\section{#1}\setcounter{equation}{0}}

 \newcommand{\crla}[1]{\quad\hbox{\scriptsize{#1}}\label{#1}\\[2pt]}
 \newcommand{\crlb}[1]{\label{#1}\\[2pt]}
 \newcommand{\crlc}[1]{\quad\hbox{\scriptsize{#1}}\label{#1}}
 \newcommand{\crld}[1]{\label{#1}}
 \newcommand{\eela}[1]{\quad\hbox{\scriptsize{#1}}\label{#1}\end{eqnarray}}
 \newcommand{\eelb}[1]{\label{#1}\end{eqnarray}}
 \newcommand{\newseca}[2]{\section{#1\ {\scriptsize #2}}\label{#2}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
 \newcommand{\newsecb}[2]{\section{#1}\label{#2}\setcounter{equation}{0}}
 \newcommand{\bibitema}[1]{\bibitem{#1}{\scriptsize #1}}
 \newcommand{\citea}[1]{\cite{#1}{\scriptsize #1}}
 \newcommand{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}}{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}}
 \newcommand{\nolabels} {\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}}

\newcommand\testprintversion{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}\setlength{\textheight}{9in}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
    \setlength{\textwidth}{6.3in}\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.1in}}
\newcommand\laptopversion{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}\setlength{\textheight}{10in}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.9in}
    \setlength{\textwidth}{8in}\setlength{\topmargin}{-1.4in}}
\newcommand\pcversion{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.9in}\setlength{\textwidth}{9.5in}
    \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.4in}\setlength\textheight{6.9in}}
\newcommand\pdfversion{\def\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{\eela} \def\crl{\crla} \def\newsecl{\newseca}\def\bibiteml{\bibitema}\def\citel{\citea}\def\labell{\crlc}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.9in}\setlength{\textwidth}{8in}
    \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.4in}\setlength\textheight{5in}}
\newcommand\publishversion{\nolabels\setlength{\textheight}{9in}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
    \setlength{\textwidth}{6.3in}\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.1in}}

 \def\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma{\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma}
 \def\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta{\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta}
 \def\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu{\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu}
 \def\phi}        \def\F{\Phi}    \def\vv{\varphi}    \def\n{\nu{\phi}        \def\F{\Phi}    \def\vv{\varphi}    \def\n{\nu}
 \def\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma{\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma}
 \def\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta{\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta}
 \def\xi}         \def\X{\Xi}     \def\ch{\chi{\xi}         \def\X{\Xi}     \def\ch{\chi}
 \def\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta{\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta}

 \def{\mathcal H}}   \def\LL{{\mathcal L}} \def\OO{{\mathcal O}} \def\DD{{\mathcal D}}\def\ZZ{\mathbb{Z}} \def\NN{\mathcal{N}{{\mathcal H}}   \def\LL{{\mathcal L}} \def\OO{{\mathcal O}} \def\DD{{\mathcal D}}\def\ZZ{\mathbb{Z}} \def\NN{\mathcal{N}}
 \def\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow{\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow}
 \def$\bullet$} \def\bel{$\circ${$\bullet$} \def\bel{$\circ$}
 \def{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle{{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle}

 \def\ {\buildrel {\displaystyle ?} \over =}\ {\ {\buildrel {\displaystyle ?} \over =}\ }
 \def\ {\buildrel{\rm def}\over{=}}\ {\ {\buildrel{\rm def}\over{=}}\ }
 \def\quad = \quad}\def\iss{\ =\ {\quad = \quad}\def\iss{\ =\ }
 \newcommand{\dddot}[1]{{\buildrel{\displaystyle{\,...}}\over #1}}

 \def\fract#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over#2}}}
 \def\ffract#1#2{\raise .2 em\hbox{$\scriptstyle#1$}\kern-.3em/
                 \kern-.2em\lower .15 em \hbox{$\scriptstyle#2$}}
 \def\fractje#1#2{{\scriptstyle{#1\over#2}}}
 \def\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12{\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12}
 \def\fractje12{\fractje12}
 \def\ex#1{e^{\,\textstyle#1}}

\def\begin{matrix}} \def\ematrix{\end{matrix}} \def\bpmatrix{\begin{pmatrix}}\def\epmatrix{\end{pmatrix}{\begin{matrix}} \def\ematrix{\end{matrix}} \def\bpmatrix{\begin{pmatrix}}\def\epmatrix{\end{pmatrix}}
\def\begin{center}} \def\ecenter{\end{center}{\begin{center}} \def\ecenter{\end{center}}

\def\lowerheightfig#1#2#3{\(\raise-#1\hbox{\includegraphics[height=#2]{#3}}\)}
\def\lowerwidthfig#1#2#3{\(\raise-#1\hbox{\includegraphics[width=#2]{#3}}\)}

	\def{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle{{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle}

\publishversion
\begin{document} \begin{titlepage}

\title{\normalsize \hfill ITP-UU-15/12
\vskip 20mm \Large\bf Diagonalizing the\\ Black Hole Information Retrieval Process}

\author{Gerard 't~Hooft}
\date{\normalsize Institute for Theoretical Physics \\
Utrecht University \\ and
\medskip \\ Spinoza Institute \\ Postbox 80.195 \\ 3508 TD Utrecht, the Netherlands \smallskip \\
e-mail: \tt g.thooft@uu.nl \\ internet: \tt
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/\~{}hooft101/}

\maketitle

\begin{quotation} \noindent {\large\bf Abstract } \medskip \\
{\small The mechanism by which black holes return the absorbed information to the outside world is reconsidered, and described in terms of a set of mutually non-interacting modes. Our mechanism is based on the mostly classical gravitational back-reaction. The diagonalized formalism is particularly useful for further studies of this process. Although no use is made of string theory, our analysis appears to point towards an ensuing string-like interaction. It is shown how black hole entropy can be traced down to classical gravitational back-reaction.}
\end{quotation}

\vfill \flushleft{September 4, 2015}

\end{titlepage}

\eject
\setcounter{page}{2}
\newsecl{Introduction}{intro}
The work described here was inspired by a recent presentation given by S.~Hawking\,\cite{Hawking1} where he presented his modified views on the subject of the black hole information paradox. The approach favoured by the present author was presented earlier in Refs.\,\cite{GtHBH}\,\cite{Polchinski}. We assume the basic mechanism at work here to be the gravitational back reaction of matter entering a black hole onto particles emitted by the Hawking process. As long as momentum exchange in the transverse directions is kept small, the calculation of the back-reaction process is straightforward and unquestionable, even if the outcome forces us to regard the in- and out going stream of particles in an unusual way. The only questionable thing is the transverse momentum cut-off.

We begin with a brief recapitalization of the earlier calculations, noting that the results presented earlier were still not in diagonal form, and this can be further improved. No explicit reference is made to string theory.  For simplicity, we concentrate on a small segment of the black hole horizon, such that it can be represented in terms of Rindler space. Later, one can always substitute that by the full Schwarzschild metric, replacing the transverse Rindler coordinates \(\tl x\) by \((\th,\ \vv)\), and the transverse Rindler momenta \(\tl k\) by the angular momentum quantum numbers \((\ell,\,m)\). Our analysis applies to all non-extreme black hole configurations. The interactions are basically local.

Although it should be clear from the procedure that, written in this form, gravitational back reaction is sufficiently strong to imprint all ingoing information onto the Hawking particles going out, the expressions obtained can be worked out further, to show explicitly how the information flows here. To this end, we divide matter flowing in and out into modes that are mutually independent, acting as if they are bouncing against a brick wall. The difference between our present brick wall and an idea proposed long ago\,\cite{GtHBH0}, is that the present wall was derived from first principles, and it depends on longitudinal and transverse wave numbers. Unfortunately, we were not yet able to reproduce Hawking's entropy expression, since the micro-states still diverge, but it is suspected that this shortcoming can be repaired by inspecting more closely the relationship between our methods and string theories.

\newsecl{The back reaction}{back}

The gravitational effect of a fast moving particle on the metric is given by the Aichelburg-Sexl solution\,\cite{AichelSexl}. This solution shows a weak singularity in a flat, transverse plane through the moving particle. Write the transverse coordinates as \(\tl x=\big( {x\atop y}\big)\), and the longitudinal ones as \(z^\pm=\fract 1{\sqrt 2}(z\pm t)\). A flat metric is given by \({\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle s^2={\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\tl x^2+2{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle z^+{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle z^-\). The particle is assumed to be massless.

Before a transverse plane arrives, the Aichelburg Sexl metric is flat in the coordinates \(u^\m_<=(\tl x,\, z^\pm_<)\); after the particle passed, the metric is flat in the coordinates \(u^\m_>=(\tl x,\, z^\pm_>)\), and on the transverse plane these flat coordinates are joined together as
\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} u^\m_>=u^\m_<-4Gp^\m\log(|\tl x|/C)\ ,\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{shift}
where \(p^\m\) is the 4-momentum of the massless particle, \(\tl x\) is the transverse distance from the particle,  \(G\) is Newton's constant in units where \(\hbar=c=1\), and \(C\) is a constant whose value will turn out to be immaterial. Eq.~\eqn{shift} follows directly from boosting the Schwarzschild metric of the light particle to the light cone frame.

What it implies is that if a particle \(A\) with momentum \(p^\m=(0,0,p^-,0)\)  passes through a point \((0,0, 0,0)\), while an other particle \(B\) sits at a transverse location \((\tl x,0,0)\) as seen from that point, then the particle \(B\) will undergo a sudden displacement to the new position \((\tl x,\,-4Gp^-\log(|\tl x|/C),\,0) \). We see that, at small values of \(\tl x^2\), the spectator particle \(B\) is dragged along in the direction \(p^-\), as compared to another spectator particle further away (where \(|\tl x|\) is large).

If we assume that a black hole produced by one given state \(|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_0\ket\), upon its final explosion leads to a given final state \(|\out_0\ket\), one can now calculate the final state when a slight modification is brought about to the state \(|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\ket\). Let the modification consist of adding one light particle with momentum \(\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta p^-\) entering the Rindler horizon at the transverse position \(\tl x\). All particles at the transverse position \(\tl x\,'\) in the final state \(|\out\ket\) are then dragged along such that their out-coordinate \(z^-\) is modified by an amount
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta z^-=-4G \delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta p^-\log(|\tl x-\tl x\,'|/C)\ . \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{oneparticle}
We write this modification as a property of the black hole scattering matrix:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} S\,|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_0\ket=|\out_0\ket\quad \ra\quad S|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_0+\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta p^-(\tl x)\ket=e^{-ip^+_\out(\tl x\,')\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta z^-}|\out_0\ket\ ,\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{modif}
where we used the displacement operator \(e^{-ip^+(\tl x\,')}\) to describe a displacement at the transverse position \(\tl x\,'\).

