text:
# On the linear and weak-field limits of scalar-tensor theories of gravity

## I Introduction

In the last decade there has been an increasing interest in the so-called scalar-tensor theories of gravity (STT; see Ref. damour1  for a review) in view of the possible deviations that Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR) could show in the framework of several upcoming observations. Among these, there has been a considerable interest in detecting a scalar-wave component (spin-0 waves) in addition to the ordinary gravitational waves (spin-2 waves) predicted by GR (see for instance wagoner2 ; wagoner1 ; brunetti ; barbusci ; nakao ). Among the potential emitters of such scalar-waves are the compact binary systems and neutron stars. Yet, the binary pulsar has showed no appreciable deviations from GR due to the emission of scalar waves, and then one is only able to put stringent bound in the STT parameters or couplings damour2 . Moreover, through the effects of spontaneous scalarization in neutron stars damour2 ; damour3 ; novak ; salgado2 , it seems that scalar-waves have also a small chance to be observed in detectors like VIRGO or LIGO within a few hundreds of kiloparsecs novak . However, there is the hope that resonant mass detectors of spherical shape or interferometers like LISA can resolve the existence of a scalar-gravitational wave brunetti ; barbusci ; nakao .

At the large scale (cosmological scales), STT have been proposed as models for dark energy that can replace the cosmological constant dark , and also for explaining some other features of the galaxy distribution in our universe us . However, detailed analysis show that when all the observational constraints (both cosmological and local) are taken into account, the simpler STT fail or are extremely constrained salgado . At this point one cannot only but recognizes the predictive power of GR, confirmed by experiments and observations that were maybe far from being imagined by Einstein at the time of the creation of his theory. At smaller scales (scales of the order of meters or kilometers) the spurious discovery of a fifth force renewed the idea about the existence of new fundamental fields of meter-range fishbach . At this regard, considerable effort has been put in measuring gravitationally such kind of interactions that can mimic a varying gravitational “constant” $`G`$.

In this report the linear limit of STT is reviewed under the usual 4+0 formalism. The weak-field limit is taken and confronted in view of the past and recent experiments (ground based and satellite mission) intended to test the gravitational interaction between bodies. The analysis is performed in the Jordan frame, and therefore no intermediate unphysical variables or transformations are introduced. A Yukawa potential appears as a new term in addition to the ordinary Newtonian potential due to the non-minimal coupling between the scalar field with gravity, the entire gravitational potential having been identified with the potential of test particles. It is then argued that the Yukawa potential can produce significative deviations on the $`1/r^2`$ Newton’s gravitation law if the scalar “particles” are massive enough.

An appendix analyzing the linear limit of STT under the 3+1 formulation of GR is to be found at the end.

## II Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity

The general action for a scalar-tensor theory of gravity with a single scalar field is given by

$`S[g_{\mu \nu },\varphi ,\psi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left\{\frac{1}{16\pi G_0}F(\varphi )R\left(\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+V(\varphi )\right)\right\}}`$ (1)
$`\times \sqrt{g}d^4x+S[g_{\mu \nu },\psi ]`$
where $`\psi `$ represents collectively the matter fields (fields other than $`\varphi `$).

The representation of the scalar-tensor theories given by Eq. (1) is called the Jordan frame representation. One can parametrize the same theories as

$`S[g_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Phi },\psi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_0}}{\displaystyle \left\{\mathrm{\Phi }R\frac{\omega (\mathrm{\Phi })}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\mathrm{\Phi })^2+2\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi })\right\}}`$ (2)
$`\times \sqrt{g}d^4x+S[g_{\mu \nu },\psi ]`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`:=`$ $`F(\varphi ),`$ (3)
$`\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G_0\mathrm{\Phi }}{(_\varphi F)^2}}.`$ (4)
$`\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi V(\varphi )}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}.`$ (5)
For instance, the Jordan-frame representation of the Brans-Dicke theory with $`\omega =`$const. corresponds to $`F=2\pi G_0\varphi ^2/\omega `$ and $`V(\varphi )=0`$. It is also customary to parametrize the scalar-tensor theories in the so-called Einstein frame by introducing non-physical fields as follows,

$`g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`F(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu },`$ (6)
$`\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left[\frac{3}{4}\frac{1}{F^2(\varphi )}\left(_\varphi F\right)^2+\frac{4\pi }{F(\varphi )}\right]^{1/2}𝑑\varphi },`$ (7)
$`F^{}(\varphi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`F(\varphi ).`$ (8)
so that the action Eq. (1) takes the form

$`S[g_{\mu \nu }^{},\varphi ^{},\psi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_0}}{\displaystyle \left[R^{}2(^{}\varphi ^{})^2V^{}(\varphi ^{})\right]}`$ (9)
$`\times \sqrt{g^{}}d^4x+S[g_{\mu \nu }^{}/F^{}(\varphi ^{}),\psi ],`$
where all quantities with ‘\*’ are computed with the non-physical metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$.

We emphasize that although the equations of motions obtained from the Einstein frame are simpler than those from the Jordan frame, in the sense that the field $`\varphi ^{}`$ appears to be coupled minimally to the non-physical metric, the matter equations derived from the Bianchi identities $`_\mu ^{}G_{\mu \nu }^{}=0`$ will have sources, i.e., $`_\mu ^{}T_\psi ^{\mu \nu }0`$, where here $`T_\psi ^{\mu \nu }=T_\psi ^{\mu \nu }/F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\varphi ^{})`$ is the non physical energy-momentum tensor of the matter fields $`\psi `$. However, in the Jordan frame the matter equations resulting from the Bianchi identities $`_\mu G^{\mu \nu }=0`$ turn to satisfy $`_\mu T_\psi ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, reflecting explicitly the fulfillment of the Einstein’s weak equivalence principle (that is the origin of the name “physical metric”).

In the following the Jordan frame representation of the scalar-tensor theories will only be used. The equations of motion obtained from a variational principle using Eq. (1) are

$`G^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G_0T^{\mu \nu },`$ (10)
$`T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\mathrm{eff}}}{F}}\left(T_F^{\mu \nu }+T_{\mathrm{sf}}^{\mu \nu }+T_{\mathrm{matt}}^{\mu \nu }\right),`$ (11)
$`T_F^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G_0}}\left[^\mu \left(_\varphi F^\nu \varphi \right)g^{\mu \nu }_\lambda \left(_\varphi F^\lambda \varphi \right)\right],`$
$`T_{\mathrm{sf}}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`:=`$ $`(^\mu \varphi )(^\nu \varphi )g^{\mu \nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2+V(\varphi )\right],`$ (13)
$`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F}},`$ (14)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{F_\varphi V2(_\varphi F)V\frac{1}{2}(_\varphi F)\left(1+\frac{3_{\varphi \varphi }^2F}{8\pi G_0}\right)(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(_\varphi F)T_{\mathrm{matt}}}{F+\frac{3(_\varphi F)^2}{16\pi G_0}}.$$
(15)
where $`T_{\mathrm{matt}}`$ stands for the trace of $`T_{\mathrm{matt}}^{\mu \nu }`$ and the subscript “matt” refers to the matter fields other that $`\varphi `$.

Now, the Bianchi identities imply

$$_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(16)
However, the use of the equations of motion leads as mentioned to the energy-conservation equations of matter

$$_\mu T_{\mathrm{matt}}^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(17)
which implies in the case of test particles, that bodies are subject to no other long range forces than the gravitational ones (free falling particles). In other words, the scalar field being not directly coupled to matter no direct interaction between the scalar field and matter arises. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ will only interact with matter gravitationally, i.e., only through the curvature effects.

The final form of the field equations have exactly the same form as in general relativity with an effective energy-momentum tensor. This means that one can formulate the Cauchy problem for scalar-tensor theories exactly in the same manner as in GR (see the Appendix).

## III Linear limit of STT

The linear limit of STT has been analyzed in the past by many authors. Wagoner wagoner2  was one of the first in analyzing the gravitational wave emission in STT and the weak-field approximation (an updated analysis was performed in wagoner1 ). Such an analysis was performed in the Einstein frame. More recently, Pimentel and Obregón pimentel  performed a similar analysis in the Brans-Dicke representation as in Eq. (2).

As mentioned, the linear limit of STT treated here is performed in the Jordan frame. As usual, we consider first order perturbations of the Minkowski spacetime:

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }+ϵ\gamma _{\mu \nu },`$ (18)
$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ $``$ $`T_{\mu \nu }^0+ϵ\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu },`$ (19)
$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi _0+ϵ\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (20)
$`F(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`F_0+ϵF_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (21)
$`_\varphi F(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`F_0^{}+ϵF_0^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (22)
$`_{\varphi \varphi }^2F(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`F_0^{\prime \prime }+ϵF_0^{\prime \prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (23)
$`V(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`V_0+ϵV_0^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (24)
$`_\varphi V(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`V_0^{}+ϵV_0^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$ (25)
where $`ϵ1`$ and the knott indicates quantities at zero order. In the 4+0 covariant formulation one can introduce the combination

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }:=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }+\kappa \eta _{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (26)
$`\overline{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }:=`$ $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }\gamma ,`$ (27)
where $`\gamma =\gamma _\mu ^\mu `$ and $`\kappa `$ is a gauge constant to be fixed later in order to simplify the equations. The resulting linearized Einstein equations are

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`^\sigma _{(\nu }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu )\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }^\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\sigma \alpha }`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`8\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }+\kappa \left(_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).`$
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^0=0`$ results from the self-consistency of the perturbations at first order. Here $`\mathrm{}_\eta `$ is the D’Alambertian operator compatible with the flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Moreover, the flat metric is used to raise and lower indices of first order tensorial quantities.

