text:
# Null Singularity Formation by Scalar Fields in Colliding Waves and Black Holes

## I Introduction

Colliding plane waves (CPW) provide an excellent test bed toward a better understanding of singularities in general relativity. Khan and Penrose  considered the collision of two impulsive gravitational waves with parallel polarizations. They showed that a strong spacelike curvature singularity develops in the region of interaction. On the other hand, collision of gravitational waves with ones modified by coupling to sources can yield totally different results. We cite three examples of such cases.

First, the Bell-Szekeres (BS) solution; this solution represents a collision of two constant profile electromagnetic (em) shock waves and its outcome is a quasiregular ”singularity” in the interaction region. This is equivalent to a Cauchy- horizon (CH).

Second, the Chandrasekhar - Xanthopoulos (CX) solution; this solution describes the collision of two impulsive gravitational waves accompanied by shock gravitational waves with non-parallel polarizations. It predicts the development of an event horizon. Analytic extension of the solution across the horizon reveals the existence of timelike singularities along two hyperbolic arcs that are locally isometric to the Kerr ergosphere region.

Third, again as shown by CX , coupling em waves to the solution given in ref. , develops a regular null hypersurface which is equivalent to a CH in the region of interaction. This region is locally isometric to the region of spacetime in between the two horizons named as event (outer) and Cauchy (inner) horizons of the Kerr-Newman (KN) black hole (BH).

The CH of BS solution was shown to be unstable against perturbations . In ref. , it has been shown that, there is a similar inner horizon instability for BHs and the horizons change to spacelike singularities.

In brief, these examples conform to the earlier hypothesis that any horizon formed in CPW is null while any singularity formed is spacelike.

Later Ori  found that when the CH of a spinning BH is perturbed the result is a curvature singularity which has a null character rather than spacelike one. This new picture, compared to the previously accepted view attracted many researchers to confirm the same results. Burko , using numerical methods confirmed Ori’s observation of a regular horizon changing to a null singularity when he applied a scalar field to a Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) BH.

The relations between the mathematical theory of BHs and of colliding waves, motivates us to explore analogous singularities in the space of colliding waves.

All analyses devoted to singularity formation in the context of CPWs result in non-null singularities except for the one considered by Ori in plane symmetric spacetimes . Ori has discussed the null weak singularity in plane symmetric spacetimes, his arguments are generalized to CPW only by employing outgoing perturbation analyses. Although his formulation for plane symmetric spacetime is justifiable, such an approach is insufficient to find an exact analytic solution to the Einstein field equations in the region of interaction. In this sense, the outcome of the outgoing perturbations does not reflect the real physical situation. The physical reality reveals the metric component $`e^{U(u,v)}=0`$ on the null hypersurface and causes a degeneracy in the metric. This degeneracy plays a crucial role on the weak or strong character of the singularity.

In this paper we close this gap by constructing an example of colliding Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar (EMS) waves which leads to a null singularity. In our example of colliding EMS waves leads us to another crucial point. Pure em shock waves with constant amplitudes yield regular horizons (see BS solution cited above). On the other hand collision of pure scalar waves as we show here yields spacelike singularities. We show that by coupling suitable em fields to the scalar field these space-like singularities are transformed into null singularities, suggesting that null singularities are intermediate formations (in other words a transition phase) between horizons and spacelike singularities. We also show that tidal accelerations at the null singularities have weaker divergences than in the case of spacelike singularities and naturally this raises the following question: Is it possible to manipulate appropriate counter plane waves so that we can completely eliminate the divergences ?. Although the answer to this question has so far been negative our example at least verifies that counter- em terms can be employed to weaken the singularity.

We note that in conformally flat space-times occurence of null singularities makes some tidal forces to be finite . Our case here is not conformally flat and all our tidal forces turn out to be divergent, albeit weaker than before.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we give the metric for a new class of colliding EMS and ES fields and their extension to the incoming regions. In section III we discuss the singularity structure by analysing the geodesic behaviour and tidal accelerations. In section IV we couple a scalar field to a linearly polarized version of CX  metric that results in null singularities in the non-spherical extension of the Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) BH spacetime. We also show a particular scalar hair confined in the ergosphere of RN BH that does not violate the BH property. The paper is concluded with a discussion in section V.

## II A New CPW Geometry with A Null Singularity

A long time ago Penney gave a solution for EMS fields in spherical symmetry generalizing the RN solution with the addition of a scalar field . In a similar manner by replacing spherical symmetry with planar symmetry and introducing the BS solution instead of RN we obtain a new solution in the theory of CPWs. We do this by checking all separate Maxwell, scalar and EMS field equations with appropriate boundary conditions. These include continuity of metric components with sourceless scalar and em field equations satisfied at the boundaries. Some first and second derivatives, however, contain discontinuities (or jumps) as was discussed first by O’Brien and Synge . Later on BS and CX gave explicit examples of solutions within the context of Einstein-Maxwell theory of CPW that justified the discontinuities in some of the energy-momentum components.
The inclusion of a scalar field, as we advocate here, is not an exception to the reality of discontinuities while we cross from the incoming region to the region of interaction.
Our line element describing the collision of linearly polarized EMS fields is summarized by,

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\delta dx^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2dy^2$$
(1)
where the notation used is,

$`\tau +\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2P\sqrt{1Q^2}`$ (2)
$`\tau \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2Q\sqrt{1P^2}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`1\tau ^2`$ (4)
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`1\sigma ^2`$ (5)
$`2Z`$ $`=`$ $`a(1+\tau )^A+b(1\tau )^A`$ (6)
with $`P=u\theta (u)`$ and $`Q=v\theta (v)`$, in which $`(u,v)`$ are null coordinates and $`\theta (x)`$ stands for the step function. We choose the constant $`A`$, $`0<A<1`$ to represent a scalar parameter so that a scalar charge can be defined by $`\sqrt{1A^2}`$. Namely, for $`A=0`$ we have the maximum scalar charge of unity, while for $`A=1`$ the scalar charge vanishes. The constants $`(a,b)`$ stand for two additional parameters with $`a>0`$ and $`b>0`$. The fact that metric (1) describes colliding EMS fields will be justified in the sequel. As particular limits, of (1) we observe the following.

i) For $`A=1`$ (and $`a=b`$ ), it reduces to the well known BS solution of colliding constant profile em shock waves. This particular solution is known to possess a horizon in the interaction region.

ii) For $`A=0`$, which implies a maximum scalar charge of unity it represents a collision of Einstein-Scalar (ES) fields that create a spacelike scalar curvature singularity. This will be discussed separately in section 2.2.