	The modification \eqn{modif} can be repeated as many times as we wish, and this means that now we can reach any other initial state \(|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\ket\), when described by the distribution of the total momentum going in, \(p^-_\tot(\tl x)\) (as compared to the original initial state \(|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_0\ket\)), to find the new final state \(|\out\ket\) as a displacement of the original finite state \(|\out_0\ket\):
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}\bra\out|S|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\ket=\bra \out_0|S|{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_0\ket e^{4iG\int{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl x\,'\log(|\tl x\,'-\tl x|/C)\,p^+_\out(\tl x\,')\,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)}\ . \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{smatrix1}
Note that, here, the operators \(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)\) and \(p^+_\out(\tl x\,')\) both describe the total momenta of all in- and out going particles as distributions on the Rindler horizon. The important step to be taken now is to postulate that the entire Hilbert space of the in-particles is spanned by the function \(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)\), and the black hole scattering matrix maps that Hilbert space onto the space of all particles going out, spanned by the function \(p^+_\out(\tl x\,')\). We arrive at the unitary scattering matrix \(S\):
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \bra p^+_\out|S|p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\ket = \NN\,e^{4iG\int{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl x\,'\log(|\tl x\,'-\tl x|/C)\,p^+_\out(\tl x\,')\,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)}\ .	\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{smatrix2}
There is only one unknown common factor, which we absorb in the normalization factor \(\NN\).

Since we only take their gravitational interactions into account in describing the back reaction, particles can \emph{only} be distinguished by their mass distributions. If other interactions are added, such as electro-magnetism, we will also be able to differentiate  particles further, for instance by their electric charges.	\def\intje{\textstyle{\int}} Therefore, Eq.~\eqn{smatrix2} must be regarded as an approximation. Concerns were expressed in Ref.\,\cite{Itzhaki} that some particles are also bent sideways so that these fall back into the horizon. In principle, this does not affect our analysis, since these particles do not occur in the final state at all, so that they are excluded in our picture. In any case this happens only at small transverse distance scales. We do expect that the transverse components of the gravitational force will invalidate our calculations at very high values of the transverse momenta.

\newsecl{Algebra}{algebra}
	From Eq.~\eqn{modif} and the expression \eqn{smatrix2} for the scattering matrix, we can now deduce the relations and commutation rules between the operators \(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x),\ p^+_\out(\tl x),\ z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)\) and \(z^-_\out(\tl x)\), where the latter can be regarded as the coordinates of in- and out going particles relative to the Rindler horizon:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} 		 z^-_\out(\tl x)&=&-4G\intje{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl x\,' \,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x\,')\,\log(|\tl x-\tl x\,'|/C)\ ,\labell{zprel} \\[3pt]
			z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x)&=&4G\intje{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl x\,' \,p^+_\out(\tl x\,')\,\log(|\tl x-\tl x\,'|/C)\ , \\ [3pt]
			\,[ z^-_\out(\tl x),\,p^+_\out(\tl x\,') ]&=&[ z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x),\,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x\,') ]\iss i\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta^2(\tl x-\tl x\,')\ , \\[3pt]
			\,[p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x),\,p^+_\out(\tl x\,')]&=&-\fract i{8\pi G}\,\tl\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow^2\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta^2(\tl x-\tl x\,')\ ,\labell{ppcom}\\[3pt]
			\,[z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x),\,z^-_\out(\tl x\,')]&=&	-4iG\log|\tl x-\tl x\,'|\ .\quad  \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{zzcom}
In Eq.~\eqn{ppcom}, we used the fact that the logarithm obeys a Laplace equation,
	 \begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \tl\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow^2\log|\tl x|=2\pi\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta^2(\tl x)\ .\ee

It would have been more accurate to write the momentum distributions \(p^\pm(\tl x)\) as energy-momentum tensors \(T^{\pm,r}(\tl x,0,0)\), but we wished to emphasise that these are momenta, when integrated over the horizon.

So-far, we just reproduced the results of Refs.~\cite{GtHBH}. 	The algebra \eqn{zprel}---\eqn{zzcom} is quite different from the usual Fock space algebra for the elementary particles. In fact, it resembles a bit more the algebra of excited states of a closed string theory, but even that is not the same.
It is therefore instructive to ask how one can decompose the new physical degrees of freedom into eigen modes.

\newsecl{Eigen modes}{eigen}
The operators \(z^\pm(\tl x)\) and \(p^\pm(\tl x)\) form a linear set. Let us therefore consider plane waves in transverse space:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} p^\pm(\tl x)=\fract 1{2\pi}\int{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl k\,\^p^\pm(\tl k)\, e^{i\tl k\cdot\tl x}\ ,\quad z^\pm(\tl x)=\fract 1{2\pi}\int{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle^2\tl k\,\^z^\pm(\tl k)\, e^{i\tl k\cdot\tl x}\ , \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{transvwaves}
to find that the \(\tl k\)-waves indeed decouple:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} & \tl k^2\,\^z^-_\out(\tl k)=8\pi G\,\^p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl k)\ , \quad \tl k^2\,\^z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl k)=-8\pi G\,\^p^+_\out(\tl k)\ , &\labell{zpk}\\[3pt]
	&[\^z^-_\out(\tl k),\,\^p^+_\out(\tl k')]=[\^z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl k),\,\^p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl k')]=i\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta^2(\tl k-\tl k')\ ,& \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{zpk2}
etc. Eqs.~\eqn{zpk} can be seen as boundary conditions on the horizon; the waves moving in are transformed into waves going out.

	Note that the waves \eqn{transvwaves} on Rindler space should not be interpreted as particles; they each may consist of many particles, and we should only consider their real parts as physical objects. A single physical particle is typically represented by a Dirac delta distribution, see Eq.~\eqn{oneparticle}, where we have \(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl x\,')=\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta p^-\,\delta}      \def\D{\Delta}  \def\e{\varepsilon} \def\et{\eta^2(\tl x\,'-\tl x)\). Thus, at this stage of our presentation, the momenta \(p^\pm\) are to be interpreted quite differently from the transverse wave number variables \(\tl k\) on Rindler space. The waves \(\^z^\pm(\tl k)\) should be split into sines and cosines, which each describe a wavy displacement operator on the horizon.

The above boundary equations are not very intuitive. This is because the time evolution of the free waves are in the form of scaling equations. In terms of the Rindler time coordinate \(\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta\) we have: \(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)=e^\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta\,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(0)\,,\ \ p^+_\out(\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)=e^{-\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta}\,p^+_\out(0)\), etc. Also, \(p^\pm\) and \(z^\pm\) are operators, not amplitudes.

What happens becomes more transparent if we replace the Rindler space coordinates  \(z\)  and the momenta \(p\) by tortoise (Eddington-Finkelstein) coordinates \(\r\) and \(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta\), Then, however, we must take into account that both the \(z\) and the \(p\) coordinates may be positive or negative. Therefore, we also introduce signs \(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma=\pm 1\) and \(\b=\pm 1\):
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\equiv \alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma\,\ex\r\ ,\quad p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\equiv \b\,\ex\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta\ . \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{tortoise}

How are the operators \(\b\) and \(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta\) related to \(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma\) and \(\r\)? This should be easy. The transformations \eqn{tortoise} imply for the wave functions,
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma\,\ex{\r})=\ex{-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\r}\,\vv(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma,\,\r) \ , \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{expo1}
where \(\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma\) is the amplitude in the variable \(z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\tl k)\) for some fixed \(\tl k\), while \(\vv\) is a wave function in the new tortoise coordinate \(\r\); and \(\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma\) is normalized in the \(z\) variable while \(\vv\) is normalized in the \(\r\) variable, which required the factor \(e^{\,\!-\r/2}\). Similarly, we write in momentum space,
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}  \^\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma(\b\,\ex{\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta})=\ex{-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta}\,\^\vv(\b,\,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta) 	\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{expo2}
(Note, that the caret \((\,\!\^\ )\) is now used for Fourier transformation in \(z^+\) space, as the caret in Eqs.~\eqn{zpk} and \eqn{zpk2} is no longer needed; from now on we look at just one value for the transverse wave function \(\tl k\)).

Now,  the relation between the wave function \(\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma\) and its Fourier transform \(\^\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma\) is
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} &\ds\vv(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma,\,\r)=\fract 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{\fractje12\r}\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle e^{i p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle}\,\^\psi}        \def\J{\Psi}    \def\r{\varrho}     \def\s{\sigma}  \def\SS{\Sigma(p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle)\ =& \nonumber\\[2pt]}             \newcommand{\nm}{\nonumber
		&\ds\fract 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{\b=\pm}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\ex{\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12(\r+\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)}{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta\,\ex{\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma\b\,ie^{\r+\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta}}\,\^\vv(\b,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)\ = &\\
		&\ds\fract 1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{\b=\pm}\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle u\,A(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma\b,\,u)\^\vv(\b,\,u-\r)\ ;\quad A(\s,\,u)=\ex{\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12 u+
		i\s e^u}\ . &\nm \ee
We see the emergence of a matrix \(A(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma,\b)=({A(+)\ A(-)\atop A(-)\ A(+)})\), which is easy to diagonalise; simply write for  \(\vv\),
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \vv(+,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)+\vv(-,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)=\vv_1(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)\ , \quad \vv(+,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)-\vv(-,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)=\vv_2(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)\ , \ee
and similarly for  \(\^\vv(\b,\,\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)\) and \(A(\s,\,u)\), to find the diagonalised expressions
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} &\ds\vv_i(\r)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle u\,A_i(u)\^\vv_i(u-\r)\qquad(i=1,2)\ ,& \labell{expfourier} \\
	&\ds A_1(u)=\sqrt{\fract 2{\pi}}\,e^{\fractje12 u}\cos(e^u)\ ,\quad A_2(u)=i\sqrt{\fract 2{\pi}}\,e^{\fractje12 u}\sin(e^u)\ .&\ee
Similarly,
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \^\vv_i(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle u\,A^*_i(u)\vv_i(u-\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta)\ .\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{expfourier2}

We can write the boundary conditions \eqn{zpk} as
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} z^-_\out=\l\,p^-_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\ ,\quad p^+_\out=-\fract 1\l z^+_{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle \ , \ee
where we take for granted that we take the Fourier coefficient with Rindler wave vector \(\tl k\), and define \(\l=8\pi G/\tl k^2\). And now consider \(p^-\) as the Fourier variable to \(z^+\). Applying Eqs.~\eqn{expfourier} and \eqn{expfourier2} then gives
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \vv^\out_i(\r)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle u\, A^*_i(u)\,\vv^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle_i(u+\log\l-\r)\ . \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{inouttortoise}

In the tortoise coordinates \(\r\) and \(\omega}      \def\W{\Omega}  \def\z{\zeta\), we see that the waves move in and out with velocity one. This means that an in going wave \(\Psi_i^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle\) and an out going wave \(\Psi_i^\out\) can be written in terms of plane waves as
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \Psi_i^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\r,\,\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)=\int{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu \tl\Psi_i^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\,\ex{i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(-\r-\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)}\ , \\
	 \Psi_i^\out(\r,\,\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)=\int {\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu \tl\Psi_i^\out(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\,\ex{i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(\r-\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)}\ ,  \ee
where \(\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta\) is the Rindler time variable, \(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\) the Fourier parameter in the tortoise coordinates, and \(\tl\Psi\) now denotes the Fourier coefficient in the tortoise coordinates (we use the tilde  \((\,\tl{ }\,)\) rather than the caret because, again, this is a different Fourier transformation than the one in Eqs.~\eqn{expo2}---\eqn{expfourier2}).

