1: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \def\sla{\raise.15ex\hbox{$/$}\kern-.57em}

4: \def\slas#1{\rlap{$#1$}\thinspace /}

5: \def\comp{{\rm C}\llap{\vrule height7.1pt width1pt depth-.4pt\phantom t}}

6: \def\Box{\kern1pt\vbox{\hrule height 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt

7:    \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt\vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}

8: \def\gtwid{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

9: \def\ltwid{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

10: \def\Box{\kern1pt\vbox{\hrule height 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt

11:    \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt\vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}

12: \def\e{\epsilon}

13: \def\d{\delta}

14: \def\d1{\delta^+}

15: \def\d2{\delta^-}

16: \def\O{\Omega}

17: \def\o{\omega}

18: \newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}

20: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

21: \def\eea{end{eqnarray}}

22: 

23: \begin{document}

24: \begin{titlepage}

25: \begin{flushright}

26: hep-th/0108090 \\ UFIFT-HEP-01-12 \\ CRETE-01-11 

27: \end{flushright}

28: \begin{center}

29: \bf{Pair creation and axial anomaly in light-cone $QED_2$}

30: \end{center}

31: 

32: \vspace{0.5cm}

33: 

34: \begin{center}

35: T. N. Tomaras$^{\dagger}$ and N. C. Tsamis$^{\ddagger}$

36: \end{center}

37: \begin{center}

38: \it{Department of Physics and Institute of Plasma Physics \\

39: University of Crete and FO.R.T.H. \\ 

40: P.O.Box 2208, 710 03 Heraklion, Crete; GREECE.}

41: \end{center}

42: 

43: \vspace{0.3cm}

44: 

45: \begin{center}

46: R. P. Woodard$^*$

47: \end{center}

48: \begin{center}

49: \it{Department of Physics, University of Florida \\ 

50: Gainesville, FL 32611; UNITED STATES.}

51: \end{center}

52: 

53: \vspace{0.7cm}

54: 

55: \begin{center}

56: ABSTRACT

57: \end{center}

58: \hspace*{.3cm} The 1+1 dimensional massive Dirac equation is solved exactly 

59: in light-cone coordinates for $x^+ > 0$ and $x^- > -L$, in the presence of an 

60: arbitrary $x^+$ dependent electric field. Our solution resolves the ambiguity 

61: at $p^+ = 0$. We also obtain the one loop rate for pair production for a 

62: positive electric field, compute the expectation values of the vector and 

63: axial vector currents, and recover the well known anomaly $e^2 E/\pi$ in the 

64: divergence of the latter. A final intriguing result is that the theory seems 

65: to exhibit a phase transition in the limit of infinite $L$.

66: 

67: \vspace{1cm}

68: 

69: \begin{flushleft}

70: PACS numbers: 11.15.Kc, 12.20-m

71: \end{flushleft}

72: \begin{flushleft}

73: $^{\dagger}$ e-mail: tomaras@physics.uoc.gr \\

74: $^{\ddagger}$ e-mail: tsamis@physics.uoc.gr \\

75: $^*$ e-mail: woodard@phys.ufl.edu

76: \end{flushleft}

77: \end{titlepage}

78: 

79: \section{Introduction}

80: 

81: The phenomenon of electron-positron pair production in an external electric 

82: field has already a long history. What happens initially when a prepared state 

83: is released in the presence of a homogeneous electric field is that 

84: electron-positron pairs emerge from the vacuum to form a current which 

85: diminishes the electric field. If the state is released on a surface of 

86: constant $x^0$ with no initial charge then the electric field at later times 

87: depends only upon $x^0$. This process was considered long before the 

88: ultraviolet problem of quantum electrodynamics was resolved 

89: \cite{Klein,Sauter,Wolkow}. Schwinger invented what we now know as the in-out 

90: background field effective action to compute the rate of particle production 

91: per unit volume in the presence of a strictly constant electric field 

92: \cite{Schwinger}. Since then a variety of articles 

93: \cite{Brezin}--\cite{Kluger2} and monographs \cite{Greiner,Fradkin} have 

94: treated the issue of what happens when the effect becomes strong.

95: 

96: In the light-cone analog to this process a source-free state is released on a 

97: surface of constant $x^+ \equiv (x^0 + x^1)/\sqrt{2}$ in the presence of 

98: a homogeneous electric field which is parallel to $x^1$. The resulting 

99: evolution yields a homogeneous electric field which depends upon $x^+$ rather 

100: than $x^0$, and has potentially interesting applications in the study of the 

101: onset and evolution of electric fields in the vicinity of a star formed by the 

102: collapse of charged matter \cite{damour}. An amazing feature of Dirac theory 

103: in {\it any} such $x^+$ dependent background is that the mode functions are 

104: simple \cite{ttw}. This fact had been noted previously for the special case of 

105: a constant electric field \cite{artru,Indians1,Indians2}, although without 

106: resolving the ambiguity at $p^+ = 0$. By allowing the electric field to depend

107: arbitrarily upon $x^+$ it is for the first time possible to study back-reaction

108: {\it analytically} in the presence of a class of backgrounds which is 

109: guaranteed to include the actual solution.

110: 

111: A crucial insight in resolving the ambiguity at $p^+ = 0$ was that the 

112: light-cone evolution problem is not well posed with only initial value data 

113: from the surface at $x^+ = 0$ \cite{ttw}. One must also provide data on a

114: surface of constant $x^- \equiv (x^0 - x^1)/\sqrt{2}$, which we took to be

115: $x^- = -L$. Incidentally, this fact has been noted before in \cite{neville}, 

116: while an early attempt to analyze its consequences in the quantum theory of 

117: massless fermions, may be found in \cite{mccartor}. Although correct, our 

118: previous solution for the electron field operator was only valid in the 

119: distributional limit of $L \longrightarrow \infty$. This restricted its to 

120: use to expectation values of nonsingular operators such as $J^+$, but 

121: prevented us from evaluating operators such as $J^-$ which diverge as $L$ 

122: goes to infinity. In the present work we remove this restriction by deriving 

123: an exact operator solution which is valid for all $L$. The result is a vast 

124: increase in the range of applications which we will exploit in a number of 

125: ways for the special case of 1+1-dimensional, massive quantum electrodynamics 

126: ($QED_2$). Note, however, that the exact operator solution is valid for any 

127: spacetime dimension, as well as for zero mass.

128: 

129: This paper contains seven sections of which this introduction is the first. 

130: Section 2 begins by giving our light-cone coordinate and gauge conventions,

131: which we have converted from those of our initial treatment \cite{ttw} to 

132: standard notation. This section also presents the complete operator solution 

133: for Dirac theory in the presence of an arbitrary $x^+$ dependent electric 

134: field background, expressed in terms of the field operators on the surfaces of 

135: $x_+ = 0$ and $x_- = -L$. Section 3 gives the quantum operator algebra and the 

136: conditions which define the initial, source-free state. We use these results 

137: in Section 4 to give an explicit, analytic derivation for the probability of 

138: particle production in our general background. In Section 5 we compute the one 

139: loop expectation value of the vector current operator and show that it is 

140: conserved. The fact that our results depend non-analytically upon the

141: background field in the large $L$ limit seems to indicate that we are seeing

142: an infinite volume phase transition. In Section 6 we compute the one loop

143: expectation values of the axial currents and of the pseudoscalar bilinear. We

144: exploit these results to derive the standard formula for the axial vector 

145: anomaly for the first time ever on the light-cone with $m \neq 0$.\footnote{

146: The simpler massless case has already been given a satisfactory treatment 

147: \cite{McC,NaMc}.} Section 7 gives our conclusions and some comments about 

148: the subtle limiting procedure required for computing back-reaction.

149: 

150: \section{The model and its solution}

151: 

152: The massive Schwinger model is defined by the Lagrangian density,

153: \begin{equation}

154: {\cal L}=\overline{\Psi} i\gamma^\mu (\partial_\mu+i e A_\mu)\Psi - m

155: \overline{\Psi} \Psi -{1\over 4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \; , \label{lagrangian}

156: \end{equation}

157: with $\mu, \nu=0,1$. $A_\mu$ is the gauge potential and $\Psi$ is the fermion 

158: Dirac doublet field. The electromagnetic coupling constant is $e < 0$. Our 

159: conventions for the flat spacetime metric, and the Gamma matrices are the ones 

160: used by Bjorken and Drell \cite{bd}, appropriately reduced to two spacetime 

161: dimensions. Thus, $\eta_{\mu\nu}=(+1, -1)$, $\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu\}=2\eta_{

162: \mu\nu}$, $\gamma^0 {\gamma^\mu}^\dagger \gamma^0 = \gamma^\mu$, ${\gamma_5

163: }^\dagger= \gamma_5$.

164: 

165: We shall adhere to the standard light-cone conventions \cite{Kogut} for 

166: defining coordinates, $x^{\pm}\equiv {1\over{\sqrt{2}}}(x^0\pm x^1)$. Identical

167: formulae relate the light-cone components of an arbitrary vector $V^\mu$ to the

168: Cartesian ones. In these coordinates the inner product of two vectors is $a^\mu

169: b_\mu=a^0 b^0-a^1b^1=a^+b^-+a^-b^+$. The non-vanishing components of the metric

170: are $g_{+-}=g_{-+}=1$, and consequently for any vector one has $a_+=a^-, a_-=

171: a^+$. With the standard definition $\partial_\pm\equiv \partial/\partial 

172: x^\pm$, one obtains $\partial_\mu V^\mu=\partial_+ V^+ + \partial_- V^-$ for 

173: any vector field $V^\mu$.

174: 

175: We define the light-cone spinor projection operators by ${\cal P}_{\pm}\equiv 

176: {1\over 2}(I\pm \gamma^0 \gamma^1)={1\over 2}(I\pm \gamma_5)={1\over 2}

177: \gamma^\mp \gamma^\pm$. In direct analogy with all other vectors $\gamma^\pm 

178: \equiv {1\over {\sqrt{2}}}(\gamma^0\pm \gamma^1)$. They satisfy $(\gamma^\pm)^2

179: =0$ and $\{\gamma^+,\gamma^-\}=2$. The Dirac spinor decomposes into $\Psi=

180: \psi_+ + \psi_-$, with $\psi_\pm \equiv {\cal P}_\pm \Psi$. Finally, note that 

181: in 1+1 dimensions ${\rm Tr}{\cal P}_{\pm} = 1$.

182: 

183: A convenient representation of the Dirac matrices is $\gamma^0=\sigma_1$, 

184: $\gamma^1=i\sigma_2$. In this representation $\gamma_5=\gamma^0 \gamma^1=-

185: \sigma_3$, while ${\cal P}_+={\rm diag}(0, 1)$ and ${\cal P}_-={\rm diag}(1, 

186: 0)$. However, we shall work in a representation independent way.

187: 

188: We shall here go over the relevant bilinears without attention to either 

189: operator ordering or to regularization. These issues will be fully addressed

190: in Sections 5 and 6. The light-cone components $J^\pm\equiv {1 \over 

191: {\sqrt{2}}} (J^0\pm J^1)$ of the electromagnetic current $J^\mu=e\overline{

192: \Psi} \gamma^\mu \Psi$ are,

193: \be

194: J^\pm=\sqrt{2}e\psi_\pm^\dagger \psi_\pm \; . \label{J+-}

195: \ee

196: Similarly, the light-cone components $J_5^\pm\equiv {1\over{\sqrt{2}}}(J_5^0

197: \pm J_5^1)$ of the axial current $J_5^\mu=\overline{\Psi} \gamma^\mu\gamma_5

198: \Psi$ take the form,

199: \be

200: J_5^\pm=\pm\sqrt{2}\psi_\pm^\dagger \psi_\pm = \pm J^\pm /e \; .  \label{J5+-}

201: \ee

202: Finally, the bilinear $J_5\equiv \overline{\Psi} \gamma_5 \Psi$ in terms of 

203: $\psi_\pm$ becomes,

204: \be

205: J_5={1\over\sqrt{2}}(\psi_-^\dagger \gamma^+ \psi_+ - \psi_+^\dagger \gamma^- 

206: \psi_-) \; . \label{J5}

207: \ee

208: 

209: We fix the gauge by setting $A_+=0$ with the initial value of $A_-$ also zero,

210: \begin{equation}

211: A_-(x^+) = - \int_0^{x^+} du E(u) \; .

