text:
# COSMOLOGICAL STRUCURE FORMATION WITH TOPOLOGICAL DEFECTS

## 1 Introduction

Even if the big bang is an “irreproducible experiment”, we want to learn from it as much as possible about the physics at high energies. We have reasons to hope that it may have left traces from energies much higher than those reached in any astrophysical event or terrestrial experiment. Therefore, even if it is irreproducible and hence not as controllable as we might want, we simply cannot afford to ignore the information it may have left.

The initial fluctuations in the cosmic matter density and geometry may represent one such trace. In fact, presently there are two relatively worked out ideas for cosmic initial fluctuations, both relying on the physics at very high energies. In the first model, cosmic initial perturbations are due to quantum fluctuations which ’freeze in’ as classical fluctuations when they become super-horizon during an inflationary era.

The second possibility is that topological defects which may have formed during a phase transition in the early universe have induced structure formation. This second possibility is the topic of this talk.

Here, a pedagogical remark may be in order: Often these two alternatives have been represented as ’inflation versus defects’. This is of course not quite correct, as topological defects have nothing to say about the flatness, the horizon and the monopole or moduli (or whatever unwanted relicts) problems which inflation also solves. It is, however, easy to construct inflationary models where the amplitude of initial fluctuations is much too small to be relevant for structure formation. Therefore, in a model, where cosmic structure is due to topological defects, one needs either inflation prior to defect formation or another mechanism to solve the flatness, horizon and relict problems.

The reminder of this talk is organized as follows: In Section 2 I give a short overview on the formation of topological defects during cosmological phase transitions. In Section 3 I discuss the problem of structure formation with topological defects. I will first describe some generic insights and then discuss results for specific models. Conclusions are presented in Section 4.

## 2 Topological defects

During adiabatic expansion the universe cools down from a very hot initial state. It is natural to expect that the cosmic plasma undergoes several symmetry breaking phase transitions. In the process of such a transition an initial symmetry group $`G`$ is broken down to a subgroup $`H`$. Depending on the topology of the vacuum manifold $``$, which generically is topologically equivalent to the homogeneous space $`G/H`$, topological defects may form.

This is described by an order parameter or Higgs field, $`\varphi `$, with a temperature dependent effective potential. The field values which minimize the potential form the vacuum manifold $``$. After the phase transition the field will assume different values in $``$ in different positions of physical space, which are uncorrelated if, e.g. the spatial separation is larger than the present particle horizon, $`l_Ht`$. If the topology of the vacuum manifold is non-trivial, the Kibble mechanism $`^\mathrm{?}`$ generically leads to the formation of topological defects: the field $`\varphi `$ may vary in space in such a way that there are points, where $`\varphi `$ has to leave the vacuum manifold by continuity reasons and assume values with higher potential energy. Such points have to form a connected sub-manifold of spacetime.

For example if $``$ is not connected, $`\pi _0()\{0\}`$, in different positions $`\varphi `$ can assume values which belong to disconnected parts of $``$ and therefore is has to leave the vacuum manifold somewhere in between . The sub-manifold of higher energy is in this case three dimensional in spacetime and is called domain wall. (Domain walls from high energy phase transitions are disastrous for cosmology.) Similarly, a non simply connected vacuum manifold, $`\pi _1()\{0\}`$, leads to the formation of two dimensional defects, cosmic strings. Domain walls and cosmic strings are either infinite or closed. If $``$ contains non shrinkable two spheres, $`\pi _2()\{0\}`$, one dimensional defects, monopoles form. Finally, if $`\pi _2()\{0\}`$, zero dimensional textures appear, which are events of higher energy. By Derrick’s theorem one can argue that a scalar field configuration with non-trivial $`\pi _3`$ winding number (i.e. a texture knot) contracts and eventually unwinds producing a space-time ’point’ of higher energy. A summary of this is given in Table 1; more details can be found in Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

Topological defects are also very well known in solid state physics. For example the vortex lines in type II super conductors are nothing else than cosmic strings. Also in liquid crystals $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (see Fig. 1) or super fluid Helium $`^\mathrm{?}`$ a variety of topological defects form during symmetry breaking phase transitions.

The defects are called local, if a gauge symmetry is broken and global if they emerge from global symmetry breaking. In the case of local defects, gradients in the scalar field are ’compensated’ by the gauge field and the energy density of the defect is confined to the defect manifold with very small transverse dimension of the order of the symmetry breaking scale. Soon after formation, local defects therefore seize to interact over distances larger than the inverse symmetry breaking scale.

The energy density of global defects is dominated by gradient energy and hence of the order of $`\rho _{\mathrm{defect}}T_c^2/t^2`$ where $`T_c`$ is the symmetry breaking temperature and $`t`$ is the horizon scale, the typical scale over which the scalar field varies. As the energy density of the cosmic fluid also decays like $`1/t^2`$, global defects always scaleaaaUp to logarithmic corrections to the scaling law which are especially important in the case of global cosmic strings. and lead to fluctuations with a typical amplitude of

$$\rho _{\mathrm{defect}}/\rho 4\pi GT_c^2=ϵ.$$
(1)
In the case of local defects only cosmic strings scale and obey (1). Local monopoles soon come to dominate the cosmic energy density and are therefore ruled out from observations. Local texture die out. To be relevant for structure formation, the defects have to induce scaling fluctuations with an amplitude $`ϵ10^5`$ with implies

$$T_c10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},$$

a grand unified energy scale. Topological defects which form at lower temperature are of no relevance for structure formationbbbWith a possible exception of ’soft domain walls’, see e.g. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ or the contribution of M. Bucher to these proceedings..

## 3 Structure formation with topological defects

We discuss especially the differences of structure formation with topological defects from inflationary initial perturbations. I first highlight some very generic features, then we discuss results for specific models.

### 3.1 Generics

The large scale fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) are of the same order as the deviation of the cosmic metric from a Friedmann metric. Since these fluctuations are small, linear perturbation theory is justified. For a cosmic fluid consisting of radiation, massless neutrinos, baryons, cold dark matter, possibly hot dark matter and/or a cosmological constant, we obtain linear perturbation equations (in Fourier space). For each wave vector $`𝐤`$ they are of the form

$$DX=𝒮,$$
(2)
where $`X`$ is a long vector describing all the random perturbation variables, $`D`$ is a deterministic linear first order differential operator and $`𝒮`$ is a random source term which consists of linear combinations of the energy momentum tensor of the defect network. More details can be found, e.g. in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

For inflationary perturbations $`𝒮=0`$ and the solutions are determined entirely by the random initial conditions, $`X(𝐤,t_{\mathrm{in}})`$. For most inflationary models $`X(𝐤,t_{\mathrm{in}})`$ is a set of Gaussian random variables and hence their statistical properties are entirely determined by the spectra $`𝒫`$ (the Fourier transforms of the two point functions),

$$X_i((t_{\mathrm{in}},𝐤)X_j^{}((t_{\mathrm{in}},𝐤^{})𝒫_{ij}(𝐤)\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).$$
(3)
Here the Dirac delta is a consequence of statistical homogeneity which we want to assume for the random process leading to the initial perturbations.

Be $`A_i(k,t)`$ the solution with initial condition $`X_j(k,t_{\mathrm{in}})=\delta _{ij}`$. The spectra of the solution with initial ’spectrum’ given by Eq. (3) is then just

$$X_i((t_0,𝐤)X_j^{}((t_0,𝐤^{})=A_i(k,t_0)A_j^{}(k,t_0)𝒫_{ij}(k)\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).$$

Tehrefore, if $`A_i`$ is oscillating, e.g. as a function of $`kt`$ so will $`|X_i|^2`$. This leads to a very important feature in the CMB anisotropy spectrum, the acoustic peaks: Prior to recombination, due to radiation pressure the photon/baryon plasma undergoes acoustic oscillations on subhorizon scales. At recombination the photons become suddenly free and ’stream’ into our antennas without further interaction. Since the acoustic oscillations of a given wave number $`k`$ are all in phase, the have a fixed amplitude at decoupling. This phenomenon imprints itself in the CMB anisotropy spectrum as a series of peaks. On very small scales, the finite thickness of the recombination shell and free streaming have to be taken into account which leads to an exponential damping of the peaks (Silk damping). As we shall see below, the acoustic peaks are very characteristic of inflationary perturbations.

If the source term $`\mathrm{SS}`$ does not vanish, the situation is different. Equation (2) can be solved by means of a Green’s function (kernel), $`𝒢(t,t^{})`$, in the form

$$X_j(t_0,𝐤)=_{t_{in}}^{t_0}𝑑t𝒢_{jl}(t_0,t,𝐤)\mathrm{SS}_l(t,𝐤).$$
(4)
Power spectra or, more generally, quadratic expectation values of the form $`X_j(t_0,𝐤)X_l^{}(t_0,𝐤)`$ are then given by

$$X_j(t_0,𝐤)X_l^{}(t_0,𝐤)=_{t_{in}}^{t_0}𝑑t_{t_{in}}^{t_0}𝑑t^{}𝒢_{jm}(t_0,t,𝐤)𝒢_{ln}^{}(t_0,t^{},𝐤)\mathrm{SS}_m(t,𝐤)\mathrm{SS}_n^{}(t^{},𝐤).$$
(5)
The only information about the source random variable which we really need in order to compute power spectra are therefore the unequal time two point correlators

$$\mathrm{SS}_m(t,𝐤)\mathrm{SS}_n^{}(t^{},𝐤).$$
(6)
This nearly trivial fact has been exploited by many workers in the field, for the first time probably in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ where the decoherence of models with seeds has been discovered, and later in Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and others.

To determines the correlators (6) one has to calculate the unequal time correlators of the defect energy momentum tensor by means of numerical simulations. To solve the enormous problem of dynamical range, ’scaling’, statistical isotropy and causality have to be used.

Seeds from global topological defects and from cosmic strings are ’scaling’ in the sense that their correlation functions $`C_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }`$ defined by

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }(𝐤,t)`$ $`=`$ $`M^2\theta _{\mu \nu }(𝐤,t),`$ (7)
$`C_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }(𝐤,t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{\mu \nu }(𝐤,t)\theta _{\rho \lambda }^{}(𝐤,t^{})`$ (8)
are scale free; i.e. the only dimensional parameters in $`C_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }`$ are the variables $`t,t^{}`$ and $`𝐤`$ themselves. Here the energy scale $`M`$ corresponds to the symmetry breaking scale. One can set $`M=T_c`$. Up to a certain number of dimensionless functions $`F_n`$ of $`z=k\sqrt{tt^{}}`$ and $`r=t/t^{}`$, the correlation functions are then determined by the requirement of statistical isotropy, symmetries and by their dimension. Causality requires the functions $`F_n`$ to be analytic in $`z^2`$. A more detailed investigation of these arguments and their consequences is presented in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. There it is shown that statistical isotropy and energy momentum conservation reduce the correlators (8) for global defects to five such functions $`F_1`$ to $`F_5`$. Since cosmic strings loose energy by gravitational radiation, which is crucial to ensure scaling, in this case 14 functions $`F_n`$ are needed to fully describe the correlators. However, numerical simulations show that for cosmic strings the density-density correlator is significantly larger than all the other components of $`C_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }`$ which again simplifies the problem $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Since analytic functions generically are constant for small arguments $`z^21`$, $`F_n(0,r)`$ actually determines $`F_n`$ for all values of $`k`$ with $`z=k\sqrt{tt^{}}\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$. Furthermore, the correlation functions decay inside the horizon and we can safely set them to zero for $`z\stackrel{>}{}40`$ where they have decayed by about two orders of magnitude. In Fig. 2 I show one of these functions for global $`O(4)`$-texture (a) and for the large $`N`$ limit of global $`O(N)`$ models$`^\mathrm{?}`$ (b).