This then yields the final part of our diagonalization process, since these plane waves also diagonalise Eq.~\eqn{inouttortoise}:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \tl\Psi^\out_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)=\tl A^*_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\,e^{-i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\log\l}\,\tl\Psi_i^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\ . \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{bounce}
The coefficients \(\tl A_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\) are the Fourier coefficients of \(A_i(u)\) and can be given in closed form. By contour integration, one derives:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}  &\ds \tl A_1(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)=\fract 1{\sqrt\pi}\G(\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12+i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)(\cosh{\pi\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\over 2}+i\sinh{\pi\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\over 2})\ ,& \\[3pt]
		&\ds \tl A_2(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)=\fract 1{\sqrt\pi}\G(\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12+i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)(\sinh{\pi\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\over 2}+i\cosh{\pi\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\over 2})\  .& \ee
These coefficients have norm one. This is verified using
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \cosh^2(x)+\sinh^2(x)=\cosh(2x)\quad\hbox{and}\quad\G(\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12+i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\G(\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12-i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)={\pi\over\cosh\pi\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu}\ . \ee

This completes our diagonalization process. We see that Eqs.~\eqn{inouttortoise} and \eqn{bounce} can be seen as a real bounce against the horizon. The information is passed on from the in-going to the out-going particles. We do emphasise that in- and out-going particles were not assumed to affect the metric of the horizon, which is fine as long as they do not pass by one  another at distances comparable to the Planck length or shorter; in that case, the gravitational effect of the transverse moments must be taken into account. For the rest, no other assumptions have been made than that the gravitational fields of in- and out going particles should not be ignored. This must be accurate as long as we keep the transverse distances on the horizon large compared to the Planck length.

It is also important to emphasise that, even though we describe modes of infalling matter that ``bounce back against the horizon", these bounces only refer to the information our particles are carrying, while the particles will continue their way falling inwards as seen by a co-moving observer. In accordance with the notion of Black Hole Complementarity, an infalling observer only sees matter going in all the way, and nothing of the Hawking matter being re-emitted, since that is seen as pure vacuum by this observer. Rather that stating that this would violate no-cloning theorems, we believe that this situation is asking for a more delicate quantum formalism.

\newsecl{The black hole entropy}{entropy}
	One could try to compute the black hole entropy from the contributions of these reflecting modes. For each mode, the result is finite. The entropy is found from the free energy \(F\), which is defined by
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} e^{-\b F}=\sum_{\mathrm{states}}e^{-\b E}=\sum_{\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n}e^{-\b \kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n}\ , \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{freeF}
where \(\b\) is now taken to be the inverse of the Hawking temperature, later to be substituted by its (presumable)  value \(2\pi\).

The energy modes \(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n\) are derived by assuming that Eq.~\eqn{bounce} provides for the proper boundary condition near the horizon; the wave bounces at the value \(\r_0\)  of \(\r\) where \(\Psi_i^\out(\r,\,\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)=\Psi_i^{\mathrm{in}}}  \def\out{{\mathrm{out}}}   \def\tot{{\mathrm{tot}}} \def\ds{\displaystyle(\r,\,\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)\), which is where
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}   e^{i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(\r-\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)}\,\tl A_i^*(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu) \, e^{-i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\log\l}&=& e^{i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(-\r-\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)}\ , \quad \hbox{so that} \nonumber\\[2pt]}             \newcommand{\nm}{\nonumber
		i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(2\r_0-\log\l)-i\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)&=&0\ ,  \ee
where the angles \(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\) are the arguments of the coefficients \(\tl A_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\):
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \tl A_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\equiv e^{i\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)}\ . \ee
Assuming a box with outer edge \(\r=\r_1=\log\L\), one finds that the values for \(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n\) must obey
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}\pi n\iss\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n(\r_1-\r_0)\iss\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n(\log\L-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\log\l)-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n)\ .				\ee

A rough estimate for \(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\) is obtained by applying Stirling for large \(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\):
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} \tl A_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)=e^{i\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma_i(\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)} \ \ra \ \ex{i\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu(\log\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu-1)+\pi i/4}\ . \ee
Taking \(L\) sufficiently large, we elaborate Eq.~\eqn{freeF}:
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} e^{-\b F}&=&{\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^2}\int_0^\infty{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle n\,e^{-\b\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu_n}\iss{\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^2} \int_0^\infty e^{-\b \kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu}\,{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu{{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle n\over{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle \kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu}\ \approx \nonumber\\[2pt]}             \newcommand{\nm}{\nonumber
		&\approx&	\fract 2 \pi\int_0^\infty e^{-\b\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu}\,{\rm d}}  \def\bra{\langle}   \def\ket{\rangle\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu\,(\log\L-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\log\l-\fract12} \def\quart{\fract14} \def\halff{\ffract12\log\kappa}      \def\l{\lambda} \def\L{\Lambda}     \def\m{\mu)\ = \nm\\[3pt]
		&=& \fract 1 {
		\pi\b}(2\log\L+\log\b+\g-\log\l)\ ,	\eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{freeF2}
where \(\g\) is Euler's constant. The cut-off \(\L\) refers to the edges of the box in which we keep the black hole, so \(\log\L\) in Eq.~\eqn{freeF2} merely refers to the contribution of Hawking radiation in the empty space far from the black hole.

Using the thermodynamical equations
	\begin{eqnarray}}             \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray} U=\fract\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow{\partial} \def\ra{\rightarrow\b}(\b F)\ ,\quad S=\b(U-F)\ , \eelb} \def\crl{\crlb} \def\newsecl{\newsecb}\def\bibiteml{\bibitem}\def\citel{\cite}\def\labell{\crld}{thermo}
one can derive the contribution of each mode with transverse wave number \(\tl k\) to the total entropy.

\newsecl{Duscussion}{disc}
Note, that we did not apply second quantization, such as in Ref.\,\cite{GtHBH0}, since now we are not dealing with a quantum field theory. At every value of \(\tl k\), there are exactly two wave functions \(\Psi(\pm,\r,\tau}        \def\th{\theta} \def\thh{\vartheta} \def\Th{\Theta)\) (one at each side of the horizon, which mix).

The expression we obtained must now be summed over the values \(\tl k\). If we take these to describe a finite part of the black hole horizon area, we see that the summed expression will be proportional to the area, as expected, but the sum diverges quadratically for large \(\tl k\). Since \(\l=8\pi G/\tl k^2\), Eq.~\eqn{freeF2} does depend on \(\tl k\), but too weakly, even slowly increasing for large \(\tl k\).

The explanation for this divergence is that, as noted at the end of  section~\ref{eigen}, our expressions are inaccurate at very large \(\tl k\), where transverse gravitational forces should be taken into account.

It is not easy to correct for this shortcoming, but we can guess how one ought to proceed. It was remarked already in Refs.\,\cite{GtHBH}, that the algebraic expressions we obtain on the 2-dimensional horizon, take the form of functional integrals very much resembling those of string theory. We did treat the transverse position variables \(\tl x\) and wave number variables \(\tl k\) very differently from the longitudinal variables \(z^\pm\) and \(p^\pm\), but it is clear that we are dealing with the full expressions of an \(S_2\) sphere. This sphere should be given two arbitrary coordinates \(\tl\s=(\s^1,\,\s^2)\), after which these should be fixed by a gauge condition relating them to the transverse coordinates \(\tl x\). We took \(\tl \s=\tl x\), but apparently this fails when the longitudinal variables fluctuate too wildly.

It was also observed that the original in-going and out-going particles with which we started, produce vertex insertions as in a string world sheet, as if all particles considered should be regarded as closed string loops. It all takes the form of a string theory. Strings were not put in, however, rather, they come out as inevitable objects! But beware, these are not ``ordinary" strings. The black hole horizon is the string world sheet.  If ordinary strings were to be Wick rotated to form space-like string world sheets, all factors \(i\) would disappear from the action, whereas our expressions are still in the complex plane, \emph{as if the string slope parameter \(\alpha}      \def\b{\beta}   \def\g{\gamma}      \def\G{\Gamma'\) should have the purely imaginary value \(4 Gi\).} In most string treatments of black holes, the string world sheets are assumed to be in the longitudinal direction, that is, the world sheets are take to be orthogonal or dual to the horizon.

Our analysis appears to be closely related to ideas using the BMS approach\,\cite{Hawking1}, although there the emphasis seems to be specially on the in- and out-going gravitational waves, while we focus on all particle types entering or leaving the black hole. Secondly, although it is clearly of importance to consider measurements made at \(\mathfrak I^+\) and \(\mathfrak I^-\), we attribute the black hole properties to the immediate surroundings of the future and past event horizon. Also, one may note that both approaches now focus on light-like geodesics, which justifies attempts to employ conformally invariant descriptions of quantum gravity.


\section{Introduction}

In the Standard Model (SM),
  the electroweak symmetry breaking is realized by the negative mass term in the Higgs potential,
  which seems to be artificial because there is nothing to stabilize the electroweak scale.
If new physics takes place at a very high energy, e.g. the Planck scale,
  the mass term receives large corrections which are quadratically sensitive to the new physics scale,
  so that the electroweak scale is not stable against the corrections.
This is the so-called gauge hierarchy problem.
It is well known that supersymmetry (SUSY) can solve this problem.
Since the mass corrections are completely canceled by the SUSY partners,
  no fine-tuning is necessary to reproduce the electroweak scale correctly,
  unless the SUSY breaking scale is much higher than the electroweak scale.
On the other hand, since no indication of SUSY particles has been obtained in the large hadron collider (LHC) experiments,
  one may consider other solutions to the gauge hierarchy problem without SUSY.

