This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Existence and Stability of Static Spherical Fluid Shells in a Schwarzschild-Rindler-anti-de Sitter Metric

G. Alestas [email protected]    G. V. Kraniotis [email protected] Department of Physics, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece    L. Perivolaropoulos [email protected] Department of Physics, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece
(December 24, 2024)
Abstract

We demonstrate the existence of static stable spherical fluid shells in the Schwarzschild-Rindler-anti-de Sitter (SRAdS) spacetime where ds2=f(r)dt2dr2f(r)r2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)ds^{2}=f(r)dt^{2}-\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}-r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}) with f(r)=12Gmr+2brΛ3r2f(r)=1-\frac{2Gm}{r}+2br-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r^{2}. This is an alternative to the well known gravastar geometry where the stability emerges due to the combination of the repulsive forces of the interior de Sitter space with the attractive forces of the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime. In the SRAdS spacetime the repulsion that leads to stability of the shell comes from a negative Rindler term while the Schwarzschild and anti-de Sitter terms are attractive. We demonstrate the existence of such stable spherical shells for three shell fluid equations of state: vacuum shell (p=σp=-\sigma), stiff matter shell (p=σp=\sigma) and dust shell (p=0p=0) where pp is the shell pressure and σ\sigma is the shell surface density. We also identify the metric parameter conditions that need to be satisfied for shell stability in each case. The vacuum stable shell solution in the SRAdS spacetime is consistent with previous studies by two of the authors that demonstrated the existence of stable spherical scalar field domain walls in the SRAdS spacetime.

I Introduction

Boundary layers (shells of matter sources with zero thickness) play an important role in both electromagnetism and general relativity. They provide a useful laboratory for the exploration of new phenomena while at the same time they approximate smooth solutions such as domain walls (Vilenkin, 1981; Kraus, 1999; Ipser and Sikivie, 1984; Perivolaropoulos, 2018; Alestas and Perivolaropoulos, 2019) or braneworlds (Randall and Sundrum, 1999; Arkani-Hamed et al., 1998; Antoniadis et al., 1998; Arkani-Hamed et al., 1999; Langlois et al., 2002). Thin shells are also useful in describing gravitational collapse (Israel, 1967; Adler et al., 2005; Dokuchaev and Chernov, 2010) or in constructing spherically symmetric vacuum solutions that avoid the presence of singularities (e.g. gravastars (Mazur and Mottola, 2004; Visser and Wiltshire, 2004; Lobo, 2006; DeBenedictis et al., 2006; Ansoldi, 2008; Ray et al., 2020)).

Despite of the divergence of the stress-energy tensor on the thin shell, the corresponding singularities of the Einstein equations are mild and in fact they are easily integrable. Thus they lead to a simplification of the dynamical gravitational equations by converting the corresponding differential equations to finite difference equations known as ’junction conditions’ (Israel, 1966; Blau et al., 1987; Sen, 1924). These conditions lead to a determination of the discontinuities of various fields as the shell is crossed.

Thin spherical shells in General Relativity may be defined as 2+1 boundary hypersurfaces with energy momentum tensor SjiRR+Tji𝑑r=diag(σ,p,p)S^{i}_{j}\equiv\int^{R^{+}}_{R^{-}}T^{i}_{j}\;dr={\rm diag}(-\sigma,p,p), where RR is the shell radius, rr is the radial coordinate of the 3+1 dimensional spacetime, σ\sigma is the surface energy density and pp is the surface pressure on the shell hypersurface with equation of state p=p(σ)p=p(\sigma). The thin shell interpolates between an interior and an exterior spherically symmetric metric. The exterior metric is related to the interior metric in the context of the Israel junction conditions Israel (1966); Blau et al. (1987); Sen (1924).

A well known spherical static stable thin shell configuration corresponds to the gravastar that interopolates between an interior de Sitter metric and an exterior Schwarzschild metric and constitutes an extension of the Schwarzschild metric with eliminated singularity (Mazur and Mottola, 2004; Visser and Wiltshire, 2004; Lobo, 2006; DeBenedictis et al., 2006; Ansoldi, 2008).

An alternative thin shell solution obtained using spherically symmetric scalar field dynamical equations in a non-trivial background geometry has been obtained in Ref. Alestas and Perivolaropoulos (2019). It was demonstrated that static metastable solutions can exist in the presence of a Schwarzschild-anti-deSitter curved spacetime Perivolaropoulos (2018); Alestas and Perivolaropoulos (2019) supplemented with the Rindler acceleration term. Thus the total metric is a Schwarzschild-Rindler-anti-deSitter (SRAdS) metric Grumiller (2010),

ds2\displaystyle ds^{2} =f(r)dt2dr2f(r)r2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)\displaystyle=f(r)dt^{2}-\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}-r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}) (1)
f(r)\displaystyle f(r) =12Gmr+2brΛ3r2\displaystyle=1-\frac{2Gm}{r}+2br-\frac{\Lambda}{3}r^{2}

where bb is the Rindler acceleration parameter and Λ\Lambda is the cosmological constant.