For the induced perturbations in the cosmic fluids, the presence of of this source term has several important consequences. First of all, as is clear from Eqn. (4), the randomness of the source term enters at all times (as long as the source term is non-zero). Therefore, fluctuations of a given wave number $`k`$ are in general not in phase, and the distinctive series of acoustic peaks present in inflationary models is blurred into one ’broad hump’. This phenomenon has been termed ’decoherence’ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. A key ingredient for decoherence to happen is the non-linearity of the time evolution of the source termcccIf the source term would evolve linearly it could just be added to the components of $`X`$ and we would obtain a new, somewhat longer linear system of equations where again randomness can enter only via the initial conditions.. Even though time evolution is deterministic, different Fourier modes mix due to non-linearity, and the randomness in one mode ’sweeps’ into the other modes. In the case of topological defects, $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is given by linear combinations of the defect stress energy tensor, $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, quadratic in the defect field, which itself obeys non-linear evolution equations. Only in the large $`N`$ limit, the evolution of the ’defect field’ becomes linear and decoherence is much weaker. The non-linearity of the source evolution also leads to the non Gaussianity of defect models. Even if the initial field configuration would be Gaussian (which it usually is not due to non-linear constraints), the non-linear time evolution renders the source term and therefore also the perturbations highly non Gaussian.

In Table 2 we highlight the similarities and differences of inflationary and defect models of structure formation.

### 3.2 Results

As we have seen, there are several important differences between defect models and inflationary models of structure formation. First of all, defect models generically predict scalar, vector and tensor perturbations with comparable amplitudes at horizon scale, whereas in inflationary models vector perturbations are absent (they simply have decayed from their initial values) and tensor perturbations are often significantly smaller than scalar modes. Furthermore, inflationary perturbations are usually adiabatic. This leads to an important cancelation in the temperature fluctuations due to gravity, given by $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{grav}}=2\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denotes denotes the Newtonian potential, and the intrinsic temperature fluctuation on large scales, which is $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{1}{4}\delta _{rad}=\frac{1}{3}\delta _{mat}=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the adiabatic case. The net result becomes $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{SW}}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe effect for adiabatic perturbations $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

Both these effects lower the temperature fluctuations of inflationary models on very large scales if compared to those from defect models. This leads to the result that the amplitude of fluctuations on very large scales, the height of the ’Sachs-Wolfe plateau’ is comparable to the amplitude of intermediate scales, the acoustic peak(s). This has first been noted in Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Furthermore, the isocurvature nature of defect models leads to a shift of the first acoustic peak towards smaller angular scales. For flat cosmologies the peak position is around $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}350450`$, depending on the specific model (to be compared with $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{peak}}220`$ for inflationary models).

Thorough numerical simulations from two different groups $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ now show that CMB anisotropies from global $`O(N)`$ models do not agree with present data see Fig. 3). There models also require a very high bias to fit the galaxy power spectrum and exhibit much too low bulk flows on large scales. For example the bulk velocity on $`50h^1`$Mpc for the texture model is $`V_{50}60`$km/s whereas the measured value is more like $`V_{50}300\pm 100`$km/s.

The results for cosmic strings are somewhat more promising due to a variety of effects. Most notably the following:

* The cosmic string energy density seems to be considerably higher in the radiation era than in the matter era, therefore boosting the fluctuations on scales which enter the horizon already in the radiation dominated era of the universe, $`\stackrel{<}{}50h^1`$Mpc, just the scales where global $`O(N)`$ models are missing power.
* $`T_0^0=\rho `$ is much larger than the other components of the string energy momentum tensor. Being of scalar nature it induces only scalar perturbations so that vector and tensor perturbations are suppressed in the case of strings.
* Cosmic strings loose power on scales inside the horizon by inter-commutation and gravitational radiation. These processes are slower than the speed of light with which global defects decay. Therefore, the energy momentum tensor persists to later times, up to larger values of $`kt`$ than for $`O(N)`$ models. This induces larger fluctuations in the dark matter.

The induced fluctuations in the dark matter may even be too large on small scales, a problem which can be solved by introducing hot dark matter $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The persistence of the string energy momentum tensor induces even more decoherence $`^\mathrm{?}`$ than for $`O(N)`$ models.

Therefore, cosmic strings may lead to one broad ’acoustic hump’ but certainly not to a series of peaks. The precise height of the hump depends sensitively on several unknowns, for example on how one models the string energy momentum non conservation $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and on the small scale structure of the string network $`^\mathrm{?}`$, see, e.g., Fig. 4.

Decoherence which leads to a ’smearing’ of acoustic peaks (if they are there) is one of the few features about which all results on cosmic strings agree. The height of the ’acoustic hump’ may be about two to four times the height of the plateau at low $`\mathrm{}`$. The position of the hump is not very well defined and depends on the details of the modelling, but it is typically at $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{>}{}400`$ for a flat universe, which is in disagreement with the new data shown in Fig. 3. The bias factor needed in the dark matter spectra (maybe between 2 and 5) are still quite uncertain. Some recent work on this subject can be found in Refs. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

## 4 Conclusions

All the defect models studied in detail are in disagreement with current observations. They exhibit no acoustic peaks (global $`O(N)`$ models) or only one broad hump on too small scales (cosmic strings). Decoherence, which is inherent to the non-linear evolution of the defect source term smears out the distinguished series of acoustic peaks expected in inflationary models. The width of the first peak measured by the the Toco$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and BoomerangNA$`^\mathrm{?}`$ experiments is relatively narrow, which already clearly disfavors a model where decoherence is important. Secondary peaks in the CMB anisotropy spectrum will finally be a unambiguous sign for a (quasi-)linear process of structure formation like, e.g., inflation.

It has been shown, however, that linearly evolving causal scaling seeds might mimic an inflationary CMB and dark matter power spectrum $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Nevertheless, due to causality they differ from inflation in the CMB polarization spectrum$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Clearly, such seeds are not topological defects and there is so far no convincing physical motivation to introduce them.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to acknowledge useful discussions with Martin Kunz, Joao Magueijo and Alessandro Melchiorri. This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## References


format: text

text:
# References

CAN A KASNER UNIVERSE WITH A VISCOUS COSMOLOGICAL FLUID BE ANISOTROPIC?

I. Brevik111E-mail address: iver.h.brevik@mtf.ntnu.no

Division of Applied Mechanics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

S. V. Pettersen222E-mail address: svp@fysel.ntnu.no

Department of Physical Electronics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

PACS numbers: 98.80.Hw, 98.80.Bp

March 2000

## Abstract

A Bianchi type -I metric of Kasner form is considered, when the space is filled with a viscous fluid. Whereas an ideal (nonviscous) fluid permits the Kasner metric to be anisotropic provided that the fluid satisfies the Zel’dovich equation of state, the viscous fluid does not permit the Kasner metric to be anisotropic at all. In the latter case, we calculate the Kasner (isotropic) metric expressed by the fluid’s density, pressure, and bulk viscosity, at some chosen instant $`t=t_0`$. The equation of state is also calculated. The present paper is related to a recent Comment of Cataldo and del Campo \[Phys. Rev. D, scheduled to April 15, 2000\], on a previous work of the present authors \[Phys. Rev. D 56, 3322 (1997)\].

Consider a cosmic fluid, endowed with a bulk viscosity $`\zeta `$ and a shear viscosity $`\eta `$. In a homogeneous (possibly anisotropic) space, $`\zeta `$ and $`\eta `$ are independent of position, but will in general depend on time. If $`U^\mu =(U^0,U^i)`$ is the fluid’s four-velocity, the energy-momentum tensor is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\rho U_\mu U_\nu +(p\zeta \theta )h_{\mu \nu }2\eta \sigma _{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
Here $`h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+U_\mu U_\nu `$ is the projection tensor, $`\theta =\theta _\mu ^\mu =U_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}`$ is the scalar expansion, $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(U_{\mu ;\alpha }h_\nu ^\alpha +U_{\nu ;\alpha }h_\mu ^\alpha )`$ is the expansion tensor, and $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\theta _{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{3}h_{\mu \nu }\theta `$ is the shear tensor.

Assume now that the metric of the background space, in which the cosmic fluid resides, is of the Kasner form:

$$ds^2=dt^2+t^{2p_1}dx^2+t^{2p_2}dy^2+t^{2p_3}dz^2.$$
(2)
The three numbers $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ are required to be constants. The Kasner metric is a subclass of the Bianchi type-I metrics. The space is anisotropic if at least two of the three $`p_i`$ are different. Defining numbers $`S`$ and $`Q`$ by $`S=_{i=1}^3p_i`$ and $`Q=_{i=1}^3p_i^2`$ we have, for a strict Kasner universe in the classical sense corresponding to a pure vacuum, that $`S=Q=1`$. Once a real, in general viscous fluid is present, however, these simple relationships are lost.

Consider next the Einstein equations. With the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ set equal to zero, and with the notation $`\kappa =8\pi G`$, we obtain from $`R_{\mu \nu }=\kappa (T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T_\alpha ^\alpha )`$ the two equations

$$SQ+\frac{3}{2}\kappa t\zeta S=\frac{1}{2}\kappa t^2(\rho +3p),$$
(3)
$$p_i(1S2\kappa t\eta )+\frac{1}{2}\kappa t(\zeta +\frac{4}{3}\eta )S=\frac{1}{2}\kappa t^2(\rho p).$$
(4)
These are the governing field equations. Adding the three equations (4) we get

$$2S(S1)=3\kappa t\zeta S+3\kappa t^2(\rho p),$$
(5)
whereas from Eqs. (3) and (5) we obtain the simple equation

$$S^2Q=2\kappa t^2\rho .$$
(6)
Faced with these equations, we see that there are several factors determining the state of the cosmic fluid:

(i) The viscosity coefficients $`\zeta `$ and $`\eta `$.

(ii) The constants $`S`$ and $`Q`$, which may be regarded as input parameters in the governing equations.

(iii) In turn, $`S`$ and $`Q`$ are for a viscous fluid determined by the energy density $`\rho =\rho _0`$ and pressure $`p=p_0`$ evaluated at some chosen instant $`t=t_0`$ which, in terms of an appropriately scaled time variable, will be taken at $`t_0=1`$. The time variations of $`\rho =\rho (t)`$ and $`p=p(t)`$ follow from the governing equations themselves. By the same token, the time variations of $`\zeta =\zeta (t)`$ and $`\eta =\eta (t)`$ follow. Once the proportionaly constants $`\{\rho _0,p_0,\zeta _0,\eta _0\}`$ are known, the Kasner parameters $`p_i`$ and, as mentioned, also $`S`$ and $`Q`$, are known.

(iv) The possible equation of state for the fluid. Conventionally, the equation of state is written in the form $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$, where $`\gamma `$ is a constant. An important point, which can be resolved only after a detailed analysis of the formalism, is to what extent the equation of state is fixed once $`\{\rho _0,p_0,\zeta _0,\eta _0\}`$ are known.

In a previous paper  we analysed, on basis of the governing equations above, the possible equation of state for the fluid. A recent Comment of Cataldo and del Campo  claims that one of the options discussed in  (actually a singular option), involving a viscous fluid residing in an anisotropic space, is not physically realizable because it runs into conflict with the dominant energy condition. The remarks of Cataldo and del Campo are interesting, since they seem to narrow down, on physical grounds, the range of applicability of the anisotropic Kasner metric for a realistic cosmic fluid. In turn, this may even lead to consequences for the applicability of anisotropic viscous universe models in general. We have found it desirable, therefore, to discuss this point in some detail, from a more broad perspective than in Ref. . This is the purpose of the present paper.