Our main concern in this paper is to investigate the effect of a scalar field on the formation of a null singularity. The massless scalar field and Maxwell equations

$$_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu \right)=0$$
(7)
$$_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}F^{\mu \nu }\right)=0$$
(8)
are both satisfied by the scalar field

$$\varphi (\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1A^2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }\right|$$
(9)
and the em vector potential

$$A_\mu =2\delta _\mu ^x\sqrt{ab}A\sigma ,$$
(10)
respectively. This implies that for $`A=0`$ there exists only a background scalar field and the solution given in metric (1) represents the collision of ES fields. A scalar curvature singularity forms in the region of interaction and has a spacelike character. As we increase $`A`$ toward unity the scalar field diminishes and the singularity of the spacetime transforms to a Cauchy horizon. In the interval $`0<A<1`$, we have the case of a null singularity.
In Appendix A, we have shown that the Weyl and curvature scalars diverge as $`\tau 1`$ and this is interpreted as a scalar curvature singularity. However, the fundamental property is that the present solution does not become singular on any spacelike surface in the region of interaction. This can be seen as follows.
We define the singular surface as

$$S(\tau )=1\tau $$
(11)
The normal vector to this surface is

$$(S)^2=g^{\mu \nu }S_\mu S_\nu =g^{\tau \tau }S_\tau ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2=(1\tau ^2)^AZ^2$$
(12)
As $`\tau 1`$ then $`(S)^20`$ which indicates a null character orthogonal to both of the null directions of the incoming regions. It is also interesting to check that the line element (1) becomes null (i.e. $`ds^2=0`$ ) as $`\tau 1`$ for $`0<A<1`$ and $`0<u,v<1`$. This type of singularity is the first of its kind encountered in CPWs. In the obtained solution this null singularity emerges as an intermediate stage between the regular horizon and a space-like singularity.
To make this point more clear we employ the following successive transformations. First we rewrite the metric (1) in terms of new variables $`\omega `$ and $`r`$ defined by;

$$\omega =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }=1u^2v^2$$
(13)
$$r=\tau \sigma =u^2v^2$$
(14)
and metric (1) becomes

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2\left(\frac{d\omega ^2dr^2}{\tau ^2\sigma ^2}\delta dx^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2dy^2$$
(15)
inverting the transformations (9) and (10) leads,

$$2\sigma ^2=1+r^2\omega ^2\sqrt{D}$$
(16)
$$2\tau ^2=1+r^2\omega ^2+\sqrt{D}$$
(17)
where $`D=(1+r^2\omega ^2)^24r^20`$.
Secondly we set;

$`\omega +r=\xi `$ (18)
$`\omega r=\eta `$ (19)
Such that the equations (12) and (13) become,

$$2\sigma ^2=1\xi \eta \sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)}$$
(20)
$$2\tau ^2=1\xi \eta +\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)}$$
(21)
and the metric (11) takes the following form,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\xi \eta \sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)})\right]^{1A}F^2(\xi ,\eta )[{\displaystyle \frac{d\xi d\eta }{\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)}}}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\xi \eta +\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)})dx^2]`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\xi \eta \sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)})\right]^AF^2(\xi ,\eta )dy^2`$
where $`F(\xi ,\eta )=\frac{1}{2}Z(\xi ,\eta )`$.

The corresponding spacetime manifolds with coordinates $`(u,v,x,y)`$ and $`(\xi ,\eta ,x,y)`$ are illustrated in Fig.’s 1 and 2 respectively. It should be noted that, the description of the spacetime in the $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ coordinates breaks down on the null boundaries separating the interaction region (region IV) from the incoming regions ( regions II and III ), when $`u=0`$ and $`0v1`$ or $`v=0`$ and $`0u1`$. These points correspond to $`\xi =1`$ or $`\eta =1`$ respectively and the quantity $`\sqrt{(1\xi ^2)(1\eta ^2)}`$ in the metric (17) becomes zero. To avoid this problem the new variables $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are restricted by the following inequality.

$$0\xi ,\eta <1$$
(27)
Physically this means that metric (17) represents the interaction region only, and hence the null boundaries denoted by the points $`A`$ and $`B`$ in Figure 1. are excluded.
The metric (1) has another interesting property as far as spherical symmetry is concerned. By taking $`Z`$ as

$$2Z=a_0|1+\tau |^Ab_0|1\tau |^A$$
(28)
and using the transformations

$$\tau =\frac{mr}{\sqrt{m^2Q^2}},x=\varphi ,y=(\sqrt{m^2Q^2})t,\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(29)
with $`Q^2=\frac{e^2}{A^2}`$, where $`e`$ is an electric charge, transforms metric (1) into

$$ds^2=e^\alpha dt^2e^\alpha dr^2e^\beta d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(30)
Here we have

$`e^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`[(ra_0)(rb_0)]^A\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{b_0|ra_0|^Aa_0|rb_0|^A}{b_0a_0}}\right\}^2`$ (33)
$`e^\beta =[(ra_0)(rb_0)]e^\alpha `$
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`m\sqrt{m^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{A^2}}}`$ (35)
$`b_0`$ $`=`$ $`m+\sqrt{m^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{A^2}}}`$ (37)
Metric (21) is recognized as the solution by Penney , representing the generalization of RN solution in the presence of a massless scalar field. For $`A=1`$ the solution reduces to RN BH.

