text:
# Scaling property and peculiar velocity of global monopoles

## I Introduction

The grand unified theory based on a simple group predicts magnetic (gauge) monopoles if it breaks to leave the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the electromagnetism . Magnetic monopoles are dangerous because they may overclose our universe . However, no magnetic monopoles have been found yet. In fact, the flux of magnetic monopoles is severely constrained by cosmological and astrophysical considerations . Thus, magnetic monopoles produced in the early universe must be diluted away, annihilated, or swept away (the monopole problem). This monopole problem is one of the motivations of inflation  though other solutions are also proposed .

On the other hand, global monopoles have drawn less attention. However, while magnetic monopoles are dangerous for the cosmic history, global monopoles may be favorable because they may produce primordial density fluctuations responsible for the large scale structure formation and the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) . Recent observations of the CMB by the Boomerang  and the MAXIMA  experiments found the first acoustic peak with a spherical harmonic multipole $`l200`$ predicted by the standard inflationary scenario. But, they also found a relatively low second peak, which may suggest the contribution of topological defects . Moreover, deviations from Gaussianity in CMB are reported in . Thus, though it is improbable for topological defects to become the primary source of primordial density fluctuations, a hybrid model is still attractive, where primordial density fluctuations are comprised of adiabatic fluctuations induced by inflation and isocurvature ones induced by topological defects. In fact, topological defects can be easily compatible with inflation .

The key property of global monopoles to contribute primordial density fluctuations properly is scaling, where the typical scale of the global monopole network grows in proportion to the horizon scale.***For both the gauge  and the global string network , the scaling property is confirmed so that density fluctuations produced by them become scale invariant. Then the number density of global monopoles is proportional to $`t^3`$ ($`t`$ : the cosmic time). Here we define the scaling parameter $`\xi `$ as

$$\xi n(t)t^3,$$
(1)
where $`n(t)`$ is the number density of global monopoles. If $`\xi `$ becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time, we can conclude that the global monopole network goes into the scaling regime.

The mass of a global monopole $`m`$ is proportional to the distance to the nearest neighborhood antimonopole $`d`$ \[$`m4\pi \eta ^2d`$, $`\eta `$ : the absolute magnitude of vacuum expectation values (VEV) of scalar fields\]. Roughly speaking, the distance is the horizon scale (to be exact $`dt/\xi ^{1/3}`$ ) if the network follows the scaling property. Then the density fluctuations produced by global monopoles are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }}`$ $``$ $`mn8\pi /3m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2H^2`$ (2)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{128}{3}}(24)\pi ^2\xi ^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}}\right)^2\mathrm{for}\mathrm{RD}(\mathrm{MD}),`$ (3)
where $`m_{\mathrm{pl}}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV is the Plank mass. Thus, the density fluctuations produced by global monopoles become scale invariant. One may wonder if the precise value of $`\xi `$ is not so important because the amplitude of density fluctuations depends on only the combination of $`\xi ^{2/3}\eta ^2`$. It is true for the case where global monopoles are the dominant source of density fluctuations. But that is not the case. As stated earlier, the recent observations indicate that the dominant source of density fluctuations is inflation and topological defects contribute to them subdominantly. In such a case, $`\xi `$ itself determines the ratio of the above two contributions for a fixed VEV. Thus, the precise value of $`\xi `$ is increasingly important.

The cosmological evolution of global monopoles was first discussed by Barriola and Vilenkin . They showed that the annihilation is so efficient that global monopoles do not overclose our universe unlike magnetic monopoles, but that it is not too efficient to survive in our universe. This is mainly because an attractive force works between a monopole and an antimonopole. Then, Bennett and Rhie performed the first numerical simulations and found the tendency that the number of global monopoles per horizon volume is nearly a constant . However they used the nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model approximation as equations of motion to evolve the scalar fields. Later, Pen, Spergel, and Turok made numerical simulations in both the nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model approximation and the full potential . (See also .) However, due to the lack of the computer power, they can run a few realizations so that the scaling property cannot be confirmed definitely. Many realizations of numerical simulations are needed to decrease the error and estimate it statistically. Furthermore, in order to confirm the scaling property completely, we should pay attention to several effects, which may affect the final result, for example, the boundary effect, the grid size effect, the total box size dependence, and so on.

In the previous paper , we reported the results of our numerical simulations of the global monopole network and confirmed that the global monopole network relaxes into the scaling regime both in the RD and the MD universe. In this paper, we investigate the cosmological evolution of the global monopole network comprehensively.

In the next section, we give the formulation and the results of our numerical simulations. From the symmetry restoration phase, we follow the evolution of the scalar fields with the $`O(3)`$ symmetry, which breaks to generate global monopoles. The time development of the number density of global monopoles is examined. Since we need to perform a lot of realizations, it is important to establish the method to identify monopoles automatically from the values of the scalar fields. We will propose two identification methods and compare the results obtained by both methods. We also investigate the peculiar velocity of global monopoles. Our numerical simulations are based on the Eulerian view. Therefore, it is very difficult to know where a monopole moves after the long interval enough to measure the velocity. We establish the method to measure the velocity of global monopoles by use of only the local quantities of scalar fields. In Sec. III, we set up the Boltzmann equation for the time development of the number density of global monopoles. Using the peculiar velocity obtained from numerical simulations, an analytic estimate for the number density of global monopoles is given. In the final section, we give the summary.

## II Numerical Simulations

First of all, we give the formalism of our numerical simulations to follow the evolution of the global monopole network. Later we show the results of our numerical simulations and discuss whether the global monopole network goes into the scaling regime. Furthermore, the peculiar velocity of global monopoles is investigated.

We directly solve the equations of motion for scalar fields in the expanding universe, which have the $`O(3)`$ symmetry at high temperature and later break to generate global monopoles. We consider the following Lagrangian density for scalar fields $`\varphi ^a(x)(a=1,2,3)`$:

$$[\varphi ^a]=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }^\mu \varphi ^a^\nu \varphi ^aV_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^a,T].$$
(4)
Here $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the flat Robertson-Walker metric and the effective potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^a,T]`$, which represents the typical second order phase transition, is given by

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^a,T]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi ^2\sigma ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}\lambda T^2\varphi ^2,`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi ^2\eta ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\sigma ^4\eta ^4),`$ (6)
where $`\varphi \sqrt{\varphi ^a\varphi ^a}`$, $`\eta \sigma \sqrt{1(T/T_c)^2}`$ and $`T_c\frac{2}{5}\sqrt{15}\sigma `$ is the critical temperature. For $`T>T_c`$, the potential $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ^a,T]`$ has a minimum at the origin and the $`O(3)`$ symmetry is restored. On the other hand, for $`T<T_c`$, new minima $`\varphi =\eta `$ appear and the symmetry is broken, which leads to the formation of global monopoles.

The equations of motion for the scalar fields $`\varphi ^a`$ in the expanding universe are given by

$$\ddot{\varphi ^a}(x)+3H\dot{\varphi ^a}(x)\frac{1}{R(t)^2}^2\varphi ^a(x)+\lambda \left(\varphi ^2(x)\eta ^2\right)\varphi ^a(x)=0,$$
(7)
where the dot represents the time derivative and $`R(t)`$ is the cosmic scale factor. The Hubble parameter $`H=\dot{R}(t)/R(t)`$ and the cosmic time $`t`$ are given by

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^3}{45m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}}g_{}T^4,t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2H}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{RD}}{T^2}}(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{RD}),`$ (8)
$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (T){\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^3}{45m_{\mathrm{pl}}^2}}g_{}T^4,t={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3H}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{MD}}{T^{3/2}}}(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{MD}),`$ (9)
with $`g_{}`$ to be the total number of degrees of freedom for the relativistic particles. For the MD case, we have defined $`\alpha (T)`$ \[$`\alpha (T)>1`$\] as $`\alpha (T)\rho _{\mathrm{mat}}(T)/\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}(T)=\alpha _c(T_c/T)`$, where $`\rho _{\mathrm{mat}}(T)`$ is the contribution to the energy density from nonrelativistic particles, $`\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}(T)`$ is the contribution from relativistic particles at the temperature $`T`$, and $`\alpha _c\rho _{\mathrm{mat}}(T_c)/\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}(T_c)`$. We also define the dimensionless parameter $`\zeta `$ as

$`\zeta _{RD}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{RD}}{\sigma }}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{45}{16\pi ^3g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\sigma }}(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{RD}),`$ (10)
$`\zeta _{MD}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{MD}}{\sigma ^{1/2}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{5\sqrt{15}}{6\alpha _c\pi ^3g_{}}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}{\sigma }}(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{MD}).`$ (11)
In our simulation, we take $`\zeta _{RD,MD}=10`$ and $`5`$ to investigate the $`\zeta `$ dependence on the result.

We start the numerical simulations from the $`O(3)`$ symmetric phase with the temperature $`T_i=2T_c`$, which corresponds to $`t_i=t_c/4`$(RD) and $`t_i=t_c/(2\sqrt{2})`$(MD). At the initial time ($`t_i<t_c`$), we adopt as the initial condition the thermal equilibrium state with the mass

$$m=\sqrt{\frac{5}{12}\lambda (T_i^2T_c^2)},$$
(12)
which is the inverse curvature of the potential at the origin at $`t=t_i`$.

