arXiv:2103.13720v1 [math-ph] 25 Mar 2021 hog iglrzr-ag oetas hi mathematic Their potentials. and zero-range regular singular through is potential external infin the at when diverging occur potential to external ap smooth expected issues a anoma Similar by of 37]). produced emergence 31, is [7, the also to (see observables inevitably diverglobal leads generically renorm density, This [21], pric energy 1979 vacuum a approached. in the that Candelas as perf surprise and such a no Deutsch ables, by as as out behave comes pointed It to first going field. is lit electromagnetic vast material the the real to no reference understandably, also making ou 44], content 41, we 39, Here 22, side. 13, experimental [12, ext the and on well-established and a Buil s theoretical become nowadays boun is has geometries. classical it effect background Casimir by Indeed, non-trivial influenced topologically order. are or leading fields to for quantum least unnecessary relativistic actually at is forces, constituents result dispersion plates astonishing the This electromag of themselves. the tion plates of variation the a of to presence due area), surface their and rudraigtertclpeito:toprle,ne force parallel, attractive two tually prediction: theoretical groundbreaking a bet nature. forces in i Casimir relativistic molecules, resulting the and Accordingly, atoms negligible. neutral of polarization spontaneous Keywords AS2010 PACS 2020 MSC nitreit eiebtensot ofiigpotentials confining smooth between regime intermediate An reflect perfectly by confined are fields quantum that Assuming napoern okdtn akt 98[9,floigasug a following [19], 1948 to back dating work pioneering a In Wa der London-van ubiquitous the with deals physics Casimir eemndt edn re.I ssonta onaydiver boundary that shown is potential. It delta o Dirac version small order. pure local for leading a polarization to vacuum implementing determined the field, of vacu the behaviours renormalized of asymptotic The mass theory. isotro non-zero field and and quantum homogeneous the local, of general unitarity most semitransparen the and to reflecting reference Perfectly investigated. are oetascnetae naflthprln fco-dimensio of hyperplane flat a on concentrated potentials Abstract. : 15;8T0 81Q10 81T10; 81T55; : 37.k 11.h 12.v 02.30.Sa 41.20.Cv; 11.10.Gh; 03.70.+k; : aii ffc;vcu oaiain earglrzto;z regularization; zeta polarization; vacuum effect; Casimir A UMPLRZTO IHZR-AG POTENTIALS ZERO-RANGE WITH POLARIZATION VACUUM h unu aumflcutoso eta clrfil indu field scalar neutral a of fluctuations vacuum quantum The F = ¯ hc 240 π 2 Σ/a 4 NAHYPERPLANE A ON ( a and 1. AIEFERMI DAVIDE Introduction Σ eoig epciey h itnebtenteplates the between distance the respectively, denoting, 1 enmcocpcbde r rl unu and quantum truly are bodies macroscopic ween eree ftecnnmn fteqatmfield quantum the of confinement the if even pear ufcsaebt ae noacut making account, into taken both are surfaces t ta odcigpae ol xeineamu- a experience would plates conducting utral ldsrpinutmtl mut oprescribing to amounts ultimately description al n igo hscuilfaue h td fthe of study the feature, crucial this on ding i onaycniin optbewt the with compatible conditions boundary pic ei o-nerbewya h onayis boundary the as way non-integrable a in ge 1 h optto ftepeiul mentioned previously the of computation the niae htadtie irsoi descrip- microscopic detailed a that indicates ei unu aumeeg nue ythe by induced energy vacuum quantum netic n ag itne rmtehprln are hyperplane the from distances large and rtr ie therein. cited erature eieweertraineet r not are effects retardation where regime a n r-ag neatos onaydivergences. boundary interactions; ero-range in ffiin ocnie ffciemdl where models effective consider to ufficient mplrzto scmue o ohzero both for computed is polarization um t 2] ntecnrr,n ahlge are pathologies no contrary, the On [27]. ity ais xenlptnil,o vncurved even or potentials, external daries, ecsaesfe nteseiccs fa of case specific the in soften are gences sle ihmninn h lsia essays classical the mentioning with rselves aihsrpdyeog tlredistances. large at enough rapidly vanishes h earglrzto ehiu.The technique. regularization zeta the f utb adfrti ipicto.As simplification. this for paid be must e ( eeyatv ieo eerh oho the on both research, of line active remely isi h optto fteassociated the of computation the in lies d c odco nayfeunyrneof range frequency any in conductor ect lzdepcainvle flclobserv- local of values expectation alized + eto fBh,HnrkCsmrmade Casimir Hendrik Bohr, of gestion n onaisi togidealization: strong a is boundaries ing 1 l iprinfre,aiigfo the from arising forces, dispersion als n adbudre a erealized be can boundaries hard and ) dmninlMnosispacetime Minkowski -dimensional e ybcgon zero-range background by ced 2 DAVIDE FERMI suitable boundary conditions for the quantum field on sets of small co-dimension (1, 2 or 3), where the distributional potentials are supposed to be concentrated. At the same time, such singular potentials can often be interpreted as limits (in resolvent sense) of sharply peaked, regular potentials. More technical details on these subjects can be found, e.g., in [4, 5, 48, 50]. Nowadays, a quite rich literature is available regarding the analysis of Casimir-type settings with external zero-range potentials. The Casimir effect in presence of surface Dirac delta potentials, interpreted as semi-transparent walls responsible for a partial confinement of the quantum field, was first addressed by Mamaev and Trunov [40] and later examined in various configurations by several authors [8, 11, 20, 32, 34, 38, 42, 46]. More recently, considerable attention was devoted to the study of renormalized vacuum expectations of global observables (such as the total energy) in presence of generalized zero-range interactions concentrated on sets of co-dimension 1, corresponding to mixtures of δ − δ′ potentials [6, 15, 17, 18, 45, 47]. Before proceeding, let us also mention that various models with point impurities, modelled via distributional potentials concentrated on sets of co-dimension 3, were analysed in [3, 2, 14, 16, 30, 35, 36, 53, 57]. The present work studies the vacuum fluctuations of a canonically quantized, neutral scalar field in (d + 1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime (with d > 1) in presence of a flat hyperplane of co-dimension 1. Both the massive and massless theories are considered. The presence of the hyperplane is described in terms of boundary conditions for the field and its normal derivative. It is worth remarking that all local, homogeneous and isotropic boundary conditions compatible with the unitarity of the quantum field theory are taken into account. Of course, two qualitatively different scenarios are allowed. The first one corresponds to a perfectly reflecting plane, yielding a total confinement of the field on either of the half-spaces that it separates; this setting is naturally portrayed in terms of classical boundary conditions of Dirichlet, Neumann or Robin type. The second one refers to a semitransparent plane, which can be tunnelled through by the quantum field; this situation is described making reference to generalized δ-δ′ potentials concentrated on the plane. The main object of investigation is the vacuum polarization, namely the renormalized expectation value of the field squared at any spacetime point. This is computed implementing the ζ-regularization technique in the formulation outlined in [29] (see also [26, 28, 25]), which allows to derive explicit inte- gral representations in all cases of interest. These representations are then employed to determine the asymptotic behaviour of the vacuum polarization close to the hyperplane and far away from it. In this connection, the primary purpose is to inspect the presence of boundary divergences. For a perfectly reflecting hyperplane, it is found that the vacuum polarization always diverges near the plane (logarith- mically for d = 1 and with a power law for d > 2, with respect to the distance from the plane); notably, the leading order term in the asymptotic expansion is always independent of the parameters describing specific boundary conditions. Similar divergences also occur for a semitransparent plane; however in this case the leading order asymptotics depend explicitly on the parameters appearing in the characterization of the boundary conditions. To say more, the leading order divergent contribution is absent for a specific choice of the parameters, corresponding to a pure Dirac delta potential. Some motivations explaining why this very model plays a somehow distinguished role are presented. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the local zeta regularization frame- work described in [29]. In Section 3 the renormalized vacuum polarization for a scalar field in presence of a perfectly reflecting plane is analysed. The analogous observable in the case of a semitransparent plane is examined in Section 4. In both Sections 3 and 4 the case of a massive field is first considered, and the corresponding massless theory is subsequently addressed by a limiting procedure. Finally, Appendix A presents a self-contained derivation of the heat kernel on the half-line for generic Robin boundary conditions at the origin, a tool used in the computations of Section 3.

2. General theory The purpose of this section is to present a brief and self-contained summary of some general techniques extracted from [29], to be systematically employed in the sequel. VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 3

2.1. Quantum field theory and the fundamental operator. We work in natural units of measure (c = 1, ¯h = 1) and identify (d+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with Rd+1 using a set of inertial coor- µ dinates (x )µ = 0,1, ... , d (t, x), such that the Minkowski metric has components (ηµν)= diag{−1, 1, ..., 1}. Making reference to≡ the standard formalism of canonical quantization, we describe a neutral scalar field living on a spatial domain Ω Rd as an operator-valued distribution φ^ : (t, x) R Ω φ^(t, x) ⊂ ∈ ×2 7 ∈ sa(F). Here F is the bosonic Fock space constructed on the single-particle Hilbert space L (Ω) of square- L → integrable functions, and sa(F) is the set of unbounded self-adjoint operators on it. We denote with |0 F the correspondingL vacuum state (not to be confused with the true Minkowskian vacuum) and assumei ∈ that the dynamics is determined by a generalized Klein-Gordon equation of the form (∂ + )φ^ = 0 , tt A where : dom( ) L2(Ω) L2(Ω) is a non-negative and self-adjoint operator on the single-particle HilbertA space. TheA non-negativity⊂ of is in fact an indispensable requirement for a well-behaved quantum field theory, free of pernicious→ instabilities.A In typical applications, is a Schr¨odinger-type differential operator on the spatial domain Ω, possibly including a static externalA potential V : Ω R, i.e., =−∆ + V . A → Correspondingly, whenever the spatial domain has a boundary ∂Ω it is essential to specify suitable conditions on it. We understand these boundary conditions to be encoded in the definition of the operator self-adjointness domain dom( ). It goes without saying that the class of admissible potentials and boundary conditions is restrictedA by the fundamental hypotheses of self-adjointness and non-negativity for . TheA configurations analysed in the present work regard a scalar field influenced solely by the presence of an either perfectly reflecting or semitransparent hyperplane π which, without loss of generality, can be parametrized as (2.1) π = {x (x ,...,x ) Rd | x = 0} . ≡ 1 d ∈ 1 As already mentioned in the Introduction, the coupling between the field and this hyperplane can always be described in terms of suitable boundary conditions for the field and its normal derivative on π. Accordingly, in all cases we shall characterize the fundamental operator as a self-adjoint extension of 2 ∞ Rd 2 Rd A 2 Rd the closable symmetric operator (−∆ + m ) ↾ Cc ( \ π) on L ( \ π) L ( ) (here m = const. > 0 indicates the mass of the field). We refer to subsection 2.3 for more details.≡ 2.2. ζ-regularization and renormalization. As well known, a quantum field theory of the type out- lined in the preceding subsection is typically plagued by ultraviolet divergences. A viable way to cure these divergences is the ζ-regularization approach described in [29]. Following this approach and assuming for now that is strictly positive,1 we firstly introduce the ζ-smeared field operator A φ^ u := ( /κ2)−u/4 φ^ ; A here u C is the regularizing parameter and κ > 0 is a mass scale factor, included for dimensional reasons.∈ Notice that the initial non-regularized theory is formally recovered setting u = 0. Next, we consider the ζ-regularized vacuum polarization at any spacetime point (t, x) R Ω, that is the regularized 2-point function at equal times evaluated along the space diagonal {x, y ∈ Ω×| y = x}: ∈ 0| φ^ u(t, x) 2|0 0|φ^ u(t, x)φ^ u(t, y)|0 . h i ≡ h i y=x

