx _ > , where @xmath86 is the reflection amplitude .
thus [ eqn : goutside ] 2 g ( x , x , i ) = 1+r(i ) e^-2x and [ eqn : outside ] _
= 18_0^d^2 r(i ) e^-2x . in the large @xmath7 limit ,
only small @xmath68 contribute in the integral . as a result ,
the integral depends only on @xmath87 ( at @xmath88 we always have perfect reflection ) , so we can approximate [ eqn : outside - limit ] _
-18_0^d^2 e^-2x = -132x^3 .
next we consider a square barrier with @xmath89 for @xmath90 and @xmath91 otherwise . in this case
, we can compute the normal mode wave functions in closed form , but must do a numerical integration at the end . outside the barrier ,
the energy is given by eq .
( [ eqn : outside ] ) with [ eqn : r - square ] r = -v_0e^2a2 a2+ ( ^2+^2)2 a and @xmath92 .
thus , outside the barrier , the energy is _ & = & -v_08_0^d ^2 e^-2(x- a)2 a2+ ( ^2+^2)2 a & = & -v_0 8a_0^dq q^2 e^-2q ( y- 1)2q2qq + ( q^2+q ^2)2q , where we have defined the dimensionless quantites @xmath93 , @xmath94 , and @xmath95 where @xmath96 . note that the integrand can not be less than 0 , so the energy outside the barrier is always negative .    far from the potential , specifically where @xmath97 and @xmath98 , the contribution comes primarily from @xmath99 , and thus @xmath100 .
the integral is then _
0^ = 14 ( y-1)^3 v and [ eqn : outside - square - limit ] _
-132(x - a)^3 in agreement with eq .  (
[ eqn : outside - limit ] ) .
close to the potential , specifically when @xmath101 and @xmath102 , the contribution comes mostly from @xmath103 and @xmath104 .
thus @xmath105 and @xmath106 .
the integral becomes and _ -v_064(x- a ) .    inside the barrier
, we have g ( x , x , k ) = ik  ( k k  ( x_<+a ) - ikk  ( x_<+a ) ) ( k k  ( x_>-a ) + ikk  ( x_>-a))2kk 2k  a - i ( k^2+k ^2)2k  a , where @xmath107 , so we can write g ( x , x , i ) = 12(^2+^2)2 a + 22 a+v_02 x22 a+ ( ^2+^2)2 a .
we can then split the energy into two parts , _
= e_0+e_1 ( x ) , where @xmath108 depends on position , but @xmath109 does not .
the position - independent part is e_0 & = & -18_0^d \ { ^3(^2+^2)2 a + 22 a 22 a+ ( ^2+^2)2 a- ^2+v_02}&= & -v_0 ^ 28_0^d & = & -v_0 ^ 2 a8_0^dq and is always negative . in the limit where @xmath110 ,
we can approximate @xmath111 to get e_0 = -v_0 ^ 3/212 .
the position - dependent part is [ eqn : e1q ] e_1 ( x ) & = & 18_0^d (2^2-^2)v_02 x 2 2 a+ ( ^2+^2)2a & = & v_0 8a_0^ and is always positive .
note that the the dominant term in the integrand in eq.([eqn : e1q ] ) is suppressed by @xmath112 .
thus , far from the edge of the potential , where @xmath113 , @xmath108 is negligible .
close to the edge of the potential , with @xmath114 and @xmath115 , the integral is @xmath116 and e_1 ( x ) -v_064(a - x ) which cancels , in a principal value sense , the divergence outside the barrier .
the sign of the energy density at the center of the barrier depends on the competition between the position - dependent and position - independent parts . for large @xmath117 ,
the position - dependent part is suppressed in the center , and the energy density is negative . for small @xmath117 ,
it is positive .
the total energy density is shown for several values of @xmath117 in fig .  [
fig : square ] .
it has long been known that the energy density near a perfectly reflecting boundary is zero if one uses the `` conformally coupled '' stress - energy tensor , but diverges if one uses the minimally coupled one , as we have done above .
kennedy , critchley , and dowker @xcite argue that since the total energy is the same in the two cases , there must be a surface energy associated with the perfect conductor in the minimal case .
ford and svaiter @xcite found that the surface energy could be seen by allowing the boundary to fluctuate .    here
, we can see the situation by approximating a perfect conductor by a square barrier with @xmath41 fixed and @xmath118 .
we can produce the conformal hamiltonian density by including half the value of the total derivative term , _
= ^2 + ^2(^2 ) - ^2 + v(r)^2 .
this choice gives zero energy outside the barrier and removes the divergence of the energy density everywhere inside . with the minimally coupled hamiltonian
, the energy outside goes to eq.([eqn : outside - square - limit ] ) as @xmath119 becomes large , while the positive energy inside clusters ever closer to the boundary , as shown in fig .
