format: text

text:
# Heat content, torsional rigidity and generalized Hardy inequalities for complete Riemannian manifolds

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifold with boundary $`M`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`M`$. In this paper we investigate the heat content of $`M`$ if $`M`$ has uniform initial temperature one, while $`M`$ is kept at temperature zero for all time $`t`$. Let $`u:M\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ be the unique weak solution of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=\frac{u}{t},xM,t>0,$$
(1)
$$u(x,0)=1,xM.$$
(2)
The heat content $`Q_M(t)`$ is defined by

$$Q_M(t)=_Mu(x;t)𝑑x.$$
(3)
It is well known that if $`M`$ is compact and $`M`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ then there exists an asymptotic series for the heat content of the form

$$Q_M(t)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{J}{}}b_jt^{j/2}+O(t^{(J+1)/2}),t0,$$
(4)
where $`J`$, and where the coefficients are locally computable invariants of $`M`$. In particular,

$$b_0=_M1𝑑x=\text{vol}(M),$$
(5)
$$b_1=\frac{2}{\pi ^{1/2}}_M1𝑑y=\frac{2}{\pi ^{1/2}}\text{area}(M).$$
(6)
For details we refer to .

In this paper we are concerned with the non-classical situation, where $`M`$ is complete but non-compact. We shall be concerned with the setting where either $`M`$ itself has infinite volume or where $`M`$ has finite volume and $`M`$ has infinite area. We recall the following .

Let $`M`$ be the closure of an open set $`M_0`$ in Euclidean space with boundary $`M=M\backslash M_0`$. For $`xM_0`$ we define the distance in direction $`u,|u|=1`$, by

$$d_u(x)=\mathrm{min}\{|t|:x+tuM\},$$
(7)
and the mean distance function $`\rho :M_0[0,\mathrm{})`$ by

$$\frac{1}{\rho ^2(x)}=\frac{1}{\text{area}(S_{m1})}_{S_{m1}}\frac{du}{d_u^2(x)},$$
(8)
where $`S_{m1}`$ is the unit sphere in $`^m`$. Theorem 3.4 in  asserts that if

$$\rho ^2(x)=o(\mathrm{log}(1+|x|^2))^1,|x|\mathrm{},xM_0$$
(9)
then $`M`$ has finite heat content for all positive $`t`$. However, no upper bounds for the heat content in terms of $`t`$ were obtained in this general situation.

In this paper we obtain bounds for the heat content for a wide class of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ complete Riemannian manifolds assuming a generalized Hardy inequality.

Let $`\delta :M[0,\mathrm{})`$ denote the distance to the boundary function on $`M`$:

$$\delta (x)=\mathrm{min}\{d(x,y):yM\},$$
(10)
where $`d(x,y)`$ is the Riemannian distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies a generalized Hardy inequality if there exist constants $`c>0`$ and $`\gamma (0,2]`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{c}{\delta ^\gamma },$$
(11)
in the sense of quadratic forms.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`M`$ be a complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifold, and suppose that (11) holds for some $`c>0`$ and $`\gamma (0,2]`$. Suppose there exists $`\beta (0,2\gamma ]`$ such that

$$_M\delta ^\beta (x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
Then for all $`t>0`$

$$Q_M(t)\left(\frac{(\beta +\gamma )^2}{2e\beta \gamma c}\right)^{\beta /\gamma }\left(_M\delta ^\beta (x)𝑑x\right)t^{\beta /\gamma }.$$
(13)
###### Theorem 2.

Let $`M`$ be a complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifold with finite volume, and suppose that (11) holds for some $`c>0`$ and $`\gamma (0,2]`$. Then for all $`t>0`$

$$Q_M(t)\mathrm{vol}(M)4^1_{\{xM:\delta (x)<(2ct)^{1/\gamma }\}}1𝑑x.$$
(14)
The Hardy inequality (11) guarantees that the boundary $`M`$ is not too thin, and that sufficient cooling of $`M_0`$ near $`M`$ will take place. Condition (12) in Theorem 1 guarantees that $`M`$ does not have to much measure away from $`M`$. Both the validity and applications of inequalities like (11) to spectral theory have been investigated in depth \[8-11, 13\].

###### Remark 3.

If $`M_0`$ is simply connected in $`^2`$ then (11) holds with $`\gamma =2`$ and $`c=1/16`$. If $`M_0`$ is convex in $`^m`$ then (11) holds with $`\gamma =2`$ and $`c=1/4`$ .

For open sets $`M_0`$ in $`^m`$ it was shown (Theorem 1.5.3 in ) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{m}{4\rho ^2},$$
(15)
in the sense of quadratic forms. The proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 together with (15) give the following.

###### Corollary 4.

Let $`M`$ be the closure of an open set $`M_0`$ in Euclidean space with boundary $`M=M\backslash M_0`$. Suppose there exists $`\beta (0,4]`$ such that

$$_M\rho ^\beta (x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
Then for all $`t>0`$

$$Q_M(t)\left(\frac{(\beta +2)^2}{e\beta m}\right)^{\beta /2}\left(_M\rho ^\beta (x)𝑑x\right)t^{\beta /2}.$$
(17)
###### Corollary 5.

Let $`M`$ be the closure of an open set $`M_0`$ in Euclidean space with boundary $`M=M\backslash M_0`$, and with finite volume. Then for all $`t>0`$

$$Q_M(t)\mathrm{vol}(M)4^1_{\{xM:\rho (x)<(mt/2)^{1/2}\}}1𝑑x,$$
(18)
Let $`p_M(x,y;t),xM,yM,t>0`$ be the Dirichlet heat kernel for $`M`$. We say that $`M`$ has finite torsional rigidity $`P_M`$ if

$$P_M=_0^{\mathrm{}}_M_Mp_M(x,y;t)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑t<\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
Let $`M_0`$ be an open subset of $`^m`$. It is well known that if $`M_0`$ has finite volume then $`M`$ has finite torsional rigidity. However, the converse is not true. In  we showed that if $`M_0^m`$ satisfies (11) for $`\gamma =2`$ and some $`c>0`$, then $`P_M`$ is finite if and only if (12) holds with $`\beta =2`$. Since the solution of (1-2) with Dirichlet boundary conditions on $`M`$ is given by

$$u(x;t)=_Mp_M(x,y;t)𝑑y,$$
(20)
it follows that

$$Q_M(t)=_M_Mp_M(x,y;t)𝑑x𝑑y,$$
(21)
and

$$P_M=_0^{\mathrm{}}Q_M(t)𝑑t.$$
(22)
Theorem 1 gives the following.

###### Corollary 6.

Suppose $`M`$ is a complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifold, and suppose that (11) holds for some $`c>0`$ and $`\gamma (0,2]`$. Suppose there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ such that (12) holds for all $`\beta (\gamma \epsilon ,\gamma +\epsilon )`$. Then $`M`$ has finite torsional rigidity.

The proof of Corollary 6 is elementary. We bound $`Q_M(t)`$ for small $`t`$ by (13) with $`\beta =\gamma \epsilon /2`$, and for large $`t`$ by (13) with $`\beta =\gamma +\epsilon /2`$. Similarly one can show that for open sets in $`^m,P_M`$ is finite if (16) holds for all $`\beta `$ in some neighbourhood $`\beta =2`$. The following result is an improvement.

###### Theorem 7.

let $`M`$ be the closure of an open set $`M_0`$ in $`^m`$ with boundary $`M=M\backslash M_0`$. Suppose that $`_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$P_M\frac{4}{m}_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(23)
In Lemma 2.6 of  it was shown that if $`M_0^m`$ is such that $`Q_M(t)`$ is finite for all $`t>0`$ then trace $`(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is finite for all $`t>0`$. In the more general setting of complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifolds we have the following.

###### Corollary 8.

Let $`M`$ be a complete $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifold, and suppose that (11) holds for some $`c>0`$ and $`\gamma (0,2].`$ Suppose (12) holds for some $`\beta (0,2\gamma ]`$, and suppose there exists a function $`g:(0,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that

$$p_M(x,x;t)g(t),xM.$$
(24)
Then for all $`t>0`$

$$\mathrm{trace}(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }})=_Mp_M(x,x;t)𝑑xg(t/2)Q_M(t/2)<\mathrm{}.$$
(25)
Sufficient conditions on the geometry of $`M`$ which guarantee the uniform bound (24) were obtained by several authors (Section 6 in  and the references therein).

We conclude this introduction with an example to show that Theorems 1 and 2 are close to being sharp.

###### Example 9.

Let $`M(\alpha )^2`$ be given by

$$M(\alpha )=\{(\xi _1,\xi _2):\xi _10,|\xi _2|(\xi _1+1)^\alpha \},$$
(26)
where $`\alpha >0`$ is a constant.

Since $`M(\alpha )`$ is simply connected, we have by Remark 3 that (11) holds with $`\gamma =2`$ and $`c=\frac{1}{16}`$. $`M(\alpha )`$ has infinite volume if and only if $`\alpha 1`$. Estimate (12) holds in this case if and only if $`\beta >\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }`$. We can choose $`\beta (0,4]`$ if and only if $`\alpha >\frac{1}{5}`$. We conclude by Theorem 1 that for $`\frac{1}{5}<\alpha 1`$ and any $`\epsilon >0`$

$$Q_{M(\alpha )}(t)K_1t^{(\alpha 1)/(2\alpha )\epsilon },t>0,$$
(27)
where $`K_1`$ is a finite positive constant depending on $`\alpha `$ and $`\epsilon `$ respectively.