212: \end{equation}

213: The Dirac equation in an arbitrary $A_-(x^+)$ background field takes the form:

214: \begin{equation}

215: \left(\gamma^+ i \partial_+ + \gamma^- (i\partial_- - 

216: e A_-) - m \right) \Psi =0. \label{dirac}

217: \ee

218: It implies the conservation of the electromagnetic current

219: \begin{equation}

220: \partial_+ J^+ +\partial_- J^- =0 \; , \label{naive1}

221: \end{equation}

222: as well as the following relation between $J_5$ and the divergence of the

223: axial vector current,

224: \begin{equation}

225: e \partial_{\mu} J_5^{\mu} - 2 i e m J_5 = 2 \partial_+ J^+ - 2 i e m J_5 = 0 

226: \; . \label{naive2}

227: \end{equation}

228: 

229: \begin{figure}

230: \centerline{\epsfig{file=qedfig1.eps,height=3.5in}}

231: \caption{The domain (shaded) of our solution for $\psi_{\pm}(x^+,x^-)$. We 

232: specify the initial values of $\psi_+(0,x^-)$ for all $x^- > -L$ and of

233: $\psi_-(x^+,-L)$ for all $x^+ > 0$.}

234: \end{figure}

235: 

236: Multiplying (\ref{dirac}) by $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ respectively, one may 

237: rewrite it in the equivalent form of the system of equations,

238: \begin{eqnarray}

239: i\partial_+ \psi_+ & = & {m\over 2}\gamma^-\psi_- \; , \label{eqn1} \\

240: (i\partial_- - eA_-)\psi_- & = & {m\over 2}\gamma^+\psi_+ \; . \label{eqn2}

241: \end{eqnarray}

242: Equations (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}) can be integrated,

243: \begin{eqnarray}

244: \psi_+(x^+,x^-) & = & \psi_+(0,x^-)-{{im}\over 2}\int_0^{x^+} du \gamma^-

245: \psi_-(u,x^-) \label{int1} \; , \\

246: \psi_-(x^+,x^-) & = & e^{-ieA_-(x^+)(x^-+L)}\psi_-(x^+,-L) \nonumber \\

247: & & \qquad - {{im}\over 2} \int_{-L}^{x^-} dv e^{-ieA_-(x^+) (x^- - v)} 

248: \gamma^+\psi_+(x^+,v) \; , \label{int2}

249: \end{eqnarray}

250: to express $\psi_\pm(x^+,x^-)$ in terms of initial data $\psi_+(x^+=0,x^->-L)$ 

251: and $\psi_-(x^+>0,x^-=-L)$ on the semi-axes shown in Fig.~1.

252: Substituting (\ref{int2}) into (\ref{int1}) and iterating, one is led to the

253: following infinite series solution for $\psi_+$,

254: \begin{eqnarray}

255: \lefteqn{\psi_+(x^+, x^-)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Bigl(-{{m^2}\over 2}\Bigr)^n 

256: \int_0^{x^+}du_1 \int_{-L}^{x^-}dv_1 e^{-ieA_-(u_1) (x^- - v_1)} \int_0^{u_1}

257: du_2 } \nonumber \\

258: & & \int_{-L}^{v_1}dv_2 e^{-ieA_-(u_2) (v_1 - v_2)} \cdots \int_0^{u_{n-1}}du_n 

259: \int_{-L}^{v_{n-1}}dv_n e^{-ieA_-(u_n) (v_{n-1} - v_n)} \nonumber \\

260: & & \hspace{2cm} \times \Biggl\{\psi_+(0,v_n)- i{m\over 2}\gamma^- 

261: \int_0^{u_n}du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v_n+L)}\psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\}. \quad\label{psi1}

262: \end{eqnarray}

263:  

264: One next introduces the identity,

265: \begin{equation}

266: \int_{-L}^{v_{n-1}} dv_n e^{-ieA_-(v_{n-1}-v_n)} = \int_{-L}^{\infty} dv_n 

267: \int_{-\infty}^\infty{{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} {{ie^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(v_{n-1} - v_n)}} 

268: \over {k^+ - eA_-(u_n)+i/L}} \; , \label{id}

269: \end{equation}

270: sets $v_n = v$ and interchanges the order of integration to get,

271: \begin{eqnarray}

272: \lefteqn{\psi_+(x^+, x^-)= \int_{-L}^{\infty} dv \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {dk^+

273: \over 2\pi} e^{i (k^+ + i/L) v} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \Bigl(-{{m^2}\over 2}

274: \Bigr)^n \int_0^{x^+}du_1 \int_{-L}^{x^-}dv_1} \nonumber \\

275: & & \times e^{-ieA_-(u_1) (x^- - v_1)} \cdots \int_0^{u_{n-3}} du_{n-2}

276: \int_{-L}^{v_{n-3}} dv_{n-2} e^{-ie A_-(u_{n-2})(v_{n-3}-v_{n-2})} \nonumber \\

277: & & \qquad \times \int_0^{u_{n-2}} du_{n-1} \int_{-L}^{v_{n-2}}dv_{n-1} 

278: e^{-ie A_-(u_{n-1}) (v_{n-2} - v_{n-1})} e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)v_{n-1}} \nonumber \\

279: & & \qquad \qquad \times \int_0^{u_{n-1}} {i du_n \over{k^+ - eA_-(u_n)+i/L}}

280: \Biggl\{\psi_+(0,v) \nonumber \\

281: & & \hspace{4cm} - i{m\over 2}\gamma^- \int_0^{u_n} du 

282: e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} \psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\} \; . \qquad \label{psi2}

283: \end{eqnarray}

284: This is the key step at which we deviate from our previous solution \cite{ttw}.

285: In particular it will not be necessary, proceeding this way, to take $L$ to

286: infinity.

287: 

288: The integration over $v_{n-1}$ gives,

289: \begin{eqnarray}

290: \lefteqn{\int_{-L}^{v_{n-2}}dv_{n-1} e^{-ie A_-(u_{n-1}) (v_{n-2} - v_{n-1})}

291: e^{-i(k^+ +i/L)v_{n-1}} } \nonumber \\

292: & & \qquad = {i e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)v_{n-2}} - i e^{-i e A_-(u_{n-1}) (L + 

293: v_{n-2})} e^{i(k^+ +i/L)L} \over k^+ - eA_-(u_{n-1}) + i/L} \; . \label{vn1}

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: Note that the second term in (\ref{vn1}) gives zero inside the $k^+$ integral.

296: This is because $(v+L)$ is positive in the range over which $v$ is integrated,

297: so we can close the contour of the $k^+$ integral above. The result must be

298: zero because the integrand is analytic in the upper half plane.

299: 

300: Upon substitution of (\ref{vn1}) our solution for $\psi_+$ becomes,

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: \lefteqn{\psi_+(x^+, x^-) = \int_{-L}^{\infty} dv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

303: {{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} e^{i(k^+ + i/L) v} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\Bigl(-{{m^2}\over 2}

304: \Bigr)^n \int_0^{x^+}du_1 \dots}

305: \nonumber \\ 

306: & & \cdots \int_0^{u_{n-3}}du_{n-2} \int_{-L}^{v_{n-3}}dv_{n-2} 

307: e^{-ieA_-(u_{n-2}) (v_{n-3} - v_{n-2})} e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)v_{n-2}} \nonumber \\

308: & & \qquad \times \int_0^{u_{n-2}} {i du_{n-1} \over {k^+ - eA_-(u_{n-1})+i/L}} 

309: \int_0^{u_{n-1}} {i du_n \over {k^+ - eA_-(u_n)+i/L}} \nonumber \\

310: & & \hspace{2cm} \times \Biggl\{\psi_+(0,v) - i{m\over 2}\gamma^- 

311: \int_0^{u_n}du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)}\psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\} \; . \qquad \label{psi3}

312: \end{eqnarray}

313: Then perform the $v_{n-2}$ integration, just like (\ref{vn1}), and discard the 

314: lower limit as before. In this way all the $v_i$ integrations can be done to 

315: give,

316: \begin{eqnarray}

317: \lefteqn{\psi_+(x^+, x^-) = \int_{-L}^{\infty}dv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

318: {dk^+\over 2 \pi} e^{i(k^+ + i/L) (v - x^-)}} \nonumber \\

319: & & \times \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \int_0^{x^+} {-im^2/2 \; du_1 \over k^+ - 

320: eA_-(u_1) + i/L} \cdots \int_0^{u_{n-1}} {{-im^2/2 \; du_n} \over {k^+ - 

321: eA_-(u_n) + i/L}} \nonumber \\

322: & & \hspace{2cm} \times \Biggl\{ \psi_+(0,v) - {i\over 2} m \gamma^- 

323: \int_0^{u_n} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} \psi_-(u,-L) \Biggr\} \; .\quad \label{psi4}

324: \end{eqnarray}

325: 

326: Use of the identities,

327: \begin{equation}

328: \int_0^{x^+} du_1 f(u_1) \int_0^{u_1} du_2 f(u_2) \cdots \int_0^{u_{

329: n-1}}du_n f(u_n) = {1 \over n!} \Biggl[\int_0^{x^+} dy f(y)\Biggr]^n \; ,

330: \end{equation}

331: \begin{eqnarray}

332: \lefteqn{\int_0^{x^+} du_1 f(u_1) \cdots \int_0^{u_{n-1}} du_n f(u_n) 

333: \int_0^{u_n} du g(u)} \nonumber \\

334: & & \hspace{4cm} = \int_0^{x^+} du g(u) {1\over{n!}} \Biggl[ \int_u^{x^+} dy

335: f(y)\Biggr]^n \; , 

336: \end{eqnarray}

337: leads to the final expression for $\psi_+$,

338: \begin{eqnarray}

339: \lefteqn{\psi_+(x^+,x^-) = \int_{-L}^{\infty}dv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} 

340: {{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} e^{i(k^++i/L) (v - x^-)} \Biggl\{{\cal E}[eA_-](0,x^+;k^+)

341: \psi_+(0,v)} \nonumber \\

342: & & \hspace{1cm} - {i\over 2} m \gamma^- \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} 

343: {\cal E}[eA_-](u,x^+;k^+) \psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\} \; . \quad \label{psi+}

344: \end{eqnarray}

345: The functional ${\cal E}[eA_-]$ is,

346: \be

347: {\cal E}[eA_-](u,x^+;k^+) \equiv \exp\Biggl[- {i\over 2} m^2 \int_u^{x^+} 

348: {{du'} \over {k^+-eA_-(u')+i/L}}\Biggr] \; .  \label{w}

349: \ee

350: As for $\psi_-(x^+,x^-)$, it is obtained trivially from (\ref{eqn1}),

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: \lefteqn{\psi_-(x^+,x^-) = {1\over m} \gamma^+ i \partial_+ \psi_+(x^+,x^-)

353: = e^{-ieA_-(x^+)(x^-+L)} \psi_-(x^+,-L)} \nonumber \\

354: & & + \int_{-L}^{\infty} dv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} {{m/2}

355: \; e^{i(k^++i/L) (v - x^-)} \over {k^+-eA_-(x^+)+i/L}}

356: \Biggl\{{\cal E}[eA_-](0,x^+;k^+) \gamma^+ \psi_+(0,v) \nonumber \\

357: & & \hspace{2cm} - i m \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}[eA_-](u,

358: x^+;k^+) \psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\} \; . \qquad \label{psi-}

359: \end{eqnarray}

360: 

361: Equations (\ref{psi+}) and (\ref{psi-}) represent the general solution of the 

362: Dirac equation on the light-cone and in the presence of an arbitrary 

363: $x^+$ dependent background electric field $E(x^+)=-A'_-(x^+)$. The solutions

364: are expressed in terms of data given on the initial surface formed by the union

365: of the semi-axes $(x^+=0, x^->-L)$ and $(x^+>0, x^-=-L)$, shown in Fig~1. It is

366: straightforward to verify that our solutions for $\psi_{\pm}$ obey the Dirac 

367: equations (\ref{eqn1}-\ref{eqn2}). It is also obvious from (\ref{psi+}) that

368: our solution for $\psi_+$ agrees with its initial value at $x^+ = 0$. To see

369: that our solution for $\psi_-$ agrees with its initial value at $x_- = -L$ note

370: the second term in (\ref{psi-}) gives zero (at $x^- = -L$ only!) for the same 

371: reason that the lower limit of (\ref{vn1}) makes no contribution. When $x^- = 

372: -L$ the term $(v - x^-)$ is positive and we can close the $k^+$ contour above. 

373: Since the integrand is analytic in the upper half plane the result is zero.

374: 

375: \section{Quantization} 

376: 

377: Our solutions (\ref{psi+}) and (\ref{psi-}) depend upon $\psi_+(0,v)$ and

378: $\psi_-(u,-L)$. We use canonical quantization to define the algebra of these 

379: initial value operators. The Lagrangian for this system is,

380: \begin{eqnarray}

381: \lefteqn{{\cal L}={\overline{\Psi}}(i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu -e\gamma^\mu 

382: A_\mu-m)\Psi \; ,} \\

383: & & = \sqrt{2}\psi_+^\dagger\Bigl(i\partial_+\psi_+ -{m\over 2}\gamma^- 

384: \psi_-\Bigr) + \sqrt{2}\psi_-^\dagger\Bigl((i\partial_- - eA_-)\psi_- - {m\over

385: 2}\gamma^+ \psi_+\Bigr) \; . \quad 

386: \end{eqnarray}

387: The momentum conjugate to $\psi_+(0,v)$ is $i\sqrt{2}\psi_+^\dagger(0,v)$, the 

388: partial derivative of the Lagrangian density with respect to the normal 

389: derivative $\partial_+\psi_+$ evaluated on the $x^+=0$ branch of the initial 

390: Cauchy surface. Correspondingly, the momentum conjugate to $\psi_-(u,-L)$

391: is the partial derivative of ${\cal L}$ with respect to the normal derivative

392: $\partial_-\psi_-$ on the $x^-=-L$ branch, and is equal to $i\sqrt{2}\psi_-^{

393: \dagger}(u,-L)$. Because the two branches are spacelike separated the canonical 

394: coordinates and momenta defined on them must be independent of one another. 