[ fig : square ] . since the change to the total derivative term does not affect the total energy
, we can see that the `` surface energy '' located just inside the boundary cancels the divergent negative energy outside .
to carry out calculations in @xmath120 dimensions , we now need subtractions proportional to @xmath82 , @xmath121 , and @xmath122 . we will use the renormalization scheme defined in section  [ sec : method ] . for @xmath80 , using eq .
( [ eqn : fkappa1 ] ) and evaluating eq.([e2subimag2 ] ) with @xmath80 and @xmath123 gives _ & = & - _ ^d ^3 , [ eqn : m=1n=2 ] where the green s function has again been summed over the symmetric and antisymmetric channels .
again , we will restrict our attention to massless fields for simplicity .
the wave functions and green s functions are just as in sec .
[ sec : examples1 ] .
again , since the potential vanishes , the only counterterm is the vacuum energy .
thus eq .
( [ eqn : m=1n=2 ] ) reduces to _
= -112 ^ 2_0^doutside the potential , and so from eq .
( [ eqn : goutside ] ) , _ = _ 0^d ^3r ( i ) e^-2x . in the large @xmath7 limit , we can again take @xmath124 , to get [ eqn : outside - limit3 ] _ = - _ 0^d ^3 e^-2x=- , a well - known result .      outside a square barrier with width @xmath41 and height @xmath119 ,
the reflection coefficient is given by eq .
( [ eqn : r - square ] ) , and the energy is _ & = & -v_06 ^ 2_0^d ^3 e^-2(x- a)2 a2+ ( ^2+^2)2 a & = & -v_0 6 ^ 2 a^2_0^dq q^3 e^-2q ( y- 1)2q2qq + ( q^2+q ^2)2q .    far from the potential , we approximate @xmath125 . the integral is _
0^ = 38 ( y-1)^4 v and [ eqn : outside - square - limit3 ] _
-116 ^ 2 ( x - a)^4 , in agreement with eq .
( [ eqn : outside - limit3 ] ) .
close to the potential , we approximate @xmath105 and @xmath126 .
the integral becomes and _
-v_096 ^ 2(x- a)^2 .    inside the potential , we need the renormalized form , _
= - _ 0^d , where @xmath64 is the spacelike renormalization point .    for the square barrier
, we get a position - independent part , e_0 & = & -112 ^ 2_0^d\ { ^4(^2+^2)2 a + 22 a 22 a+ ( ^2+^2)2 a & & - ^3+v_02 - } & = & -v_0 ^ 212 ^ 2_0^d\ { - } & = & -v_0 ^ 212 ^ 2_0^dq \ { - } , where @xmath127 and @xmath128 .
we can isolate the dependence on the renormalization scale by using _ 0^dq\ { - } = + to obtain e_0 = -v_0 ^ 212 ^ 2 ( + + _ 0^dq \ { - } ) . in the limit where @xmath129 , we can approximate @xmath130 , the integral gives @xmath131 , and we obtain e_0 = , consistent with the result obtained from the effective potential @xcite .
the position - dependent part is [ eqn : e1q3 ] e_1 ( x ) & = & 112 ^ 2_0^d ^2(3^2-^2)v_02 x 2 2 a+ ( ^2+^2)2a & = & v_012 ^ 2 a^2_0^dqq^2q
( 3q^2-q^2)2q y 2qq 2q+ ( q^2+q ^2)2q and is always positive .
far from the edge of the potential , @xmath108 is negligible .
close to the edge , where we can approximate @xmath132 and @xmath133 , the integral becomes @xmath134 , and e_1 ( x ) -v_096 ^ 2(a - x)^2 , which cancels the divergence outside the barrier .
these results do not reflect any contribution from the @xmath122 counterterm . in this case
it vanishes for all @xmath135 , since the potential is constant .
furthermore , the contribution to the total energy from this term is also zero , since it is a total derivative .
if we imagine that the square barrier represents the limit in which a smooth potential gets steeper and steeper , we will find large equal and opposite contributions to the energy localized in the tiny region on both sides of the boundary .
as long as we average over larger distance scales , this contribution will always cancel out , so it can be ignored in the square barrier limit .
finally , we consider the potential analyzed in @xmath81 dimensions in @xcite , v(x ) = c^2 ^ 2(x / a ) , [ eqn : potential ] which arises frequently in soliton models .