In this direction, recently a lot of works have been done in models based on a classically conformal symmetry,
  where an additional $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, e.g., $U(1)_{B-L}$, is added
  \cite{Hempfling:1996ht}-\cite{Plascencia:2015xwa}.
This direction is based on the argument by Bardeen~\cite{Bardeen:1995kv} that
  the quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass corrections can be subtracted
  by a boundary condition of some ultraviolet complete theory,
  which is classically conformal, and only logarithmic divergences should be considered
  (see Ref.~\cite{Iso:2012jn} for more detailed discussions).
If this is the case, imposing the classically conformal symmetry to the theory
  is another way to solve the gauge hierarchy problem.
Since there is no dimensionful parameter in this class of models,
   the gauge symmetry must be broken by quantum corrections.
This structure fits the model first proposed by Coleman and Weinberg~\cite{Coleman:1973jx},
   where a model is defined as a massless theory and the gauge symmetry is radiatively broken
   by the Coleman-Weinberg (CW) mechanism, generating  a mass scale through the dimensional transmutation.

In this paper we propose a classically conformal $U(1)_{B-L}$ extended SM with two Higgs doublets.
An SM singlet, $B-L$ Higgs field develops its vacuum expectation value (VEV) by the CW mechanism,
  and the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry is radiatively broken.
This gauge symmetry breaking also generates the mass terms for the two Higgs doublets
  through quartic couplings between the two Higgs doublets and the $B-L$ Higgs field.
We assume the quartic couplings to be all positive but, nevertheless, the electroweak symmetry breaking
  is triggered through the so-called bosonic seesaw mechanism~\cite{Calmet:2002rf,Kim:2005qb,Haba:2005jq},
  which is analogous to the seesaw mechanism for the neutrino mass generation
  and leads to a negative mass squared for the SM-like Higgs doublet.
A large hierarchy among the quartic Higgs couplings is crucial for the bosonic seesaw mechanism
  to work at the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking scale.
Although it seems unnatural to introduce the large hierarchy by hand,
  we find that  the renormalization group evolutions of the quartic Higgs couplings
  dramatically reduce the large hierarchy toward high energies.
Therefore,  once our model is defined at some high energy, say, the Planck scale,
   the large hierarchy at the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking scale
   is naturally realized by a mild hierarchy.
We also show that the perturabativity of model couplings and the electroweak
   vacuum stability are maintained up to the Planck scale with a suitable choice
   of the input parameters.
 From the naturalness of the electroweak scale, we find the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge symmetry breaking
   scale to be $\lesssim 100$ TeV, which predicts extra heavy Higgs boson masses to be $\lesssim 2$ TeV.
Such heavy Higgs boson can be tested at the LHC in the near future.

In the next section, we will define our model, and discuss the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking
  as well as the electroweak symmetry breaking by the bosonic seesaw mechanism.
We also present the mass spectrum of the model.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:result}, we will analyze the renormalization group evolutions for all couplings of the model
  and present our numerical results.
We will see that the hierarchy among the quartic Higgs couplings is dramatically reduced
  toward high energies.
Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion} is devoted to conclusion.

\section{Model}

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}\hline
 & $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ & $U(1)_{B-L}$ \\
\hline \hline
$Q^i$ & (3, 2, 1/6) & $1/3$\\
$U^i$ & (3, 1, $2/3$) & $1/3$\\
$D^i$ & (3, 1, $-1/3$) & $1/3$\\
$L^i$ & (1, 2, $-1/2$) & $-1$\\
$E^i$ & (1, 1, $-1$) & $-1$\\
$N^i$ & (1, 1, 0) & $-1$\\
$H_1$ & (1, 2, 1/2) & $0$\\
$H_2$ & (1, 2, 1/2) & $4$\\
$\Phi$ & (1, 1, 0) & $2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Particle contents in our model.
$i=1,2,3$ is the generation index.}
\label{table:1}
\end{table}

We consider an extension of the SM with an additional $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge symmetry.
The particle contents of our model are listed in Table \ref{table:1},
  where two Higgs doublets ($H_1$ and  $H_2$) and one SM singlet, $B-L$ Higgs field ($\Phi$) are introduced.
As is well known, the introduction of the three right-handed neutrinos ($N^i$, $i=1$, 2, 3)
 is crucial to make the model free from all the gauge and gravitational anomalies.
In addition, we impose a classically conformal symmetry to the model,
  under which the scalar potential is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
	V &=& \lambda_1 |H_1|^4 + \lambda_2 |H_2|^4 + \lambda_3 |H_1|^2 |H_2|^2 + \lambda_4 (H_2^\dagger H_1) (H_1^\dagger H_2) + \lambda_\Phi |\Phi|^4 \nonumber \\
	&& + \lambda_{H1\Phi} |H_1|^2 |\Phi|^2 + \lambda_{H2\Phi} |H_2|^2 |\Phi|^2 + \left( \lambda_{\rm mix} (H_2^\dagger H_1) \Phi^2 + h.c. \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, all of the dimensionful parameters are prohibited by the classically conformal symmetry.
In this system, the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry must be radiatively broken by quantum effects, i.e., the CW mechanism.
The CW potential for $\Phi$ is described as
\begin{eqnarray}
	V_\Phi(\phi) = \frac{1}{4} \lambda_\Phi(v_\Phi)\, \phi^4
						+ \frac{1}{8} \beta_{\lambda_{\Phi}}(v_\Phi)\, \phi^4
							\left( \ln \frac{\phi^2}{v_\Phi^2} -\frac{25}{6} \right),
\label{CWpotential}
\end{eqnarray}
 where $\Re[\Phi] = \phi/\sqrt{2}$, and $v_\Phi=\langle \phi \rangle$ is the VEV of $\Phi$.
When the beta function $\beta_{\lambda_\Phi}$ is dominated by
  the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge coupling ($g_{B-L}$) and the Majorana Yukawa couplings of right-handed neutrinos ($Y_M$)
  as shown in Appendix, the minimization condition of $V_\Phi$ approximately leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
	\lambda_\Phi \simeq \frac{11}{6 \pi^2}
		\left( 6 g_{B-L}^4 - {\rm tr} Y_M^4 \right),
\label{CW_relation}
\end{eqnarray}
  where all parameters are evaluated at $v_\Phi$.
Through the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking, the mass terms of the two Higgs doublets arise
  from the mixing terms between $H_{1,2}$ and $\Phi$, and the scalar mass squared matrix is read as
\begin{eqnarray}
	-\mathcal{L}&=& \frac{1}{2}
					(H_1, H_2) \left( \begin{array}{cc}
					\lambda_{H1\Phi} v_\Phi^2 & \lambda_{\rm mix} v_\Phi^2 \\
					\lambda_{\rm mix} v_\Phi^2 & \lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2
				\end{array} \right)
	\left( \begin{array}{c} H_1 \\ H_2 \end{array} \right) \nonumber\\
	&\approx& \frac{1}{2}
					(H'_1, H'_2) \left( \begin{array}{cc}
					\lambda_{H1\Phi} v_\Phi^2 - \frac{\lambda_{\rm mix}^2}{\lambda_{H2\Phi}} v_\Phi^2 & 0 \\
					0 & \lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2
				\end{array} \right)
	\left( \begin{array}{c} H'_1 \\ H'_2 \end{array} \right),
\label{matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
 where we have assumed a hierarchy among the quartic couplings as
 $0 \leq  \lambda_{H1\Phi} \ll \lambda_{\rm mix} \ll \lambda_{H2\Phi}$ at the scale $\mu = v_\Phi$.\footnote{
  In our analyses, we will take boundary conditions as $\lambda_1(v_\Phi)=\lambda_2(v_\Phi)=\lambda_H(v_\Phi)$,
  for simplicity, where $\lambda_H$ is a Higgs quartic coupling in the SM.
  }
In the next section, we will show that this hierarchy is dramatically reduced toward high energies
  in their renormalization group evolutions.
Because of this hierarchy,
  mass eigenstates $H'_1$ and $H'_2$ are almost composed of $H_1$ and $H_2$, respectively.
Hence, we approximately identify $H'_1$ with the SM-like Higgs doublet.
Note that even though all quartic couplings are positive,
  the SM-like Higgs doublet obtains a negative mass squared for $\lambda_{H1\Phi} \ll \lambda_{\rm mix}^2/\lambda_{H2\Phi}$,
  and hence the electroweak symmetry is broken.
This is the so-called bosonic seesaw mechanism \cite{Calmet:2002rf,Kim:2005qb, Haba:2005jq}.

In more precise analysis for the electroweak symmetry breaking, we take into account
   a scalar one-loop diagram through the quartic couplings, $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_4$,
   shown in Fig.~\ref{one-loop}, and
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.7,clip]{higgs_corr.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Scalar one-loop diagram which contributes to the SM-like Higgs doublet mass.}
\label{one-loop}
\end{figure}
 the SM-like Higgs doublet mass is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
	m_h^2 &\simeq& -\frac{\lambda_{H1\Phi}}{2} v_\Phi^2 + \frac{\lambda_{\rm mix}^2}{2\lambda_{H2\Phi}} v_\Phi^2
					+ \frac{\lambda_{H2\Phi}}{16\pi^2} (2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4) v_\Phi^2 \nonumber\\
			&\simeq& \lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2 \left[
				\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\lambda_{\rm mix}}{\lambda_{H2\Phi}}\right)^2
				+ \frac{2\lambda_3 + \lambda_4}{16\pi^2}  \right],
\label{Higgs}
\end{eqnarray}
  where we have omitted the $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$ term in the second line, and
  the observed Higgs boson mass $M_h=125$ GeV is given by $M_h=m_h/\sqrt{2}$.

In addition to the scalar one-loop diagram,
  one may consider other Higgs mass corrections coming from a neutrino one-loop diagram and
  two-loop diagrams involving the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson ($Z'$) and the top Yukawa coupling,
  which are, respectively, found to be~\cite{Iso:2009ss}
\begin{eqnarray}
		\delta m_h^2 \sim \frac{Y_\nu^2 Y_M^2 v_\Phi^2}{16 \pi^2},\qquad
		\delta m_h^2 \sim \frac{y_t^2 g_{B-L}^4 v_\Phi^2}{(16 \pi^2)^2},
\label{deltam}
\end{eqnarray}
  where $Y_\nu$ and $y_t$ are Dirac Yukawa couplings of neutrino and top quark, respectively.
It turns out that these contributions are negligibly small
 compared to the scalar one-loop correction in Eq.~(\ref{Higgs}).
As we will discuss in the next section, the quartic couplings $\lambda_3$ and $\lambda_4$
  should be sizable $\lambda_{3,4} \gtrsim 0.15$ in order to stabilize the electroweak vacuum.
The neutrino one-loop correction is roughly proportional to the active neutrino mass
  by using the seesaw relation,  and it is highly suppressed by the lightness of the neutrino mass.
The two-loop corrections with the $Z'$ boson is suppressed by a two-loop factor $1/(16\pi^2)^2$.
Unless $g_{B-L}$ is large, the two-loop corrections are smaller than the scalar one-loop correction.
In Table~\ref{table:QC}, we summarize typical orders of magnitude for the three corrections for $v_\Phi=10$ and $100$ TeV.
For the light neutrino mass, we have adopted the seesaw relation, $m_\nu \sim (Y_\nu v_H)^2/(Y_M v_\Phi)\sim 0.1$ eV,
  with the SM-like Higgs field VEV, $v_H=246$ GeV.
For both $v_\Phi=10$ and $100$ TeV, we have fixed
   $\lambda_3=\lambda_4=0.15$, $g_{B-L}=0.15$ and  $Y_\nu=2.0 \times 10^{-6}$,
   while we have used  $\lambda_{H 2 \Phi}=0.01$ ($10^{-4}$) and $Y_M=0.23$ ($0.023$)
   for $v_\Phi=10$ ($100$) TeV.

