Dilaton Gravity in Two Dimensions D. Grumillera,W. Kummera,D.V. Vassilevichb,c aInstitut fu¨r Theoretische Physik, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8–10, A-1040 Wien, Austria bInstitut fu¨r Theoretische Physik, Universita¨t Leipzig, Augustusplatz 10, D-04109 8 Leipzig, Germany 0 0 cV.A. Fock Insitute of Physics, St. Petersburg University, 198904 St. Petersburg, 2 Russia n a J 4 Abstract 9 v The study of general two dimensional models of gravity allows to tackle basic ques- 3 tions of quantum gravity, bypassing important technical complications which make 5 2 the treatment in higher dimensions difficult. As the physically important examples 4 of spherically symmetric Black Holes, together with string inspired models, belong 0 to this class, valuable knowledge can also be gained for these systems in the quan- 2 0 tum case. In the last decade new insights regarding the exact quantization of the / geometric part of such theories have been obtained. They allow a systematic quan- h t tum field theoretical treatment, also in interactions with matter, without explicit - p introduction of a specific classical background geometry. The present review tries e to assemble these results in a coherent manner, putting them at the same time into h : the perspective of the quite large literature on this subject. v i X Key words: dilaton gravity, quantum gravity, black holes, two dimensional models r a PACS: 04.60.-w, 04.60.Ds, 04.60.Gw, 04.60.Kz, 04.70.-s, 04.70.Bw, 04.70.Dy, 11.10.Lm, 97.60.Lf Email addresses: [email protected](D. Grumiller), [email protected](W. Kummer), [email protected](D.V. Vassilevich). Preprint submitted to Elsevier Science 1 February 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Structure of this review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.2 Differential geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.1 Short primer for general dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.2.2 Two dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 Models in 1 + 1 Dimensions 19 2.1 Generalized Dilaton Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.1 Spherically reduced gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2 Dilaton gravity from strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.1.3 Generalized dilaton theories – the action . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.1.4 Conformally related theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2 Equivalence to first-order formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.3 Relation to Poisson-Sigma models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3 General classical treatment 32 3.1 All classical solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.2 Global structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.2.1 Schwarzschild metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.2.2 More general cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.3 Black hole in Minkowski, Rindler or de Sitter space . . . . . . . . . . 45 4 Additional fields 49 4.1 Dilaton-Yang-Mills Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.2 Dilaton Supergravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4.3 Dilaton gravity with matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.1 Scalar and fermionic matter, quintessence . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.3.2 Exact solutions – conservation law for geometry and matter . 58 5 Energy considerations 62 5.1 ADM mass and quasilocal energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.2 Conservation laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.3 Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 6 Hawking radiation 70 6.1 Minimally coupled scalars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 6.2 Non-minimally coupled scalars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7 Nonperturbative path integral quantization 80 7.1 Constraint algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 7.2 Path integral quantization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 7.3 Path integral without matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 7.4 Path integral with matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.4.1 General formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.4.2 Perturbation theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 7.4.3 Exact path integral with matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2 8 Virtual black hole and S-Matrix 95 8.1 Non-minimal coupling, spherically reduced gravity . . . . . . . . . . 96 8.2 Effective line element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 8.3 Virtual black hole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 8.4 Non-local φ4 vertices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 8.5 Scattering amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 8.6 Implications for the information paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 9 Canonical quantization 105 10 Conclusions and discussion 108 Acknowledgement 111 A Spherical reduction of the curvature 2-form 112 B Heat kernel expansion 113 References 117 List of Figures 2.1 A selection of dilaton theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.1 Killing norm for Schwarzschild metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.2 Derivative of the second null direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.3 Second null direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.4 Conformal coordinates with “compression factor” . . . . . . . 