Let us first consider the physical meaning of the dominant energy condition. This condition is usually expressed mathematically by saying that in a local rest orthonormal frame the magnitude of the stress components $`T_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}`$ are always less than or equal to the energy density component :

$$|T_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}|\rho .$$
(7)
This ought to be contrasted with the weak energy condition, which says that the energy density in an orthonormal rest inertial frame is always non-negative, $`\rho 0`$. The dominant energy condition is the weak energy condition with the additional requirement that the stress components - in practice the diagonal components of $`T_{\widehat{i}\widehat{k}}`$ \- should not exceed the energy density. Moreover, since the velocity of sound in a fluid equals the square root of the adiabatic derivative of $`p`$ with respect to $`\rho `$, the dominant condition is strongly related to the physical property of a sound wave that it cannot propagate faster than light.

In the present case, $`\sigma _{ii}=(p_i\frac{1}{3}S)t^{2p_i1}`$ (no sum over $`i`$) and $`\theta =S/t`$ . From Eqs. (1) and (7) we then derive, in the local rest orthonormal frame,

$$\left|p\frac{\zeta S}{t}\frac{2\eta }{t}(p_i\frac{1}{3}S)\right|\rho .$$
(8)
This is the viscous generalization of the dominant energy condition. For an ideal fluid, Eq. (8) reduces to the well known condition $`|p|\rho `$.

Let us now consider the time dependence of the physical quantities. From Eqs. (3)-(6) it is evident that $`\rho (t)`$ and $`p(t)`$ are proportional to $`t^2`$, whereas $`\zeta (t)`$ and $`\eta (t)`$ are proportional to $`t^1`$. We write

$$\rho (t)=\rho _0t^2,p(t)=p_0t^2,$$
(9)
$$\zeta (t)=\zeta _0t^1,\eta (t)=\zeta _0t^1,$$
(10)
where $`\{\rho _0,p_0,\zeta _0,\eta _0\}`$ are the proportionality constants. The proportionalities when written in this form imply that the instant $`t=0`$ is taken to be a singular point. This is in accordance with the fact that the Kasner metric when written such as in Eq. (2) implies the true singularity (i. e., the divergence of the contracted Riemann tensor components) to occur at $`t=0`$ (cf., for instance, Ref. ). We can now write the field equations (3)-(6) as

$$SQ+\frac{3}{2}\kappa \zeta _0S=\frac{1}{2}\kappa (\rho _0+3p_0),$$
(11)
$$p_i(1S2\kappa \eta _0)+\frac{1}{2}\kappa (\zeta _0+\frac{4}{3}\eta _0)S=\frac{1}{2}\kappa (\rho _0p_0),$$
(12)
$$2S(S1)=3\kappa \zeta _0S+3\kappa (\rho _0p_0),$$
(13)
$$S^2Q=2\kappa \rho _0.$$
(14)
These equations contain time-independent terms only. The dominant energy condition (8) becomes correspondingly

$$\left|p_0\zeta _0S2\eta _0(p_i\frac{1}{3}S)\right|\rho _0.$$
(15)
After having established the governing equations and the dominant energy condition, we proceed to categorize the different options for the equation of state for the fluid. We follow essentially the same line of approach as in Ref. , and consider the ideal fluid first.

Ideal fluid. When $`\zeta =\eta =0`$ we consider, as first option, the case

$$p_0=\rho _0,$$
(16)
i. e., a Zel’dovich fluid. This is a maximally stiff equation of state; the velocity of sound is equal to the velocity of light. From Eqs. (11)-(14) we obtain

$$S=1,Q=12\kappa \rho _0.$$
(17)
Thus two of the Kasner parameters, say $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, can be found as solutions of the second-degree equation

$$p_1^2+p_1p_2+p_2^2p_1p_2+\kappa \rho _0=0,$$
(18)
which describes a conic section in the $`p_1p_2`$ plane . If

$$\kappa \rho _0<\frac{1}{3},$$
(19)
the curve is an ellipse. In this case there is a continuous family of values for $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, permitting the Kasner space to be anisotropic. The third Kasner parameter follows as $`p_3=1p_1p_2`$. The condition (19) is satisfied under usual physical circumstances. If this condition is not satisfied, there is no real locus (imaginary ellipse).

It is remarkable that the initial Kasner form of the metric is, for an ideal fluid, compatible with the Zel’dovich state equation only. For any state equation different from $`p_0=\rho _0`$ (and this is our second option), we see from Eq. (4) that all the three $`p_i`$’s have to be equal. We then find, putting $`p_1=p_2=p_3a`$,

$$a=\frac{1}{6}\left[1+\sqrt{1+6\kappa (\rho _0p_0)}\right].$$
(20)
That is, knowledge about the proportionality constants $`\rho _0`$ and $`p_0`$ suffices to calculate the three equal Kasner parameters in the isotropic space. (The reason why the case $`p_0=\rho _0`$ in Eq. (20) yields $`a=\frac{1}{3}`$, instead of the family of solutions given in Eq. (18), is that we are dealing with two different options.)

Viscous fluid. This is for us of main interest. Consider first the exceptional case when

$$S=12\kappa \eta _0.$$
(21)
From Eq. (12) it might seem possible, at first sight, that in this case anisotropic space is permitted. However, if $`\rho _0p_0`$, there is a conflict between the remaining terms in the equation since the left hand side (involving positive viscosity coefficients) is positive whereas the right hand side becomes negative.

Now, the careful reader may ask: why do we know that $`\rho _0p_0`$? In particular, does this condition follow from the dominant energy condition alone, as stated in ? Let us return to Eq. (15): we see herefrom that $`\rho _0p_0\zeta _0S2\eta _0(p_i\frac{1}{3}S)`$. If $`p_i\frac{1}{3}S`$ this is a weaker condition than the condition $`\rho _0p_00`$. Inserting this inequality into Eq. (12) we find that $`Sp_i`$, which is equivalent to $`p_2+p_30`$, $`p_1+p_30`$, $`p_1+p_20`$. These inequalities are actually acceptable. The dominant energy condition alone is thus not sufficient. What really makes us accept the restriction $`\rho _0p_00`$ is rather the physical property mentioned above: a sound wave cannot propagate faster than light. We end up with the conclusion that the option (21) has to be abandoned, thus in agreement with , although our reasoning is different from that of .

In the isotropic Kasner space we now obtain, from Eq. (12),

$$a=\frac{1}{6}\left[1+\frac{3}{2}\kappa \zeta _0+\sqrt{(1+\frac{3}{2}\kappa \zeta _0)^2+6\kappa (\rho _0p_0)}\right],$$
(22)
showing that the isotropic Kasner metric (2) is completely determined when $`\rho _0`$ and $`p_0`$, and the bulk viscosity $`\zeta _0`$, are known. It is notable that the shear viscosity $`\eta _0`$ is absent in Eq. (22); this is in accordance with the fact that the shear viscosity is a concept related to an anisotropic state of motion for a fluid. If the fluid is ideal, Eq. (22) is seen to reduce to Eq. (20).

As for the equation of state for the fluid, we note from the governing equations that

$$\kappa \rho _0=3a^2,$$
(23)
$$\kappa p_0=2a3a^2+3a\kappa \zeta _0.$$
(24)
That means that we are allowed to write the equation of state in the conventional form $`p=(\gamma 1)\rho `$, or $`p_0=(\gamma 1)\rho _0`$, where the constant $`\gamma `$ is

$$\gamma =\frac{2+3\kappa \zeta _0}{3a}.$$
(25)
It ought finally to be emphasized that we have been considering the Kasner subclass of Bianchi type-I metrics only. We cannot, on basis of the remarks above, make any conclusion about the existence of viscous cosmic fluids in the whole Bianchi type-I class.

Acknowledgment

It is a pleasure to acknowledge valuable remarks by Professor Øyvind Grøn on the present manuscript.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the light of the no-hair  and no-go theorems  for the classical glueball solutions with or without gravity, the discovery of both smooth and black-hole solutions of the self-gravitating non-Abelian gauge theories was a big surprise (for a review see ). Among such solutions a physically interesting case is that of a spontaneous broken EYMH theory examined in , where both regular and black-hole solutions, i.e. gravitating sphalerons and sphaleron black-holes have been found. The stability analysis of this system has shown that the solutions are unstable .

Because of the physical importance of these objects, it is worthwhile to study generalizations of the couplings of the flat-space Lagangian to gravity. One of the simplest and best motivated extensions is the inclusion of an explicit coupling between the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the curvature of the spacetime $``$ of the form $`\xi \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\xi `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. There are many reasons to believe that a nonminimal coupling term appears. A nonminimal coupling is generated by quantum corrections even if it is absent in the classical action and is required in order to renormalize the theory .

In many physical situations, inclusion of a $`\xi 0`$ term leads to new interesting physical effects even at the classical level. Examples are the Bronnikov-Melnikov-Bacharova-Bekenstein conformal scalar hair , the inflationary scenario with a nonminimally coupled ”inflaton” field , and boson star solutions . For a review of the present situation see . Two cases occur most frequently in the literature: ”minimal coupling” ($`\xi `$=0) and ”conformal coupling” ($`\xi `$=1/6). The conformal invariance dictates $`\xi `$=1/6 for a massless scalar field , while Nambu-Goldstone bosons have a minimal coupling $`\xi `$=0 . However, there is no preferential value of $`\xi `$ for a Higgs field in a unified gauge theory of electroweak interactions.

In this paper we study numerically regular and black-hole solutions of the coupled EYMH field equations with a nonminimal coupling to gravity, extending the results of ref. to this case. Ref.  presented strong numerical arguments for the existence of both regular and black-hole solutions in a minimally coupled EYMH theory. For each fixed value of the Higgs vacuum expectation value $`v`$, solutions have been found, that can be indexed by the number of nodes $`k`$ of the Yang-Mills potential function. For each $`k`$ there are two branches of solution, depending on the behavior of $`v0`$. For example, the so-called quasi $`k=0`$ branch of solutions approaches the Schwarzschild solution as $`v0`$; whereas the regular $`k=1`$ branch approaches the first colored black-hole solution of the Einstein-Yang-Mills system  in the same limit. The two branches of solutions converge for some values of the theory parameters .

Although most of the phenomena discussed in  for the $`\xi `$=0 case repeat themselves in the general case, there are some important differences. For a nonminimal coupling, the time component of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, which in Einstein’s gravity would correspond to the local energy density, may be non-positive. Indeed, as we shall see later on, there are regions in space, where this quantity is negative. The reason is that, as a result of the nonminimal coupling with gravity, there are contributions to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ from the gravitational field itself . However, the local energy densities do not directly determine the sign of the asymptotic ADM mass, which is found to be positive.

Also, the parameter range of the solutions found in ref. remains no longer valid and a new range has to be found for every choice of $`\xi `$. The existence of a nonminimal coupling between the Higgs field and the gravitational field implies a decrease of the maximal allowed vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.

The paper is structured as follows: in section II we present the general framework and an analysis of the field equations, while in section III we adress the problem of the numerical construction of solutions. In section IV the possibility of the existence of Lorentzian wormholes is considered with a negative result. We conclude with section V where the results are compiled.