The Lorentz gauge

$$^\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(29)
generalizes the usual Lorentz gauge of GR, and can be imposed to simplify the equations. Then, from Eq. (28) the resulting wave equation is

$$\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }2\kappa \left(_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).$$
(30)
The linear approximation of the effective energy-momentum tensor Eq. (11) and the Klein-Gordon Eq. (15) turn to be

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}}}{F_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{8\pi F_0G_0}}\left(_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right),`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }m_0^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=4\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{matt}},`$ (32)
$`m_0^2:={\displaystyle \frac{V_0^{\prime \prime }}{1+\frac{3(F_0^{})^2}{16\pi F_0G_0}}},`$ (33)
$`\alpha :={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \left(1+\frac{3(F_0^{})^2}{16\pi F_0G_0}\right)}},`$ (34)
where we used the following conditions

$$V(\varphi _0)=0=V_0^{}=0,$$
(35)
resulting from the consistency at first order of the linearized Einstein and Klein-Gordon equations and assuming that $`T_{\mathrm{matt}\mu \nu }^0=0`$. In this way the wave equation Eq. (30) becomes

$$\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{16\pi G_0}{F_0}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}}2\left(\kappa +\frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}\right)\left(_{\mu \nu }^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).$$
(36)
Note that at this order the application of the ordinary divergence in Eq. (36) and the use of the Lorentz gauge Eq. (29) leads to the energy-conservation of the matter perturbations: $`^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}}=0`$.

The choice

$$\kappa =\frac{F_0^{}}{F_0},$$
(37)
for the gauge constant simplifies the Eq. (36) considerably. So summarizing, we have the following wave equations for the gravitational and scalar modes:

$`\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_0}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}},`$ (38)
$`^\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }m_0^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=4\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{matt}},`$ (40)
with the constants $`m_0^2,\alpha `$ and $`\kappa `$ given by Eqs. (33), (34) and (37) respecteively. The analysis of propagation of gravitational and scalar waves will be not pursued here, this has been done elsewhere (see Refs. barbusci ; brunetti ; nakao ; wagoner2 ; wagoner1  ).

### III.1 The weak-field approximation

In the weak-field approximation one considers slow varying fields and sources such that the temporal derivatives in the D’Alambertian can be neglected and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }\delta _\mu ^0\delta _\nu ^0`$. The wave equations read then,

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_0}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matt}},`$ (41)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }m_0^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=4\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mathrm{matt}},`$ (42)
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the three dimensional Euclidean Laplacian. The condition for slow varying sources $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{i0}^{\mathrm{matt}}0\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}^{\mathrm{matt}}`$, leads then to the following equations

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G_0}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{\rho },`$ (43)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi m_0^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=4\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{\rho },`$ (44)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{0i}=\mathrm{const}.=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij},`$ (45)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:=\stackrel{~}{T}_{00}^{\mathrm{matt}}=\stackrel{~}{T}^{\mathrm{matt}}`$. The constant solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu i}`$ arise by demanding a well behavior of the metric at spatial infinity (without lost of generality the constants can be gauged out). Thus, with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}=0`$ and Eqs. (26) and (27), it yields

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\gamma _{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }\left(\gamma _{00}+2\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right),$$
(46)
and therefore

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}=2\left(\gamma _{00}+\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).$$
(47)
Since the geodesic equation for slow particles leads to the identification of

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{00},$$
(48)
with the Newtonian potential wald , it turns

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}+\frac{\kappa }{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.$$
(49)
The two gravitational degrees of freedom that remain in the weak-field limit are thus $`\gamma _{00}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ ($`\gamma _{0j}=0`$, and $`\gamma _{ij\text{ }}`$is given in terms of $`\gamma _{00}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$).

The solutions of Eqs. (43) and (44) are respectively

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}^{})}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}}+\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{C}.,`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}^{})e^{m_0|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}}+\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{C}.,`$ (51)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}`$. So finally

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N=\frac{G_0}{F_0}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}^{})}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}\right)^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x}^{})e^{m_0|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}+\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{C}.$$
(52)
It is important to mention that the details of the general solution (interior plus exterior solutions, both matched continuously at the surface of the extended object) depend strongly on the boundary conditions.

### III.2 Regular solutions

Explicit solutions of the gravitational and scalar fields depend on $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{}{x})`$, and as mentioned on the boundary conditions as well. Clearly, a detailed solution of the whole system involves also the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium and the equation of state of matter comm  . However, here we do not want to be so explicit and only exhibit the possible deviations that the Newton’s gravitation law can suffer depending on the values of the parameters. For simplicity spherical symmetry is assumed. We seek for solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ with regularity conditions at $`r=0`$

$$_r\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0=_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi },$$
(53)
and asymptotic flatness conditions

$`\mathrm{lim}_r\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }0,`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{lim}_r\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }0.`$ (55)
The solutions are then given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}{\displaystyle _r^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m(\widehat{r})}{\widehat{r}^2}}𝑑\widehat{r},`$ (56)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _r^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q(\widehat{r})}{\widehat{r}^2}}𝑑\widehat{r},`$ (57)
where

$`m(r):=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^r}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{r})\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r},`$ (58)
$`q(r):=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^r}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{r}){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r}.`$ (59)
One can define global quantities as

$`M`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_r\mathrm{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{G_0}}_r\stackrel{~}{\psi }\right]`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{r})\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r},`$
$`Q`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{lim}_r\mathrm{}\left[r^2_r\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right]`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\widehat{r}){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r}.`$
Note that in the minimal-coupling case ($`F_0^{}=0`$), $`Q0`$, since the only regular solution of the Helmholtz equation is $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$).

If the density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ has compact support (as it is usually the case for astrophysical bodies), then it vanishes for $`rR`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the body. The solutions for $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ matched continuously at $`r=R`$ can be then written as

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{G_0M}{RF_0}\frac{G_0}{F_0}_r^R\frac{m(\widehat{r})}{\widehat{r}^2}𝑑\widehat{r}\mathrm{for}rR,\\ \frac{G_0M}{F_0r}\mathrm{for}rR,\end{array}`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}}{R(1+m_0R)}+_r^R\frac{q(\widehat{r})}{\widehat{r}^2}𝑑\widehat{r}\mathrm{for}rR,\\ \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}e^{m_0r\left(1R/r\right)}}{r(1+m_0R)}\mathrm{for}rR,\end{array}`$ (67)
where

$`m(r)`$ $`:=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{rR}}\rho (\widehat{r})\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r},`$ (68)
$`q(r)`$ $`:=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle _0^{rR}}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\rho (\widehat{r}){\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)\widehat{r}^2𝑑\widehat{r},`$ (69)
and $`M:=m(R)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}:=q(R)`$.

## IV Observational constraints

In the following we consider only the exterior solutions and confronted them with observations. Therefore, the exterior Newtonian potential (52) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N=\frac{G_0M}{F_0r}\left[1+\frac{\alpha \sigma }{2G_0}\frac{(F_0^{})^2}{F_0}e^{m_0r}\right]$$
(70)
where $`\sigma `$ is a constant that depends on the global properties of the source. Namely,

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}e^{m_0R}F_0}{(1+m_0R)M\alpha F_0^{}}}`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_0R}}{1+m_0R}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2F_0}{M\alpha F_0^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^R}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(r)r^2𝑑r\right).`$
It is customary to express the coefficients involving $`F_0^{}`$ in terms of the effective Brans-Diecke parameter Eq.(3)

$$\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0=\frac{8\pi G_0F_0}{(F_0^{})^2}.$$
(72)
Then,

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}{4\pi \left(3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0\right)}},`$ (73)
$`m_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0V_0^{\prime \prime }}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}},`$ (74)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N=\frac{G_0M}{F_0r}\left[1+\frac{\sigma e^{m_0r}}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}\right].$$
(75)
Recently experimental bounds on the strength and range of a Yukawa potential that could arise from “fifth force fields” have been analyzed in two kinds of experiments. The first kind consists in the analysis of gravitational signals induced by variations on the mass of a lake Baldi . Such experiments probe basically fields with a range $`\lambda `$ from meters to some kilometers and strength $`|\beta |[10^4,10^2]`$. Here the coefficients corresponds to $`\beta =\sigma e^{r/\lambda }/(3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0)`$ and $`\lambda =1/m_0`$ (cf. the curve $`\pm \beta =\pm \beta (\lambda )`$ in Ref.Baldi ) . The second kind of experiments probes variations of the Newton’s gravitation law at scales of two Earth’s radii by measuring the gravitational effects on the orbit of the laser-ranged LAGEOS satellite iorio . Assuming that $`r\lambda `$, so that effects of an “intermediate-range” force are taken only to order $`(r/\lambda )^2`$, it turns that $`|\beta |<10^510^8`$. These bounds are even more restrictive than those from the Earth based experiments quoted above.