395: Hence the only non-zero anti-commutators are,

396: \begin{eqnarray}

397: \Bigl\{\psi_+(0,v),\psi_+^\dagger(0,v')\Bigr\} & = & {1\over\sqrt{2}}{\cal P}_+

398: \delta(v-v') \; , \label{facr1} \\

399: \Bigl\{\psi_-(u,-L),\psi_-^\dagger(u',-L)\Bigr\} & = & {1\over\sqrt{2}}

400: {\cal P}_- \delta(u-u') \; . \label{facr2}

401: \end{eqnarray}

402: 

403: The algebra of the initial value operators, plus the way in which our solutions

404: (\ref{psi+},\ref{psi-}) depend upon the initial value operators, determines

405: how the various operators anti-commute at any spacetime point. It is 

406: straightforward to check that the expected equal $x^+$ and equal $x^-$ 

407: relations do in fact result,

408: \begin{eqnarray}

409: \Bigl\{\psi_+(x^+,x^-),\psi_+^\dagger(x^+,y^-)\Bigr\} & = & {1\over\sqrt{2}}

410: {\cal P}_+ \delta(x^- -y^-) \; , \\

411: \Bigl\{\psi_-(x^+,x^-),\psi_-^\dagger(y^+,x^-)\Bigr\} & = & {1\over\sqrt{2}}

412: {\cal P}_- \delta(x^+ -y^+) 

413: \end{eqnarray}

414: Note that these relations would {\it not} have followed if we had adopted the

415: usual light-cone procedure of ignoring dependence upon $\psi_-(x^+,-L)$. 

416: Properly resolving the ambiguity at $k^+ = 0$ is therefore necessary to 

417: preserve unitarity.

418: 

419: \vfill\eject

420: 

421: It is convenient to define the ``Fourier transform'' of $\psi_+$ as follows,

422: \begin{eqnarray}

423: \lefteqn{\widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+) \equiv \int_{-L}^{\infty} dv e^{i(k^++i/L)

424: v} \Biggl\{{\cal E}[eA_-](0,x^+;k^+) \psi_+(0,v)} \nonumber \\

425: & & \hspace{1cm} - {i\over 2} m \gamma^- \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} 

426: {\cal E}[eA_-](u,x^+;k^+) \psi_-(u,-L)\Biggr\} \; . \quad \label{psitilde}

427: \end{eqnarray}

428: In the large $L$ limit this quantity becomes a pure creation or annihilation

429: operator. To see why, first note that $x^+$ is the light-cone time parameter. 

430: Now compute the $x^+$ derivative of $\widetilde{\psi}_+$,

431: \begin{eqnarray}

432: \lefteqn{-i\partial_+ \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+) = {-{m^2/2} \; 

433: \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+) \over {k^+-eA_-(x^+)+i/L}}} \nonumber \\

434: & & \hspace{3cm} - {{i m/2} \; e^{-i(k^++i/L)L} \over {k^+ - eA_-(x^+) + i/L}} 

435: \gamma^- \psi_-(x^+,-L) \; . \label{d+psi}

436: \end{eqnarray}

437: In the large L limit, the second term contributes only for $k^+ = eA_-(x^+)$

438: because,

439: \begin{equation}

440: \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} {{e^{-i(k^+ - e A_-(x^+) + i/L)L}} \over 

441: {k^+ - eA_-(x^+) + i/L}} = -2 \pi i \delta\Bigl(k^+ - e A_-(x^+)\Bigr) \; .

442: \end{equation}

443: Therefore, away from the singular point at $k^+ = e A_-(x^+)$ and in the large

444: $L$ limit, $\widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+)$ is an eigenoperator of the light-cone

445: Hamiltonian. For $k^+ < e A_-(x^+)$ its eigenvalue is positive so it must

446: create a positron with some amplitude. For $k^+ > e A_-(x^+)$ its eigenvalue

447: is negative so it must annihilate an electron with some amplitude.

448: 

449: To find the amplitude we compute the anti-commutator between the operator and

450: its conjugate,

451: \begin{eqnarray}

452: \lefteqn{\{\widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+),\widetilde{\psi}_+^\dagger(x^+,q^+)\} =

453: \int_{-L}^{\infty}dv e^{i(k^++i/L)v} \int_{-L}^{\infty}dw e^{-i(q^+-i/L)w} }

454: \nonumber \\

455: & & \quad \times {{\cal P}_+\over\sqrt{2}} \Biggl\{{\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+){\cal 

456: E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \delta(v-w) +{m^2 \over 2} \int_0^{x^+}due^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} 

457: \nonumber \\

458: & & \qquad \qquad \times {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) \int_0^{x^+} dy e^{ieA_-(y)(w+L)} 

459: {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) \delta(u-y)\Biggr\} \; , \\

460: & & = {1\over\sqrt{2}} {\cal P}_+ {{ie^{-i(k^+-q^++2i/L)L}}\over{k^+-q^++2i/L}}

461: \Biggl\{{\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

462: & & \hspace{3cm} + \int_0^{x^+} du {\partial \over {\partial u}} 

463: \Bigl({\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+){\cal E}^*(u,x^+;q^+)\Bigr) \Biggr\} \; , \\

464: & & = {1\over\sqrt{2}} {\cal P}_+ {{ie^{-i(k^+-q^++2i/L)L}} \over {k^+ - q^+ +

465: 2 i/L}} \; , \\

466: & & \longrightarrow {1\over\sqrt{2}} {\cal P}_+ 2\pi \delta(k^+-q^+) \; .

467: \label{anti}

468: \end{eqnarray}

469: We conclude that, in the limit $L\to \infty$, $2^{1/4}\tilde\psi_+(x^+,k^+)$ 

470: creates positrons with unit amplitude for $k^+<eA_-(x^+)$ and destroys 

471: electrons with unit amplitude for $k^+>eA_-(x^+)$.

472: 

473: It remains to specify the vacuum. Of course a system for which pair production

474: occurs is not stable and so does not possess a true ground state. It is 

475: nevertheless reasonable to work with the state $\vert \Omega \rangle$ which is

476: empty on the initial value surface. That is, $\vert \Omega \rangle$ is the

477: usual vacuum for Dirac theory with $A_- = 0$. Since we are in the Heisenberg 

478: picture $\vert \Omega \rangle$ is the state of the system for all times but

479: a nonzero background shows up in how the field operators depend upon their

480: initial values. Thus our method for computing the expectation value of an 

481: operator at $(x^+,x^-)$ is to use (\ref{psi+},\ref{psi-}) to reduce the 

482: problem to expectation values of the initial value operators. These are then

483: computed in the well-known $A_- = 0$ theory. For example, the expectation

484: value of any bilinear can be read off from the following \cite{bd}:

485: \begin{eqnarray}

486: \lefteqn{\Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_\alpha(x^+,x^-) 

487: \psi_\beta^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle_{A_- = 0}} 

488: \nonumber \\

489: & & \hspace{2cm} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty{{dp}\over{2\pi}} (\sla{p} \gamma^0 

490: + m\gamma^0)_{ \alpha\beta} {1 \over 2 \omega} e^{-ip^-(x^+ -y^+) - i p^+

491: (x^- -y^-)} \; , \label{vev1} \\

492: \lefteqn{\Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_\beta^\dagger(y^+,y^-) 

493: \psi_\alpha(x^+,x^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle_{A_- = 0}} \nonumber \\

494: & & \hspace{2cm} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty{{dp}\over{2\pi}} (\sla{p} \gamma^0 

495: - m\gamma^0)_{\alpha\beta} {1 \over 2 \omega} e^{ip^-(x^+ -y^+) + i p^+

496: (x^- -y^-)} \; . \label{vev2}

497: \end{eqnarray}

498: In these integrals the light-cone momenta are given by $p^\pm = {1 \over 

499: \sqrt{2}} (\omega \pm p)$, with $\omega=\sqrt{m^2+p^2}$ and $2p^+ p^- = m^2$. 

500: It is often convenient to change variables from $p$ to $p^+$ or $p^-$,

501: \be

502: \int_{-\infty}^\infty dp = \int_0^\infty dp^+ {\omega\over {p^+}} 

503: = \int_0^\infty dp^- {\omega\over {p^-}} \; .

504: \ee

505: 

506: We can drop the subscript ``$A_- = 0$'' when the coordinates $(x^+,x^-)$ and 

507: $(y^+,y^-)$ are specialized to the initial value surface because the state 

508: $\vert \Omega \rangle$ is defined to agree with the $A_- = 0$ vacuum on this 

509: surface. For example, taking the spinor trace of the various $\pm$ components

510: of (\ref{vev2}) gives,

511: \begin{eqnarray}

512: \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger (0,z) \psi_+(0,v) \Bigr\vert \O 

513: \Bigr\rangle & = & {1\over{\sqrt{2}}} \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} 

514: e^{-ip^+(v-z)} \; , \\

515: \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger (0,z)\gamma^-\psi_-(y,-L) \Bigr\vert 

516: \O \Bigr\rangle & = & {1\over{\sqrt{2}}} \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+}\over{2\pi}}

517: {m\over {p^+}}e^{-ip^-u+ip^+(z+L)} \; , \\

518: \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger (y,-L)\gamma^+\psi_+(0,v) \Bigr\vert

519: \O \Bigr\rangle & = & {1\over{\sqrt{2}}}\int_{-\infty}^0{{dp^+}\over{2\pi}}

520: {m\over {p^+}}e^{ip^-y-ip^+(v+L)} \; , \\

521: \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger (y,-L)\psi_-(u,-L) \Bigr\vert \O

522: \Bigr\rangle & = &

523: {1\over{\sqrt{2}}}\int_{-\infty}^0{{dp^-}\over{2\pi}}e^{-ip^-(u-y)} \; , \\

524: & = & {1\over{\sqrt{2}}}\Biggl[{1\over 2}\delta(u-y)+

525: {i\over{2\pi}}{\cal P}\Bigl({1\over{u-y}}\Bigr)\Biggr] \; . \label{formulas}

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: Note that in taking $L$ to infinity we can neglect the cross correlators

528: between $\psi_+(0,x^-)$ and $\psi_-(x^+,-L)$.

529: 

530: \section{Pair production on the light-cone}

531: 

532: It was shown above that the $L \rightarrow \infty$ limit of the operator 

533: $2^{1/4} \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+)$ has unit amplitude for creating positrons

534: when $k^+<eA_-(x^+)$ and for destroying electrons when $k^+>eA_-(x^+)$. Now

535: recall that the vector potential is minus the integral of the electric field,

536: \begin{equation}

537: A_-(x^+) = - \int_0^{x^+} du E(u) \; .

538: \end{equation}

539: Since the electron charge $e$ is negative we see that the function $e A_-(x^+)$

540: increases monotonically from zero at $x^+ = 0$ for as long as the electric 

541: field remains positive. Therefore modes with positive $k^+$ start out as 

542: electron annihilation operators and then become positron creators after the 

543: critical time $x^+ = X(k^+)$ at which $e A_-(x^+) = k^+$. This is the 

544: phenomenon of pair creation. 

545: 

546: Two important qualitative facts deserve mention although they were both 

547: explained in our previous paper \cite{ttw}. The first is that, on the 

548: light-cone, pair creation is an instantaneous and singular event. The second

549: is that the newly created $e^-$ instantly leaves the manifold, so we see only

550: the $e^+$. Both facts are explained by noting that the light-cone problem of 

551: evolving a state from $x^+ = 0$ corresponds to the infinite boost limit of the 

552: conventional problem of evolving a state from $x^{0\prime} = 0$ in the primed

553: frame \cite{Kogut}. In the latter problem pair creation dribbles out, a little 

554: at a time, for modes of all different momenta. However, it is straightforward 

555: to show that any particle created with finite primed momentum will have $p^+ = 

556: 0$ after the infinite boost. In a background gauge field the physical momentum 

557: is the minimally coupled one, $p^+ = k^+ - eA_-(x^+)$. So $p^+ = k^+ - e 

558: A_-(x^+) = 0$ defines the instant of pair creation in the light-cone problem. 

559: Electrons immediately leave the light-cone manifold because, in the primed 

560: frame they accelerate {\it opposite} to the direction of the electric field, 

561: which is also the direction of the boost. Electrons therefore emerge, in the 

562: light-cone problem, moving at the speed of light along the negative $x^-$ axis,

563: which takes them off the light-cone manifold immediately. Positrons emerge 

564: moving at the speed of light parallel to the $x^+$ axis, so they remain on the 

565: manifold. The process is depicted in Fig.~2.

566: 

567: \begin{figure}

568: \centerline{\epsfig{file=qedfig2.eps,height=3.5in}}

569: \caption{The evolution of an $e^+ e^-$ pair. Note that the electron does not

570: appear beyond a certain value of $x^+$.}

571: \end{figure}

572: 

573: It remains to compute the probability for pair creation Prob($e^+$) at time 

574: $x^+ > X(k^+)$. From the previous discussion this should be given by the 

575: relation,

576: \be

577: \lim_{L\to\infty} \sqrt{2} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \widetilde{

578: \psi}_+^\dagger(x^+,q^+) \, \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+) \Bigr\vert \Omega 

579: \Bigr\rangle = \Bigl[1-{\rm Prob}(e^+) \Bigr] 2\pi \delta(k^+-q^+) \; .