The other scalar masses are approximately given by
\begin{eqnarray}
	M_\phi^2 &=& \frac{6}{11} \lambda_\Phi v_\Phi^2, \\
	M_H^2 &=& M_A^2 = \lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2 + (\lambda_3 + \lambda_4) v_H^2, \\
	M_{H^\pm}^2 &=& \lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2 + \lambda_3 v_H^2,
\end{eqnarray}
 where  $M_\phi$ is the mass of the SM singlet scalar,
 $M_H$ ($M_A$) is the mass of CP-even (CP-odd) neutral Higgs boson,
 and $M_{H\pm}$ is the mass of charged Higgs boson.
The extra heavy Higgs bosons are almost degenerate in mass.
The masses of the $Z'$ boson and the right-handed neutrinos are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
	M_{Z'} &=& 2 g_{B-L} v_\Phi,
\label{MZ} \\
	M_N &=& \sqrt{2} y_M v_\Phi
		\simeq \left[ \frac{3}{2N_\nu} \left( 1 - \frac{\pi^2 \lambda_\Phi}{11 g_{B-L}^4} \right) \right]^{1/4} M_{Z'},
\label{MN}
\end{eqnarray}
 where we have used ${\rm tr}Y_M=N_\nu y_M$, for simplicity,
 and $N_\nu$ stands for the number of relevant Majorana couplings.
In the following analysis, we will take $N_\nu = 1$ for simplicity,
  because our final results are almost insensitive to $N_\nu$.
In the last equality in Eq.~(\ref{MN}), we have used Eq.~(\ref{CW_relation}).

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline
$v_\Phi$ & $10\,{\rm TeV}$ & $100\,{\rm TeV}$ \\ \hline \hline
1-loop with scalar & $\sim (50\,{\rm GeV})^2$ &  $\sim (50\,{\rm GeV})^2$\\ \hline
2-loop with $Z'$ &  $(\mathcal{O}(1)\,{\rm GeV})^2$ & $(\mathcal{O}(10)\,{\rm GeV})^2$\\ \hline
1-loop with neutrino &  $(\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})\,{\rm GeV})^2$ & $(\mathcal{O}(10^{-3})\,{\rm GeV})^2$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Typical orders of magnitude of the quantum corrections to the SM-like Higgs doublet mass.}
\label{table:QC}
\end{table}

\section{Numerical results} \label{sec:result}

Before presenting our numerical results,
   we first discuss constraints on the model parameters from the perturbativity
   and the stability of the electroweak vacuum in the renormalization group evolutions.
In our analysis, all values of couplings are given at $\mu=v_\Phi$.
For $v_\Phi$ at the TeV scale,
   we find the constraint $g_{B-L}\lesssim 0.3$ to avoid the Landau pole of the gauge coupling
   below the Planck scale, while a more severe constraint $g_{B-L} \lesssim 0.2$ is obtained
   to avoid a blowup of  the quartic coupling $\lambda_2$ below the Planck scale.
From $g_{B-L} \lesssim 0.2$ and
 the experimental bound $M_{Z'} > 2.9$ TeV on the $Z'$ boson mass \cite{Aad:2014cka,Khachatryan:2014fba},
 we find $v_\Phi > 7.25$\,TeV.
The electroweak vacuum stability, in other words, $\lambda_H(\mu) > 0$ for any scales between
  the electroweak scale and the Planck scale,
  can be realized by sufficiently large $\lambda_3$ and/or $\lambda_4$
  as $\lambda_3 =\lambda_4 \gtrsim 0.15$.
To keep their perturbativity below the Planck scale,
 $\lambda_3 =\lambda_4 \lesssim 0.48$ must be satisfied,
 while we will find that the naturalness of the electroweak scale leads to a more severe upper bound.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[clip, height=6cm]{bound.eps} \hspace{0.5cm}
	\includegraphics[clip, height=6cm]{Heavy_mass.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The relation between $v_\Phi$ and $\lambda_{H2\Phi}$ through  Eq.~(\ref{Higgs}) (left panel),
  and the corresponding extra heavy Higgs boson mass spectrum (right panel).
The red and blue lines correspond to  $\lambda_{\rm mix}=0$ and
 $\lambda_{\rm mix} = 0.1\times \lambda_{H2\Phi}$, respectively.
The shaded region shows the perturbativity bound for $g_{B-L}=0.2$.
The vertical lines show the upper bound of $v_\Phi$,
 at which Higgs mass corrections from the two loop diagrams with the $U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge boson
 become $(10\,{\rm GeV})^2$ for $g_{B-L}=0.1$ (left) and $g_{B-L}=0.01$ (right), respectively.
}
\label{bound}
\end{figure}

To realize the hierarchy $\lambda_{H1\Phi} \ll \lambda_{\rm mix} \ll \lambda_{H2\Phi}$,
  we take $\lambda_{H1\Phi}=0$, for simplicity.
When we consider $\lambda_{\rm mix}$ in the range of $0< \lambda_{\rm mix} < 0.1\times \lambda_{H2\Phi}$,
   the relation between $v_\Phi$ and $\lambda_{H2\Phi}$ obtained by Eq.~(\ref{Higgs})
   is shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{bound}.
Here, we have fixed $\lambda_3 =\lambda_4 = 0.15$ as an example.
The red and blue lines correspond to  the lowest value $\lambda_{\rm mix}=0$ and
   the highest value $\lambda_{\rm mix} = 0.1\times \lambda_{H2\Phi}$, respectively.\footnote{
Although the bosonic seesaw mechanism does not work for $\lambda_{\rm mix}=0$,
   one may consider the electroweak symmetry breaking through the scalar loop correction shown in Fig.~\ref{one-loop}.
}
The shaded region shows the perturbativity bound $v_\Phi > 7.25$\,TeV.
The vertical lines show the upper bound of $v_\Phi$,
 at which two-loop corrections with the $Z'$ boson to the Higgs mass become $(10\,{\rm GeV})^2$
 for $g_{B-L}=0.1$ (left) and $g_{B-L}=0.01$ (right), respectively.
Note that $\lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2$ is almost constant.
Since all heavy Higgs boson masses are approximately determined by $\lambda_{H2\Phi} v_\Phi^2$,
  they are almost independent of $v_\Phi$,
  as is shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{bound}.
The heavy Higgs boson masses lie in the range between 1\,TeV and 1.7\,TeV,
  which can be tested at the LHC in the near future.

In Eq.~(\ref{Higgs}), it may be natural for the first term from the tree-level couplings
   dominates over the second term from the 1-loop correction.
This naturalness leads to the constraint of  $\lambda_3 = \lambda_4 < 0.26$,
   which is more severe than the perturbativity bound $\lambda_3 =\lambda_4 \lesssim 0.48$ discussed above.
This condition is equivalent to the fact that the origin of the negative mass term mainly comes from
  the diagonalization of the scalar mass squared matrix in Eq.~(\ref{matrix}),
  namely, the bosonic seesaw mechanism.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
          \includegraphics[clip, height=6cm]{10TeV.eps} \hspace{0.5cm}
          \includegraphics[clip, height=6cm]{100TeV.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
Renormalization group evolutions of the quartic couplings for $v_\Phi=10$\,TeV (left) and 100\,TeV (right).
The red, green, and blue lines correspond to
 $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$, $\lambda_{H2\Phi}$ and $\lambda_{\rm mix}$, respectively.
The rightmost vertical line shows the reduced Planck scale.
}
\label{running}
\end{figure}

Now we present the results of our numerical analysis.
In Fig.~\ref{running}, we show the renormalization group evolutions of the quartic couplings.
Here, we have taken $\lambda_{H1\Phi} = 0$,
 and $\lambda_{H2\Phi} = 10^{-2}$ and $10^{-4}$
 for $v_\Phi=10$\,TeV (left panel) and 100\,TeV (right panel), respectively.
The red, green, and blue lines correspond to the running of
 $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$, $\lambda_{H2\Phi}$ and $\lambda_{\rm mix}$, respectively.
The rightmost vertical line denotes the reduced Planck scale $M_{Pl} = 2.4 \times 10^{18}$ GeV.
In this plot, the other input parameters have been set
  as $g_{B-L}  = 0.17$ and $\lambda_3  = \lambda_4  = 0.17$
  to realize the electroweak vacuum stability without the Landau pole, and $\lambda_\Phi  = 10^{-3}$.
The value of $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_H$ at $\mu=v_\Phi$ has been evaluated by
  extrapolating the SM Higgs quartic coupling with $M_h=125$ GeV from the electroweak scale to $v_\Phi$.
For this parameter choice,
 the $Z'$ boson and the right-handed neutrinos have the masses of the same order of magnitude as
 $M_{Z'}=3.4$ $(34)$ TeV and $M_N=2.0$  $(20)$ TeV for $v_\Phi=10$ $(100)$ TeV,
 while the $B-L$ Higgs boson mass is calculated as $M_\phi=0.23$ $(2.3)$ TeV.
As is well-known, $M_\phi \ll M_{Z'}$ is a typical prediction of the CW mechanism.
The masses of the heavy Higgs bosons are roughly 1\,TeV for both $v_\Phi=10$\,TeV and 100\,TeV.

In order for the bosonic seesaw mechanism to work,
 we have assumed the hierarchy among the quartic couplings as
 $\lambda_{H1\Phi} \ll \lambda_{\rm mix} \ll \lambda_{H2\Phi}$ at the scale $\mu=v_\Phi$.
One may think it unnatural to introduce this large hierarchy by hand.
However, we find from Fig.~\ref{running} that the large hierarchy
  between $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$ and $\lambda_{H2\Phi}$ tends to disappear toward high energies.
This is because the beta functions of the small couplings $\beta_{\lambda_{H1\Phi}}$ and $\beta_{\lambda_{H2\Phi}}$
  are not simply proportional to themselves, but include terms given by other sizable couplings
  (see Appendix for the explicit formulas of their beta functions).
This behavior of reducing the large hierarchy in the renormalization group evolutions
   is independent of the choice of the boundary conditions for $g_{B-L}$, $\lambda_3$, $\lambda_4$  and $\lambda_\Phi$.
Therefore, Fig.~\ref{running} indicates that once our model is defined at some high energy, say, the Planck scale,
   the large hierarchy among the quartic couplings, which is crucial for the bosonic seesaw mechanism to work,
   is naturally achieved from a mild hierarchy at the high energy.