## 2 GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND BASIC EQUATIONS

Our study of the EYMH system is based upon the action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}[\frac{}{16\pi G}\frac{1}{4\pi }((D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })+V(\mathrm{\Phi })+\xi \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}F^2].$$
(1)
Here $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`D_\mu `$ is the usual gauge-covariant derivative expressed in the anti-hermitian basis of SU(2) ($`\tau _a=i\sigma _a/2`$)

$$D_\mu =_\mu +g\tau A_\mu ,$$
(2)
$`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant. Following , we assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ possesses only one degree of freedom

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\varphi (x)}\right),$$
(3)
with $`\varphi `$ real and time independent, and with the Higgs potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^2v^2)^2,$$
(4)
where $`v`$ denotes the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The action (1) becomes

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}[\frac{}{16\pi G}\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{2}((_\mu \varphi )(^\mu \varphi )+(\frac{g\varphi }{2})^2A_\mu A^\mu +V(\varphi )+\xi \varphi ^2)\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}F^2].$$
(5)
There are considerable modifications in the Einstein equations due to the new energy-momentum tensor:

$`8\pi T_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`8\pi T_{\mu \nu }^{(minimal)}+2\xi (G_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^2+g_{\mu \nu }_\gamma ^\gamma \varphi ^2\varphi _{,\mu ;\nu }^2)`$ (6)
$`8\pi T_{\mu \nu }^{(minimal)}=`$ $`2F_{\mu \gamma }F_\nu ^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }F^2+2({\displaystyle \frac{g\varphi }{2}})^2A_\mu A_\nu g_{\mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{g\varphi }{2}})^2A_\gamma A^\gamma `$ (7)
$`+2(_\mu \varphi )(_\nu \varphi )g_{\mu \nu }((_\gamma \varphi )(^\gamma \varphi )+2V(\varphi )).`$
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor. As we assume spherical symmetry it is convenient to use the usual metric form:

$$ds^2=R^2(r)dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2)\frac{dt^2}{T^2(r)}$$
(8)
where $`R(r)=(12m(r)/r)^{1/2}`$ and $`m(r)`$ may be interpreted as the total mass-energy within the radius $`r`$. To describe the black-hole solutions we define $`\delta =ln(R/T)`$; thus:

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2m(r)}{r})^1dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2)(1\frac{2m(r)}{r})e^{2\delta (r)}dt^2.$$
(9)
The event horizon is at $`r=r_h`$ where $`1/R^2(r_h)=0`$. In case there are several such zeroes, the horizon corresponds to the outer one. Regularity at the origin is satisfied when T(0)$`<\mathrm{}`$ and $`R^{}(0)=T^{}(0)=0`$, while regularity at the event horizon r=$`r_h`$ requires $`\delta `$($`r_h)<\mathrm{}`$. In this paper we deal with nonextremal black-holes only, i.e. near the event horizon

$$12m(r)/rrr_h.$$
(10)
A suitable rescaling of the time coordinate $`t`$ implies:

$`R(0)=1,T(0)=1,m(r_h)=r_h/2,\delta (r_h)=0.`$ (11)
For the Yang-Mills field, it is convenient to use the ansatz discussed in ; thus a suitable parametrization of the Yang-Mills connection is:

$$A=\frac{1}{g}(1+\omega )[\widehat{\tau }_\phi d\theta +\widehat{\tau }_\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ].$$
(12)
The $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ are appropriately normalised spherical generators of the SU(2) group in the notation of ref. , $`e.g.`$ $`\widehat{\tau }_r=\widehat{r}\tau `$, $`[\tau _a,\tau _b]=ϵ_{abc}\tau _c`$, while $`\varphi (r)`$ is the Higgs field.

Expressing the curvature scalar $``$ in terms of the metric function $`R(r)`$ and $`T(r)`$, we obtain the following expression of the reduced action of our static spherically symmetric system:

$`S={\displaystyle }drdt[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}(R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}+2r{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{})^2r^2}{RT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{T}})`$
$`V(\varphi )r^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(\omega ^{})^2}{RT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{T}})\xi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{RT}}(R^21+2r{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}})+2\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r^2T^{}}{RT^2}}]`$ (13)
for a regular spacetime, while a suitable form of the reduced action for a black-hole spacetime is

$`S={\displaystyle }drdte^\delta [{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}(12\xi G\varphi ^2)}{G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}((\varphi ^{})^2r^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{2}})`$
$`V(\varphi )r^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}((\omega ^{})^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}})+2\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}(r^2\delta ^{}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})+m^{}rm)]`$ (14)
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to r.

A usual rescaling

$`rrg/\sqrt{G},\varphi \varphi /\sqrt{G}`$ (15)
reveals that the solutions depend essentially on two dimensionless parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, expressible through the mass ratios

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{M_W}{vM_{Pl}}};\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{M_H}{M_W}}`$ (16)
with $`M_W=gv`$, $`M_H=\sqrt{\lambda }v`$ and $`M_{Pl}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}`$ . $`V(\varphi )=\frac{\beta ^2}{4}(\varphi ^2\alpha ^2)^2`$ is the standard double well field potential. The field equations imply the relations

$$\omega ^{\prime \prime }=\omega ^{}(\frac{R}{R^{}}+\frac{T}{T^{}})+\frac{\omega (\omega ^21)}{r^2}R^2+\frac{\varphi ^2(\omega +1)}{4}R^2$$
(17)
for the gauge field, and

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\varphi ^{}(\frac{R}{R^{}}+\frac{T}{T^{}}\frac{2}{r})+R^2[\frac{\varphi (1+\omega )^2}{2r^2}+\frac{dV}{d\varphi }+\xi \varphi ]$$
(18)
for the Higgs field, where

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \varphi ^2}}((16\xi )(\varphi ^{})^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})+4V(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{2r^2}}`$
$`6\xi \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{dV(\varphi )}{d\varphi }}3\xi \varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\omega )^2}{r^2}})`$ (19)
is the spacetime curvature. The $`(rr)`$ and $`(tt)`$ Einstein equation are

$`(12\xi \varphi ^2)m^{}=(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}})({\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{})^2r^2}{2}}+(\omega ^{})^22\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}2\xi r^2(\varphi ^{})^2)+Vr^2+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}}2\xi r^2(\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{2r^2}}+\xi \varphi ^2),`$ (20)
$`(\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi \varphi ^2))2r{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi \varphi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{2m}{r}}}+4\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r+(\omega ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(\varphi )^2}{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{2m}{r})}}(Vr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}}).`$ (21)
For the black-hole solutions we replace the auxiliary $`T^{}`$ equation with an equation for $`\delta ^{}`$

$`r\delta ^{}(1+2\xi \varphi ^2)=a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{1\frac{2m}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}+\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r\xi \varphi ^2}{\frac{1}{2}+\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r+\xi \varphi ^2}}(a_3+{\displaystyle \frac{a_4}{1\frac{2m}{r}}})`$ (22)
where

$`a_1=`$ $`(\omega ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{})^2r^2}{2}}2\xi r^2(\varphi ^{})^2,`$ (23)
$`a_2=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi \varphi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+Vr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{4}}`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}}2\xi r^2(\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{2r^2}}+\xi \varphi ^2),`$
$`a_3=`$ $`4\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r+(\omega ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2(\varphi )^2}{2}},`$ (25)
$`a_4=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi \varphi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}(Vr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1\omega ^2)^2}{2r^2}}).`$ (26)
Following the analysis in , we can already predict the boundary conditions and some general features of the finite energy solutions. Since the Yang-Mills equations are unaffected by the presence of the $`\xi \mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ term in (5), the analysis presented by Greene, Mathur and O’Neill  remains valid: $`\omega =1`$ is the only acceptable value and $`\omega 1`$ is required for finite energy solutions. If we assume that $`\varphi `$ is $`O(\alpha )`$ in the region $`r1`$, we obtain:

$`rO(1/\alpha ):1<\omega <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\sqrt{1(\alpha r)^2})`$
$`rO(1/\alpha ):\omega ^{}<0,\omega ^{\prime \prime }>0`$ (27)
These constraints are valid for both regular and black-hole solutions. The Higgs equation can be written in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}({\displaystyle \frac{r^2(\varphi ^2)^{}}{RT}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \varphi ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{})^2r^2}{RT}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Rr^2}{T}}({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\omega )^2\varphi ^2}{4r^2}})`$
$`+2\xi \varphi ^2r^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{T}}(2V{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }})].`$ (28)
The obvious requirement for finite energy solution is

$`\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}(12\xi \varphi ^2)<0`$ (29)
which implies that $`\varphi `$ is restricted to lie between the minima of the potential, $`\alpha \varphi \alpha `$. Relation (29) provides also an upper bound on the range of $`\xi `$ :

$$\xi <\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}$$
(30)
It is worth noting, that an investigation  of classical stability of a scalar field in a curved spacetime with a general coupling to gravity found, that the Higgs fields in the standard model must have $`\xi 0`$ or $`\xi 1/6`$.

¿From the relation (5) we can see that an effective gravitational constant is given by

$$G_{eff}=\frac{G}{12\xi \varphi ^2}.$$
(31)
Thus the condition (30) implies positivity of the effective gravitational constant. It is not possible to obtain an explicit lower bound for $`\xi `$ for a given value of $`\alpha `$. The field equations imply that $`\pm \alpha `$ are the only allowed values of $`\varphi `$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. We focus here on solutions with $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=\alpha `$ without loss of generality. The vacuum values $`\omega (\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=\alpha `$ are shared both by black-holes and regular solutions. The analysis of the field equations as $`r\mathrm{}`$ gives

$`m(r)`$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\xi \alpha ^2}}(2a\sqrt{2}\xi \alpha ^2\beta cr^2e^{\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta cr}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2\sqrt{2}c}}((c^2+1)(14\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{48\xi ^3\alpha ^2}{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \alpha ^2}}))a^2r^2e^{2\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta cr},`$
$`lnT(r)`$ $`ln(T_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r}},`$ (33)
$`\delta (r)`$ $`\delta _02\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \alpha ^2\beta c}{12\xi \alpha ^2}}are^{\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta cr}`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \beta }{2\sqrt{2}c}}((c^2+1)(14\xi )+{\displaystyle \frac{48\xi ^3\alpha ^2}{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \alpha ^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{a^2re^{2\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta cr}}{12\xi \alpha ^2}},`$
$`\omega (r)`$ $`1+be^{\frac{\alpha r}{2}},`$ (35)
$`\varphi (r)`$ $`\alpha +ae^{\sqrt{2}\alpha \beta cr},`$ (36)
where $`c=\sqrt{\frac{12\xi \alpha ^2}{1+2\xi \alpha ^2(6\xi 1)}}`$; $`M,b,a`$ are constants; $`b>0,a<0`$.

Relation (32) implies an asymptotic violation of the weak energy condition (WEC) for negative values of $`\xi `$, since $`m^{}(r)<0`$. There exist also other classical field theories that violate the WEC. Examples are theories containing $`+^2`$ terms in the action , an antisymmetric 3-form axion field coupled to scalar fields , the Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory , and Einstein-dilaton theory with curvature-squared terms of Gauss-Bonnet type .