This quantity can be expressed in terms of
the integral kernel associated to a suitable complex power of the fundamental operator ; more precisely, we have [29, Eq. (2.26)] A u u 2 κ − u+1 (2.2) 0| φ^ (t, x) |0 = 2 (x, y) . h i 2 A y=x

1
With this we mean that the spectrum σ(A) is contained in [ε, + ) for some ε > 0. In the sequel we will indicate how to relax this condition. ∞ 4 DAVIDE FERMI

Notice that the expression on the right-hand side of (2.2) does not depend on the time coordinate t R, as expected for static configurations like the ones we are considering. ∈ − u+1 j On very general grounds it can be shown that the function (x, y) 2 (x, y) belongs to C (Ω Ω) for any u C and j {1, 2, 3, . . . } such that Re u>d − 1 + j. Especially,7 A let us remark that the× said function is∈ regular along∈ the diagonal {y = x} for Re u large enough.→ Furthermore, for any fixed x, y Ω − u+1 ∈ (even for y = x), the map u 2 (x, y) is analytic in the complex strip {u C | Re u>d − 1} and possesses a meromorphic extension7 A to the whole complex plane C with at most simple∈ pole singularities [24, 29, 43, 56]. In light of these→ results, we proceed to define the renormalized vacuum polarization at (t, x) R Ω as ∈ × 2 u 2 (2.3) 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren := RP 0| φ^ (t, x) |0 . h i u=0h i

Here and in the following we denote with RP the regular part of
the Laurent expansion near u = 0.2 u=0 Notably, if no pole arises at u = 0, Eq. (2.3) simply amounts to evaluating the analytic continuation at this point and ultraviolet renormalization is attained with no need to subtract divergent quantities; on the contrary, when the meromorphic extension has a pole at u = 0, Eq. (2.3) matches a minimal subtraction prescription [9, 29, 58]. Before we proceed, let us point out that a modification of the above construction is required whenever the fundamental operator is non-negative but not strictly positive, namely, when its spectrum contains a right neighbourhood of A0. In this case an infrared cut-off must be added in advance, and ultimately removed after renormalization of ultraviolet divergences. For example, one can replace with + m2 (m > 0) and compute the limit m 0+ at last, after analytic continuation at u = A0. ConcerningA the present work, this modification plays a key role when the field is massless (m = 0); in this case the renormalized vacuum polarization→ is determined as the zero mass limit (m 0+) of the analogous quantity in the massive theory, namely, → 2 (massless) 2 (massive) (2.4) 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren := lim 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren . h i m→0+h i 2.3. Factorized configurations. Let us now restrict the attention to product configurations with d−1 Ω = Ω R , = 1 − + 1 (−∆ − ) , 1 × A A1 ⊗ d 1 1 ⊗ d 1 2 where Ω1 R is any open interval, 1 is a positive self-adjoint operator on L (Ω1), and −∆d−1 indicates ⊂ d−1 A 2 d−1 2 d−1 the free Laplacian on R with dom(−∆d−1) = H (R ) L (R ). It is implied that dom( ) = 2 d−1 2 2 2 d−1 ⊂ A dom( 1) H (R ) L (Ω) L (Ω1) L (R ). UnderA ⊗ these circumstances,⊂ ≡ everything⊗ is determined upon factorization by the reduced operator A1 acting on the 1-dimensional spatial domain Ω1. In particular, let us highlight that for any τ > 0 the heat −τ −τ kernel e A(x, y) and the reduced analogue e A1 (x1, y1) fulfil

−τ −τ 1 τ∆d−1 e A(x, y)= e A (x1, y1) e (xd−1, yd−1) ,

d−1 τ∆ − where we put xd−1 (x2,...,xd) R and denoted with e d 1 (xd−1, yd−1) the free heat kernel in Rd−1, that is ≡ ∈ |x − y |2 1 − d−1 d−1 τ∆d−1 4τ e (xd−1, yd−1)= d−1 e . (4πτ) 2 Taking into account the above considerations, from the basic Mellin-type identity ∞ −s 1 s−1 −τ (x, y)= dτ τ e A(x, y) , A Γ(s) Z0

2For any complex-valued meromorphic function f defined in a complex neighbourhood of u = 0, making reference to +∞ ℓ +∞ ℓ its Laurent expansion f(u) = ℓ=−∞ fℓ u we define the regular part as (RP f)(u) = ℓ=0 fℓ u , which yields in particular = P P RP u=0 f f0.

VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 5 we infer by direct evaluation ∞ − 1 − d+1 − s s 2 τ 1 (x, y) = d−1 dτ τ e A (x1, y1) . A y=x (4π) 2 Γ(s) Z0 y1=x1

Together with Eq. (2.2), the latter relation allows us to derive the following representation formula for the ζ-regularized vacuum polarization, valid for u C with Re u>d − 1: u ∈ ∞ 2 κ u−d ^ u −τ 1 (2.5) 0| φ (t, x) |0 = dτ τ 2 e A (x1, y1) . d−1 u+1 h i 2 (4π) 2 Γ( ) Z0 y1=x1 2
Let us now return to the configurations portrayed at the end of subsection 2.1, involving a scalar field restrained by the presence of a hyperplane π. Whenever the effective interaction between the field and π is isotropic and homogeneous along the hyperplane, these configurations exhibit the factorization property discussed above. More precisely, referring to the parametrization (2.1) of π, under the hypothe- ses just mentioned it is natural to consider the reduced domain Ω1 = R \ {0} and to characterize the 2 ∞ R associated operator 1 as a self-adjoint extension of the symmetric operator (− ∂x1x1+ m ) ↾ Cc ( \ {0}). We recall that the domainsA of these self-adjoint extensions are indeed restrictions of the maximal domain 2 2 2 H (R \ {0}) H (R−) H (R+) (where R+ (0, + ) and R− (− , 0)), determined by suitable ≡ ⊕ ≡ ≡ boundary conditions at the gap point x1 = 0. As a matter of fact, the models discussed in the upcoming ∞ ∞ 2 Sections 3 and 4 encompass all admissible self-adjoint realizations of the reduced operator − ∂x1x1 + m on R \ {0}, respecting the basic requirement of positivity. Notice however that this scheme does not reproduce the entire class of (positive) self-ajoint realizations of the full operator −∆ + m2 on Rd \ π, since non-homogeneous and non-local self-adjoint realizations are being omitted.3 In the following sections, after providing a precise definition of the reduced operator 1 under analysis −τ A and an explicit expression for the associated heat kernel e A1 (x1, y1), we proceed to construct the 2 analytic continuation of the map u 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 to the whole complex plane starting from the representation formula (2.5). The renormalized7 h vacuumi fluctuation is ultimately computed following the prescriptions (2.3) and (2.4). →

3. Perfectly reflecting plane In this section we analyse the admissible scenarios where the hyperplane π behaves as a perfectly reflecting surface, providing a total decoupling of the two half-spaces which it separates. To this purpose, taking into account the general arguments presented in the preceding Section 2 and making reference to [5, Thm. 3.2.3], we consider the family of reduced operators labelled as follows by the elements h± = (h0±,h1±) of the real projective space P1: dom( ) := ψ H2(R\{0}) h+ψ (0+)= h+ψ(0+), h−ψ (0−)= h−ψ(0−) , A1 ∈ 0 ′ 1 0 ′ 1  2 R\{ } (3.1) 1 ψ = (− ∂x1x1 + m ) ψ in 0 . A Let us remark that the above definition of dom( ) entails classical boundary conditions of Neumann, A1 Dirichlet or Robin type, chosen independently on the two sides of the gap point x1 = 0 (viz., on the two sides of the hyperplane π). Especially, Neumann conditions correspond to h± = 0 (h± = 0) and Dirichlet 1 0 6 ones to h0± = 0 (h1± = 0). In passing, we also mention that the Casimir effect for Robin boundary conditions was previously6 analysed in [23, 51, 52]. For convenience of presentation, in place of the projective labels h± = (h0±,h1±) we introduce the parameters