### A  Extension of the Space-Time into the Incoming Regions

The metric in region IV (i.e. the interaction region for $`u>0,v>0`$) can be extended across the null boundaries to find the incoming waves that participate in the collision. For example region II $`(u>0,v<0)`$ is one of the incoming regions and the metric in this region is given by

$$ds^2=4(1u^2)^{\frac{1}{2}A}Z^2dudv(1u^2)\left[\frac{Z^2}{(1u^2)^{A1}}dx^2+\frac{(1u^2)^{A1}}{Z^2}dy^2\right]$$
(38)
where $`2Z=a(1+u)^A+b(1u)^A`$. The non-zero scale invariant Weyl and Ricci scalars in this region are obtained from those of Appendix A (by imposing $`v<0`$ ) as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ab}{a+b}}\right)\delta (u){\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)}{1u^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2A1)\left[2u^2(1A)+1\right]}{1u^2}}`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A(A1)}{Z}}\left[a(13u)(1+u)^{A1}+b(1+3u)(1u)^{A1}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3A^2(1u^2)}{2Z^2}}\left[a(1+u)^{A1}b(1u)^{A1}\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u^2}}\left[1+2u^2(A1)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A\left[a(1+u)^{A1}b(1u)^{A1}\right]}{Z}}\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)}{4Z^2(1u^2)^2}}\{(1A^2)[b^2(1u)^{2A}+a^2(1+u)^{2A}]`$ (49)
$`+2ab(1+A^2)(1u^2)^A\}`$
The incoming scalar field and the em vector potential are given by

$$\varphi (u)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1A^2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+u}{1u}\right|,$$
(50)
and

$$A_\mu (u)=2\sqrt{ab}\delta _\mu ^xu,$$
(51)
respectively.
It is observed that an impulsive gravitational wave component ( i.e. $`\delta (u)`$ term), arises only for $`ab`$ and $`A0`$. For $`A=0`$ both the impulsive term and the em field drops out leaving only a scalar field and therefore a colliding ES system. It is also clear that an impulsive term does not exist in the source $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ which implies the absence of a null shell. The positive definiteness of the incoming total energy of our combined em and scalar fields is crucial and obviously holds true.
The nature of the singularity in the incoming region is investigated by calculating the Riemann tensors both in local and PPON frames. In local coordinates the non-zero components are

$`R_{uxux}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{VU}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}\right]`$ (52)
$`R_{uyuy}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{VU}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}\right]`$ (53)
To find the Riemann tensor in a PPON frame, we define the following PPON frame vectors

$`e_{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},0,0)`$ (54)
$`e_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2F}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},0,0)`$ (56)
$`e_{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,e^{\frac{UV}{2}},0)`$ (58)
$`e_{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,e^{\frac{U+V}{2}})`$ (60)
Non-zero components in PPON frame that represent the tidal force components are

$`R_{0202}=R_{0212}=R_{1212}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4F^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}\right]`$ (61)
$`R_{0303}=R_{0313}=R_{1313}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4F^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}\right]`$ (62)
where

$`e^V`$ $`=`$ $`(1u^2)^{1A}Z^2`$ (63)
$`e^U`$ $`=`$ $`1u^2`$ (64)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`(1u^2)^{1/2A}Z^2`$ (65)
It is clear to see that as $`u1`$ all of these components diverge indicating a coordinate singularity. This is a non-scalar curvature singularity since all scalars in the incoming region trivially vanish. Note that as $`A1`$ the rate of divergence slows down and when $`A=1`$ all the Riemann components become finite.
We also study the geodesics behaviour near the null singular surface. We choose the Lagrangian $`L=(ds/d\lambda )^2`$, where $`ds^2`$ is the line element in equation (1) and $`\lambda `$ is an affine parameter. In addition to the energy $`ϵ`$ we have three conserved momenta. These are

$`P_x`$ $`=`$ $`e^{VU}\dot{x}`$ (66)
$`P_y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{VU}\dot{y}`$ (67)
$`P_v`$ $`=`$ $`e^M\dot{u}`$ (68)
$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`2P_v\dot{v}P_x^2e^{UV}P_y^2e^{U+V}`$ (69)
where $`ϵ`$ may be taken $`0`$ for null geodesics and $`1`$ for timelike geodesics and dot represents derivative with respect to an affine parameter. Using equation (34) and (35) we obtain the following equation,

$$2P_v^2e^M\frac{dv}{du}=ϵ+P_x^2e^{UV}+P_y^2e^{U+V}$$
(70)
The geodesic that remains in region II is obtained for $`P_x=0`$. Integrating the above equation yields

$$vv_0=\frac{1}{2P_v^2}\left(ϵI_1+P_y^2I_2\right)$$
(71)
where $`v_0<\frac{1}{2P_v^2}\left(ϵI_1+P_y^2I_2\right)`$, with

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`2a^2B_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+A]+2b^2B_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A]+{\displaystyle \frac{ab\pi }{4}}`$ (72)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^4}{2}}B_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}2A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+2A]+{\displaystyle \frac{b^4}{2}}B_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+2A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}2A]`$ (75)
$`+2a^3bB_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+A]+2ab^3B_{\frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+A,{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}A]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6a^2b^2\pi }{32}}`$
for $`0<A<\frac{3}{4}`$. Our notation $`B_\lambda [\mu ,\nu ]`$ represents the incomplete beta function which is defined in terms of the hypergeometric function by

$`B_\lambda [\mu ,\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\lambda }t^{\mu 1}(1t)^{\nu 1}𝑑t=\mu ^1\lambda ^\mu F(\mu ,1\nu ;\mu +1;\lambda )`$ (78)
$`0\lambda 1`$
$`\mu ,\nu >0`$
For $`P_x0`$ and $`u<1,v`$ becomes positive and indicates that particles starting from $`u=0`$ in region II can pass to region IV and they hit the scalar curvature singularity. Null geodesics of region II terminate their trajectories in the null singularity of the same region. In this manner the null singular surface does not change the general behaviour of particles motion in region II. In summary the geodesics behaviour in the present case is exactly similar to those considered by Matzner and Tipler  for the case of Khan-Penrose and the BS solutions.