Since $`\mu (\xi )=\alpha \beta \sqrt{\frac{12\xi \alpha ^2}{1+2\xi \alpha ^2(6\xi 1)}}`$ corresponds to the mass of the Higgs field at infinity, the following relation holds

$$\mu (\xi )\mu (0)=\alpha \beta .$$
(37)
Thus any nonminimal coupling decreases the asymptotic value of the Higgs field mass. To get further insight into the meaning of a large value of $`\xi `$ it is worthwhile to consider the rescaling $`rr/\sqrt{(\xi )}`$, $`\varphi \varphi /\sqrt{(\xi )}`$. For $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ we find that $`\alpha 0`$ necessarily. Thus, for a large negative $`\xi `$, we expect a decrease of the maximal allowed value of the parameter $`\alpha `$. Furthermore, there is an effective decoupling of the Yang-Mills and gravitational fields and the effective coupling of the Higgs field to matter becomes of gravitational strength. In the limit of infinite negative $`\xi `$, the following field equations are obtained

$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\varphi ^2)2r{\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\varphi ^2)(1R^2)+2\varphi \varphi ^{}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}},`$ (38)
$`(\varphi \varphi ^{}r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\varphi ^2)2r{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\varphi ^2)(1R^2)+4\varphi \varphi ^{}r,`$ (39)
$`\omega ^{\prime \prime }=\omega ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\omega ^21)R^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(1+\omega )^2}{4}}R^2,`$ (40)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\varphi ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}){\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi ^{})^2}{\varphi }}.`$ (41)
By using a usual power series expansion near the origin or the event horizon it can be proven that there are no initial conditions consistent with the requirement of energy finiteness. However a simpler proof is to observe that equation (41) implies the relation $`(\varphi ^2)^{}=const.\frac{RT}{r^2}`$, which is also consistent with the general equation (2). There are no nonsingular solution of this equation consistent with the requirement of metric regularity at the origin or with a regular event horizon. Thus we conclude that nontrivial solutions are absent in the case of an infinite negative $`\xi `$. In practice, it becomes increasingly difficult to solve the field equations for large negative values of $`\xi `$, with a fast convergence to the asymptotic values $`\omega (\mathrm{})`$, $`\varphi (\mathrm{})`$.

A particularly interesting case of the general theory is obtained for $`G\mathrm{}`$, i.e. in the absence of the Einstein term in the action (5), corresponding to the spontaneous symmetry breaking theory of gravity, with the standard Higgs field as the origin of the Plank mass (for the remainder of this paragraph we do not consider the rescaling (15)).

There has recently been an increased interest in induced gravity in the standard model, that might help to solve some problems of particle physics and cosmology. Typical problems are the necessity of the Higgs mass to be order of the theory cut-off , the missing mass problem, Mach’s principle , and the inflationary scenario . The existence of magnetic monopole solutions in an induced gravity YMH theory has also been discussed . Unfortunately, it can be proven that, in the absence of the Einstein term, only the trivial case $`\varphi =\pm \alpha `$ is consistent with the requirement of energy finiteness. When we consider the equation (18) and use the trace of Einstein equations to eliminate the term $`\xi \varphi `$ we obtain the general equation

$$\frac{1}{2}_\mu ^\mu \varphi ^2=\frac{1}{16\xi }(\frac{}{2G}+\varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }4V).$$
(42)
For our ansatz we obtain the relation

$$\frac{d}{dr}(\frac{r^2(\varphi ^2)^{}}{RT})=\frac{Rr^2}{T}\frac{1}{16\xi }(\frac{}{2G}+\varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }4V).$$
(43)
which should be satisfied for all $`r`$. Since clearly $`4V\varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }>0`$ for the considered potential, it follows that in the absence of an Einstein term in the original action only $`\varphi =\pm \alpha `$ is consistent with the assumption of finite energy, both for regular and black-hole solutions. However, for $`\varphi =\pm \alpha `$ we obtain the Bartnik-McKinnon solutions and their black-hole generalizations; there are no spherically symmetric gravitating sphaleron or sphaleron black-hole solutions. One can conjecture that similar to the boson star case, it may be possible to obtain nontrivial solutions by considering a time dependence of the matter field.

## 3 NUMERICAL SOLUTION

Nontrivial solutions are not known in closed form, and so a numerical method of solution is necessary.

### 3.1 REGULAR SOLUTIONS

For regular solutions, finite $`T_{tt}`$ and regularity of the metric at $`r=0`$ give two possible sets of initial conditions

$`2m(r)=O(r^3)`$ (44)
$`lnT(r)=O(r^2)`$ (45)
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega (r)}{\varphi (r)}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+O(r^2)}{\varphi _0+O(r^2)}}\right),`$ (46)
or

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\omega (r)}{\varphi (r)}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+O(r^2)}{O(r)}}\right).`$ (47)
The general properties of the solutions are the same as for the minimally-coupled EYMH theory. Solutions are again characterized by $`w(r)`$ oscillations in the region $`r>1`$ and classified by the node number k which may be even or odd. The formal power series describing the above boundary conditions at $`r=0`$ is

$`2m(r)=ar^3+O(r^5),`$ (48)
$`lnT(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}fr^2+O(r^4),`$ (49)
$`\omega =1+br^2+O(r^4),`$ (50)
$`\varphi =\varphi _0+er^2+O(r^4),`$ (51)
with

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{4b^2+\frac{2}{3}V_0}{12\xi \varphi _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \varphi _0}{12\xi \varphi _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}\xi \varphi _0^2)V_0^{}+4V_0\varphi _0\xi }{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \varphi _0^2}},`$ (52)
$`f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4b^2+\frac{2}{3}V_0}{12\xi \varphi _0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \varphi _0}{12\xi \varphi _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}\xi \varphi _0^2)V_0^{}+4V_0\varphi _0\xi }{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \varphi _0^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8\xi \varphi _0eV_0+2b^2}{2\xi \varphi _0^21}},`$ (53)
$`e={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}V_0^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi \varphi _0}{\frac{1}{2}+(6\xi 1)\xi \varphi _0^2}}(4V_06\xi \varphi _0V_0^{}),`$ (54)
for even-k solutions ($`V_0,V_0^{}`$ are the potential and its derivative with respect to $`\varphi `$ at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$) and

$`2m(r)=(4b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}V_0+e^24\xi e^2)r^3+O(r^5),`$ (55)
$`lnT(r)=(2b^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V_0+2\xi e^2)r^2+O(r^4),`$ (56)
$`\omega =1br^2+O(r^4),`$ (57)
$`\varphi =er+O(r^3),`$ (58)
for odd-k solutions. The shooting parameters are $`(\varphi _0,b)`$ and $`(e,b)`$ respectively. Using a standard ordinary differential equation solver, we evaluate the initial conditions at $`r=10^3`$ for global tolerance $`10^{12}`$, adjusting for fixed shooting parameters and integrating towards $`r\mathrm{}`$. The difficulty of the two-dimensional shooting problem in the presence of two free parameters is increased by the presence of a nonminimal coupling between the Higgs field and gravity which leads to a slow convergence of the mass function $`m(r)`$.

We limit the discussion to results containing only one or two nodes. The results obtained for the $`k=1`$ and $`k=2`$ solutions retain the general characteristics of the minimally coupled case. In order to define the terminology, which is somewhat confusing, we review here the $`\xi =0`$ case ().

In the $`k=1`$ case there are two possible solutions that are called the quasi k=0 solution and the proper $`k=1`$ solution. The different character of the two branches becomes apparent in the limit $`\alpha 0`$. Remembering that $`\alpha =v\sqrt{G}`$, there are two physically inequivalent ways for $`\alpha `$ to approach $`0`$. The first is for the Newton constant to vanish, the second for the Higgs vacuum expectation value to vanish. In the first case we have weakly coupled gravity and the solution approaches the standard model sphaleron. The quasi-$`k=`$0 branch of solutions has this limit for $`\alpha 0`$. For $`\alpha 0`$ the node that is present actually moves to infinity in this branch, therefore the name quasi-$`k=`$0. The proper $`k=1`$ branch approaches the first Bartnik-McKinnon solution when $`\alpha 0`$. It corresponds to taking $`v0`$, but always having gravity present. For small enough $`\alpha `$, depending on $`\beta `$, both solutions are present and different. For finite $`\alpha `$ the behaviour is dependent on the value of $`\beta `$. For $`\beta `$ larger than a critical value $`\beta _{crit}0.12`$ there is a first maximum value of $`\alpha `$, where the proper $`k=1`$ branch disappears. For a larger value of $`\alpha `$ also the quasi-$`k=0`$ solution disappears. In the case $`\beta `$ smaller than $`\beta _{crit}`$ the maximum value of $`\alpha `$ is the same for both branches. Here the solutions merge; the shooting parameters approach each other. The situation is clarified in $`figure`$ 1.

For the case of two nodes the situation is similar. There are again two branches, called the quasi$`k=1`$ solution and the proper $`k=2`$ solution. The quasi-$`k=1`$ solution approaches the first Bartnik-McKinnon solution in the limit $`\alpha 0`$, one of the nodes moving to infinity. The proper $`k=2`$ solution approaches the second Bartnik-McKinnon solution. The behaviour as a function of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is qualitatively similar to the one-node case ($`figure`$ 1).

To compare numerically the results with those found in  we focused on solutions with $`\beta ^2=1/8`$ (although similar results have been obtained for other choices of $`\beta `$) and with $`k=1`$ and $`k=2`$ only. The results of the numerical integration for $`\alpha `$=0.1, $`\beta ^2`$=1/8 and a range of $`\xi `$ are presented in $`figure`$ 2.

In this figure $`\xi `$ is relatively small (i.e. $`\xi \frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}`$) . As a consequence the results of  remain approximately valid. The correction to the shooting parameters is very small. A general feature of the solutions is the small influence of the term $`\xi \mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ on the value of the ADM mass. A negative value of $`\xi `$ seems to decrease the asymptotic value of the $`m(r)`$ function while a positive $`\xi `$ determines a higher ADM mass with respect to the minimally coupled case. The effect is particularly small for the quasi-$`k=0`$ solution. This is understandable as this solution corresponds to the flat space sphaleron, for which gravity is a small effect. For the considered range of $`\xi `$, a nonminimal coupling term has a small effect on the shape of the $`w(r)`$ function. However, for suitable values of $`\xi `$ we have noticed a strong influence of this term on the behavior of the Higgs field in the intermediate region. Also, for k=2 solutions, the initial value of the Higgs field $`\varphi _0`$ is strongly dependent on the value of $`\xi `$, with $`\varphi _0(\xi 0)<\varphi _0(\xi =0)`$ ($`figure`$ 2 c, d) . As we expected from (32), for negative $`\xi `$ we obtain a violation of the WEC beyond a certain limit of the radial coordinate, corresponding to a peak of the mass function $`m(r)`$. The height of the peak is proportional to the absolute value of $`\xi `$.

In $`figure`$3 we study the solutions as a function of $`\alpha `$. Significant changes occur for $`\xi \frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}`$ and for large negative values of $`\xi `$. The parameter range obtained in  for the two sheets of solutions does not remain valid; it is necessary to establish a different value of $`\alpha _{max}`$ for every choice of $`\xi `$. A general feature for a nonminimal coupling is the decrease of the maximal allowed value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ . For example for the proper $`k=1`$ branch, Greene, Mathur and O’Neill  have found $`0<\alpha <0.599`$; for $`\xi =0.1`$ we have obtained $`0<\alpha <0.48`$, while for $`\xi =2`$ the limiting value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ is 0.51 ($`figure`$ 3a, b). The quasi-k=0 branch with $`\xi =0`$ has $`0<\alpha <0.619`$; for $`\xi =1`$ we have found $`\alpha _{max}=0.616`$ while for $`\xi =1/6`$ we have $`0<\alpha <0.525`$ ($`figure`$ 3c, d). A minimally coupled even $`k`$ configuration has $`0<\alpha <0.120`$ (proper $`k=2`$ branch) or $`0<\alpha <0.122`$ (quasi-$`k=1`$ branch); in these cases, for $`\xi =1`$ or $`\xi =1/6`$ we did not notice a significant deviation of the $`\alpha _{max}`$ value ($`figure`$ 3 e-h). Different limiting values occur for the shooting parameters $`b,\varphi _0`$ and $`e`$ also.