(3.2) b := (h±/h±) R {+ } , ± ± 1 0 ∈ ∪ 3 Let us mention a pair of examples which are not covered by our analysis.∞ On one hand, local but non-homogeneous boundary conditions appear in the description of δ-potentials supported on π with non-constant coupling coefficients, formally 2 d−1 corresponding to operators like −∆ + m + α(xd−1) δπ (with xd−1 ≡ (x2,...,xd) ∈ R ≃ π). On the other hand, 2 homogeneous but non-local boundary conditions are used to characterize operators like −∆ + m + α(−∆d−1) δπ, with 2 α(−∆d−1) a suitable self-adjoint operator on L (π) defined by functional calculus [18]. 6 DAVIDE FERMI intending b =+ if h± = 0. Accordingly, the boundary conditions in Eq. (3.1) become ± 0 (3.3) ∞ ψ′(0±)+ b ψ(0±)= 0 , ∓ ± with the implication that ψ(0±)= 0 if b =+ . Notice that we fixed the overall signs in the definition ± ± (3.2) of b so that both conditions in Eq. (3.3) comply with the canonical form (∂nψ + b ψ) = 0, ± ± x1 = 0± where n denotes the unit outer normal. Of∞ course, Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions are retrieved for b = 0 and b =+ , respectively. Let us also emphasize that, with our units of measure, the parameters±b are dimensionally± equivalent to a mass. ± For any b+,b− R {+ } the∞ spectrum of the reduced operator 1 comprises an invariant purely ab- solutely continuous∈ part∪ and at most two isolated eigenvalues belowA the continuous threshold, depending on the sign of b . More precisely,∞ we have ± σ( )= σ ( ) σ ( ) , σ ( ) = [m2, + ) , A1 ac A1 ∪ p A1 ac A1 ∅ for b ,b [0, + ) {+ }, + − ∞ 2 2 ∈ ∪  m − b+ for b+ (− , 0), b− [0, + ) {+ }, σ ( )= ∈ ∞ ∈ ∞ ∪ p 1   2 2 A  m − b− for b+ [0, + ) {+ }, b− (− , 0), ∈ ∞ ∪ ∞∈ ∞ m2 − b2 , m2 − b2 for b ,b (− , 0).  + − + − ∞ ∞ ∞  ∈ This makes evident that the required positivity of is ensured if and only if A1 ∞ (3.4) b+,b− (−m, + ) {+ } , m>0, ∈ ∪ two conditions which we assume to be fulfilled until∞ the∞ end of this section. The heat kernel associated to the aforementioned reduced operator 1 is given by (see Appendix A; θ( ) is the Heaviside step function) A · −m2τ 2 2 ∞ 2 e |x1−y1| |x1+y1| (w+x1+y1) −τ 1 − − −b+w − (3.5) e A (x1, y1)= θ(x1) θ(y1) e 4τ + e 4τ − 2b+ dw e 4τ √4πτ Z   0  2 2 ∞ 2 |x1−y1| |x1+y1| (w−x1−y1) − − −b−w − + θ(−x1) θ(−y1) e 4τ + e 4τ − 2b− dw e 4τ . Z  0  Inserting this expression into Eq. (2.5), we obtain the following integral representation of the ζ- regularized vacuum polarization: u ∞ u 2 κ u−d−1 −m2τ (3.6) 0| φ^ (t, x) |0 = dτ τ 2 e d/2 u+1 h i 2 (4π) Γ( 2 ) Z0 ×
2 ∞ 2 ∞ 2 (x1) (w+2x1) (w−2x1) − −b+w − −b−w − 1 + e τ − 2b+ θ(x1) dw e 4τ − 2b− θ(−x1) dw e 4τ . × Z Z  0 0  In accordance with the general theory outlined in Section 2, it can be checked by direct inspection that the above representation (3.6) makes sense for (3.7) u C with Re u>d − 1 , ∈ a condition needed especially to ensure the convergence of the integral w.r.t. the variable τ for τ 0+. Besides, the expression of the right-hand side of Eq. (3.6) is an analytic function of u inside the semi- infinite complex strip identified by Eq. (3.7). → 2 In order to determine the meromorphic extensions of the map u 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 to the whole complex plane, let us first make a brief digression to mention a pair7 ofh identities involvingi the Euler
Gamma function Γ and the modified Bessel function of second kind Kν→. On one hand, we have [49, Eq. 5.9.1] ∞ 2 (3.8) dτ τν−1 e−m τ = m−2ν Γ(ν) , for all m > 0, ν C with Re ν > 0 ; Z0 ∈ VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 7 on the other hand, from [49, Eq. 10.32.10] we deduce

∞ 2 ν−1 −m2τ− p ν+1 2ν (3.9) dτ τ e τ = 2 p K−ν(2mp) , for all m, p > 0, ν C , Z0 ∈ where, for later convenience, we introduced the functions (ν C) ∈ ν (3.10) Kν : (0, + ) C , Kν(w) := w Kν(w) .

Let us now return to Eq. (3.6). Firstly,∞ notice→ that the integration order therein can be exchanged by Fubini’s theorem, for any u as in Eq. (3.7). Then, using the previous identities (3.8) and (3.9), by a few additional manipulations we obtain u 2 κ − − u − d + 1 u−d+3 − + ^ u d 1 u 2 u d 1 0| φ (t, x) |0 = + m Γ + 2 |x1| K d−1−u 2m|x1| h i 2 (4π)d/2 Γ( u 1 ) 2 2 2 "  
∞
u−d+5 −b+w u−d+1 − 2 2 b+ θ(x1) dw e (w/2 + x1) K d−1−u m(w/2 + x1) Z0 2 ∞
u−d+5 −b−w u−d+1 − 2 2 b− θ(−x1) dw e (w/2 − x1) K d−1−u m(w/2 − x1) , Z0 2 #
which, via the change of integration variable w = 2|x1| v, becomes d−1 u u−d+1 u−3d+1 u m (κ/m) Γ( ) 2 2 κ|x | ^ u 2 2 1 0| φ (t, x) |0 = + + + K d−1−u 2m|x1| h i d+1 d/2 ( u 1 ) d/2 ( u 1 ) | |d−1 2 2 π Γ 2 π Γ 2 x1

u−3d+5 u ∞ −2b |x | v
θ(x1) b+ 2 2 κ|x1| e + 1 − + dv − − K d−1−u 2m|x1|(v + 1) d/2 ( u 1 ) | |d−2 (v + 1)d 1 u 2 π Γ 2 x1
Z0 u−3d+5 u ∞ −2b |x | v
θ(−x1) b− 2 2 κ|x1| e − 1 (3.11) − + dv − − K d−1−u 2m|x1|(v + 1) . d/2 ( u 1 ) | |d−2 (v + 1)d 1 u 2 π Γ 2 x1
Z0
Recall that the reciprocal of the Gamma function is analytic on the whole complex plane. Conversely, the Gamma function appearing in the numerator of the first term is a meromorphic function of u, with simple poles where its argument is equal to a non-positive integer, i.e., (3.12) u = d − 1 − 2ℓ , with ℓ {0, 1, 2, . . . } . ∈ On the other hand, from basic features of the modified Bessel function Kν we infer that the function Kν introduced in Eq. (3.10) fulfils the following: for any fixed w > 0, the map ν K (w) is analytic on 7 ν the whole complex plane [49, §10.25(ii)]; for any fixed ν C, the map w (0, + ) Kν(w) is analytic, continuous up to w = 0 and decaying with exponential speed∈ for w +∈ [49, §→10.317 and Eqs. 10.25.2, 10.27.4, 10.40.2].4 ∞ → In light of the above considerations, Eq. (3.11) does in fact provide→ the∞ meromorphic extension of the 2 ζ-regularized vacuum polarization 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 to the whole complex plane, with isolated simple pole singularities at the points indicatedh in Eq. (3.12).i We can then proceed to compute the renormalized vacuum polarization, implementing the general
prescription (2.3). In this regard, special attention must be paid to the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3.11), since it presents a pole at u = 0 when the space dimension d is odd. More precisely, using some basic properties of the Gamma function [49, §5]

4Consider the integrals appearing in Eq. (3.11). Since the integrand functions therein are continuous at w = 0, the lower extreme of integration is never problematic. On the other hand, from [49, 10.40.2] we infer

d−2−u u−d −2b±|x1| v u−d+1 π −2m|x1| 2 −2(b±+m) |x1| v 2 e (v+1) K d−1−u 2m|x1|(v+1) = e 2m|x1| e v 1+o(1) for w + , 2 r 2

  which shows that the condition b > −m established in Eq. (3.4) is in fact indispensable to grant the convergence→ of the∞ ± said integrals. 8 DAVIDE FERMI and indicating with H := ℓ 1 the ℓ-th harmonic number for ℓ {0, 1, 2, . . . } (H 0 by convention), ℓ j=1 j ∈ 0 ≡ we deduce P d (−1) 2 √π + (u) for d even , (κ/m)u Γ( u−d+1 )  Γ( d+1 ) O 2 =  2 u+1  d−1 Γ( 2 )  (−1) 2 2 2κ + d−1 + + ( ) d+1 H 2 log u for d odd . √π Γ( ) u 2 m O  2     Noting that all other terms in Eq. (3.11) are regular at u = 0, from (2.3) we obtain

2 2 (free) 2 (plane) (3.13) 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 = 0|φ^ |0 ren + 0|φ^ (x )|0 ren ; h iren h i h 1 i

d d−1 (−1) 2 π m for d even , d+1 +  2 d 1 2 (free) (4π) Γ( 2 ) (3.14) 0|φ^ |0 ren =   d−1 d−1 h i  (−1) 2 m 2κ H d−1 + 2 log for d odd ; d+1 d+1  (4π) 2 Γ( ) 2 m  2    

^ 2 (plane) 1 (3.15) 0|φ (x1)|0 ren := 3d−1 d+1 K d−1 2m|x1| d−1 2 h i 2 2 π 2 |x1| " ∞
e−2b+|x1| v − ( ) | | K d−1 | |( + ) θ x1 4b+ x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 Z0 (v + 1) 2 ∞
e−2b−|x1| v − (− ) | | K d−1 | |( + ) θ x1 4b− x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 . Z0 (v + 1) 2 #
2 (free) It is worth remarking that 0|φ^ |0 ren is in fact a constant which depends solely on the mass m of the field and, possibly, on theh renormalizationi mass parameter κ (if the space dimension d is odd). In particular, it does not depend on the coordinate x1, namely, the distance from the hyperplane π, nor on the parameters b defining the boundary conditions on π. For these reasons it is natural to regard 2 (free) ± 0|φ^ |0 ren as a pure free-theory contribution (which explains the choice of the superscript). In contrast, h ^ 2 i (plane) 0|φ (x1)|0 ren is a contribution which truly accounts for the presence of the hyperplane and for the hboundary conditionsi on it. 2 (free) Owing to the above considerations, one might be tempted to discard the free-theory term 0|φ^ |0 ren 2 (plane) h i and regard 0|φ^ (x1)|0 ren as the only physically relevant contribution to the vacuum polarization. Despite beingh tenable,i this standpoint actually suffers from a drawback. Indeed, let us anticipate that 2 (free) 0|φ^ |0 ren plays a key role in the cancellation of some infrared divergences which would otherwise affect theh masslessi theory in space dimension d = 1 (see the subsequent paragraph 3.3.1). Therefore, we reject 2 the standpoint sketched above and regard the sum 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren defined in Eq. (3.13) as the true physically sensible observable. h i

3.1. Neumann and Dirichlet conditions. We already mentioned in the comments below Eq. (3.3) that Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions correspond to b = 0 and b =+ , respectively. Of 2 (free) ± ± course, the free-theory contribution 0|φ^ |0 ren remains unchanged in both cases, so let us focus on the ^ 2 (plane) h i ∞ term 0|φ (x1)|0 ren . Inh the case ofi Neumann conditions where b = 0, it appears that the expressions in the second and third line of Eq. (3.15) vanish identically. Regarding± the case of Dirichlet conditions, the limits b + ± can be easily computed as follows, making the change of integration variable z = 2b+|x1| v and using the → ∞ VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 9 dominated convergence theorem: ∞ −2b |x1| v e ± lim 4b |x1| dv − K d−1 2m|x1|(v + 1) b →+∞ ± Z (v + 1)d 1 2 ± " 0 #
∞ e−z z = K d−1 | | + lim 2 dz d−1 2m x1 1 b →+∞ Z z 2 2b+|x | ± " 0 + 1 1 # 2b+|x1|   ∞   −z
= 2 K d−1 2m|x1| dz e = 2 K d−1 2m|x1| . 2 Z0 2 Summarizing, Eq. (3.15) reduces
to

K d−1 2m|x1| ^ 2 (plane) 2 (3.16) 0|φ (x1)|0 ren = − + , 3d 1 d 1 d−1 h i ± 2 2 π 2 |x1|
for Neumann (+) and Dirichlet (-) boundary conditions, respectively.