42 3.5 Reorientation of Fig. 3.4: patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A 3.6 Mirror image of Fig. 3.5: patch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B 3.7 Further flips: patches and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 C D 3.8 CP diagram for the Schwarzschild solution . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.9 Basic patch of Reissner-Nordstr¨om metric . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.10 Penrose diagram for Reissner-Nordstr¨om metric . . . . . . . . 44 3.11 A possible RN-kink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.12 “Phase” diagram of CP diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8.1 CP diagram of the VBH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 8.2 Total V(4)-vertex with outer legs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 8.3 Kinematic plot of s-wave cross-section dσ/dα . . . . . . . . . 102 3 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction The fundamental difficulties encountered in the numerous attempts to merge quantum theory with General Relativity by now are well-known even far outside the narrow circle of specialists in these fields. Despite many valiant efforts and new approaches like loop quantum gravity [371] or string theory1 a final solution is not in sight. However, even many special questions search an answer2. Of course, at energies which will be accessible experimentally in the fore- seeable future, due to the smallness of Newton’s constant, respectively the large value of the Planck mass, an effective quantum theory of gravity can be constructed [129] in a standard way which in its infrared asymptotical regime as an effective quantum theory may well describe our low energy world. Its extremely small corrections to classical General Relativity (GR) are in full agreement with experimental limits [436]. However, the fact that Newton’s constant carries a dimension, inevitably makes perturbative quantum gravity inconsistent at energies of the order of the Planck mass. In a more technical language, starting from a fixed classical background, already a long time ago perturbation theory has shown that although pure gravity is one-loop renormalizable [404] this renormalizability breaks down at two loops [188], but already at one-loop when matter interactions are taken into account. Supergravity was only able to push the onset of non- renormalizability to higher loop order (cf. e.g. [224,38,119]). It is often argued that a full treatment of the metric, including non-perturbative effects fromthe backreaction of matter, may solve the problem but to this day this remains a conjecture3. A basic conceptual problem of a theory like gravity is the double role of geometric variables which are not only fields but also determine the (dynamical) background upon which the physical variables live. This is e.g. of special importance for the uncertainty relation at energies above the Planck scale leading to Wheeler’s notion of “space-time-foam” [434]. Another question which has baffled theorists is the problem of time. In ordinary quantum mechanics the time variable is set apart from the “observ- ables”, whereas in the straightforward quantum formulation of gravity (the so-called Wheeler-deWitt equation [435,121]) a variable like time must be in- troduced more or less by hand through “time-slicing”, a multi-fingered time etc. [232]. Already at the classical level of GR “time” and “space” change their roles when passing through a horizon which leads again to considerable complications in a Hamiltonian approach [10,272]. Measuring the “observables” of usual quantum mechanics one realizes that the genuine measurement process is related always to a determination of 1 The recent book [360] can be recommended. 2 A brief history of quantum gravity can be found in ref. [371]. 3 For a recent argument in favor of this conjecture using Weinberg’s argument of “asymptotic safety” cf. e.g. [296]. 4 1 INTRODUCTION the matrix element of some scattering operator with asymptotically defined ingoing and outgoing states. For a gauge theory like gravity, existing proofs of gauge-independence for the S-matrix [279] may be applicable for asymptoti- cally flat quantum gravity systems. But the problem of other experimentally accessible (gaugeindependent!) genuine observables is open, when the dynam- ics of the geometry comes into play in a nontrivial manner, affecting e.g. the notion what is meant by asymptotics. The quantum properties of black holes (BH) still pose many questions. Because of the emission of Hawking radiation [211,412], a semi-classical effect, a BH should successively lose energy. If there is no remnant of its previous existence at the end of its lifetime, the informationof pure states swallowed by it will have only turned into the mixed state of Hawking radiation, violating basic notions of quantum mechanics. Thus, of special interest (and outside the range of methods based upon the fixed background of a large BH) are the last stages of BH evaporation. Other openproblems – related to BHphysics andmore generally to quan- tum gravity – have been the virtual BH appearing as an intermediate stage in scattering processes, the (non-)existence of a