### 3.2 BLACK-HOLE SOLUTIONS

Similar results can be obtained for numerical black-hole solutions. We use the following expansion near the event horizon:

$`m(r)={\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{2}}+m^{}(r_h)(rr_h),`$ (59)
$`\delta (r)=0+\delta ^{}(r_h)(rr_h),`$ (60)
$`\omega (r)=\omega (r_h)+\omega ^{}(r_h)(rr_h),`$ (61)
$`\varphi (r)=\varphi (r_h)+\varphi ^{}(r_h)(rr_h),`$ (62)
with

$`m^{}(r_h)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_2(r_h)a_4(r_h)}{12\xi \varphi ^2(r_h)}},`$ (63)
$`\omega ^{}(r_h)={\displaystyle \frac{r_h(12\xi \varphi ^2(r_h))}{a_2(r_h)a_4(r_h)}}({\displaystyle \frac{\omega (r_h)(\omega ^2(r_h)1)}{r_h^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2(r_h)(1+\omega (r_h))}{4}}),`$ (64)
$`\varphi ^{}(r_h)={\displaystyle \frac{12\xi \varphi ^2(r_h)}{2\xi \varphi (r_h)r_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_2(r_h)+a_4(r_h)}{a_2(r_h)a_4(r_h)}},`$ (65)
$`\delta ^{}(r_h)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_h(12\xi \varphi ^2(r_h))}}({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(r_h)r_h}{12m^{}(r_h)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+\xi \varphi ^2(r_h)+\xi \varphi (r_h)\varphi ^{}(r_h)r_h}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1(r_h)+a_3(r_h))(\frac{1}{2}\xi \varphi ^2(r_h))\xi \varphi (r_h)\varphi ^{}(r_h)r_h(a_1(r_h)a_3(r_h))}{\frac{1}{2}+\xi \varphi ^2(r_h)+\xi \varphi (r_h)\varphi ^{}(r_h)r_h}})`$ (66)
where

$`f(r)=a_2(r)+a_4(r))({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi \varphi ^2)\xi \varphi \varphi ^{}r(a_2(r)a_4(r)).`$ (67)
The new shooting parameters are $`\omega (r_h)`$ and $`\varphi (r_h)`$ (we have studied the case $`r_h=1`$ only).

The non-minimal gravitational coupling allows for a not necessarily positive field energy. Therefore one loses one of the earlier tools for proving the no hair theorems, which already failed for the minimally coupled EYMH system. The bypassing of the usual no-hair theorems in the considered system can be proven by using the method of  for the $`\xi =0`$ case.

Starting from the solutions (59-62) we integrated the system (2, 22, 17, 18) towards $`r\mathrm{}`$ using an automatic step procedure and accuracy $`10^{12}`$. The integration stops when the flat spacetime asymptotic limit (32, 33, 34, 35) is reached.

The behaviour of the black-hole solutions as a function of $`\xi `$ and $`\alpha `$ is similar to the regular solutions. Two solution branches appear for each $`k`$ corresponding to two different values of the shooting parameters $`\omega (r_h)`$ and $`\varphi (r_h)`$. As $`\alpha 0`$, the proper $`k=1,2`$ branches approaches the corresponding Einstein-Yang-Mills black-hole solutions ().

In the same limit, the quasi-$`k=0`$ branch is distinguished by its Schwarzschild solution limit ($`\omega =1`$, $`\varphi =0`$) and the last node of the quasi-$`k=0`$ and quasi-$`k=1`$ branches is again pushed out to infinity. The corresponding limit of the quasi-$`k=1`$ branch is the n=1 Einstein-Yang-Mills black-hole solution.

Again, every branch the solutions exist only for a finite range of the parameter $`0\alpha \alpha _{max}(\beta ,k)`$ with different values of $`\alpha _{max}`$ for every solution branch.

The results for $`k=`$1, 2, $`\beta ^2`$=1/8 and various values of the parameter $`\xi `$ are presented in $`figure`$ 4. As we expected, for a nonzero $`\xi `$ it is necesary to establish new limiting values of the values of the normalised vacuum expectation values $`\alpha `$. For example, a minimally coupled solution has necessarily $`0<\alpha <0.331`$ (proper $`k=1`$ branch), $`0<\alpha <0.356`$ (quasi-$`k=0`$ branch), $`0<\alpha <0.0475`$ (proper $`k=2`$ branch) and $`0<\alpha <0.0486`$ for the quasi-$`k=2`$ branch.

We have found $`0<\alpha <0.325`$ ($`\xi =1`$) and $`0<\alpha <0.352`$ for $`\xi =1/6`$ (proper $`k=1`$ branch); some results for the quasi-$`k=0`$ branch are: $`0<\alpha <0.356`$ ($`\xi =0.1`$), $`0<\alpha <0.352`$ ($`\xi =1/6`$). For the proper $`k=2`$ branch we have found $`0<\alpha <0.0382`$ ($`\xi =60`$), $`0<\alpha <0.336`$ ($`\xi =60`$), while the quasi-$`k=0`$ branch with $`\xi =10`$ has the limiting value $`\alpha <0.044`$; for a negative coupling constant $`\xi =5`$ we have found $`0<\alpha <0.047`$ (see also $`figure`$ 5). Different ranges for the shooting parameters $`\omega (r_h)`$ and $`\varphi (r_h)`$ are to be imposed.

Similar to the case of regular solutions, we notice the occurence of negative energy densities. Anyway, an unexpected feature is the violation of the WEC even in the vicinity of the event horizon (for positive values of $`\xi `$ and quasi$`k=0`$ branch), which is supposed to destabilize the black-hole and to lead to a traversable wormhole .

Another interesting problem is the effect of the nonminimal coupling on the properties of a black-hole. Not suprisingly, for the quasi$`k=0`$ branch we have noticed a violation of the generic relation

$$T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi r_H}e^{\delta (r_H)}(12m^{}(r_h))\frac{1}{4\pi r_h}=T_H^{vac}.$$

(we use units $`k_B=\mathrm{}`$=1) where $`T_H^{vac}`$ is the Hawking temperature of a Schwarzchild black-hole with the same area.

We have found that generally a positive $`\xi `$ will increase the value of the Hawking temperature (the only disturbing exception is the quasi $`k=1`$ case). However, following  the validity of the generic relation $`S=\frac{A}{4}`$ (where $`A`$ is the event horizon area) can easily be proven for the Lagrangian density (5).

## 4 FURTHER DISCUSSION

Further insight into the meaning of the nonminimal coupling in EYMH theory can be obtained by using the conformal rescaling of the action (5):

$`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Omega }^2=12\xi G\varphi ^2.`$ (68)
The use of this conformal transformation together with a redefinition of the scalar field for the case of nonminimal coupling has a long history; ref. , for instance, presents a large set of references on this subject. The usual condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$ has a clear physical meaning since it is satisfied by finite energy solutions only. The pairs of variables (metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, scalar $`\varphi `$, $`SU(2)`$ field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$) defined originally constitute what is called a Jordan frame. Consider now the transformation

$`\psi ={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi F(\varphi )},`$
$`F^2(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{12\xi G\varphi ^2(16\xi )}{(12\xi G\varphi ^2)^2}}`$ (69)
such that, in the redefined action

$`S={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \psi )(^\mu \psi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{g\varphi }{2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{12\xi G\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\overline{V}(\psi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^2]`$ (70)
$`\psi `$ becomes minimally coupled to $`\overline{}`$, with

$$\overline{V}(\psi )=\frac{V(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Omega }^4}.$$
(71)
The new variables (metric $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$, scalar $`\psi `$, $`SU(2)`$ field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$) are said to constitute an Einstein frame. The transformation given by eqs. (68, 4) therefore maps a solution of the field equations imposed by (5) to a solution that extremizes (4). The transformation is independent of any assumption of symmetry, and in this sense is covariant; one can easily infer that the transformation is one-to-one in general. Also, the transformation preserves symmetries, which means that if $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ admits a Killing vector $`\eta `$ such that $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\eta \varphi =0`$ , then $`\eta `$ is also a Killing vector of $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\eta \psi =0`$. There is a long debate in the literature on the problem of which of these two frames is physical (for a review see ). For example, in ref.  it has been shown in a more general context that all thermodynamical variables defined in the original frame are the same as those in the Einstein frame, if spacetimes in both frames are asymptotically flat, regular and posses event horizons with non-zero temperature. We know that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ goes to some finite positive value at infinity. Since this value is not unity, the asymptotically Minkowskian metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ will be mapped into a generally non-asymptotically Minkowskian line element $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. However, one needs only to redefine globally the units of length and time to obtain an Einstein-frame standard Minkowski form at infinity. Considering an expansion of the Higgs field $`\varphi `$ around the minimum $`\varphi =v+\eta `$, for large enough negative values of $`\xi `$ we obtain the following first order Einstein frame expression

$$L_{YM}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4}F^2+\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{4\xi G}(\frac{g}{4})^2A^2,$$
(72)
with an effective decoupling of the YM and Higgs fields and a massive Yang-Mills theory, along the line suggested in .

The Weyl rescaling (68) helps us to rule out the existence of traversable wormhole solutions, since one can conclude that when we know all Einstein-frame solutions with a given symmetry we automatically know all Jordan-frame solutions with the same symmetry.

A spacetime wormhole is usually introduced as a topological handle connecting two universes or distant places in the same universe. Over the last decade following the seminal papers of Morris, Thorne and Yurtsever , considerable interest has grown in the domain of traversable wormhole physics (for a review see ). We recall that a Lorentzian wormhole solution is said to be traversable if it does not contain horizons that prevent the crossing of the throat. A remarkable result is that, assuming Einstein gravity, the WEC is violated at throat of a traversible static wormhole .

Since we have found that the violation of the WEC is possible, it is natural to look for spherically symmetric, traversable wormhole solutions of the coupled EYMH equations. Further, it has been conjectured that a violation of the WEC in the vicinity of the event horizon is quite likely to destabilize the horizon and lead to a traversable wormhole . Thus, we suppose the existence of a traversable wormhole solution in the original Jordan frame, therefore the violation of the energy condition at or near the throat of the wormhole. The case of a static spherically symmetric Lorentzian wormhole corresponds to the following choice of the metric functions in the general ansatz (8)

$`R(r)=(1b(r)/r)^{1/2},T(r)=e^{f(r)},`$ (73)
where $`b(r)`$ is called the shape function as it describes the shape of the spatial geometry of the wormhole in an embedding diagram and $`f(r)`$ describes the gravitational redshift in this spacetime (with $`e^{f(r)}>0`$) . In this case the coordinate $`r`$ is constrained to run between $`r_0<r<\mathrm{}`$, where $`r_0`$ is the throat radius ($`b(r_0)=r_0`$). By following the analysis of Sec. 2, we can again predict the general features of the possible solutions and boundary conditions. It follows that the general relations obtained as $`r\mathrm{}`$ are still valid. If we do not allow for $`\varphi `$ or $`\varphi ^{}`$ to take an infinite value at the wormhole throat, a similar analysis of the Higgs field equation (2) implies that the generic conditions $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$, $`\xi <\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}`$ hold also .

Using the conformal transformation (68) we convert the theory to the Einstein frame. The existence of wormhole solutions is not affected by the transformation (68) that preserves the traversability for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$, i.e. a positive effective gravitational constant and no event horizon in the new frame. It can easily be proven that for the rescaled action (4), the dominant energy condition holds, and thus there are no traversable wormhole solutions, i.e. no traversable wormhole solutions in the Jordan frame also.

One can wonder whether this absence of traversable wormhole solutions is a general feature of arbitrary nonminimal scalar couplings to Einstein gravity. The nonminimal coupling of the scalar field considered in this paper is a particular case of a more general theory, where the term $`\frac{}{16\pi G}(12\xi G\varphi ^2)`$ is replaced by a more general function $`\frac{}{16\pi G}f(\varphi )`$.