At solar-system scales, Viking-like experiments restrict $`\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0>\omega _{\mathrm{exp}},`$ where $`\omega _{\mathrm{exp}}3000`$ corresponds to the current lower bound on $`\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0`$ will0 . This bound results from the parametrized post-Newtonian(PPN) approximation and translates into a bound on $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$:

$`\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma e^{r/\lambda }}{(3+2\omega _{\mathrm{exp}})}}\mathrm{1.66\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^4\sigma e^{r/\lambda }.`$ (76)
$`\lambda `$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{exp}}}{2\omega _{\mathrm{exp}}V_0^{\prime \prime }}}}1/\sqrt{V_0^{\prime \prime }}.`$ (77)
If we assume for instance that $`V=m^2\varphi ^2`$ and $`m_0`$ eV , for example, $`m_010^{21}`$ eV, then it turns that $`\lambda 13`$ kpc, and moreover from Eq. (71) one can expect that $`\sigma 1`$. Then, the most stringent upper bound $`1/(3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0)`$, imposed on $`\beta `$by the solar system experiments arises for long range scalar fields $`\lambda `$ $``$ kpc (i.e., galactic-scale ranges) :

$`\beta `$ $``$ $`\mathrm{1.66\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^4.`$ (78)
$`r`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{kpc}.`$ (79)
However, at the weak-field limit, a violation of the condition (78) do not imply significative violations of the $`1/r^2`$ gravitational force but rather a renormalization of the gravitational constant or of the self-gravitating mass (see below). At the PPN level, the effects of such “massless” scalar fields manifest sensitively in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (radar-echo delay).

Conversely, the solar system experiments impose weak bounds on scalar-tensor theories if the scalar field has short range, since then the Yukawa interaction would not be felt out of the self-gravitating body. However, as pointed out above, at regimes of Earth range the “fifth force tests” start playing some role and therefore deviations of the $`1/r^2`$ gravitational force could arise. Moreover, if $`\lambda `$ $``$ kpc, then also at galactic scales a violation of the $`1/r^2`$ law could be expected.

Effective gravitational constant and total gravitational mass. If we assume for instance that $`V=m^2\varphi ^2`$ then the self-consistency at first order according to the conditions (35), implies that $`m=0`$ or $`\varphi _0=0`$ (or both). In order to facilitate the interpretation of the following considerations, let us assume that $`V=0`$ which corresponds to a massless scalar field.

Now, the usual interpretation of fundamental constants in physics is by identifying the coefficients of some fundamental fields in the corresponding Lagrangian. For instance, one identifies the electric charge from the coefficient of $`1/e^2F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$ in the electromagnetic Lagrangian, or the mass of fermions as the coefficient of $`m\overline{\psi }\psi `$ in the Dirac Lagrangian. In the same way, the effective gravitational constant can be identified as the coefficient of the Ricci scalar in the Lagrangian (1), that is by Eq. (14). This means that at zero order comm3 ,

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}^0:=\frac{G_0}{F_0}.$$
(80)
So rather to define an effective gravitational constant from Eq. (75):

$$G:=\frac{2G_0}{F_0}\left(\frac{2+\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}\right),$$
(81)
as it is usual in most treatments that have analyzed the weak field limit, we shall keep the definition of Eq. (80). Instead one can define an effective mass

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`:=`$ $`M\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2G_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(F_0^{})^2}{F_0}}\right]=2M\left({\displaystyle \frac{2+\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}}\right)`$ (82)
$`=`$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}Q}{2G_0}}.`$
At this regard one mentions that it is the combination $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ that always appear in the Newtonian potential (75) and not the separate quantities. So whether one adopts one or the other definition for $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ or $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the combination of both provides the same number.

Naively one could then expect that $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the total gravitational mass of the system. However, this is not the case, since the total ADM-mass formula in the weak-field limit gives \[see Eq.(158) below\]

$$M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\stackrel{~}{T}^{00}d^3x,$$
(83)
which turns to be

$`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}`$ $`=`$ $`M\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2G_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(F_0^{})^2}{F_0}}\right]=2M\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}}\right)`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}Q}{2G_0}}.`$
This result is not surprising if one takes into account that it is in fact the active mass $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and not the ADM-mass which is measured by orbiting test particles will .

It is customary in the literature of gravitational physics to introduce different mass definitions of a body. For instance, tensor, scalar and inertial (or sometimes referred to also as Keplerian) masses $`M_T`$, $`M_S`$ and $`M_I`$ will ; Zag . In the weak-field limit these are given by

$`M_T`$ $`M,`$ (85)
$`M_S`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{3+2\omega _{\mathrm{BD}}^0}}={\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}Q}{2G_0}},`$ (86)
$`M_I`$ $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}.`$ (87)
In this limit, the tensor mass corresponds to the total rest mass since $`M`$ is just the integral of the energy-density of the self-gravitating body which at first order coincides with the integral of the rest-mass density over the proper-volume comm2  . The scalar mass (86) is simply proportional to the scalar charge of the body. The ADM-mass then reads in this limit as,

$$M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=M_TM_S=M_I2M_S=2M_TM_I,$$
(88)
and the other masses can be expressed in terms of the following combinations:

$`M_T`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}+M_S=M_IM_S,`$ (89)
$`M_I`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}+2M_S=M_T+M_S,`$ (90)
$`M_S`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}+2M_S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(M_IM_{\mathrm{ADM}}\right).`$ (91)
Spontaneous scalarization. The phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization damour3 ; damour2 ; novak ; salgado2 ; whinnett  arises in scalar-tensor theories within a dense compact object (e.g. neutron star). This phenomenon corresponds to a “sudden” appearance of a non-trivial configuration of the scalar field when the extended object turns to be compact enough and in the absence of scalar-field sources (as opposed to induced scalarization). In other words, the spontaneous scalarization phenomenon in neutron stars corresponds to a solution of field equations with fixed total baryon number and a zero value for the asymptotic boundary condition $`\varphi _0`$. In this way, there are two possible configurations: one with a trivial scalar field ($`\varphi =0`$) with larger ADM-mass and another with a non-trivial scalar field with lower ADM-mass, both configurations having the same total baryon number and $`\varphi _0=0`$. It has been argued that spontaneous scalarization is a non-perturbative effect damour3  and therefore it is not expected to appear in the weak-field limit. This conclusion can be checked by analyzing the regular solution for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in Eq.(44). In order to have spontaneous scalarization one would require $`F_0^{}=0`$ and at the same time $`F_0^{}0`$ (with $`\varphi _0=0`$), both conditions needed to obtain a trivial and a regular non-trivial configurations for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Since a multi-valued derivative is impossible for analytic functions $`F(\varphi )`$, one concludes that spontaneous scalarization takes no place at the weak-field level. In other words, in the weak-field limit, the asymptotic condition $`\varphi _0=0`$ fixes for one and for all the value of the constant $`F_0^{}`$. This value has to be zero for the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$ configuration to exist (the ADM-mass (84) has then the unique possible value $`M_{\mathrm{ADM}}=M`$) and different from zero to find the non-trivial scalarization solution $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }0`$ (both conditions are then impossible). However, in the non-perturbative analysis and still in the massless case $`V=0`$, one concludes from Eq. (15) that a necessary condition for spontaneous scalarization to ensue is that $`F`$ has a critical point in $`\varphi =0`$ (i.e., $`_\varphi F|_{\varphi =0})=0`$, with $`T_{\mathrm{matt}}0`$), since only in that case the solution $`\varphi =0`$ is possible. For instance, an even function $`F(\varphi )`$ verifies that condition. The other necessary and sufficient condition to obtain spontaneous scalarization in the full theory results by proving that there exists a non-trivial stationary regular solution of the non-linear Klein-Gordon equation Eq. (15) for a configuration leaving the rest-mass unchanged and for the same asymptotic condition $`\varphi _0=0`$. This has been done only numerically and for some class of STT damour2 ; damour3 ; novak ; salgado2 . For example, the particular case $`F=1+16\pi \xi \varphi ^2`$, was analyzed non perturbatively in Ref. salgado2  via a numerical analysis and the conclusion was that only within highly compact neutrons stars (strong field regime) the phenomenon appeared.