Hereafter we normalize the scalar field in units of $`t_i^1`$, $`t`$ and $`x`$ in units of $`t_i`$. We set $`\lambda `$ to be $`\lambda =0.25`$ and normalize the scale factor $`R(t)`$ as $`R(1)=1`$. Then, the normalized equations of motion for the scalar fields $`\varphi ^a`$ are given by

$`\ddot{\varphi ^a}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2t}}\dot{\varphi ^a}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}^2\varphi ^a(x)+\lambda (\varphi ^2\eta _{RD}^2)\varphi ^a=0(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{RD}),`$ (13)
$`\ddot{\varphi ^a}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t}}\dot{\varphi ^a}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^{4/3}}}^2\varphi ^a(x)+\lambda (\varphi ^2\eta _{MD}^2)\varphi ^a=0(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{MD})`$ (14)
with $`\eta _{RD}=\frac{5}{48}\zeta _{RD}\sqrt{14/t}`$ and $`\eta _{MD}=(\sqrt{15}/12)^{3/2}\zeta _{MD}\sqrt{14/t^{4/3}}`$.

We perform numerical simulations in seven different sets of lattice sizes and lattice spacings in the RD universe and the MD universe (See Tables I and II.). In all cases, the time step is taken to be $`\delta t=0.01`$. In the typical case (1), the box size is nearly equal to the horizon volume $`(H^1)^3`$ and the lattice spacing to the typical core size of a monopole $`\delta x1.0/(\sqrt{\lambda }\sigma )`$ at the final time $`t_f`$. Furthermore, in order to investigate the dependence of $`\zeta `$, we arrange the case (7) with $`\zeta =5`$. We have simulated the system from 10 \[(2), (3), (5) and (6)\] or 50 \[(1), (4), and (7)\] different thermal initial conditions. Also, in order to investigate the effect of the boundary condition (BC), we adopt both the periodic BC and the reflective BC \[$`^2\varphi ^a(x)=0`$ on the boundary\].

### A Number density

In order to judge whether the global monopole network relaxes into the scaling regime, we follow the time development of $`\xi `$. If $`\xi `$ becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time, we can conclude that the global monopole network goes into the scaling regime.

First of all, we need to count the number of global monopoles in the simulation box. For the purpose, we must establish the identification method of global monopoles because we can obtain only the values of scalar fields. We propose two identification methods and later compare the results obtained by using both methods. In the first method (I), we use a static spherically-symmetric solution with the topological charge $`N=1`$, which is obtained by solving the equation

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}2\frac{\varphi }{r^2}\frac{dV_{\mathrm{eff}}[\varphi ,T]}{d\varphi }=0$$
(15)
with $`\varphi ^a(r,\theta ,\phi )\varphi (r)x^a/r`$, $`x^1=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,x^2=r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi `$, and $`x^3=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. The boundary conditions are given by

$`\varphi (r)`$ $``$ $`\eta (r\mathrm{}),`$ (16)
$`\varphi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (17)
One should notice that a point with $`\varphi ^a=0`$ for all $`a`$’s is not necessarily situated at a lattice point. In the worst case, a point with $`\varphi ^a=0`$ lies at the center of a cube. Then, we make the criterion that a lattice is identified with a part of a monopole core if the potential energy density there is larger than that corresponding to the field value of a static spherically-symmetric solution at $`r=\sqrt{3}\delta x_{\mathrm{phys}}/2`$ \[$`\delta x_{\mathrm{phys}}=R(t)\delta x`$\], that is, the potential energy density at the vertices when a static spherically-symmetric monopole lies at the center of cube. Moreover, in order to reduce the error, we look on the identified lattices which are connected as one monopole core. In the other method (II), a cubic box is regarded as including a monopole if all $`\varphi ^a=0`$ ($`a`$ = 1, 2, 3) surfaces pass through the cubic box, that is, the signs of all eight vertices of the box are not identical for each three field $`\varphi ^a`$. In this method, we also look on the identified boxes which are connected as one monopole core. In fact, as shown later, the results with these two identification methods coincide very well.

First of all, we discuss the evolution of global monopoles in the RD universe. The time development of $`\xi _{RD}`$ in the cases from (1) to (6) under the periodic BC is described in Figs. 1. Asterisks ($``$) represent the time development of $`\xi _{RD}`$ for the identification method (I). Squares ($`\mathrm{}`$) represent the time development of $`\xi _{RD}`$ for the identification method (II). As easily seen, the results with two identification methods coincide very well. We also find that after some relaxation period, $`\xi _{RD}`$ becomes a constant irrespective of time for all cases. Though all results are consistent within the standard deviation, $`\xi _{RD}`$ tends to increase as the box size does. This is understood as follows: under the periodic BC, a monopole can annihilate with an antimonopole which lies beyond the boundary. Therefore monopoles under the periodic BC annihilate more often than those in the real universe, in particular, monopoles annihilate more often for smaller box sizes. On the other hand, the time development of $`\xi _{RD}`$ in the cases from (1) to (6) under the reflective BC is described in Figs. 2. We also find that, $`\xi _{RD}`$ tends to become a constant though more relaxation period takes. Contrary to the case under the periodic BC, $`\xi _{RD}`$ tends to decrease as the box size increases. This is understood as follows: under the reflective BC, field configurations of a monopole extend with the same phase direction beyond the boundary so that a monopole cannot annihilate any antimonopoles which may lie beyond the boundary in the real universe. Therefore monopoles under the reflective BC annihilate less often than those in the real universe, in particular, monopoles annihilate less often for smaller box sizes. Thus, $`\xi _{RD}`$ takes a larger value in a smaller-box simulation due to the boundary effect.One may wonder if $`\xi _{RD}`$ increases even after some relaxation period, particular, in the case (2), which is the longest simulation. This is also just the boundary effect because the earlier the cosmic time is, the simulation box is larger than the horizon volume. After all, the real number of the monopole per the horizon volume lies in between those under the periodic BC and the reflective BC. $`\xi _{RD}`$ of each case is listed in Table I. From the results of the largest-box simulations \[case (6)\], we can conclude that the global monopole network relaxes into scaling regime in the RD universe and $`\xi _{RD}`$ converges to a constant $`\xi _{RD}(0.43\pm 0.07)`$. We also show the time development of $`\xi _{RD}`$ with $`\zeta =5`$ in the case (7) (Fig. 3). $`\xi _{RD}`$ asymptotically becomes a constant $`\xi _{RD}(0.36\pm 0.01)`$ under the periodic BC, which is consistent with the above all cases with $`\zeta =10`$ within the standard deviation.In this case, $`\xi _{RD}`$ under the reflective BC also tends to increase due to the boundary effect. Hence we can also conclude that $`\zeta `$ does not change the essential result.

For the MD case, we also find that after some relaxation period, the number of global monopoles per the horizon volume becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time under the periodic BC except for the cases (1), (2), and (3), in which global monopoles annihilate too much due to the boundary effect. Also, the number of global monopoles per the horizon volume becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time under the reflective BC except for the case (2), where the boundary effect is the most manifest because of the longest time simulation. The tendency of the boundary effect is the same with that for the RD case. Then, from the results of the largest-box simulations \[case (6)\], we conclude that the global monopole network relaxes into scaling regime in the MD universe and $`\xi _{MD}`$ converges to a constant $`\xi _{MD}(0.25\pm 0.05)`$ (see Fig. 4 and 5). We also show the time development of $`\xi _{MD}`$ with $`\zeta =5`$ in the case (7) (Fig. 6). $`\xi _{MD}`$ asymptotically becomes a constant $`\xi _{MD}(0.44\pm 0.03)`$ under the reflective BC though monopoles tend to disappear under the periodic BC due to the boundary effect. This is consistent with the above all cases with $`\zeta =10`$ within the standard deviation. Thus, we have completely confirmed that the global monopole network goes into the scaling regime in both the RD universe and MD universe.

### B Peculiar velocity

In this subsection, we investigate the peculiar velocity of global monopoles in the expanding universe. In order to measure the peculiar velocity, we need to know where a monopole moves at the next step. For the purpose, we need to find the method to look on the monopole found at each time as the same. But, generally speaking, it is very difficult in case there are a lot of monopoles in the simulation box.