### B  The A=0 case and colliding ES waves

In this section we show explicitly that $`A=0`$ in metric (1) describes colliding ES waves. The generic form of the colliding waves with linear polarization is described by the line element

$$ds^2=2e^Mdudve^U\left(e^Vdx^2+e^Vdy^2\right)$$
(79)
and the field equations are as follows .

$`U_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_uU_v2(\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}+3\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)})`$ (80)
$`2U_{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`U_u^2+V_u^22U_uM_u+4\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ (81)
$`2U_{vv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_v^2+V_v^22U_vM_v+4\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}^{(0)}`$ (82)
$`2M_{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_uU_v+V_uV_v+8\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}`$ (83)
$`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{20}^{(0)}=2V_{uv}U_uV_vU_vV_u`$ (84)
$`2\varphi _{uv}`$ $`=`$ $`U_u\varphi _v+U_v\varphi _u`$ (85)
The solution follows from Eq. (1) upon substitution of $`A=0`$ which yields

$`e^U`$ $`=`$ $`1u^2v^2=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }`$ (86)
$`e^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }Z_0^2}{\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}}}`$ (87)
$`e^V`$ $`=`$ $`Z_0^2e^U`$ (88)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }}\right|`$ (89)
where $`2Z_0=a+b=const.`$ and the null coordinates $`(u,v)`$ are to be considered with the step functions $`(\theta (u),\theta (v))`$ respectively.
The non-zero Weyl and Ricci tetrad scalars follow from the Appendix A by setting $`A=0`$,

$`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}=6\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}=\varphi _u\varphi _v={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)\theta (v)}{\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (90)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}=\varphi _u^2={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)}{(1u^2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}=\varphi _v^2={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (v)}{(1v^2)\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (92)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{20}^{(0)}=0`$ (93)
It is clear from the Weyl scalars that $`\tau =1`$ is a spacetime singularity and unlike the case of $`0<A<1`$ the singular hypersurface is spacelike.
The incoming components ( for region II) are only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}(u)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}=\frac{\theta (u)}{(1u^2)^2}$$
(94)
Similar components (for region III ) are obtained for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)}`$ by replacing $`uv`$. We observe that these components extent into the interaction region from their respective incoming regions in a continuous manner. However components such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}`$ arise in the interaction region without counterparts in the incoming regions. This means there is a discontinuity (or jump) as far as these components are concerned. This type of discontinuity is classified as shock-type by CX  and is interpreted to originate from the gravitational shock waves, not from any current sheets or null shells. We recall in the case of the BS that the Ricci component $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}=a_0b_0\theta (u)\theta (v)`$, with $`a_0=const.`$ and $`b_0=const.`$, also suffers from the same discontinuity. For the case of $`A0`$ (and $`ab`$ ) we observe from (24) that there is an additional impulsive type of discontinuity originating from the occurrence of impulsive gravitational waves.

## III Geodesics Behaviour and Tidal Accelerations in Region IV.

As was clarified in the previous section, any test particle that is imported by one of the incoming waves is forced to enter the region of interaction and arrives at the singularity in a finite interval of proper time. Now we shall study the behaviour of test particle geodesics as projected on the $`(\tau ,x,y)`$ subspace. The first integrals of motion from the geodesics Lagrangian method are,

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_x}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2}}`$ (95)
$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_y}{\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2}}`$ (96)
$`\dot{\tau }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2\delta _1+\mathrm{\Delta }^{2A1}Z^4P_x^2+P_y^2`$ (97)
where $`\delta _1`$ is $`0`$ (for null) or $`1`$ (for timelike geodesics) while $`P_x`$ and $`P_y`$ are constants of motion. ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`Z`$ are given in equation (2)). Accelerations of the particles are obtained as,

$`\ddot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_x}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{2A}Z^3}}\left\{a(1+\tau )^A[A\tau ]b(1\tau )^A[A+\tau ]\right\}\dot{\tau }`$ (98)
$`\ddot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{AP_y}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{A+1}}}\left\{a^2(1+\tau )^{2A}b^2(1\tau )^{2A}\right\}\dot{\tau }`$ (100)
$`\ddot{\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_x^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{22A}Z^5}}\left\{a(1+\tau )^A[A{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}]b(1\tau )^A[A+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}]\right\}`$ (103)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A\delta _1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^3}}\left\{a(1+\tau )^Ab(1\tau )^A\right\}`$
in which $`\dot{\tau }`$ is to be substituted from (52). In order to study the geodesics behaviour in the vicinity of the null singularity $`\tau =1`$, we consider expansions in terms of the parameter $`\epsilon =1\tau >0`$ . First for the background scalar field case $`A=0`$, which makes a spacelike singularity we have

$`\ddot{\tau }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^2}}`$ (104)
$`\ddot{x}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^{\frac{5}{2}}}}`$ (105)
$`\ddot{y}`$ $``$ $`0`$ (106)
where the finite terms are denoted shortly by $`const.`$. The fact that $`\ddot{y}0`$ implies that $`y`$ is proportional to the affine parameter as $`\epsilon 1`$. A simple analysis reveals also that for $`A=1`$ all tidal accelerations can be made finite by the choice of suitable initial conditions. We choose for instance $`P_y=0`$ within the context of the BS solution ( i.e. $`A=1`$ and $`a=b`$ ). This originates from the fact that the norm of the Killing vector associated with the $`y`$ direction diverges. For a detailed exposition of these BS geodesics, since it is beyond our scope here we refer to elsewhere . Our main concern here now is the scalar field in the interval $`0<A<1`$. Expansion of the above accelerations in powers of $`\epsilon `$ yield the followings

$`\ddot{\tau }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^{22A}}}+\delta _1{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^{1A}}}`$ (107)
$`\ddot{x}`$ $``$ $`\dot{\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^{2A}}}`$ (108)
$`\ddot{y}`$ $``$ $`\dot{\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{const.}{\epsilon ^{A+1}}}`$ (109)
$`\dot{\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{P_y^2+c_1^2\epsilon ^{2A1}}`$ (110)
in which all $`const.`$ terms represent finite numbers while the special constant, $`c_1^2=\frac{2P_x^2}{(a+b)^2}`$. We see that as $`\epsilon 0`$ time-like and null geodesics make no difference. The tidal accelerations are seen to be worse for $`0<A<\frac{1}{2}`$ than $`\frac{1}{2}<A<1`$. It turns out as a general rule that as $`A`$ increases from zero toward unity the counter scalar field in the collision serves to weaken the singularity. When it reaches $`A=1`$ there is no singularity remaining and $`\tau =1`$ emerges as a Cauchy horizon.
It is also instructive to calculate the time of fall into the singularity as measured from the instant of collision. For this purpose we project our line element into the two dimensional space