By using a conformal transformation $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }=f(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }`$ and a redefinition of the scalar field ()

$`\psi ={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi (\frac{f(\varphi )+\frac{3}{4G}(\frac{df(\varphi )}{d\varphi })^2}{f(\varphi )^2})^{1/2}}`$ (74)
we can convert the action to the Einstein frame

$`S={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\overline{g}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{}}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\mu \psi )(^\mu \psi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{g\varphi }{2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{f(\varphi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\overline{V}(\psi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^2]`$ (75)
(with $`\overline{V}(\psi )=\frac{V(\varphi )}{f(\varphi )^2}`$).

If $`f(\varphi )>0`$ (i.e. a positive effective Newton constant) the WEC will be satisfied in the Einstein frame. The positivity of the effective Newton constant followed in our case from the demand that the energy of the solution is finite; implying $`\xi <\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}`$. We have not been able to show that an equivalent condition holds in the general case. The possibility of traversable wormholes in general is therefore left open, though it seems likely they will be absent.

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have studied static, spherically symmetric classical solutions of spontaneously broken SU(2) gauge theory with a nonminimally coupled Higgs field and presented strong numerical arguments for the existence of both regular and black-hole solutions for suitable values of the coupling parameter $`\xi `$. The main properties of these solutions, such as their nodal structure and discrete mass spectrum, are generic and shared by practically all known solitons with gravitating non-abelian gauge fields.

It should be stressed that it is the non-abelian nature of the Yang-Mills field that allows the existence of nontrivial solutions since a nonminimally coupled Higgs charged hair has been ruled out for Abelian Higgs theory (, see also ).

The absence of gravitating sphalerons and sphaleron black-holes in a spontaneously broken theory of gravity has also been proven. As a new feature we have established a violation of the WEC for a certain range of $`\xi `$. The nonexistence of traversable wormhole solutions has been shown using a conformal map to convert the problem to the one with minimal coupling to gravity. For small values of the parameter $`\xi `$, the effect of the nonminimal coupling on the asymptotic features of a finite energy solution is rather benign. Although we did not address the nature of the solutions for $`r<r_h`$, we expect that a term $`\xi \mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ can strongly influence the properties of the inner black-hole solutions.

We have not considered the question of stability of solutions in this paper. Since in the case of minimal coupling the solutions were found to be unstable, we see no reason to expect something special to happen for $`\xi 0`$.

Acknowledgement
This work was performed in the context of the Graduiertenkolleg of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Nichtlineare Differentialgleichungen: Modellierung,Theorie, Numerik, Visualisierung.

Figure Captions

Figure 1: The parameter beta versus the maximal value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ for one node graviting sphaleron solutions; qualitative picture for the minimally coupled case.

Figure 2: One- and two-node sphaleron solutions of the nonminimally coupled EYMH theory for $`\alpha =0.1`$, $`\beta ^2=1/8`$ and various values of $`\xi `$.

Figure 3: One- and two-node sphaleron solutions of the nonminimally coupled EYMH theory for $`\beta ^2=1/8`$ and various values of $`\xi `$. Here and in $`figure`$ 5, the parameter $`\alpha `$ varies between zero and the maximum allowed value $`\alpha _{max}`$; increasing $`\alpha `$ corresponds to a decrease of the value of the radial coordinate at which the solution exponentially decays to its vacuum value.

Figure 4: One- and two-node black hole solutions of the nonminimally coupled EYMH theory for $`\beta ^2=1/8`$ and various values of $`\xi `$.

Figure 5: One- and two-node black hole solutions of the nonminimally coupled EYMH theory for $`\beta ^2=1/8`$ and various values of $`\xi `$.

Figure 1.

Figure 2a. Proper $`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =7`$, 0, -10

Figure 2b. Quasi$`k=0`$ Regular $`\xi =0.7`$, 0, -7

Figure 2c. Proper $`k=2`$ Regular $`\xi =2.5`$, 0, -4.5

Figure 2d. Quasi$`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =5`$, 0, -10

Figure 3a. Proper $`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =0.1`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.25, 0.47

Figure 3b. Proper $`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =2`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.2, 0.5

Figure 3c. Quasi$`k=0`$ Regular $`\xi =1/6`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.2, 0.5

Figure 3d. Quasi$`k=0`$ Regular $`\xi =1`$; $`\alpha =0.05`$, 0.2, 0.615

Figure 3e. Proper $`k=2`$ Regular $`\xi =1/6`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.07, 0.121

Figure 3f. Proper $`k=2`$ Regular $`\xi =1`$; $`\alpha =0.001`$, 0.01, 0.12

Figure 3g. Quasi$`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =1/6`$; $`\alpha =0.01`$, 0.1, 0.121

Figure 3h. Quasi$`k=1`$ Regular $`\xi =1`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.05, 0.12

Figure 4a. Proper $`k=1`$ Black Hole; $`\alpha =0.1`$; $`\xi =7`$, 0, -7

Figure 4b. Quasi$`k=0`$ Black Hole; $`\alpha =0.1`$; $`\xi =7`$, 0, -6

Figure 4c. Proper $`k=2`$ Black Hole; $`\alpha =0.01`$; $`\xi =60`$, 0, -200

Figure 4d. Quasi$`k=1`$ Black Hole; $`\alpha =0.01`$; $`\xi =20`$, 0, -20

Figure 5a. Proper $`k=1`$ Black Hole $`\xi =1/6`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.15, 0.351

Figure 5b. Proper $`k=1`$ Black Hole $`\xi =1`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.15, 0.31

Figure 5c. Quasi$`k=0`$ Black Hole $`\xi =1/6`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.15, 0.35

Figure 5d. Quasi$`k=0`$ Black Hole $`\xi =0.1`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.2, 0.356

Figure 5e. Proper $`k=2`$ Black Hole $`\xi =60`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.02, 0.038

Figure 5f. Proper $`k=2`$ Black Hole $`\xi =60`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.02, 0.033

Figure 5g. Quasi-$`k=1`$ Black Hole $`\xi =10`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.02, 0.042

Figure 5h. Quasi-$`k=1`$ Black Hole $`\xi =5`$; $`\alpha =0.005`$, 0.02, 0.046


text:
# 1 Problem

## 1 Problem

In the usual formulation of the Kirchhoff diffraction integral, a scalar field with harmonic time dependence at frequency $`\omega `$ is deduced at the interior of a charge-free volume from knowledge of the field (or its normal derivative) on the bounding surface. In particular, the field is propagated forwards in time from the boundary to the desired observation point.

Construct a time-reversed version of the Kirchhoff integral in which the knowledge of the field on the boundary is propagated backwards in time into the interior of the volume.

Consider the example of an optical focus at the origin for a system with the $`z`$ axis as the optic axis. In the far field beyond the focus a Gaussian beam has cone angle $`\theta _0\sqrt{2}\sigma _\theta `$, and the $`x`$ component of the electric field in a spherical coordinate system is given approximately by

$$E_x(r,\theta ,\varphi ,t)=E(r)e^{i(kr\omega t)}e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2},$$
(1)
where $`k=\omega /c`$ and $`c`$ is the speed of light. Deduce the field near the focus.

Since the Kirchhoff diffraction formalism requires the volume to be charge free, the time-reversed technique is not applicable to cases where the source of the field is inside the volume. Nonetheless, the reader may find it instructive to attempt to apply the time-reversed diffraction integral to the example of an oscillating dipole at the origin.

## 2 The Kirchhoff Integral via Green’s Theorem

A standard formulation of Kirchhoff’s diffraction integral for a scalar field $`\psi (𝐱)`$ with time dependence $`e^{i\omega t}`$ is

$$\psi (𝐱)\frac{k}{2\pi i}_S\frac{e^{ikr^{}}}{r^{}}\psi (𝐱^{})𝑑\mathrm{Area}^{},$$
(2)
where the spherical waves $`e^{i(kr^{}\omega t)}/r^{}`$ are outgoing, and $`r^{}`$ is the magnitude of vector $`𝐫^{}=𝐱𝐱^{}`$.

For a time-reversed formulation in which we retain the time dependence as $`e^{i\omega t}`$, the spherical waves of interest are the incoming waves $`e^{i(kr^{}+\omega t)}/r^{}`$. In brief, the desired time-reversed diffraction integral is obtained from eq. (2) on replacing $`i`$ by $`i`$:

$$\psi (𝐱)\frac{ik}{2\pi }_S\frac{e^{ikr^{}}}{r^{}}\psi (𝐱^{})𝑑\mathrm{Area}^{}.$$
(3)
For completeness, we review the derivation of eqs. (2)-(3) via Green’s theorem. See also, sec. 10.5 of ref. .

Green tells us that for any two well-behaved scalar fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$,

$$_V(\varphi ^2\psi \psi ^2\varphi )𝑑\mathrm{Vol}=_S(\varphi ^{}\psi \psi ^{}\varphi )𝑑𝐒^{}.$$
(4)
The surface element $`d𝐒^{}`$ is directly outward from surface $`S`$. We consider fields with harmonic time dependence at frequency $`\omega `$, and assume the factor $`e^{i\omega t}`$. The wave function of interest, $`\psi `$, is assumed to have no sources within volume $`V`$, and so obeys the Helmholtz wave equation,

$$^2\psi +k^2\psi =0.$$
(5)
We choose function $`\varphi (𝐱)`$ to correspond to waves associated with a point source at $`𝐱^{}`$. That is,

$$^2\varphi +k^2\varphi =\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(6)
The well-known solutions to this are the incoming and outgoing spherical waves,

$$\varphi _\pm (𝐱,𝐱^{})=\frac{e^{\pm ikr^{}}}{r^{}},$$
(7)
where the \+ sign corresponds to the outgoing wave. We recall that

$$^{}r^{}=\frac{𝐫^{}}{r^{}}=\widehat{𝐧}_o,$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{𝐧}_o`$ points towards the observer at x. Then,

$$^{}\varphi _\pm =ik\widehat{𝐧}_o\left(1\pm \frac{1}{ikr^{}}\right)\varphi .$$
(9)
Inserting eqs. (5)-(9) into eq. (4), we find

$$\psi (𝐱)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_S\frac{e^{\pm ikr^{}}}{r^{}}\widehat{𝐧}^{}\left[^{}\psi \pm ik\widehat{𝐧}_o\left(1\pm \frac{1}{ikr^{}}\right)\psi \right]𝑑\mathrm{Area}^{},$$
(10)
where the overall minus sign holds with the convention that $`\widehat{𝐧}^{}`$ is the inward normal to the surface.

We only consider cases where the source of the wave $`\psi `$ is far from the boundary surface, so that on the boundary $`\psi `$ is well approximated as a spherical wave,

$$\psi (𝐱^{})A\frac{e^{ikr_s}}{r_s},$$
(11)
where $`r_s`$ is the magnitude of the vector $`𝐫_s=𝐱^{}𝐱_s`$ from the effective source point $`𝐱_s`$ to the point $`𝐱^{}`$ on the boundary surface. In this case,

$$^{}\psi =ik\widehat{𝐧}_s\left(1\pm \frac{1}{ikr_s}\right)\psi ,$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{𝐧}_s=𝐫_𝐬/r_s`$

We also suppose that the observation point is far from the boundary surface, so that $`kr^{}1`$ as well as $`kr_s1`$. Hence, we neglect the terms in $`1/ikr^{}`$ and $`1/ikr_s`$ to find

$$\psi (𝐱)=\frac{ik}{4\pi }_S\frac{e^{\pm ikr^{}}}{r^{}}\widehat{𝐧}^{}(\widehat{𝐧}_s\pm \widehat{𝐧}_o)\psi (𝐱^{})𝑑\mathrm{Area}^{}.$$
(13)
The usual formulation, eq. (2), of Kirchhoff’s law is obtained using outgoing waves (+ sign), and the paraxial approximation that $`\widehat{𝐧}^{}\widehat{𝐧}_o\widehat{𝐧}_s`$. The latter tacitly assumes that the effective source is outside volume $`V`$.