Then, looking at the matter from another angle, we make best use of the information of scalar fields. Since the values and the time derivatives of scalar fields include all informations about monopoles, the velocity of a monopole can be represented by only the information of scalar fields, that is, local quantities. In fact, it is possible as shown below. First of all, we expand scalar fields $`\varphi ^a(𝒙,t)`$ around $`\varphi ^a(𝒙_0,t_0)`$ up to the first order,

$$\varphi ^a(𝒙,t)\varphi ^a(𝒙_0,t_0)+\varphi ^a(𝒙_0,t_0)(𝒙𝒙_0)+\dot{\varphi }^a(𝒙_0,t_0)(tt_0)(a=1,2,3).$$
(18)
The monopole core is identified with the zero of all scalar fields $`\varphi ^a`$. Assuming a monopole lies at $`𝒙_0`$ at the time $`t_0`$, the position $`𝒙`$ of the monopole core at the sufficiently near time $`t`$ is obtained as the intersection of the following three planes,

$$𝑨^a(𝒙𝒙_0)+B^a(tt_0)=0,$$
(19)
where $`𝑨^a\varphi ^a(𝒙_0,t_0)`$ and $`B^a\dot{\varphi }^a(𝒙_0,t_0)`$. These equations are easily solved by the Cramer’s formula

$$\frac{(𝒙𝒙_0)_j}{tt_o}=\frac{\begin{array}{ccc}& j& \\ A_x^1& B^1& A_z^1\\ A_x^2& B^2& A_z^2\\ A_x^3& B^3& A_z^3\end{array}}{\begin{array}{ccc}A_x^1& A_y^1& A_z^1\\ A_x^2& A_y^2& A_z^2\\ A_x^3& A_y^3& A_z^3\end{array}}.$$
(20)
Thus, the peculiar velocity of a global monopole $`v`$ can be estimated as §§§This method to measure the velocity of monopoles can apply to that of strings in the same way. In the future publication, we will investigate the velocity of the string network with the aid of this method.

$$v=\frac{|𝒙𝒙_0|}{tt_o}.$$
(21)
This method has two main sources to generate errors. First of all, our estimate is correct only up to the first order. Then, in order to reduce the error due to this approximation, we evaluate the peculiar velocity for the case (3) in all the situations because it is the simulation with the highest resolution (the smallest lattice spacing). Next, a monopole does not necessarily lie just on the lattice in our simulations. Especially, in the identification method (I), we have identified a lattice with a part of the monopole core if the potential energy at the lattice is larger than a critical value. Since we have started the simulation from the thermal equilibrium states, there are still small thermal fluctuations at late times, which may accidentally lead to the large potential energy for the lattices not corresponding to the monopole core. Thus, in the identification method (I), some lattices which have nothing to do with the monopole core may be identified with monopole cores. At such lattices, the velocities obtained by the above formula may become extraordinarily large, which causes the large error. Then, in order to reduce the errors, we introduce the cutoff for the velocity and abandon the velocities which are larger than a cutoff at estimating the average and dispersion of the velocity. We have chosen several cutoff values and investigated their effects on the results. We found that the results do not change much if the cutoff is smaller than a value (of course, it need to be larger than unity). Though the velocity is at most unity, we set the cutoff to be 1.5 in order to use as many data as possible and reduce the artificial effect.

The time development of the peculiar velocity of global monopoles during the RD era under both the periodic and the reflective BCs is depicted in Fig. 7. Though there is still large uncertainty, the peculiar velocity $`v`$ takes almost the same constant asymptotically under both BCs and is given by $`v_{RD}(1.0\pm 0.3)`$. On the other hand, the time development of the peculiar velocity of global monopoles during the MD era is depicted in Fig. 8 and the peculiar velocity $`v`$ is given by $`v_{MD}(0.8\pm 0.3)`$. Since monopoles disappear at late times under the periodic BC, the peculiar velocity is set to zero in such a situation.

The obtained values of the peculiar velocity are roughly understood as follows. A constant long-range attractive force works between a monopole and an antimonopole due to the gradient energy of the scalar fields. Then, the monopole is accelerated very much and the relative velocity rapidly gets to the order of unity. In the RD universe, the cosmic expansion is not so rapid that the redshift of the velocity due to the cosmic expansion becomes negligible and the velocity reaches almost the unity. On the other hand, in the MD era, the universe expands so rapid that the velocity is redshifted and it takes a value smaller than the unity.

## III Analytic Estimate

In this section, we give a simple analytic estimate for the scaling parameter $`\xi `$.

The evolution for the number density of global monopoles $`n(t)`$ can be described by the following Boltzmann equation,A similar discussion was done in .

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`P(t)n(t)3H(t)n(t),`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(t)}{T(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3mn(t)}{t}},`$ (23)
where $`R(t)t^m`$, $`P(t)`$ is the probability per unit time that a monopole annihilates with an antimonopole, and $`T(t)`$ is the period it takes for a pair of monopoles at rest with the mean separation $`l(t)`$ to pair annihilate. The mean separation $`l(t)`$ is given by $`l(t)R(t)r_s=n(t)^{1/3}`$, where $`r_s`$ is the mean comoving separation. In the previous publication , we assumed that the relative velocity between them reaches the order of unity at once because a constant attractive force works between a pair of monopoles irrespective of the separation length. In the previous section, we have confirmed that the above assumption is basically correct but the peculiar velocity is smaller than unity in the MD universe. Then, assuming that the relative velocity is given by the peculiar velocity obtained in the previous section and a pair of monopoles does not spiral around each other for a long time, we give a more accurate analytic estimate for the number density of global monopoles. The period $`T(t)`$ is given by the following relation,

$$v_{t_0}^{T+t_0}\frac{dt}{R(t)}_0^{r_s}𝑑r,$$
(24)
where $`t_0`$ is the initial time where a pair of monopoles are at rest. Then, the period $`T(t)`$ reads

$$T(t)\left(\frac{1m}{vt^mn(t)^{1/3}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1m}}(\mathrm{for}t_0T).$$
(25)
Inserting this result into the Boltzmann equation (23), the number density $`n(t)`$ takes the following asymptotic value:

$$n(t)\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}^{3(1m)}(1m)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(2m)}}{v^3t^3}t^3.$$
(26)
From the above asymptotic form, first of all, we find that the number density $`n(t)`$ is proportional to the inverse of the cosmic time cubed, $`t^3`$, which implies that $`\xi `$ becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time. $`\xi `$ is also estimated as

$$\xi =\frac{3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(1m)}(1m)^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(2m)}}{v^3}.$$
(27)
Inserting $`m=1/2`$ and $`v_{RD}(1.0\pm 0.3)`$, $`\xi _{RD}(0.45\pm 0.22)`$. On the other hand, inserting $`m=2/3`$ and $`v_{MD}(0.8\pm 0.3)`$, $`\xi _{MD}(0.17\pm 0.13)`$. Thus, $`\xi `$ obtained by the analytic estimates can well reproduce that obtained from the numerical simulations both in the RD universe and the MD universe.

## IV Summary

In this paper, we have discussed the evolution of the global monopole network in the expanding universe. We have completely confirmed that the global monopole network relaxes into the scaling regime, where the number of global monopoles per the horizon volume is a constant. The scaling parameter $`\xi `$ is given by $`\xi _{RD}(0.43\pm 0.07)`$ in the RD universe and $`\xi _{MD}(0.25\pm 0.05)`$ in the MD universe. We also investigated the peculiar velocity of global monopoles. First of all, we established the method to measure the peculiar velocity by using only the local quantities of the scalar fields. This method compensates the weak point of the Eulerian view which our numerical simulations are based on, that is, we cannot follow the motion of each monopole in detail. We find that the peculiar velocity also becomes a constant irrespective of the cosmic time and is given by $`v_{RD}(1.0\pm 0.3)`$ and $`v_{MD}(0.8\pm 0.3)`$ though there is still large uncertainty. By use of the Boltzmann equation for the time development of the number density and the peculiar velocity obtained from numerical simulations, we give a simple analytic estimate for the number density, which can well reproduce the results from the numerical simulations up to the proportional coefficient $`\xi `$.

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to J. Yokoyama for useful comments. This work was partially supported by the Japanese Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology.


format: text

text:
# INTRODUCTION

## INTRODUCTION

The relative abundance of deuterium \[D\]/\[H\] formed during Big Bang nucleosynthesis is one of the key parameters of contemporary cosmology because it is the most sensitive indicator of the baryon density in the Universe.

Deuterium abundance at early cosmological epoch (10-14 Gyrs ago) may be determined from high-redshift quasar spectra. Until now, only atomic lines of D I and H I have been used for measuring relative abundances of D I and H I. However, this method meets serious difficulties. D I and H I wavelengths almost coincide, viz $`\lambda (\text{H I})/\lambda (\text{D I})=1.00027`$. Moreover the column densities of DI and HI differ by a factor of $`10^410^5`$. Therefore, D I lines are very weak and practically undetectable when the column density of hydrogen is low. In case the hydrogen column density is high enough, H I lines are saturated and broadened, so that D I lines are lost in the H I lines. In addition, one cannot be sure that the lines treated as D I lines are actually D I and not produced by an intervening weak H I cloud shifted in velocity by $`80`$ km/s. (The latter explanation is possible because the lines in question are situated within Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest where absorption features are numerous). The above difficulties may be the reasons why \[D\]/\[H\] values determined from the atomic lines by different authors differ by more than one order of magnitude. For example, $`210^4`$ (Webb et. al, 1997), and $`1.610^5`$ (Pettini & Bowen, 2001).

The above difficulties do not arise if one measures the relative abundances of molecules \[HD\]/\[H2\] since the appropriate wavelengths differ considerably while the redshift parameter is the same. It may be difficult however to derive \[D\]/\[H\] from \[HD\]/\[H2\] because of uncertainties in the chemistry. Nevertheless this is an independent access to the deuterium abundance in these remote clouds. Up to now HD lines have not been identified in quasar spectra. Moreover, for a long period, from 1985 to 1997, the only molecular absorption system was known, viz H2 system at $`z_{abs}=2.811`$ imprinted in the spectrum of PKS 0528-250 (Levshakov & Varshalovich, 1985). Today only four reliable absorption systems of molecular hydrogen H2 are known in quasar spectra (Petitjean et al., 2000; Levshakov et al., 2001) and no other molecules are detected in their optical spectra.

## RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF PKS 1232+082 SPECTRUM

Here we report on identification of HD lines of absorption system at $`z_{abs}=2.3377`$ in the spectrum of PKS 1232+082 ($`z_{em}=2.57`$ and $`m_V=18.4`$). It is the first identification of redshifted HD molecules, to our knowledge.