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}d\theta ^2\right)$$
(111)
where we assumed $`x=const.`$,$`y=const.`$ and $`\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Now a geodesics Lagrangian treatment is equivalent to the energy integral

$$\delta _1=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2\left(\frac{\dot{\tau }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\dot{\theta }^2\right)$$
(112)
where $`\delta _1`$ is $`1(0)`$ for timelike (null) geodesics and $``$ represents derivatives with respect to the affine parameter. We obtain as a result the proper time of fall into the singularity as

$$t_0=_0^1\frac{Z^2}{\sqrt{\delta _1\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2+\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{2A1}}}𝑑\tau $$
(113)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant of integration associated with the cyclic coordinate in (58) . The time for null geodesics is obtained as,

$$t_0=\frac{a^2}{\alpha }B_{\frac{1}{2}}[\frac{3}{2}A,\frac{3}{2}+A]+\frac{b^2}{\alpha }B_{\frac{1}{2}}[\frac{3}{2}+A,\frac{3}{2}A]+\frac{ab\pi }{8\alpha }$$
(114)
For timelike geodesics, $`\delta _1=1`$ we calculate the shortest time for test particles which is equivalent to choosing $`\alpha =0`$ in equation (60). The integration gives,

$$t_0=aB_{\frac{1}{2}}[1\frac{A}{2},1+\frac{A}{2}]+bB_{\frac{1}{2}}[1+\frac{A}{2},1\frac{A}{2}]$$
(115)
in which $`B_\lambda [\mu ,\nu ]`$ is an incomplete beta function defined in equation (38).
It is interesting to see that the time of fall is determined by the scalar charge and the incomplete beta function. We recall that the Euler beta function was encountered in the scattering problems and S-matrix of field theory. The present problem is also about scattering but instead of the complete Euler beta function we have the incomplete beta function.

## IV Null Singular CPWs and Black Holes

In this section, we shall consider another interesting horizon forming CPW solution found by CX. This solution is locally isometric to the region in between the inner and event horizons of the KN BH. The solution is described by the metric,

$$ds^2=X\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \frac{X}{Y}dy^2\frac{Y}{X}\left(dxq_2dy\right)^2$$
(116)
where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}\left[(1\alpha p\tau )^2+\alpha ^2q^2\sigma ^2\right]`$ (117)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`1p^2\tau ^2q^2\sigma ^2`$ (118)
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta }{p\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha ^22\alpha p\tau }{1p^2\tau ^2q^2\sigma ^2}}`$ (119)
in which the constant parameters $`\alpha ,p`$ and $`q`$ must satisfy

$`0<\alpha 1`$ (120)
$`p^2+q^2=1`$ (121)
This metric admits a CH instead of a space-like curvature singularity at $`\tau =1`$. In ref, we have shown the relations between CPWs and the BH interiors in detail. Now let us consider a class of linearly polarized versions of the metric(63) which is isometric to the region in between the horizons of RN BH. Our aim here is to show the existence of a null singularity by employing a spherically symmetric scalar field $`\varphi `$ which satisfies, the massless scalar field equation

$$_\mu \left(g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}\varphi _\nu \right)=0$$
(122)
or equivalently

$$\left[(1\tau ^2)\varphi _\tau \right]_\tau \left[(1\sigma ^2)\varphi _\sigma \right]_\sigma =0$$
(123)
By shifting the metric function $`XXe^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can generate an EMS solution from the known EM solution. The metric function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ arises due to the scalar field $`\varphi `$ (see ref  for more detail). As an EM solution we shall employ the diagonal $`(q=0)`$ version of metric (63) which is isometric to the RN BH. In terms of $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ the metric function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is obtained from the integrability conditions

$`(\tau ^2\sigma ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \left(\tau \varphi _\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau \delta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\varphi _\sigma ^22\sigma \varphi _\tau \varphi _\sigma \right)`$ (124)
$`(\sigma ^2\tau ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \left(\sigma \varphi _\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }}{\delta }}\varphi _\tau ^22\tau \varphi _\tau \varphi _\sigma \right)`$ (126)
A general class of separable solution for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=\underset{n}{}\{a_nP_n(\tau )P_n(\sigma )+b_nQ_n(\tau )Q_n(\sigma )+c_nP_n(\tau )Q_n(\sigma )+d_nP_n(\sigma )Q_n(\tau )\}$$
(127)
Where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are the Legendre functions of the first and second kind, respectively and $`a_n,b_n,c_n`$ and $`d_n`$ are arbitrary constants.
a) The choice, $`Q_0(\sigma )=1,P_0(\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}|\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }|,a_n=b_n=d_n=0`$ and $`c_0=k,c_n=0(n0)`$ is equivalent to a simple class of spherically symmetric scalar field,

$$\varphi (\tau )=\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }\right|$$
(128)
with $`k=constant`$. The new metric that represents the interaction region of linearly polarized colliding EMS fields can be written as

$$ds^2=Xe^\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \frac{X}{Y}dy^2\frac{Y}{X}dx^2$$
(129)
where

$$e^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left|\frac{1\tau ^2}{\tau ^2\sigma ^2}\right|^{k^2}$$
(130)
With the addition of this scalar field we can see from the energy momentum scalar $`T_\alpha ^\alpha `$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$, which are both divergent that $`\tau =1`$ is a singularity. Furthermore, the fact that as $`\tau 1`$ the metric function $`g^{\tau \tau }0`$ for the case $`k^2<1`$ implies a null singularity character. For $`k^21`$, however, it retains the spacelike character which is standard to CPW.
Using the transformations

$$t=m\alpha x,y=\varphi ,\tau =\frac{mr}{\sqrt{m^2e^2}},\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(131)
with $`m\alpha =\sqrt{m^2e^2}`$ we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^2}}\right)dt^2e^\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^2}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (134)
$`r^2\left(e^\mathrm{\Gamma }d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)`$
Obviously this represents an extension of the RN solution with a minimally coupled scalar field without spherical symmetry. The singularity structure is investigated by calculating Ricci and Weyl scalars given in Appendix B. It is clear that coupling of scalar field destroys the BH property and the event (outer) and Cauchy (inner) horizons become spacelike singular for $`k^2>1`$. and null singular for $`k^2<1`$.