As opposed to spontaneous-scalarization there is the induced scalarization. This arises when $`\varphi _00`$, and since any analytic (non-trivial) function $`F(\varphi )`$ implies $`F_0^{}0`$ for $`\varphi _00`$, it has a weak-field limit analogue (it would be rather artificial to expect a Lagrangian which depends explicitly on $`\varphi _0`$ and moreover that $`F_0^{}=0`$). The simplest non-trivial example is $`F=1+16\pi \xi \varphi `$. In this case $`F^{}|_{\varphi _0}=const.`$ and therefore a trivial solution for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is not allowed \[cf. Eq.(15) or ( 44) with $`V=0`$\]. An artificial coupling $`F=1+16\pi \xi (\varphi \varphi _0)^2`$ leads however to $`F^{}|_{\varphi _0}=0`$. In other words, with the asymptotic condition $`\varphi _00`$ and with a coupling function $`F(\varphi ,\varphi _0)`$ such that $`_{\varphi _0}F=0`$, it is impossible to have a trivial scalar field in any limit (weak or strong regime), since a trivial scalar-field $`\varphi =const.`$ would not be a solution of Eq. (15) for $`T_{\mathrm{matt}}0`$. Induced scalarization then always ensues. The fact that the induced scalarization is present in the weak-field limit produces a smooth transition to the strong field regime (as opposed to spontaneous scalarization). Namely, the curve $`Qvs.M_{\mathrm{bar}}`$ (scalar charge vs. total baryon mass) do not show any discontinuity contrary to spontaneous scalarization (cf. Ref. damour2 ; damour3 ; salgado2 ).

## V Conclusions

The linear limit of scalar-tensor theories of gravity leads to the prediction of a spin-zero gravitational mode (scalar waves) in addition to the well known spin-2 modes. In the weak-field limit, STT predicts an effective gravitational potential with a Yukawa contribution for massive scalar fields. However, for ultra-light scalar fields (scalar fields of galactic or cosmological range) the Yukawa term is highly supressed as far as solar system experiments are concerned. Thus, in such a case the effective gravitational potential leads essentially to a Newtonian gravitational force $`1/r^2`$ with an effective mass coefficient which is proportional to the rest-mass of the self-gravitating body and which depends explicity on the effective Brans-Dicke parameter. This latter is highly constrained by the post-Newtonian approximation via Viking-like experiments. Therefore, even if a STT does not produce a deviation of the $`1/r^2`$ Newton’s law, it can however violate dramatically the post-Newtonian bounds. On the other hand, if the scalar field has “intermediate” ranges (meters to kilometers or even thousands of kilometers), then the Yukawa term leads to a “fifth force” field that produces deviations of the $`1/r^2`$ Newton’s law and which are severely constrained by Earth based experiments or by satellites, notably, by varying-mass experiments and laser-ranged missions. STT also predicts the phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization in compact objects. For the phenomenon to take place, a STT requires the existence of two possible configurations, one of which corresponds to the trivial $`\varphi =0`$ solution and another one that is not trivial. Both configurations having the same rest-mass and the null asymptotic value $`\varphi _0=0`$. The phenomenon will not be present in the weak-field limit since it would require that the non-minimal coupling function $`F(\varphi )`$ has a two valued-derivatives: $`F^{}(\varphi )|_{\varphi _0=0}=0`$ and $`F^{}(\varphi )|_{\varphi _0=0}0`$ in order two obtain the two possible configurations for the perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. The conclusion is that no-analytic function $`F(\varphi )`$ can fullfill both conditions. As oppposed to spontaneous scalarization, induced scalarization takes place also in the weak-field limit, since for physical couplings one has $`F^{}(\varphi _0)0`$ (i.e. physical coupling functions $`F`$ will not depend explicitly on $`\varphi _0`$), and then only non-trivial regular solutions are admitted.

###### Acknowledgements.

I’m indebted to O.Obregón, U. Nucamendi and D. Sudarsky for fruitful discussions. This work has been supported by DGAPA-UNAM, grant Nos. IN112401 and IN119799 and CONACYT, México, grant No. 32551-E.

## Appendix A The 3+1 formulation of general relativity

Let us consider the 3+1 or Adison-Deser-Misner (ADM) formulation of general relativity in which the spacetime (considered to be globally hyperbolic) is foliated by a family of spacelike hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. We shall not enter into the details of the derivation of the 3+1 equations (see Refs. ADM ; Choquet ; msnotes ; york79 ; wald ). The sign convention for the 3+1 splitting of the metric is as follows:

$$ds^2=(N^2N^iN_i)dt^22N_idtdx^i+h_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(92)
The extrinsic curvature of the embedings $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is given by

$`K_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`_in_j=N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^t`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}}{t}}+^3_jN_i+^3_iN_j\right),`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{j}^{}`$ stands for the covariant derivative compatible with the three-metric $`h_{ij}`$. This is to be regarded as an evolution equation for $`h_{ij}`$. The trace of the extrinsic curvature will be denoted by,

$$K:=K_l^l.$$
(94)
The orthogonal decomposition of the energy-momentum tensor in components tangent and orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ leads to york79 :

$$T^{\mu \nu }=S^{\mu \nu }+J^\mu n^\nu +n^\mu J^\nu +En^\mu n^\nu .$$
(95)
where $`n^\mu `$ is the normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. The tensor $`S^{\mu \nu }`$ is symmetric and often called the tensor of constraints; $`J^\mu `$ is the momentum density vector and $`E`$ is the total energy density measured by the observer orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$.

As in the 4+0 formalism, $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ will be the total energy-momentum tensor of matter which can be composed by the contribution of different types of sources:

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\underset{i}{}T_i^{\mu \nu }.$$
(96)
This means that

$$E=\underset{i}{}E_i,J^\mu =\underset{i}{}J_i^\mu ,S^{\mu \nu }=\underset{i}{}S_i^{\mu \nu }.$$
(97)
The projection of Einstein equations $`R_{\mu \nu }=4\pi G_0\left(2T_{\mu \nu }T_\alpha ^\alpha g_{\mu \nu }\right)`$ in the directions tangent and orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, followed by the use of the Gauss-Codazzi-Mainardi equations leads to the 3+1 form of Einstein equations:

$$^3R+K^2K_{ij}K^{ij}=16\pi G_0E,$$
(98)
known as the Hamiltonian constraint.

$$^3_lK_i^l^3_iK=8\pi G_0J_i,$$
(99)
known as the momentum constraint equations.

Finally, the dynamic Einstein equations read

$`_tK_j^i+N^l_lK_j^i+K_l^i_jN^lK_j^l_lN^i`$
$`+^3^i{}_{}{}^{3}_{j}^{}N^3R_j^iNNKK_j^i`$
$`=4\pi G_0N\left[(SE)\delta _j^i2S_j^i\right]`$ (100)
where $`S=S_l^l`$ is the trace of the tensor of constraints, and all the quantities written with a ‘$`3`$’ index refer to those computed with the three-metric $`h_{ij}`$. Moreover, under the 3+1 formalism tensor quantities tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ use the three-metric to raise and lower their spatial indices. The equations (93) and (A) are the set of the Cauchy-initial-data evolution equations for the gravitational field subject to the constraints Eqs. (98) and (99).

We can write an evolution equation for the trace $`K`$ by taking the trace in Eq. (A):

$$_tK+N^l_lK+^3\mathrm{\Delta }NN\left({}_{}{}^{3}R+K^2\right)=4\pi G_0N\left[S3E\right].$$
(101)
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the Laplacian operator compatible with $`h_{ij}`$.

This can be simplified by using Eq.(98) to give

$$_tK+N^l_lK+^3\mathrm{\Delta }NNK_{ij}K^{ij}=4\pi G_0N\left[S+E\right].$$
(102)
For our purposes it will no be necessary to write the 3+1 equations for the matter and the scalar field.

### A.1 Linearized equations

In order to linearize the 3+1 equations we assume first order deviations of the 3+1 metric with respect to the Lorentz metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ as follows

$`N`$ $``$ $`1+ϵ\stackrel{~}{N},`$ (103)
$`N_i`$ $``$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{N}_i,`$ (104)
$`h_{ij}`$ $``$ $`\delta _{ij}+ϵ\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}.`$ (105)
At first order $`h^{ij}\delta _{ij}ϵ\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}`$ in order to satisfy the inverse condition $`h_{il}h^{lj}=\delta _j^i`$. Therefore, covariant and contravariant components of tensorial quantities having no zero order terms are identical to each other at first order. For instance $`N^i=h^{il}N_lϵ\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$. In order to compare with the 4+0 (full covariant) linear approximation

$$g_{\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }+ϵ\gamma _{\mu \nu },$$
(106)
it turns out that

$`\gamma _{00}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{N},`$ (107)
$`\gamma _{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i,`$ (108)
$`\gamma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}.`$ (109)
The 3-Christoffel symbols turn to be

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{i}`$ $``$ $`ϵ^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{jk}^i,`$ (110)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^{i}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_i\stackrel{~}{h}_{jk}+_k\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}+_j\stackrel{~}{h}_{ki}\right).`$ (111)
Therefore 3-covariant derivatives of 3-tensors having no zero order terms become at first order ordinary derivatives. For instance $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{j}^{}N_iϵ_j\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$. Then Eq.(93) leads to

$`K_{ij}`$ $``$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij},`$ (112)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_t\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}+2_{(i}\stackrel{~}{N}_{j)}\right),`$ (113)
with

$`K_j^i`$ $``$ $`ϵ\stackrel{~}{K}_j^iϵ\stackrel{~}{K}_{ij},`$ (114)
$`K`$ $`:=`$ $`K_l^lϵ\stackrel{~}{K},`$ (115)
$`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_t\stackrel{~}{h}+2_l\stackrel{~}{N}_l\right),`$ (116)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}:=\stackrel{~}{h}_{ll}`$ is the trace of the 3-metric perturbation. Using the definition of the 3-Riemann tensor in terms of the 3-Christoffel symbols it is easy to obtain the linearized approximation for the 3-Ricci tensor and the 3-curvature respectively:

$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{ij}^{}`$ $``$ $`ϵ^3\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij},`$ (117)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}^{}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2_{l(j}^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{i)l}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{h}\right),`$ (118)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ $``$ $`ϵ^3\stackrel{~}{R},`$ (119)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{R}`$ $`:=`$ $`_{kl}^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{kl}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h},`$ (120)
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}:=_{ll}^2`$ stands for the Euclidean 3-Laplacian.