it is exactly solvable in terms of associated legendre functions . for @xmath136 with integer
@xmath30 it becomes reflectionless .
the green s function at coincident points is g(x , x , i)= ( 1 + a + s)(a - s ) p^-a_s ( ( x / a ) ) p^-a_s ( -(x / a ) ) . [ eqn : green ] where @xmath137 is the associated legendre function as defined in @xcite for @xmath138 , and @xmath139 . plugging this into eq.([eqn : m=1n=2 ] ) , we have _ & = & - _ ^d ^3 which can then be computed numerically .
figure  [ fig : densityplot ] gives this energy density as a function of @xmath7 for particular values of the parameters .
we have seen how to address the question of generation of negative energies through quantum fluctuations in the robust language of quantum field theory , where ambiguities associated with idealized boundary conditions are absent .
this approach implements standard renormalization procedures and is applicable to generic background potentials that are spherically symmetric in some dimensions and independent of the rest .
such potentials typically arise , for example , from topological defects or other extended objects . by using dimensional regularization ,
we have implemented a precise renormalization scheme , using only local subtractions for both the first- and second - order diagrams .
we expect that this general formalism , together with fermion scattering theory in fractional dimensions developed in @xcite , will allow these results to be extended to fermions and gauge fields .    in the case of the square barrier
, we have recovered the negative energy associated with perfect reflection at large distances from the barrier , and we have seen that the divergent negative energy outside the barrier is canceled by positive energy immediately inside . in a realistic example in
which one includes the energy associated with the background potential , such cancellations might lead the averaged null energy condition to be obeyed even though the weak energy condition is violated @xcite .
finally , we have calculated the energy density for a smooth background representing a domain wall in @xmath120 dimensions .
ref .  @xcite has calculated the surface tension for a bosonic @xmath140 kink domain wall ( and also its supersymmetric generalization ) using an on - shell renormalization scheme , in space dimension one through four . in the language of the present paper
, this calculation corresponds to the case of @xmath141 and @xmath142 in the potential of section [ sec : sech2 ] , renormalized with @xmath143 , setting @xmath80 and @xmath11 to zero through three .
the surface tension is obtained by then integrating this result over the one nontrivial dimension .
( the choice of @xmath77 does not affect this calculation because the total derivative term integrates to zero . ) using the formulae in the present paper to carry out this calculation , we obtain results in agreement with the bosonic calculations in ref.@xcite .
we would like to thank j. j. blanco - pillado , ruben cordero and delia perlov for assistance and larry ford , bob jaffe , vishesh khemani , markus quandt , tom roman , marco scandurra , xavier siemens , alexander vilenkin , herbert weigel and an anonymous referee for helpful conversations and suggestions .
n.  g. was  supported in part by the u.s .
department of energy ( d.o.e . ) under cooperative research agreement # de - fg03 - 91er40662 .
k.  d.  o. is supported in part by the national science foundation .
by comparing the last line of eq .
( [ eqn : cterm ] ) with the first line of eq .  ( [ eqn : ctermrot ] ) , we require _ ^^n+1 ^m-1 d= _ 0^ dq , where @xmath145 and @xmath146 .
let us change variables on the left from @xmath68 to @xmath147 and on the right from @xmath60 to @xmath148 to get _ 0^l^(n+1)/2 ^m-2 dl = _ 0^ dl with @xmath149 on the left and @xmath150 on the right
. we can write [ eqn : goal ] _ 0^dl l^h ( l+^2 ) = _ 0^dl l^j ( l+^2 ) with & = & ( n+1)/2 + & = & ( n+m-2)/2 + h ( x ) & = & + j ( x ) & = & .
denote the difference in the exponents as @xmath151 . if @xmath152 is a positive integer , the desired relationship is just integration by parts , and h ( x ) = ( -)^j ( x ) . to extend this formula to non - integer @xmath152
, we write @xmath153 in terms of the hypergeometric function , [ eqn : jf ] j ( x ) = ( ) ^d ( d ) _ 2f_1 ( , d ; ; ) , with @xmath154 .
the operator @xmath155 just increments @xmath156 in eq.([eqn : jf ] ) , so we conjecture that the same relationship holds for all @xmath152 , and thus that the desired @xmath157 is given by eq .
( [ eqn : jf ] ) with @xmath158 .
one can check that the conjecture is correct by explicitly performing the integrals in eq .