3.2. Asymptotics for x1 0± and x1 . Hereafter we investigate the behaviour of the renor- 2 ± malized vacuum polarization 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren close to the hyperplane π and far way from it. For brevity we only present the leading→ orderh asymptotics,i→ ∞ although a refinement of the arguments outlined below would actually permit to derive asymptotic expansions at any order. 2 (free) Before proceeding, let us stress once more that 0|φ^ |0 ren does not depend on the coordinate x1; h( ) i thus, it is sufficient to analyse the term 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 plane (see Eq. (3.15)). h 1 iren 3.2.1. The limit x1 0±. Let us first notice that the functions Kν defined in Eq. (3.10) have the following asymptotic expansions, which can be easily derived from [49][Eqs. 10.31.1 and 10.30.2] (here and in the sequel γEM = 0.57721→ . . . indicates the Euler-Mascheroni constant): (3.17) K (w)=− log(w/2)+ γ + w2 log w , for w 0+ ; 0 EM O (3.18) K (w)= 2ν−1 Γ(ν)+ wmin{2+ν, 2ν} log w , for w 0+ and ν>0. ν O
→ Next, consider the integrals appearing in the second
and third lines→ of Eq. (3.15). For any finite b (−m, + ) (cf. Eq. (3.4)), via the change of variable z = 2m|x1| (v + 1) we get ± ∈ b ∞ −2b |x | v ∞ − z e 1 2b e m± ∞ ± d−1 2b |x1| 4b |x1| dv − K d−1 2m|x1|(v + 1) = ± 2m|x1| e ± dz − K d−1 (z) ± ( + )d 1 2 d 1 2 Z0 v 1 m Z2m|x1| z ∞ ∞

Writing = z0 + for some z > 0 fixed arbitrarily and replacing the integrand inside 2m|x1| 2m|x1| z0 0 z0 withR its TaylorR expansionR at z = 0 (recall, especially, Eqs. (3.17) and (3.18)), by a few additional 2m|x1| + Rcomputations we deduce, for |x1| 0 ,

∞ (1) for d = 1 , −2b |x→1| v O e ±  4b |x1| dv − K d−1 2m|x1|(v + 1) = |x1| log |x1| for d = 2 , ± Z (v + 1)d 1 2  O 0  |x | for d > 3 .
O 1
 Summing up, the above arguments allow us to infer that, in the limit
x1 0±, 1 − log m|x | + (1) for→d = 1 ,  2π 1 O  1
|^ 2( )| (plane) =  + log |x1| for d = 2 , (3.19) 0 φ x1 0 ren  8π |x1| O h i  d−1
Γ( 2 ) + 1 + |x1| for d > 3 .  d 1 d−1 O  (4π) 2 |x1|  h
i  10 DAVIDE FERMI

It is remarkable that the above leading order expansions do not depend on the parameters b , de- scribing the boundary conditions. In particular, the same results remain valid for Neumann conditions,± corresponding to b = 0. On the contrary, a separate analysis is required for Dirichlet conditions, which ± is formally recovered for b + (a limit which clearly does not commute with x1 0±); in this case, starting from Eq. (3.16) and± using again Eqs. (3.17) (3.18) one can derive asymptotic expansions which coincide with those reported→ in Eq.∞ (3.19), except for the opposite overall sign. →

3.2.2. The limit x1 . It is a well known fact that local observables of Casimir type for massive fields are typically suppressed± with exponential rate in the regime of large distances from the boundaries. In the sequel we provide→ quantitative∞ estimates for 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 (plane), confirming this general expectation. h 1 iren To this purpose, let us first point out that the functions Kν fulfil (see Eq. (3.10) and [49][Eq. 10.40.2]) π (3.20) K (w)= e−w wν−1/2 1 + (1/w) , for w + and ν > 0 . ν 2 O r   Consider now the integral expressions in Eq. (3.15). Using the above→ relation∞ and making the change of variable z = |x1| v, for |x1| + we deduce ∞ −2b |x1| v e ± | | → ∞ K d−1 | |( + ) 4b x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 ± Z0 (v + 1) 2 ∞ d−2
−2m|x1| 2 −2(b +m) z = 2√2π b e 2m|x1| dz e ± 1 + z/|x1| ± Z0 O  
d−2
√2π b −2m|x | = ± e 1 2m|x | 2 1 + 1/|x | . b + m 1 O 1 ±   In view of the above results, from Eq. (3.15)
we infer
d−2 −2m|x1| 2 (plane) m 2 m−b e 1 |^ ( )| = ± + (3.21) 0 φ x1 0 ren d/2 d/2 1 for x1 . h i 2(4π) m+b |x1| O |x1| ±  ±     The case of Dirichlet boundary conditions can be alternatively addressed taking the limit→ ∞b + in Eq. (3.21), or starting from Eq. (3.16) and using again Eq. (3.20): ± d−2 → ∞ −2m|x1| 2 (plane) m 2 e 1 0|φ^ (x )|0 ren =− 1 + for x . h 1 i 2(4π)d/2 |x |d/2 O |x | 1 ± 1   1  2 → ∞ As a final remark, let us highlight that in any case 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren approaches the constant free-theory ( ) h i value 0|φ^ 2|0 free with exponential speed. h iren 3.3. Vacuum polarization for a massless field. Let us now address the case of a massless field, fulfilling generic boundary conditions of the form (3.3). In this context the hypothesis (3.4) entails

b+,b− [0, + ) {+ } , ∈ ∪ and under this condition we can implement the general∞ argume∞ nts reported in Section 2. Especially, let us recall that the renormalized vacuum polarization for a massless field is obtained as the zero-mass limit of the analogous quantity for a massive field, see Eq. (2.4). In the sequel we discuss separately the cases with space dimension d = 1 and d > 2, for both technical and physical reasons. 3.3.1. Space dimension d = 1. This case deserves a separate analysis, due to the emergence of some ^ 2 (free) ^ 2 (plane) delicate infrared features. As a matter of fact, both 0|φ |0 ren and 0|φ (x1)|0 ren diverge in the + 2 h i h i limit m 0 ; however, their sum 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren remains finite, except when the boundary conditions are of Neumann type. h i To account→ for the above claims, let us firstly notice that Eq. (3.14) yields (for d = 1)

2 (free) 1 2κ (3.22) 0|φ^ |0 ren = log , h i 2π m   VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 11

which is patently divergent in the limit m 0+. 2 (plane) 5 Now consider the term 0|φ^ (x1)|0 ren . For b+ = b− = 0, namely in the case of Neumann condi- tions, from Eqs. (3.16) andh (3.17) wei readily→ infer (for fixed x = 0) 1 6 ( ) 1 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 plane =− log m|x | + (1) , for m 0+ , h 1 iren 2π 1 O which, together with Eqs. (3.13) and (3.22), implies in turn
→

2 1 κ lim 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren = lim log + (1) =+ . m→0+h i m→0+ 2π m2|x | O   1   This is nothing but an unavoidable manifestation of the infrared divergences∞ which typically affect massless theories in low space dimension. Taking notice of this fact, in the remainder of this subsection we restrict the attention to b+,b− (0, + ) . ∈ With this requirement, using Eq. (3.17) and some known integral identities for the incomplete Gamma ∞ function Γ(a, z),6 from Eq. (3.15) we deduce the following for m 0+:

^ 2 (plane) 1 → 0|φ (x1)|0 ren = − log m|x1| + γEM h i 2π "
∞ −2b+|x1| v − θ(x1) 4b+|x1| dv e − log m|x1| + γEM − log(v + 1) Z0 ∞ 
 −2b−|x1| v − θ(−x1) 4b−|x1| dv e − log m|x1| + γEM − log(v + 1) Z0 #   2
+ m|x | log m|x | O 1 1 1 

 | | = log m|x | − γ + 2 θ(x ) e2b+ x1 Γ 0, 2b |x | 2π 1 EM 1 + 1 h
2b−|x1|
2 + 2 θ(−x ) e Γ 0, 2b−|x | + m|x | log m|x | . 1 1 O 1 1 From here and from Eqs. (2.4) and (3.22), we finally obtain
i 

 ^ 2 (massless) ^ 2 (free) ^ 2 (plane) 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren = lim 0|φ |0 ren + 0|φ (x1)|0 ren h i m→0+ h i h i 1 h i (3.23) = log 2κ|x | − γ + 2 θ(x ) e2b+|x1| Γ 0, 2b |x | + 2 θ(−x ) e2b−|x1| Γ 0, 2b |x | . 2π 1 EM 1 + 1 1 − 1 The case of Dirichleth boundary
conditions is retrieved taking the
limit b + and noting that
i the w ± incomplete Gamma function fulfils limw→+∞ e Γ(0, w)= 0 (see [49, Eq. 8.11.2]), which gives → ∞ 1 0|φ^ 2(t, x)|0 (massless) = log 2κ|x | − γ . h iren 2π 1 EM h i 2
(massless) For any b+,b− (0, + ), the asymptotic behaviour of 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 for small and large ∈ h iren distances from the point π {x1 = 0} can be easily derived from the explicit expression (3.23), using ∞≡ 5 Similar results can be derived also if only one of b+ and b− is equal to zero. 6 More precisely, integrating by parts, making the change of integration variable z = 2b |x1| (v + 1) and recalling [49, Eq. ± 8.2.2] one gets ∞ ∞ ∞ +∞ −2b±|x1| v −z −2b±|x1| v −2b±|x1| v e 2b±|x1| e 2b±|x1| 2b |x1| dv e log(v+1)=− e log(v+1) + dv = e dz = e Γ 0, 2b |x1| . ± Z 0 Z v + 1 Z z ± 0   0 2b±|x1|
12 DAVIDE FERMI the known series expansions for the incomplete Gamma function (see [49, Eqs. 8.7.6 and 8.11.2]). More precisely, to leading order we have 1 − log κ|x1| + (1) for x1 0±, 0|φ^ 2(t, x)|0 (massless) =  2π O h iren  1  log κ|x | +
(1) for x → . 2π 1 O 1 ± 
3.3.2. Space dimension d > 2. In this case it can be easily checked that the→ free-theory∞ contribution 2 (free) + 0|φ^ |0 ren vanishes in the limit m 0 (see Eq. (3.14)). Bearing this in mind, let us focus on the h i 2 (plane) term 0|φ^ (x1)|0 ren . Recalling the asymptotic relation (3.18) for Kν, by dominated convergence from Eq. (3.15)h we inferi → − ∞ Γ( d 1 ) −2b+|x1| v ^ 2 (plane) 2 e lim 0|φ (x1)|0 ren = d+1 1 − θ(x1) 4b+|x1| dv m→0+ d−1 (v + 1)d−1 h i (4π) 2 |x1| " Z0 ∞ e−2b−|x1| v − (− ) | | θ x1 4b− x1 dv d−1 . Z0 (v + 1) #