Concerning the sources (matter fields) we assume

$`E`$ $``$ $`E_0+ϵ\stackrel{~}{E},`$ (121)
$`J_i`$ $``$ $`J_i^0+ϵ\stackrel{~}{J}_i,`$ (122)
$`S_{ij}`$ $``$ $`S_{ij}^0+ϵ\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}.`$ (123)
The Hamiltonian constraint Eq. (98) when linearized reads

$$^3\stackrel{~}{R}=16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{E},$$
(124)
or explicitly

$$_{kl}^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{kl}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}=16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{E}.$$
(125)
The linearized version of the momentum constraint Eq. (99), reads

$$_l\stackrel{~}{K}_i^l_i\stackrel{~}{K}=8\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{J}_i.$$
(126)
Finally the dynamic Einstein Eqs. (A) when linearized read

$$_t\stackrel{~}{K}_j^i+^i_j\stackrel{~}{N}^3\stackrel{~}{R}_j^i=4\pi G_0\left[(\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{E})\delta _j^i2\stackrel{~}{S}_j^i\right].$$
(127)
The linear limit of evolution Eq. (102) reads

$$_t\stackrel{~}{K}+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}=4\pi G_0\left[\stackrel{~}{S}+\stackrel{~}{E}\right].$$
(128)
The self-consistency of the 3+1 equations up to first order imply that the zero order source fields must vanish identically:

$`E_0=0=J_i^0=S_{ij}^0.`$ (129)
The above equations (125), (126) and (127) are the 3+1 decomposition of the 4+0 equations (28).

The 3+1 splitting of the perturbations (26) is

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{h}2\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }2\stackrel{~}{N}\right),`$ (130)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i,`$ (131)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ij}\left(\stackrel{~}{h}2\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+2\stackrel{~}{N}\right),`$ (132)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{h}+2\stackrel{~}{N}\right)+4\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (133)
The 3+1 splitting of the Lorentz gauge Eq. (29)

$`^\mu \stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=0`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{c}_t\stackrel{~}{h}2\kappa _t\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+2_i\stackrel{~}{N}^i2_t\stackrel{~}{N}=0\mathrm{for}\nu =0\\ _t\stackrel{~}{N}^i+_j\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}_i\stackrel{~}{N}\frac{1}{2}_i\stackrel{~}{h}+\kappa _i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0\mathrm{for}\nu =i\end{array}`$ (136)
(137)
Using Eq. (116) the zero component of Eq. (137) reads

$$_t\stackrel{~}{N}+\kappa _t\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{K}.$$
(138)
From Eqs. (138) and (128) one obtains a wave equation for $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$:

$$_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{N}+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}=\kappa _{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+4\pi G_0\left[\stackrel{~}{S}+\stackrel{~}{E}\right].$$
(139)
On the other hand, differentiating the spatial components of the Lorentz gauge Eq. (137) with respect to time and using consecutively Eqs. (113), (116) and the momentum constraint Eq. (126) one obtains a wave equation for $`\stackrel{~}{N}^i`$:

$$_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{N}^i+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}^i=2\kappa _{ti}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{J}^i.$$
(140)
Finally, the linearized dynamic Einstein Eqs. (127) together with Eq. (113) and the spatial components of the Lorentz gauge Eq. (137) lead to a wave equation for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}`$

$$_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}=2\kappa _{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+8\pi G_0\left[(\stackrel{~}{S}\stackrel{~}{E})\delta _j^i2\stackrel{~}{S}_j^i\right].$$
(141)
From Eq. (141) one obtains

$$_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{h}+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}=2\kappa ^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+8\pi G_0\left[\stackrel{~}{S}3\stackrel{~}{E}\right].$$
(142)
Another wave equation which is not independent from the above is obtained from the linearized Hamiltonian constraint Eq. (125) and the Lorentz-gauge conditions Eq. (137):

$$\left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{N}\right)=\kappa \left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{E}.$$
(143)
which is obtained by combining Eqs. (139) and (142). This can be written as

$$\left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{h}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{N}\right)=2\kappa ^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{E}.$$
(144)
The combination of Eqs. (139), (141) and (142) as given by Eq. (132) provides the wave equation

$$\left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}=2\kappa _{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+2\kappa \delta _{ij}\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }16\pi G_0\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}.$$
(145)
Therefore Eqs. (140), (144) and (145) recover the 4+0 wave Eq. (30) in the Lorentz gauge.

Now according to the 3+1 splitting of the energy-momentum tensor, and using Eq. (31) we have

$`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{matt}}}{F_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{8\pi F_0G_0}}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (146)
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{i0}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{0i}^{\mathrm{matt}}}{F_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{8\pi F_0G_0}}_{0i}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (147)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}^{\mathrm{matt}}}{F_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{8\pi F_0G_0}}\left(_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\delta _{ij}\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)`$ (148)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_l^l={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_l^{\mathrm{matt}l}}{F_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{8\pi F_0G_0}}\left(3_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }2^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).`$
Then Eqs. (139), (140), and (141) read respectively

$`_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}=4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}^{\mathrm{matt}}+\stackrel{~}{S}^{\mathrm{matt}}\right)`$ (150)
$`+`$ $`\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^{}}{2F_0}}\right)_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{2F_0}}^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$
$$_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{N}^i+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}^i=16\pi \frac{G_0}{F_0}\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{matt}}^i+2\left(\kappa +\frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}\right)_{ti}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.$$
(151)
$`_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}`$ $`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}=8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}\left[(\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{matt}}\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{matt}})\delta _j^i2\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{\mathrm{matt}}\right]`$ (152)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\delta _j^i\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }2\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\right)_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$
From Eq. (142) one obtains

$`_{tt}^2\stackrel{~}{h}+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{h}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}\left[\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{matt}}3\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{matt}}\right]3{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ (153)
$`2\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\right)^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$
Moreover, from Eq. (144) we get

$`\left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{h}\kappa \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{N}\right)=16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{matt}}`$
$`2\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\right)^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }.`$ (154)
Whereas the Eq. (145) leads to

$`\left(_{tt}^2+^3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}=16\pi {\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{F_0}}\stackrel{~}{S}_{ij}^{\mathrm{matt}}`$
$`2\left(\kappa +{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^{}}{F_0}}\right)\left(_{ij}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\delta _{ij}\mathrm{}_\eta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right).`$ (155)
Therefore Eqs. (151), (154), and (155) are equivalent to Eq. (36). In above equations one can employ the convenient choice $`\kappa =F_0^{}/F_0`$ used in the 4+0 formulation to simplify the expressions.

### A.2 The weak-field approximation

As in the 4+0 formulation, we consider slow varying sources and neglect the time-derivatives, and also $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{matt}}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{\mathrm{matt}}\stackrel{~}{\rho },\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{matt}}^i\stackrel{~}{\rho }c`$. With such considerations Eq. (150) reads,

$${}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\stackrel{~}{N}+\frac{F_0^{}}{2F_0}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)=4\pi \frac{G_0}{F_0}\stackrel{~}{\rho }.$$
(156)
As in the 4+0 formulation $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}=\mathrm{const}.=\stackrel{~}{N}^i`$ are the regular solutions and the constants can be gauged out. Combining (156) and (44) we can then obtain the solution given by Eq. (52). Therefore the two non-trivial degrees of freedom are $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$( $`\stackrel{~}{N}^i=0`$, and, $`h_{ij}`$ is given in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }).`$ The perturbed quantity $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has the direct interpretation of the Newtonian potential \[cf. Eqs.(48) and (107)\]. In particular, for the massless case $`m_0=0`$, it yields,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\stackrel{~}{N}=4\pi \frac{G_0\stackrel{~}{\rho }}{F_0}\left(1+\alpha \frac{F_0^^2}{2G_0F_0}\right),$$
(157)
where Eq. (44) was used. In the spherical symmetric case, (75) provides the exterior solution for $`\stackrel{~}{N}.`$

Concerning the mass issue, let us focus on the linearized Hamiltonian constraint Eq. (125). One can integrate over a coordinate volume and use Gauss theorem to obtain

$$\frac{1}{16\pi }\left(_l\stackrel{~}{h}_{kl}_k\stackrel{~}{h}\right)𝑑S^k=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\stackrel{~}{E}d^3x,$$
(158)
where the integrals extend to spatial infinite. The left-hand side corresponds precisely to the weak-field version of the ADM-mass formula \[cf. Eq. (11.2.14) of Ref. wald \],

$$M_{\mathrm{ADM}}:=\frac{1}{16\pi }\left(_lh_{kl}_kh\right)𝑑S^k,$$
(159)
while the right-hand side of Eq. (158) is the weak-field approximation of the Komar-mass formula.