( [ eqn : goal ] ) , which both give ( ^2-)^-1/2 ( - ) _ 2f_1(,- ; ; ) .
finally we find f ( , m ) & = & ( ) ( 3- ) ( ) ^3-m/2 ^ 2-m _ 2f_1(,3- ; ; ) & = & _ 2f_1(,3- ; ; ) .
we used the analytic properties of the green s function as a mathematical tool , enabling us to carry out calculations efficiently on the imaginary axis . in so doing
, we avoided the apparent singularity in the gamma function coefficient of eq .
( [ eqn : e1sub ] ) for odd @xmath11 .
nonetheless , this expression should be a valid result , finite for @xmath48 .
as in the case of the total energy @xcite , the quantity in brackets must vanish for @xmath24 in each partial wave individually .
furthermore , the combination of the first two terms in brackets vanishes separately from the total derivative term .
these cancellations depend on a local analog of the sum rules for the phase shift given in @xcite , which we demonstrate below .
when similar apparent divergences arise in the calculation of the total energy , they are canceled according to generalizations of levinson s theorem @xcite . for a system with spherical symmetry , in each partial wave @xmath30 these sum rules take the form _ j ( -_j^2)^n + _ 0^k^2n ( _ ( k ) - _ s=1^n _ ^(s)(k ) ) dk = 0 , [ eqn : sumrule ] where the bound states have @xmath159
, @xmath160 is the scattering phase shift , and @xmath161 is the scattering phase shift computed at order @xmath162 in the born approximation .
orders in the born approximation for any @xmath163 . however , there are some restrictions on such oversubtractions in the symmetric channel in one dimension @xcite . ]
the @xmath164 case gives levinson s theorem . like levinson s theorem
, these identities apply to general potentials in scattering theory and hold in each partial wave @xmath30 individually . also like levinson s theorem ,
they are modified for the case of the symmetric channel in one dimension , as discussed in @xcite .
we have a relationship @xcite between the phase shift , the change in the density of states , and the norm of the wavefunction , = _ ( k ) - _ ^(0)(k ) = _ 0^dr r^m-1 ( |_k^(r)|^2 - |_k^^(0)(r)|^2 ) , where the zero superscript indicates a quantity evaluated in the free case .
this equation also holds order by order in the born approximation . using these relations we can rewrite eq .
( [ eqn : sumrule ] ) as dr r^m-1 ( _ j ( -_j^2)^n |_j^(r)|^2 + _ 0^k^2n ( |_k^(r)|^2 - _ s=0^n |_k^^(s)(r)|^2 ) dk ) = 0 , [ eqn : intsum ] where @xmath165 is the born approximation to the wavefunction computed at order @xmath162 ( the free wavefunction is the order zero term ) .
the identities we need for the present application are simply the slightly stronger condition that eq .
( [ eqn : intsum ] ) holds for each @xmath39 individually , rather than just as an integral .
we can exploit the connection to the green s function that was used in @xcite to prove this result as well .
the case of @xmath164 is particularly simple , because we know that _
j |_j^(r)|^2 + _ 0^ ( |_k^(r)|^2 - |_k^^(0)(r)|^2 ) dk = 0 [ eqn : completeness ] by completeness ; it is just the difference between the expectation value of a constant computed in the free and interacting bases .
( after summing over the spectrum , each term is independent of @xmath39 . ) for higher @xmath166 , we would like to show that _ j ( -_j^2)^n |_j^(r)|^2 + _ 0^k^2n ( |_k^(r)|^2 - _ s=0^n |_k^^(s)(r)|^2 ) dk is zero . )
when integrated over @xmath15 .
it might be possible to find analogous results for the higher sum rules as well .
] we employ the relationship in eq.([eqn : normtogreen ] ) between the norm of the wavefunction and the green s function to rewrite this expression as _ j ( -_j^2)^n |_j^(r)|^2 + _ -^k^2n+1 ( g_(x , x , k ) - _ s=0^n g_^(s)(x ,
x , k ) ) dk , where we have extended the integral to the entire @xmath15 axis by the symmetry of the integrand . to show this expression is zero , we would like to do the @xmath15 integral as a contour , closed in the upper half plane .
the singularities in the full green s function correspond to bound states , and will exactly cancel the explicit contribution from the bound states @xcite .
the born approximation has no singularities ( since it does not see the bound states ) .
thus we are left with the contour at infinity .
however , it does not contribute because we have subtracted enough born approximations to ensure that the integrand falls like @xmath167 at large @xmath168 @xcite .      in one dimension
, we have to consider the symmetric channel , which can have additional singularities at @xmath88 .
such singularities , for example , lead to an extra @xmath169 in levinson s theorem @xcite , relating the phase shift at @xmath88 to the number of bound states . we have _
s(0 ) = ( n_s - ) [ eqn : levs ] as opposed to the usual ( 0 ) = n .