well-defined S-matrix and CPT (non-)invariance. When the metric of the BH is quantized its fluctuations may include “negative” volumes. Should those fluctuations be allowed or excluded? The intuitive notion of “space-time foam” seems to suggest quantum gravity induced topology fluctuations. Is it possible to extract such processes from a model without ad hoc assumptions? From experience of quantum field theory in Minkowski space one may hope that a classical singularity like the one in the Schwarzschild BH may be eliminated by quantum effects – possibly at the price of a necessary renormalization procedure. Of course, the latter may just reflect the fact that interactions with further fields (e.g. other modes in string theory) are not taken into account properly. Can this hope be fulfilled? In attempts to find answers to these questions it seems very reasonable to always try to proceed as far as possible with the known laws of quantum mechanics applied to GR. This is extremely difficult4 in D = 4. Therefore, for many years a rich literature developed on lower dimensional models of gravity. The 2D Einstein-Hilbert action is just the Gauss-Bonnet term. Therefore, intrinsically 2D modelsarelocallytrivialandafurtherstructureisintroduced. This is provided by the dilaton field which naturally arises in all sorts of compactifications from higher dimensions. Such models, the most prominent being the one of Jackiw and Teitelboim (JT), were thoroughly investigated during the 1980-s [22,123,405,122,124,238,250,251,312,388]. An excellent summary (containing also a morecomprehensive list of references onliterature before 1988) is contained in the textbook of Brown [59]. Among those models spherically reduced gravity (SRG), the truncation of D = 4 gravity to its s-wave part, possesses perhaps the most direct physical motivation. One can either treat this system directly in D = 4 and impose spherical symmetry in 4 A recent survey of the present situation is the one of Carlip [79]. 5 1 INTRODUCTION the equations of motion (e.o.m.-s) [276] or impose spherical symmetry already in the action [36,412,33,409,205,324,407,244,276,295,195], thus obtaining a dilaton theory5. Classically, both approaches are equivalent. The rekindled interest in generalized dilaton theories in D = 2 (hence- forth GDTs) started in the early 1990-s, triggered by the string inspired [310,137,443,127,316,233,117,254] dilaton black hole model6, studied in the influential paper of Callan, Giddings, Harvey and Strominger (CGHS) [71]. At approximately the same time it was realized that 2D dilaton gravity can be treated as a non-linear gauge-theory [426,230]. As already suggested by earlier work, all GDTs considered so far could be extracted from the dilaton action [373,349] R U(X) L(dil) = d2x√ g X ( X)2 +V(X) +L(m), (1.1) − " 2 − 2 ∇ # Z whereRistheRicci-scalar,X thedilaton,U(X)andV(X)arbitraryfunctions thereof, g is the determinant of the metric g , and L(m) contains eventual µν matter fields. When U(X) = 0 the e.o.m. for the dilaton from (1.1) is algebraic. For invertible V (X) the dilaton field can be eliminated altogether, and the La- ′ grangian density is given by an arbitrary function of the Ricci-scalar. A recent review on the classical solution of such models is ref. [381]. In comparison with that, the literature on such models generalized to depend also7 on torsion Ta is relatively scarce. It mainly consists of elaborations based upon a theory pro- posed by Katanaev and Volovich (KV) which is quadratic in curvature and torsion [250,251], also known as “Poincar´e gauge gravity” [322]. A common feature of these classical treatments of models with and with- out torsion is the almost exclusive use8 of the gauge-fixing for the D = 2 metric familiar from string theory, namely the conformal gauge. Then the e.o.m.-s become complicated partial differential equations. The determination of the solutions, which turns out to be always possible in the matterless case (L(m) = 0 in (1.1)), for nontrivial dilaton field dependence usually requires considerable mathematical effort. The same had been true for the first papers on theories with torsion [250,251]. However, in that context it was realized soon that gauge-fixing is not necessary, because the invariant quantities R and TaT themselves maybetakenasvariablesintheKV-model[390,389,391,392]. a This approach has been extended to general theories with torsion9. 5 The dilaton appears due to the “warped product” structure of the metric. For details of the spherical reduction procedure we refer to appendix A. 6 A textbook-like discussion of this model can be found in refs. [183,399]. 7 For the definition of the Lorentz scalar formed by torsion and of the curvature scalar,bothexpressedintermsofCartanvariableszweibeineea andspinconnection µ ωab we refer to sect. 1.2 below. µ 8 A notable exception is Polyakov [362]. 9 A recent review of this approach is provided by Obukhov and Hehl [348]. 6 1 INTRODUCTION As a matter of fact, in GR many other gauge-fixings for the metric have been well-known for a long time: the Eddington-Finkelstein (EF) gauge, the Painlev´e-Gullstrand gauge, the Lemaıtre gauge etc.. As compared to the “di- (cid:2) agonal” gauges like the conformal and the Schwarzschild type gauge, they possess the advantage that coordinate singularities can be avoided, i.e. the singularities in those metrics are essentially related to the “physical” ones in thecurvature.Itwasshownforthefirsttimein[291]thattheuseofatemporal gauge for the Cartan variables (cf. eq. (3.3) below) in the (matterless) KV- model made the solution extremely simple. This gauge corresponds to the EF gaugeforthemetric.Soonafterwards itwasrealized thatthesolutioncouldbe obtained even without previous gauge-fixing, either by guessing the Darboux coordinates [377] or by direct solution of the e.o.m.