To say more, via the change of variable z = 2b |x1|(v + 1), the above integrals can be expressed in terms of incomplete Gamma functions Γ(a, z) (see± [49, Eq. 8.2.2]). Summing up, we ultimately obtain ^ 2 (massless) ^ 2 (plane) 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren = lim 0|φ (x1)|0 ren h i m→0+h i Γ( d−1 ) 2 d−1 2b+|x1| = + 1 − 2 θ(x1) (2b+|x1|) e Γ 2−d,2b+|x1| d 1 d−1 (4π) 2 |x1| h
d−1 2b−|x1| (3.24) − 2 θ(−x1) (2b−|x1|) e Γ 2 − d,2b−|x1| . The renormalized vacuum polarization for a massless field subject to Neumann or
i Dirichlet boundary conditions can be deduced from the above result evaluating the limits b 0+ or b + , respectively. 1−a w ± ± 1−a w To be more precise, taking into account that limw→0+ w e Γ(a, w)= 0 and limw→+∞ w e Γ(a, w)= 1 (see [49, Eqs. 8.7.6 and 8.11.2]), for Neumann (+) and Dirichlet (-) conditions→ we→ get ∞ Γ( d−1 ) ^ 2 (massless) 2 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren = + . d 1 d−1 h i ± (4π) 2 |x1| The same result can be alternatively derived using (3.18) to compute the limit m 0+ of Eq. (3.16). Also ^ 2 (massless) in this case, for any b+,b− (0, + ) the behaviour of 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren for x1 0± and x1 can be inferred from Eq. (3.24)∈ using the correspondingh expansionsi for the incomplete→ Gamma function± (see [49, Eqs. 8.7.6 and 8.11.2]). To∞ leading order, we have → → ∞ 1 + log |x1| for d = 2, x1 0±,  8π |x1| O  d−1  Γ( )
→ 2 (massless)  2 1 + |x | for d > 3, x 0 , 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren =  d+1 1 1 ± h i  (4π) 2 |x |d−1 O  1 h i d−1
→ Γ( 2 ) − d+1 1 + 1/|x1| for x1 .  d−1 O ±  (4π) 2 |x1|  h i 
→ ∞ 4. Semitransparent plane Let us now examine configurations where the hyperplane π can be regarded as a semitransparent surface. In this connection, recalling the general arguments of Section 2 and referring again to [5, Thm. VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 13

3.2.3], we consider the family of reduced operators labelled as follows by the elements of the unitary group U(2):

+ − 2 ψ(0 ) α β ψ(0 ) dom( 1) := ψ H (R\{0}) + = ω − , A ∈ ψ′(0 ) γ σ ψ′(0 )      2 R (4.1) 1 ψ = (− ∂ x1x1 + m ) ψ in \{0} , A where

(4.2) ω C with |ω| = 1 and α, β, γ, σ R with ασ − βγ = 1 . ∈ ∈ Two distinguished one-parameter subfamilies are respectively obtained for either β = 0, γ R, ω = α = σ = 1 or β R, γ = 0, ω = α = σ = 1. These formally correspond to reduced operators of∈ the ∈ 2 2 form 1 =− ∂x1x1 + m + γδ or 1 =− ∂x1x1 + m + βδ′, containing the well-known distributional delta and delta-primeA potentials. TheA other admissible choices of parameters formally correspond to mixtures of delta and delta-prime potentials concentrated at x1 = 0 (see [54] and [5, §3.2.4]). Let us further remark that for β = γ = 0 and ω = α = σ = 1 the reduced operator 1 is just the free Laplacian on the line; this case corresponds to a configuration where the quantum fieldA does not interact with the plane π. For any choice of the parameters ω, α, β, γ, σ compatible with Eq. (4.2), the spectrum of the reduced operator 1 possesses an invariant purely absolutely continuous part; in addition to this, at most two isolated eigenvaluesA can appear. To be more precise, from [1, Eq. (2.13)] we infer7

σ( )= σ ( ) σ ( ) , σ ( ) = [m2, + ) , A1 ac A1 ∪ p A1 ac A1 γ2 m2 − for β = 0, γ/(α +∞σ)<0,  (α + σ)2  2 2 σp( 1)=  m − Λ− for β = 0, Λ− < 0 6Λ+, A  2 2 2 2 6 m − Λ , m − Λ for β = 0, Λ− <Λ+ <0, − + 6  ∅ otherwise,   where

α + σ (α − σ)2 + 4 (4.3) Λ := , for β = 0 . ± | | 2β ± p 2 β 6

From here, by a few elementary considerations we deduce that 1 is positive if and only if one of the following two alternatives occurs, for m > 0: A

(4.4) β = 0 and γ/(α + σ) > −m or β = 0 and Λ+ >Λ− >−m . 6 We shall henceforth assume the parameters ω, α, β, γ, σ to fulfil the latter Eq. (4.4), in addition to the conditions previously stated in Eq. (4.2). To proceed, let us recall that the heat kernel associated to the reduced operator 1 for m = 0 was formerly computed in [1]; taking into account that the addition of a mass term only producesA the overall 2 multiplicative factor e−τm , from [1, Eq. (3.4)] (see also Eqs. (2.12) and (3.2) of the cited reference) we

7Notice that for β = 0 we have ασ = 1 (see Eq. (4.4)), which grants α + σ 6= 0; on the other hand the constants Λ are ± well defined and finite for any β 6= 0 (see the forthcoming Eq. (4.3)). 14 DAVIDE FERMI infer

(4.5)

|x −y |2 −m2τ− 1 1 e 4τ −τ 1 e A (x1, y1)= √4πτ 2 (|x |+|y |) − 1 1 L(x1, y1) e 4τ  ∞ 2 (w+|x |+|y |) γ − γ w − 1 1  α+σ 4τ −m2τ  − 1 + L(x1, y1) dw e for β = 0, e  α + σ Z0 +  2  (|x |+|y |) √4πτ  − 1 1
sgn(x1y1) e 4τ ∞ 2 (w+|x |+|y |)  − − − 1 1  Λ+w Λ−w 4τ  + dw M+(x1, y1) e − M−(x1, y1) e e for β = 0,  Z0 6     where we introduced the notations (θ( ) is the Heaviside step function and sgn( ) is the sign function) · · α − σ 2 (Re ω + sgn(x ) i Im ω) L(x , y ) := sgn(x ) θ(x y )− 1 − 1 θ(−x y ) , 1 1 α + σ 1 1 1 α + σ 1 1   sgn(β) (α − σ)Λ M (x1, y1) := θ(x1y1) (α + σ)Λ − 2γ − ± sgn(x1) ± (α − σ)2 + 4 ± 2    p α + σ − θ(−x1y1) Λ + Re ω+sgn(x1) i Im ω . ± 2   Notice in particular that, for any x R \ {0}, we have 1 ∈ α − σ (4.6) L(x ) L(x ,x )= sgn(x ) , 1 ≡ 1 1 α + σ 1 sgn(β) (α − σ)Λ M (x1) M (x1,x1)= (α + σ)Λ − 2γ − ± sgn(x1) . ± ≡ ± (α − σ)2 + 4 ± 2   p −τ Substituting the above expression for e A1 (x1, y1) into Eq. (2.5), we obtain the following integral representation for the ζ-regularized vacuum polarization:

u ∞ u 2 κ u−d−1 −m2τ (4.7) 0| φ^ (t, x) |0 = dτ τ 2 e d/2 u+1 h i 2 (4π) Γ( 2 ) Z0 × ∞ 2
( )2 (w+2|x |) − x1 γ − γ w − 1 1 + L(x1) e τ − 1 + L(x1) dw e α+σ 4τ for β = 0,  α + σ Z0  2 ∞ 2  (x1)
(w+2|x1|) ×  − −Λ+w −Λ−w − 1 + e τ + dw M+(x1) e −M−(x1) e e 4τ for β = 0. Z 6  0    Regarding this representation, one can make considerations analogous to those reported below Eq. (3.6). Especially, it can be checked by direct inspection that the integrals on the right-hand side of (4.7) are convergent and define an analytic function of u in the complex strip Re u>d − 1, in agreement with the general theory. 2 Now, let us proceed to determine the analytic continuation of the map u 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 . Using once more the identities (3.8) (3.9) introduced in the previous Section 3 and making7 h again the changei of →
VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 15 integration variable w = 2 |x1| v, we obtain d−1 u u−d+1 u−3d+1 u 2 m (κ/m) Γ 2 2 κ|x1| (4.8) 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 = 2 + h i d+1 d/2 ( u+1 ) d/2 ( u+1 ) | |d−1 × 2 π Γ 2
π Γ 2 x1

L(x1)K d−1−u 2m|x1| 2 2 γ |x | ∞ − 1 v  2 γ |x1| e α+σ − + ( )
K d−1−u | | ( + ) =  1 L x1 dv d−1−u 2m x1 v 1 , for β 0,  α + σ Z0 (v + 1) 2  
∞ −2Λ |x | v
×  e + 1 K d−1−u | | + ( ) | | K d−1−u | | ( + ) 2m x1 2M+ x1 x1 dv d−1−u 2m x1 v 1 2 Z0 (v + 1) 2 ∞  −2Λ−|x1| v 
e
 − ( ) | | K d−1−u | | ( + ) =  2M− x1 x1 dv d−1−u 2m x1 v 1 , for β 0,  Z (v + 1) 2 6  0  ν
where Kν(w) = w Kν(w) are the functions defined in Eq. (3.10). The same considerations reported below Eq. (3.11) apply to the present context. As a result, Eq. (4.8) yields the meromorphic extension 2 of 0| φ^ u(t, x) |0 to the whole complex plane, with isolated simple pole singularities at h i u = d − 1 − 2ℓ , with ℓ {0, 1, 2, . . . } .
∈ Special attention must be paid to the fact that the first addendum on the right-hand side of Eq. (4.8) has a pole at u = 0 if the space dimension d is odd. On the contrary, all other terms in Eq. (4.8) are analytic at u = 0. Taking these facts into account, we can proceed to compute the renormalized vacuum polarization using the general prescription (2.3): ( ) ( ) (4.9) 0|φ^ 2(t, x)|0 = 0|φ^ 2|0 free + 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 plane ; h iren h iren h 1 iren d d−1 (−1) 2 π m for d even , d+1 +  2 d 1 2 (free) (4π) Γ( 2 ) (4.10) 0|φ^ |0 ren =   d−1 d−1 h i  (−1) 2 m 2κ H d−1 + 2 log for d odd ; d+1 d+1  (4π) 2 Γ( ) 2 m  2     ( ) (4.11) 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 plane = h 1 iren 1 3d−1 d+1 L(x1)K d−1 2m|x1|  d−1 2 2 2 π 2 |x1| "  ∞ 2 γ |x1|  − +
v  2 γ |x1| e α σ  −  − 1 + L(x1) dv − K d 1 2m|x1| (v + 1) , for β = 0,  α + σ Z (v + 1)d 1 2  0 # 