b) The choice, $`b_n=c_n=d_n=0`$ equation (69) becomes

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=\underset{n}{}a_nP_n(\tau )P_n(\sigma )$$
(135)
This class of scalar field is not spherically symmetric. Surprizingly it is regular as the CH is approached ($`\tau 1`$). For a particular case we choose $`n=2`$, where the scalar field becomes,

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=a_1\tau \sigma +\frac{a_2}{4}(3\tau ^21)(3\sigma ^21)$$
(136)
The metric function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is obtained as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`a_1^2\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}a_2^2\tau ^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{2}})6a_1a_2\tau \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\delta +`$ (139)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}a_2^2\sigma ^2(9\tau ^21)+\sigma ^2\left(4a_1^2+9a_2^245a_2^2\tau ^2\right)\right\}`$
which is finite as the CH is approached $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau 1)=a_1^2+\frac{9}{8}a_2^2`$.
The Weyl and curvature scalars are also finite in the limit $`\tau 1`$. This choice of scalar field does not effect the CH in the region of interaction and therefore the spacetime remains regular. For this class of colliding EMS fields, the analytic extension of the interaction region is possible. However this analytic extension does not allow us to interpret this solution outside the ergosphere in the corresponding transformed BH spacetime. The reason simply is that, the spacetime is not asymptotically flat and the related energy of the scalar field becomes unbounded.
The solution obtained in this way can be treated as a RN BH with a scalar hair confined in between the event and Cauchy horizons.

## V Discussion

It is a known fact that CPWs in general relativity result in the creation of spacelike curvature singularities and rarely in quasiregular singularities that are equivalent to CHs. CHs are important as far as the analytic extension of the resulting spacetime is concerned.
In this paper, we have investigated singularities forming in the space of colliding EMS waves. This is motivated by the appearance of null singularities in BH spacetimes bombarded by pulses of scalar fields. The crucial link is the analogy between the mathematical theories of BHs and of colliding waves.
In our first example we have constructed a new class of colliding EMS waves that develops null curvature singularity in the region of interaction. In the problem under consideration, we have found that the null singularity emerges as a transition phase between a regular horizon and a spacelike singularity. Geodesics analysis and scalar curvatures reveal a systematic weakening of divergence in the case of null singularity.
In the second example, we have used the local isometry between the CPW and BH spacetimes. This method enables us to couple scalar fields to a CPWs, where analytic exact solution is possible and then transform the resulting spacetime into BH spacetimes. With this method, we have coupled two types of scalar fields. In the first case we have used spherically symmetric scalar field and observed that the scalar field destroys the BH property and the inner and outer horizons become null singular for $`k^2<1`$ and spacelike singular for $`k^2>1`$. As a second example we couple non-spherical scalar field and observed that the inner and outer horizons remain regular. This class of solutions can be interpreted as a RN BH with a scalar hair confined in the ergosphere without a rotational symmetry.
It is important to compare our results to those of previous analyses . In our case the null curvature singularities are strong in the sense that all tidal forces becomes unbounded. Ori has analysed the singularity inside a rotating BH using non-linear perturbation theory. His analyis concluded with a null weak singularity. Burko confirmed Ori’s results, using numerical methods when he applied scalar field to a RN BH. We believe that the strong character in our case arises due to the exact solutions. On the other hand, Xanthopoulos  has shown the formation of a singularity on the null surface caused by the collision of plane gravitational and hydrodynamic waves in perfect fluids with equation of state $`ϵ=p+k,k=constant.`$ without a detailed analysis.
Consequently, our overall impression about the CHs is that they do not have a unique character. They may turn singular or remain regular with respect to different perturbing potentials.

## VI Acknowledgement. <br>

We wish to thank Dr. Andrew Shoom and graduate student I. Sakalli for helpful discussions and comments.

## VII Figure Captions.  <br>

Figure 1. The spacetime diagram for colliding EMS fields. The collision occurs at point $`C`$ where $`u=v=0`$. In the problem considered the surface $`\omega =1u^2v^2=0`$ or $`\tau =1`$ represented by the arc $`AB`$, is null rather than spacelike.

Figure 2. The projection of region IV in $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ plane. With the transformation the null character of the arc $`AB`$ in Figure 1 becomes more clear. $`\xi =\eta =1`$ is the instant of collision corresponds to $`u=v=0`$ or $`\tau =0`$ and $`\omega =1`$. However, $`\xi =\eta =0`$ corresponds to $`\omega =0`$ or $`\tau =1`$ where the null curvature singularity occurs.