580: \ee

581: To take the distributional limit rigorously we first smear with test functions

582: $f^*(k^+)$ and $f(q^+)$,

583: \begin{eqnarray}

584: \lefteqn{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} f^*(k^+) \int_{-\infty

585: }^{+\infty} {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} f(q^+) \sqrt{2} \Bigl\langle \Omega 

586: \Bigl\vert \widetilde{\psi}_+^\dagger(x^+,q^+) \, \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,k^+) 

587: \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle =} \nonumber \\

588: & & \sqrt{2} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} f^*(k^+)

589: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} f(q^+) \int_{-L}^\infty dv 

590: e^{i(k^++i/L)v} \int_{-L}^\infty dz e^{-i(q^+-i/L)z} \nonumber \\

591: & & \times \Biggl\{{\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \Bigl\langle \O

592: \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger(0,z) \psi_+(0,v) \Bigr\vert \O \Bigr\rangle 

593: \nonumber \\

594: & & -{i m \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)

595: {\cal E}^* \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger(0,z) \gamma^-

596: \psi_-(u,-L) \Bigr\vert \O \Bigr\rangle \nonumber \\

597: & & +{i m \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} dy e^{ieA_-(y)(z+L)} {\cal E} {\cal E}^*(y,

598: x^+;q^+) \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) \gamma^+ \psi_+(0,v) 

599: \Bigr\vert \O \Bigr\rangle \nonumber \\

600: & & +{{m^2} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)

601: \int_0^{x^+} dy e^{ieA_-(y)(z+L)} {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

602: && \hspace{6cm} \times \Bigl\langle \O \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) 

603: \psi_-(u,-L) \Bigr\vert \O \Bigr\rangle \Biggr\} \; . \label{prob1}

604: \end{eqnarray}

605: 

606: As noted in the previous section, the $\pm$ cross correlators vanish in the 

607: large $L$ limit. Therefore only the first ($++$) and the fourth ($--$) terms 

608: in (\ref{prob1}) make a non-vanishing contribution in the $L\to\infty$ limit.

609: The $++$ term gives,

610: \begin{eqnarray}

611: \lefteqn{\hspace{1cm} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} f^*(k^+)

612: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} f(q^+) \int_{-L}^\infty dv 

613: e^{i(k^++i/L)v} \int_{-L}^\infty dz e^{-i(q^+-i/L)z}} \nonumber \\ 

614: & & \hspace{3cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{-ip^+(v-z)}

615: {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \; , \qquad \\

616: & & = \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dk^+}

617: \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i[k^+-p^++i/L]L}} \over {k^+-p^++i/L}} {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+)

618: f^*(k^+) \nonumber \\

619: & & \hspace{3cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dq^+} \over{2\pi}} {{e^{i

620: (q^+ - p^+ -i/L)L}} \over {q^+-p^+-i/L}} {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+)f(q^+) \; , 

621: \qquad \\

622: & & = \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{da}

623: \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i)}} \over {a+i}} {\cal E}(0,x^+;p^++a/L) f^*(p^++a/L)

624: \nonumber \\

625: & & \hspace{2cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{db} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i

626: (b-i)}} \over {b-i}} {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;p^++b/L) f(p^+ + b/L) \; , \\

627: & & \longrightarrow \int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} \Bigl\Vert f(p^+)

628: \Bigr\Vert^2 \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{da} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i)}} \over 

629: {a+i}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{db} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i (b-i)}} \over {b-i}}

630: \; , \\

631: & & = \int_{-\infty}^0{{dp^+} \over{2\pi}} \Bigr\Vert f(p^+) \Bigr\Vert^2 \; .

632: \label{term1}

633: \end{eqnarray}

634: 

635: Before reducing the $--$ term of (\ref{prob1}) it is useful to recall the

636: integral \cite{ttw},

637: \begin{equation}

638: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {da \over 2\pi} {e^{-i (a+i)} \over a + i} \exp\Bigl[

639: -i x \Bigl(\ln(a+i) - i \pi\Bigr) \Bigr] = {-i e^{-\pi x/2} \over \Gamma(1 +

640: i x)} \; , \label{aint}

641: \end{equation}

642: and the identity due to Lobachevskiy \cite{Grad},

643: \begin{equation}

644: {1 \over \Gamma(1 + i x) \Gamma(1 - i x)} = {\sinh(\pi x) \over \pi x} \; ,

645: \label{Loba}

646: \end{equation}

647: both valid for real, positive $x$. We must also introduce the function,

648: \begin{equation}

649: \lambda(p^+) \equiv {m^2 \over 2 \vert e \vert E(X(p^+))} \; . \label{lambda}

650: \end{equation}

651: The large $L$ limit of the $--$ term proceeds in a similar fashion to that of 

652: the $++$ term. The steps are,

653: \begin{eqnarray}

654: \lefteqn{ {{m^2} \over 2} \int {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} f^*(k^+) \int {{dq^+}

655: \over {2\pi}} f(q^+) \int_{-L}^\infty dv e^{i(k^++i/L)v} \int_{-L}^\infty dz 

656: e^{-i(q^+-i/L)z}} \nonumber \\

657: & & \times \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) \int_0^{x^+} 

658: dy e^{ieA_-(y)(z+L)} {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

659: & & \times \Biggl[{1\over 2} \delta(u-y) + {i\over{2\pi}} {\cal P}\Bigl({1 

660: \over {u-y}} \Bigr)\Biggr] = {{m^2}\over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_0^{x^+} dy 

661: {i \over {2\pi}} {\cal P}\Bigl({1 \over u - y}\Bigr) \nonumber \\

662: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} 

663: {e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)L} \over {k^+-eA_-(u)+i/L}} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) f^*(k^+) 

664: \nonumber \\

665: & & \hspace{1.5cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {dq^+ \over 2 \pi} {e^{i (q^+

666: - i/L)L} \over q^+ - eA_-(y) - i/L} {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) f(q^+) \nonumber \\

667: & & + {{m^2} \over 4} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dk^+} \over {2

668: \pi}} {e^{-i(k^++i/L)L} \over {k^+-eA_-(u)+i/L}} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) f^*(k^+) 

669: \nonumber \\

670: & & \hspace{2 cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} {e^{i

671: (q^+-i/L)L} \over {q^+-eA_-(u)-i/L}} {\cal E}^*(u,x^+;q^+)f(q^+) \; , \\

672: & & = {{m^2} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_{-(eA_-(x^+) - eA_-(u))L}^{eA_-(u)L}

673: {{dc} \over {2\pi}} {i\over L} {\cal P}\Biggl({ X'(eA_-(u) - c/L) \over 

674: u - X(eA_-(u) - c/L)}\Biggr) \nonumber \\

675: & & \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}} {e^{-i(a+i)} 

676: \over {a+i}} {\cal E}\Bigl(u,x^+;eA_-(u) + \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) f^*\Bigl(eA_-(u) + 

677: \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {e^{i(b-c-i)}

678: \over {b-i}} \nonumber \\

679: & & \hspace{.5cm} \times {\cal E}^*\Biggl(X\Bigl(eA_-(u) - \frac{c}{L}\Bigr),

680: x^+;eA_-(u) + \frac{b - c}{L}\Biggr) f\Bigl(eA_-(u) + \frac{b-c}{L}\Bigr) 

681: \nonumber \\

682: & & + {{m^2} \over 4} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}}

683: {e^{-i(a+i)} \over {a+i}} {\cal E}\Bigl(u,x^+;eA_-(u) + \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) 

684: f^*\Bigl(eA_-(u) + \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) \nonumber \\

685: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {e^{i(b-i)}

686: \over {b-i}} {\cal E}^*\Bigl(u,x^+;eA_-(u) + \frac{b}{L}\Bigr) f\Bigl(eA_-(u) +

687: \frac{b}{L}\Bigr) \; , \\

688: & & \longrightarrow {{m^2} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du \Bigl\Vert f\Bigl(e A_-(u)

689: \Bigr) \Bigr\Vert^2 \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}} {e^{-i(a+i)}

690: \over {a+i}} e^{-i \lambda\Bigl(eA_-(u)\Bigr) \Bigl(\ln(a+i)-i\pi\Bigr)}

691: \nonumber \\

692: & & \hspace{.5cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {e^{i(b-i)} 

693: \over {b-i}} e^{i \lambda\Bigl(eA_-(u)\Bigr) \Bigl(\ln(b-i)+i\pi\Bigr) }

694: \Biggl\{\frac12 + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {{dc} \over {2\pi}} {\cal P}\Bigl(

695: {i e^{-ic} \over c}\Bigr) \Biggr\} \; , \\

696: & & = {{m^2} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du \Bigl\Vert f\Bigl(eA_-(u)\Bigr) 

697: \Bigr\Vert^2 {{-ie^{-\pi \lambda(eA_-(u))/2}} \over {\Gamma(1 + i \lambda(eA_-(

698: u)))}} \; {{ie^{-\pi \lambda(eA_-(u))/2}} \over {\Gamma(1 - i \lambda(eA_-(u)))

699: }} \; , \\

700: & & = \int_0^{x^+} du \Bigl\Vert f\Bigl(eA_-(u)\Bigr) \Bigr\Vert^2 \Bigl[1 -

701: e^{-2\pi\lambda(eA_-(u))}\Bigr] \frac1{2\pi} eA'_-\Bigl(X(eA_-(u))\Bigr) \; ,\\

702: & & = \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} \Bigl\Vert f(p^+) \Bigr\Vert^2

703: \Bigl[1-e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)}\Bigr] \; . \label{term4}

704: \end{eqnarray}

705: 

706: Combining (\ref{term1}) and (\ref{term4}) above we obtain the following

707: relation for the probability of $\vert \Omega \rangle$ containing a positron

708: of momentum $p^+$ at time $x^+$,

709: \begin{eqnarray}

710: \lefteqn{\int_{\infty}^{\infty} {dp^+ \over 2\pi} \Bigl\Vert f(p^+) 

711: \Bigr\Vert^2 \Bigl[1 - {\rm Prob}(e^+) \Bigr] = \int_{\infty}^0 {dp^+ \over 2 

712: \pi} \Bigl\Vert f(p^+) \Bigr\Vert^2} \nonumber \\

713: & & \hspace {4cm} + \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} \Bigl\Vert 

714: f(p^+) \Bigr\Vert^2 \Bigl[1-e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)}\Bigr] \; . 

715: \end{eqnarray}

716: This means that the state remains empty for all $p^+ < 0$ but, for $0 < p^+ <

717: e A_-(x^+)$, it contains a positron with probability,

718: \be

719: {\rm Prob}(e^+) = e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)} \; . \label{probability}

720: \ee

721: It should be noted that this result was derived under the assumption that

722: $e A_-(x^+)$ increases monotonically. 

723: 

724: \section{The vector current}

725: 

726: We regulate the various fermion bilinears by gauge invariant point splitting.

727: It suffices to split the two currents $J^\pm$ along the directions $x^\mp$,

728: respectively,

729: \begin{eqnarray}

730: J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-) & \equiv & {e\over{\sqrt{2}}} e^{ie A_-(x^+) (x^- - y^-)}

731: \Biggl\{\psi_+^{\dagger}(x^+,y^-) \psi_+(x^+,x^-) \nonumber \\

732: & & \hspace{2.5cm} - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_+(x^+,x^-) \psi_+^{\dagger}(x^+,y^-)

733: \Bigr]\Biggr\} \; , \label{J+} \\

734: J^-(x^+,y^+;x^-) & \equiv & {e\over{\sqrt{2}}} \Bigl\{\psi_-^{\dagger}(y^+,x^-)

735: \psi_-(x^+,x^-) \nonumber \\

736: & & \hspace{2.5cm} - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_-(x^+,x^-) \psi_-^{\dagger}(y^+,x^-)

737: \Bigr] \Biggr\} \; .  \label{J-}

738: \end{eqnarray}

739: Although these quantities are well regulated and gauge invariant, they are not

740: yet Hermitian. We enforce Hermiticity by taking the symmetric average,

741: \begin{eqnarray}

742: J^+_S(x^+;x^-,y^-) & \equiv & {1\over 2} \Bigl\{J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-) +

743: J^+(x^+;y^-,x^-)\Bigr\} \; , \label{J+s} \\

744: J^-_S(x^+;x^-,y^-) & \equiv & {1\over 2} \Bigl\{J^-(x^+,y^+;x^-) +

745: J^-(y^+,x^+;x^-)\Bigr\} \; . \label{J-s}

746: \end{eqnarray}

747: This could have been done in a single step but it is somewhat more efficient, 

748: calculationally, to first compute the expectation values of $J^{\pm}$ in the 

749: large $L$ limit and then take the Hermitian average as we also remove the 

750: splitting.