[ eqn : leva ] analogously in our problem , eq .  ( [ eqn : completeness ] ) must be modified to _
j |_j^s(x)|^2 - + _ 0^ (    @xmath170 is the size of the system . subtracting @xmath171 reflects the contribution from the state @xmath172 in the free spectrum .
this state is `` half - bound '' : while any potential will have a @xmath88 state in the symmetric channel , in this case the wavefunction goes to a constant at infinity .
such states contribute to the spectrum with half the usual residue for a bound state , as the name indicates .
( generically a state with @xmath88 will approach a line with nonzero slope , in which case
no special treatment is necessary . )
if a potential has a half - bound state , making the potential arbitrarily more attractive introduces a new bound state in the theory , and making it arbitrarily more repulsive eliminates the half - bound state .
for all @xmath15 . if this equality is to hold at @xmath88 , to reconcile eqs .
( [ eqn : levs ] ) and  ( [ eqn : leva ] ) there must be a half - bound state , which contributes only a half to the number of bound states .
the half - bound state in the free case ( which is reflectionless ) is just a consequence of this requirement .
] there will be an analogous contribution to the energy density , so this term will cancel when we pass from eq .
( [ eqn : nolevsub ] ) to eq .
( [ eqn : yeslevsub ] ) and the rest of the derivation of the energy density is unchanged .    for the other sum rules needed in our problem ,
however , we always multiply by enough powers of @xmath15 to cancel any anomalous effects coming from states at @xmath88 .
we would have to be more careful if we do additional born `` oversubtractions , '' in which case we could encounter additional terms analogous to those found in @xcite .
we can always avoid these problems as long as each ultraviolet born subtraction is preceded by a corresponding infrared levinson subtraction . for the first born subtraction , the corresponding levinson subtraction was done using eq .
( [ eqn : completeness ] ) .
higher levinson subtractions would use local analog of the higher sum rules in @xcite .      for casimir calculations it will be convenient to slightly modify the @xmath173 sum rule .
our renormalization procedure subtracts not the full first born approximation , but rather just a local part of it .
however , this replacement does not affect the sum rule .
for example , to apply the results of section  [ sec : onedirectsub ] for @xmath174 , we write _ = + , - |_k(x)|^2 & = & 1 + _
x^dy 2k(y - x ) + & = & 1 + + _ x^dy 2k ( y - x ) + & = & 1 + - _
x^dy 2k ( y - x ) + & = & 1 + - - _
x^dy 2k ( y - x ) + & = & 1 + - + _
x^dy 2k ( y - x ) + [ eqn : asymp1d ] and subtract only the term directly proportional to @xmath82 , rather than all terms that are first order in the strength of the potential .
however , the additional terms , proportional to the derivatives of @xmath82 , do not introduce any singularities in the integral and do not affect the contour at infinity because they fall like @xmath175 or faster .
therefore , this modification does not affect the proof of the sum rule .
this result allows us to apply the sum rule to eq .
( [ eqn : e1sub ] ) .      with the sum rules in hand
, we can now extract a finite result from eq .
( [ eqn : e1sub ] ) .
near @xmath176 we have ( - ) a^n-1 ( 1 + a^2 ) so that in the @xmath177 limit we obtain _ & = & - _ d^m_. [ eqn : sumrulen=1 ]    the local sum rule ensures that the scale of the logarithm does not affect the final result .
in addition , the limit @xmath178 is smooth ( except when @xmath179 and @xmath80 , where we have the usual infrared divergences of one - dimensional field theory ) . if we extend the range of integration in eq .
( [ eqn : sumrulen=1 ] ) as in eq .
( [ eqn : contourextend ] ) , and then close the contour in the upper half plane , the branch cut associated with @xmath180 will reproduce eq .
( [ eqn : greenn=1 ] ) .
a.  s.  goldhaber , a.  litvintsev and p.  van nieuwenhuizen , phys .
* d67 * ( 2003 ) 105021 .
k.  d.  olum and n.  graham , phys .
* b554 * ( 2003 ) 175 .
n.  graham , r.l .
jaffe , v.  khemani , m.  quandt , m.  scandurra , and h.  weigel , nucl .
* b645 * ( 2002 ) 49 .
n.  graham and r.l .
jaffe , nucl .
* b544 * ( 1999 ) 432 ;