## Appendix A: <br>Properties of the EMS Geometry.

The non-zero scale invariant Weyl, Ricci and curvature scalars of the collision of EMS fields are obtained as

$`2\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`2A\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u\theta (u)}{\sqrt{1u^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1u^2}\left[a(1+u)^{A1}b(1u)^{A1}\right]}{2\left[a(1+u)^A+b(1u)^A\right]}}\right\}\delta (v)`$ (148)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u\theta (u)\theta (v)}{(1v^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2A1)\tau }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{\Omega }}{Z}}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (v)}{1v^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(2A1)[2\tau ^2(1A)+1]}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A(A1)}{Z}}\left[a(13\tau )(1+\tau )^{A1}+b(1+3\tau )(1\tau )^{A1}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3A^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{2Z^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{1v^2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(2A1)\tau }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{\delta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{Z}}]\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)}(uv)`$ (150)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)\theta (v)}{\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1A}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4Z^2}}\{a^2(1+\tau )^{2A1}+b^2(1\tau )^{2A1}`$ (154)
$`+2ab(12A)\mathrm{\Delta }^{A1}\}\}`$
$`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (v)}{(1v^2)\mathrm{\Delta }Z^2}}\{(1A^2)[a^2(1+\tau )^{2A}+b^2(1\tau )^{2A}]`$ (158)
$`+2ab(1+A^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^A\}`$
$`4\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)}{(1u^2)\mathrm{\Delta }Z^2}}\{(1A^2)[a^2(1+\tau )^{2A}+b^2(1\tau )^{2A}]`$ (162)
$`+2ab(1+A^2)\mathrm{\Delta }^A\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{abA^2\theta (u)\theta (v)\mathrm{\Delta }^{A1}}{\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}Z^2}}`$ (164)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1A^2)\theta (u)\theta (v)}{2\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (166)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(A^21)\theta (u)\theta (v)}{6\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (168)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=a(1+\tau )^{(A1)}b(1\tau )^{(A1)}`$.
For $`A=1`$ and $`a=b`$, we recover the collision of Maxwell fields which is known as the BS solution. At $`\tau =1`$ there exist a CH in place of a curvature singularity. For $`A=0`$, we have the geometry that represents the collision of ES fields which exhibits a spacelike curvature singularity at $`\tau =1`$.

For $`0<A<1`$ we have the geometry that represents the collision of EMS fields. Before the collision we have the Weyl scalars $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}`$ in region III and II respectively. After the collision we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)},\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}`$. This indicates that part of the waves are transmitted in the region of interaction, part are reflected by each other and part of the incoming waves transforms into a Coulomb-like $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)})`$ gravitational waves due to the non-linear interaction. Some of the Ricci scalars arise discontinuously in the interaction region. For instance, the energy momentum component $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{(0)}`$ arises in this manner which has no counterpart before the instant of collision.
The non-zero energy momentum components in terms of sources are,

$`4\pi T_{uu}`$ $`=`$ $`e^M\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ (169)
$`4\pi T_{vv}`$ $`=`$ $`e^M\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}^{(0)}`$ (171)
$`4\pi T_{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{UV}\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}+e^{VU}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}3\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$ (173)
$`4\pi T_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{U+V}\mathrm{\Phi }_{02}+e^{VU}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}3\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]`$ (175)
where

$`e^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1A)}Z^2}{\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}}}`$ (176)
$`e^V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(\frac{1}{2}A)}Z^2\delta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (178)
$`e^U`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }`$ (179)
in which $`\mathrm{\Delta },\delta `$ and $`Z`$ is given in equation (2).

## Appendix B: <br>The Weyl and Maxwell Scalars.

The nonzero Weyl and Maxwell scalars of the RN BH coupled with a spherically symmetric scalar field given in equation(70) are calculated and found as follows.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3={\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)(mre^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r^3\sqrt{(rm)^2(m^2e^2)}[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]}}`$ (180)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4={\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)(rm)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [m(rm)+m^2e^2]e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r^3[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)][(rm)^2(m^2e^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]}}`$ (182)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)]}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(mre^2)(rm)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2r^3[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]}}\right\}`$ (186)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(mre^2)e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r^4}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r^3[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)]}}`$ (188)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2r^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)}{2[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)]}}\right\}`$ (190)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(m^2e^2)e^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{12r^2[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)]}}`$ (192)
where

$$e^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left|\frac{(rm)^2(m^2e^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{[(rm)^2(m^2e^2)]}\right|$$
(193)


format: text

text:
# Magnetoresistances observed by decomposition of the magnetic moment in La1-xCaxMnO3 films∗

## I INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of colossal (or giant) magnetoresistances (C (or G) MR)1-3 for hole-doped manganese oxides La1-x(Ca or Sr)xMnO3, (LCMO or LSMO), the correlation between conductivity and ferromagnetism and the conduction mechanism in the ferromagnetic state have been intensively studied. The correlation is related to the strong Hund coupling between $`t_{2g}`$ spins and $`ϵ_g`$ electrons. For over 40 years, the coupling between the charge and the spin has been considered very important.4,5,6 However, some researchers have indicated that the coupling between the charge and the spin is not strong enough to describe the CMR correctly.7,8 They proposed local lattice distortions near $`T_c^{7,8}`$ and large oxygen isotope effects on $`T_c`$.9 Furthermore, the CMR mechanism is not yet fully understood.10

With regard to the conduction mechanism below $`T_c`$ for LCMO or LSMO, de Gennes proposed a second double-exchange model which assumes that the charge carriers are itinerant.6 However, a polaronic state was suggested from observations of the resistivity and the thermoelectric power for LCMO at $`x`$=0.12 and 0.15, showing semiconducting behavior below $`T_c`$.11 Two phases, one metallic and the other semiconducting, were separated by observing magnetoresistances for LCMO thin films.12 A detailed review on phase separation in CMR materials was given.13 However, it was also suggested that the LSMO is a half metal with both metallic and semiconducting electronic structures below $`T_c`$.14 Thus, the conduction mechanism and the electronic structure for LCMO and LSMO remain unclear.

In this paper, we observe two distinct phases in LCMO films by the van der Pauw method and measure the remnant resistivity, its magnetic field dependence (a positive MR), and the Hall coefficient in the ferromagnetic phase. The temperature dependence of Hall coefficients is presented and the results are discussed on the basis of other published results. Furthermore, for the resistance measurement of magnetic materials, the four-probe method with line electrodes is compared with the van der Pauw method with point electrodes.