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|cc|}\hline
 & $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ & $U(1)_{B-L}$ \\
\hline \hline
$S_{L,R}$ & (1, 1, 0) & $x$\\
$S'_{L,R}$ & (1, 1, 0) & $x-2$\\
$D_{L,R}$ & (1, 2, 1/2) & $x$\\
$D'_{L,R}$ & (1, 2, 1/2) & $x+2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Additional vector-like fermions. $x$ is a real number.}
\label{table:3}
\end{table}

We see in Fig.~\ref{running} that $\lambda_{\rm mix}$ is almost unchanged.
This is because $\beta_{\lambda_{\rm mix}}$ is proportional to $\lambda_{\rm mix}$,
  which is very small (see Appendix).
Hence, the hierarchy between $\lambda_{\rm mix}$ and the other couplings gets enlarged at high energies.
To avoid this situation and make our model more natural,
   one may introduce additional vector-like fermions listed in Table \ref{table:3}, for example.\footnote{
As another possibility, one may think that some symmetry forbids the $\lambda_{\rm mix}$ term
  and it is generated via a small breaking.}
Although $x$ is an arbitrary real number, we assume $x\neq 1$ to distinguish the new fermions from the SM leptons.
These fermions have Yukawa couplings as
\begin{eqnarray}
	-{\mathcal L}_V &=&  Y_{SS} \overline{S_L} \Phi S'_R + Y_{SD} \overline{S'_R} H_2^\dagger D'_L
					+ Y_{DD} \overline{D'_L} \Phi D_R + Y_{DS} \overline{D_R} H_1 S_L \nonumber \\
					&& + Y'_{SS} \overline{S_R} \Phi S'_L + Y'_{SD} \overline{S'_L} H_2^\dagger D'_R
					+ Y'_{DD} \overline{D'_R} \Phi D_L + Y'_{DS} \overline{D_L} H_1 S_R
					+ h.c.,
\end{eqnarray}
 so that $\beta_{\lambda_{\rm mix}}$ includes
 terms of $Y_{SS} Y_{SD} Y_{DD} Y_{DS}$ and $Y'_{SS} Y'_{SD} Y'_{DD} Y'_{DS}$,
 which are not proportional to $\lambda_{\rm mix}$.
These terms originate the diagram shown in Fig.\,\ref{mix}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.7,clip]{mix_corr.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{One-loop diagram due to the additional fermions, which is relevant to $\beta_{\lambda_{\rm mix}}$.}
\label{mix}
\end{figure}
Accordingly, the minimization condition of $V_\Phi$ is modified to
\begin{eqnarray}
	\lambda_\Phi \simeq \frac{11}{6 \pi^2}
		\left[ 6 g_{B-L}^4 - {\rm tr} Y_M^4
		- \frac{1}{8}\left( Y_{SS}^4 + Y_{SS}^{\prime 4} + 2Y_{DD}^4 + 2Y_{DD}^{\prime 4} \right) \right].
\label{CW_relation2}
\end{eqnarray}
From the conditions $\lambda_\Phi>0$ and $g_{B-L}<0.2$,
 the additional Yukawa contribution should satisfy
 $Y_{SS}^4 + Y_{SS}^{\prime 4} + 2Y_{DD}^4 + 2Y_{DD}^{\prime 4} \lesssim 3\times(0.4)^4$.
Note that vector-like fermions masses are dominantly generated by $v_\Phi$,
 and they are sufficiently heavy to avoid the current experimental bounds.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
          \includegraphics[clip, height=7cm]{100TeV_f.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Runnings of quartic couplings for $v_\Phi=100$\,TeV
 with additional vector-like fermions.
The input parameters are the same as before.}
\label{running2}
\end{figure}

Fig.~\ref{running2} shows the runnings of the quartic couplings for $v_\Phi=100$ TeV
  with the additional vector-like fermions.
The input parameters are the same as before,
  while we have taken the Yukawa couplings as
  $Y_{SS}=Y_{SD}=Y_{DD}=Y_{DS}=0.2$ and $Y'_{SS}=Y'_{SD}=Y'_{DD}=Y'_{DS}=0.1$ at $\mu=v_\Phi$,
   for simplicity.
Toward high energies, $|\lambda_{\rm mix}|$ becomes larger,
   and the hierarchy with the other couplings becomes mild.
We can see that $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$ is negative below $\mu\simeq10^8$ GeV,
  because the contributions of additional Yukawa couplings to $\beta_{\lambda_{H1\Phi}}$ are effective
  below $\mu\simeq10^8$ GeV.
Above the scale, the contribution of $U(1)_{B-L}$ couplings becomes effective,
  and then $\lambda_{H1\Phi}$ becomes positive.
As a result, the large hierarchy at the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking scale can be realized
   with a mild hierarchy at some high energy.
We expect that a ultraviolet complete theory, which provides the origin of
  the classical conformal invariance, takes place at the high energy.

\section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}

We have investigated a classically conformal $U(1)_{B-L}$ extension of the Standard Model
   with two electroweak Higgs doublet fields.
Through the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism, the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry is radiatively broken,
   and a mass scale is generated via the dimensional transmutation.
This symmetry breaking is the sole origin of all dimensionful parameters in the model,
   and the mass terms of the two Higgs doublet fields are generated
   through their quartic couplings with the $B-L$ Higgs field.
All generated masses are set to be positive but, nevertheless,
   the electroweak symmetry breaking is realized by the bosonic seesaw mechanism.
In order for the bosonic seesaw mechanism to work,
  we need a large hierarchy among the two Higgs doublet masses,
   which originates from a large hierarchy among the quartic couplings.
Although it seems unnatural to introduce the large hierarchy by hand at the $U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry breaking scale,
   we have found through analysis of the renormalization group evolutions of the quartic couplings
   that this hierarchy is dramatically reduced towards high energies.
Therefore,  once our model is defined at some high energy, for example, the Planck scale,
  in other words, the origin of the classically conformal invariance is provided
  by some ultraviolet complete theory at the Planck scale,
  the bosonic seesaw mechanism is naturally realized with a mild hierarchy among the quartic couplings.
The requirements for the perturbativity of the running couplings and the electroweak vacuum stability
  in the renormalization group analysis as well as for the naturalness of the electroweak scale,
  we have identified the regions of model parameters such as
  $g_{B-L}(v_\Phi)\lesssim0.2$, $0.15 \lesssim \lambda_3(v_\Phi) = \lambda_4(v_\Phi) \lesssim 0.23$,
  and $v_\Phi \lesssim 100$ TeV.
We have also found that all heavy Higgs boson masses are almost independent of $v_\Phi$,
  and lie in the range between $1$ TeV and $1.7$ TeV, which can be tested at the LHC in the near future.

\subsection*{\centering Acknowledgment} \label{Acknowledgement}
N.O. would like to thank the Particle Physics Theory Group of Shimane University
  for hospitality during his visit.
This work is partially supported by Scientific Grants
  by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Nos. 24540272, 26247038, and 15H01037)
  and the United States Department of Energy (DE-SC 0013680).
The work of Y.Y. is supported
  by Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists
  (Grant No. 26$\cdot$2428).

\section*{Appendix}


\section{Introduction and Preliminaries}
Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are Banach algebras and $T:B\rightarrow A$ is an algebra homomorphism. Then we consider the Cartesian product space $A\times B$ with the following multiplication
 $$(a,b)\times_{T}(c,d)=(ac+T(b)c+aT(d),bd)\ \ \ ((a,b),(c,d)\in A\times B),$$
which is denoted by $A\times_{T} B$.
Let $\Vert T\Vert\leq 1$. Then we consider $A\times _T B$
with the following norm
$$\Vert (a,b)\Vert=\Vert a\Vert +\Vert b\Vert\hspace*{2cm} ((a,b)\in A\times _T B).$$
We note that $A\times _T B$ is a Banach algebra with this norm and it is called
$T$-Lau product algebras

Whenever the  Banach algebra $A$ is commutative, Bhatt and Dabshi \cite{Bhatt} have investigated the properties of the Banach algebra $A\times_{T} B$, such as Gelfand space, Arens regularity and amenability.

Whenever  $A$ is unital with unit element $e$ and $\varphi:B\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is a character on $B$, assume  $T:B\rightarrow A$ is defined  by $T(b)=\phi (b)e$. In this case  the multiplication $\times_{T}$ corresponds with the product studied by Lau \cite{Lau}. Lau product was extended by Sangani Monfared for the general case and many basic  properties of this product are studied in\cite{Monfared}.

In the definition of $T$-Lau product, we can replace condition $\|T\|\leq 1$ with a  bounded algebra homomorphism $T$, because if we consider  the following norms
$$\|a\|_T=\|T\|\|a\|\ \ \ (a\in A)$$
$$\|b\|_T=\|T\|\|b\|\ \ \ (b\in B)$$
$$\|(a,b)\|_T=\|a\|_T+\|b\|_T\ \ \  (a,b)\in A\times_TB,$$ then all these norms are equivalent with the original norms.
Clearly all  results of  this paper hold when we consider these equivalent norms.

The authors  in \cite{Razi}  for every Banach algebras  $A$ and $B$  and for an algebra homomorphism $T:B\rightarrow A$ with  $\Vert T\Vert\leq 1$  have investigated some homological properties of $T$- Lau product algebra $A\times_{T}B$ such as approximate amenability, pseudo amenability, $\phi$-pseudo amenability, $\phi$- biflatness and $\phi$-biprojectivity and have presented the characterization of the double centralizer algebra of $A\times_{T}B$.

Following \cite{Razi}, in this paper we studied the homological notions such as injectivity, projectivity and flatness for the Banach algebra $A\times_{T}B$. We also characterize the Hochschild cohomology for the Banach algebra $A\times_{T}B$.
\section{Injectivity, Flatness and Projectivity}
Let $A$ be a Banach algebra. In this paper, the category of Banach left $A$-modules and Banach right $A$-modules is denoted by $A$-{\bf mod} and {\bf mod}- $A$, respectively. We denote by $B(E,F)$ the Banach space of all bounded operators from $E$ into $F$. In the category of $A$-mod, we denote the space of bounded morphisms from $E$ into $F$ by $_AB(E,F)$. A function $S\in B(E,F)$ is called admissible if there exists $S^\prime\in B(F,E)$ such that $S\circ S^\prime\circ S=S$.