Theorem 2 gives that for $`\alpha >1`$

$$\underset{t0}{lim\; inf}(\text{vol}(M(\alpha )Q_{M(\alpha )}(t))t^{(1\alpha )/(2\alpha )}K_2,$$
(28)
where $`K_2`$ is a strictly positive constant depending on $`\alpha `$. The precise asymptotic behaviour of $`Q_{M(\alpha )}(t)`$ as $`t0`$ has been computed in . The results in  show for example that (27) holds for all $`0<\alpha <1`$ with $`\epsilon =0`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Dirichlet Laplacian acting in $`L^2(M)`$, and let $`u:M\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ be the unique weak solution of(1) with initial condition

$$u(x;0)=f(x),xM,$$
(29)
where $`f:M[0,\mathrm{})`$ is bounded and measurable. Then

$$u=e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}f,$$
(30)
with integral representation

$$u(x;t)=_Mp_M(x,y;t)f(y)𝑑y.$$
(31)
We let $`\epsilon >0`$, and choose $`\{f_\epsilon :\epsilon >0\}`$ to be a family of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions on $`M`$ such that $`0f_\epsilon 1,f_\epsilon `$ is monotone increasing as $`\epsilon 0`$, and

$$f_\epsilon (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \delta (x)<\epsilon ,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & 2\epsilon \delta (x).\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
It follows by the maximum principle (Section 2.4 in ) that

$$_Mp_M(x,y;t)𝑑y1.$$
(33)
By Fubini’s theorem and (33) we conclude that the unique solution $`u_\epsilon `$ satisfies

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x& ={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _M}p(x,y;t)f_\epsilon (y)𝑑x𝑑y\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle _M}f_\epsilon (y)𝑑y{\displaystyle _{\{xM:\delta (x)\epsilon \}}}1𝑑x\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle _{\{xM:\delta ^\beta (x)\epsilon ^\beta \}}}\epsilon ^\beta \delta ^\beta (x)\epsilon ^\beta {\displaystyle _M}\delta ^\beta (x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
Let $`p3/2`$. By the maximum principle we have that $`0u_\epsilon 1`$. Hence $`u_\epsilon ^{2p2}u_\epsilon `$, and

$$_Mu_\epsilon ^{2p2}(x;t)𝑑x_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x.$$
(35)
Hence, by Fubini’s theorem, Cauchy-Schwarz’s inequality and (35)

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^p(x;t)𝑑x\right|& =p\left|{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^{p1}(x;t){\displaystyle \frac{u_\epsilon }{t}}(x;t)𝑑x\right|\hfill \\ & p\left\{{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^{2p2}(x;t)𝑑x\right\}^{1/2}\left\{{\displaystyle _M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_\epsilon }{t}}(x;t)\right)^2𝑑x\right\}^{1/2}\hfill \\ & p\left\{{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x\right\}^{1/2}\left\{{\displaystyle _M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_\epsilon }{t}}(x;t)\right)^2𝑑x\right\}^{1/2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
But

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_\epsilon }{t}}(x;t)\right)^2𝑑x& =\mathrm{\Delta }e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}f_\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Delta }e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}f_\epsilon \hfill \\ & =(\mathrm{\Delta }e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2})e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2}f_\epsilon ,(\mathrm{\Delta }e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2})e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2}f_\epsilon ,\hfill \end{array}`$ (37)
and since $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2}`$ is a bounded operator, bounded by $`2/(et)`$, we have that

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_\epsilon }{t}}(x;t)\right)^2𝑑x& {\displaystyle \frac{4}{e^2t^2}}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2}f_\epsilon ,e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }/2}f_\epsilon \hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{4}{e^2t^2}}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}f_\epsilon ,f_\epsilon \hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{4}{e^2t^2}}e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}f_\epsilon ,1\hfill \\ & ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{e^2t^2}}{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (38)
By (36-38) we conclude that we have the estimate

$$\frac{d}{dt}_Mu_\epsilon ^p(x;t)𝑑x\frac{2p}{et}_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x.$$
(39)
We use Fubini’s theorem, integration by parts, and the generalized Hardy inequality (11) to obtain

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^p(x;t)𝑑x& =p{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^{p1}(x;t)\mathrm{\Delta }u_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x\hfill \\ & =p(p1){\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^{p2}(x;t)(u_\epsilon (x;t))^2𝑑x\hfill \\ & ={\displaystyle \frac{4(p1)}{p}}{\displaystyle _M}|u_\epsilon ^{p/2}(x;t)|^2𝑑x\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{4(p1)c}{p}}{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon ^p(x;t)\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
Combining the estimates of (39) and (40) yields

$$_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)\frac{2(p1)ect}{p^2}_Mu_\epsilon ^p(x;t)\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x.$$
(41)
By (34) the left hand side of (41) is finite and this implies that the right hand side of (41) is finite as well. By Hölder’s inequality

$$_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x\left\{_Mu_\epsilon ^p(x;t)\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x\right\}^{1/p}\left\{_M\delta (x)^{\gamma /(p1)}𝑑x\right\}^{(p1)/p}.$$
(42)
Since $`\beta (0,2\gamma ]`$ by the hypothesis in Theorem 1 the choice

$$p=1+\frac{\gamma }{\beta }$$
(43)
guarantees that $`p3/2`$. Then $`\delta ^{\gamma /(p1)}`$ is integrable by (12). By (41) and (42)

$$_Mu_\epsilon ^p(x;t)\delta ^\gamma (x)dx\left(\frac{p^2}{2(p1)ect}\right)^{p/(p1)}_M\delta (x)^{\gamma /(p1)}dx).$$
(44)
Substitution of (44) into (42) then results into

$$_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x\left(\frac{p^2}{2(p1)ect}\right)^{1/(p1)}_M\delta (x)^{\gamma /(p1)}𝑑x,$$
(45)
and a further substitution of (43) into (45) gives

$$_Mu_\epsilon (x;t)𝑑x\left(\frac{(\beta +\gamma )^2}{2e\beta \gamma ct}\right)^{\beta /\gamma }_M\delta ^\beta (x)𝑑x.$$
(46)
Since the right hand side of (46) is independent of $`\epsilon `$ we have by Fatou’s lemma

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Q_M(t)& ={\displaystyle _M}(\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}u_\epsilon (x;t))𝑑x\hfill \\ & \underset{\epsilon 0}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle _M}u_\epsilon (x;t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\beta +\gamma )^2}{2e\beta \gamma ct}}\right)^{\beta /\gamma }{\displaystyle _M}\delta ^\beta (x)𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (47)
## 3 Proof of Theorem 2

Let $`f=1`$ in (29), and note that

$$Q_M(2t)=e^{2t\mathrm{\Delta }}1,1=e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}1,e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }}1=_Mu^2(x;t)𝑑x.$$
(48)
Hence (40) for $`p=2`$ gives

$$\frac{d}{dt}Q_M(2t)2c_Mu^2(x;t)\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x.$$
(49)
Integrating this inequality with respect to $`t`$ over $`[0,t]`$ yields by Fubini’s theorem

$$\mathrm{vol}(M)Q_M(2t)2c_M𝑑x_0^tu^2(x;\tau )\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑\tau .$$
(50)
It follows, by the maximum principle, that $`u(x;\tau )u(x;2t)`$ for all $`0\tau t`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{vol}(M)Q_M(2t)2ct_Mu^2(x;2t)\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x.$$
(51)
Let $`u=1v`$. We use the definition given in (3) and we use equation (51) to see that for any $`\epsilon >0`$

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}v(x;t)𝑑x& ct{\displaystyle _M}(1v(x;t))^2\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x\hfill \\ & ct{\displaystyle _{\{xM:\delta (x)<\epsilon \}}}(1\upsilon (x;t))^2\delta ^\gamma (x)𝑑x\hfill \\ & ct\epsilon ^\gamma {\displaystyle _{\{xM:\delta (x)<\epsilon \}}}(12\upsilon (x;t))dx).\hfill \end{array}`$ (52)
It follows that

$$(1+2ct\epsilon ^\gamma )_Mv(x;t)𝑑xct\epsilon ^\gamma _{\{xM:\delta (x)<\epsilon \}}1𝑑x.$$
(53)
The choice

$$\epsilon =(2ct)^{1/\gamma }$$
(54)
in (53) completes the proof of Theorem 2. ∎

To prove Corollaries 4 and 5 respectively we note that (15) holds for open sets $`M_0^m`$. We follow the proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 respectively by replacing $`\delta `$ by $`\rho `$, $`c`$ by $`m/4`$ and $`\gamma `$ by $`2`$ throughout.

To prove Corollary 8 we note that by (5.2) in Section 5.1 of  and (24)

$$p_M(x,y;t)(p_M(x,x;t)p_M(y,y;t))^{1/2}g(t).$$
(55)
Hence

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}p_M(x,x;t)𝑑x& ={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _M}p_M^2(x,y;t/2)𝑑x𝑑y\hfill \\ & g(t/2){\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _M}p_M(x,y;t/2)𝑑x𝑑yg(t/2)Q_M(t/2)<\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (56)
## 4 Proof of Theorem 7

The proof of Theorem 7 is based on a couple of lemmas which are of independent interest, and which are related to results on the expected life time of $`h`$-conditioned Brownian motion .

###### Lemma 10.

Let $`M_0`$ be an open set in $`^m,m3`$. Suppose that for all $`\epsilon >0`$

$$\mathrm{vol}(\{xM_0:\delta (x)>\epsilon \})<\mathrm{}.$$
(57)
Let $`\{f_\epsilon :\epsilon >0\}`$ be as in the proof of Theorem 1. Then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }w=f_\epsilon ,$$
(58)
has a unique, weak, bounded and non-negative solution $`w_\epsilon `$ with

$$w_\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\frac{m}{4\pi (m2)}\mathrm{vol}\{xM:\delta (x)>\epsilon \}^{2/m}.$$
(59)
###### Proof.

Put

$$M_\epsilon =\{xM:\delta (x)>\epsilon \}.$$
(60)
Since $`\delta \rho `$, (69) implies that $`\underset{M}{}\delta ^2(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$. Then the last three inequalities in the right hand side of (34) for $`\beta =2`$ imply $`\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon )<\mathrm{}`$ for $`\epsilon >0`$.

Since $`(\mathrm{\Delta })^1`$ has integral kernel

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑t$$
(61)
we have that

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_\epsilon (x)& ={\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑tf_\epsilon (y)𝑑y\hfill \\ & ={\displaystyle _{M_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑tf_\epsilon (y)𝑑y\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle _{M_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑t𝑑y.\hfill \end{array}`$ (62)
By positivity of the Dirichlet heat Kernel

$$_{M_\epsilon }p_M(x,y;t)𝑑y_Mp_M(x,y;t)𝑑y1.$$
(63)
Hence for $`t_0>0`$ we have by Fubini’s theorem

$$_{M_\epsilon }_0^{t_0}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑t𝑑yt_0.$$
(64)
Moreover, by monotonicity of the Dirichlet heat Kernel

$$p_M(x,y;t)(4\pi t)^{m/2}.$$
(65)
Hence for $`m3`$

$$_{M_\epsilon }_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑t𝑑y(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{2}{m2}t_0^{1m/2}\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon ).$$
(66)
By (64) and (66) we conclude that

$$w_\epsilon (x)t_0+(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{2}{m2}t_0^{1m/2}\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon ).$$
(67)
We minimize the right hand side of (67) by setting

$$t_0=(4\pi )^1(\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon ))^{2/m},$$
(68)
and (59) now follows. ∎

###### Lemma 11.

Let $`M_0`$ be an open set in $`^2`$. Suppose that

$$_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}.$$
(69)
Let $`\{f_\epsilon :\epsilon >0\}`$ be as in the Proof of Theorem 1. Then (58) has a unique, weak, bounded and non-negative solution $`w_\epsilon `$ with

$$w_\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{8}{\pi }\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon )_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.$$
(70)
###### Proof.