 1  K d−1 | |  3d−1 d+1 2m x1  2 2 π 2 |x |d−1 " 2 1 ∞ e−2Λ+
|x1| v  + ( ) | | K d−1 | | ( + )  2M+ x1 x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1  Z0 (v + 1) 2  ∞  −2Λ−|x1| v
 e  − 2M−(x1) |x1| dv − K d−1 2m|x1| (v + 1) , for β = 0.  Z (v + 1)d 1 2 6  0 # 
 2 (free) Before moving on, let us remark that 0|φ^ |0 ren is exactly the same free-theory contribution arising h i ^ 2 (plane) in the case of a perfectly reflecting plane (cf. Eq. (3.14)), while 0|φ (x1)|0 ren contains all the information related to the semitransparent hyperplane π. As expected,h from Eq.i (4.11) it can be readily ^ 2 (plane) deduced that 0|φ (x1)|0 ren = 0 when β = γ = 0 and ω = α = σ = 1, namely when the quantum field is not affectedh by thei presence of the hyperplane π. 16 DAVIDE FERMI

4.1. Asymptotics for x1 0± and x1 . In order to determine the asymptotic behaviour of 2 ± the renormalized vacuum polarization 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren for small and large distances from the plane π, we retrace the same arguments→ already describedh → in∞ thei previous subsection 3.2 for the case of a perfectly reflecting plane. Also in the present situation we just provide a leading order analysis, focusing primarily 2 (plane) on the non-constant term 0|φ^ (x )|0 ren of Eq. (4.11). h 1 i

4.1.1. The limit x1 0±. First of all, recall the asymptotic expansions (3.17) and (3.18) for the functions Kν. Taking these into account, regarding the integral expressions in Eq. (4.11) we infer the following for |x1| 0 (cf. paragraph→ 3.2.1):

2 γ |x | ∞ − 1 v → 2 γ |x1| e α+σ K d−1 | | ( + ) dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 α + σ Z0 (v + 1) 2
d−1 ∞ − γ z (1) for d = 1 , γ 2m|x1| 2 γ |x1| e (α+σ)m O α+d d−1  | | | | = = e dz − K (z)= x1 log x1 for d 2 , (α + d)m Z zd 1 2 O
2m|x1|  |x1|
for d > 3 ; ∞ O −2Λ |x1| v  e ± 
| | K d−1 | | ( + ) 2 x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 Z0 (v + 1) 2 Λ
( ) = d−1 ∞ − z 1 for d 1 , 2m|x | e m± O 1 2Λ |x1| = K d−1 ( )=  | | | | = e ± dz d−1 z x1 log x1 for d 2 , m Z | | z 2 O
2m x1  |x | for d > 3 . O 1
 Taking the above estimates into account, from Eq. (4.11) we infer
for x1 0± sgn(x ) α − σ − 1 log m|x | + (1) for →d = 1 and β = 0, 2π α + σ 1 O     1
− log m|x | + (1) for d = 1 and β = 0,  1  2π O 6  sgn(x ) α − σ  1
+ log |x | for d = 2 and β = 0,  | | 1  8π x1 α + σ O ^ 2 (plane)    0|φ (x1)|0 ren =  1
h i  + log |x1| for d = 2 and β = 0. 8π |x1| O 6 ( ) ( d−1 )
 sgn x1 Γ 2 α − σ  d+1 1 + |x1| for d > 3 and β = 0,  d−1 α + σ O  (4π) 2 |x1|    h i  Γ( d−1 )
 2  + 1 + |x1| for d > 3 and β = 0.  d 1 d−1 O 6  (4π) 2 |x1|  h
i  2 (plane) Let us briefly comment the above results. Comparing Eqs. (3.19) and (??), it appears that 0|φ^ (x1)|0 ren presents the same kind of divergence near the plane π, whether the latter be perfectly reflectingh or semi-i transparent; as a matter of fact, the leading order terms in (3.19) and (??) exactly coincide for any d > 1 when β = 0. On the other6 side, the expansions in Eq. (??) call the attention to two subfamilies, parametrized by (4.12) β = 0 , γ R , α = σ = 1 . ∈ ± In these cases the leading order contribution vanishes identically (for any d > 1), implying that the ^ 2 (plane) divergence of the renormalized vacuum polarization 0|φ (x1)|0 ren near the hyperplane π is somehow softened. While the occurrence of this phenomenonh appearsi to be accidental for α = σ = −1, some intuition can be gained instead regarding the case with α = σ = +1. We already mentioned that the subfamily with β = 0, γ R and α = σ = 1 describes a delta-type potential concentrated on the ∈ VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 17 hyperplane π.8 This is actually the “less singular” distributional potential amid the ones associated to the boundary conditions written in Eq. (4.1). There are at least three interdependent ways to understand the latter claim: i) Except for the pure delta case, all distributional potentials mentioned below Eq. (4.1) comprise at least one derivative of the Dirac delta function (see [54], [5, §3.2.4]). It is therefore evident that, as distributions, they are more singular than the Dirac delta function itself. ii) In the case of a delta potential, the field is required to be continuous across the plane π where the potential is concentrated (see footnote 8). In contrast, in all other cases the field exhibits a discontinuity. iii) It is well-known that a delta potential concentrated on a surface of co-dimension 1 (such as the hyperplane π) can be approximated (in resolvent sense) by regular short-range interactions [4, §I.3.2]. In light of this, delta potentials can be reasonably regarded as a crossing point between smooth background potentials and classical hard-wall boundaries. Given that renormalized Casimir observables present no singularity when the external potentials are smooth, it is not entirely surprising that the boundary behaviour is less singular in the case of delta potentials. The above line of thinking does not apply in the case of non-pure delta potentials, since the approximation of the latters by regular potentials is far more problematic [55]. Let us finally recognize that, whenever the leading order terms in the asymptotic expansions (??) vanish, the study of the sub-leading contributions becomes crucial. A detailed investigation of this subject is deferred to future works.

4.1.2. The limit x1 . In this paragraph we proceed to examine the behaviour of the renormalized vacuum polarization in± the regime of large distances from the hyperplane π. Recalling once more that ( ) ( ) the term 0|φ^ 2|0 free→ is∞ constant, we restrict our analysis to the expression 0|φ^ 2(x )|0 plane . h iren h 1 iren Firstly, recall the asymptotic expansion (3.20) for the functions Kν. Then, making the change of variable z = |x1| v, we derive the following expansions of the integral expressions in Eq. (4.11) for |x1| + :

→ ∞ 2 γ |x | ∞ − 1 v 2 γ |x1| e α+σ K d−1 | | ( + ) dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 α + σ Z0 (v + 1) 2 ∞ √2π γ d−2 γ
−2m|x1| 2 −2 +m z = e 2m|x1| dz e α+σ 1 + z/|x1| α + σ Z0 O γ
  π
d−2
= α+σ e−2m|x1| 2m|x | 2 1 + 1/|x | ; 2 γ + m 1 O 1 r α+σ ∞   −2Λ |x1| v

e ± | | K d−1 | | ( + ) 2 x1 dv d−1 2m x1 v 1 Z0 (v + 1) 2 ∞ d−2
−2m|x1| 2 −2(Λ +m)z = √2π e 2m|x1| dz e ± 1 + z/|x1| Z0 O   π 1
d−2
= e−2m|x1| 2m|x | 2 1 + 1/|x | . 2 Λ + m 1 O 1 r ±



8 More precisely, in this case the functions belonging to the domain of the reduced operator A1 are continuous at x1 = 0, + − + − namely ψ(0 )= ψ(0 )= ψ(0), with discontinuous first derivative fulfilling the jump condition ψ ′(0 )− ψ ′(0 )= γ ψ(0). 18 DAVIDE FERMI

From here and from Eq. (4.11), in the limit x we infer 1 ± d−2 −2m|x | (plane) m 2 e 1 → ∞ |^ 2( )| = (4.13) 0 φ x1 0 ren d/2 d/2 h i 2(4π) |x1| × (α − σ)m sgn(x )− γ 1 1 1 + for β = 0,  (α + σ)m + γ O |x |   1  ×  6γ + 2βm2 + 4(α + σ)m − (α − σ)m sgn(x ) 1  1 + = 2 1 for β 0. 2(γ + βm + (α + σ)m) O |x1| 6     The above relations show that also in the case of a semitransparent plane the renormalized expectation ^ 2 (plane) 0|φ (x1)|0 ren decays exponentially fast far away from the hyperplane π. In other words, the difference h i 2 2 (free) between the full vacuum polarization 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren and the constant free-theory term 0|φ^ |0 ren becomes exponentially small. h i h i

4.2. Vacuum polarization for a massless field. We now examine the renormalized vacuum polar- ization for a massless field in presence of a semitransparent hyperplane. Making reference to Eqs. (4.1) and (4.4), for a sensible quantum field theory we must require either

(4.14) β = 0 and γ/(α + σ) > 0 or β = 0 and Λ+ >Λ− >0 . 6 In accordance with the general arguments of Section 2 (see, especially, Eq. (2.4)), we proceed to determine the renormalized observable of interest evaluating the zero-mass limit m 0+ of the analogous quantity in the massive theory. Similarly to the configuration with a perfectly reflecting surface, the cases with space→ dimension d = 1 and d > 2 need to be analysed separately.

4.2.1. Space dimension d = 1. A careful analysis is demanded for this specific model, due to the emer- gence of the same infrared pathologies already discussed in paragraph 3.3.1. Indeed, let us recall that the renormalized vacuum polarization comprises a free theory contribution which is divergent in the limit m 0+ (see Eq. (3.22)): ^ 2 (free) 1 2κ → 0|φ |0 ren = log . h i 2π m   On the other hand, by arguments similar to those described in paragraph 3.3.1, from Eq. (3.15) we obtain the following asymptotic expansions for m 0+, involving the incomplete Gamma function Γ(a, z):9 → 1 2 γ |x1| 2 γ |x1|  log m|x1| − γEM + 1 + L(x1) e α+σ Γ 0 , 2π" α + σ #    
2
 + m|x1| log m|x1| for β = 0,  O    ^ 2 (plane)  1

0|φ (x1)|0 ren =  − 3 log m|x1| + 3 γEM h i  2π"
M+(x1) 2Λ+|x | M−(x1) 2Λ−|x |  − e 1 Γ 0, 2Λ+|x | + e 1 Γ 0, 2Λ−|x |  Λ 1 Λ 1  + − #  2

 + m|x | log m|x | for β = 0.  O 1 1 6   

 9Notice also the following basic identity, which can be easily deduced from Eqs. (4.3) and (4.6):

M+(x ) M−(x ) 1 + 1 − 1 = 3. Λ+ Λ− VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 19

For β = 0, the above relations together with Eq. (4.9) make evident that 6

2 1 2κ lim 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren = lim log + (1) =+ , m→0+h i m→0+ 2π m4|x |3 O   1   ∞ ^ 2 massless indicating that in this case the renormalized expectation 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren is irremediably divergent in the infrared for a massless field. Before we proceed, let ush point out ai connection between this result and the similar conclusions drawn in paragraph 3.3.1 for the case of Neumann conditions on the hyperplane π: Neumann conditions are formally recovered in the present scenario as the limit case where β , with γ = 0, ω = α = σ = 1. Let us henceforth assume → ∞

β = 0 .