751: 

752: Let us begin with $J^+$. As explained at the end of Section 3, the first step

753: consists of using our general solution (\ref{psi+}) to express the expectation

754: value of $J^+(x^+;x^- + \Delta,x^-)$ as a sum of correlation functions of the

755: initial value operators,

756: \vfill\eject

757: 

758: \begin{eqnarray}

759: \lefteqn{\Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert J^+(x^+;x^- + \Delta, x^-) \Bigr\vert

760: \Omega \Bigr\rangle = {e\over\sqrt{2}} e^{ieA_-(x^+)\Delta} \int_{-\infty

761: }^\infty {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{-i(k^++i/L) (x^- + \Delta)}} \nonumber \\

762: & & \times \int_{-L}^\infty dv e^{i(k^++i/L)v} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+}

763: \over {2\pi}} e^{i(q^+-i/L)x^-} \int_{-L}^\infty dw e^{-i(q^+-i/L)w} 

764: \Biggl\{{\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) \nonumber \\

765: & & \quad \times {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert 

766: \psi_+^\dagger(0,w) \psi_+(0,v) - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_+(0,v) \psi_+^\dagger(0,w)

767: \Bigr] \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle \nonumber \\

768: & & + {{im} \over 2} {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) \int_0^{x^+} dy e^{ieA_-(y)(w+L)}

769: {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

770: & & \hspace{1.5cm} \times \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) 

771: \gamma^+ \psi_+(0,v) - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_+(0,v) \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) \gamma^+ 

772: \Bigr] \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle \nonumber \\

773: & & -{{im} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)

774: {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

775: & & \hspace{1.5cm} \times \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger(0,w) 

776: \gamma^- \psi_-(u,-L) - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\gamma^- \psi_-(u,-L) \psi_+^\dagger(0,w)

777: \Bigr] \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle \nonumber \\

778: & & + {{m^2} \over 2} \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)

779: \int_0^{x^+} dy e^{ieA_-(y)(w+L)} {\cal E}^*(y,x^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

780: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L)

781: \psi_-(u,-L) - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_-(u,-L) \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) \Bigr] 

782: \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle \Biggr\} . \quad \label{<J+>}

783: \end{eqnarray}

784: 

785: The various correlation functions which appear in (\ref{<J+>}) can be read off

786: from relations (\ref{vev1}) and (\ref{vev2}). First note that the spinor

787: identity,

788: \begin{equation}

789: \sla{p} \gamma^0 \pm m \gamma^0 = \sqrt{2} {\cal P}_+ p^+ + \sqrt{2} {\cal P}_-

790: p^- \pm {m \over \sqrt{2}} (\gamma^+ + \gamma^-) \; ,

791: \end{equation}

792: implies the following projections,

793: \begin{equation}

794: {\cal P}_+ (\sla{p} \gamma^0 \pm m \gamma^0) {\cal P}_+ = \sqrt{2} p^+ {\cal 

795: P}_+ \;\; , \;\; {\cal P}_+(\sla{p} \gamma^0 \pm m \gamma^0) {\cal P}_- 

796: \gamma^+ = \pm \sqrt{2} m {\cal P}_+ \; ,

797: \ee

798: \be

799: \gamma^- {\cal P}_-(\sla{p} \gamma^0 \pm m \gamma^0) {\cal P}_+ = \pm \sqrt{2}

800: m {\cal P}_+ \;\; , \;\; {\cal P}_- (\sla{p} \gamma^0 \pm m \gamma^0) 

801: {\cal P}_- = \sqrt{2} p^- {\cal P}_- \; . \label{identities1}

802: \ee

803: As with the particle production probability, we can drop the $+-$ and $-+$

804: correlators in the large $L$ limit. The $++$ and $--$ correlators are,

805: \begin{eqnarray}

806: \lefteqn{\Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_+^\dagger(0,w) \psi_+(0,v) - {\rm 

807: Tr}\Bigl[ \psi_+(0,v) \psi_+^\dagger(0,w) \Bigr] \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle

808: } \nonumber \\

809: & & \hspace{2cm} = \frac1{\sqrt{2}} \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0 {dp^+ \over 2\pi} 

810: - \int_0^\infty {dp^+ \over 2 \pi} \Biggr\} e^{-i p^+ (v-w)} \; , \;

811: \end{eqnarray}

812: \begin{equation}

813: \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) \psi_-(u,-L) - {\rm 

814: Tr}\Bigl[\psi_-(u,-L) \psi_-^\dagger(y,-L) \Bigr] \Bigr\vert \Omega\Bigr\rangle

815: = {i \over {\sqrt{2} \pi}} {\cal P}\Bigl({1 \over {u-y}}\Bigr) \; .

816: \end{equation}

817: 

818: The reduction strategy is quite similar to that used in Section 4 for the

819: probability of particle production. First perform the integrals over $v$ and 

820: $w$,

821: \be

822: \int_{-L}^\infty dv e^{i(k^++i/L)v} e^{-il^+(v+L)} = {{ie^{-i(k^++i/L)L}} \over

823: {k^+-l^++i/L}} \; .

824: \ee

825: Next make the appropriate change of change variables from $k^+$ and $q^+$ to,

826: \be

827: a\equiv (k^+-l^+)L \;\;\; {\rm and}\;\;\; b\equiv (q^+-l^+)L\; \; ,

828: \ee

829: and take the $L \rightarrow \infty$ limit of the mode functions ${\cal E}$ 

830: using,

831: \begin{eqnarray}

832: \lefteqn{\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} {\cal E}\Bigl(0,x^+;p^+ + \frac{a}{L}

833: \Bigr)\; {\cal E}^*\Bigl(0,x^+;p^+ + \frac{b}{L}\Bigr) } \nonumber \\

834: & & \hspace{3cm} = \exp\Bigl[-2 \pi \lambda(p^+) \theta(p^+) \theta\Bigl(e 

835: A_-(x^+) - p^+\Bigr)\Bigr] , \;

836: \end{eqnarray}

837: \begin{eqnarray}

838: \lefteqn{\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} {\cal E}\Bigl(X(r^+),x^+;r^+ + \frac{a}{L}

839: \Bigr) \; {\cal E}^*\Bigl(X\Bigl(r^+ - \frac{c}{L}\Bigr),x^+;r^+ + 

840: \frac{b-c}{L}\Bigr) } \nonumber \\

841: & & \hspace{3cm} = \exp\Bigl[\lambda(r^+) \Bigl(-2 \pi - i \ln(a+i) + i 

842: \ln(b-i) \Bigr)\Bigr] \; .

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: (We have assumed $r^+ > 0$ in taking the last limit.) Finally the $a$ and $b$ 

845: integrations are performed using (\ref{aint}), and the result is simplified 

846: with the identity (\ref{Loba}) of Lobachevskiy.

847: 

848: Applying this procedure to the $++$ term gives,

849: \begin{eqnarray}

850: \lefteqn{J^+_{(++)} = {e \over 2} e^{ieA_-(x^+)\Delta} \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0

851: {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} - \int_0^\infty {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}}\Biggr\} \int_{-

852: \infty}^\infty {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(k^++i/L) (L + x^- + \Delta)}}

853: \over {k^+-p^++i/L}} } \nonumber \\

854: & & \hspace{2.5cm} \times {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} 

855: \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(q^+-i/L)(L+x^-)}} \over {q^+-p^+-i/L}} {\cal E}^*(0,x^+;

856: q^+)  \; , \\

857: & & = {e \over 2} \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0 {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} - 

858: \int_0^\infty {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}}\Biggr\} e^{-i(p^+-eA_-(x^+)) \Delta}

859: \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i) (1+(x^- + \Delta)/L)}}

860: \over {a+i}} \nonumber \\

861: & & \hspace{1.5cm} \times {\cal E}\Bigl(0,x^+;p^+ + \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) 

862: \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(b-i)(1+x^-/L)}} \over {b-i}}

863: {\cal E}^*\Bigl(0,x^+;p^+ + \frac{b}{L}\Bigr) , \quad \\ 

864: & & \longrightarrow {e\over 2} \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0 - \int_{eA_-(x^+)}^{

865: \infty} - \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)}\Biggr\} {dp^+ \over 2 \pi}

866: e^{-i[p^+-eA_-(x^+)]\Delta} \; , \\

867: & & = {e \over 2} \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^{eA_-(x^+)} - \int_{eA_-(x^+)}^\infty 

868: - \int_0^{eA_-} \Bigl[1 + e^{-2 \pi \lambda(p^+)}\Bigr] \Biggr\} {{dp^+} 

869: \over {2\pi}} e^{-i[p^+-eA_-] \Delta} \; , \\

870: & & = {e \over 2} \Biggl\{ {i \over {\pi \Delta}} - \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+}

871: \over {2\pi}} \Bigl[1 + e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)}\Bigr] e^{-i [p^+-eA_-(x^+)] 

872: \Delta} \Biggr\} \; . \label{J+1}

873: \end{eqnarray}

874: 

875: We begin the reduction of the $--$ term by changing variables from $u$ and $y$

876: to $r^+ \equiv e A_-(u)$ and $s^+ \equiv e A_-(y)$,

877: \begin{eqnarray}

878: \lefteqn{J^+_{(--)} = {e \over {m^2}} e^{ieA_-(x^+) \Delta} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)}

879: dr^+ \lambda(r^+) \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} ds^+ \lambda(s^+) } \nonumber \\

880: & & \times {i \over \pi} {\cal P}\Biggl({1 \over X(r^+)-X(s^+)}\Biggr) 

881: \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(k^+ + i/L) (L + x^- + 

882: \Delta)}} \over {k^+-r^++i/L}} {\cal E}\Bigl(X(r^+),x^+;k^+\Bigr) \nonumber \\

883: & & \hspace{3cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(q^+

884: - i/L) (L + x^-)}} \over {q^+-s^+-i/L}} {\cal E}^*\Bigl(X(s^+),x^+;q^+\Bigr) 

885: \; , \\

886: & & = {i e \over \pi m^2} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} dr^+ \lambda(r^+) e^{-i[r^+ -

887: eA_-(x^+)] \Delta} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} ds^+ \lambda(s^+) \nonumber \\

888: & & \times {\cal P}\Biggl( { e^{-i(r^+-s^+)(L+x^-)} \over X(r^+) - X(s^+)}

889: \Biggr) \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i) [1 + (x^- + 

890: \Delta)/L]}} \over {a+i}} {\cal E}\Bigl(X(r^+),x^+;r^+ + \frac{a}{L}\Bigr) 

891: \nonumber \\

892: && \hspace{3cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(b-i)

893: (1 + x^-/L)}} \over {b-i}} {\cal E}^*\Bigl(X(s^+),x^+;s^+ + \frac{b}{L}\Bigr) 

894: \; .

895: \end{eqnarray}

896: Now change variables from $s^+$ to $c\equiv (r^+-s^+)L$ and expand,

897: \begin{equation}

898: X(s^+) = X(r^+ - c/L) = X(r^+) - {{2 \lambda(r^+)} \over {m^2}} {c \over L} + 

899: {\cal O}(L^{-2}) \; .

900: \end{equation}

901: The large $L$ limit is therefore,

902: \begin{eqnarray}

903: \lefteqn{J^+_{(--)} \longrightarrow {e\over 2} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} dr^+ \lambda(

904: r^+) e^{-i[r^+-eA_-(x^+)] \Delta} e^{-2\pi \lambda(r^+)} \int_{-\infty}^\infty 

905: {dc \over \pi} {{\sin{c}} \over c} } \nonumber \\

906: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over{2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i)}}

907: \over {a+i}} e^{-i\lambda(r^+) \ln(a+i)} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over 

908: {2\pi}} {{e^{i(b-i)}} \over {b-i}} e^{i\lambda(r^+) \ln(b-i)} , \\

909: & & = {e \over 2} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} dr^+ \lambda(r^+) e^{-i[r^+ - eA_-(x^+)]

910: \Delta} 

911: {e^{-\pi \lambda(r^+)} \over \Vert \Gamma(1+i\lambda(r^+)) \Vert^2} \; , \\

912: & & = {e \over 2} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} dr^+ \lambda(r^+) e^{-i[(r^+ - eA_-(x^+)]

913: \Delta} \Biggl[{1 - e^{-2\pi\lambda(r^+)} \over 2 \pi \lambda(r^+)} \Biggr]

914: \; , \\

915: & & = {e\over 2} \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dr^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{-i [(r^+ - 

916: eA_-(x^+)] \Delta} \Bigl[1 - e^{-2 \pi \lambda(r^+)}\Bigr] \; .

917: \end{eqnarray}

918: 

919: Adding the $++$ and $--$ contributions gives,

920: \begin{eqnarray}

921: \lefteqn{\lim_{L\rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert 

922: J^+(x^+;x^- + \Delta,x^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle = {e \over 2} 

923: \Biggl\{{i \over {\pi \Delta}} } \nonumber \\

924: & & \hspace{3cm} - 2 \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2 \pi}} e^{-2 \pi 

925: \lambda(p^+)} e^{-i [p^+ - e A_-(x^+)] \Delta} \Biggr\} . \label{J+delta}

926: \end{eqnarray}

927: The linear divergence vanishes upon Hermitization, so we can take the splitting

928: parameter $\Delta$ to zero,

929: \begin{eqnarray}

930: \lefteqn{\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert 

931: J^+_S(x^+;x^- + \Delta,x^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle} \nonumber \\

932: & = & -e \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{-2\pi\lambda(p^+)} 

933: \cos\Bigl[\Bigl(p^+- eA_-(x^+)\Bigr) \Delta\Bigr] \; , \\

934: & \longrightarrow & - e \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2 \pi}} e^{-2 \pi

935: \lambda(p^+)} \; . \label{finalJ+}

936: \end{eqnarray}

937: 

938: The interpretation of this result is straightforward. $J^+$ is the light-cone

939: charge density, so we expect it to grow as more and more positrons are created.

940: (Recall that the electrons immediately leave the light-cone manifold as 

941: depicted in Fig.~2.) Each positron carries charge $-e$; the probability for

942: mode $p^+$ to be created is $\exp[-2 \pi \lambda(p^+)]$ (from equation 

943: (\ref{probability})); and the number of modes per unit volume is $dp^+/{2\pi}$.

944: We therefore expect the increment to obey,

945: \begin{equation}

946: dJ^+ = \Bigl( -e \Bigr) \times \Bigl(e^{-2\pi \lambda(p^+)} \Bigr) \times

947: \Bigl({dp^+ \over 2\pi}\Bigr) \; . \label{dJ+}

948: \end{equation}

949: For monotonically increasing $e A_-(x^+)$, all the modes in the interval $0 <

950: p^+ < e A_-(x^+)$ will have contributed, which gives precisely (\ref{finalJ+}).

951: This is a powerful check on the fundamental correctness of our formalism as 

952: well as on our proper application of it.