The metric (1) has been constrained by solar system observations, indicating that |b|<3nm/sec2|b|<3nm/sec^{2} Carloni et al. (2011); Iorio (2011) and it has been shown that it can lead to the production of flat rotation curves as well as contribute to the explanation Grumiller and Preis (2011); Iorio (2012) of the Pioneer anomaly Anderson et al. (1998); Lammerzahl et al. (2008) for b>0b>0.

Such a metric including a linear term in rr is non-standard but it has been widely considered in the literature previously and is physically motivated by at least three factors:

  • In the context of GR a linear term in r it emerges naturally in a spherically symmetric metric, in the context of a perfect fluid with density ρ\rho and pressure components ρ=pr=2pθ=2pϕ1/r\rho=-p_{r}=-2p_{\theta}=-2p_{\phi}\sim 1/r (Alestas and Perivolaropoulos, 2019). In this sense it may be viewed as a generalization of the cosmological constant which gives a quadratic term in the metric and emerges in a spherically symmetric metric in the context of a homogeneous perfect fluid with ρ=pr=pθ=pϕ=constant\rho=-p_{r}=-p_{\theta}=-p_{\phi}=constant. In fact any spherically symmetric metric given as a power series

    f(r)=1n=NNanrnf(r)=1-\sum^{N}_{n=-N}a_{n}r^{n} (2)

    is supported by an energy - momentum tensor of the form

    T00\displaystyle T^{0}_{0} =1κn=NNan(1+n)rn2=ρ\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\kappa}\sum^{N}_{n=-N}a_{n}(1+n)r^{n-2}=\rho (3)
    Trr\displaystyle T^{r}_{r} =T00=pr\displaystyle=T^{0}_{0}=-p_{r} (4)
    Tθθ\displaystyle T^{\theta}_{\theta} =12κn=NNann(1+n)rn2=pθ\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\kappa}\sum^{N}_{n=-N}a_{n}n(1+n)r^{n-2}=-p_{\theta} (5)
    Tϕϕ\displaystyle T^{\phi}_{\phi} =Tθθ=pϕ\displaystyle=T^{\theta}_{\theta}=-p_{\phi} (6)

    For a linear term in the metric (n=1n=1), the corresponding energy-momentum term varies as 1/r1/r which leads to asymptotic flatness since the energy-momentum tensor vanishes at infinity. For n=2n=2 we have constant energy density-pressure via the cosmological constant term and for the case of n=1n=-1 we have the vacuum solution which corresponds to zero energy momentum tensor.

  • It is the spherically symmetric vacuum solution in various modified gravity theories including Weyl (Mannheim and Kazanas, 1989) and in 2 dimensional scalar-tensor theories (Grumiller and Preis, 2011; Perivolaropoulos and Skara, 2019). In these theories, the proper sign of the linear term can lead to additional attractive gravity that can play the role of dark matter without actual existence of any form of energy-momentum Carloni et al. (2011); Iorio (2011); Mannheim and Kazanas (1989).

  • In view of the generic and natural existence of the terms proportional to 1/r1/r (GR vacuum) and r2r^{2} (cosmological constant) the presence of a linear term r\sim r emerges as a natural generalization with potentially interesting physical effects. One of these effects is the existence of scalar hair (stable spherical scalar domain wall (demonstrated in Ref. Perivolaropoulos (2018)).

The metric’s property of supporting metastable spherical domain walls motivates the search of additional stable shell solutions described as general fluid thin shells as opposed to scalar field vacuum energy shells (domain walls). Such an analysis would be based on the Israel junction conditions formalism as opposed to the solution of dynamical scalar field equations. The following questions therefore emerge:

  • Are there static, stable fluid shell solutions in a SRAdS background geometry?

  • If yes, what are the conditions for their stability given the equation of state of the fluid shell?

  • What is the metric parameter range for shell stability and how does the stability radius change as a function of these parameters?

These questions will be addressed in the present analysis. We implement the Israel junction conditions in the context of a fixed equation of state of the fluid shell and a SRAdS background metric with a discontinuous value of mm across the shell and fixed values of bb and Λ\Lambda with no discontinuity as the shell is crossed. We thus derive the stability conditions and identify the range of metric parameters b,Λb,\Lambda, that satisfy these conditions for given values of the shell coordinate radius RR, shell surface density σ\sigma and mass parameters inside and outside the shell (mm_{-}, m+m_{+}). The conditions that need to be satisfied for stability by the shell density and shell radius are also determined.

The structure of this paper is the following: In the next section we develop the general formalism for the derivation of stability conditions by implementing the Israel junction conditions on the SRAdS metric for a shell with a general fluid equation of state. In section III we consider three specific applications of the method for corresponding shell fluid equations of state: vacuum shell, stiff matter shell and matter shell and find the particular stability conditions and parameter regions in each case. Finally in section IV we conclude summarize and discuss possible extensions of this analysis.

In what follows we set G=c=1G=c=1. In most cases we will also set the interior mass parameter m=1m_{-}=1. Thus in this context, a dimensionless form of Λ\Lambda corresponds to the dimensionless combination m2Λm_{-}^{2}\Lambda. Furthermore, whenever Greek letters are used as indices they correspond to spacetime ones, while Roman (Latin) indices range over the coordinates of the 2+1-surface of the shell. Also, the radius of the shell is always considered in the region outside the event horizon of the black hole. Notice that for the parameter values considered (AdS) there is no cosmological horizon but only an event horizon.

II Thin Shells: Existence and Stability

Consider a thin spherical shell with coordinate radius R interpolating between an interior (gμνg_{\mu\nu}^{-}) and an exterior metric (gμν+g_{\mu\nu}^{+}). Let the interior and exterior metrics be of the form Visser and Wiltshire (2004); Mazur and Mottola (2004); Frauendiener et al. (1990),

ds2=f±(r±)dt2dr±2f±(r±)r±2(dθ2+sin2θdϕ2)\displaystyle ds^{2}=f_{\pm}(r_{\pm})dt^{2}-\frac{dr_{\pm}^{2}}{f_{\pm}(r_{\pm})}-r_{\pm}^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\phi^{2}) (7)

where,

f±(r±)=12m±(r±)r±\displaystyle f_{\pm}(r_{\pm})=1-\frac{2m_{\pm}(r_{\pm})}{r_{\pm}} (8)

and

m±(r±)=m±br±2+Λ6r±3.\displaystyle m_{\pm}(r_{\pm})=m_{\pm}-br_{\pm}^{2}+\frac{\Lambda}{6}r_{\pm}^{3}. (9)

We now impose the following conditions:

  1. 1.

    Continuity of the metric on the shell (r=r+=R)(r_{-}=r_{+}=R). This implies

    f+(r+)dt+2dr+2f+(r+)=f(r)dt2dr2f(r).\displaystyle f_{+}(r_{+})dt_{+}^{2}-\frac{dr_{+}^{2}}{f_{+}(r_{+})}=f_{-}(r_{-})dt_{-}^{2}-\frac{dr_{-}^{2}}{f_{-}(r_{-})}. (10)

    which leads to

    t\displaystyle t_{-} =f+(R)f(R)t+\displaystyle=\frac{f_{+}(R)}{f_{-}(R)}t_{+} (11)
    drdr+\displaystyle\frac{dr_{-}}{dr_{+}} =f(R)f+(R).\displaystyle=\frac{f_{-}(R)}{f_{+}(R)}. (12)
  2. 2.

    The Israel junction conditions Israel (1966) expressed through a discontinuity of the extrinsic curvature on the shell hypersurface Σ\Sigma. The extrinsic curvature (second fundamental form) at either side of the three-dimensional (2+1) hypersurface Σ\Sigma swept by a spherically symmetric shell, embedded in the four-dimensional spacetime are:

    Kij±=(hμλnν;λdxμdxidxνdxj)Σ±,\displaystyle K_{ij}^{\pm}=\left(h_{\mu}^{\lambda}n_{\nu;\lambda}\frac{dx^{\mu}}{dx^{i}}\frac{dx^{\nu}}{dx^{j}}\right)^{\pm}_{\Sigma}, (13)

    where xix^{i} are coordinates on Σ\Sigma, hμν=gμνnμnνh_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}-n_{\mu}n_{\nu}, and (;)(;) denote covariant derivative with respect to gμν±g_{\mu\nu}^{\pm}. Let

    g(xα(xi))=0,\displaystyle g(x^{\alpha}(x^{i}))=0, (14)

    denote the parametric equation for Σ\Sigma as embedded in the 4-dimensional spacetime. The unit 4-normals to Σ\Sigma in the four-dimensional spacetime are given by Sen (1924),

    nα=±(|gβγgxβgxγ|)1/2gxα,\displaystyle n_{\alpha}=\pm\left(\left|g^{\beta\gamma}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x^{\beta}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x^{\gamma}}\right|\right)^{-1/2}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x^{\alpha}}, (15)

    We assume nα0n_{\alpha}\not=0 and label Σ\Sigma as timelike for nαnα=1n_{\alpha}n^{\alpha}=1 (a spacelike normal). The Israel junction conditions are expressed as discontinuities of the extrinsic curvature of the shell

    [[Kij]]=8π[Sij12Shij]\left[\left[K_{ij}\right]\right]=-8\pi\left[S_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}Sh_{ij}\right] (16)

    where [[X]][X+][X]\left[\left[X\right]\right]\equiv\left[X_{+}\right]-\left[X_{-}\right] denotes the discontinuity of the quantity XX as the shell is crossed.

    In the case of a static shell in the SRAdS metric (1) the extrinsic curvature tensor takes the form

    Kij=f±(r±)diag(12f±(r±)f±(r±),1r±,1r±).\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sqrt{f_{\pm}(r_{\pm})}{\rm diag}\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}f_{\pm}^{\prime}(r_{\pm})}{f_{\pm}(r_{\pm})},\frac{1}{r_{\pm}},\frac{1}{r_{\pm}}\right). (17)

    and the Israel junction conditions for a dynamic shell are of the form Visser and Wiltshire (2004)

    σ\displaystyle\sigma =14πR[[12m±(R)/R+R˙2]]\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{4\pi R}\left[\left[\sqrt{1-2m_{\pm}(R)/R+\dot{R}^{2}}\right]\right] (18)
    p\displaystyle p =18πR[[1m±(R)/Rm±(R)+R˙2+RR¨12m±(R)/R+R˙2]]\displaystyle=\frac{1}{8\pi R}\left[\left[\frac{1-m_{\pm}(R)/R-m_{\pm}(R)^{\prime}+\dot{R}^{2}+R\ddot{R}}{\sqrt{1-2m_{\pm}(R)/R+\dot{R}^{2}}}\right]\right] (19)

    where () denotes derivative of m±(r)m_{\pm}(r) with respect to rr at r=Rr=R and dot denotes derivative with respect to the proper time of the shell defined as

    dτ2\displaystyle d\tau^{2} =\displaystyle= [12m±(R)R]dt2112m±(R)/R[dRdt]2dt2\displaystyle\;\left[1-{2m_{\pm}(R)\over R}\right]\;{dt}^{2}-\;{1\over 1-2m_{\pm}(R)/R}\left[{dR\over dt}\right]^{2}dt^{2} (20)

These equations lead also to the energy conservation equation on the shell,

ddτ(σR2)+pddτR2=0\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\tau}(\sigma R^{2})+p\frac{d}{d\tau}R^{2}=0 (21)

The eq. (18) may also be expressed as,

12R˙2+V(R)=E\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\dot{R}^{2}+V(R)=E (22)

where,

V(R)1+4m+(R)m(R)16π2σ2R4[4πσR22R+m+(R)+m(R)4πσR2]2\displaystyle V(R)\equiv 1+\frac{4\;m_{+}(R)\;m_{-}(R)}{16\pi^{2}\sigma^{2}R^{4}}-\left[\frac{4\pi\sigma R^{2}}{2R}+\frac{m_{+}(R)+m_{-}(R)}{4\pi\sigma R^{2}}\right]^{2} (23)

and E=0E=0.

Clearly, eq. (22) is identical with the energy conservation equation of a particle moving in one dimension with coordinate R(τ)R(\tau) and zero energy. Thus, the conditions for the existence of a static, stable shell may be written as,

V(R)=0V(R)=0V′′(R)>0\displaystyle\begin{split}V(R)=0\\ V^{{}^{\prime}}(R)=0\\ V^{{}^{\prime\prime}}(R)>0\end{split} (24)

These conditions, along with the equation of state p(σ)p(\sigma) and the energy conservation eq. (21) may be used to identify constraints on the metric parameters appearing in the expressions of m(R)m_{-}(R) and m+(R)m_{+}(R) required for the existence of a stable spherical shell with given radius R. In the present analysis we consider the particular forms of m±(r)m_{\pm}(r) given by eq. (9) corresponding to the SRAdS metric. In this case the potential of eq. (23) takes the form,

V(R)=1m+m+R+2bRΛR23(mm+)216π2R4σ(R)24π2σ(R)2R2\displaystyle V(R)=1-\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R}+2bR-\frac{\Lambda R^{2}}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}R^{4}\sigma(R)^{2}}-4\pi^{2}\sigma(R)^{2}R^{2} (25)

In the context of a constant shell fluid equation of state we have p=wσp=w\sigma and it is easy to show that energy conservation (21) leads to

σ=σ0(RR0)2(w+1)\sigma=\sigma_{0}^{\prime}\;\left(\frac{R}{R_{0}}\right)^{-2(w+1)} (26)

where σ0\sigma_{0}^{\prime} is the surface density of a shell of radius R0R_{0}. In what follows we define

σ0σ0R02(w+1).\sigma_{0}\equiv\sigma_{0}^{\prime}R_{0}^{2(w+1)}. (27)

For example in the special case of a pressureless matter shell (w=0w=0) we obtain the expected result σ(R)R2\sigma(R)\sim R^{-2} while for a vacuum shell we have σ(R)=σ0=const\sigma(R)=\sigma_{0}=const. The dimensionality of σ0\sigma_{0} is therefore depended on the equation of state parameter ww, resulting in different dimensions for σ0\sigma_{0} regarding each case of ww discussed in the next section.

In the special case when σ\sigma is independent of R discussed in the next section (vacuum shell) it is straightforward to show that a minimum of the potential (25) exists for b<0b<0 and Λ<0\Lambda<0 due to the attractive nature of the linear potential term 2bR2\;b\;R which dominates at large RR competing with the repulsive effects of the quadratic potential term ΛR2/3-\Lambda R^{2}/3 which dominates at even larger RR.

For more general metrics or fluid equations of state than the one considered here it is clearly possible to have several minima for the potential corresponding to configurations of more than one stable concentric shells.

In the next section we identify the metric parameter ranges of bb and Λ\Lambda that allow for stable shells in the spacial cases of three shell fluid equations of state.

Refer to caption\begin{array}[]{@{\hspace{-0.10in}}c@{\hspace{0.0in}}c}\lx@intercol\mbox{}\hfil\lx@intercol&\lx@intercol\mbox{}\hfil\lx@intercol\\[-14.45377pt] \includegraphics[scale={0.65}]{figtest.pdf}\\ \end{array}

Figure 1: The shell stability region (light blue region) in the bΛb-\Lambda parameter space for two pairs of m+mm_{+}-m_{-}. The colored curves correspond to fixed value of surface density in the stability range σ0σ0min+Δσ>σ0min\sigma_{0}\equiv\sigma_{0min}+\Delta\sigma>\sigma_{0min} while RR varies such that R>RminR>R_{min}. Since we have set m=1m_{-}=1, the cosmological constant becomes dimensionless and equal to the product m2Λm_{-}^{2}\Lambda. We thus study two separate cases with different values for the exterior mass m+m_{+}. In the right panel we set m+/m=1.5m_{+}/m_{-}=1.5 and in the left panel at m+/m=1.05m_{+}/m_{-}=1.05. We can clearly see that compared to the m+/m=1.05m_{+}/m_{-}=1.05 one, the shell which corresponds to the m+/m=1.5m_{+}/m_{-}=1.5 exterior mass displays a greater value of the lower boundary of the b parameter (bminb_{min}) as well as a smaller value of the RminR_{min} limit.

We then proceed by finding the ranges of the parameters b,Λb,\Lambda which allow for stable spherical shell solutions, via the implementation of these conditions for different cases of interior and exterior equations of state.

III Special Cases

III.1 Vacuum fluid shell (w=1w=-1)

The simplest case of a stable spherical shell is obtained assuming a vacuum fluid equation of state

p=σ.\displaystyle p=-\sigma. (28)

This case is similar to the case of a stable domain wall in the SRAdS metric discussed in (Alestas and Perivolaropoulos, 2019) using theoretical methods. It was shown that such metastable topological field configurations may indeed exist for b<0b<0, Λ<0\Lambda<0 due to the competing attractive-repulsive effects of the linear and quadratic terms of the metric functions. In the vacuum fluid case we have from eq. (26)

σ(R)=σ0=const.\displaystyle\sigma(R)=\sigma_{0}=const. (29)

where the σ0\sigma_{0} has dimensions of R1R^{-1}, in accordance with eq. (27). In this case the system (24) becomes,

V(R)=1m+m+R+2bRΛR23(mm+)216π2R4σ024π2σ02R2=0\displaystyle V(R)=1-\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R}+2bR-\frac{\Lambda R^{2}}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}R^{4}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}R^{2}=0 (30)
Vr|r=R=2b+m+m+R22ΛR3+(mm+)24π2R5σ028π2σ02R=0\displaystyle\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\Bigl{|}_{r=R}=2b+\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R^{2}}-\frac{2\Lambda R}{3}+\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{4\pi^{2}R^{5}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-8\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}R=0 (31)
2Vr2|r=R=2Λ32(m+m+)R35(mm+)24π2R6σ028π2σ02>0.\displaystyle\frac{\partial^{2}V}{\partial r^{2}}\Bigl{|}_{r=R}=-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}-\frac{2(m_{-}+m_{+})}{R^{3}}-\frac{5(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{4\pi^{2}R^{6}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-8\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}>0. (32)

The solution of the system (30 - 32)may be written as

Λ(R,σ0)\displaystyle\Lambda(R,\sigma_{0}) =15(mm+)216π2R6σ02+6(m+m+)3RR312π2σ02\displaystyle=\frac{15(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}R^{6}\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{6(m_{-}+m_{+})-3R}{R^{3}}-12\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2} (33)
b(R,σ0)\displaystyle b(R,\sigma_{0}) =3(mm+)2+8π2[3(m+m+)2R]R3σ0216π2σ02R5\displaystyle=\frac{3(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}+8\pi^{2}[3(m_{-}+m_{+})-2R]R^{3}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}R^{5}} (34)
R\displaystyle R >3(m+m+)Rmin\displaystyle>3(m_{-}+m_{+})\equiv R_{min} (35)
σ0\displaystyle\sigma_{0} 15(mm+)2R3(3m+3m+R)4π+Δσ>15(mm+)2R3(3m+3m+R)4πσ0min\displaystyle\equiv\frac{\sqrt{15}\sqrt{-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{R^{3}(3m_{-}+3m_{+}-R)}}}{4\pi}+\Delta\sigma>\frac{\sqrt{15}\sqrt{-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{R^{3}(3m_{-}+3m_{+}-R)}}}{4\pi}\equiv\sigma_{0min} (36)

where Δσ\Delta\sigma allows for small perturbations on the surface density, higher than that of its minimum value σ0min\sigma_{0min}.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: The potential (30) for parameter values corresponding to the three points shown in Fig. 1. These points correspond to parameter values: (R=14.28,Δσ=2.2×102,b=5.18×102,Λ=6.76×102)(R=14.28,\Delta\sigma=2.2\times 10^{-2},b=-5.18\times 10^{-2},\Lambda=-6.76\times 10^{-2}) (green point), (R=20.78,Δσ=102,b=3.97×102,Λ=1.72×102)(R=20.78,\Delta\sigma=10^{-2},b=-3.97\times 10^{-2},\Lambda=-1.72\times 10^{-2}) (blue point) and (R=7.95,Δσ=103,b=5.25×102,Λ=6.39×103)(R=7.95,\Delta\sigma=10^{-3},b=-5.25\times 10^{-2},\Lambda=-6.39\times 10^{-3}) (red point). Notice that the red point which is outside the stability region corresponds to a potential which does have an extremum with V(R)=0V(R)=0 (for R2R\simeq 2) which implies the existence of a shell solution. However, this extremum corresponds to a local maximum indicating instability of the corresponding shell solution.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: A random Monte-Carlo selection of points that satisfy the shell existence and stability conditions (33 - 36) for m+=1.5m_{+}=1.5. The orange line represents the limit of the region which is clearly respected by all the randomly selected points which span the stability region.

The existence of lower limits on the values of R and σ0\sigma_{0} allows the analytical derivation of the boundaries in the b,Λb,\Lambda parameter space of the region that permits a stable shell solution. In particular when the shell radius takes its lower limit value R=RminR=R_{min}, we have σ0min=\sigma_{0min}=\infty and Λ\Lambda\rightarrow-\infty which implies the existence of a low bound on b for large |Λ||\Lambda| as

Λb16(m++m).\displaystyle\Lambda\rightarrow-\infty\implies b\rightarrow-\frac{1}{6(m_{+}+m_{-})}. (37)

Similarly for large shell radius (R)(R\rightarrow\infty) we have,

σ0min0 and Λ12π2σ02>0.\displaystyle\sigma_{0min}\rightarrow 0\text{ and }\Lambda\rightarrow-12\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}>0. (38)

From eq. (34) implies the existence of  an upper bound for the parameter b,

b<0 with Λ<Λmax=12π2σ02.\displaystyle b<0\text{ with }\Lambda<\Lambda_{max}=-12\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}. (39)

These analytically derived boundaries of the stability parameter region may be displayed by showing contours in the (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) parameter space that show the shell stability regions in the context of the constraints (33 - 36) for fixed values of m+,mm_{+},m_{-}. Clearly, the boundaries expressed by eqs (37 - 39) are respected by these regions as demonstrated in Fig. 1. As expected (right panel of Fig. 1), the minimum value of bb in the stability region increases as m+m_{+} is increased (see eq. (37)). In Fig. 2 we show the form of the potential (23) for three sets of parameters (R,σ,b,Λ)(R,\sigma,b,\Lambda) inside and outside the stability region of Fig. 1. As expected the potential develops a minimum with V(R)=0V(R)=0 only for the parameters inside the stability region while the parameter values in the instability region correspond only to a local maximum of the potential at the corresponding value of R.

In order to illustrate the validity of the stability boundaries shown in Fig. 1 we show a random set of stability parameter points in Fig. 3 which is constructed as follows:

  1. 1.

    We fix m=1m_{-}=1, m+m+/m=1.5m_{+}\equiv m_{+}/m_{-}=1.5. (mm_{-} and m+m_{+} become dimensionless since we have set m=1m_{-}=1). Then we construct the stability boundary as the set of points with b=b(R,σ0min(R))b=b(R,\sigma_{0min}(R)), Λ=Λ(R,σ0min(R))\Lambda=\Lambda(R,\sigma_{0min}(R)), where R>RminR>R_{min} (see eq.(35)), σ0min(R)\sigma_{0min}(R) is obtained from eq. (36).

  2. 2.

    We construct a random selection of shell radius values RiR_{i} respecting the stability constraint (35). For each value of R=RiR=R_{i} we consider a random value for σi\sigma_{i} such that σi>σ0min(Ri)\sigma_{i}>\sigma_{0min}(R_{i}) (see eq. (36)). For the given random pair (Ri,σi)(R_{i},\sigma_{i}) we obtain the stability parameters (Λ,b)(\Lambda,b) and plot the corresponding point in Fig. 3.

  3. 3.

    We repeat this process for i=1,,Ni=1,...,N (N=5×104)(N=5\times 10^{4}) thus constructing Fig. 3.

Clearly all the points corresponding to stable shell parameter values are within the stable region thus testing the validity of this region and the consistency of Fig. 1.

III.2 Stiff matter fluid shell (w=1w=1)

A stiff matter shell has equation of state

p=σ.p=\sigma. (40)

From the eq. (26) with w=1w=1 we obtain

σ(R)=σ0R4\sigma(R)=\sigma_{0}R^{-4} (41)

where σ0\sigma_{0} has dimensions of R3R^{3}, in accordance with eq. (27). For this equation of state the potential (25) takes the form,

V(R)=1+2bRΛR23(mm+)2R416π2σ02m+m+R4π2σ02R6\displaystyle V(R)=1+2bR-\frac{\Lambda R^{2}}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{4}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R}-\frac{4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{6}} (42)

The system of stability conditions (24) in this case takes the form,

V(R)=1m+m+R+2bRΛR23(mm+)2R416π2σ024π2σ02R6=0\displaystyle V(R)=1-\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R}+2bR-\frac{\Lambda R^{2}}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{4}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-\frac{4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{6}}=0 (43)
Vr|r=R=2b+m+m+R22ΛR3(mm+)2R34π2σ02+24π2σ02R7=0\displaystyle\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\Bigl{|}_{r=R}=2b+\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R^{2}}-\frac{2\Lambda R}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{3}}{4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{24\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{7}}=0 (44)
2Vr2|r=R=2Λ32(m+m+)R33(mm+)2R24π2σ02168π2σ02R8>0\displaystyle\frac{\partial^{2}V}{\partial r^{2}}\Bigl{|}_{r=R}=-\frac{2\Lambda}{3}-\frac{2(m_{-}+m_{+})}{R^{3}}-\frac{3(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{2}}{4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-\frac{168\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{8}}>0 (45)

with solution for existence of shell solution

Λ(R,σ0)\displaystyle\Lambda(R,\sigma_{0}) =9(mm+)2R216π2σ02+6(m++m)3RR3+84π2σ02R8\displaystyle=-\frac{9(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{6(m_{+}+m_{-})-3R}{R^{3}}+\frac{84\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{8}} (46)
b(R,σ0)\displaystyle b(R,\sigma_{0}) =(mm+)2R316π2σ02+3(m+m+)2R2R2+16π2σ02R7\displaystyle=-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}R^{3}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{3(m_{-}+m_{+})-2R}{2R^{2}}+\frac{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{7}} (47)

The stability condition (45) leads to the constraints

4πσ02(R66m+R5100π2σ02)\displaystyle-4\pi\sqrt{\sigma_{0}^{2}(R^{6}-6m_{+}R^{5}-100\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2})} <3[(mm+)R5+8π2σ02]3<4πσ02(R66m+R5100π2σ02),\displaystyle<\frac{3[(m_{-}-m_{+})R^{5}+8\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}]}{\sqrt{3}}<4\pi\sqrt{\sigma_{0}^{2}(R^{6}-6m_{+}R^{5}-100\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2})}, (48)
R6\displaystyle R^{6} >6m+R5+100π2σ02.\displaystyle>6m_{+}R^{5}+100\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}. (49)

which must be met simultaneously in order for a stability region to exist.

Using again the Monte-Carlo method of Fig. 3 with random values of RR and σ0\sigma_{0} in the region allowed by eqs. (48)-(49), we obtain the corresponding stability values of Λ\Lambda and bb which map the stability region shown in Fig. 4.

The range of the (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) parameters for which we have stable solutions for the stiff matter case appears to be significantly narrower than the corresponding one for the case of vacuum shell. The reduction of the stability region in this case is due to the repulsive term of the potential of eq. (42) proportional to R4R^{4} which is not present in the vacuum shell case and spoils the attractive effects of the anti-deSitter term ΛR2\sim\Lambda R^{2} (Λ<0\Lambda<0) needed for the formation of a potential minimum at large R.

III.3 Pressureless dust fluid shell (w=0w=0)

For a pressureless dust fluid shell we have p=0p=0 and eq. (21) leads to a surface energy density of the form

σ(R)=σ0R2\sigma(R)=\sigma_{0}R^{-2} (50)

with σ0\sigma_{0} dimensions of RR, in accordance with eq. (27). In this case the potential takes the form,

V(r)=1+2bRΛR23(mm+)216π2σ02m+m+R4π2σ02R2\displaystyle V(r)=1+2bR-\frac{\Lambda R^{2}}{3}-\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}-\frac{m_{-}+m_{+}}{R}-\frac{4\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{2}} (51)

Solving the system (24) for this potential yields the following forms for Λ\Lambda and bb (existence conditions)

Λ(R,σ0)\displaystyle\Lambda(R,\sigma_{0}) =3(mm+)216π2R2σ02+6(m+m+)3RR3+36π2σ02R4\displaystyle=\frac{3(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}R^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{6(m_{-}+m_{+})-3R}{R^{3}}+\frac{36\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{4}} (52)
b(R,σ0)\displaystyle b(R,\sigma_{0}) =(mm+)216π2Rσ02+3(m+m+)2R2R2+8π2σ02R3\displaystyle=\frac{(m_{-}-m_{+})^{2}}{16\pi^{2}R\sigma_{0}^{2}}+\frac{3(m_{-}+m_{+})-2R}{2R^{2}}+\frac{8\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}}{R^{3}} (53)

Since the dimensionality of σ0\sigma_{0} is RR it is evident that eqs. (51) - (53) are dimensionally correct (ΛR2\Lambda\sim R^{-2}, bR1b\sim R^{-1}). While stability of the shell implies that

24π2σ02+(mm+)R\displaystyle\|24\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}+(m_{-}-m_{+})R\| <4πσ02(12π2σ026m+R+R2),\displaystyle<4\pi\sqrt{\sigma_{0}^{2}(12\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}-6m_{+}R+R^{2})}, (54)
0\displaystyle 0 <12π2σ026m+R+R2.\displaystyle<12\pi^{2}\sigma_{0}^{2}-6m_{+}R+R^{2}. (55)
Refer to caption
Figure 4: A Monte-Carlo map of the stiff matter shell stability parameter region (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) for m=1m_{-}=1, m+=1.5m_{+}=1.5. Notice that in this case the stability parameter range is much more narrow than in the case of the vacuum shell.
Refer to caption
Figure 5: A Monte-Carlo map of the dust matter shell stability parameter region (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) for m=1m_{-}=1, m+=1.5m_{+}=1.5.

Via the same Monte-Carlo process as in the former cases we show a map the stability parameter region in the (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) space (Fig. 5). As is evident in Fig. 4 and 5 constructed using a Monte-Carlo simulation of the stability range indicated by eqs. (24), in both the w=0w=0 as well as the w=1w=1 case, in order to have the stability conditions satisfied we must have Λ<0\Lambda<0 and b<0b<0.

In contrast to the potential of eq. (42) which corresponds to a stiff matter shell, the potential given by eq. (51) for a pressureless dust shell does not incorporate any high order repulsive terms, e.g. R4R^{4}. This allows for a higher influence of the anti-deSitter term ΛR2\sim\Lambda R^{2} (Λ<0\Lambda<0), which is crucial for the implementation of stability at larger R. Therefore, the range of the (b,Λ)(b,\Lambda) parameters for which we have stable solutions for the pressureless dust matter case appears to be significantly wider than the corresponding one for the case of stiff matter shell.

IV Conclusion - Outlook

We have demonstrated the existence of static, stable spherically symmetric thin fluid shells in a Schwarzschild-Rindler-anti-de Sitter (SRAdS) metric. We have found analytically the conditions for stability and the corresponding range of values of metric parameters that admit stable fluid shells for different forms of fluid equation of state. These structures have similarities with the well known gravastar shell structures Mazur and Mottola (2004); Visser and Wiltshire (2004); Martin Moruno et al. (2012); Uchikata and Yoshida (2016); Broderick and Narayan (2007). In our shell structures the interior de Sitter term of the gravastars is replaced by a combination of Rindler-anti-de Sitter terms present in a continuous form (same values both in the interior and in the exterior of the shell) allowing for the existence of a minimum of the stability effective potential.

Interesting extensions of this analysis include the following:

  • The investigation of alternative forms of metrics that may admit stable shell solutions. For example an interesting alternative simple metric would be one with a Rindler term inside the shell and a Schwarzschild term outside. Such a metric would be free of singularities and would differ from a gravastar in the replacement of the de Sitter interior by a Rindler interior. Other types of metrics could accept multiple concentric shell structures if the corresponding stability potential has multiple minima at different radii R.

  • The investigation of observational effects of such shell structures. Since the radius of the shell is always considered in the region outside the event horizon of the black hole, lensing can be considered in a straightforward manner by studying lightlike geodesics in the SRAdS spacetime along the lines of Refs Lim and Wang (2017); Cutajar and Adami (2014) where the lensing of similar metrics is considered. For example signatures of such SRAdS shell structures in typical lensing patterns could be identified and compared to observed lensing patterns around black holes (Hannuksela et al., 2019; Bowman et al., 2004; Rahman and Sen, 2019; Ishak et al., 2008; Park, 2008; Sereno, 2008). Signatures of SRAdS shells in such optical images could be specified and compared with predicted signatures of other similar exotic objects like gravastars Sakai et al. (2014).

  • The investigation of non-spherical junctions and shells. An interesting problem would be the study of joining rotating spacetimes in the presence of the cosmological constant.

  • The consideration of more general fluid shell equations of state. In the case of phantom shells it may be possible to have stable shells in a pure Schwarzschild background due to the tendency of such shells to expand rather than contract (negative tension). This is easily shown using the energy conservation equation (21) with w<1w<-1 which leads to a surface density σ(R)=σ0R2(w+1)\sigma(R)=\sigma_{0}R^{-2(w+1)} which increases with RR. The positive value of the exponent for w<1w<-1 indicates that it is energetically favourable for such phantom shell to expand rather than contract leading to a negative tension (pressure) that would tend to stabilize the shell even in a pure Schwarzschild background.

  • The investigation of the dynamical evolution of the shell in the context of spherical symmetry and beyond. Non-spherical dynamical excitations of the shell could also lead to interesting gravitational wave signatures.

Numerical Analysis Files: The numerical files for the reproduction of the figures can be found in num .

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend a thank you to prof. Demetrios Papadopoulos for the stimulating discussions and ideas he provided towards the completion of this paper. This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund - ESF) through the Operational Programme ”Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning 2014-2020” in the context of the project ”Scalar fields in Curved Spacetimes: Soliton Solutions, Observational Results and Gravitational Waves” (MIS 5047648).

References