In the massless case $`m_0=0,`$from (146) and (44), it turns

$$\stackrel{~}{E}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}{F_0}\left(1\frac{\alpha }{2G_0}\frac{(F_0^{})^2}{F_0}\right).$$
(160)
Therefore, from Eqs. (158) and (160), one recovers Eq.(84) for the ADM-mass in the weak-field limit .


format: text

text:
# New Type of Regular Black Holes and Particlelike Solutions from Nonlinear Electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

Last years considerable interest in regular black hole solutions has been renewed 111See also list of references in ., and in particular, to those based on nonlinear electrodynamics (NED) . Analyzing the Ayón-Beato & García black hole solutions from nonlinear electrodynamics , Bronnikov presented three important results :

(i) - a version of no-go theorem claiming the nonexistence of the regular electrically charged black holes and particlelike solitons with regular center 222As well as wormholes or horns.;

(ii) - the existence of cusps and branches in the Lagrangian used for the Ayón-Beato – García solution ; and

(iii) - a class of exact regular magnetically charged black holes and solitonic solutions.

He showed that the branch, realized in the Ayón-Beato – García solution near the core, does not tend in the weak field limit to the Maxwell theory and presented two theorems leading to the conclusion that regular black hole and solitonic solutions can be only magnetically charged.

The unusual properties of the Ayón-Beato – García solution obtained by Bronnikov have captured our attention in connection with recent suggestions on a phase transition which has to occur for regular black hole and particlelike solutions in the core region . In this work we show that the conditions of the Bronnikov theorem can be circumvented by dealing with the models having a phase transition near the core of solution, when electric field does not extend to the center of the solution.

After some modification of the Ayón-Beato – García solutions, we obtain a new type of regular, electrically charged black hole solutions. The main peculiarity of these solutions is a ‘magnetic’ core described by dual electrodynamics. This class of solutions deserves interest not only as an explicit example of the regular electrically charged black hole solution, but also as an example of particlelike solution with a very specific realization of the ideas on quark confinement based on dual electrodynamics  and dual superconductivity .

## 2 NED and F-P Dual representations

The action for NED in general relativity is

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^4x\sqrt{g}[R(F)],$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`F=F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ,`$ and $`(F)`$ is a nonlinear function.

The equations, following from Eq. (1) are

$$_\mu (L_FF^{\mu \nu })=0,_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(2)
where $`L_F=d/dF`$, and the equations $`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0`$ are the Bianchi identities. 333We use signature $`+++`$. The Hodge star operator is given by $`F^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\eta _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }`$ is completely skew-symmetric, $`\eta _{0123}=\sqrt{g}`$.

By introducing the electric intensity $`𝐄`$ and magnetic induction $`𝐁`$,

$$𝐄=\{F_{i0}\},𝐁=\{F_{i0}\}=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{i0}^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },$$
(3)
one can obtain from Bianchi identities $`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }=0`$ the pair of Maxwell equations $`𝐁=0;\times 𝐄=𝐁/t.`$ The dynamic equations $`_\mu (L_FF^{\mu \nu })=0`$ can be expressed via the tensor

$$P^{\mu \nu }=/F_{\mu \nu }=L_FF^{\mu \nu },$$
(4)
in the form

$$_\mu P^{\mu \nu }=0;$$
(5)
that, in the terms of the electric induction $`𝐃`$ and magnetic intensity $`𝐇`$,

$$𝐃=\{P_{i0}\}=L_F\{F_{i0}\},𝐇=\{P^{0i}\}=L_F\{F^{0i}\},$$
(6)
yields the second pair of the Maxwell equations $`𝐃=\mathrm{𝟎};\times 𝐇=𝐃/𝐭.`$ These equations show that in NED $`L_F`$ plays the role of electric susceptibility $`ϵ=L_F`$ and the magnetic permeability is given by $`\mu =1/L_F`$.

Relation (4) allows one to rewrite the field equations (2) in an equivalent dual P form

$$_\mu (P^{\mu \nu })=0,_\mu \frac{1}{L_F}P^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(7)
It should be mentioned that it is a dual description of the same physical system. This description can be obtained from the electromagnetic Lagrangian $`(P)`$ ( expressed via $`P=P_{\mu \nu }P^{\mu \nu }=L_F^2F`$ ) determined by Legendre transformation

$$(P)=2FL_F.$$
(8)
The following relations can be easily obtained

$$=2PH_P;H_P=d/dP=1/L_F.$$
(9)
The Hodge star duality operation allows one to give a description of the field intensities via dual components $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }`$. Since $`=1`$, by using the Hodge dual description the following relations hold:

$$F=\stackrel{~}{F};P=\stackrel{~}{P};$$
(10)
and also

$$L_F=L_{\stackrel{~}{F}};H_P=H_{\stackrel{~}{P}};\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{~}{F})=L(F);\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{P})=(P);$$
(11)
and the equations (2) take in this description the form

$$_\mu (L_F\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu })=0,_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(12)
Note that the Hodge dual description changes sign of $`L_F`$ that can lead to nonphysical values of electric susceptibility $`ϵ<0`$ 444See, for example, .

Vice versa, if the Lagrangian leads to $`L_F<0`$ it can be considered as a sign to pass to another, physically valid (Hodge) dual description.

## 3 Nonexistence of Electrically Charged Regular Black Holes?

The Bronnikov no-go theorem is based on the assumption that the NED Lagrangian has to lead to Maxwell theory at small $`F`$: $`(F)F`$ as $`F0`$. This is equal to $`L_F1`$ at small $`F`$. He shows that real behavior of electrically charged solution near the center leads to finite values of $`|FL_F|`$ and to divergence of $`|F|L_F^2`$. Therefore at the center the ratio $`\frac{|F|L_F^2}{FL_F}L_F`$ tends to infinity that is non-Maxwellian behavior.

This derivation is correct. However, there are two points which throw doubts on the initial postulates. The first one is connected with the assumption that the electromagnetic field is extended up to the center of the solution. At least in flat space there is a remarkable example of the electrically charged solution, present only in the region $`ra`$. It is the classical Dirac electron model, as a charged sphere. 555The Bronnikov theorem 2 tries to exclude this case showing nonexistence of a horn in space-time. However, there can be other (nonmetrical) mechanisms restricting the penetration of the electromagnetic field into region $`r<a`$, in particular, superconducting properties of core or a special behavior in NED as it will be shown further. The second argument is connected with the demands of Maxwellian behavior. Indeed, the condition $`L_F1`$ as $`F0`$ (to recover Maxwell theory) is reasonable at spatial infinity. However, at the core, although the gravitational field is regular everywhere and becomes weaker as one approaches the center (the metric tends to flat space-time), the spatial volume is much smaller (on many orders) than in the asymptotic limit where gravity is again weak and where $`L_F1`$ makes sense. Thus both types of boundaries are essentially different. Another argument can be a strong vacuum polarization and the presence of other ( maybe virtual quantum ) fields which have a straight relation to the formation the nonvacuum values of $`L_F=ϵ`$. Therefore $`(F)`$ can have a nonlocal behavior depending not only on the value of $`F`$ but also on full field configuration and proximity to the core.

If one restricts oneself to Lagrangian densities which are local functions of $`F`$, then, Bronnikov is completely right. But assigning essentially the same physics to the core region as to the asymptotic region (in electromagnetic terms) is not convincing enough. Therefore his restrictions for regular solutions are too especial to be accepted in general. This point of view is suggested in fact by the given Bronnikov analysis showing the existence of cusps and branches in the Lagrangian of the Ayón-Beato – García solution. In fact, his analysis shows that the Ayón-Beato – García Lagrangian has different behavior at the core and far outside the body, although $`F0`$ in both cases.

## 4 The Ayón-Beato – García Solution

The electrically charged regular black hole solution has been given by Ayón-Beato – García in . Most investigations in nonlinear electrodynamics are connected with the Born-Infeld type of nonlinearity (see, e.g.,  and references therein). However, as it was mentioned for regular black hole solutions in , the “…Born-Infeld Lagrangian is useless in this topic, since it gives rise to a singular black hole solution, at least in the case of spherical symmetry …”, and Ayón-Beato – García start from the nonlinear function

$$(P)=P/\mathrm{cosh}^2\{s(2q^2P)^{1/4}\},$$
(13)
where $`s=|q|/2m`$ ($`q`$ is the electric charge and $`m`$ is the mass of the body).

