Averaged energy conditions and evaporating black holes

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 1988-2000

  Ford, L H ^a,b   Roman, Thomas A ^b,c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001213221     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.1988     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime (Cambridge University Press, London, 1973), pp. 88 96.
2. H. Epstein, V. Glaser and A. Jaffe, Nuovo Cimento 36, 1016 (1965).
3. H.B.G. Casimir, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. B51, 793 (1948).
4. F.J. Tipler, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2521 (1978).
5. C. Chicone and P. Ehrlich, Manuscr. Math. 31, 297 (1980).
6. A. Borde, Class. Quantum Grav. 4, 343 (1987).
7. T.A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3526 (1986).
8. T.A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 37, 546 (1988).
9. J. Friedman, K. Schleich and D. Witt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1486 (1993).
10. Note that in a general spacetime, unlike the relation between the local null and weak energy conditions, ANEC does not simply follow by continuity from AWEC. An example of this is illustrated in Sec. refsec:2DEVAP for the Unruh vacuum state.
11. G. Klinkhammer, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2542 (1991).
12. A. Folacci, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2726 (1992).
13. R. Wald and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. D 44, 403 (1991).
14. M. Visser, Phys. Lett. B 349, 443 (1995).
15. U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5797 (1995).
16. U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. D 52, R564 (1995).
17. M. Morris and K. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988).
18. M. Morris, K. Thorne and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988).
19. L. Ford and T. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4277 (1995).
20. L.H. Ford, Proc. R. Soc. London A364, 227 (1978).
21. L.H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3972 (1991).
22. This particular choice was initially made in Ref. citeF91 purely for mathematical convenience. Presumably, one could prove analogous inequalities with other choices of sampling functions.
23. L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3662 (1990).
24. L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1328 (1992).
25. L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman (in preparation).
26. U. Yurtsever, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, L251 (1990).
27. R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965).
28. S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975).
29. A. Borde, “Topology Change in Classical General Relativity,” Tufts Institute of Cosmology Report No. TUTP 94 13, (unpublished).
30. L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D 48, 776 (1993).
31. W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 15, 365 (1977).
32. Note that this expression differs somewhat in form from Eq. (refeq:TLQI2DUNCP). However, the latter is an inequality valid for all quantum states in 2D Minkowski spacetime, whereas the integral in Eq. (refeq:intT) is evaluated for a restricted class of geodesics in a specific quantum state in Schwarzschild spacetime. Note also that the right hand side of Eq. (refeq:intT) is more negative than the right hand side of Eq. (refeq:TLQI2DUNCP). This is presumably due to the integration over a half complete geodesic in Eq. (refeq:intT); even in Minkowski spacetime, there exist states for which Eq. (refeq:TLQI2DUNCP) would not be true if the integration were taken only over a half geodesic.
33. P.C.W. Davies and W.G. Unruh, Proc. R. Soc. London A356, 259 (1977).
34. R.M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
35. R.M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994).
36. U. Yurtsever (private communication).
37. T. Elster, Phys. Lett. 94A, 205 (1983).
38. B.P. Jensen, J.G. McLaughlin and A.C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D 43, 4142 (1991).
39. M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes from Einstein to Hawking (American Institute of Physics Press, New York, 1995), Sec. 12.3.6, pp. 128 129.
40. The form of Eq. (refeq:awec/qi 4D) is motivated by the following considerations: If we imagine a sequence of observers shot outward with increasing values of k, then (formula presented) propto (formula presented) and δ τ propto (formula presented), so (formula presented) dτ propto ((formula presented))(formula presented) propto (δ τ)(formula presented). The factor of (formula presented) is required in order for the dimensions to be correct. This form is also suggested by the form of the inequality found for orbiting null geodesics, Eq. (refeq:ANECINQ 1norbit).
41. D.N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 13, 198 (1976).
42. A. Borde (private communication).
43. See p. 56, footnote 2 of R. Penrose, Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1972), for an interesting example with timelike geodesics.
44. C. I Kuo and L.H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4510 (1993).
45. C. I Kuo, “Quantum Fluctuations and Semiclassical Gravity Theory”, Ph.D. thesis, Tufts University, 1994 (unpublished).
46. The authors are grateful to A. Borde for this remark.
47. G.J. Galloway, Manuscr. Math. 35, 209 (1981).