The high resolution spectrum of PKS 1232+082 was observed using UVES with the 8.2-m Telescope VLT of ESO by Petitjean et al., (2000). The spectrum contains a strong absorption system of molecular hydrogen H2 at $`z_{abs}=2.3377`$ found earlier by Ge & Bechtold (1999).

We have found several HD lines of Lyman series $`B^1\mathrm{\Sigma }^+X^1\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ corresponding to R(0) transitions from the ground state $`J=0`$, $`v=0`$, and some tentative lines R(1) from the first rotational level $`J=1`$, $`v=0`$. Fig.1 shows fragments of the observed spectrum of PKS 1232+082, and our synthetical fit of HD lines. One can see R(0) lines in L 5-0, L 4-0, L 3-0, and L 0-0 bands and some possible R(1) lines whereas HD lines in L 2-0 and L 1-0 bands are heavily blended by H2 lines. Parameters of identified HD lines are presented in Table 1. The spectroscopic data of laboratory lines are taken from measurements by Dabrowski & Herzberg (1976) and oscillator strengths by Allison & Dalgarno (1970).

The weighted mean value of the redshift parameter for the HD absorption system measured reads

$$z_{abs}(\text{HD})=2.337700(5),$$

in good agreement with $`z_{abs}(\text{H}\text{2})=2.33771`$ (Petitjean et al., 2000).

According to our estimates, the column densities of HD molecules in the ground state $`J=0`$ and the first rotational state $`J=1`$ are

$$N_{J=0}(\text{HD})=(13)10^{14}\text{cm}^2,$$

$$N_{J=1}(\text{HD})=(48)10^{13}\text{cm}^2.$$

The population of the first rotational level relative to the ground state may be characterized by the excitation temperature:

$$T_{ex}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}70}\pm 7\text{K}.$$

However, the R(1) lines have low S/N ratios, so that this value may be considered as an upper limit of $`T_{ex}`$. New observations with higher S/N are necessary to confirm the lines from the J=1 level.

A detailed analysis of the relative abundances of \[HD\]/\[H2\] and corresponding estimates of \[D\]/\[H\] will be done elsewhere. Note that an additional problem of interstellar chemistry (concerned with formation and destruction of the molecules) has to be solved for the determination of \[D\]/\[H\] from \[HD\]/\[H2\].

In conclusion, we emphasize that the detection of HD molecules in absorbing matter at such high redshift may be important to understand the formation of the first generation of stars because HD molecules might be important cooling agents in the primordial condensations where heavy elements were in deficit

Acknowledgment: Work of DAV and IAV was partly supported by the RFBR (99-02-18232, 01-02-06098) and the Russian State Program “Astronomy”. The observations have been obtained with UVES mounted on the 8.2 m KUYEN telescope operated by the European Southern Observatory at Paranal, Chile. RS and PPJ acknowledge support from the Indo-French Centre for the Promotion of Advanced Research (Centre Franco-Indian pour la Promotion de la Recherche Avancée) under contract number 1710-1.

## REFERENCES

Allison A.C., Dalgarno A. // Atomic Data, 1970, V. 1, P. 289.
Dabrowski I., Herzberg G. // Canadian J. Phys., 1976, V. 54, P. 525.
Flower D.R., Roueff E. // MNRAS, 1999, V. 309, P. 833.
Ge J., Bechtold J. // Highly Redshifted Radio Lines, ASP Conf. Series, 1999, V. 156, P. 121.
Levshakov S.A., Varshalovich D.A. // MNRAS, 1985, V. 212, P. 517
Levshakov S.A., Dessauges-Zavadsky M., D’Odorico S. // 2001, /astro-ph/0105529.
Petitjean P., Srianand R., Ledoux C. // 2000, /astro-ph/0011437.
Pettini M., Bowen D. // 2001, /astro-ph/0104474.
Puy D., Signore M. // NewA, 1997, V. 2, P. 299.
Srianand R., Petitjean P., Ledoux C. // 2000, /astro-ph/0012222.
Webb J.K., Carswell R.F., Lanzetta K.M., Ferlet R., Lemoine M., Vidal-Madjar A., Bowen D.V.) // Nature, 1997, V. 388, P. 250.


text:
# The Stress-Energy Tensor in Soluble Models of Spherically Symmetric Charged Black Hole Evaporation

## I Introduction

The fate of near-extremal black holes during quantum evaporation has been of much interest because they present an excellent laboratory for investigating the information paradox. These black holes possess a stable ground state, namely the extremal black hole, and are able to avoid some of the problems which plague uncharged black holes during evaporation. For example, in the well-studied linear dilaton black hole model of Callan, Giddings, Harvey and Strominger (the so-called CGHS model) , as the black hole evaporates away, the outer horizon encounters a naked singularity . Charged black holes, on the other hand, possess a double horizon structure, with an inner and outer apparent horizon. In the extremal limit, where the black hole mass approaches the black hole charge in the appropriate units, the distance between the horizons is zero and they rest at some finite value of the radius (the extremal radius). The singularity at the center of the black hole thus lies safely behind the horizons, and there is no risk of encountering a naked singularity, even at the endpoint of evaporation. This fact, as well as their frequent appearance in string theory, makes them particularly appealing for investigation.

Jacobson has suggested that the semi-classical evolution of near-extremal black holes may break down while still far from extremality . Using adiabatic arguments, Jacobson claims that in-falling photons created at the outer apparent horizon during Hawking evaporation will unavoidably fall through the inner horizon as well. If the photons encounter a large buildup of energy behind the inner horizon then the inner horizon is unstable and the semiclassical approximation is invalid. Otherwise, the photons will eventually pile up behind the outer horizon, causing it to become unstable. In either scenario, the semiclassical approximation may break down long before one would expect based on thermodynamic/statistical mechanics arguments .

String theory, on the other hand, suggests that the evaporation should proceed in a smooth way, with the excited black hole returning to its ground state. In particular, extremal black holes with Ramond-Ramond charge in Type II string theories are described by configurations of D-branes, which have exact conformal field theory descriptions. At least at weak string coupling, it can be verified that the decay back to the extremal state is regular.

To investigate this issue, we study the behavior of the stress-energy tensor for a freely-falling observer during the evaporation process. We calculate this and other observables for an extremal black hole after a shock perturbation of mass is sent in. In particular, we look for signs of instability and energy buildup behind the inner and outer horizons. We will use the semi-classical approximation and verify its validity close to the endpoint of evaporation, where it breaks down according to the criterion of . In this paper, we utilize a model set forth by Fabbri, Navarro, and Navarro-Salas .

The Reissner-Nordström black hole line element is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2l^2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2q^2}{r^2}}\right)dt^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2l^2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2q^2}{r^2}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_+)(rr_{})}{r^2}}dv^2+2drdv+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (2)
with $`r_\pm =l^2m\pm l\sqrt{l^2m^2q^2}`$. Setting $`\varphi =r^2/4l^2`$ and $`l=\sqrt{G_N}`$, we can conformally rescale the metric by $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\sqrt{\varphi }ds^2`$ and describe its two-dimensional reduction using the following action:

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\varphi +l^2V(\varphi )\right],$$
(3)
where $`V(\varphi )=(4\varphi )^{1/2}q^2(4\varphi )^{3/2}`$. The extremal black hole radius corresponds to when $`V(\varphi _0)=0`$ , giving $`\varphi _0=q^2/4`$. A trapped surface, in a metric of the form

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +\varphi ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(4)
corresponds to when the two-sphere at $`x^+,x^{}`$ is decreasing in both null directions: $`_\pm \varphi <0`$. Asymptotically, in these solutions, $`_{}\varphi <0`$ and $`_+\varphi >0`$. Therefore an apparent horizon, which is the outer boundary of a trapped region, occurs at $`_+\varphi =0`$.

The action above, (3), can also be derived from the Reissner-Nordström action considered in  and

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[e^{2\varphi }R+2e^{2\varphi }(\varphi )^2+22q^2e^{2\varphi }\right],$$
(5)
which, in the conformal gauge ($`ds^2=e^{2\rho }dx^+dx^{}`$), is equal to

$$S=d^2x\left[4_+_{}\rho e^{2\varphi }4_+\varphi _{}\varphi e^{2\varphi }+e^{2\rho }q^2e^{2\rho +2\varphi }\right].$$
(6)
By letting $`\rho \rho +\varphi /2`$, which amounts to a conformally rescaling of the metric by $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=e^\varphi ds^2`$, we can rewrite this as

$$S=d^2x\left[4_+_{}\rho e^{2\varphi }+e^{2\rho }e^\varphi q^2e^{2\rho }e^{3\varphi }\right],$$
(7)
or

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[Re^{2\varphi }+V(\varphi )\right],$$
(8)
with $`V(\varphi )=2e^\varphi 2q^2e^{3\varphi }`$. Now redefining $`e^{2\varphi }`$ as $`\varphi `$ the action can be expressed as

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\varphi +V(\varphi )\right],$$
(9)
with $`V(\varphi )=2/\varphi ^{1/2}2q^2/\varphi ^{3/2}`$, and $`\varphi =r^2`$. This is equivalent to (10) with $`l^2=1/4`$ and $`q^2`$ rescaled to $`2q^2`$.

Returning to (3), performing an expansion of $`\varphi `$ around $`\varphi _0`$ to first order ($`\varphi =\varphi _0+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$) in the action yields an effective near-extremal action

$$S=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right].$$
(10)
We must keep that approximation in mind when making statements derived from this action.