Note, that particular form of nonlinearity $`(P)`$ is not essential, and existence of regular black hole solutions is determined by the asymptotic properties of this function. What is important is the Maxwellian behavior on large distances, $`(P)P`$ at small $`P`$, and a rapid fall-off of this function by $`P\mathrm{}`$. These demands lead to the existence of an extremum of the function $``$, and moreover to the existence of at least one sector where $`H_P`$ is negative. For instance, we use for illustration the simplest function of this sort

$$(P)=P\mathrm{exp}\{|P|\}.$$
(14)
The corresponding Lagrangian in L description is $`(F)=2H_PP(P)`$, where $`P`$ has to be expressed via $`F=P/L_F^2`$, ( see Fig. 1 and upper graph in Fig. 2.) .

It yields the system of electromagnetic equations

$$_\mu (P^{\mu \nu })=0;$$
(15)
and Einstein equations $`G_\mu ^\nu =T_\mu ^\nu `$, where the energy-momentum tensor is given by

$$T_\mu ^\nu =\frac{1}{2}(4L_FF_{\mu \alpha }F^{\nu \alpha }\delta _\mu ^\nu ).$$
(16)
In the case of spherical symmetry the electrically charged solution of Eq. (15) is

$$P_{0r}=P_{r0}=q/r^2$$
(17)
or

$$F_{0r}=F_{r0}=L_F^1q/r^2;$$
(18)
the other components being equal to zero. Thus $`P=2q/r^4.`$

The Einstein equations can easily be solved leading to the mass term $`M(r)=m[1\mathrm{tanh}(q^2/2mr)]`$ and to the metric

$$ds^2=[12M(r)/r]dt^2+[12M(r)/r]^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(19)
which is regular by $`r`$ going to zero.

As mentioned by Bronnikov , the Lagrangian given by the smooth and regular function $`(P)`$ displays cusps and branches in F description. Appearance of cusps at the points $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ is connected with multivaluedness of the inverse map $`P(F)`$ ( see fig.2) and is a general feature of the considered class of nonlinear functions. Very specific behavior of function $`L(F)`$ by large $`P`$, on the section $`P_2P_3P_4`$ is determined by the following phenomenon: The magnetic permeability $`\mu =H_P`$ is going to zero as $`PP_2`$, the point of $``$ extremum. Consequently, electric susceptibility $`ϵ=1/H_P`$ is divergent at this point. The sphere, determined by the equation $`P=P_2`$ looks like an ideal conducting surface, and electromagnetic field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ ( and $`F`$) will tend to zero approaching this surface. The solution, analytically extended inside this sphere departs drastically from a Maxwellian behavior. Nevertheless it still has reasonable properties in many respects. For instance, the electromagnetic field $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and the invariant $`F`$ go both to zero as the very center of the solution is approached ( although $`L_F\mathrm{}`$ at $`P_2`$ and $`P_4`$) and the metric is regular everywhere, leading to regular black hole solutions .

In spite of these properties, the physics inside the core looks rather unusual since the value of electric susceptibility $`ϵ=1/H_P`$ is negative there and does not correspond to any known physical mediums . Combining NED and general relativity, one can show from the system of equations (15), (16) that the corresponding contribution of effective charges to the metric will be of opposite sign in the regions with negative $`L_F`$, as if the charge would be imaginary valued there.

## 5 Modification of the Ayón-Beato – García Solution

The fact that regularity of black hole solutions can be reached without troubles in the magnetically charged solutions  suggests the idea to combine the electrically and magnetically charged solutions by using a phase transition near the core to magnetic phase, regularizing the black hole singularity. In this case, the existence of different branches in the Ayón-Beato – García solution represents a perfect possibility for realization of this idea by means of matching external and internal solutions with necessary properties. As we shall see, the transfer to dual electromagnetic phase near the core of the Ayón-Beato – García solution allows also one to avoid abnormal branch $`(P_2P_3P_4)`$ with negative $`L_F`$.

Looking on the graph $`L(F)`$ (Fig. 1) one sees that it can only be achieved by replacing this branch by the branch obtained by a mirror map with respect to the $`L`$ axis, as it is shown in Fig. 3. This replacement takes place in the region of strong field $`|P|>|P_2|`$, i.e., inside of the sphere $`r<r_0=|\frac{2q}{P_2}|^{1/4}`$ surrounding the singular point of $`P(r)`$.

As we shall see this replacement corresponds to “dual” electrodynamics with a polarization of magnetic charges inside the sphere $`r=r_0`$, while the solution for $`r>r_0`$ survives to be the electrically charged Ayón-Beato – García one. Matching of the modified internal solution and the external Ayón-Beato – García one is smooth with respect to the metric and physical field intensities.

The properties of modified Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{~}{F})`$ and the modified relations will be the following.

1. The region of definition of Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is extended to positive values of the invariant $`\stackrel{~}{F}=B^2E^2`$, and modified electric susceptibility, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}=L_F`$, is positive.
2. Matching of the new branch with the initial one is smooth and occurs at the point $`P_2`$ where $`F=\stackrel{~}{F}=0`$ and $`L(F)|_{P_2}=\stackrel{~}{L}(\stackrel{~}{F})|_{P_2}`$.
3. The modified dual intensities are related as

$$\stackrel{~}{P}^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu };\stackrel{~}{P}=(\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}})^2\stackrel{~}{F}.$$
(20)
At the point $`P_2`$ electric susceptibility is divergent $`L_F|_{P_2}=\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}|_{P_2}=+\mathrm{}`$, while the magnetic permeability $`\mu =1/L_F`$ is bounded and $`C^1`$.
4. As far as in the modified region $`\stackrel{~}{F}>0`$ we get also $`\stackrel{~}{P}>0`$. On the other hand $`P=H^2D^2`$ is negative in the region $`r>r_0`$ (as in the case of an electrically charged solution). Therefore the modified function $`P(r)`$ will be discontinuous. The change of sign of the invariant $`P`$ at the point $`P_2`$ is evidence of a transfer to magnetic phase by $`r<r_0`$.

Due to the Hodge star operation identity $`=1`$, the equality $`\stackrel{~}{P}=P`$ can be resolved as $`\stackrel{~}{P}^{\mu \nu }=\pm P^{\mu \nu }`$. Whence, the relation (3) shows that the modified Ayón-Beato – García solution (18) by $`r<r_0`$ describes a field of magnetic induction in radial direction $`𝐧`$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=q𝐧\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}^1/r^2.$$
(21)
Magnetic induction $`𝐁`$ characterizes the true intensity of the field strength in media . In modified solution it tends to zero at $`r=0`$ and at $`r=r_0`$. Contrary to the standard Maxwell equation $`𝐁=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ describing the absence of magnetic charges, we obtain here the magnetic charge distribution

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=J_{mag}=(q/r^2)𝐧\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}=(q/r^2)\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{dr},$$
(22)
displaying realization of dual electrodynamics in the core region and singular concentration of magnetic charges at $`r=0`$ and $`r=r_0`$.

The initial and modified dependencies $`(P)`$, $`F(P)`$, and $`L(F)`$ are given in figs. 1 and 3.

### 5.1 Stress-energy tensor and metric.

We use the Kerr-Schild form of metric . 666See also  where it was shown that the static solutions of the Einstein equations with spherical symmetry and $`T_0^0=T_1^1`$ belong to the Kerr-Schild class. In this section we use slightly different units, adapting to the works  and setting $`G=1`$. The reason for this is the possibility of using the Kerr-Schild formalism for further extension to rotating solutions. In the case of spherical symmetry

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+[f(r)/r^2]k_\mu k_\nu ,$$
(23)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the auxiliary Minkowski metric and $`k_\mu =\{1,𝐧\}`$. Co- and contravariant forms of the metric in the Kerr angular coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ are given in the Appendix. We have

$$F^{01}=F_{01};\stackrel{~}{F}_{23}=r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta F^{01};\stackrel{~}{F}^{23}=\stackrel{~}{F}_{23}/(r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta );$$
(24)
which, taking into account Eq. (18), yield

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=2\stackrel{~}{F}^{23}\stackrel{~}{F}_{23}=2(F_{01})^2=2L_F^2q^2/r^4.$$
(25)
Similarly,

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=2\stackrel{~}{P}^{23}\stackrel{~}{P}_{23}=2(P_{01})^2=2q^2/r^4.$$
(26)
The modified energy-momentum tensor inside the core acquires the form

$$T_\mu ^{(in)\nu }=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _\mu ^\nu \stackrel{~}{L}4\stackrel{~}{P}_{\mu \alpha }\stackrel{~}{P}^{\nu \alpha }/\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔}\{\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{L}2\stackrel{~}{P}/\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}},\stackrel{~}{L}2\stackrel{~}{P}/\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\}.$$
(27)
Outside the core, by $`r>r_0`$ it is

$$T_\mu ^{(ext)\nu }=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _\mu ^\nu L4P_{\mu \alpha }P^{\nu \alpha }/L_F)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔}\{L2P/L_F,L2P/L_F,L,L\},$$
(28)
where $`P=\stackrel{~}{P}=2q^2/r^4`$. As far as contributions of terms $`2P/L_F`$ and $`2\stackrel{~}{P}/\stackrel{~}{L}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$, together with their first derivative, tend to zero approaching $`r_0`$, one sees that these expressions match smoothly at $`r_0`$.