953: 

954: It remains to compute the expectation value of $J^-$. First note that we can

955: express $J^-(x^+,y^+;x^-)$ in terms of $\psi_+$ using the field equation 

956: $\psi_-=(i/m)\gamma^+ i\partial_+ \psi_+$,

957: \begin{eqnarray}

958: \lefteqn{J^-(x^+,y^+;x^-) = {\sqrt{2} e \over m^2} {\partial\over \partial x^+}

959: {\partial \over {\partial y^+}} \Biggl\{\psi_+^\dagger(y^+,x^-) 

960: \psi_+(x^+,x^-) } \nonumber \\

961: & & \hspace{6cm} - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[ \psi_+(x^+,x^-) \psi_+^\dagger(y^+,x^-) 

962: \Bigr]\Biggr\} . \quad

963: \end{eqnarray}

964: As before we can use the general solution (\ref{psi+}) to reduce the 

965: expectation value of this operator to a sum of four correlators on the initial

966: value surface. Also as before, the $+-$ and $-+$ correlators vanish for 

967: infinite $L$. We therefore require only,

968: \begin{eqnarray}

969: \lefteqn{J^-_{(++)} \equiv {e \over {m^2}} {\partial \over {\partial x^+}}

970: {\partial \over {\partial y^+}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {dk^+ \over 2\pi}

971: e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(x^-+L)} {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) } \nonumber \\

972: & & \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{i(q^+ - i/L)(x^-+L)} 

973: {\cal E}^*(0,y^+;q^+) \nonumber \\

974: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \Biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0 {dp^+ \over 2\pi} - \int_0^{

975: \infty} {dp^+ \over 2\pi}\Biggr\} {1 \over {(k^+ - p^+ + i/L) (q^+ - p^+ - 

976: i/L)}} , \quad

977: \end{eqnarray}

978: and,

979: \begin{eqnarray}

980: \lefteqn{J^-_{(--)} \equiv {i e \over 2 \pi} {\partial \over {\partial x^+}}

981: {\partial \over {\partial y^+}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}}

982: e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(x^-+L)} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} e^{i(q^+

983: - i/L)(x^-+L)} } \nonumber \\

984: & & \times \int_0^{x^+} {du \; {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) \over {k^+ - eA_-(u) + i/L}}

985: \int_0^{y^+} {dz \; {\cal E}^*(z,y^+;q^+) \over {q^+ - eA_-(z) - i/L}}

986: {\cal P}\Biggl({1 \over {u-z}}\Biggr) \; . \label{<J->3}

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: 

989: After taking the $x^+$ and $y^+$ derivatives, and performing the $p^+$ 

990: integrals, the $++$ term becomes,

991: \begin{eqnarray}

992: \lefteqn{J^-_{(++)} = - {{i e m^2} \over 4 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dk^+} 

993: \over {2 \pi}} {{e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(x^- + L)}} \over {k^+ - eA_-(x^+) + i/L}} 

994: {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {dq^+ \over 2 \pi} } \nonumber \\

995: & & \times {e^{i(q^+ - i/L)(x^- + L)} \over q^+ - eA_-(y^+) - i/L} 

996: {{\cal E}^*(0,y^+;q^+) \over {k^+ - q^+ + 2 i/L}} \Biggl[\pi + i 

997: \ln\Biggl({{k^++i/L} \over {q^+-i/L}}\Biggr) \Biggr] \; . \label{J-1}

998: \end{eqnarray}

999: Acting the $x^+$ derivative on $J^-_{(--)}$ produces two terms, one where the 

1000: derivative hits the upper limit of the $u$ integration and the other where it 

1001: hits the mode function ${\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)$. The first of these terms simply 

1002: sets $u = x^+$, which makes the mode function unity. The second term brings 

1003: down a factor of $-m^2/2$ divided by $[k^+ - e A_-(x^+) + i/L]$. Acting the 

1004: $y^+$ derivative gives two similar terms, with the result that $J^-_{(--)}$ 

1005: can be written as the sum of the following four expressions,

1006: \be

1007: J^-_{(a)} = {{ie} \over {2\pi}}{{e^{-ie [A_-(x^+)-A_-(y^+)] (x^-+L)}} \over

1008: {x^+ - y^+}} \; , \label{J-4a}

1009: \ee

1010: \begin{eqnarray}

1011: \lefteqn{J^-_{(b)} = {i e m^2 \over 4\pi}\int_0^{y^+} {\cal P}\Bigl({dz \over 

1012: x^+-z} \Bigr) } \nonumber \\

1013: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i[q^+ 

1014: - eA_-(x^+) -i/L] (x^-+L)} {\cal E}^*(z,y^+;q^+)} \over {[q^+- eA_-(z) - i/L] 

1015: [q^+ - eA_-(y^+) -i/L]}} \; , \label{J-4b}

1016: \end{eqnarray}

1017: \begin{eqnarray}

1018: \lefteqn{J^-_{(c)} = {i e m^2 \over 4\pi} \int_0^{x^+} {\cal P}\Bigl({du \over 

1019: {u - y^+}}\Bigr) } \nonumber \\

1020: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} {{e^{-i[k^+ - 

1021: eA_-(y^+) + i/L] (x^-+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)} \over {[k^+ - eA_-(u) + i/L]

1022: [k^+ - eA_-(x^+) + i/L]}} \; , \label{J-4c}

1023: \end{eqnarray}

1024: \begin{eqnarray}

1025: \lefteqn{ J^-_{(d)} = {{i e m^4} \over 8 \pi} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_0^{y^+} dz 

1026: {\cal P}\Bigl({1 \over {u-z}}\Bigr) } \nonumber \\

1027: & & \hspace{.5cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i

1028: (k^+ + i/L)(x^-+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+)} \over {[k^+ - eA_-(u) + i/L] [k^+ - 

1029: eA_-(x^+) + i/L]}} \nonumber \\

1030: && \hspace{1cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{dq^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(q^+

1031: - i/L) (x^-+L)} {\cal E}^*(z,y^+;q^+)} \over {[q^+ - eA_-(z) - i/L] [q^+ - 

1032: eA_-(y^+) - i/L]}} \; . \label{J-4d}

1033: \end{eqnarray}

1034: 

1035: At this point the reduction of $\langle J^- \rangle$ deviates somewhat from the

1036: procedure we used for $\langle J^+ \rangle$, and it is well to comment on the 

1037: reasons for this before proceeding. First note that the only ultraviolet 

1038: divergent contribution comes from the single term --- $J^-{(a)}$ --- for which

1039: we can obtain an explicit result in terms of elementary functions before taking

1040: the large $L$ limit. All the other terms remain finite as we take $y^+ 

1041: \longrightarrow x^+$ at fixed $L$. Second, note that all the other terms vanish

1042: at $x^- = -L$ because we can close the $k^+$ and $q^+$ contours above and 

1043: below, respectively, where the integrand in analytic. The physical reason for

1044: this is that $x^- = -L$ is the initial value surface upon which our state

1045: $\vert \Omega \rangle$ agrees with the $A_- = 0$ vacuum that has zero 

1046: current.\footnote{At $x^- = -L$ the term $J^-_{(a)}$ degenerates to a pure

1047: imaginary, linear divergence which vanishes upon Hermitization.} 

1048: 

1049: A third important observation is that all the other terms diverge linearly when

1050: the large $L$ limit is taken at finite $x^-$ after setting $y^+ = x^+$. The 

1051: physical reason for this is that, just as $J^+$ is the light-cone charge 

1052: density, so $J^-$ gives the light-cone charge {\it flux}. Although the 

1053: electrons make no contribution to $J^+$ because they immediately leave the 

1054: manifold moving parallel to the $x^-$ axis, they {\it do} contribute to $J^-$ 

1055: for the very same reason. The electron current flowing through any fixed value 

1056: of $x^-$ consists of the flux originating in each element $dx^-$, all the way 

1057: back to $x^- = -L$. In analogy with (\ref{dJ+}) we expect the increment from 

1058: each volume element $dx^-$ to be the electron charge times the probability for 

1059: creation times the rate at which modes pass through the critical point $p^+ = 

1060: e A_-(x^+)$,

1061: \begin{equation}

1062: dJ^- = \Bigl( +e \Bigr) \times \Bigl(e^{-2\pi \lambda(e A_-(x^+))} \Bigr) 

1063: \times \Bigl({e A_-^{\prime}(x^+) dx^- \over 2\pi}\Bigr) \; . \label{dJ-}

1064: \end{equation}

1065: Since this expression does not depend upon $x^-$, integrating it from $-L$ to

1066: $x^-$ adds a factor of $(L + x^-)$, which is the origin of the linear 

1067: divergence in the large $L$ limit.

1068: 

1069: This last observation implies that we cannot take the large $L$ limit in

1070: evaluating the expectation value of $J^-$. However, the fact that we know the

1071: value of $J^-$ at $x^- = - L$ (zero) suggests that we can equally well compute

1072: the expectation value of $\partial_- J^-$ --- which {\it does} have a finite 

1073: large $L$ limit --- and then integrate to obtain the undifferentiated current.

1074: That is the strategy we shall follow. To simplify the computation we shall also

1075: take the coincidence limit before letting $L$ go to infinity.

1076: 

1077: From (\ref{J-1}) we obtain,

1078: \begin{eqnarray}

1079: \lefteqn{\partial_- J^-_{(++)} = {i e m^2 \over 4\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty 

1080: {{dk^+} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(x^-+L)}} \over {k^+ - eA_-(x^+) +i/L}}

1081: {\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+) } \nonumber \\

1082: & & \times \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {dq^+ \over 2\pi}

1083: {e^{i(q^+ - i/L)(x^-+L)} {\cal E}^*(0,y^+;q^+) \over {q^+ - eA_-(y^+) - i/L}} 

1084: \Biggl[i \pi - \ln\Biggl({k^+ + i/L \over {q^+ - i/L}}\Biggr)\Biggr] . \quad

1085: \end{eqnarray}

1086: Making the change of variables $a \equiv [k^+ - eA_-(x^+)] L$ and $b \equiv 

1087: [q^+ - eA_-(y^+) ]L$, and taking the limits $x^+\to y^+$ and $L\to\infty$

1088: gives,

1089: \begin{eqnarray}

1090: \lefteqn{\partial_- J^-_{(++)}\longrightarrow  -{{e m^2} \over 4} \int_{-\infty

1091: }^\infty {{da} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i)}} \over {a+i}} e^{i\lambda(eA_-(x^+))

1092: \ln(a+i)} } \nonumber \\

1093: & & \hspace{3cm} \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over {2\pi}} {{e^{i(b-i)}}

1094: \over {b-i}} e^{-i \lambda(eA_-(x^+)) \ln(b-i)} \; , \\

1095: & & = -{{e^2 A'_-(x^+)} \over {4\pi}} \Bigl[1 - e^{-2 \pi \lambda(eA_-(x^+))}

1096: \Bigr] \; . \label{d-J-1}

1097: \end{eqnarray}

1098: 

1099: To evaluate the $--$ terms we first note that the coincidence limit of 

1100: $\partial_- J^-_{(a)}$ is real and finite,

1101: \be

1102: \partial_- J^-_{(4a)} \to {{e^2 A'_-(x^+)}\over{2\pi}} \; . \label{d-J-4a}

1103: \ee

1104: Next combine the coincidence limits of the $b$, $c$ and $d$ terms to reach,

1105: \begin{eqnarray}

1106: \lefteqn{\lim_{y^+ \rightarrow x^+} \partial_- J^-_{(b-d)} = - {{i e m^2} \over

1107: 4 \pi} {\partial \over {\partial x^+}} \int_0^{x^+} du \int_0^{x^+} {\cal P}

1108: \Bigl({dz \over {u-z}}\Bigr) \int_{-\infty}^\infty {dk^+ \over 2\pi} 

1109: {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+) } \nonumber \\

1110: & & \hspace{.5cm} \times {e^{-i(k^+ + i/L)(x^- + L)} \over {k^+ - eA_-(u) + 

1111: i/L}} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {dq^+ \over 2\pi} {e^{i(q^+ - i/L)(x^- + L)} {\cal 

1112: E}^*(z,x^+;q^+) \over {q^+ - eA_-(z) - i/L}} . \qquad \label{d-J-4d}

1113: \end{eqnarray}

1114: Now change variables from $k^+$, $q^+$ and $z$ to,

1115: \begin{equation}

1116: a \equiv [k^+-eA_-(u)] L \quad , \quad b \equiv [q^+ - eA_-(z)] L \quad , \quad

1117: c \equiv e [A_-(u)-A_-(z)] L \; ,

1118: \end{equation}

1119: and take the large $L$ limit,

1120: \begin{eqnarray}

1121: \lefteqn{\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \lim_{y^+ \rightarrow x^+} \partial_- 

1122: J^-_{(b-d)} = -{{e m^2} \over 4} {\partial \over {\partial x^+}} \int_0^{x^+} 

1123: du e^{-2 \pi \lambda(e A_-(u))} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dc {\sin c \over c} } 

1124: \nonumber \\

1125: & & \times \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{da} \over{2\pi}} {{e^{-i(a+i)}} \over 

1126: {a+i}} e^{-i \lambda(e A_-(u)) \ln(a+i)} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{db} \over 

1127: {2\pi}} {{e^{i(b-i)}} \over {b-i}} e^{i \lambda(e A_-(u)) \ln(b-i)} , \quad

1128: \\ \label{d-J-4d2}

1129: & & = -{{e^2 A'_-(x^+)} \over {4\pi}} \Bigl[1 - e^{-2 \pi \lambda(eA_-(x^+))}

1130: \Bigr] \; .