-s [290] (cf. sect. 3.1). Then the temporal gauge of [291] merely represents the most natural gauge fixing within this gauge-independent setting. The basis of these results had been a first order formulation of D = 2 covariant theories by means of a covariant HamiltonianactionintermsoftheCartanvariablesandfurtherauxiliaryfields Xa which (beside the dilaton field X) take the role of canonical momenta (cf. eq. (2.17) below). They cover a very general class of theories comprising not only the KV-model, but also more general theories with torsion10. The most attractive feature of theories of type (2.17) is that an important subclass of them is in a one-to-one correspondence with the GDT-s (1.1). This dynamical equivalence, including the essential feature that also the global properties are exactly identical, seems to have been noticed first in [248]and used extensively in studies of the corresponding quantum theory [281,285,284]. Generalizingtheformulation(2.17)tothemuchmorecomprehensive class of “Poisson-Sigma models” [379,396] on the one hand helped to explain the deeper reasons of the advantages from the use of the first oder version, on the other hand led to very interesting applications in other fields [3], including especially also string theory [382,387]. Recently this approach was shown to represent averydirectrouteto2D dilatonsupergravity[140]withoutauxiliary fields. Apart from the dilaton BH [71] where an exact (classical) solution is possible also when matter is included, general solutions for generic D = 2 gravity theories with matter cannot be obtained. This has been possible only in restricted cases, namely when fermionic matter is chiral11 [278] or when the interaction with (anti)selfdual scalar matter is considered [356]. Semi-classical treatments of GDT-s take the one loop correction from matter into account when the classical e.o.m.-s are solved. They have been used mainly in the CGHS-model and its generalizations [41,117,374,44,115, 147,256,446,445,209,210,423]. In our present report we concentrate only upon Hawking radiation as a quantum effect of matter on a fixed (classical) 10In that case there is the restriction that it must be possible to eliminate all auxiliary fields Xa and X (see sect. 2.1.3). 11This solution was rediscovered in ref. [393]. 7 1 INTRODUCTION geometrical background, because just during the last years interesting insight has been obtainedthere, although by no means allproblems have been settled. Finally we turn to the full quantization of GDTs. It was believed by several authors (cf. e.g. [373,349,242,139,138]) that even in the absence of interactions with matter nontrivial quantum corrections exist andcan be com- puted by a perturbative path integral on some fixed background. Again the evaluation in the temporal gauge [291], at first for the KV-model showed that the use of other gauges just obscures a very simple mechanism. Actually all divergent counter-terms can be absorbed into one compact expression. After subtracting that in the absence of matter the solution of the classical theory represents an exact “quantum” result. Later this perturbative argument has been reformulated asanexact pathintegral, first againfor theKV-model[204] and then for general theories of gravity in D = 2 [281,285,284,196,157,199]. In our present review we concentrate on the path integral approach, with Dirac quantization only referred to for sake of comparison. In any case, the common starting point is the Hamiltonian analysis which in a theory for- mulated in terms of Cartan variables in D = 2 possesses substantial techni- cal advantages. The constraints, even in the presence of matter interactions, form an algebra with momentum-dependent structure constants. Despite that nonlinearity the simplest version of the Batalin-Vilkovisky procedure [27] suf- fices, namely the one also applicable to ordinary nonabelian gauge theories in Minkowski space. With a temporal gauge fixing for the Cartan variables also used in the quantized theory, the geometric part of the action yields the exact path integral. Possible background geometries appear naturally as ho- mogeneous solutions of differential equations which coincide with the classical ones, reflecting “local quantum triviality” of 2D gravity theories in the ab- sence of matter, a property which had been observed as well before in the Dirac quantization of the KV-model [377]. These features are very difficult to locate in the GDT-formulation (1.1), but become evident in the equivalent first order version with a “Hamiltonian” action. Of course, non-renormalizability persists in the perturbation expansion when the matter fields are integrated out. But as an effective theory in cases like spherically reduced gravity, specific processes can be calculated, relying on the (gauge-independent) concept of S-matrix elements. With this method, scattering of s-waves in spherically reduced gravity has provided a very di- rect way to create a “virtual” BH as an intermediate state without further assumptions [157]. The structure of our present report is determined essentially by the ap- proachdescribedinthelastparagraphs.Onereasonisthefactthataverycom- prehensive overview of very general classical and quantum theories in D = 2 is made possible in this manner. Also a presentation seems to be overdue in which results, scattered nowamong many different originalpapers canbeinte- grated into a coherent picture. Parallel developments and differences to other approaches will be included in the appropriate places. 