Comparing corresponding expressions for the generalized Kerr-Schild class of metrics

$$T_\mu ^\nu =(8\pi )^1\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔}\{2G,2G,D+2G,D+2G\},$$
(29)
where (see the Appendix)

$$D=f^{\prime \prime }/r^2,G=(f/r)^{}/r^2$$
(30)
and $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dr`$ gives the relations:

For external field

$$_{(ext)}(r)=\frac{(f/r)^{}}{2\pi r^2}=2\rho (r),$$
(31)
where $`\rho (r)`$ is the energy density in this region.

For the external part of the function $`f(r)`$

$$f(r)=rM_{(ext)}(r),M_{(ext)}(y)=2\pi _{r_0}^y_{(ext)}(r)r^2𝑑r+C,$$
(32)
where $`C`$ is the integration constant.

For function $`f(r)`$ inside the core, $`r<r_0`$, we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{L}(r)=\frac{(f/r)^{}}{2\pi r^2}=2\rho (r),$$
(33)
that gives rise for the internal region to

$$f(r)=rM_{(int)}(r),M_{(int)}(y)=2\pi _0^y\stackrel{~}{L}(r)r^2𝑑r.$$
(34)
Each of the functions $`M_{(ext/int)}(y)`$ plays the role of the mass confined inside the sphere $`y<r`$. Constant $`C`$ can be determined by matching both sectors of $`f(r)`$ at $`r=r_0`$ that yields $`C=M_{(int)}(r_0)`$. This matching is smooth as far as $`(r_0)=\stackrel{~}{L}(r_0)`$, thus the metric (23) is smooth everywhere.

By analyzing dependencies $`L(r)`$ and $`(r)`$, Figs. 4 and 5., one sees that there is a core region ($`r<0.6r_0`$) which does not give contribution to mass at all. The space is flat in this core since $`f(r)0`$ there. The region $`0.6r/r_01`$ is a transitional one with a dual magnetic phase, whereas the region $`1r/r_01.6`$ is one with an electric phase. In the region $`r>1.6r_0`$ we have $`L_F1`$, it is practically a Coulomb phase.

Let us estimate characteristic scale $`r_0`$ for the Ayón-Beato – García type of nonlinearity (13). Radius $`r_0`$ is determined by the equation $`H_P=0`$, or by the root of equation $`\zeta \mathrm{tanh}(\zeta )=2`$. It yields $`\zeta =2.066`$, and

$$r_0=\frac{2^{1/4}q^2}{2m\zeta }=.48r_e,$$
(35)
where $`r_e=q^2/2m`$ is a classical electromagnetic radius.

For comparison, in the Born-Infeld theory (in our notations), Lagrangian is

$$_{BI}=\frac{1}{b^2}(\sqrt{1+2b^2F}1),$$
(36)
and has a dual Lagrangian

$$_{BI}=\frac{1}{b^2}(1\sqrt{12b^2P}).$$
(37)
The typical NED branches are absent here, and the sphere $`H_P=0`$ shrinks to the point $`r=0`$. Therefore the considered above type of solutions is absent in Born-Infeld theory.

Black holes in Born-Infeld theory were actively studied (see  which includes the original references). The Born-Infeld black hole solution has finite total energy $`E=m1.236e^2/r_0`$ and a smooth distribution of effective charge $`\rho _{eff}=\frac{1}{4\pi }div𝐄`$ in the region $`r_0=\sqrt{eb}`$ . Parameter $`b^1=e/r_0^2`$ characterizes a critical value of the electromagnetic field.

Considering particlelike solutions, one sees that, similarly to NED, the effective radius of the elementary particle in Born-Infeld theory is close to classical electromagnetic one

$$r_0=2.472r_e10^{13}cm.$$
(38)
However, in contrast to NED, the Born-Infeld solution has a $`\delta `$-function source at the origin, leading to a conical singularity in curvature. Therefore the Born-Infeld theory, as well as NED, has classical radius $`r_e`$ as one of the characteristic scales. However, regularizing ( or smearing ) the black hole singularities, both the theories display that their minimal ( space ) scale is extended up to Planck sizes.

On the other hand, the Born-Infeld theory can be derived from open string theory , and parameter $`b`$ takes in this case the value $`b=2\pi \alpha ^{}=T^1`$ defined by Regge slope $`\alpha ^{}`$. On the level of particlelike solutions, it does not contradict with $`b^1e/r_0^2`$, leading to approximate value of the fine structure constant $`\alpha \frac{1}{44}`$ ( see, e.g, ). However, in the modern superstring theory tension $`T_{(ss)}`$ defines the critical scale for all field strength, including curvature, and characteristic radius $`r_{crit}=\sqrt{\alpha _{(ss)}^{}}`$ corresponds to the Planck scale. It shows that the scale range of nonlinearity in NED action is much larger than the Planck scale that governs higher order corrections in curvature.

## 6 Concluding remarks

The Ayón-Beato – García solution contains distribution of electric charges $`J_{(e)}^\nu =_\mu F^{\mu \nu }`$ near the sphere $`r=r_0`$ and in the center. In the presented modified solution the charges inside the sphere $`r=r_0`$ are magnetic $`J_{(m)}^\nu =_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ fulfilling the Dirac idea on dual electrodynamics . These charges are confined inside the sphere $`r=r_0`$, forming a magnetic vacuum polarization. For the external observer this solution exhibits only electric charge. Since vacuum of the core expels electric charges one can speculate that it possesses superconducting properties, whereas the vacuum of the external observer demonstrates the dual superconductivity, expelling the magnetic charges. The considered matching of the electric and magnetic phases corresponds to a sharp phase transition between these vacua ( London limit of superconductivity).

The similar baglike structures with a phase transition to dual superconductivity ( approximate solutions ) were recently discussed for regular rotating black holes to supergravity . It was assumed that superconductivity is caused by the Higgs ( chiral ) fields forming two dual ( supersymmetric ) vacuum states and a smooth domain wall interpolating between them. It is remarkable that nonlinear electrodynamics allows one to get exact and self-consistent solutions of this sort belonging to the Kerr-Schild class of metrics. However, it could seem wonderful since the Higgs fields providing the vacuum states and phase transition are absent here. On the other hand, the NED Lagrangian $`L(F)`$ can be represented in the form $`(\frac{L(F)}{F})F`$ showing that the factor $`\frac{L(F)}{F}`$ can be identified as a dilaton ( corresponding to a metric on the moduli space in supergravity). It allows one to suppose that NED can be assumed as a limiting case of supergravity when the potential is very sharp and chiral fields are dropped out. The presented exact solution from NED shows that dilaton has to be very essential in the baglike models.

A parallelism between the above baglike models and the field models of dual superconductivity should also be mentioned. Indeed, there are known the dual superconductivity models of two type: the models with Higgs fields, leading to solutions with a soft phase transition ( finite thickness of transitional layer ), see, e.g., , and the similar to NED models without Higgs fields, see, e.g., , demonstrating the sharp phase transition connected with the London limit of superconductivity. The field models of the first type represent in fact a truncation of the four-dimensional supergravity, while the models of the second type represent, apparently, its singular limit. 777Note that effective Higgs fields can also be introduced in the models of the second type . However, these questions demand more detailed consideration elsewhere.

It would also be very interesting to look on NED from a high dimensional point of view, getting it as a result of compactification or as a four -dimensional slice of a multidimensional spice-time in the spirit of early brane world work .

Finally, taking into account nontrivial topology of the Kerr geometry, its exceptional character with respect to dual rotations  and relationships to the spinning particlelike solutions ( see, e.g.,  and references therein ), the treatment of corresponding regular rotating solutions is very important and could bring some surprising results. In particular, the appearance of a closed vortex string on the place of the Kerr singular ring is expected.

## Acknowledgments

We are thankful to I. Dymnikova for useful discussions at the early stage of this work and to K. Bronnikov for presenting his paper, very useful discussions, and comments.

## Appendix. The Kerr-Schild form of metric in the case of spherical symmetry

The Kerr-Schild form of metric  in the case of spherical symmetry is

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+2hk_\mu k_\nu ,$$
(39)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the auxiliary Minkowski metric, $`h=f(r)/r^2`$, and $`k_\mu =\{1,𝐧\}`$. In the Kerr angular coordinates $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ we have

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2h1& 2h& 0& 0\\ 2h& 1+2h& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& r^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(40)
where $`h(r)=f(r)/r^2`$, $`\sqrt{g}=r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and the contravariant form of metric is

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}(1+2h)& 2h& 0& 0\\ 2h& 12h& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1/r^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& (r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^1\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
The energy-momentum tensor for the generalized Kerr-Schild class of metrics is

$$T_\mu ^\nu =(8\pi )^1\mathrm{𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔}\{2G,2G,D+2G,D+2G\},$$
(42)
where

$$D=f^{\prime \prime }/r^2,G=(f/r)^{}/r^2,$$
(43)
the prima means $`d/dr`$, and energy density is $`\rho =2G/8\pi `$.