Under this condition, from the above results and from Eq. (2.4) we readily infer

^ 2 (massless) ^ 2 (free) ^ 2 (plane) 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren = lim 0|φ |0 ren + 0|φ (x1)|0 ren h i m→0+ h i h i h i 1 α − σ 2 γ |x1| 2 γ |x1| (4.15) = log 2κ|x | − γ + 1 + sgn(x ) e α+σ Γ 0 , . 2π 1 EM α + σ 1 α + σ     
Using again known properties of the incomplete Gamma function, it is easy to derive the following leading order asymptotic expansions of the the above expression:

1 α − σ γ |x1| log + (1) for x1 0±, ^ 2 (massless) ∓ 2π α + σ α + σ O 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren =     h i  1  log κ|x | + (1) for x → . 2π 1 O 1 ±  
→ ∞ ( ) It is remarkable that the renormalized vacuum polarization 0|φ^ 2(t, x)|0 massless remains finite in the h iren limit x1 0± when β = 0, γ R and α = σ = 1. Recall that the very same phenomenon occurs in the case of a massive field (see paragraph∈ 4.1.1 and± the comments reported therein). →

2 (free) 4.2.2. Space dimension d > 2. Recall that for d > 2 the free-theory contribution 0|φ^ |0 ren vanishes in the limit m 0+ (see Eq. (3.14)). Taking this into account, by arguments analogoush toi those described in paragraph 3.3.2, from Eq. (4.11) we get → 2 (massless) 2 (plane) (4.16) 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren = lim 0|φ^ (x1)|0 ren h i m→0+h i d−1 d−1 Γ( ) 2 γ |x1| 2 γ |x1| 2 γ |x1| 2 α+σ + L(x1)− 1 + L(x1) e Γ 2 − d,  d 1 d−1 α + σ α + σ  (4π) 2 |x1| "    # 
 for β = 0,  d−1  Γ( ) M+(x ) d−1 =  2 1 2Λ+|x1|  + 1 + e 2Λ+ |x1| Γ 2 − d, 2Λ+|x1|  d 1 d−1 Λ (4π) 2 |x1|  + M−(x )
d−1
 1 2Λ−|x1|  − e 2Λ− |x1| Γ 2 − d, 2Λ−|x1|  Λ−   
for β = 0.
 6  20 DAVIDE FERMI

Using once more the known expansions of the incomplete Gamma function for small and large values of the argument, we derive the following leading order asymptotics: α − σ 1 + log |x1| for β = 0, d = 2 and x1 0±, ± α + σ 8π |x1| O     α − σ Γ( d−1 )
→  2  d+1 1 + |x1| for β = 0, d > 3 and x1 0±, ± α + σ d−1 O  (4π) 2 |x1|    h i  Γ( d−1 )
→  2 − + 1 + 1/|x1| for β = 0, d > 2 and x1 ;  d 1 d−1 O ± ^ 2 (massless)  (4π) 2 |x1| 0|φ (t, x)|0 ren =  h
i h i  1 → ∞ + log |x1| for β = 0, d = 2 and x1 0±, 8π |x1| O 6   Γ( d−1 )
→  2 1 + |x | for β = 0, d > 3 and x 0 ,  d+1 1 1 ±  (4π) 2 |x |d−1 O 6  1 h i  3 Γ( d−1 )
→  2  + 1 + 1/|x1| for β = 0, d > 2 and x1 .  d 1 d−1 O 6 ±  (4π) 2 |x1|  h
i  2 →(massless∞ ) Notice that also in this case the local divergences of the renormalized polarization 0|φ^ (t, x)|0 ren near the hyperplane π are softened for β = 0, γ R and a = d = 1; again, we referh to the analysisi of paragraph 4.1.1. ∈ ±

Aknowledgments. I am grateful to Livio Pizzocchero for many interesting conversations, some of which inspired the subject of this work. I also wish to thank Claudio Cacciapuoti for precious insights on the representation formulae for the heat kernel. Funding. This work was partly supported by Progetto Giovani INdAM-GNFM 2020 “Emergent Fea- tures in Quantum Bosonic Theories and Semiclassical Analysis” (Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica ‘Francesco Severi’ - Gruppo Nazionale per la Fisica Matematica).

Appendix A. The heat kernel for a perfectly reflecting plane In this appendix we report more details about the derivation of Eq. (3.5), regarding the heat kernel −τ e A1 (x1, y1) associated to the operator 1 defined in Eq. (3.1). For the sake of presentation, hereafter we restrict the attention to the masslessA case, fixing (A.1) m = 0 . Of course this implies no loss of generality, since the heat kernel for m > 0 can always be recovered by an elementary shift:

2 −τ 1 −m τ −τ 1 (A.2) e A (x1, y1) = e e A (x1, y1) . m > 0 m = 0   As far as the present analysis is concerned, it is further convenient to refer to the decomposition L2(R) 2 2 ≡ L (R+) L (R−) (where R+ (0, + ) and R− (− , 0)) and to consider the equivalent characterization ⊕ ≡ ≡ of 1 given by (cf. (3.1) and (3.3)) A ∞ ∞ 1 = A+ A− , 2A ⊕ dom(A ) := ψ H (R ) ψ′ (0±)+ b ψ (0±)= 0 , ± ± ∈ ± ∓ ± ± ±  R (A.3) A ψ =− ψ′′ in . ± ± ± ± Against this background, the heat kernel can be expressed as

−τA+ −τ 1 e (x1, y1) for x1, y1 > 0 , (A.4) e A (x1, y1)= −τA− e (x1, y1) for x1, y1 < 0 . VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 21

−τA+ −τA− Furthermore, the integral kernels e (x1, y1) on R+ and e (x1, y1) on R− are related as follows by an elementary reflection argument:

−τA− −τA+ (A.5) e (x1, y1)= e (−x1, −y1) for x1, y1 < 0 . b+= b−

Before proceeding, let us point out that an explicit expression for the heat kernel on the half-line −τA+ with Robin boundary conditions, namely e (x1, y1), was previously derived in [10] for b+ > 0, via an elegant technique allowing to translate Robin problems into Dirichlet ones and vice versa. However, a few variations of this approach are required when b+ < 0, in order to include the discrete spectrum contribution arising in this case. −τA+ Here we prefer to present a computation of e (x1, y1) for any b+ R (including b = + as a limit case), starting from its eigenfunction expansion (an approach in fact∈ also hinted at in [10]). To this purpose, we firstly notice that the spectrum of the operator A+ defined in Eq. (A.3) is ∞

σ(A+)= σ (A+) σ (A+); ac ∪ p ∅ for b+ [0, + ) {+ } , σac(A+) = [0, + ) , σp(A+)= 2 ∈ ∪ {−b+} for b+ (− , 0) . ∈ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

2 R 2 R 2 R Accordingly, we refer to the Hilbert space decomposition L ( +) = Lac( +) Lp( +), involving the 2 R 2⊕R subspace Lac( +) of absolute continuity for A+ and its orthogonal complement Lp( +). A complete set of 2 R 2 R generalized eigenfunctions {ψk}k (0,+∞) spanning Lac( +) and the normalized eigenfunction ψb+ L ( +) ∈ ∈ associated to the possible negative eigenvalue are given by [10, Eq. (3.15)]

2 1 ψk(x1) := k cos(kx1)+ b+ sin(kx1) (k > 0); π 2 + 2 r k b+  

q − |b+| x1 ψb+ (x1) := 2 |b+| e for b+ < 0 . p

In light of the above considerations, we obtain the eigenfunction expansion (for τ > 0 and x1, y1 > 0)

∞ 2 2 −τA+ −τk −τ (−b+) e (x1, y1)= dk e ψk(x1) ψk(y1)+ θ(−b+) e ψb+(x1) ψb+(y1) Z0 ∞ 2 2 1 = dk e−τk k cos(kx )+ b sin(kx ) k cos(ky )+ b sin(ky ) 2 2 1 + 1 1 + 1 π Z0 k + b+ 2    τ b − |b+| (x +y ) + θ(−b+) 2 |b+| e + 1 1 . 22 DAVIDE FERMI

By simple trigonometric identities and using [33, Eqs. 3.954], from here it follows ∞ 2 −τA+ 1 −τk e (x1, y1)= dk e cos k(x1 − y1) + cos k(x1 + y1) π Z0 " 2

2b 2kb+ − + cos k(x + y ) + sin k(x + y ) 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 k + b+ k + b+ # 2

τ b − |b+| (x +y ) + θ(−b+) 2 |b+| e + 1 1 . 2 2 |x1−y1| |x1+y1| 2 1 − 1 − τ b − |b+| (x +y ) = e 4τ + e 4τ + θ(−b+) 2 |b+| e + 1 1 √4πτ √4πτ

2 |b+| τb −|b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 − e + 2 cosh |b+|(x + y ) − e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ − 2 1 1 2√τ 
  |b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 − e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ + 2√τ   2 b+ τb −|b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 − e + 2 sinh |b+|(x + y ) + e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ − 2 1 1 2√τ 
  |b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 − e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ + . 2√τ   where erf( ) indicates the usual error function [49, §7]. Performing a few elementary manipulations and using the basic· identity erf(−z)=−erf(z) [49, Eq. 7.4.1], we obtain 2 2 1 |x1−y1| 1 |x1+y1| 2 −τA+ − − τ b +b+(x1+y1) e (x1, y1)= e 4τ + e 4τ − b+ e + √4πτ √4πτ

2 τb −|b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 + b+ e + − θ(−b+) e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ − 2√τ    |b+|(x +y ) x1 + y1 + θ(b+) e 1 1 erf |b+|√τ + 2√τ  | |2 | |2   1 − x1−y1 1 − x1+y1 = e 4τ + e 4τ √4πτ √4πτ

2 τb +b+(x +y ) x1 + y1 − b+ e + 1 1 1 − erf b+√τ + . 2√τ    On account of [49, Eq. 7.2.2] and via a basic change of the integration variable, from the latter result we get 2 2 |x1−y1| |x1+y1| −τA+ 1 − 1 − (A.6) e (x1, y1)= e 4τ + e 4τ √4πτ √4πτ ∞ 2b+ 2 2 − eτb++b+(x1+y1) dz e−z x +y √π Zb √τ+ 1 1 + 2√τ ∞ |x −y |2 |x +y |2 (w+x +y )2 1 − 1 1 1 − 1 1 b+ −b w − 1 1 = e 4τ + e 4τ − dw e + 4τ . √4πτ √4πτ √πτ Z0 Together with the preceding Eqs. (A.2) (A.4) and (A.5), this suffices to prove Eq. (3.5) in the main text. Let us finally comment on the limit case b+ =+ . Setting p := b+w (with b+ > 0 finite) in the final identity of Eq. (A.6), we get 2 ∞ 2 ∞ 2 |x1−y1| |x1+y1| (p/b++x1+y1) −τA+ 1 − 1 − 1 −p − e (x1, y1)= e 4τ + e 4τ − dp e 4τ . √4πτ √4πτ √πτ Z0 VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 23

Starting from here, by the dominated convergence theorem we obtain ∞ |x −y |2 |x +y |2 |x +y |2 −τA 1 − 1 1 1 − 1 1 2 − 1 1 −p lim e + (x , y )= e 4τ + e 4τ − e 4τ dp e → ∞ 1 1 b+ + √4πτ √4πτ √4πτ Z0 | |2 | |2 1 − x1−y1 1 − x1+y1 = e 4τ − e 4τ , √4πτ √4πτ which reproduces as expected the heat kernel on the half-line for Dirichlet boundary conditions (cf. the corresponding considerations reported in Section 3).