8 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Structure of this review This review is organized as follows: Section 1 in its remaining part contains a short primer on differential geom- • etry (with special emphasis on D = 2). En passant most of our notations are fixed in that subsection. Section 2 motivates the study of GDTs and introduces its action in the • three most frequently used forms (dilaton action, first order action, and Poisson-Sigma action) and describes the relations between them. Section 3 gives all classical solutions of GDTs in the absence of matter. The • global structure of such theories is discussed using Schwarzschild space- time as a simple example. As a further illustration we consider a family of dilaton models describing a single black hole in Minkowski, Rindler or de Sitter space-time. Section 4 extends the discussion to additionalgauge-fields, supergravity and • (bosonic or fermionic) matter fields. Section 5 considers the role of energy in GDTs. In particular, the ADM • mass, quasilocal energy, an absolute conservation law and its corresponding N¨other symmetry are discussed. Section 6 leaves the classical realm providing a concise treatment of (semi- • classical) Hawking radiation for minimally and non-minimally coupled mat- ter. Section 7 is devoted to non-perturbative path integral quantization of the • geometric sector of GDTs with (scalar) matter, giving rise to a non-local and non-polynomial effective action depending solely on the matter fields and external sources. The matter sector is treated perturbatively. Section8showssomeconsequences ofthepreviouslydevelopedperturbation • theory: the virtual black hole phenomenon, the appearance of non-local vertices, and S-matrix elements for s-wave gravitational scattering. Section 9 describes the status of Dirac quantization for a typical example • of that approach. Section 10 concludes with a brief summary and an outlook regarding open • questions. Appendix A recalls the spherical reduction procedure in the Cartan formal- • ism. Appendix B collects some basic properties of the heat kernel expansion • needed in Section 6. Several topics are closely related to the subject of this review, but are not included: (1) Various calculations and explanations of the BH entropy [169,355] be- came a large and rather independent field of research which shows, how- ever, overlaps [165,171]with the general treatment of the dilaton theories presented in this review. We do not cover approaches which imply fur- ther physical assumptions which transgress the orthodox application of quantum theory to gravity [34,35,43,24,31]. 9 1 INTRODUCTION (2) The ideas of the holographicprinciple [403,400]and ofthe AdS/CFT cor- respondence [309,200,444] are now being actively applied to BH physics (see, e.g. [375] and references therein). (3) There exist different approaches to integrability of gravity models in two dimensions [338,269,268,339]. In particular, a rather sophisticated tech- nique has been applied to solve the effective 2D models emerging after toroidalreduction(insteadofthesphericalreductionconsideredinthisre- view) of the four-dimensional Einstein equations [39,417]. Recently again interesting developments should be noted in Liouville gravity [151,406]. Some relations between 2D dilaton gravity and the theory of solitons were discussed in [70,336]. Each ofthese topicsdeserves a separatereview, andinsomecases such reviews exist. Therefore, we have restricted ourselves in those fields to just a few (somewhat randomly selected) references which hopefully will permit further orientation. 1.2 Differential geometry 1.2.1 Short primer for general dimensions In the comprehensive approach advocated for D = 2 gravity the use of Cartan variables (zweibeine, spin-connection) plays a pivotal role. As an introduction and in order to fix our notations we shall review briefly this formalism. For details we refer to the mathematical literature (cf. e.g. [334]). On a manifold with D dimensions in each point one introduces viel- beine eµ(x), where Greek indices refer to the (holonomic) coordinates xµ = a (x0,x1,...,xD 1)andLatinindicesdenotetheonesrelatedtoa(local)Lorentz − frame with metric η = diag (1, 1,..., 1). The dual vector space is spanned − − by the inverse vielbeine12 ea(x): µ eµaeb = ηab (1.2) µ SO(1,D 1) matrices La (x) of the (local) Lorentz transformations obey b − La L c = δa . (1.3) c b b A Lorentz vector Va = eaVµ transforms under local Lorentz transformations µ as V a(x) = La (x)Vb(x) (1.4) ′ b This implies a covariant derivative (D )a = δa∂ +ω a , (1.5) µ b b µ µ b 12For simplicity we shall use indiscriminately the term “vielbein” for the vielbein, the inverse vielbein and the dual basis of 1-forms (the components of which are given by the inverse vielbein) whenever the meaning is clear either from the context or from the position of indices. 10