1131: \end{eqnarray}

1132: 

1133: Combining with (\ref{d-J-1}) and (\ref{d-J-4a}) we obtain, 

1134: \be

1135: \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \lim_{y^+ \rightarrow x^+} \partial_- \Bigl\langle

1136: \Omega \Bigl\vert J^-(x^+,y^+;x^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle = {{e^2 

1137: A'_-(x^+)} \over {2\pi}} e^{-2\pi\lambda(eA_-(x^+))} \; . \label{d-J-}

1138: \ee

1139: Since this is already real, Hermitization makes no change. The fact that these

1140: explicit calculations are in complete agreement with our physics-based 

1141: expectation (\ref{dJ-}) is another impressive check.

1142: 

1143: Our final results for the vector current are,

1144: \begin{eqnarray}

1145: \lim_{y^- \rightarrow x^-} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert J^+_S(x^+;x^-,y^-) 

1146: \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle & = & -e \int_0^{e A_-(x^+)} {dp^+ \over 2\pi} 

1147: e^{-2 \pi \lambda(p^+)} + \dots \; , \label{J+final} \\

1148: \lim_{y^- \rightarrow x^-} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert J^-_S(x^+,y^+;x^-) 

1149: \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle & = & {{e^2 A'_-} \over {2\pi}} e^{-2 \pi

1150: \lambda(eA_-)} \Bigl(L + x^-\Bigr) + \dots \label{J-final}

1151: \end{eqnarray}

1152: Here the dots indicate terms which vanish as $L$ goes to infinity. Note that

1153: the divergence of the vector current vanishes, as it should.

1154: 

1155: \section{The axial vector anomaly}

1156: 

1157: It is convenient to point split the pseudoscalar in both directions,

1158: \begin{eqnarray}

1159: \lefteqn{

1160: J_5(x^+,y^+;x^-,y^-)\equiv {1 \over \sqrt{8}} \exp\Biggl[i e (x^--y^-)

1161: \int_0^1 d\tau A_-\Bigl(y^+ + \tau (x^+ - y^+) \Bigr)\Biggr] } \nonumber \\

1162: & & \times \Biggl\{\psi_-^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \gamma^+ \psi_+(x^+,x^-) -

1163: \psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \gamma^- \psi_-(x^+,x^-) \nonumber \\

1164: & & - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_+(x^+,x^-) \psi_-^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \gamma^+\Bigr] + 

1165: {\rm Tr}\Bigl[\psi_-(x^+,x^-) \psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \gamma^- \Bigr]\Biggr\} .

1166: \quad \qquad

1167: \end{eqnarray}

1168: This can be rewritten in terms of $\psi_+$ alone by using (\ref{eqn2}),

1169: \begin{eqnarray}

1170: \lefteqn{J_5(x^+,y^+;x^-,y^-) = {-i \over \sqrt{2} m} \exp\Biggl[ i e (x^- - 

1171: y^-) \int_0^1 d\tau A_-\Bigl(y^+ + \tau (x^+-y^+) \Bigr)\Biggr] } \nonumber \\

1172: & & \quad \times \Biggl({\partial \over {\partial x^+}} + {\partial \over 

1173: {\partial y^+}} \Biggr) \Biggl\{\psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \psi_+(x^+,x^-) 

1174: \nonumber \\

1175: & & \hspace{3cm} - {\rm Tr}\Bigl[(\psi_+(x^+,x^-) \psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-) 

1176: \Bigr]\Biggr\} \qquad \; , \\

1177: & & = {-i \over \sqrt{2} m} \Biggl({\partial \over {\partial x^+}} + {\partial 

1178: \over {\partial y^+}} - ie {{A_-(x^+) - A_-(y^+)} \over {x^+-y^+}} (x^--y^-) 

1179: \Biggr) \nonumber \\

1180: & & \hspace{.5cm} \times \exp\Biggl[ie (x^- - y^-) \int_0^1 d\tau A_-\Bigl(y^+ +

1181: \tau (x^+ - y^+) \Bigr)\Biggr] \nonumber \\

1182: & & \hspace{1cm} \times \Biggl\{\psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-) \psi_+(x^+,x^-) - {\rm

1183: Tr}\Bigl[\psi_+(x^+,x^-) \psi_+^\dagger(y^+,y^-)\Bigr] \Biggr\} \; . \quad

1184: \end{eqnarray}

1185: Now take the $+$ coordinates to coincidence,

1186: \begin{eqnarray}

1187: \lefteqn{J_5(x^+,x^+;x^-,y^-) = {-i \over e m} {\partial \over {\partial x^+}} 

1188: J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-)} \nonumber \\

1189: & & \hspace{2cm}  - {1 \over m} A'_-(x^+) (x^- - y^-) J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-) \; . 

1190: \label{J5J+}

1191: \end{eqnarray}

1192: This strong operator equation is still well regulated by the point splitting

1193: of the $-$ coordinates.

1194: 

1195: In the large $L$ limit the expectation value of (\ref{J5J+}) gives,

1196: \begin{eqnarray}

1197: \lefteqn{\lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert J_5(x^+,x^+

1198: ;x^-,y^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle} \nonumber \\

1199: & & = {-i \over e m} \Biggl({\partial \over {\partial x^+}} -i e A'_-(x^+) (x^-

1200: - y^-) \Biggr) \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle \Omega \Bigl\vert 

1201: J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle . \quad

1202: \end{eqnarray}

1203: We computed the expectation value on the right hand side in (\ref{J+delta}).

1204: Substituting this relation and taking the $-$ points to coincidence gives,

1205: \begin{eqnarray}

1206: \lefteqn{ \lim_{y^- \rightarrow x^-} \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle 

1207: \Omega \Bigl\vert J_5(x^+,x^+;x^-,y^-) \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle =}

1208: \nonumber \\

1209: & & -{i \over 2 m} \lim_{y^- \rightarrow x^-} \Biggl({\partial \over \partial 

1210: x^+} -i e A'_-(x^+) (x^- - y^-) \Biggr) \Biggl\{{i \over {\pi (x^- - y^-)}}

1211: \nonumber \\

1212: & & \hspace{2cm} - 2 \int_0^{eA_-(x^+)} {{dp^+} \over {2 \pi}} e^{-2 \pi 

1213: \lambda(p^+)} e^{-i [p^+ - e A_-(x^+)] (x^- - y^-)} \Biggr\} \; , \\

1214: & & = {-i e \over 2\pi m} A'_-(x^+) \Bigl[1 - e^{-2 \pi \lambda(e A_-(x^+))}

1215: \Bigr] \; .

1216: \end{eqnarray}

1217: The axial vector anomaly is the deviation from the naive divergence equation 

1218: (\ref{naive2}), 

1219: \begin{equation}

1220: \lim_{y^- \rightarrow x^-} \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\langle \Omega 

1221: \Bigl\vert 2 \partial_+ J^+(x^+;x^-,y^-) - 2 i e m J_5(x^+,x^+;x^-,y^-) 

1222: \Bigr\vert \Omega \Bigr\rangle = {e^2 \over \pi} E(x^+) \; .

1223: \end{equation}

1224: That we get it exactly right is yet another check. That it does {\it not} come 

1225: out right when one neglects the $\psi_-$ initial value data at $x^- = -L$ is an

1226: additional illustration of the essential role these terms play.

1227: 

1228: \section{Discussion}

1229: 

1230: This work was undertaken to exploit a crucial extension of our earlier solution 

1231: \cite{ttw} for the Dirac operator in the presence of an electric field which 

1232: can depend arbitrarily upon the light-cone time parameter $x^+$. To properly

1233: resolve the ambiguity at $p^+ = 0$ we had discovered that it is essential to

1234: specify $\psi_-(x^+,-L)$ for $x^+ > 0$ in addition to $\psi_+(0,x^-)$ for $x^-

1235: > -L$. (See Fig.~1.) In our previous solution it was necessary to take $L$ to 

1236: infinity, {\it at the operator level}, before computing expectation values. 

1237: Needless to say, this could only be done distributionally, with the inevitable 

1238: restriction that the limiting form of the operator not be multiplied by any

1239: other operator which can behave badly in the large $L$ limit. The result was

1240: that we could handle $J^+$, but not $J^-$ or $J_5$. Our specification of the

1241: vacuum was also cumbersome and not obviously in agreement with the known 

1242: massless limit in $1+1$ dimensions.

1243: 

1244: Our new solution (\ref{psi+},\ref{psi-}) is exact for any $L$, and it can be

1245: employed in any operator product with only the usual regularization. We also

1246: have a transparent definition of the vacuum as the state which agrees with the

1247: $E = 0$ vacuum on the initial value surface. So one computes the expectation

1248: value of any operator at $(x^+,x^-)$ by first using the solution 

1249: (\ref{psi+},{\ref{psi-}) to express the VEV in terms of correlators of the

1250: initial value operators. Then one computes these correlators by using free 

1251: Dirac theory with zero electric field. The result is a vast expansion of the

1252: things we can do. In this paper we computed the probability for pair 

1253: production, as well as the one loop expectation values of the vector and axial 

1254: vector currents and of the pseudoscalar $J_5$. All our results are valid for

1255: any mass, and for any positive electric field, under the assumption that both

1256: are independent of $L$.

1257: 

1258: It is especially significant that we recover the well known result for the 

1259: axial vector anomaly, for the first time ever in massive QED on the light-cone.

1260: The obstacle in previous efforts to achieve this seems to have been the failure

1261: to properly resolve the ambiguity at $p^+ = 0$ by specifying $\psi_-(x^+,-L)$. 

1262: In this we were fortunate that the background's peculiar propensity to pull 

1263: {\it each} positive $k^+$ through the singularity at $p^+(x^+) \equiv k^+ - 

1264: e A_-(x^+) = 0$ forced us to come to grips with the problem that remains at

1265: $k^+ = 0$ for zero electric field. Our work provides 

1266: an explicit contradiction to the belief, that it is 

1267: consistent to use data on only $x^+=0$, provided one imposes appropriate 

1268: boundary conditions on the second characteristic $x^-=$constant. This was shown

1269: to be true for free field theory \cite{heinzl}, but does not seem to be 

1270: valid in the presence of spacetime dependent backgrounds, or in more general 

1271: interacting theories. There is no mixing between modes in the free theory, 

1272: so making the $p^+=0$ mode nondynamical does not affect the other modes. 

1273: With a positive electric field, more and more of the $k^+ > 0$ modes are 

1274: pulled through the singularity, after which they must incorporate operators 

1275: from the $x^- = -L$ surface if the canonical anti-commutation relations are 

1276: to be preserved. Note that this remains true even in the limit of infinite 

1277: $L$. Without the $x^- =-L$ operators one finds,

1278: \begin{eqnarray}

1279: \lefteqn{ \lim_{L \rightarrow \infty} \Bigl\{\psi_+(x^+,x^-),\psi^{

1280: \dagger}_+(x^+,y^-) \Bigr\} } \nonumber \\

1281: & & = \frac{{\cal P}_+}{\sqrt{2}} \Biggl(\delta(x^- - y^-) - 

1282: \int_0^{eA_-} {dk^+ \over 2\pi} \Bigl[1 - e^{-2\pi \lambda(k^+)}\Bigr] 

1283: e^{-i k^+ (x^- - y^-)} \Biggr) \; . \quad

1284: \end{eqnarray}

1285: 

1286: We worked in $1+1$ dimensions because it is simple to do so, but the exact 

1287: solution generalizes to any spacetime dimension $D$. Let us represent the 

1288: $(D-2)$ transverse coordinates with a tilde thusly, $\widetilde{x}$. Without

1289: overburdening the notation too much we can also employ a tilde to denote the 

1290: transverse Fourier transform of the dynamical variables,

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: \widetilde{\psi}_{\pm}(x^+,x^-,\widetilde{k}) \equiv \int d^{D-2}\widetilde{x}

1293: e^{-i \widetilde{k} \cdot \widetilde{x}} \psi_{\pm}(x^+,x^-,\widetilde{x}) \; .

1294: \end{equation}

1295: The higher dimensional solution is,

1296: \begin{eqnarray}

1297: \lefteqn{\widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,x^-,\widetilde{k}) = \int_{-L}^{\infty}dv 

1298: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} {{dk^+}\over{2\pi}} e^{i(k^++i/L) (v - x^-)} 

1299: \Biggl\{{\cal E}(0,x^+;k^+,\widetilde{k}) \widetilde{\psi}_+(0,v,

1300: \widetilde{k})} \nonumber \\

1301: & & - {i\over 2} (m - \widetilde{k} \cdot \widetilde{\gamma}) \gamma^- 

1302: \int_0^{x^+} du e^{-ieA_-(u)(v+L)} {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+,\widetilde{k}) 

1303: \widetilde{\psi}_-(u,-L,\widetilde{k}) \Biggr\} , \qquad

1304: \end{eqnarray}

1305: where the higher dimensional mode function is,

1306: \begin{equation}

1307: {\cal E}(u,x^+;k^+,\widetilde{k}) \equiv \exp\Biggl[- {i\over 2} (m^2 +

1308: \widetilde{k} \cdot \widetilde{k}) \int_u^{x^+} {{du'} \over {k^+ - eA_-(u') +

1309: i/L}}\Biggr] \; .