References [1] Albeverio, S.; Brze´zniak, Z.; Dabrowski, L. Fundamental solution of the heat and Schr¨odinger equations with point interaction. J. Funct. Anal. 1995, 130(1), 220–254. [2] Albeverio, S.; Cacciapuoti, C.; Spreafico, M. Relative partition function of Coulomb plus delta interaction. In Functional Analysis and Operator Theory for Quantum Physics. A Festschrift in Honor of Pavel Exner; Dittrich, J., Kovar´ık, H., Laptev, A., Eds.; Europ. Math. Soc. Publ. House, 2016. [3] Albeverio, S.; Cognola, G.; Spreafico, M.; Zerbini, S. Singular perturbations with boundary conditions and the Casimir effect in the half-space. J. Math. Phys. 2010, 51(06), 063502. [4] Albeverio, S.; Gesztesy, F.; Høegh-Krohn, R.; Holden, H. Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics: Second edition. With an appendix by Pavel Exner; AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2005. [5] Albeverio, S.; Kurasov, P. Singular Perturbations of Differential Operators; London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series 271; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999. [6] Asoreya, M.; Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M. Attractive and repulsive Casimir vacuum energy with general boundary condi- tions. Nucl. Phys. B 2013, 874(3), 852–876. [7] Bartolo, N.; Butera, S.; Lattuca, M.; Passante, R.; Rizzuto, L.; Spagnolo, S. Vacuum Casimir energy densities and field divergences at boundaries. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2015, 27(21), 214015. [8] Beauregard, M.; Bordag, M.; Kirsten, K. Casimir energies in spherically symmetric background potentials revisited. J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 2015, 48, 095401. [9] Blau, S. K.; Visser, M.; Wipf, A. Zeta functions and the Casimir energy. Nucl. Phys. B 1988, 310(1), 163–180. [10] Bondurant, J. D.; Fulling, S. A. The Dirichlet-to-Robin transform. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 2005, 38, 1505–1532. [11] Bordag, M.; Hennig, D.; Robaschik, D. Vacuum energy in quantum field theory with external potentials concentrated on planes. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 1992, 25(16), 4483–4498. [12] Bordag, M.; Klimchitskaya, G. L.; Mohideen, U.; Mostepanenko, V. M. Advances in the Casimir effect; Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2009. [13] Bordag, M.; Mohideen, U.; Mostepanenko, V. M. New developments in the Casimir effect. Physics Reports 2001, 353(1–3), 1-–205. [14] Bordag, M.; Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M. Dirac lattices, zero-range potentials and self-adjoint extension. Phys. Rev. D 2015, 91, 065027. [15] Bordag, M.; Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M.; Santamar´ıa-Sanz, L. Vacuum energy for generalised Dirac combs at T = 0. Front. Phys. 2019, 7, 38. [16] Bordag, M.; Pirozhenko, I. G. Casimir effect for Dirac lattices. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 056017. [17] Braga, A. N.; Silva, J. D. L.; Alves, D. T. Casimir force between δ − δ ′ mirrors transparent at high frequencies. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 125007. [18] Cacciapuoti, C.; Fermi, D.; Posilicano, A. Relative-Zeta and Casimir energy for a semitransparent hyperplane selecting transverse modes. In Advances in Quantum Mechanics: Contemporary Trends and Open Problems; Dell’Antonio, G., Michelangeli A., Eds.; Springer INdAM Series, Springer, 2017; pp. 71-–97. [19] Casimir, H. B. G. On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates. Proc. R. Neth. Acad. Arts Sci. 1948, 51, 793–795. [20] Cavero-Pel´aez, I.; Milton, K. A.; Kirsten, K. Local and global Casimir energies for a semitransparent cylindrical shell. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 2007, 40(13), 133607. [21] Deutsch D.; Candelas, P. Boundary effects in quantum field theory. Phys. Rev. D 1979, 20, 3063–3080. [22] Dalvit, D.; Milonni, P.; Roberts, D.; Da Rosa, F. Casimir Physics; Lecture Notes in Physics 834, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. [23] Elizalde, E.; Odintsov, S. D. ; Saharian, A. A. Repulsive Casimir effect from extra dimensions and Robin boundary conditions: From branes to pistons. Phys. Rev. D 2009, 79, 065023. [24] Fermi, D. A functional analytic framework for local zeta regularization and the scalar Casimir effect. PhD Thesis, Universit`adegli Studi di Milano, Milano (Italy), February 2016. [25] Fermi, D. The Casimir energy anomaly for a point interaction. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 2020, 35(03), 2040008. 24 DAVIDE FERMI

[26] Fermi, D.; Pizzocchero, L. Local zeta regularization and the Casimir effect. Prog. Theor. Phys. 2011, 126, 419–434. [27] Fermi, D.; Pizzocchero, L. Local zeta regularization and the scalar Casimir effect III. The case with a background harmonic potential. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2015, 30(35), 1550213. [28] Fermi, D.; Pizzocchero, L. Local zeta regularization and the scalar Casimir effect IV. The case of a rectangular box. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2016, 31, 1650003. [29] Fermi, D.; Pizzocchero, L. Local Zeta Regularization and the Scalar Casimir Effect. A General Approach based on Integral Kernels; World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 2017. [30] Fermi, D.; Pizzocchero, L. Local Casimir Effect for a Scalar Field in Presence of a Point Impurity. Symmetry 2018, 10, 38. [31] Ford, L. H.; Svaiter, N. F. Vacuum energy density near fluctuating boundaries. Phys. Rev. D 1998, 58, 065007. [32] Fosco, C. D.; Losada, E. L. Functional approach to the fermionic Casimir effect. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 78, 025017. [33] Gradshteyn, I.S.; Ryzhik, I.M. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Seventh Edition; Academic Press, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007. [34] Graham, N.; Jaffe, R.L.; Khemani, V.; Quandt, M.; Scandurra, M.; Weigel, H. Calculating vacuum energies in renor- malizable quantum field theories: A new approach to the Casimir problem. Nucl. Phys. B 2002, 645, 49-–84. [35] Grats, Yu. V. Casimir energy in contact-interaction models. Phys. Atom. Nucl. 2018, 81(2), 253–256. [36] Grats, Yu. V. Vacuum polarization in a zero-range potential field. Phys. Atom. Nucl. 2019, 82(2), 153–157. [37] Kennedy, G.; Critchley, R.; Dowker, J.S. Finite temperature field theory with boundaries: Stress tensor and surface action renormalisation. Ann. of Phys. 1980, 125(2), 346–400. [38] Khusnutdinov, N.R. Zeta-function approach to Casimir energy with singular potentials. Phys. Rev. D 2006, 73, 025003. [39] Klimchitskaya, G. L.; Mohideen, U.; Mostepanenko, V. M. The Casimir force between real materials: Experiment and theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2009, 81(4), 1827–1885. [40] Mamaev, S.G.; Trunov, N.N. Vacuum expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor of quantized fields on mani- folds of different topology and geometry - IV. Sov. Phys. J. 1981, 24, 171—174. [41] Milton, K. A. The Casimir effect - Physical manifestations of zeropoint energy; World Scientific Publishing Co., Singa- pore, 2001. [42] Milton, K.A. Casimir energies and pressures for δ-function potentials. J. Phys. A 2004, 37, 6391–6406. [43] Minakshisundaram, S.; Pleijel, A. Some properties of the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-operator on Riemannian mani- folds. Canad. J. Math. 1949, 1, 242–256. [44] Mostepanenko, V. M.; Trunov, N. N. The Casimir Effect and Its Applications; Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997. [45] Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M.; Mateos-Guilarte, J. δ − δ ′ generalized Robin boundary conditions and quantum vacuum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. D (2015), 91(2), 025028. [46] Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M.; Mateos-Guilarte, J.; Moreno-Mosquera, A. Quantum vacuum energies and Casimir forces between partially transparent δ-function plates. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 87, 105020. [47] Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M.; Santamar´ıa-Sanz, L.; Donairec, M.; Tello-Frailed, M. Thermal Casimir effect with general boundary conditions. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 793. [48] Nieto, L. M.; Gadella, M.; Mateos-Guilarte, J.; Mu˜noz-Casta˜neda, J. M.; Romaniega, C. Some Recent Results on Contact or Point Supported Potentials. In Geometric Methods in Physics XXXVIII. Trends in Mathematics; Kielanowski P., Odzijewicz A., Previato E., Eds.; Birkh¨auser, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. 2020; pp. 197–219. [49] Olver, F. W. J.; Lozier, D. W.; Boisvert, R. F.; Clark, C. W. NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. An updated online version is available at https://dlmf.nist.gov. [50] Posilicano, A. A Krein-like Formula for Singular Perturbations of Self-Adjoint Operators and Applications. J. Funct. Anal. 2001, 183, 109–147. [51] Romeo, A.; Saharian, A. A. Casimir effect for scalar fields under Robin boundary conditions on plates. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 2002, 35, 1297–1320. [52] Saharian, A. A.; Avagyan, R. M.; Davtyan, R. S. Wightman function and Casimir densities for Robin plates in the Fulling-Rindler vacuum. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2006, 21, 2353–2375. [53] Scardicchio, A. Casimir dynamics: interactions of surfaces with codimension > 1 due to quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. D 2005, 72(6), 065004. [54] Seba,ˇ P. The generalized point interaction in one dimension. Czechoslovak Journal of Phys. B 1986, 36, 667–673. [55] Seba,ˇ P. A remark about the point interaction in one dimension. Annalen der Physik 1987, 499(5), 323–328. [56] Seeley, R. T. Complex powers of an elliptic operator. AMS Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 1967, X, 288–307. [57] Spreafico, M.; Zerbini, M. Finite temperature quantum field theory on noncompact domains and application to delta interactions. Rep. Math. Phys. 2009, 63(1), 163–177. [58] Wald, R. M. On the Euclidean approach to quantum field theory in curved spacetime. Comm. Math. Phys. 1979, 70, 221–242. VACUUM POLARIZATION WITH ZERO-RANGE POTENTIALS ON A HYPERPLANE 25

Dipartimento di Matematica ‘Guido Castelnuovo’, Universita` degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy Email address: [email protected] URL: https://fermidavide.com