Let

$$\lambda =\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{spec}(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(71)
Then by (15) we have for any smooth function $`u`$ with compact support in $`M_0`$, and with $`u_2=1`$,

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1=u_2^2& \left({\displaystyle _M}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u(x)}{\rho (x)}}\right)^2𝑑x{\displaystyle _M}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}\hfill \\ & \left(2{\displaystyle _M}|u(x)|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle _M}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (72)
Taking the infimum over all such $`u`$ we obtain by (69) and (72)

$$\lambda \frac{1}{2}\left(_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^1>0.$$
(73)
To prove Lemma 11 we have by domain monotonicity

$$p_M(x,x;t)e^{t\lambda /2}p_M(x,x;t/2)(2\pi t)^1e^{t\lambda /2},$$
(74)
and hence by (55)

$$p_M(x,y;t)(2\pi t)^1e^{t\lambda /2}.$$
(75)
As in the proof of Lemma 10 we have the estimates (62-64). Estimate (66) is replaced, using (75), by

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _{M_\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑t𝑑y& {\displaystyle _{M_\epsilon }}1𝑑y{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}}(2\pi t)^1e^{t\lambda /2}𝑑t\hfill \\ & =(\pi t_0\lambda )^1\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon ).\hfill \end{array}`$ (76)
By (62-64) and (76)

$$w_\epsilon (x)t_0+(\pi t_0\lambda )^1\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon ).$$
(77)
We minimize the right hand side of (77) by setting

$$t_0=(\mathrm{vol}(M_\epsilon )/(\pi \lambda ))^{1/2}.$$

We then substitute the lower bound for $`\lambda `$ in (73) to obtain (70). ∎

We can now give the proof of Theorem 7. We choose the family
$`\{f_\epsilon :\epsilon >0\}`$ as in the proof of the Theorem 1. Since we have assumed that $`_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$ the support of $`f_\epsilon `$ has finite volume. Since $`0f_\epsilon 1`$ and since $`w_\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ (by Lemmas 10 and 11) we have that $`w_\epsilon f_\epsilon `$ is integrable on $`M`$. By (58), an integration by parts and (15) we conclude that

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}>{\displaystyle _M}w_\epsilon (x)f_\epsilon (x)𝑑x{\displaystyle _M}w_\epsilon (x)\mathrm{\Delta }w_\epsilon (x)𝑑x& ={\displaystyle _M}|w_\epsilon (x)|^2𝑑x\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}{\displaystyle _M}w_\epsilon ^2(x)\rho ^2(x)𝑑x.\hfill \end{array}`$ (78)
By assumption $`_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x<\mathrm{}`$. Hence by Hölder’s inequality

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle _M}w_\epsilon (x)f_\epsilon (x)𝑑x& \left({\displaystyle _M}{\displaystyle \frac{w_\epsilon ^2(x)f_\epsilon ^2(x)}{\rho ^2(x)}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _M}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}\hfill \\ & \left({\displaystyle _M}w_\epsilon ^2(x)\rho ^2(x)𝑑x{\displaystyle _M}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\right)^{1/2}\hfill \end{array}`$ (79)
By (78) and (79)

$$_Mw_\epsilon ^2(x)\rho ^2(x)𝑑x\frac{16}{m^2}_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x,$$
(80)
and by (79) and (80)

$$_Mw_\epsilon (x)f_\epsilon (x)𝑑x\frac{4}{m}_M\rho ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(81)
By the first equality in (62), (81) and Fubini’s theorem

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{M}{}\underset{M}{}p_M(x,y;t)f_\epsilon (x)f_\epsilon (y)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑t\frac{4}{m}\underset{M}{}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(82)
Since $`f_\epsilon `$ is increasing as $`\epsilon 0`$, we have by the monotone convergence theorem

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{M}{}\underset{M}{}p_M(x,y;t)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑t\frac{4}{m}\underset{M}{}\rho ^2(x)𝑑x.$$
(83)
But this is the conclusion of Theorem 7 by definition (22). ∎


text:
# Uniform semiclassical approximations on a topologically non- trivial configuration space: The hydrogen atom in an electric field

## 1 Introduction

Periodic-orbit theory Gutzwiller90 ; Brack97  and, as a variant for atomic photo-absorption spectra, closed-orbit theory Du88 ; Bogomolny89  have proved to be the most powerful tools available for a semiclassical interpretation of quantum mechanical spectra. Closed-orbit theory provides a semiclassical approximation to the quantum response function

$$g(E)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{|i|D|n|^2}{EE_n+\mathrm{i}ϵ},$$
(1)
which involves the energy eigenvalues $`E_n`$ and the dipole matrix elements $`i|D|n`$ connecting the excited states $`n`$ to the initial state $`i`$. Semiclassically, the response function splits into a smooth part and an oscillatory part of the form

$$g^{\mathrm{osc}}(E)=\underset{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}{}𝒜_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}(E)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}(E)/\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
where the sum extends over all classical closed orbits starting from the nucleus and returning to it after having been deflected by the external fields. $`S_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}`$ is the classical action of the closed orbit. The precise form of the recurrence amplitude $`𝒜_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}`$ depends on the geometry of the external field configuration, but it can in any case be calculated from classical properties of the closed orbit. Periodic-orbit theory, which can be applied to any quantum system possessing a classical counterpart, represents the quantum density of states as a sum over the classical periodic orbits in complete analogy with (2).

Both variants of the semiclassical theory share the problem that the semiclassical amplitudes $`𝒜_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{o}.}`$ diverge when the corresponding classical orbits undergo a bifurcation. This failure occurs because close to a bifurcation the classical orbits cannot be regarded as isolated in phase space, as the simple semiclassical expansion (2) assumes. It can be remedied if the individual contributions of the bifurcating orbits to the closed-orbit sum (2) are replaced with a uniform approximation that describes their collective contribution Ozorio87 ; Sieber96 ; Schomerus97b ; Sieber98 . For the generic codimension-one bifurcations of periodic orbits Sieber96 ; Schomerus97b ; Sieber98  as well as closed orbits Bartsch02 ; Bartsch03b , uniform approximations are available in the literature. Typically, bifurcations of higher codimensions are not encountered classically because they split into sequences of codimension-one bifurcations upon an arbitrarily small perturbation. Semiclassically, however, these sequences must be described collectively by a single uniform approximation if the individual bifurcations are sufficiently close Main97a ; Schomerus97a ; Main98a ; Schomerus98 . It can thus be necessary in practice to construct uniform approximations for bifurcation scenarios that are much more complicated than the elementary bifurcations of codimension one.

The crucial step in the derivation of a uniform approximation Sieber98 ; Bartsch02 ; Bartsch03b ; Main97a  is the choice of a normal form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)`$ describing the bifurcation scenario. Its stationary points, i.e. the solutions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)/x=0`$, must be in one-to-one correspondence with the classical closed orbits. In addition, as the parameter $`a`$ is varied, the stationary points must collide and change from real to complex in accordance with the closed-orbit bifurcations. Once a suitable normal form is known, the uniform approximation assumes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=I(a)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_0(E)/\mathrm{}},$$
(3)
where

$$I(a)=𝑑xp(x)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)}$$
(4)
and the normal form parameter $`a`$, the action $`S_0`$ and the unknown function $`p(x)`$ are determined as functions of the energy $`E`$ such that the uniform approximation asymptotically reproduces the closed-orbit formula (2) for isolated orbits if the distance from the bifurcation is large.

Usually, the choices of $`a`$ and $`S_0`$ are unique. By contrast, the asymptotic condition fixes the values of the amplitude function $`p(x)`$ only at the stationary points of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$, so that there remains considerable freedom in its choice. Customarily, a low-order polynomial that interpolates between the given values is chosen. This decision can be justified by observing that a uniform approximation is needed only in the vicinity of the bifurcation, where the stationary points of the normal form are close. Since, in the spirit of the stationary-phase approximation, only the neighbourhood of the stationary points of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ contributes to the integral (4), a Taylor series approximation that is accurate in that region can be expected to be appropriate.

So far, the configuration space of a uniform approximation, i.e. the domain of the normal form variable $`x`$ and the range of the integral (4) could always be chosen to be a one- or multidimensional Euclidean space. In this paper, we describe an example where this is impossible because for topological reasons the bifurcating orbits cannot be represented as stationary points of a function defined on a Euclidean space. This result is surprising because uniform approximations, as well as the underlying normal forms, are needed to describe closely spaced orbits and bifurcations, and in this sense are local constructions. The topology of the configuration space, on the other hand, reflects its global characteristics. The necessity to base a uniform approximation on a configuration space of a suitable topology thus involves a subtle interplay between local and global aspects of the classical phase space structure. We demonstrate that the established techniques for the construction of uniform approximations are, in principle, applicable to uniform approximations on a topologically non-trivial configuration space, but that additional complications arise when non-local aspects of the dynamics have to be dealt with.

The bifurcation scenario to be discussed arises, e.g., in the hydrogen atom in an electric field. This is an integrable system, and photo-absorption spectra can in principle be obtained by the quantization of classical tori Kon97 ; Kon98 . However, while the torus quantization is restricted to integrable systems, closed-orbit theory is intended to be applicable to arbitrary atomic systems exhibiting either regular, chaotic, or mixed classical behaviour. Therefore, it is of vital interest to see how it can be applied to this apparently simple example. It turns out that to a closed-orbit theory approach the hydrogen atom in an electric field poses the same difficulties in principle as a generic mixed system because the closed orbits undergo plenty of bifurcations. We thus start with a description of the closed orbits in that system in section 2. In section 3 we focus on the bifurcations at low energies and show that in this spectral region a uniform approximation is required that goes beyond the known uniform approximation for the Stark system Gao97 ; Shaw98a ; Shaw98b ; Bartsch02a ; Bartsch03d . This uniform approximation is constructed in section 4, where we also demonstrate that it must rely on a sphere instead of a Euclidean plane as its configuration space. It is compared with the previous uniform approximation, and in section 5 its merits are assessed by the calculation of semiclassical photo-absorption spectra.

## 2 Closed orbits

The bifurcations of closed orbits in the hydrogen atom in an electric field follow a simple scheme that was described by Gao and Delos Gao94 . Complementary to that work, we demonstrated in a recent publication Bartsch03d  that to a large extent the closed orbits and their parameters can be computed analytically. We will now summarize the essential features of the bifurcation scenario. For details, the reader is referred to Bartsch03d .

If we assume the electric field $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ to be directed along the $`z`$-axis, the Hamiltonian describing the motion of the atomic electron reads, in atomic units,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{p}^2\frac{1}{r}+Fz,$$
(5)
where $`r^2=x^2+y^2+z^2`$. It can be simplified by means of its scaling properties: If the coordinates and momenta are scaled according to $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{x}}=F^{1/2}\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{p}}=F^{1/4}\stackrel{}{p}`$, the classical dynamics is found not to depend on the energy $`E`$ and the electric field strength $`F`$ separately, but only on the scaled energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}=F^{1/2}E`$.

The qualitative simplicity of the bifurcation scenario is due to the well-known fact Born25 ; LandauI  that the Hamiltonian (5) is separable in semiparabolic coordinates $`\rho _1`$, $`\rho _2`$, $`\phi `$, where

$$\rho _1=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{z}},\rho _2=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}+\stackrel{~}{z}},$$
(6)
and $`\phi `$ is the azimuth angle around the electric field axis. The angular coordinate $`\phi `$ is ignorable, so that its conjugate momentum, the angular momentum $`L_z`$ around the field axis, is conserved. For closed orbits, which pass through the nucleus, $`L_z=0`$. The dynamics of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ is then given by the equations of motion

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \rho _1^2=\rho _1^4+2E\rho _1^2+c_1,\\ \hfill \rho _2^2=\rho _2^4+2E\rho _2^2+c_2,\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`E`$ is the energy and the separation constants $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ describe the distribution of energy between the $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ degrees of freedom. They are restricted by

$$c_1+c_2=4.$$
(8)
For real orbits the separation constants are constrained to the interval

$$0c_j4.$$
(9)
If they fail to meet (9), either $`\rho _1`$ or $`\rho _2`$ assumes complex values, so that a closed “ghost” orbit in the complexified phase space is obtained.

In the simplest cases, one of the $`\rho _j`$ vanishes identically. The electron then moves along the electric field axis. If $`c_1=0`$, the downhill coordinate $`\rho _1`$ is zero. The electron leaves the nucleus in the uphill direction, i.e. in the direction of the electric field, until it is turned around by the joint action of the Coulomb and external fields and returns to the nucleus. After the first return, the uphill orbit is repeated periodically. As the external field provides an arbitrarily high deflecting potential, the uphill orbit is closed at all energies.

The second case of axial motion is obtained if $`c_1=4`$, which corresponds to $`\rho _20`$ and thus to a downhill motion opposite to the direction of the electric field. The downhill orbit closes only if the scaled energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is less than the scaled saddle point energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}=2`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{E}>\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}`$, the electron escapes to infinity and the orbit does not close. At scaled energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}<\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}`$, the downhill orbit, as the uphill orbit, is repeated periodically.

In general, the motion of the electron will not be directed along the electric field axis and will consist of a superposition of the downhill and uphill motions. In this case a closed orbit is obtained if the downhill and uphill motions close at the same time after $`k`$ oscillations in the downhill direction and $`l`$ oscillations in the uphill direction. A closed orbit characterized by integer repetition number $`(k,l)`$ must satisfy Bartsch03d

$$k\rho _{}𝒦(m_1)=l\rho _+𝒦(m_2)$$
(10)
with

$`\rho _+`$ $`=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}^2c_1}},`$ $`m_1`$ $`=+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{\rho _+^4}},`$ (11)
$`\rho _{}`$ $`=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}+\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{E}^2+c_2}},`$ $`m_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{c_2}{\rho _{}^4}}`$
and $`𝒦(m)`$ denoting the complete elliptic integral of the first kind Abramowitz .

For given repetition numbers $`k,l`$ and scaled energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, if we use that $`c_2=4c_1`$ by (8), equation (10) can be solved for the separation parameter $`c_1`$ that specifies the initial conditions of the orbit. A solution only exists if $`l>k`$. Once $`c_1`$ is known, all orbital parameters relevant to closed-orbit theory can be found analytically. In particular, the classical action of the closed orbit is Bartsch03d

$$S=\frac{2}{3}k\rho _+^3I(m_1)\frac{2}{3}l\rho _{}^3I(m_2)$$
(12)
with

$$I(m)=(m1)𝒦(m)+(m+1)(m)$$
(13)
and the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kinds $`𝒦(m)`$ and $`(m)`$ Abramowitz . It is real for both real and ghost orbits.

If the repetition numbers $`k`$ and $`l`$ are fixed, for sufficiently low scaled energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ the value of the separation constant $`c_1`$ obtained from (10) is greater than 4, so that the $`(k,l)`$-orbit is a ghost. As $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ increases, $`c_1`$ decreases monotonically. At the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}`$ where $`c_1=4`$, the $`(k,l)`$-orbit becomes real. It is generated (as a real orbit) in a bifurcation off the $`k`$-th repetition of the downhill orbit, which is characterized by $`c_1=4`$. As $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is further increased, the orbit moves away from the downhill orbit and approaches the uphill orbit. At the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}`$ where $`c_1=0`$, the orbit $`(k,l)`$ collides with the $`l`$-th repetition of the uphill orbit and is destroyed. At $`\stackrel{~}{E}>\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}`$ the orbit is a ghost again.

The bifurcation energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{gen}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}`$ can be determined from (10) if $`c_1=4`$ is prescribed for the generation of an orbit, or $`c_1=0`$ for its destruction. For these cases, equation (10) simplifies to

$$\frac{l}{k}=\frac{2^{3/2}}{\pi \sqrt{1+\sqrt{1ϵ}}}𝒦\left(\frac{ϵ}{\left(1+\sqrt{1ϵ}\right)^2}\right)$$
(14)
in terms of the dimensionless variable $`ϵ=4/\stackrel{~}{E}^2=(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}/\stackrel{~}{E})^2`$ for the generation of the $`(k,l)`$ orbit and

$$\frac{k}{l}=\frac{2^{3/2}}{\pi \sqrt{1+\sqrt{1+ϵ}}}𝒦\left(\frac{ϵ}{\left(1+\sqrt{1+ϵ}\right)^2}\right)$$
(15)
for its destruction.

## 3 Bifurcations at low energies

From the discussion of the closed orbit bifurcations in the preceding section it is evident that there is only a single elementary bifurcation scenario in the hydrogen atom in an electric field, viz. a non-axial orbit being born or destroyed in a collision with an axial orbit. Uniform semiclassical approximations describing this type of bifurcation have been derived by several authors Gao97 ; Shaw98a ; Shaw98b ; Bartsch03d . However, they are only applicable if the individual bifurcations are sufficiently isolated. If they are close, more complicated uniform approximations that provide a collective description of several bifurcations must be found. Thus, there are two spectral regions where the construction of uniform approximations poses a particular challenge:

First, as the Stark saddle energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}=2`$ is approached from below, the downhill orbit undergoes infinitely many bifurcations in a finite energy interval before it is destroyed. The periods of the closed orbits created in this way, as the period of the downhill orbit itself, grow arbitrarily large. The actions, however, remain finite, so that the action differences between the orbits stemming from two successive bifurcations become arbitrarily small. Similar cascades of isochronous bifurcations have been found, e.g., in the diamagnetic Kepler problem Wintgen87  and in Hénon-Heiles type potentials Brack01 . Their uniformization remains an open problem. A detailed discussion of this cascade in the Stark system must be referred to future work.

Second, non-axial orbits with winding ratios $`z=l/k`$ close to one are created and destroyed at low energies, and their generation and destruction are closely spaced (see figure 1). Therefore, at low energies a uniform approximation describing both the creation of a non-axial orbit from the downhill orbit and its destruction at the uphill orbit is required. It will be derived in section 4. As a prerequisite, to quantitatively assess its necessity, the asymptotic behaviour of closed-orbit bifurcations at low energies will be investigated in detail in this section.

Bifurcation energies can be determined from equations (14) and (15). As a winding ratio $`z=l/k`$ close to one corresponds to low bifurcation energies and small values of the parameter $`ϵ=(\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{S}/\stackrel{~}{E})^2`$, approximate bifurcation energies can be obtained by expanding the right hand sides of (14) and (15) in a Taylor series around $`ϵ=0`$. We then find the generation and destruction energies

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{gen}}& =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{z1}}\frac{35}{16\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{z1}+𝒪\left(z1\right)^{3/2},\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}& =\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{z1}}+\frac{23}{16\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{z1}+𝒪\left(z1\right)^{3/2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
for an orbit with a given rational $`z`$, so that the energy difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}=\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{gen}}=\frac{29}{8\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{z1}+𝒪\left(z1\right)^{3/2}$$
(17)
indeed vanishes as $`z1`$.

However, the crucial parameter determining whether or not the bifurcations can be regarded as isolated is not the difference of the bifurcation energies, but rather the action differences between the non-axial orbit and the two axial orbits. For the simple uniform approximation to be applicable, at any energy at least one of the two action differences must be large. In other words (see figure 2), at the critical energy where the actions of the downhill and the uphill orbits are equal, the difference between their action and the action of the non-axial orbit must be large.

To begin with, the actions of the downhill and uphill orbits are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{S}_{\begin{array}{c}\text{down}\\ \text{up}\end{array}}=& \sqrt{2}\pi (\stackrel{~}{E})^{1/2}\pm \frac{3\pi }{4\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{E})^{5/2}\hfill \\ & +\frac{35\pi }{32\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{E})^{9/2}\pm \frac{1155\pi }{512\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{E})^{13/2}\hfill \\ & +\frac{45045\pi }{8192\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{E})^{17/2}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{E})^{19/2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
The critical energy for the orbit $`(k,l)`$ is characterized by the condition $`kS_{\mathrm{down}}=lS_{\mathrm{up}}`$, so that $`S_{\mathrm{down}}/S_{\mathrm{up}}=z`$. We solve this equation for the critical energy

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{crit}}=& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2\sqrt{z1}}\frac{\sqrt{3}}{8}\sqrt{z1}\frac{69\sqrt{3}}{64}(z1)^{3/2}\hfill \\ & +\frac{209\sqrt{3}}{256}(z1)^{5/2}+𝒪(z1)^{7/2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
As expected, the critical energy lies between the two bifurcation energies. If it is substituted into (18), the critical action of the axial orbits

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{ax}}=& k\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{down}}=l\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{up}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{2\pi k}{3^{1/4}}(z1)^{1/4}+\frac{3\pi k}{43^{1/4}}(z1)^{5/4}\hfill \\ & \frac{455\pi k}{5763^{1/4}}(z1)^{9/4}+𝒪(z1)^{13/4}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
is obtained.

To determine the critical action of the non-axial orbit, the separation parameter $`c_1`$ for this orbit at the critical energy must be calculated from equation (10), which can be rewritten as

$$\frac{\rho _{}𝒦(m_1)}{\rho _+𝒦(m_2)}z=0.$$
(21)
Substituting the critical energy (19) into (21), we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\rho _{}𝒦(m_1)}{\rho _+𝒦(m_2)}z=\frac{29(c_12)}{24}(z1)^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{219c_1^2876c_1+526}{144}(z1)^3\hfill \\ & +\frac{17951c_1^3107986c_1^2+188112c_176688}{9216}(z1)^4\hfill \\ & +𝒪(z1)^5.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
We now make a power series ansatz for $`c_1`$, insert it into (22) and solve for the coefficients to find

$$c_1=2+\frac{175}{87}(z1)\frac{175}{174}(z1)^2+𝒪(z1)^3.$$
(23)
From the knowledge of the critical energy and the separation parameter, the critical action of the non-axial orbit is found to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{non}}=& \frac{2\pi k}{3^{1/4}}(z1)^{1/4}+\frac{3\pi k}{43^{1/4}}(z1)^{5/4}\hfill \\ & \frac{1151\pi k}{5763^{1/4}}(z1)^{9/4}+𝒪(z1)^{13/4}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
This result agrees with (20) in leading and next-to-leading order. The critical action difference is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{29\pi q}{243^{1/4}}(z1)^{5/4}+𝒪(z1)^{9/4}$$
(25)
with $`q=lk`$. If the critical action difference is written as a function of the critical energy given by (19), it reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{29\pi q}{32\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{crit}})^{5/2}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{crit}})^{7/2}.$$
(26)
Note that due to delicate cancellations occurring during the calculation, all terms of the series expansions given above are needed to obtain the leading-order result (26). Due to these cancellations, the critical action difference is proportional to a high power of the energy, so that it vanishes fast at low energies.

Figure 3 shows numerically computed critical action differences as a function of the pertinent critical energies for $`q=1`$. The leading-order result (26) is indicated by the solid line. It is accurate even at fairly high energies.

## 4 Uniform approximation on the sphere

In the hydrogen atom in an electric field, the bifurcation scenarios are largely shaped by the rotational symmetry around the electric field axis: Due to that symmetry, all non-axial orbits occur in one-parameter families, whereas away from a bifurcation the axial orbits are isolated. A normal form describing the bifurcation must also possess a rotational symmetry. Therefore, its configuration space must be at least two-dimensional. It can be chosen to be defined on a Euclidean plane $`(x,y)`$ and reads Gao97 ; Shaw98a ; Shaw98b ; Bartsch03d

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x,y)=\frac{1}{4}r^4\frac{1}{2}ar^2$$
(27)
with a real parameter $`a`$ and $`r^2=x^2+y^2`$ the distance from the symmetry centre. Apart from the trivial stationary point at the origin, (27) has a ring of stationary points at $`r=\sqrt{a}`$, which is real if $`a>0`$ and imaginary if $`a<0`$. Thus, (27) describes a family of non-axial real orbits present for $`a>0`$ which then contracts onto an axial orbit and becomes a family of ghost orbits. It therefore reproduces the elementary bifurcation described in section 2.

In terms of the actions $`S_{\mathrm{ax}},S_{\mathrm{non}}`$ and semiclassical amplitudes $`𝒜_{\mathrm{ax}}`$, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}`$ of the axial and non-axial orbits, respectively, we found the uniform approximation (3) corresponding to the normal form (27) to be Bartsch03d

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=\left[\frac{𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}}{(1+\mathrm{i})}I_0+\frac{1}{a}\left(a𝒜_{\mathrm{ax}}+\frac{1+\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}\right)\right]\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{ax}}},$$
(28)
where

$$a=\pm 2\sqrt{S_{\mathrm{ax}}S_{\mathrm{non}}}$$
(29)
and

$$I_0=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}a^2/4}\left[\frac{1+\mathrm{i}}{2}C\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\right)\mathrm{i}S\left(\frac{a}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\right)\right]$$
(30)
with the Fresnel integrals Abramowitz

$$C(x)=_0^x\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}t^2\right)𝑑t,S(x)=_0^x\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}t^2\right)𝑑t.$$
(31)
We saw in section 3 that it is essential at low energies to construct a uniform approximation capable of simultaneously describing both bifurcations of a non-axial orbit. As the normal form (27) describes only one axial orbit and a non-axial orbit bifurcating out of it, the uniform approximation (28) is unsuitable for this purpose.

A normal form describing both the generation and the destruction of a non-axial orbit must possess two isolated stationary points corresponding to the uphill and downhill orbits and a ring of stationary points related to the family of non-axial orbits. As the normal form parameters are varied, the ring must branch off the first isolated stationary point and later contract onto the second. This is impossible if the normal form is to be defined in a plane, but it is easily achieved if the normal form is based on a sphere. It can then be chosen in such a way that it has isolated stationary points at the poles and a ring of stationary points moving from one pole to the other. A normal form satisfying these requirements is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}(\vartheta )=b(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2.$$
(32)
It is given in terms of the polar angle $`\vartheta `$ on the sphere. Due to the rotational symmetry, it is independent of the azimuth angle $`\phi `$, and it contains two real parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ needed to match the two action differences between the three closed orbits.

If, in the vicinity of the poles, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}`$ is expanded in terms of the distance $`\rho =\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$ from the polar axis, it reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}=b(a1)^2+ba\left(\frac{1}{4}\rho ^4+\frac{a1}{a}\rho ^2\right)+𝒪\left(\rho ^6\right)$$
(33)
around $`\vartheta =0`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}=b(a+1)^2ba\left(\frac{1}{4}\rho ^4+\frac{a+1}{a}\rho ^2\right)+𝒪\left(\rho ^6\right)$$
(34)
around $`\vartheta =\pi `$, so that in both cases (32) reproduces the simpler normal form (27) up to re-scaling. From the coefficients of the quadratic terms in (33) and (34) it is apparent that a ring of stationary points bifurcates off $`\vartheta =0`$ at $`a=1`$, and off $`\vartheta =\pi `$ at $`a=1`$.

These conclusions are confirmed by a discussion of the full normal form (32). The ring of stationary points is located at the polar angle $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}=a.$$
(35)
This angle qualitatively corresponds to the starting and returning angle of the non-axial orbit in that it describes its motion from the downhill orbit at $`\vartheta =0`$ to the uphill orbit at $`\vartheta =\pi `$. Quantitatively, $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$ cannot directly be identified with the classical angle $`\vartheta `$ because the energy-dependence of the normal form parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ is fixed by matching the action differences rather than the angles. If $`1a1`$, the angle $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$ defined by (35) is real. If $`a>1`$, $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$ is purely imaginary, corresponding to a ghost orbit at energies below $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{gen}}`$. For $`a<1`$, $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$ is of the form $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}=\pi +\mathrm{i}\alpha `$, as is characteristic of a ghost orbit at energies higher than $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{dest}}`$.

The bifurcation scenario described by the normal form (32) is summarized in figure 4. For $`b=1`$, the stationary values of (32), the complex polar angles $`\vartheta `$ where stationary points occur, and the second derivative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}`$ with respect to $`\vartheta `$ are shown as functions of $`a`$. Due to the rotational symmetry, the latter is well defined even at the poles.

Figure 4 should be compared to figure 5, which displays the orbital data pertinent to an actual bifurcation scenario. The qualitative agreement between figure 4 and figure 5 is obvious, so that (32) can be seen to describe the bifurcations correctly. (Note that $`a`$ is a decreasing function of $`E`$.)

As the normal form (32) has been chosen such as to vanish at the non-axial stationary point $`\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}`$, the pertinent uniform approximation reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=I(a,b)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{non}}(E)},$$
(36)
where $`S_{\mathrm{non}}(E)`$ denotes the action of the non-axial orbit and

$$I(a,b)=_0^\pi 𝑑\vartheta _0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi p(\vartheta )\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}(\vartheta )}$$
(37)
with an amplitude function $`p(\vartheta )`$ to be specified below.

The connection with closed-orbit theory is established with the help of a stationary-phase approximation to the integral (37). If $`|a|>1`$, the only real stationary points of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{a,b}`$ are located at the poles, and the asymptotic approximation to (36) reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(E)& \frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b(1a)}p(0)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1a)^2+\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{non}}}\hfill \\ & \frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b(1+a)}p(\pi )\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1+a)^2+\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{non}}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
If $`|a|<1`$, the contribution

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)|_{\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}}=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}}p(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}})\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{non}}}$$
(39)
has to be added to (38). These asymptotic expressions should reproduce the simple closed-orbit theory formulae

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{down}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{down}}}+𝒜_{\mathrm{up}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{up}}}$$
(40)
and

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_{\mathrm{non}}},$$
(41)
respectively. We thus obtain the conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{down}}& =S_{\mathrm{down}}S_{\mathrm{non}}=b(1a)^2,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{up}}& =S_{\mathrm{up}}S_{\mathrm{non}}=b(1+a)^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜_{\mathrm{down}}=\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b(1a)}p(0),𝒜_{\mathrm{up}}=\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b(1+a)}p(\pi ),\\ 𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}}p(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}})\end{array}$$
(43)
connecting the actions and amplitudes of the downhill, uphill and non-axial orbits to the normal form parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ and to the values of the amplitude function $`p(\vartheta )`$.

Equation (42) can be solved for the normal form parameters to yield

$$a=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{up}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{down}}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{up}}}\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{down}}}}$$
(44)
and

$$b=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{down}}}{(1a)^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{up}}}{(1+a)^2},$$
(45)
where the upper or lower sign has to be chosen if the non-axial orbit is real or complex, respectively.

If we set $`p(\vartheta )`$ equal to a constant in (43), we obtain the constraints

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1+\mathrm{i}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{b}{2\pi }}𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}& =b(1a)𝒜_{\mathrm{down}}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1+\mathrm{i}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{b}{2\pi }}𝒜_{\mathrm{non}}& =b(1+a)𝒜_{\mathrm{up}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
the amplitudes must satisfy close to the individual bifurcations. Numerically, (46) can be verified to hold in the neighbourhood of the bifurcations.

To obtain a complete uniform approximation, we make the ansatz

$$p(\vartheta )=p_0+p_1(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)+p_2(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2$$
(47)
for the amplitude function. The coefficients are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}p_0=p(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}}),\\ p_1=\frac{(1+a)^2p(0)4ap(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}})(1a)^2p(\pi )}{2(1a^2)},\\ p_2=\frac{(1+a)p(0)2p(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}})+(1a)p(\pi )}{2(1a^2)}\end{array}$$
(48)
with the values $`p(0)`$, $`p(\pi )`$ and $`p(\vartheta _{\mathrm{non}})`$ determined from (43). Due to (46), all coefficients are finite everywhere.

With this choice, the uniform approximation (36) reads

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(E)=p_0I_0+p_1I_1+p_2I_2$$
(49)
with the integrals

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_0& =_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi _0^\pi 𝑑\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2}\hfill \\ & =2\pi \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2b}}(C\left(\sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi }}(1a)\right)+\mathrm{i}S\left(\sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi }}(1a)\right)\hfill \\ & +C\left(\sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi }}(1+a)\right)+\mathrm{i}S\left(\sqrt{\frac{2b}{\pi }}(1+a)\right))\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
in terms of the Fresnel integrals (31),

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_1& =_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi _0^\pi 𝑑\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1+a)^2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1a)^2}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_2& =_0^{2\pi }𝑑\phi _0^\pi 𝑑\vartheta \mathrm{sin}\vartheta (\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{i}\frac{d}{db}I_0\hfill \\ & =\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}}{b}\left((1a)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1a)^2}+(1+a)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}b(1+a)^2}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2b}I_0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
All integrals are finite as they stand, they do not require any regularization. This somewhat atypical behaviour can be traced back to the fact that the domain of integration in this case is compact.

As an example, figure 6 compares the uniform approximation (49) for the orbit (20,21) and three different electric field strengths to the isolated-orbits approximation and to the uniform approximation (28) for isolated bifurcations. For the latter, the non-axial orbit and the axial orbit for which the action difference is smaller are combined into the uniform approximation, whereas the second axial orbit is treated as isolated.

For the high electric field strength $`F=10^2`$ in figure 6(a), in the energy range shown none of the uniform approximations reaches the asymptotic region where they agree with the isolated-orbits approximation on either side of the bifurcations. Between the two bifurcations, the isolated-bifurcations approximation appears just to arrive at its asymptotic behaviour before the second bifurcation is felt. The behaviour of the uniform approximation on the sphere is completely different there.

If the field strength is decreased, both uniform approximations reach their asymptotic regions faster. For $`F=10^6`$, they approach the isolated-orbits approximation at roughly equal pace on both sides of the bifurcations. Between the bifurcations, the isolated-bifurcations approximation now clearly attains its asymptotic behaviour, whereas the uniform approximation on the sphere exhibits qualitatively similar behaviour, but differs significantly from the other two in quantitative terms. It requires the even lower field strength of $`F=10^{10}`$ used in figure 6(c) until both uniform approximations agree with the isolated-orbits result in the region between the bifurcations.

The uniform approximation on the sphere was constructed because in the energy region between the bifurcations the isolated-bifurcations approximation must fail for low energies and high field strengths. However, it turns out to reach its asymptotic agreement with the isolated-orbits results considerably more slowly than the isolated-bifurcations approximation. In cases where the latter reproduces the isolated-orbits results between the bifurcations, of course, no further uniformization is required.

## 5 Semiclassical Stark spectra

More information on the virtue of the uniform approximation on the sphere can be obtained from a calculation of actual semiclassical spectra. To this end we calculated semiclassical photo-absorption spectra for the hydrogen atom in an electric field based on closed-orbit theory and including uniform approximations. To low-resolution, a semiclassical spectrum can be obtained if the contributions of orbits up to a maximum period $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are included in the closed-orbit sum (2).

We will present results for the photoexcitation of the $`1s`$ ground state of the hydrogen atom in an electric field of strength $`F=10^8\mathrm{a}.\mathrm{u}.\widehat{=}51.4\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}`$. The exciting photon is assumed to be linearly polarized along the field axis. In the closed-orbit summation, the uniform approximation (49) based on the sphere will be used if the action differences between a non-axial orbit and both the downhill and uphill orbits it bifurcates out of are smaller than $`2\pi `$. In the other cases, we revert to the simple uniform approximation (28) or the isolated-orbits approximation, as appropriate.

Figure 7 shows a comparison between the semiclassical spectra obtained from the simple uniform approximation only (figure 7(a)), the closed-orbit summation with the uniform approximation based on the sphere (figure 7(b)), and an appropriately smoothed quantum spectrum (figure 7(c)). Note that only the oscillatory part of the semiclassical spectra is plotted, so that the base line is slightly shifted away from zero. This shift is absent in the quantum spectrum.

It has already been found in Bartsch03d  that, if only the simple uniform approximation (3) is used, the spectral lines close to the centres of the $`n`$-manifolds tend to have considerable strengths although they are negligibly weak in the quantum spectrum. If the uniform approximation on the sphere is used, on the one hand the line strengths develop a second maximum at the centre of a manifold. On the other hand, however, the absolute intensity of the central lines is considerably reduced, so that the overall intensity distribution within an $`n`$-manifold is reproduced much better than with the isolated-bifurcations approximation only.

These observations can be confirmed if one of the $`n`$-manifolds is viewed in more detail. Figure 8 compares the low-resolution semiclassical spectra of the manifold $`n=23`$, which is the lowest $`n`$-manifold included in the calculation, to the quantum spectrum. In the spectrum shown in figure 8(a), which uses the simple uniform approximation (28) only, the lines at the edges of the manifold are the strongest, and the line strengths decrease gently toward the centre. The line shapes are slightly asymmetric, although the asymmetry is weaker than at higher energies Bartsch03d . In the spectrum obtained using the uniform approximation on the sphere (figure 8(b)), the strong outer lines of the manifold are virtually identical to those in the previous spectrum, but the central lines are distorted. On the other hand, again, as the central lines are weaker in the spectrum of figure 8(b) than in figure 8(a), the distribution of intensities within the manifold is described more accurately if the uniform approximation on the sphere is used.

In addition to the calculation of low-resolution semiclassical spectra, we can use the techniques of Bartsch02a ; Bartsch03d  to compute individual spectral lines. The results do not depend strongly on the choice of the uniform approximations; the high-resolution spectra obtained from the spectrum in figure 7(b) which use the uniform approximation on the sphere (see Bartsch02 ) are virtually identical to those presented in Bartsch03d  that apply the simple uniform approximation (figure 7(a)) only.

The uniform approximation on the sphere, although it satisfies the correct asymptotic conditions and is well adapted to the bifurcation scenario qualitatively, in quantitative terms does not yield absolutely precise results. The problem is probably connected to the non-trivial spherical topology of the configuration space of the uniform approximation: The construction of uniform approximations of the type (3) relies on the assumption that the unknown phase function in the diffraction integral can be mapped to a certain standard form by a suitable coordinate transformation. The fundamental theorems of catastrophe theory Castrigiano93 ; Poston78  guarantee that this is possible locally. In a Cartesian configuration space and close to a bifurcation, all stationary points of the normal form are close to the origin, so that coordinate regions away from the origin can, in the spirit of the stationary-phase approximation, be assumed not to contribute to the diffraction integral. A local mapping of the function in the exponent to the normal form and a local approximation to the amplitude function by means of a Taylor series thus suffice to obtain good results. By contrast, on the spherical configuration space a global approximation to the unknown functions must be sought because the stationary points are distributed across the sphere: There is a stationary point at each pole. In the case at hand, we tried replacing the $`(\mathrm{cos}\vartheta a)^2`$-term in the amplitude function (47) with $`\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$, which also gives a rough approximation to the actual amplitude function. The alteration has no significant effect on the result. The construction of a quantitatively more reliable uniform approximation will presumably require a deeper global understanding of the bifurcation scenarios. It remains a worthwhile challenge for future research to devise an easy-to-apply technique for the construction of uniform approximations that takes full account of the classical phase space topology.

## 6 Conclusion

We have discussed the bifurcations of closed orbits in the hydrogen atom in an electric field. At low scaled energies a uniform semiclassical approximation is required that simultaneously describes both the generation and the destruction of a non-axial orbit. Its construction was carried out. Beyond its significance to the Stark system, it is of interest for reasons of principle because it uses a sphere instead of a Euclidean plane as its configuration space and thus is the first uniform approximation introduced in the literature that relies on a topologically non-trivial configuration space. It could be demonstrated that uniform approximations with a non-Euclidean configuration space can indeed be constructed and allow for the semiclassical calculation of significantly improved photo-absorption spectra of the hydrogen atom in an electric field.


text:
# Anisotropic Relativistic Stellar Models

## I Introduction

Since the pioneering work of Bowers and Liang  there is an extensive literature devoted to the study of anisotropic spherically symmetric static general relativistic configurations. The study of static anisotropic fluid spheres is important for relativistic astrophysics. The theoretical investigations of Ruderman  about more realistic stellar models show that the nuclear matter may be anisotropic at least in certain very high density ranges ($`\rho >10^{15}g/cm^3`$), where the nuclear interactions must be treated relativistically. According to these views in such massive stellar objects the radial pressure may not be equal to the tangential one. No celestial body is composed of purely perfect fluid. Anisotropy in fluid pressure could be introduced by the existence of a solid core or by the presence of type $`3A`$ superfluid , different kinds of phase transitions , pion condensation  or by other physical phenomena. On the scale of galaxies, Binney and Tremaine  have considered anisotropies in spherical galaxies, from a purely Newtonian point of view. Other source of anisotropy, due to the effects of the slow rotation in a star, has been proposed recently by Herrera and Santos .

The mixture of two gases (e.g., monatomic hydrogen, or ionized hydrogen and electrons) can formally be also described as an anisotropic fluid . More generally, when the fluid is composed of two fluids the total energy-momentum tensor is

$$T^{ik}=\left(P_1+\rho _1\right)U^iU^kP_1g^{ik}+\left(P_2+\rho _2\right)W^iW^kP_2g^{ik},$$
(1)
where $`U_iU^i=1`$ and $`W_iW^i=1`$. By means of the transformations

$$U^i=U^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\sqrt{\frac{P_2+\rho _2}{P_1+\rho _1}}W^i\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,W^i=\sqrt{\frac{P_2+\rho _2}{P_1+\rho _1}}U^i\mathrm{sin}\alpha +W^i\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,$$
(2)
the energy momentum tensor (1) can always be cast into the standard form for anisotropic fluids,

$$T^{ik}=\left(\rho +p\right)V^iV^kpg^{ik}+\left(\sigma p\right)\chi ^i\chi ^k,$$
(3)
where $`V^i=U^i/\sqrt{U^iU_i^{}}`$, $`\chi ^i=W^i/\sqrt{W^iW_i^{}}`$, $`\rho =T_{ik}V^iV^k`$, $`p=P_1+P_2`$ and $`\sigma `$ is a complicated function of the densities and pressures of the two fluids .

The starting point in the study of fluid spheres is represented by the interior Schwarzschild solution from which all problems involving spherical symmetry can be modeled. Bowers and Liang  have investigated the possible importance of locally anisotropic equations of state for relativistic fluid spheres by generalizing the equations of hydrostatic equilibrium to include the effects of local anisotropy. Their study shows that anisotropy may have non-negligible effects on such parameters as maximum equilibrium mass and surface redshift. Heintzmann and Hillebrandt  studied fully relativistic, anisotropic neutron star models at high densities by means of several simple assumptions and have shown that for arbitrary large anisotropy there is no limiting mass for neutron stars, but the maximum mass of a neutron star still lies beyond $`34M_{}`$. Hillebrandt and Steinmetz  considered the problem of stability of fully relativistic anisotropic neutron star models. They derived the differential equation for radial pulsations and showed that there exists a static stability criterion similar to the one obtained for isotropic models. Anisotropic fluid sphere configurations have been analyzed, using various Ansatze, in  and -. For static spheres in which the tangential pressure differs from the radial one, Bondi  has studied the link between the surface value of the potential and the highest occurring ratio of the pressure tensor to the local density. Chan, Herrera and Santos  studied in detail the role played by the local pressure anisotropy in the onset of instabilities and they showed that small anisotropies might in principle drastically change the stability of the system. Herrera and Santos  have extended the Jeans instability criterion in Newtonian gravity to systems with anisotropic pressures. Recent reviews on isotropic and anisotropic fluid spheres can be found in -. There are very few interior solutions (both isotropic and anisotropic) of the gravitational field equations satisfying the required general physical conditions inside the star. From $`127`$ published solutions analyzed in  only $`16`$ satisfy all the conditions.

In the present paper we consider a class of exact solutions of the gravitational field equations for an anisotropic fluid sphere, corresponding to a specific choice of the anisotropy parameter. The metric functions can be represented in a closed form in terms of elementary functions. In the isotropic limit we recover the interior solutions previously found first by Buchdahl  and then by Durgapal and Bannerji . Hence our solution can be considered the generalization to the anisotropic case of these solutions. All the physical parameters like the energy density, pressure and metric tensor components are regular inside the anisotropic star, with the speed of sound less than the speed of light. Therefore this solution can give a satisfactory description of realistic astrophysical compact objects like neutron stars. Some explicit numerical models of relativistic anisotropic stars, with a possible astrophysical relevance, are also presented.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present an exact class of solutions for an anisotropic fluid sphere. In Section 3 we present neutron star models with possible astrophysical relevance. The results are summarized and discussed in Section 4.

## II Non-Singular Models for Anisotropic Stars

In standard coordinates $`x^i=(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, the general line element for a static spherically symmetric space-time takes the form

$$ds^2=A^2(r)dt^2V^1(r)dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
(4)
Einstein’s gravitational field equations are (where natural units $`8\pi G=c=1`$ have been used throughout):

$$R_i^k\frac{1}{2}R\delta _i^k=T_i^k.$$
(5)
For an anisotropic spherically symmetric matter distribution the components of the energy-momentum tensor are of the form

$$T_i^k=\left(\rho +p_{}\right)u_iu^kp_{}\delta _i^k+\left(p_rp_{}\right)\chi _i\chi ^k,$$
(6)
where $`u^i`$ is the four-velocity $`Au^i=\delta _0^i`$, $`\chi ^i`$ is the unit spacelike vector in the radial direction $`\chi ^i=\sqrt{V}\delta _1^i`$, $`\rho `$ is the energy density, $`p_r`$ is the pressure in the direction of $`\chi ^i`$ (normal pressure) and $`p_{}`$ is the pressure orthogonal to $`\chi _i`$ (transversal pressure). We assume $`p_rp_{}`$. The case $`p_r=p_{}`$ corresponds to the isotropic fluid sphere. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=p_{}p_r`$ is a measure of the anisotropy and is called the anisotropy factor .

A term $`\frac{2\left(p_{}p_r\right)}{r}`$ appears in the conservation equations $`T_{k;i}^i=0`$, (where a semicolon ; denotes the covariant derivative with respect to the metric), representing a force that is due to the anisotropic nature of the fluid. This force is directed outward when $`p_{}>p_r`$ and inward when $`p_{}<p_r`$. The existence of a repulsive force (in the case $`p_{}>p_r`$) allows the construction of more compact objects when using anisotropic fluid than when using isotropic fluid .

For the metric (4) the gravitational field equations (5) become

$$\rho =\frac{1V}{r^2}\frac{V^{}}{r},p_r=\frac{2A^{}V}{Ar}+\frac{V1}{r^2},$$
(7)
$$V^{}\left(\frac{A^{}}{A}+\frac{1}{r}\right)+2V\left(\frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}\frac{A^{}}{rA}\frac{1}{r^2}\right)=2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{1}{r^2}\right),$$
(8)
where $`=\frac{d}{dr}`$.

It is convenient to introduce the following substitutions :

$$V=12x\eta ,x=r^2,\eta \left(r\right)=\frac{m(r)}{r^3},m(r)=\frac{1}{2}_0^r\xi ^2\rho \left(\xi \right)𝑑\xi .$$
(9)
$`m(r)`$ represents the total mass content of the distribution within the fluid sphere of radius $`r`$. Hence, we can express Eq. (8) in the form

$$\left(12x\eta \right)\frac{d^2A}{dx^2}\left(x\frac{d\eta }{dx}+\eta \right)\frac{dA}{dx}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\eta }{dx}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4x}\right)A=0.$$
(10)
For any physically acceptable stellar models, we require the condition that the energy density is positive and finite at all points inside the fluid spheres. In order to have a monotonic decreasing energy density $`\rho =\frac{2}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\eta r^3\right)`$ inside the star we chose the function $`\eta `$ in the form

$$\eta =\frac{a_0}{2\left(1+\psi \right)},$$
(11)
where $`\psi =c_0x`$ and $`a_0,c_0`$ are non-negative constants. We introduce a new variable $`\lambda `$ by means of the transformation

$$\lambda =\frac{\left(a_0c_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right)}{a_0}=\frac{1}{3}\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right).$$
(12)
We also chose the anisotropy parameter as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{3c_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0\psi }{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(\psi +1\right)^2},$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{3c_0}{a_0}2`$. In the following we assume $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0`$ corresponding to the isotropic limit. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ can be considered, in the present model, as a measure of the anisotropy of the pressure distribution inside the fluid sphere. At the center of the fluid sphere the anisotropy vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0)=0`$. For small values of $`r`$, near the center, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ is an increasing function of $`r`$, but, after reaching a maximum, the anisotropy decreases becoming negligible small at the vacuum boundary of the star.

Therefore with this choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, Eq. (10) becomes a hypergeometric equation,

$$\lambda \left(\lambda 1\right)\frac{d^2A}{d\lambda ^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{dA}{d\lambda }\frac{3}{4}A=0.$$
(14)
In the isotropic case $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0`$ we obtain $`\frac{a_0}{c_0}=\frac{3}{2}`$. Consequently, in this limit we recover the results obtained by Buchdahl  and Durgapal and Bannerji .

On integration we obtain the general solution of Eq. (14) and the general solution of the gravitational field equations for a static anisotropic fluid sphere, with anisotropy parameter given by Eq. (13), in the following form, expressed in elementary functions:

$$A=\sqrt{\alpha _1}\left\{\left(1+\psi \right)^{3/2}+\beta _1\left[52\mathrm{\Delta }_0+2\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\psi \right]\sqrt{2\psi +\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+\psi \right)}\right\},$$
(15)
$$V=1\frac{3\psi }{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right)},$$
(16)
$$\rho =\frac{3c_0\left(3+\psi \right)}{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right)^2},p_r=\frac{3c_0\left(p_2p_1\right)}{p_3},p_{}=p_r+\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }_0c_0\psi }{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right)^2},$$
(17)
$$\frac{dp_r}{d\psi }=3c_0\left[\frac{1}{p_3}\frac{d\left(p_2p_1\right)}{d\psi }+\left(p_2p_1\right)\frac{d}{d\psi }\left(\frac{1}{p_3}\right)\right],$$
(18)
$$\frac{dp_{}}{d\psi }=\frac{dp_r}{d\psi }+\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }_0c_0\left(1\psi \right)}{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+\psi \right)^3},$$
(19)
where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\beta _1`$ are constants of integration and we denoted

$$F\left(\psi \right)=\sqrt{2\psi +\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+\psi \right)},$$
(20)
$$p_1=\sqrt{1+\psi }\left[3\left(\psi 1\right)2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+\psi \right)\right]F\left(\psi \right),$$
(21)
$$p_2=\beta _1\left[3\left(2\psi +1\right)\left(\psi 2\right)4\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3\left(1+\psi \right)^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\left(7\psi ^2+5\psi 2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(16\psi ^27\psi 5\right)\right],$$
(22)
$$p_3=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0+2\right)\left(1+\psi \right)\left\{\left(1+\psi \right)^{3/2}+\beta _1\left[5+2\psi 2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+\psi \right)\right]F\left(\psi \right)\right\}F\left(\psi \right).$$
(23)
In order to be physically meaningful, the interior solution for static fluid spheres of Einstein’s gravitational field equations must satisfy some general physical requirements. The following conditions have been generally recognized to be crucial for anisotropic fluid spheres:

a) the density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p_r`$ should be positive inside the star;

b) the gradients $`\frac{d\rho }{dr}`$, $`\frac{dp_r}{dr}`$ and $`\frac{dp_{}}{dr}`$ should be negative;

c) inside the static configuration the speed of sound should be less than the speed of light, i.e. $`0\frac{dp_r}{d\rho }1`$ and $`0\frac{dp_{}}{d\rho }1`$;

d) a physically reasonable energy-momentum tensor has to obey the conditions $`\rho p_r+2p_{}`$ and $`\rho +p_r+2p_{}0`$;

e) the interior metric should be joined continuously with the exterior Schwarzschild metric, that is $`A^2(a)=12u`$, where $`u=M/a`$, $`M`$ is the mass of the sphere as measured by its external gravitational field and $`a`$ is the boundary of the sphere;

f) the radial pressure $`p_r`$ must vanish but the tangential pressure $`p_{}`$ may not vanish at the boundary $`r=a`$ of the sphere. However, the radial pressure is equal to the tangential pressure at the center of the fluid sphere.

By matching Eq. (16) on the boundary of the anisotropic sphere we obtain

$$V(a)=1\frac{3c_0a^2}{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+c_0a^2\right)}=12u_{anis}.$$
(24)
For the isotropic case, that is for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0`$, it is easy to show that $`\frac{3c_0a^2}{4\left(1+c_0a^2\right)}=u_{iso}`$. Therefore the mass-radius ratios for the anisotropic and isotropic spheres are related in the present model by

$$u_{anis}=\frac{2}{2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}u_{iso}.$$
(25)
Hence, the constants $`\alpha _1`$, $`\beta _1`$ and $`c_0`$ appearing in the solution can be evaluated from the boundary conditions. Thus, by denoting $`X=c_0a^2`$ we obtain

$$X=c_0a^2=\frac{4u_{iso}}{34u_{iso}}=\frac{2u_{anis}\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)}{34u_{anis}2u_{anis}\mathrm{\Delta }_0},$$
(26)
$$\alpha _1=\left(12u_{anis}\right)\left\{\left(1+X\right)^{3/2}+\beta _1\left[52\mathrm{\Delta }_0+2\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)X\right]\sqrt{2X+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+X\right)}\right\}^2,$$
(27)
$$\beta _1=\frac{\sqrt{\left(1+X\right)\left[2X+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+X\right)\right]}\left[3\left(X1\right)2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(1+X\right)\right]}{3\left(2X+1\right)\left(X2\right)4\mathrm{\Delta }_0^3\left(1+X\right)^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\left(7X^2+5X2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(16X^27X5\right)}.$$
(28)
Note that equation (16) in  has been amended as the Eq. (28) presented here.

In order to find a general constraint for the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, we shall consider that the conditions $`\rho _0=\rho \left(0\right)0`$, $`p_0=p(0)0`$ and $`\rho _03p_0`$ hold at the center of the fluid sphere. Subsequently the parameters $`\beta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ should be restricted to obey the following conditions:

$$0L(u_{iso},\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\frac{3+2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\beta _1\left(4\mathrm{\Delta }_0^24\mathrm{\Delta }_0+3\right)\sqrt{2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}{1+\beta _1\left(52\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\sqrt{2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}1.$$
(29)
The general behavior of the function $`L(u_{iso},\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ is represented in Fig. 1.

Generally, the condition (29) is satisfied for $`0\mathrm{\Delta }_0<1`$ and $`u_{iso}0.3`$.

## III Astrophysical Applications

When the thermonuclear sources of energy in its interior are exhausted, a spherical star begins to collapse under the influence of gravitational interaction of its matter content. The mass energy continues to increase and the star ends up as a compact relativistic cosmic object such as neutron star, strange star or black hole. Important observational quantities for such objects are the surface redshift, the central redshift and the mass and radius of the star.

For a relativistic anisotropic star described by the solution presented in the previous Section the surface redshift $`z_s`$ is given by

$$z_s=\left(1\frac{4}{2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}u_{iso}\right)^{1/2}1.$$
(30)
The surface redshift is decreasing with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Hence, at least in principle, the study of redshift of light emitted at the surface of compact objects can lead to the possibility of observational detection of anisotropies in the internal pressure distribution of relativistic stars. Using the density variation parameter $`\mu =\rho (R)/\rho (0)`$, Patel and Mehra  discussed numerical estimates of various physical parameters in their model and concluded that the surface redshift in the isotropic case is greater than the surface redshift in the anisotropic case. Hence, our results are very similar to that of .

The central redshift $`z_c`$ is of the form

$$z_c=\alpha _1^{1/2}\left[1+\beta _1\left(52\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\sqrt{2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right]^11.$$
(31)
The variation of the central redshift of the neutron star against the anisotropy parameter is represented in Fig. 2.

Clearly, in our model the anisotropy introduced in the pressure gives rise to a decrease in the central redshift. Hence, as functions of the anisotropy, the central and surface redshifts have the same behavior.

The stellar model presented here can be used to describe the interior structure of the realistic neutron star. Taking the surface density of the star as $`\rho _s=2\times 10^{14}g/cm^3`$ and with the use of Eqs. (17) we obtain

$$\rho _sR_N^2=\frac{3X\left(3+X\right)}{\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)\left(1+X\right)^2},$$
(32)
or

$$R_N=18.891u_{iso}^{1/2}\left(98u_{iso}\right)^{1/2}\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)^{1/2}km,$$
(33)
where $`R_N`$ is the radius of the neutron star corresponding to a specific surface density. For the mass $`M_N`$ and anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ we find

$$M_N=25.568u_{iso}^{3/2}\left(98u_{iso}\right)^{1/2}\left(2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)^{3/2}M_{},$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_N=7.19004\times 10^{35}\mathrm{\Delta }_0u_{iso}\left(98u_{iso}\right)^1dynecm^2.$$
(35)
With $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0`$ we recover the results for $`(M_N,R_N)`$ given by Durgapal and Bannerji . In Eqs. (33)-(35), for the sake of simplicity, we have expressed all the quantities in international units, instead of natural units, by means of the transformations $`\frac{M_N}{R_N}8\pi \frac{GM_N}{c^2R_N}`$, $`\rho \rho c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$, where $`G=6.6732\times 10^8dynecm^2g^2`$ and $`c=2.997925\times 10^{10}cms^1`$.

The variation of the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ of the neutron star as a function of the radius $`R_N`$ and mass $`M_N`$ is represented in Fig. 3.

For a particular choice of the equation of state at the center of the star, $`3p_{r0}=3p_0=\rho _0`$ and with a vanishing anisotropy parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0`$, we obtain the result $`u_{iso}=0.2908526`$ for a static isotropic fluid sphere that can be compared with the value of $`u_{iso}`$ given in .

The quantities $`\left(\frac{dp_r}{d\rho }\right)_{r=0}`$, $`\left(\frac{dp_{}}{d\rho }\right)_{r=0}`$ , $`\left(\frac{dp_r}{d\rho }\right)_{r=R}`$ and $`\left(\frac{dp_{}}{d\rho }\right)_{r=R}`$ are represented against the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in Fig. 4.

The plots indicate that the necessary and sufficient criterion for the adiabatic speed of sound to be less than the speed of light is satisfied by our solution. However, Caporaso and Brecher  claimed that $`dp/d\rho `$ does not represent the signal speed. If therefore this speed exceeds the speed of light, this does not necessary mean that the fluid is non-causal. But this argument is quite controversial and not all authors accept it .

## IV Discussions and Final Remarks

Curvature is described by the tensor field $`R_{ijk}^l`$. It is well known that if one uses singular behavior of the components of this tensor or its derivatives as a criterion for singularities, one gets into trouble since the singular behavior of components could be due to singular behavior of the coordinates or tetrad basis rather than that of the curvature itself. To avoid this problem, one should examine the linear and quadratic scalars formed out of curvature, such as $`r_1=R`$, $`r_2=R_{ij}R^{ij}`$ and $`r_3=R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}`$.

With the use of the gravitational field equations (7)- (8) and of the static line element (4) we obtain the following expressions for the linear and quadratic scalars of the curvature tensor, given in terms of the radial pressure, energy density, mass and anisotropy parameter:

$$r_1=3p_r\rho +2\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(36)
$$r_2=\rho ^2+3p_r^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }+2p_r\right),$$
(37)
$$r_3=\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }+\rho +p_r\frac{4m}{r^3}\right)^2+2\left(p_r+\frac{2m}{r^3}\right)^2+2\left(\rho \frac{2m}{r^3}\right)^2+4\left(\frac{2m}{r^3}\right)^2.$$
(38)
When $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\rho =p_r=0`$, we recover the invariant $`R_{ijkl}R^{ijkl}`$ for the Schwarzschild line element, that is $`r_3=48m^2/r^6`$. The variations of $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$ and $`r_3`$ are represented in Fig. 5.

The scalars $`r_2`$ and $`r_3`$ are finite at the center of the fluid sphere and monotonically decrease as the anisotropy parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ increases.

It is generally held that the trace $`T`$ of the energy-momentum tensor must be non-negative. It is also the case that this trace condition is everywhere fulfilled if it is fulfilled at the center of the star .

The purpose of the present paper is to present some exact models of static anisotropic fluid stars and to investigate their possible astrophysical relevance. We have extended and generalized to the anisotropic case the method of obtaining exact solutions for relativistic spheres of Buchdahl  and Durgapal and Bannerji . All the solutions we have obtained are non-singular inside the anisotropic sphere, with finite values of the density and pressure at the center of the star. Variations of the physical parameters mass, radius, redshift and adiabatic speed of sound against the anisotropy parameter have been presented graphically. Our model can be used to study the interior structure of the anisotropic relativistic objects because it satisfies all the physical conditions and requirements (a)-(f).

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof. Peter N. Dobson, Jr. for useful discussions and to the unknown referee whose comments helped us to improve the manuscript.