1310: \end{equation}

1311: As for $D=2$, $\psi_-$ follows trivially from the Dirac equation,

1312: \begin{equation}

1313: \widetilde{\psi}_-(x^+,x^-,\widetilde{k}) = \Biggl({m - \widetilde{k} \cdot

1314: \widetilde{\gamma} \over m^2 + \widetilde{k} \cdot \widetilde{k}} \Biggr)

1315: \gamma^+ i \partial_+ \widetilde{\psi}_+(x^+,x^-,\widetilde{k}) \; .

1316: \end{equation}

1317: 

1318: Of course we have learned nothing new about $QED_2$, which has long served as a

1319: theoretical laboratory to model quark shielding and quark confinement 

1320: \cite{cjs,coleman}. Indeed, it might be thought that our results conflict with

1321: the received wisdom on this subject since we see pair creation for an electric

1322: field of {\it any} strength, cf. our expression (\ref{probability}). It is 

1323: quite well understood that this cannot be so. A clever energy argument due to 

1324: Coleman \cite{coleman} shows that the addition of an $e^+ e^-$ pair at 

1325: separation $R$ changes the electric field energy by,

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: {\Delta E} = \frac12 R \Bigl[ (E \pm e)^2 - E^2 \Bigr] \; . \label{sid}

1328: \end{equation}

1329: This is positive for $\vert E \vert < \vert e \vert/2$, so pair production is

1330: not energetically favorable for a sufficiently weak field in $1+1$ dimensions. 

1331: 

1332: A little thought reveals that there is really no conflict with our results. 

1333: Coleman's argument is based on including the electric fields of the produced 

1334: pair. They give the term of order $e^2$ in (\ref{sid}). There is no doubt that

1335: this is the right thing to do, but there is also no doubt that it is a higher

1336: order effect. We worked at one loop, and the effect at that order is just the

1337: particles' interaction with the background. This is the term of order $e E$ in

1338: (\ref{sid}). If it were correct to retain only this term then it would be

1339: energetically favorable to pull pairs out of the vacuum. So we are seeing what 

1340: we should see in the one loop approximation: the imposition of a homogeneous 

1341: electric field causes particle production, no matter how weak the field. It 

1342: might be interesting --- and seems entirely within our reach --- to study how 

1343: higher order effects conspire to stabilize the vacuum for sufficiently weak

1344: electric background fields.

1345: 

1346: In higher dimensions the vacuum is unstable against pair production for any

1347: nonzero value of $E$. This poses an interesting problem of back-reaction in

1348: which the current of produced pairs initially reduces the electric field. What

1349: should eventually happen is that a plasma forms and begins executing 

1350: oscillations. This had to be studied numerically with previous treatments 

1351: \cite{Kluger} because explicit expressions for the mode functions could not be 

1352: obtained for a class of backgrounds wide enough to include the actual solution. 

1353: The wonderful analytic control we have {\it for any} $E(x^+)$ ought to 

1354: facilitate a less heavily numerical analysis. One would evaluate the 

1355: expectation value of $J^-$, as a functional of $A_-$ and then use this as a

1356: source in the relevant Maxwell equation,

1357: \begin{equation}

1358: -A_-^{\prime\prime}(x^+) = J^-[A_-](x^+,x^-) \; .

1359: \end{equation}

1360: However, our result (\ref{J-final}) is not immediately suitable for the task

1361: because the large $L$ limit was taken at fixed background. Since this limit 

1362: has $J^-$ diverge linearly in $L$, it must follow that the actual evolution of 

1363: $A_-(x^+)$ depends upon $L$. This dependence will affect the limit used to 

1364: compute $J^-$. It seems possible to untangle this problem, but we have not yet 

1365: done so.

1366: 

1367: Of course our result (\ref{J-final}) for $J^-$ also depends upon $x^-$, and it

1368: might be thought that this spoils the problem's homogeneity. In fact this is

1369: not so because the $x^-$ dependence is restricted to an overall factor of $(L

1370: + x^-)$, and $L$ is going to infinity. Therefore, back-reaction becomes 

1371: infinitely strong, infinitely fast in the large $L$ limit, and we can forget 

1372: about the $x^-$ dependence.

1373: 

1374: It remains to comment on the curious fact that our results for the particle 

1375: production probability (\ref{probability}), and for the two currents 

1376: (\ref{J+final}-\ref{J-final}), possess an essential singularity at zero

1377: electric field. This arose from taking the large $L$ limit. At finite $L$ the

1378: expressions cannot be reduced to elementary functions, but they depend 

1379: analytically upon the background field. It should also be noted that $J^-$

1380: exhibits a new linear divergence at infinite $L$, derived from the pulse of

1381: electrons created with uniform amplitude from all along the past $x^-$ axis. It

1382: is tempting to regard these features as signals for an infinite volume phase 

1383: transition in massive QED with a nonzero electric field. 

1384: 

1385: The background field formalism also gives one pause. Consider the expectation 

1386: value of $J^+$ (\ref{J+final}). This could be represented, diagrammatically, as 

1387: a single photon attached to a closed electron loop. We have been brought up to 

1388: believe that differentiating such a diagram with respect to the background 

1389: field attaches another photon. We have also been brought up to believe that 

1390: photons couple to electrons with strength $e$. However, the actual computation 

1391: reveals two terms,

1392: \begin{eqnarray}

1393: \lefteqn{{\delta \langle J^+ \rangle(x^+)  \over \delta A_-(y^+)} = - {e^2

1394: \over 2 \pi} \delta(x^+ - y^+) e^{-2\pi \lambda(eA_-(y^+))} } \nonumber \\

1395: & & \hspace{1cm} + {\partial \over \partial y^+} \Biggl\{ e^2 \lambda(e A_-(

1396: y^+)) e^{-2\pi \lambda(e A_-(y^+))} \theta(y^+) \theta(x^+ -y^+) \Biggr\} 

1397: \; . \quad

1398: \end{eqnarray}

1399: The first of these seems to represent an extra photon, but the second term 

1400: gives {\it something} that seems to couple with strength $1$, and something 

1401: {\it else} that couples with strength $1/e$. (Recall from (\ref{lambda}) that 

1402: $\lambda = m^2/(2 \vert e \vert E)$.) We do not yet know what to make of this,

1403: although it is certainly not an artifact of $1+1$ dimensions since the $3+1$

1404: dimensional $J^+$ shows a very similar essential singularity \cite{ttw}.

1405: 

1406: \vspace{1cm}

1407: 

1408: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}

1409:  

1410: We have benefited from discussions with H. M. Fried, J. Iliopoulos, H. B.

1411: Nielsen, M. Soussa and C. B.  Thorn. This work was partially supported by 

1412: European Union grants HPRN-CT-2000-00122 and -00131, by the Greek General 

1413: Secretariat of Research and Technology grant 97E$\Lambda$-120, by the DOE 

1414: contract DE-FG02-97ER\-41029 and by the Institute for Fundamental Theory at 

1415: the University of Florida. The authors express their gratitude for hospitality 

1416: during recent visits to the CERN Theory Division, to the Laboratoire de 

1417: Physique Th\'eorique of the Ecole Normale Superieure, and to the Department 

1418: of Physics at the University of Crete. 

1419: 

1420: \vspace{1cm}

1421: 

1422: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1423: 

1424: \bibitem{Klein} O. Klein, Z. Phys. {\bf 53}, 157 (1929).

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{Sauter} F. Sauter, Z. Phys. {\bf 69}, 742 (1931) ; {\bf 73}, 547 

1427: (1931).

1428: 

1429: \bibitem{Wolkow} D. M. Wolkow, Z. Physik {\bf 94}, 250 (1935).

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{Schwinger} J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. {\bf 82}, 664 (1951).

1432: 

1433: \bibitem{Brezin} E. Brezin and C. Itzykson, Phys. Rev. {\bf D2}, 1191 (1970).

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{Casher} A. Casher, H. Neuberger and S. Nussinov, {\bf D20}, 179 

1436: (1979).

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{aam} I. Affleck, O. Alvarez and N. Manton, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B197}, 509 (1982). 

1439: 

1440: \bibitem{Bialynicki} I. Bialynicki-Birula, P. G\'ornicki, and J. Rafelski,

1441: Phys. Rev. {\bf D44}, 1825 (1991).

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{Kluger} Y. Kluger, J. M. Eisenberg, B. Svetitsky, F. Cooper, and E.

1444: Mottola, Phys. Rev. {\bf D45}, 4659 (1992).

1445: 

1446: \bibitem{Best} C. Best and J. M. Eisenberg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 4639 (1993).

1447: 

1448: \bibitem{Gavrilov} S. P. Gavrilov and D. M. Gitman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53},

1449: 7162 (1996).

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{Kluger2} Y. Kluger, J. M. Eisenberg, and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev.

1452: {\bf D58}, 125015 (1998).

1453: 

1454: \bibitem{Greiner} W. Greiner, B. M$\ddot {\rm u}$ller, and J. Rafelski,

1455: {\it Quantum Electrodynamics of Strong Fields} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985)

1456: 

1457: \bibitem{Fradkin} E. S. Fradkin, D. M. Gitman, and S. M. Shvartsman,

1458: {\it Quantum Electrodynamics with Unstable Vacuum} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,

1459: 1991)

1460: 

1461: \bibitem{ttw} T.N. Tomaras, N.C. Tsamis and R.P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62},

1462: 125005 (2000), hep-ph/0007166.

1463: 

1464: \bibitem{damour} T. Damour and Rufini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 463 (1975).

1465: 

1466: \bibitem{artru} X. Artru and J. Czyzewski, Acta Phys. Polon. {\bf B29}, 2215

1467: (1998).

1468: 

1469: \bibitem{Indians1} K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D16},

1470: 24007 (1999).

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{Indians2} K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, ``A novel approach to

1473: particle production in a uniform electric field,'' gr-qc/9911022.

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{neville} R.A. Neville and F. Rohrlich, Nuovo Cimento {\bf A1}, 625 

1476: (1971); F. Rohrlich, Acta Physica Austriaca, Suppl. VIII, 277 (1971).

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{mccartor} G. McCartor, Z. Phys. {\bf C41}, 271 (1988).

1479: 

1480: \bibitem{McC} G. McCartor, Z. Phys. {\bf C64}, 349 (1994).

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{NaMc} Y. Nakawaki and G. McCartor, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 102}, 

1483: 149 (1999).

1484: 

1485: \bibitem{bd} J. Bjorken and S. Drell, {\it Relativistic Quantum Fields}, 

1486: (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965). 

1487: 

1488: \bibitem{Kogut} J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. {\bf D1}, 2901 (1970).

1489: 

1490: \bibitem{Grad} I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, {\it Table Of Integrals

1491: Series And Products}, 4th Edition (Academic Press, New York, 1965), p. 937.

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{heinzl} T. Heinzl and E. Werner, Z. Phys. {\bf C62}, 521 (1994).

1494: 

1495: \bibitem{cjs} S. Coleman, R. Jackiw and L. Susskind, Ann. Phys. {\bf 93}, 267 

1496: (1975).

1497: 

1498: \bibitem{coleman} S. Coleman, Annals of Physics {\bf 101}, 239 (1976).

1499: 

1500: \end{thebibliography}

1501: 

1502: \end{document}

1503: Dear Theodore,

1504:     Thanks for your note. I had a few last minute thoughts which I

1505: hope it is not too late to incorporate. I can do this from here if you

1506: like. Let me know.

1507:                                                     Regards,

1508:                                                     Richard

1509:  (1) We need to remove the phrase, ``for the first time ever'' 

1510:      from the Abstract. Although we have the first complete

1511:      operator resolution, the papers the ref asked us to mention

1512:      do give resolutions (for free theory only!) which involve

1513:      imposing BC on the x^- surface. We are just going to make

1514:      him mad if we don't take that phrase out.

1515:  (2) I wrote to Gary McCartor to get the correct refs for the m=0

1516:      anomaly in D=1+1:

1517:      \bibitem{McC} G. McCartor, Z. Phys. {\bf C64}, 349 (1994).

1518:      \bibitem{NaMc} Y. Nakawaki and G. McCartor, Prog. Theor. Phys. 

1519:      {\bf 102}, 149 (1999).

1520:      He also confirms that no one has done the m neq 0 case for 

1521:      D=1+1. We can go with these because he's the expert. The place

1522:      to use them is at the end of the introduction. I propose to

1523:      change the penultimate sentence to, ``We exploit these results

1524:      to derive the standard formula for the axial vector anomaly 

1525:      for the first time ever on the light-cone with $m \neq 0$.\footnote{

1526:      The simpler massless case has already been given a satisfactory 

1527:      treatment \cite{McC,NaMc}.}

1528:  (3) Is it not possible to wrestle the eqns down so that they will

1529:      fit on 8.5X11 margins? They look terrible as it is. Recall 

1530:      that we were very nearly screwed on the LANL version until 

1531:      the managers went in and artificially changed the margins.

1532:      They are not going to want to do this twice for us. Also, if 

1533:      JHEP publishes the file as it is then we are going to get the

1534:      ugly version with all the overruns.

1535:  (4) I thought of a simpler way of expressing the progressive loss 

1536:      of unitarity implicit in eqn (119). This is to replace the right 

1537:      hand side with,

1538: 

1539:      \frac{{\cal P}_+}{\sqrt{2}} \Biggl(\delta(x^- - y^-) - \int_0^{eA_-}

1540:      {dk^+ \over 2\pi} e^{-2\pi \lambda(k^+)} e^{-i k^+ (x^- - y^-)}

1541:      \Biggr) \; .

1542: