arxiv:78.29v [gr-qc] Aug 27 Sharp bounds on the critical stability radius for relativistic charged spheres: I Håkan Andréasson Mathematical Sciences Chalmers and Göteborg University S-4296 Göteborg, Sweden email: hand@math.chalmers.se May, 28 Abstract In a recent paper by Giuliani and othman [4], the problem of finding a lower bound on the radius of a charged sphere with mass M and charge Q is addressed. Such a bound is referred to as the critical stability radius. Equivalently, it can be formulated as the problem of finding an upper bound on M for given radius and charge. This problem has resulted in a number of papers in recent years but neither a transparent nor a general inequality similar to the case without charge, i.e., M 4/9, has been found. In this paper we derive the surprisingly transparent inequality M 3 + 9 + Q2 3. It will be seen that this bound implies that the critical stability radius is strictly outside the outer horizon. The derivation presented here concerns a class of shell solutions and the purpose is to give a derivation as simple as possible with only a few mathematical details. In the following-up paper [] it will then be shown that the inequality holds generally, and is sharp, in the class of solutions which satisfies p+2p T ρ, where ρ is the energy density and p and p T are the radial and tangential pressures respectively, by using the method in [2]. Introduction Black holes for which the charge or angular momentum parameter equals the mass are called extremal black holes. They are very central in black hole
thermodynamics due to their vanishing surface gravity and they represent the absolute zero state of black hole physics. It is quite generally believed that extremal black holes are disallowed by nature but a proof is missing. One possibility to obtain an extremal black hole is to produce one from the collapse of an already extremal object. Previous mainly numerical studies ([], [6]) have concluded that when Q < M collapse always takes place at a critical radius c outside the outer horizon, and as Q approaches M, this value approaches the horizon. This is similar to the non-charged case where the Buchdahl inequality implies that collapse will take place when < 9M/4, i.e., c = 9M/4. In the charged case the critical value is expected to be smaller due to the Coulomb repulsion. For more information on the relation of this topic to extremal black holes and black hole thermodynamics we refer to [6], [4], [2] and [] and the references therein. The problem of finding a similar bound as the classical Buchdahl bound for charged objects have resulted in several papers; some of these are analytical, cf. [4], [6], [2] and [7], whereas others are numerical or use a mix of numerical and analytical arguments, cf. [6], [], and [3], to mention some of them. We refer the reader to the sources for the details of these studies but in none of them a transparent bound has been obtained (except in very special cases), on the contrary they have been quite involved and implicit. Moreover, most of these studies rely on the assumptions made by Buchdal, i.e., the energy density is assumed to be non-increasing and the pressure to be isotropic. In this paper we will derive the surprisingly transparent bound M 3 + 9 + Q2 3. To the knowledge of the author this has not appeared in the literature before. It will be seen that this bound implies that the critical stability radius is strictly outside the outer horizon. The derivation presented here concerns a class of shell solutions and we will apply the method in [3] where a similar set up was considered. The purpose is to give a derivation as simple as possible with only a few mathematical details to see how the bound comes out naturally for an infinitely thin, highly anisotropic, shell. In the followingup paper [] it will then be shown that the inequality holds generally, and is sharp, in the class of solutions which satisfies p + 2p T ρ, where ρ is the energy density and p and p T are the radial and tangential pressures respectively. The proof in [] relies on the method in [2] where a general bound, i.e., without the assumptions made by Buchdahl, was obtained in the non-charged case under the assumption on the matter quantities given 2
above. (ecently, an alternative and shorter proof has been given in [5] by using a similar method to the one by Bondi [7] in the isotropic case.) As a matter of fact the paper [2] considers the larger class p + 2p T Ωρ, where Ω, but the classical Buchdahl bound is only recovered when Ω =. The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section the Einstein equations will be given and some basic relations will be derived. In section 3 the problem will be formulated, and the main results will be stated. Section 4 is devoted to the (sketch) of the proofs. 2 The Einstein equations We follow closely the set up in [4] but here we also allow the pressure to be anisotropic, i.e., the radial pressure p and the tangential pressure p T need not to be equal. Furthermore, we will assume throughout the paper that p, the energy density ρ, and the charge density j are non-negative. We study spherically symmetric mass and charge distributions and we write the metric in the form ds 2 = e 2µ(r) dt 2 + e 2λ(r) dr 2 + r 2 (dθ 2 + sin 2 θdϕ 2 ), where r, θ [,π], ϕ [,2π]. It is well-known that the eissner- Nordström solution for the charged spherically symmetric case gives e 2λ(r) = 2M r + Q2 r 2 = e2µ(r), r. () Here is the outer radius of the sphere and Q is the total charge. This solution is a vacuum solution whereas we will investigate the behaviour of λ and µ when the matter and charge quantities are non-zero for r <. Before writing down the Einstein equations let us introduce some quantities as in [4]. Let r q(r) = 4π e (λ+µ)(η) jη 2 dη, and r m i (r) = 4π η 2 ρdη, where q(r) is the charge within any given area radius r and m i (r) is the mass within area radius r. The subscript i is used to distinguish m i from the gravitational mass m g which is defined below. Let us also introduce the quantity F(r) = r 3 q 2 (η) η 2 dη.
The Einstein equations for λ and µ now read (cf. [6] and [4]) and r 2 + 2λ re 2λ e 2λ r r 2 r 2 2µ re 2λ e 2λ r r 2 = 8πρ + q2 (r) r 4, (2) = 8πp + q2 (r) r 4, (3) where the subscript r denotes differentiation with respect to r. Equation (2) can be written as so that d(e 2λ r) dr = 8πr 2 ρ q2 (r) r 2, (4) e 2λ = 2m i(r) r F(r). (5) r By requiring that (5) matches the exterior solution () at r = gives or 2M + Q2 2 = M = 2 (8πρη 2 + q2 η 2)dη (8πρη 2 + q2 Q2 η2)dη + 2, which defines the total gravitational mass M in terms of the mass and charge densities. In view of this relation we now define the gravitational mass m g within a given area radius r as m g (r) = m i (r) + F(r) 2 In terms of the gravitational mass we thus get e 2λ(r) = 2m g(r) r + q2 (r) 2r. (6) + q2 (r) r 2. (7) Let us also write down the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkov equation which follows from the Einstein equations, cf. [6], but note that in our case p is allowed to be different from p T which modifies the equation accordingly p r = qq r 4πr 4 + 2 r (p T p) (ρ + p)e 2λ( m g (r) r 2 + 4πrp q2 ). (8) r 3 4
3 Set up and main results The problem of finding an upper bound on the total mass that a sphere of area radius with total charge Q can hold, or equivalently, to find the smallest radius c, referred to as the critical stability radius, for which a physically acceptable solution of the Einstein equations can be found, is formulated in [4] as follows: A physically acceptable solution should satisfy ρ, p and µ >, (9) Q < M, > +. () Here + = M + M 2 Q 2 is the outer horizon of a eissner-nordström black hole. The quantities m i,m g and q should satisfy m g () = M, q() = Q, () q m g, m g + m 2 g q2 < r. (2) We will in addition assume that the following condition holds: p + 2p T ρ. (3) The condition (3) is likely to be satisfied for most realistic matter models, cf. [8], and in particular it holds for Vlasov matter. emark. In [2] and [3] the following generalization of this condition was imposed, namely that p + 2p T Ωρ, for some Ω. (4) However, in contrast to the non-charged case where a bound on M is given by a simple formula depending on Ω the simplicity is completely lost in the charged cased except when Ω =. Now, the case Ω = is the principal case, cf. [8], and in the non-charged case it is when Ω = that the classical and general bound, 2m/r < 8/9, cf. [9], [2] and [5], is recovered. We have seen above that a solution of the Einstein equations (2) and (3) are detrmined by the matter quantities, i.e., we think of λ and µ as determined by the matter quantities ρ,p,p T and j. The main result in [] is Theorem Let (ρ,p,p T,j) be a solution of the Einstein equations (2) and (3) such that (9)-(3) are satisfied. Then M < 3 + 9 + Q2 3. (5) 5
emark. The inequality (5) also holds in the interior, i.e., M, and Q can be substituted by m g,r and q. The proof of Theorem relies on the method in [2] which is slightly technical and as pointed out above the main purpose in this short communication is to show how the inequality arises naturally in the study of thin shells by making use of the technique in [3]. We will therefore investigate a sequence of regular shell solutions for which the support of the matter terms get smaller and smaller and approach an infinitely thin (Dirac) shell. This assumption on the support is sufficient for deriving an upper bound on M, in terms of and Q, of this sequence. By imposing additional assumptions on the matter terms, in a spirit similar to the real behaviour of the solutions to the Einstein-Vlasov system in [4], it is easy to use the arguments in [4] to see that the corresponding Dirac shell gives equality in (5). However, since this will anyway be clarified in [] we have chosen to leave it out here. Below M k denotes the total mass and total charge of the corresponding solution in the sequence. Theorem 2 Assume that {(ρ k,p k,p k T,jk )} k= is a sequence of solutions to the Einstein equations (2) and (3) such that (9)-(3) are satisfied (with M replaced by M k ) for any solution in the sequence and that the solutions have support in [ k,], where k lim =. (6) k Then lim sup Mk k 3 + 9 + Q2 3. (7) emark. That sequences exist with the property on the support as specified above has at least been proved for the (non-charged) Einstein-Vlasov system, cf. [4] and [5] for a numerical study. Let us finally check that our inequality implies that the critical stability radius is strictly outside the outer horizon +. (It is of course not difficult to solve for in (5) to get an explicit bound for c, the critical stability radius, rather than for M, but it has a more appealing form as it stands.) Corollary The inequality (5) implies that when Q < M, e 2λ() = 2M + Q2 2 >. 6
4 Proofs Sketch of proof of Theorem 2. Let us begin with some general facts (and we drop the index k). ecall from above the following consequence of the matching conditions e λ(r) = e µ(r) = 2m g(r) r + q2 (r) r 2, r. (8) Let us now show that µ is monotonically increasing. Indeed, from (2) we get q/r <, and that so that q m g = m i + q2 2r + F 2r, m i + F 2r q q2 2r > q q 2 > q2 2r. The Einstein equation (3) can be written as µ r = ( m i q2 + 4πrp r2 2r 3 + F ) e 2λ 2r 2, (9) which shows that µ is monotonically increasing since p. Now, let ψ = (m g + 4πr 3 p q2 r )eµ+λ. A straightforward calculation using the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkov equation (8) results in the following equation r (m g + 4πr 3 p q2 r )eµ+λ = e µ+λ (4πη 2 (ρ + p + 2p T ) + q2 r2)dη. (2) Let us now consider our sequence of solutions. The reason why we have chosen only to give a sketch of proof is related to the fact that we do need a uniform bound (not sharp) on e λ on our sequence (in cases with isotropic pressure and non-increasing energy density this has been shown, cf. e.g. [6], [4] and []. However, neither of these conditions are satisfied in our case.) This can be achieved by using very similar arguments as in Theorem in [3] but it would only make the derivation here much less transparent which demolish the main purpose of this paper. In addition such a uniform 7
bound is clearly a consequence of [] where a rigorous proof of Theorem above will be given. Therefore, assume that there is a Γ such that supe λk(r) Γ, for all k, (2) r where λ k denotes the corresponding solution in the sequence. Given ǫ > we choose k sufficiently large so that k ǫ. Below we drop the index k. Since p(), m() = M,q() = Q, we get in view of (2), using that the solution has support in [,], M Q2 e µ+λ (4πη 2 (ρ+p+2p T )+ q2 η 2)dη 2 e µ+λ (4πη 2 ρ+ q2 2η 2)dη. (22) In the second inequality we used the condition p + 2p T ρ. Now µ is increasing so the right hand side is less or equal to 2e µ() = 2e µ() [ d(e λ ) dr Above we used that e λ (4πη 2 ρ + q2 2η 2)dη ]dη + λ r = (4πrρ(r) m i(r) r 2 which follows from (2). We get ( m i(η) η 2 + F(η) 2η 2 )eλ dη =: S + S 2. + q2 2r 3 F 2r 2)e2λ, S = 2e µ() d dη (e λ )dη = 2e µ() ( Using that e µ() = 2M/ + Q2, we thus get 2 Q2 2(2M S = ) 2M/ + Q2 2. + 2M/ + Q2 2 2M/ + Q2 2 ). Now, in view of the uniform bound e λ < Γ, it follows immediately that lim k S 2 = since k as k (recall that the we dropped the 8
index k above so it needs to be inserted here again.) The term S 2 can therefore be dropped since we will later take the limit and our remaining inequality reads Q 2 ) 2M/ + Q2 M Q2 2(2M + 2 2M/ + Q2 2. (23) Multiplying both sides with the denominator it follows after some algebra that this inequality can be written as M Q2 Q2 (3M ) 2M/ + Q2 2. Squaring both sides one finds after some rearrangements the inequality so that (9M 2 6MQ2 This can be written as + Q4 2)(2M Q2 2) 4M(2M Q2 2), (3M Q2 )2 4M. (24) ( M 3 9 + Q2 )( M 3 3 + 9 + Q2 ). (25) 3 Since the second bracket is always non-negative and vanishes only if M = we have M 3 9 + Q2 3, which leads to the claimed inequality by re-inserting the index k. Proof of Corollary. We wish to show that the inequality (5) implies that e 2λ() = 2M + Q2 >, or equivalently that 2 M < In view of inequality (5) this holds if 3 + 9 + Q2 3 2 2 + Q2 2. 9 2 + Q2 2.
An elementary computation shows that this is equivalent to the inequality ( Q2 2 )2, which always holds and thus completes the proof of the corollary. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the authors of [4] for their clearly written paper which got me interested in this topic. eferences [] H. Andréasson, Sharp bounds on the critical stability radius for relativistic charged spheres: II. In preparation. [2] H. Andréasson, Sharp bounds on 2m/r of general spherically symmetric static objects. arxiv:gr-qc/7237. [3] H. Andréasson, On the Buchdahl inequality for spherically symmetric static shells. Commun. Math. Phys. 274, 399 48 (27). [4] H. Andréasson, On static shells and the Buchdahl inequality for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system. Commun. Math. Phys. 274, 49 425 (27). [5] H. Andréasson, G. ein, On the steady states of the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system. Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 89-832 (27). [6] P. Anninos, T. othman, Instability of extremal relativistic charged spheres. Phys. ev. D, 62 243 (2). [7] H. Bondi, Massive spheres in general relativity. Proc.. Soc. A 282, 33 37 (964). [8] H. Bondi, Anisotropic spheres in general relativity. Mon. Not. oy. Astr. Soc. 259, 365 (992). [9] H.A. Buchdahl, General relativistic fluid spheres. Phys. ev. 6, 27 34 (959).
[] C.G. Böhmer, T. Harko, Minimum mass-radius ratio for charged gravitational objects. Gen. el. Grav. 39, 757-775 (27). [] F. de Felice, L. Siming, Y. Yunqiang, elativistic charged spheres: II. egularity and stability. Class. Quantum Grav. 6, 2669-268 (999). [2] C.J. Farrugia, P. Hajicek, Commun. Math. Phys. 68, 29-299 (979). [3] C.. Ghezzi, elativistic structure, stability, and gravitational collapse of charged neutron stars, Phys. ev. D 72, 47 (25). [4] A. Giuliani, T. othman, Absolute stability limit for relativistic charged spheres. arxiv:75.4452. [5] P. Karageorgis, J. Stalker, Sharp bounds on 2m/r for static spherical objects. arxiv:77.3632 [6] M.K. Mak and P.N. Dobson and T. Harko Maximum massradius ratios for charged compact general relativistic objects. Europhys. Lett. 55, 3 (2). [7] Y. Yunqiang, L. Siming, elativistic charged balls. Commun. Theor. Phys. 33, 57 (2).