When a shock mass is added to the black hole mass at $`v=v_0`$, $`r_\pm `$ in the metric (1) becomes modified

$`r_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`l^2m+l^2\mathrm{\Delta }m\pm l\sqrt{l^2(m+\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2q^2}`$ (11)
$``$ $`l^2m\pm l\sqrt{l^2m^2+2l^2m\mathrm{\Delta }mq^2},`$ (12)
to lowest order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. In the extremal case when $`m=q/l`$, we get

$$r_\pm =\pm lq\pm l^2\sqrt{2m\mathrm{\Delta }m}.$$
(13)
Letting $`r_0=lq`$, this translates into

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_0l\sqrt{2r_0\mathrm{\Delta }m})(rr_0+l\sqrt{2r_0\mathrm{\Delta }m})}{r_0^2}}dv^2+2ldrdv`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(rr_0)^22lr_0\mathrm{\Delta }m}{r_0^2}}dv^2+2ldrdv`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta r^2}{r_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2l\mathrm{\Delta }m}{r_0}}\right)dv^2+2ldrdv`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }m}{q}}\right)dv^2+2l{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\sqrt{\varphi }}}dv,`$ (17)
which leads to

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\sqrt{\varphi }ds^2=\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}lm_S(v)\right)dv^2+2ld\stackrel{~}{\varphi }dv,$$
(18)
where $`m_S(v)`$ is the shock mass perturbing the black hole written as a function of the null coordinate $`v`$ (and equal to zero for $`v<v_0`$).

So far, we have been describing an “eternal” black hole. In order to study the Hawking radiation of these black holes, we must add dynamical matter fields to the action. Here, this is done by adding N minimally coupled scalar fields and studying the large N limit where the one-loop quantum correction adequately describes the effect of the Hawking radiation. This may not correspond to the most physically accurate way of describing the matter fields, but it is the most calculationally simple . For this coupling of the matter fields, the effect of the back-reaction on the spacetime geometry can be semiclassically included by adding a Liouville-Polyakov term .

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left[R\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4\lambda ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|f_i|^2\right]\frac{N\mathrm{}}{96\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}R\mathrm{}^1R+\xi \frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}\lambda ^2.$$
(19)
Working in the conformal gauge where

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=e^{2\rho }dx^+dx^{},$$
(20)
the equations of motions become

$`2_+_{}\rho +\lambda ^2e^{2\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
$`_+_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\lambda ^2e^{2\rho }\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+(\xi 1){\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (22)
$`_+_{}f_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
$`2_\pm ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4_\pm \rho _\pm \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\pm \pm }^f{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}\left((_\pm \rho )^2_\pm ^2\rho +t_\pm (x^\pm )\right).`$ (24)
$`\varphi `$ can always be shifted to absorb the $`\xi 1`$ term, so without loss of generality, $`\xi `$ is set equal to $`1`$. The entire right hand side of the final equation represents the full (classical plus quantum) matter stress-energy tensor. The functions, $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$, are determined by the boundary conditions and depend on the vacuum choice. Under coordinate transformations, they transform according to

$$\left(\frac{dz^{}}{dz}\right)^2t_z^{}(z^{})=t_z(z)\frac{1}{2}\{z^{},z\},$$
(25)
where $`\{z^{},z\}`$ is the Schwarzian derivative defined by

$$\{f,z\}=\frac{2_z^3f_zf3^2zf_z^2f}{2_zf_zf}.$$
(26)
The non-tensor transformation of the functions, $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$, arises as a direct consequence of the non-local nature of the Liouville-Polyakov term  . Among the other terms which appear in (24), $`T_{\pm \pm }^f`$, which is the classical part of the total stress-energy, transforms as a tensor. $`(_\pm \rho )^2_\pm ^2\rho `$, on the other hand, transforms according to the Schwarzian transformation equation (25). We can see this by letting $`x^+\stackrel{~}{x}^+`$,

$$e^{2\rho }dx^+dx^{}=e^{2\rho }\frac{dx^+}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^+}d\stackrel{~}{x}^+dx^{},$$
(27)
i.e.

$$\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho +\frac{1}{2}log\left(\frac{dx^+}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^+}\right).$$
(28)
Plugging $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ in, we can confirm that

$$\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{z}}{dz}\right)^2\left((_{\stackrel{~}{z}}\stackrel{~}{\rho })^2_{\stackrel{~}{z}}^2\stackrel{~}{\rho }\right)=\left((_z\rho )^2_z^2\rho \right)+\frac{1}{2}\{z^{},z\},$$
(29)
so that with the addition of the $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$ the entire right-hand side of the stress-energy equations transforms as a tensor under a change of coordinate. As can be seen, this is also consistent with how the left hand side transforms. The complete matter stress-energy tensor, which we denote simply by $`T_{\pm \pm }`$,

$$T_{\pm \pm }=T_{\pm \pm }^f\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }\left((_\pm \rho )^2_\pm ^2\rho +t_\pm (x^\pm )\right)=2_\pm ^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4_\pm \rho _\pm \stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(30)
transforms simply as a tensor under coordinate transformations for a given vacuum choice.

It is useful to define the vacuum in flat spacetime

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(31)
The scalar fields, $`f_i`$, can be decomposed into

$$f_i(x)=\underset{j}{}\left[a_ju_j(x)+a_j^{}u_j^{}(x)\right],$$
(32)
where

$$u_j(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega }}e^{ikx},k^0=\omega ,$$
(33)
form a complete orthonormal set. The vacuum state, $`|0`$, is then defined such that

$$a_j|0=0,j.$$
(34)
If we wish to work with a conformally related spacetime

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x)\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(35)
the scalar fields transform according to

$$f_i(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2n)/2}\underset{j}{}\left[a_ju_j(x)+a_j^{}u_j^{}(x)\right].$$
(36)
Now the vacuum state associated with the modes defined by (34) is known as the conformal vacuum.

In two dimensions, it is possible to express the stress-energy of a spacetime conformally related to flat spacetime, $`ds^2=dudv`$, by $`d\overline{s}^2=C(u,v)dudv`$ :

$$T_\mu ^\nu (g)=(g)^{1/2}T_\mu ^\nu (\eta )+\theta _\mu ^\nu (1/48\pi )R\delta _\mu ^\nu $$
(37)
where

$`\theta _{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}/12\pi )C^{1/2}_u^2C^{1/2}`$ (38)
$`\theta _{vv}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}/12\pi )C^{1/2}_v^2C^{1/2}`$ (39)
$`\theta _{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{vu},`$ (40)
for each scalar field. These $`\theta `$ terms give the Schwarzian derivatives of a function $`h(u)`$ when one makes the substitution $`C(u,v)=h/u`$. If the state used in evaluating the expectation value in flat spacetime is a vacuum state, then the state appearing in the curved spacetime expectation value is referred to as a conformal vacuum.

It is also possible to relate the stress-energy tensors defined in different flat spacetimes, $`d\overline{s}^2=d\overline{u}dv`$ and $`ds^2=dudv`$ . Following , consider a general metric

$$ds^2=C(u,v)dudv,$$
(41)
with

$$C(u,v)=A(\overline{u},\overline{v})\frac{d\overline{u}}{du}\frac{d\overline{v}}{dv},$$
(42)
where

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\overline{v})`$ (43)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\overline{u}2R_0).`$ (44)
Using (37), the stress-energy tensor with respect to the conformal vacuum is given by

$`T_{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`F_u(C)`$ (45)
$`T_{vv}`$ $`=`$ $`F_v(C),`$ (46)
where $`F`$ denotes the function

$$F_x(y)(12\pi )^1y^{1/2}_x^2y^{1/2}.$$
(47)
For (42) in $`\overline{u},\overline{v}`$ coordinates

$`T_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\overline{u}}(A)+F_{\overline{u}}(\beta ^{})\beta =\beta (\overline{u}2R_0)`$ (48)
$`T_{\overline{v}\overline{v}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\overline{v}}(A)+F_{\overline{v}}(\beta ^{})\beta =\beta (\overline{v}).`$ (49)
However, since the first term on the right hand side is equivalent to the stress-energy with respect to the conformal vacuum of $`A(\overline{u},\overline{v})d\overline{u}d\overline{v}`$, this relation allows us to relate the stress-energy tensors expressed with respect to two different vacua. It can be summarized as

$$\left(\frac{du}{d\overline{u}}\right)^20|T_{uu}|0=\overline{0}|T_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}|\overline{0}\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\{u,\overline{u}\}.$$
(50)
Note that the last term on the right of equation (50) corresponds to the transformation of the stress-energy tensor when the conformal factor is $`d\overline{u}/du`$. That is to say, if we define the vacuum state with respect to the positive energy modes decomposed in $`d\overline{s}^2=d\overline{u}dv`$ and transform to a conformally related spacetime, $`ds^2=dudv=\frac{du}{d\overline{u}}d\overline{u}dv`$, we obtain equation (50).

Let us see now what happens when we express (18) in null coordinates. The coordinate transformation $`u=v+lq^3/\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ puts the metric into the form

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}dudv,$$
(51)
for $`v<v_0`$, and

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}l\mathrm{\Delta }m\right)d\overline{u}dv,$$
(52)
for $`v>v_0`$ with

$$\overline{u}=v+\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{lq^3\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).$$
(53)
Now we can see the relation between $`\overline{u}`$ and $`u`$:

$$u=v+\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\mathrm{cotanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}}(\overline{u}v)\right).$$
(54)
Thus the outgoing flux in the null coordinate $`\overline{u}`$ can be calculated, since it is known that $`T_{uu}=0`$ before the shock mass is introduced. Therefore

$$T_{\overline{u}\overline{u}}=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\{\overline{u},u\}=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi lq^3}\mathrm{\Delta }m,$$
(55)
which is a constant Hawking flux of radiation. We have not yet considered the effects of the back-reaction, which will be done in the subsequent section. However, this preliminary examination demonstrates that we have indeed an evaporating black hole.

## II Solutions

The general solution to the stated equations of motion can be written in terms of four chiral functions, $`A_\pm (x^\pm )`$, and $`a_\pm (x^\pm )`$,  with

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\frac{_+A_+_{}A_{}}{(1+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}A_+A_{})^2}dx^+dx^{},$$
(56)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{_+a_+}{_+A_+}+\frac{_{}a_{}}{_{}A_{}}\right)+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\frac{A_+a_{}+A_{}a_+}{1+\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}A_+A_{}},$$
(57)
constrained by

$`_+^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{_+a_+}{_+A_+}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{_+^2A_+}{_+A_+}}_+\left({\displaystyle \frac{_+a_+}{_+A_+}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{++}`$ (58)
$`_{}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{}a_{}}{_{}A_{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{_{}^2A_{}}{_{}A_{}}}_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{}a_{}}{_{}A_{}}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{}.`$ (59)
The first case initially studied by Fabbri, Navarro, and Navarro-Salas  consists of a shock mass, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, sent into the extremal black hole,

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}l\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0)\right)dv^2+2ld\varphi dv.$$
(60)
The gauge choice of $`A_+=x^+`$ and $`A_{}=\frac{2}{\lambda ^2x^{}}`$, with $`\lambda ^2=l^2q^3`$ yields

$$e^{2\rho }=\frac{2l^2q^3}{(x^{}x^+)^2},$$
(61)
$$ds^2=\frac{2l^2q^3}{(x^{}x^+)^2}dx^+dx^{}.$$
(62)
This gauge fixes $`((_\pm \rho )^2_\pm ^2\rho )`$ in the constraint equations to be identically zero everywhere. Thus, $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$ represents the only quantum part of the stress-energy tensor. That is,

$$T_{\pm \pm }=T_{\pm \pm }^f\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }t_\pm (x^\pm ).$$
(63)
An important consequence of this result is that the quantum nature of the solutions only manifests itself in the boundary conditions. The same solutions are obtained classically if the flux sent into the black hole coincides with the quantum boundary conditions. This will be discussed in more detail later on. The gauge choice itself corresponds to AdS2 spacetime, with the AdS boundary occurring at the coordinate singularity $`x^{}=x^+`$. The metric (60) can be brought into the gauge-fixed form by setting

$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`lq^3`$ (64)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (65)
for $`v<v_0`$. Requiring continuity at $`v=v_0`$, for $`v>v_0`$

$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }mx_0^+(x^+x_0^+)lq^3,`$ (66)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`l^2q^3\mathrm{\Delta }m{\displaystyle \frac{x_0^+}{x^{}}}l^2q^3\mathrm{\Delta }m.`$ (67)
Thus we have for $`v<v_0`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{lq^3}{x^{}x^+},v=x^+,$$
(68)
and for $`v>v_0`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=lq^3\frac{1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}(x^+x_0^+)(x^{}x_0^+)}{x^{}x^+},$$
(69)
$$v=x_0^++\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left[\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}(x^+x_0^+)\right].$$
(70)
These solutions break down as we approach $`x^{}x^+4lq`$, since the small $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ approximations then becomes invalid. There is also a coordinate singularity in the metric that occurs when $`x^{}=x^+`$. (68) represents the vacuum of the solutions. The extremal radius, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$, occurs at $`x^{}x^+\mathrm{}`$. In the region below the AdS boundary, $`x^{}<x^+`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }<0`$. That is, this region corresponds in fact to the area behind the extremal black hole radius. The double-horizon structure manifests itself when we solve $`_+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$, giving a horizon at $`x^{}x^+\pm \mathrm{}`$. So $`x^{}>x^+`$ and $`x^{}<x^+`$ correspond to two different coordinate patches of the solutions, with $`x^{}<x^+`$ corresponding to an area that actually lies behind $`x^{}x^+=\mathrm{}`$. In analyzing these results, we study the area above the AdS boundary, $`x^{}>x^+`$.

(69) represents the classical solution shown in Fig. 1. Let us first consider this case: the extremal radius, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$, occurs at $`(x^+x_0^+)(x^{}x_0^+)=2lq^3/\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. The apparent horizons, $`_+\varphi =0`$, are given by $`x^{}=x_0^+\pm \sqrt{2lq^3/\mathrm{\Delta }m}`$. The AdS boundary represents spatial infinity, i.e. the region infinitely far away from the black hole where the radial variable $`\varphi `$ becomes infinitely large, with the black hole itself lying above $`x^{}>x^+`$. We can see then, that $`r_+`$ moves further out from the center of the black hole for larger values of the shock mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, as expected. $`r_{}`$ can be understood to be at $`x^{}\mathrm{}`$. $`r_0`$ and $`r_+`$ never meet (the apparent meeting point is actually at infinity), as one would expect without Hawking evaporation due to quantum effects.

We now wish to consider the semiclassical solutions. The key to solving these is picking the appropriate boundary conditions in a given vacuum state. The boundary condition is determined by the behavior of the stress-energy flux at regions far outside of the black hole, where statements can be made about the expected flux. This amounts to making an appropriate choice for $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$, as it represents the quantum part of the stress-energy tensor, $`T_{++}`$ (recall that the conformal term involving $`\rho `$ derivatives is zero in this gauge).

Fabbri, Navarro, and Navarro-Salas choose vacuum conformal to spacetime

$$ds^2=e^{2\rho }dvdx^{}=e^{2\rho }\frac{dv}{dx^+}dx^+dx^{},$$
(71)
with $`v(x^+)`$ given by equation (70). That is, the mode decompositions discussed beginning with (32) are with respect to the flat spacetime, $`dvdx^{}`$. This vacuum choice is not well explained in . It is stated there that since in (51), before the shock mass is introduced, the stress-energy is zero, then this represents the natural vacuum choice. However, a problem arises because while $`v(x^+)`$ is from (70), after the shock mass ($`v>v_0`$), in order for

$$ds^2=\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}l\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0)\right)dvdu,$$
(72)
to be put into the form (20), $`u`$ will also be a non-trivial function of $`x^{}`$. In fact, it is given by

$$u=v_0+\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}\mathrm{cotanh}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}}(x^{}v_0)\right).$$
(73)
Regardless, in arriving at (71), the vacuum choice of , necessarily requires $`u=x^{}`$. Therefore, the choice of (71) as vacuum space is not consistent with (51).

In general, choosing $`v=v(x^+)`$ is a rather restrictive condition on these solutions. This can be seen by closer inspection: let us require that $`v=v(x^+)`$, i.e. $`dv/dx^+=f(x^+)`$, or more conveniently,

$$\frac{dv}{dx^+}=\frac{lq^3}{F(x^+)}.$$
(74)
To bring the metric (60) to the form (62) it is also necessary to require that

$$_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{F(x^+)}{(x^{}x^+)^2},$$
(75)
which means

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{F(x^+)}{x^{}x^+}+G(x^+).$$
(76)
Plugging this into the equation of motion for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ then leads to $`G(x^+)=F^{}(x^+)/2`$, so that

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\frac{F(x^+)}{x^{}x^+}+\frac{F^{}(x^+)}{2}.$$
(77)
Using this form of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in the equation (30) we see that $`T_{}`$ will be zero everywhere in the solutions! Therefore, we realize now that we are confined to boundary conditions that give $`t_{}(x^{})=0`$.

As long as $`v=v(x^+)`$, then, the vacuum choice used corresponds to zero quantum flux in the spacetime of (71), which, while not of imperative physical interest, allows us to solve the equations of motion with relative ease.

$`t_{}(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (78)
$`t_+(x^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{v,x^+\}={\displaystyle \frac{2lq^3\mathrm{\Delta }m}{(2lq^3(x^+x_0^+)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}}.`$ (79)
Again, there is no outgoing flux, $`T_{}`$, being emitted from the black hole in the $`x^+`$ direction. The evaporation of the black hole proceeds simply through the negative flux entering the black hole. This means that in a sense the evaporation of the black hole is built into the solutions from the boundary conditions. As mentioned before, the classical solutions would have yielded the same result, given the same negative ingoing flux. The contribution of (79) to the stress-energy tensor is

$$T_{++}=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }\frac{2lq^3\mathrm{\Delta }m}{(2lq^3(x^+x_0^+)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2},$$
(80)
which does in fact correspond to a negative flux of energy that increases as $`x^+x_0^+\sqrt{2lq^3/\mathrm{\Delta }m}`$.

$`_+^3a_+={\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}t_+(x^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2lq^3\mathrm{\Delta }m}{(2lq^3(x^+x_0^+)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}},`$ (81)
$`6_{}a_{}+6x^{}_{}^2a_{}+(x^{})^2_{}^3a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (82)
can be integrated to solve for $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ by requiring continuity of $`\varphi `$ at $`x^+=x_0^+`$, and by putting (60) in the form (20). The general solutions to (81) are

$`a_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }mx_0^+(x^+x_0^+)lq^3+{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}}{\pi }}P(x^+).`$ (83)
$`a_{}`$ $`=`$ $`l^2q^3\mathrm{\Delta }m{\displaystyle \frac{x_0^+}{x^{}}}l^2q^3\mathrm{\Delta }m,`$ (84)
with

$$P(x^+)=\frac{(x^+x_0^+)}{48}\frac{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}(x^+x_0^+)^2}{48\sqrt{\frac{2lq^3}{\mathrm{\Delta }m}}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left((x^+x_0^+)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}}\right).$$
(85)
The resulting solution for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=lq^3\frac{1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m(x^+x_0^+)(x^{}x_0^+)}{2lq^3}}{x^{}x^+}+\frac{N\mathrm{}}{\pi }\frac{P(x^+)}{x^{}x^+}+\frac{N\mathrm{}}{2\pi }P^{}(x^+).$$
(86)
Let us take a moment to carefully examine $`P(x^+)`$ and its properties. We may take note that $`\mathrm{arctanh}(x)`$ becomes logarithmically divergent as $`x1`$. However, $`(x^21)\mathrm{arctanh}(x)0`$ as $`x1`$ remains finite. Therefore $`P(x^+)`$ becomes indeterminate for $`x^+x_0^+\sqrt{2lq^3/\mathrm{\Delta }m}`$ and $`P^{}(x^+)`$, which is logarithmically divergent, blows up. Since $`\varphi `$ represents the radial coordinate, and it depends directly on $`P^{}(x^+)`$, we can interpret $`x^+x_0^+\sqrt{2lq^3/\mathrm{\Delta }m}`$ as spatially being infinitely far from the black hole. It is not possible to evolve the solutions beyond this point. However, when the inner and outer horizon meet again at the extremal radius, at the endpoint of black hole evaporation, the semiclassical approximation has already broken down. This happens before we reach the divergence of $`P^{}(x^+)`$.

In the semiclassical solution, the inner and outer horizon come together and meet at the extremal $`r=r_0`$ radius (see Fig. 2), consistent with our picture of black hole evaporation. If we consider the extremal black hole as the limit of a near-extremal black hole, it has a double-horizon which becomes spatially separated with the introduction of a shock mass. A larger shock mass corresponds to a bigger separation of $`r_+`$ and $`r_{}`$. However, as the black hole evaporates, the two apparent horizons should eventually approach each other and return to the extremal limit. The classical solution of the equations of motion (69) is recovered by taking the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. These solutions do not demonstrate any outgoing flux, as a result of the imposed condition that $`T_{}=0`$. All evaporation manifests itself in a negative ingoing flux $`T_{++}<0`$. We should also keep in mind that (20) is conformally related to the dimensional reduction of the physical metric (1), so it is necessary to make further calculations to understand what is really happening.

Note that there are approximations that have been made which need to be re-examined. Bringing the metric (60) into the conformal gauge form (20) necessarily requires that

$$2l_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+v(x^+)+e^{2\rho }1$$
(87)
and

$$\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}+l\mathrm{\Delta }m\right)(_+v(x^+))^2+2l_+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+v(x^+)1.$$
(88)
Putting solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, (86), into (87) yields the constraint that

$$\frac{4l^2q^3\kappa P(x^+)}{(x^{}x^+)^2((x^+x_0^+)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m2lq^3)}1$$
(89)
plus a more complicated constraint that we omit due to space and aesthetic considerations. We must monitor the quantities on the left hand side of the above equations to ensure that our approximations are valid in the regions of interest. This has been done for all ensuing discussion.

## III The Physical Metric

The analysis has thus far been incomplete because the stress-energy tensor considered does not correspond to an observer living in $`3+1`$ dimensions. One of our new contributions is to study components of the stress energy measured by an observer freely-falling in the $`3+1`$-dimensional spacetime. This physical metric $`ds^2`$ is related to the metric studied in the previous section $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ (20) by the conformal factor, $`\sqrt{\varphi }`$:

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varphi }}d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\frac{e^{2\rho }}{\sqrt{\varphi }}dx^+dx^{}.$$
(90)
To construct a stress energy tensor that couples to this metric (90) we must add extra matter fields to the action (19) that couple in a covariant way. This addition will not alter the previous equations of motion as long as the number of other matter fields $`N`$ is large.

It is relevant to consider what happens to a freely falling observer coming in from far outside of the black hole. Since it is difficult to analytically describe the geodesic for an affinely parameterized freely falling observer, we consider the next best thing: a null in-falling observer. The Christoffel symbols for the physical metric (90) are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{++}^+=2_+\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_+\mathrm{log}\varphi ,`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}=2_{}\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_{}\mathrm{log}\varphi .`$ (92)
From the geodesic equation for $`x^{}`$, we get

$$\frac{d^2x^{}}{d\tau ^2}+(2_{}\rho \frac{1}{2}_{}\mathrm{log}\varphi )\frac{dx^{}}{d\tau }\frac{dx^{}}{d\tau }=0,$$
(94)
with a similar equation for $`x^+`$. We consider the case where $`\tau `$ is an affinely parameterized null geodesic $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ such that

$$ds^2=\frac{e^{2\rho }}{\sqrt{\varphi }}\frac{dx^+}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}\frac{dx^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}=0.$$
(95)
This has solutions for fixed $`x^+`$, leaving $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}=\stackrel{~}{x}^{}(x^{})`$. Using

$$\frac{\rho }{x^{}}\frac{dx^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}=\frac{\rho }{x^+}\frac{dx^+}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}+\frac{d\rho }{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}$$
(96)
and the fact that we are working with a null geodesic, the equation (94) reduces to

$$\frac{d^2x^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^2}+\frac{d\left(2\rho \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\varphi \right)}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}\frac{dx^{}}{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}=0,$$
(97)
which is then solved to give

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{x}^{}}{dx^{}}=C\frac{e^{2\rho (x^{})}}{\sqrt{\varphi }},$$
(98)
where $`C`$ is a constant of integration which we can set equal to $`1`$. Using the conformal factor arising from (90) in the relation (37) gives

$$T_{\pm \pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}}{24}\left(\frac{3}{8}\frac{(_\pm \varphi )^2}{\varphi ^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{_\pm ^2\varphi }{\varphi }+\frac{_+\rho _+\varphi }{\varphi }+2_+^2\rho 2(_+\rho )^22t_\pm (x^\pm )\right),$$
(99)
where again, $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$ are determined by the boundary conditions (i.e. vacuum choice). Part of this tensor, $`N\mathrm{}/12\pi (_+^2\rho (_+\rho )^2t_\pm )`$, is the source term on the right hand side of the equations of motion. This is because the matter fields couple to $`\sqrt{g}=e^{2\rho }/2`$, and hence the above terms contribute to the back-reaction. The stress-energy above is not a source for the back-reaction, but is what an observer traveling through the physical spacetime would measure.

In the affinely parameterized coordinates, the stress-energy is

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\pm \pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dx^\pm }{d\stackrel{~}{x}^\pm }}\right)^2T_{\pm \pm }`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{e^{4\rho }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{(_\pm \varphi )^2}{\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_\pm ^2\varphi }{\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{_+\rho _+\varphi }{\varphi }}+2_+^2\rho 2(_+\rho )^22t_\pm (x^\pm )\right),`$ (101)
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is used to denote the stress-energy tensor with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\pm `$.

We consider the behavior in the weak back-reaction regime, where $`N\mathrm{}/(24\pi q^2)1`$, where the adiabatic approximation should be valid. Far outside of the black hole, closer to the AdS boundary, when $`\varphi \varphi _0\varphi _h\varphi `$ (using $`\varphi _h`$ to denote the radius at the horizon, $`_+\varphi =0`$), while still within the validity of the near-horizon approximation ($`\varphi \varphi _01`$) the flux in and out will have a more physically intuitive interpretation. We hope that since the contours of $`\varphi `$ we consider are very close to the AdS boundary, they represent sufficiently well the behavior that occurs at “infinity,” without actually leaving the near-horizon region of our calculations. For example, consider the contour depicted in Fig. 6. Here, $`\varphi >\varphi _0`$, yet it is small enough to be consistent with the previous approximation, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/\varphi _01`$. We are interested in the behavior of the physical stress-energies, as seen by an affine observer along the inner and outer horizon, in order to test the stability of the evaporating black hole. Fig.’s 3 through Fig. 5 illustrate the values of the stress-energy along these contours. We note from these that the stress-energy varies smoothly throughout the evaporation process. The stress-energy tensors for affinely parameterized observer evaluated at each point along the fixed radial contour are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. In each case, the flux approaches zero as the black hole evaporates, which is consistent with the evaporation of a near-extremal black hole, which should cease as the black hole returns to its extremal state. In order to make physical sense of the quantities, it may be useful to look at the difference $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{++}`$, Fig. 9. This is where we can have a reasonable interpretation of what is going on, as the difference will represent the net flux going through a surface of constant $`\varphi `$. The net flux going through a surface of fixed radius is positive and vanishes away with time. The integral of this quantity along the contour would give us the ADM mass, defined at spatial infinity outside of a black hole. The indication then is that the shock mass evaporates away, returning the black hole to its extremal state. . We observe that the differential black hole ADM mass increases for a bit, before decreasing down close to zero. The temporary rise in mass, before dying down may be consistent with observations by . Nevertheless, the important quantity is its integral.

We can also consider the Bondi mass. This is generally defined at future null infinity $`x^+\mathrm{}`$, giving $`m(x^{})`$. The AdS boundary of these solutions makes it difficult to use this definition. However, as discussed in , because $`T_{}`$ is chosen everywhere to be zero, it is possible to define a Bondi mass $`m(x^+)`$ for all $`x^{}`$ with

$$m_S(x^+)=m_{S0}2l𝑑x^+e^{2\rho }_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }T_{++}.$$
(102)
We want to verify that $`_{}m_S=0`$. By applying the partial derivative with respect to $`x^{}`$ to the above we obtain

$$_{}m_S(x^+)=2l𝑑x^+e^{2\rho }T_{++}\left[2_{}\rho _{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+_{}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right],$$
(103)
where we used the fact that $`_{}T_{++}=0`$. Further manipulation, using the equations of motion, gives

$$_{}m_S(x^+)=l𝑑x^+e^{2\rho }T_{++}(T_{}^f\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }t_{}(x^{})).$$
(104)
The bracketed term, then, must be constrained to zero for the mass formula to be valid, which is indeed the case for these solutions. A calculation of this mass using the above derived values yields to first order in $`N\mathrm{}`$

$$m_S(x^+)=\mathrm{\Delta }m\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left((x^+x_0^+)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{2lq^3}}\right).$$
(105)
A plot of $`m_S(x^+)`$ (Fig. 10) shows that evaporation occurs slowly until close to the meeting of the horizons, at which point the mass significantly drops. The mass evaporates to zero at the same value of $`x^+`$ where the outer apparent horizon recedes back to the extremal radius. That is to say, when $`m_S(x_f^+)=0`$, $`r_0(x_f^+)=r_+(x_f^+)`$. The overshooting of the zero-point suggests that the evaporation does not end once extremality is reached. However, the semiclassical description of black hole radiation is applicable only as long as

$$\left|T\left(\frac{T}{m_S}\right)\right||T|,$$
(106)
where $`T`$ is the black hole temperature. The temperature fluctuations must remain small compared to the temperature itself . This means that our solutions no longer describe the evolution of the black hole once it has returned to its extremal state. We can only trust our results up to $`m_S(x^+)=0`$, when the outer horizon, $`r_+`$ and the inner horizon, $`r_{}`$ meet again at $`r_0`$.

## IV Dynamical Boundary Solutions

The other case considered by Fabbri, Navarro, and Navarro-Salas  involves a questionable choice of boundary conditions. Here, instead of sending in a shock mass and observing the evolution of the black hole, the shock mass is permitted “quantum corrections” and allowed to behave dynamically. That is, $`m_S(v)`$, the shock mass, is now allowed to vary with $`v`$, instead of being expressed simply by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0)`$ function. In this case, the solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ cannot be found analytically. As stated before, it is required that $`v=v(x^+)`$, or more conveniently, we choose $`v(x^+)`$ to be of the form (74). Repeating the results following (74), and once again gauge fixing $`\rho `$ so that equation (61) still holds, we see that

$$2_+^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4_+\rho _+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+)=T_{++}^f\frac{N\mathrm{}}{12\pi }t_+(x^+).$$
(107)
From the Schwarzian derivative we have

$$t_+(x^+)=\frac{1}{2}\{v,x^+\}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{F^{}(x^+)^2}{F(x^+)^2}\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(x^+)}{F(x^+)}\right).$$
(108)
Thus

$$T_{++}^f=\mathrm{\Delta }m\delta (x^+x_0^+)=F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+)+\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{F^{}(x^+)}{F(x^+)}\right)^2\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(x^+)}{F(x^+)}\right).$$
(109)
Continuity of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ requires that

$`F(x_0^+)`$ $`=`$ $`lq^3,`$ (110)
$`F^{}(x_0^+)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (111)
It follows further from (109) that

$$F^{\prime \prime }(x_0^+)=\mathrm{\Delta }m.$$
(112)
It is now possible to numerically solve for $`F(x^+)`$, using (109) and the boundary conditions (110-112). Typical behavior for $`F(x^+)`$ can be seen in Fig. 11.

We set

$$\left(2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2}{q^3}+l\mathrm{\Delta }m\right)(_+v(x^+))^2+2l_+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_+v(x^+)=0,$$
(113)
which is required in order to eliminate off-diagonal components in (20), when making the coordinate transformations. This allows us to solve for

$$m_S(x^+)=\frac{F^2(x^+)2F(x^+)F^{}(x^+)}{2lq^3}.$$
(114)
Using (109) this can be rewritten as

$$m_S(x^+)=\frac{24\pi }{N\mathrm{}lq^3}F^2(x^+)F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+).$$
(115)
In a less straightforward manner, we could have also used (75) and (61) to evaluate the mass based on the previous definition (102).

$`_+m_S(x^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F(x^+)F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+)}{lq^3}}`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F(x^+)F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+)+F(x^+)F^{\prime \prime }(x^+)F(x^+)F^{\prime \prime }(x^+)}{lq^3}}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`_+\left({\displaystyle \frac{24\pi F(x^+)^2F^{\prime \prime \prime }(x^+)}{N\mathrm{}lq^3}}\right),`$ (118)
arriving at (114). We can see now that

$$_+m_S(x^+)=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\frac{m_S(x^+)}{F(x^+)}.$$
(120)
Multiplying by $`dx^+/dv`$

$$_vm_S(v)=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi lq^3}m_S(v),$$
(121)
so that

$$m_S(v)=\mathrm{\Delta }me^{\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi }\frac{vv_0}{lq^3}}\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0).$$
(122)
Using a complementary method,it is also possible to define instead a late time Bondi mass , which behaves as

$$_um_S(u)=\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi lq^3}m_S(u).$$
(123)
We can now use the fact that the four-dimensional stress-energy tensor can be related back to the rate of change of the mass ,

$$T_{vv}^{(4)}=_vm_S(v)=\mathrm{\Delta }m\delta (vv_0)\frac{N\mathrm{}}{24\pi lq^3}m_S(v)\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0),$$
(124)
to see that there is a negative flux of energy being sent in to reduce the black hole mass . Generally, however, it does not make sense to allow the shock mass being sent in to vary as a function of $`x^+`$ for all values of $`x^{}`$, including those corresponding to very large distances away, where quantum effects due to an “infinitely” far black hole ought to be negligibly small. Since $`m_S(v)`$ now behaves as shown above, as opposed to simply $`m_S(v)=\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Theta }(vv_0)`$, then this solution corresponds to sending in negative mass after the initial $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$. This is an artifact of the boundary condition requirement which forces $`T_{}=0`$ everywhere, so that basically the black hole evaporation occurs through flux being sent in from infinity outside. The previous boundary condition, however, was more natural, since the diminishing mass was arrived at, rather than put in by hand. Nonetheless, it may be argued that the difference between these two boundary conditions is minute. In both cases, the same general phenomena is occurring; $`T_{}=0`$ and $`T_{++}<0`$ bring about the evolution of the black hole.

The stress-energy tensor can again be calculated for the affinely null coordinates. We proceed in the same manner as before, evaluating $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{++}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}`$ for the physical metric (90).

We see from the stress-energy tensors, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{++}`$, in Fig. 12 that there is indeed a negative flux of energy entering the black hole. In order to bring about exponential decay of the shock mass, it was necessary to send in negative mass to bring it down. $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}`$, (Fig. 13) behaves also as expected. There is a flux of energy being emitted from the black hole which approaches zero as the black hole evaporates away. The differential ADM mass, as represented by $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{}\stackrel{~}{T}_{++}`$ (Fig. 14) decays down to zero, as a result of the combined effect of the negative energy being sent in and the natural black hole emission.

## V Conclusion

We have considered toy models for semiclassical charged black hole evaporation with back reaction included. The calculations of the physical stress-energy tensor of a freely falling observer, allowed us to verify that an observer at a fixed distance outside of the black hole perceives a flux decaying to zero, as the black hole evaporates away the injected shock mass and returns to the extremal state. The affine stress energy also varies smoothly across the inner and outer apparent horizons, suggesting that there is no buildup of energy in places which would have undermined the validity of the semiclassical solutions. Hence, while in these solutions the black hole evaporation is largely dictated by the negative flux of energy entering the black hole, the vacuum choices discussed do indeed yield a picture consistent with charged black hole evaporation in string theory  without encountering the singularities feared by . Nevertheless, there are some questions and difficulties of interpretation that would be better answered by working in an asymptotically Minkowskian spacetime. Most notably, we are troubled by the apparent arbitrariness of the imposed boundary conditions. It would be more natural to choose a vacuum in a spacetime that corresponds to what an observer infinitely far from the black hole might observe. In addition, the evaporation of the black hole in these solutions is inherently dictated à priori by $`t_\pm (x^\pm )`$. It would be more satisfying if quantum effects did not have to be predicated, but rather were naturally manifested as the solutions evolved forward in time. More physically motivated boundary conditions render the equations of motion less easily solvable, making it necessary to solve a set of coupled partial differential equations instead of the ordinary differential equations used here. This would have to be done numerically. This work is currently being completed. Preliminary results, however, seem to be consistent with those presented here .

Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FE0291ER40688-Task A.