 A. Ya. Helemskii introduced the concepts of injectivity and flatness for Banach algebras \cite{Helemskii homology} and these concepts have been investigated for different classes of Banach modules in \cite{Dalse, Helemskii certain, Ramsden, White}.
\begin{den}
A Banach left $A$-module $K$ is called projective if for every admissible epimorphism $S:E\to F$ in $A$-{\bf mod}, the induced map $S_A:\ _AB(K,E)\rightarrow\ _AB(K,F)$ defined by $$S _A(R_A)=R_A\circ S\qquad (R_A\in _AB(K,E))$$ is surjective.
\end{den}
\begin{den}
A Banach left $A$-module $K$ is called injective if for every admissible monomorphism $S:E\to F$ in $A$-{\bf mod}, the induced map $S _A:\ _AB(F,K)\rightarrow \ _AB(E,K)$ defined by  $$S_A(R_A)=R_A\circ S\qquad (R_A\in \ _AB(F,K))$$ is surjective.
\end{den}
\begin{den}
A Banach left $A$-module $K$ is called flat if the dual module  $K^*$ in {\bf mod}-$A$ is injective with the  action defined by
$$(f\cdot a)(x)=f(a\cdot x),$$
where $a\in A$, $x\in K$ and $f\in K^*$.
\end{den}
Let $A, B$, and $\mathcal{C}$ be Banach algebras and let  $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. We note that if $A$ is a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module, then $A\times_{T}B$ is  a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module via the following action
$$c\cdot (a,b)=(c\cdot a+c\cdot T(b),0)\ \ \ ((a,b)\in A\times_{T}B, c\in \mathcal{C}).$$ Similarly  if $B$ is a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module, then $A\times_{T}B$ is  a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module via the following action $$c\cdot (a,b)=(-T(c\cdot b),c\cdot b).$$
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
 Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are Banach algebras and  $T:B\rightarrow A$ is an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is Banach algebra and $A\times_{T}B$ is injective as $\mathcal{C}$-module. Then $A$ and $B$ are injective as $\mathcal{C}$-module.
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module and let $F,K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}. Suppose that  $S\in\ _\mathcal{C}B(F,K)$  is admissible and monomorphism. We will show  that the induced map $S_A:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A)$ is onto.

We conclude that  $A\times_TB\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} via  the following action
$$c\cdot (a,b)=(c\cdot a+c\cdot T(b),0).$$
Since $A\times_{T}B$ is injective, the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}: \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$ is onto.
Let $\lambda\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A)$ and $f\in F$. We define $\tilde{\lambda}:F\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}(f)=({\lambda}(f),0)$. Hence we have $\tilde{\lambda}\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$. Since $S_{A\times_{T}B}: \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)\rightarrow  \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$ is onto, there exists $R_{A\times_{T}B}:K\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ such that $R_{A\times_{T}B}(T(f))=\tilde{\lambda}(f)=({\lambda}(f),0)$. We define $R_A:K\rightarrow A$ by $R_{A}= P_{A}\circ R_{A\times_{T}B}$, where $P_{A}:A\times_{T}B\rightarrow A$ is defined by $p_A(a,b)=a$.
Clearly $R_A\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(K,A)$ and $R_A\circ T^{\prime}=\lambda$. So $A$ is injective.

For injectivity of $B$, suppose that $B$ is a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module, $F$ and $K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} and $S\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,K)$ is admissible and monomorphism. We must show that the induced map $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,B)$ is onto. We have $A\times_{T}B\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} with the following actions
$$c\cdot (a,b)=(-T(c\cdot b),c\cdot b).$$
Since $A\times_{T}B$ is injective, the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$ is onto. Let $\mu\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B)$ and $f\in F$. We define $\widetilde{\mu}:F\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ by $\widetilde{\mu}(f)=(0,\mu(f))$. Then we have $\tilde{\mu}\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$. Since $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$ is onto, there exists $R_{A\times_{T}B}:K\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ such that $R_{A\times_{T}B}(T(f))=\widetilde{\mu}=(0,\mu(f))$. We define $R_A:K\rightarrow A$ by $R_A=P_A\circ R_{A\times_{T}B}$. Clearly $R_A\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B)$ and $R_A\circ S=\mu$. Hence $B$ is injective. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
Let $A, B$ and $\mathcal{C}$ be Banach algebras and let $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. We note that if $A\times_{T}B$ is the Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module, then $A$ and $B$ can be the Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-modules with the following actions
$$c\cdot a=c\cdot (a,0)\quad \hbox{and}\quad c\cdot b=c\cdot(0,b),$$
where $c\in \mathcal{C}, a\in A$ and $ b\in B$.
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are Banach algebras and $T:B\rightarrow A$ is an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is a Banach algebra and $A$ and $B$ are injective as $\mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}. Then $A\times_{T}B$ is injective as $\mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}.
\begin{proof}
Let $A\times_{T}B$ be a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module and $F,K\in\  \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}. Let $S\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,K)$ such that $S$ is admissible and monomorphism. We must show that the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A\times_{T}B)$ is onto.
We have $A,B\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} with the following actions
$$c\cdot a=c\cdot (a,0)\quad \hbox{and}\quad c\cdot b=c\cdot(0,b),$$
where $c\in \mathcal{C}, a\in A$ and $ b\in B$. Since $A$ and $B$ are injective, the induced maps $S_A: \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A)$ and $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B)$
are onto. Suppose that $\lambda\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F, A\times_TB)$ and $(a,b)\in A\times_TB$ such that $\lambda(f)=(a,b)$ for $f\in F$.

We define $\widetilde{\lambda}:F\rightarrow A$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}(f)=a+T(b)$ and $\widetilde{\mu}:F\rightarrow B$ by $\widetilde{\mu}(f)=b$. Hence we have $\widetilde{\lambda}\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A)$ and $\widetilde{\mu}\in\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,B)$. Since $S_A:\ _\mathcal{C}B(k,A)\rightarrow\  _\mathcal{C}B(F,A)$ and $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B)$ are onto, there exist $R_A:K\rightarrow A$ and $R_B:K\rightarrow B$ such that $R_A\circ S(f)=\widetilde{\lambda}(f)=a+T(b)$ and $R_B\circ S(f)=\widetilde{\mu}(f)=b$.

We define $R_{A\times_{T}B}:K\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ by $R_{A\times_{T}B}=q_A\circ R_A+\eta_B\circ R_B$, where $\eta_B:B\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ such that $\eta_B(b)=(-T(b),b)$.
Clearly $R_{A\times_{T}B}\in _\mathcal{C}B(K,A\times_{T}B)$ and $R_{A\times_{T}B}\circ S=\lambda$. So $A\times_{T}B$ is injective.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
Let $A, B$ and  $\mathcal{C}$ be Banach algebras. We note that if $A^*\times B^*$ is a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module, then $A^*$ and $B^*$ can be consider as Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-modules via the following actions
$$c\cdot a^*=c\cdot (a^*,0)\quad\hbox{and}\quad c\cdot b^*=c\cdot(0,b^*),$$
where $c\in \mathcal{C}, a^*\in A^*$ and $b^*\in B^*$.
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are Banach algebras and $T:B\rightarrow A$ is an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is a Banach algebra. Then $A\times_{T}B$ is flat as {\bf mod}-\,$\mathcal{ C}$ if and only if $A$ and $B$ are flat as {\bf mod}-\,$\mathcal{ C}$.
\begin{proof}
Let $A\times_{T}B$ be flat as {\bf mod}-$\mathcal{C}$. With a simple argument we can show that $(A\times_{T}B)^*\cong A^*\times B^*$. Hence by similar argument as in Theorem \ref{thm1}, one can show that $A$ and $B$ are flat Banach algebras as {\bf mod}-$\mathcal{C}$

Conversely, let $A$ and $B$ be flat Banach algebras as {\bf mod}-$\mathcal{C}$, let $F,K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} and let $S \in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,K)$ such that $S$ is admissible and monomorphism. Then we show that the induced map $S_{A^*\times B^*}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A^*\times B^*)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A^*\times B^*)$ is onto. We have $A^*,B^*\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} with the following actions
$$c\cdot a^*=c\cdot (a^*,0)\quad \hbox{and}\quad c\cdot b^*=c\cdot (0,b^*),$$
where $c\in \mathcal{C}, a^*\in A^*$ and $ b^*\in B^*$.

Since $A^*$ and $B^*$  are injective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module, the induced maps $S_{A^*}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A^*)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A^*) $ and $S_{B^*}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B^*)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B^*)$ are onto. Suppose that $\lambda^*\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A^*\times B^*)$ and $(a^*,b^*)\in A^*\times B^*$ such that $\lambda^*(f)=(a^*,b^*)$ for $f\in F$.

We define $\widetilde{\lambda^*}:F\rightarrow A^*$ by $\widetilde{\lambda^*}(f)=a^*$ and
$\tilde{\mu^*}:F\rightarrow B^*$ by $\widetilde{\mu^*}(f)=b^*$.
Hence we have $\widetilde{\lambda^*}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A^*)$ and $\widetilde{\mu^*}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B^*)$. Since $S_{A^*}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A^*)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,A^*)$ and $S_{B^*}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(K,B^*)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(F,B^*)$ are onto, there exist $R_{A^*}:K\rightarrow A^*$ and $R_{B^*}:K\rightarrow B^*$
such that $R_{A^*}\circ S(f)=\widetilde{\lambda^*}(f)=a^*$ and $R_{B^*}\circ S(f)=\widetilde{\mu^*}(f)=b^*$.

We define $R_{A^*\times B^*}:K\rightarrow A^*\times B^*$ by $R_{A^*\times B^*}=q_{A^*}\circ R_{A^*}+q_{B^*}\circ R_{B^*}$, where $q_{A^*}:A^*\rightarrow A^*\times B^*$ and $q_B^*:B^*\rightarrow A^*\times B^*$ are defined by $q_{A^*}(a^*)=(a^*,0)$ and $q_{B^*}(b^*)=(0,b^*)$, respectively. Clearly $R_{A^*\times B^*}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,A^*\times B^*)$ and $R_{A^*\times B^*}\circ S=\lambda^*$. So $A^*\times B^*$ is injective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
Let $A, B$ and  $\mathcal{C}$ be Banach algebras and let $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$.  If $A\times_T B$ is a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module,  as we have seen before, $A$ and $B$ are Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-modules.
\begin{thm}
Suppose that $A$ and $B$ are Banach algebras and $T:B\rightarrow A$ is an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is a Banach algebra. Then $A\times_{T}B$ is projective as $\mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} if and only if $A$ and $B$ are projective as $\mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}.
\begin{proof}
Let $A\times_{T}B$ be projective as Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module and $F,K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}. Let $S \in \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,F)$ be admissible and epimorphism. We show that the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B, K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B, F)$ is onto.

Since $A,B\in\mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod}  are projective, the induced map $S_A:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A,K)\rightarrow\ _\mathcal{C}B(A,F)$ and $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,K)\rightarrow\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,F)$ are onto. Let $\lambda\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B, F)$ and $f_1, f_2\in F$ such that $\lambda(a,0)=f_1, \lambda(0,b)=f_2$ for $(a,0), (0,b)\in A\times_TB$.
We define $\widetilde{\lambda}:A\rightarrow F$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}(a)=\lambda(a,0)=f_1$ and $\widetilde{\mu}:B\rightarrow F$ by $\widetilde{\mu}(b)=\lambda(0,b)=f_2$. Hence we have $\widetilde{\lambda}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,F)$ and $\widetilde{\mu}\in\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,F)$. Since $ S_A:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A,K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,F)$ and $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(B,F)$ are onto, there exist $R_A\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,K)$ and $R_B\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(B,K)$ such that $S\circ R_A(a)=\widetilde{\lambda}(a)=f_1$ and $S \circ R_B(b)=\widetilde{\mu}(b)=f_2$. We define $R_{A\times_{T}B}: A\times_{T}B\rightarrow K$ by $R_{A\times_{T}B}=R_A\circ P_A+R_B\circ P_B$. Clearly $R_{A\times_{T}B}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,K)$ and $T^\prime\circ R_{A\times_{T}B}=\lambda$. Hence $A\times_{T}B$ is projective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module.

Conversely, let $A$ be a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module and $F,K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} and let $S\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(K,F)$ such that $S$ be admissible and epimorphism. We show that the induced map $S_A:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A,K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,F)$ is onto. We have $A\times_{T}B\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} with the following action
$$c\cdot (a,b)=(c\cdot a+c\cdot T(b),0).$$ Since $A\times_{T}B$ is projective, the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T},K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$ is onto. Let $\lambda\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,F)$ and $f\in F$ such that $\lambda(a)=f$ for $a\in A$. We define $\widetilde{\lambda}:A\times_{T}B\rightarrow F$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}(a,b)=\lambda(a+T(b))$. Hence we have $\widetilde{\lambda}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$. Since $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$ is onto, there exists $R_{A\times_{T}B}\in B(A\times_{T}B,K)$ such that $S\circ R_{A\times_{T}B}=\widetilde{\lambda}$. We define $R_A:A\rightarrow K$ by $R_A=R_{A\times_{T}B}\circ q_A$, where $q_A:A\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ is defined by $q_A(a)=(a,0)$. Clearly $R_A\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A,K)$ and $S\circ R_A=\lambda$. Hence $A$ is projective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module.

For the proof of projectivity of $B$, let $B$ be a Banach left $\mathcal{C}$-module and $F,K\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} and let $S\in \ _B(K,F)$ such that $S$ is admissible and epimorphism. We show that the induced map $S_B:\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,K)\rightarrow\ _\mathcal{C}B(B,F)$ is onto. We have $A\times_{T}B\in \mathcal{C}$-{\bf mod} with the following action
$$c\cdot (a,b)=(-T(c\cdot b),c\cdot b).$$ Since $A\times_{T}B$ is projective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module, the induced map $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,K)\rightarrow \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$ is onto. Let $\lambda\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(B,F)$. We define $\widetilde{\lambda}:A\times_{T}B\rightarrow F$ by $\widetilde{\lambda}(a,b)=\lambda(b)$ for $(a,b)\in A\times_{T}B$. Hence $\widetilde{\lambda}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$. Since $S_{A\times_{T}B}:\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,K)\rightarrow\ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,F)$ is onto, there exists $R_{A\times_{T}B}\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(A\times_{T}B,K)$ such that $S\circ R_{A\times_{T}B}(a,b)=\widetilde{\lambda}(a,b)=\lambda(b)$. We define $R_B:B\rightarrow K$ by $R_B=R_{A\times_{T}B}\circ q_B$, where $q_B:B\rightarrow A\times_{T}B$ is defined by $q_B(b)=(0,b)$ for $b\in B$. Clearly $R_B\in \ _\mathcal{C}B(B,K)$ and $S\circ R_B=\lambda$. Hence $B$ is projective as left $\mathcal{C}$-module.
\end{proof}
\end{thm}
\section{Hochschild cohomology for the Banach algebra $A\times_{T}B$}
The concept of Hochschild cohomology for Banach algebras has been studied by  Kamowitz\cite{Kamowitz},  Johnson\cite{Johnson,Johnson1972} and others. Recall that let $A$ be a Banach algebra and let $X$ be a Banach $A$-bimodule. We denote the space of bounded $n$-linear maps from $A$ into $X$ by $\mathcal{C}^n(A,X)$. For $T\in \mathcal{C}^n(A,X)$ we define the map $\delta^n:\mathcal{C}^n(A,X)\rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{n+1}(A,X)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(\delta^nT)(a_1,...,a_{n+1}) =&
a_1\cdot T(a_2,...,a_{n+1})\\ &\,\,+\sum^{n}_{i=1}(-1)^iT(a_1,...,a_ia_{i+1},...,a_{n+1})\\
=&(-1)^{n+1}T(a_1,...,a_n)\cdot a_{n+1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
 $T$ is called an $n$-cocycle if $\delta^nT=0$ and it is called $n$-coboundary if there exists $S\in \mathcal{C}^{n-1}(A,X)$ such that $T=\delta^{n-1}S$. We denote the linear space of all $n$-cocycles by $\mathcal{Z}^n(A,X)$ and the linear space of all $n$-coboundaries by $\mathcal{B}^n(A,X)$. Clearly $\mathcal{Z}^n(A,X)$ includes $\mathcal{B}^n(A,X)$. We also recall that the $n$-th Hochschild cohomology group $\mathcal{H}^n(A,X)$ is defined by the following quotient,
$$\mathcal{H}^n(A,X)=\frac{\mathcal{Z}^n(A,X)}{\mathcal{B}^n(A,X)},$$
for more details, see \cite{Johnson1972}. We remark that a left (right) Banach $A$-module $X$ is called left (right) essential if the linear span of $A\cdot X=\{a\cdot x: a\in A, x\in X\}$ ($X\cdot A=\{x\cdot a: x\in X, a\in A\}$) is dense in $X$. A Banach $A$-module $X$ is called essential, if it is left and right essential.

Let $A$ and $B$ be Banach algebras and $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Let $E$ be  a Banach $A$-bimodule. Then $E$ is also  a Banach $B$-bimodule and a Banach $A\times_{T}B$-bimodule with the following actions, respectively
$$b\cdot x=T(b)\cdot x\quad \hbox{and} \quad x\cdot b=x\cdot T(b),$$
where $b\in B, x\in E$ and
$$(a,b)\cdot x=T(b)\cdot x\quad\hbox{and}\quad x\cdot (a,b)=x\cdot T(b),$$
where $(a,b)\in A\times_{T}B, x\in E$.
\begin{lem}
Let $E$ be an essential Banach $A\times_{T}B$-bimodule. Then $E$ is an essential Banach $A$-bimodule and an essential Banach $B$-bimodule.
\end{lem}
\begin{thm}\label{t3-2}
Let $A$ and $B$ be Banach algebras with bounded approximate identity and let $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Let $E$ be an essential $A\times_{T}B$-bimodule. Then $$\mathcal{H}^1(A\times_{T}B, E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(A,E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^1(B,E^*),$$
where $\simeq$ denotes the vector space isomorphism.\end{thm}
\begin{proof} By \cite[Theorem 2.9.53]{Dalse1} we have $\mathcal{H}^1(A\times_{T}B, E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(M(A\times_{T}B),E^*)$, where $\mathcal{M}(A\times_{T}B)$ denotes the double centralizer algebra of $A\times_{T}B$. But from  \cite[Theorem 4.3]{Razi} we have  $$\mathcal{M}(A\times_{T}B)\cong \mathcal{M}(A)\times\mathcal{M}(B),$$ where $\cong$ denotes the algebra isomorphism.
 this implies that $$\mathcal{H}^1(M(A\times_{T}B),E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A)\times \mathcal{M}(B),E^*),$$
where $\mathcal{M}(A)$  and $\mathcal{M}(B)$ denote the double centralizer algebra of $A$ and $B$, respectively.

 Hence we have
$$\mathcal{H}^1(A\times_{T}B,E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A)\times \mathcal{M}(B),E^*),$$

Using  \cite[Theorem 4]{Hochschild} we obtain  $\mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A)\times\mathcal{M}(B),E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A),E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(B),E^*)$, thus we have
$$\mathcal{H}^1(A\times_{T}B,E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A),E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(B),E^*).$$
Since $E$ is an essential Banach $A$-bimodule and an essential Banach $B$-bimodule, we have  $$\mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(A),E^*)\simeq\mathcal{H}^1(A,E^*)$$ and $$\mathcal{H}^1(\mathcal{M}(B),E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^1(B,E^*).$$
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

We can extend the previous theorem for the $n$-th Hochschild cohomology for the Banach algebra $A\times_TB$.
\begin{cor}
Let $A$ and $B$ be Banach algebras with bounded approximate identity and let $T:B\rightarrow A$ be an algebra homomorphism with $\|T\|\leq 1$. Let $E$ be an essential $A\times_{T}B$-bimodule. Then $$\mathcal{H}^n(A\times_{T}B, E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^n(A,E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^n(B,E^*)$$ for every  $n\geq 1$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
 By \cite[Lemma 3.1]{Razi} $A$ and $B$ have  bounded approximate identities if and only if $A\times_TB$ has a bounded approximate identity. Using  \cite[Theorem 2.9.54]{Dalse1} one can show that if $A\times_TB$ has a bounded approximate identity, then for every essential $A\times_TB$-bimodule $E$, we have $\mathcal{H}^n(A\times_{T}B, E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^n(M(A\times_TB),E^*)$. In \cite[Theorem 4.3]{Razi} the authors showed that $M(A\times_T B)\cong M(A)\times M(B)$ . On the other hand Hochschild  \cite[Theorem 4]{Hochschild} showed that $\mathcal{H}^n(M(A)\times M(B), E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^n(M(A),E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^n(M(B),E^*) $. Hence we have $\mathcal{H}^n(A\times_{T}B, E^*)\simeq \mathcal{H}^n(A,E^*)\times \mathcal{H}^n(B,E^*)$ where $n\geq 1$.
\end{proof}
Note that Bhatt and Dabshi in \cite{Bhatt} showed that  $A\times_{T}B$ is amenable if and only if $A$ and $B$ are amenable. In the essential case this  is an immediate corollary of Theorem \ref{t3-2}.