Here, we are interested in the case where the effective source is inside the volume $`V`$, so that the paraxial approximation is $`\widehat{𝐧}^{}\widehat{𝐧}_o\widehat{𝐧}_s`$. When we use the incoming wave function to reconstruct $`\psi (𝐱,t)`$ from information on the boundary at time $`t^{}>t`$, we use the $``$ sign in eq. (13) to find eq. (3).

Note that in this derivation, we assumed that $`\psi `$ obeyed eq. (5) throughout volume $`V`$, and so the actual source of $`\psi `$ cannot be within $`V`$. Our time-reversed Kirchhoff integral (3) can only be applied when any source inside $`V`$ is virtual. This includes the interesting case of a focus of an optical system (secs. 4 and 5). However, we cannot expect eq. (3) to apply to the case of a physical source, such as an oscillating dipole, inside volume $`V`$ (sec. 6). The laws of diffraction do not permit electromagnetic waves to converge into a volume smaller than a wavelength cubed, and so eq. (3) cannot be expected to describe the near fields around a source smaller than this.

## 3 A Plane Wave

The time-reversed Kirchhoff integral (3) for the $`x`$ component of the electric field is

$$E_x(\mathrm{obs},\mathrm{now})=\frac{ik}{2\pi }\frac{e^{ikr^{}}}{r^{}}E_x(r,\theta ,\varphi ,\mathrm{future})\mathrm{dArea},$$
(14)
where $`r^{}`$ is the distance from the observation point $`𝐫_{\mathrm{obs}}=(x,y,z)`$ in rectangular coordinates to a point $`𝐫=r(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ on a sphere of radius $`r`$ in the far field.

As a first example, consider a plane electromagnetic wave,

$$E_x=E_0e^{i(kz\omega t)}=E_0e^{i(kr\mathrm{cos}\theta \omega t)},$$
(15)
where the second form holds in a spherical coordinate system $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ where $`\theta `$ is measured with respect to the $`z`$ axis. We take the point of observation to be $`(x,y,z)=(0,0,r_0)`$, and evaluate the diffraction integral (14) over a sphere of radius $`rr_0`$. In the exponential factor in the Kirchhoff integral, we approximate $`r^{}`$ as

$$r^{}r\widehat{𝐫}𝐫_{\mathrm{obs}}=rr_0\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(16)
while in the denominator we approximate $`r^{}`$ as $`r`$. Then,

$`E_x(\mathrm{obs})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}r^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{e^{ik(rr_0\mathrm{cos}\theta )}}{r}}E_0e^{ikr\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r+r_0}}E_0[e^{ikr_0}e^{ik(2r+r_0)}]`$
$``$ $`E_0e^{ikr_0},`$
where we ignore the rapidly oscillating term $`e^{ik(2r+r_0)}`$ as unphysical.

This verifies that the time-reversed diffraction formula works for a simple example.

## 4 The Transverse Field near a Laser Focus

We now consider the far field of a laser beam whose optic axis is the $`z`$ axis with focal point at the origin. The polarization is along the $`x`$ axis, and the electric field has Gaussian dependence on polar angle with characteristic angle $`\theta _01`$. Then, we can write

$$E_x(r,\theta ,\varphi )=E(r)e^{ikr}e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2},$$
(18)
where $`E(r)`$ is the magnitude of the electric field on the optic axis at distance $`r`$ from the focus. In the exponential factor in the Kirchhoff integral (14), $`r^{}`$ is the distance from the observation point $`𝐫_{|rmobs}=(x,y,z)`$ to a point $`𝐫=r(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ on the sphere. We approximate $`r^{}`$ as

$$r^{}r\widehat{𝐫}𝐫_{\mathrm{obs}}=rx\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi y\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi z\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(19)
while in the denominator we approximate $`r^{}`$ as $`r`$. Inserting eqs. (18) and (19) into (14), we find

$`E_x(\mathrm{obs})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ikrE(r)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}e^{ikz\mathrm{cos}\theta }e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}e^{ikx\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +iky\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }𝑑\varphi `$ (20)
$`=`$ $`ikrE(r){\displaystyle _1^1}e^{ikz\mathrm{cos}\theta }e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2}J_0(k\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
where

$$\rho =\sqrt{x^2+y^2},$$
(21)
and $`J_0`$ is the Bessel function of order zero.

Since we assume that the characteristic angle $`\theta _0`$ of the laser beam is small, we can approximate $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ as $`1\theta ^2/2`$ and $`k\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ as $`k\rho \theta `$. Then, we have

$`E_x(\mathrm{obs})`$ $``$ $`ikrE(r)e^{ikz}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{(2/\theta _0^2+ikz)\theta ^2/2}J_0\left(\sqrt{2}k\rho \sqrt{\theta ^2/2}\right)d(\theta ^2/2)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik\theta _0^2rE(r)e^{ikz}e^{k^2\theta _0^2\rho ^2/4(1+ik\theta _0^2z/2)}}{2(1+ik\theta _0^2z/2)}},`$
where the Laplace transform, which is given explicitly in , can be evaluated using the series expansion for the Bessel function. This expression can be put in a more familiar form by introducing the Rayleigh range (depth of focus),

$$z_0=\frac{2}{k\theta _0^2},$$
(23)
and the so-called waist of the laser beam,

$$w_0=\theta _0z_0=\frac{2}{k\theta _0}.$$
(24)
We define the electric field strength at the focus $`(\rho =0,z=0)`$ to be $`E_0`$, so we learn that the far-field strength is related by

$$E(r)=i\frac{z_0}{r}E_0.$$
(25)
The factor $`i=e^{i\pi /2}`$ is the $`90^{}`$ Guoy phase shift between the focus and the far field. Then, the transverse component of the electric field near the focus is

$`E_x(x,y,z)`$ $``$ $`E_0{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\rho ^2/w_0^2(1+iz/z_0)}e^{ikz}}{(1+iz/z_0)}}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`E_0{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\rho ^2/w_0^2(1+z^2/z_0^2)}e^{i\mathrm{tan}^1z/z_0}e^{i\rho ^2z/w_0^2z_0(1+z^2/z_0^2)}e^{ikz}}{\sqrt{1+(z/z_0)^2}}}.`$
This is the usual form for the lowest-order mode of a linearly polarized Gaussian laser beam . Figure 1 plots this field.

The Gaussian beam (26) could also be deduced by a similar argument using eq. (2), starting from the far field of the laser before the focus. The form (26) is symmetric in $`z`$ except for a phase factor, and so is a solution to the problem of transporting a wave from $`z=r`$ to $`z=+r`$ such that the functional dependence on $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ is invariant up to a phase factor. One of the earliest derivations  of the Gaussian beam was based on the formulation of this problem as an integral equation for the eigenfunction (26).

## 5 The Longitudinal Field

Far from the focus, the electric field E(r) is perpendicular to the radius vector r. For a field linearly polarized in the $`x`$ direction, there must also be a longitudinal component $`E_z`$ related by

$$𝐄\widehat{𝐫}=E_x\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +E_z\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.$$
(27)
Thus, far from the focus,

$$E_z(𝐫)=E_x(𝐫)\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$
(28)
Then, similarly to eqs. (14) and (20), we have

$`E_z(\mathrm{obs})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr^{}}}{r^{}}E_z(𝐫)𝑑\mathrm{Area}}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ikrE(r)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}e^{ikz\mathrm{cos}\theta }e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2}\mathrm{tan}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}e^{ikx\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +iky\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ikxz_0E_0}{\rho }}{\displaystyle _1^1}e^{ikz\mathrm{cos}\theta }e^{\theta ^2/\theta _0^2}\mathrm{tan}\theta J_1(k\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta )d\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
using eq. (3.937.2) of .

We again note that the integrand is significant only for small $`\theta `$, so we can approximate eq. (29) as the Laplace transform

$`E_z(x,y,z)`$ $``$ $`ik^2xz_0E_0e^{ikz}\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{(2/\theta _0^2+ikz)\theta ^2/2}\sqrt{\theta ^2/2}J_1\left(\sqrt{2}k\rho \sqrt{\theta ^2/2}\right)d(\theta ^2/2)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik^2\theta _0^4xz_0E_0e^{ikz}e^{\rho ^2/w_0^2(1+iz/z_0)}}{4(1+iz/z_0)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`i\theta _0{\displaystyle \frac{x}{w_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_x(x,y,z)}{(1+iz/z_0)}},`$
with $`E_x`$ given by eq. (26). Figure 2 plots this field.

Together, the electric field components given by eqs. (26) and (30) satisfy the Maxwell equation $`𝐄=0`$ to order $`\theta _0^2`$ .

## 6 Oscillating Dipole at the Origin

We cannot expect the Kirchhoff diffraction integral to apply to the example of an oscillating dipole, if our bounding surface surrounds the dipole. Let us see what happens if we try to use eq. (3) anyway.

The dipole is taken to be at the origin, with moment $`p`$ along the $`x`$ axis. Then, the $`x`$ component of the radiation field is

$$E_x=k^2p\mathrm{sin}\theta _x\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}.$$
(31)
where $`\theta _x`$ is the angle between the $`x`$ axis and a radius vector to the observer. We consider an observer near the origin at $`(x,y,z)=(0,0,r_0)`$, for which $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _x=1`$, and so

$$E_x(\mathrm{obs})=k^2p\frac{e^{ikr_0}}{r_0}.$$
(32)
We now attempt to reconstruct this field near the origin from its value on a sphere of radius $`r`$ using the time-reversed Kirchhoff integral (3). We use a spherical coordinate system $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ that favors the $`z`$ axis. Then, the $`x`$ component of the radiation field on the sphere of radius $`r`$ is

$$E_x(r,\theta ,\varphi )=k^2p\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}.$$
(33)
This form cannot be integrated analytically, so we use a Taylor expansion of the square root, which will lead to an expansion in powers of $`1/r_0`$. It turns out that the coefficient of the $`1/r_0`$ term, which is our main interest, is very close to that if we simply approximate the square root by unity. For brevity, we write

$$E_x(r,\theta ,\varphi )k^2p\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}.$$
(34)
In the time-reversed Kirchhoff integral (3), we make the usual approximation that $`r^{}=rr_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in the exponential factor, but $`r^{}=r`$ in the denominator. Then, using eq. (34) we have

$`E_x(\mathrm{obs})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik^3pe^{ikr}}{2\pi r}}{\displaystyle _1^1}r^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{ikr_0\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr}}{r}}`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`k^2p{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr_0}}{r_0}}k^2p{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ikr_0}}{r_0}}`$
$`=`$ $`2ik^3p{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}kr_0}{kr_0}}.`$
The first, outgoing wave in middle line of eq. (35) is the desired form, but the second, incoming wave is of the same magnitude. Together, they lead to the form $`\mathrm{sin}(kr_0)/kr_0`$ which is nearly constant for kr0

<

1

<

𝑘subscript𝑟01kr_{0}\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}1. The presence of outgoing as well as incoming waves is to be expected because dipole radiation is azimuthally symmetric about the $`x`$ axis. In the absence of a charged source at the origin, an outgoing wave at $`\theta =\pi `$ must correspond to an incoming wave at $`\theta =0`$.

The result that the reconstructed field is uniform for distances within a wavelength of the origin is consistent with the laws of diffraction that electromagnetic waves cannot be focused to a region smaller than a wavelength. Far fields of the form (31) could only be propagated back to the form of dipole fields near the origin with the addition of nonradiation fields tied to a charge at the origin. Such a construction is outside the scope of optics and diffraction.