## II Experiment

Thin films were deposited with a La0.67Ca0.33MnO3 ceramic target on (100)MgO substrates at a substrate temperature of 700C in oxygen by laser ablation. The deposited LCMO films showed semiconducting behavior for resistance before annealing. This may be attributed to the lattice mismatch between the film and the MgO substrate. The deposited LCMO films were annealed at 900C in oxygen in a furnace and showed ferromagnetic behavior. The La0.70Ca0.30Mn0.97O3 (LCMO2/12H), La0.63Ca0.36Mn1.17O3 (LCMO3/1H), and La0.67Ca0.33Mn1.07O3 (LCMO8/10H) films were annealed for twelve, one, and ten hours, respectively. Their dimensions were 3$`\times `$4 mm2, 3.3$`\times `$3.7 mm2, and 3$`\times `$3 mm2, respectively, and the thicknesses were 3800 $`\AA `$, 2500 $`\AA `$, and 4080 $`\AA `$, respectively. In our notation LCMO$`n`$/$`m`$H, $`n`$ and $`m`$ denote the number of the samples and annealing time, respectively. Chemical contents of the films were revealed by electron probe microanalysis. Ca was distributed homogeneously in the films. The films were oriented along the c-axis by an X-ray diffractometer. After annealing films for more than 4 hours, the full width at half-maximum of the X-ray diffraction peaks was less than that before annealing. The oxygen content and crystalline order might be optimized by gradually varying the annealing time. For measuring magnetoresistances, electrodes were attached to four edges of the film with a square structure and denoted by marks A, B, C and D in a clockwise manner. When the current flows from A to B (x-axis), the voltage is measured at D and C ($`\rho _{xx}`$); when the current flows from B to C (y-axis), the voltage is measured at A and D ($`\rho _{yy}`$). The axis direction is arbitrary for any film. The above procedure is known as the van der Pauw method. Hall coefficients were measured along the diagonal direction orthogonal to the current flow.15 The magnetic field was applied along the c-axis of the films in a SQUID of Quantum Design Co.. We used a Hewlett Packard nanovoltmeter in this study.

## III RESULTS and Discussion

In a previous paper,12 we found a low-temperature colossal magnetoresistance (or resistivity) (LTCMR) with peaks at 90 K and a high-temperature colossal magnetoresistance (or resistivity) (HTCMR) with peaks at $`T_c`$=210 K in the LCMO3/1H film, as shown in Fig. 3 (a) and (b). Here, the HTCMR depends on the ferromagnetic moment. We found that with an increasing annealing time the LTCMR decreases and the HTCMR develops; this is due to the canting behavior of the moment.12 The two CMR’s are characteristic of the respective phases in assuming two phases. The two phases were not distinguishable by X-ray diffraction because of the high crystallinity of the thin films.

Figure 1 shows resistivities measured by the van der Pauw method with 50 $`\mu `$A at 0 and 5 Tesla for the LCMO8/10H film. The resistivities with peaks at $`T_c`$=170 K and 200 K correspond to the $`x`$-HTCMR induced by the $`x`$-component $`\stackrel{}{M_x}`$ of the projection $`\stackrel{}{M_{xy}}`$ on to the $`xy`$ plane of a magnetic moment $`\stackrel{}{M}`$. This is because the peak temperatures agree closely with the temperature where $`\stackrel{}{M_z}`$ goes to zero, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1. Below 100 K, remnant resistance voltage and resistivity were measured at 0 Tesla and were found to be, on average, 3$`\mu V`$ and 10$`{}_{}{}^{3}m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ (or 10$`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{\Omega }m`$), respectively. These values are regarded as constant with temperature, although there is low-level noise. The resistivity is of the same order as that for a Y0.7Sr0.3MnO3 thin film.16 The resistivity below 100 K increases slightly at 5 Tesla, as indicated by A in the figure. The logarithmic resistivities are linear from 100 K to $`T_c`$, which indicates nearest-neighbour hopping of polarons, as suggested by Hundley et al.17. For the resistivity measured at 0 Tesla, in assuming $`\rho exp(E/k_BT)`$ which is different from the hopping term for semiconductors, $`E`$ is estimated at 157 $`meV`$ below $`T_c`$. This indicates that charges below the Fermi energy contribute to conduction. The mechanism of the conduction is still unclear below 100 K. The $`y`$-HTCMR peaks D and E in Fig. 1 are overlapped by the negative LTCMR values on the order of 101 \- 10$`{}_{}{}^{0}m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ of peaks B and C below 150 K. Therefore, the $`y`$-HTCMR cannot be determined exactly and might not be equal to the $`x`$-HTCMR. Peaks at B and D are indistinguishable due to overlapping H and LTCMR. Generally, the HTCMR decreases as the magnetic moment increases.17,18 Here, the $`y`$-HTCMR is measured along the y-axis and induced by $`\stackrel{}{M_y}`$.

In order to obtain the Hall voltage of the HTCMR, we made a LCMO2/12H film. Magnetoresistance voltages ($`V_{xx}`$ and $`V_{yy}`$) and the Hall voltage $`V_{xy}`$ were measured at 5 Tesla from 5 to 400 K by the van der Pauw method, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The resistivities with a peak at 160 K correspond to the HTCMR revealed by the magnetic moment, as shown elsewhere12. The LTCMR was undetectably low. Two HTCMRs nearly agree, which indicates that the magnetic moment is nearly isotropic ($`\stackrel{}{M_x}\stackrel{}{M_y}`$). Below 50 K, resistivities are of the order of 10-1 \- 10$`{}_{}{}^{2}m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$, which are much larger than the order of 10$`{}_{}{}^{8}m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ for LCMO8/10H in Fig. 1. These larger resistivities occur because (1) the $`x`$-HTCMR when $`\stackrel{}{M_x}=\stackrel{}{M_y}`$ is larger than the $`x`$-HTCMR when $`\stackrel{}{M_x}>\stackrel{}{M_y}`$, and (2) the positive MR competes with the negative LTCMR depressed undetectably at low temperatures.

The Hall coefficient, $`R_H`$, and the carrier density measured at 5 Tesla for the LCMO2/12H film are shown in the inset of Fig. 2 (b). The negative value of the $`R_H`$ indicates that carriers are electrons which are regarded as $`d`$-electrons. The $`R_H`$ shows two peaks, and the peak at 140 K corresponds to $`T_c`$ in the resistivity in Fig. 2. The transition range from 140 to 230 K is due to the Hall voltage variation near $`T_c`$, as shown in Fig. 2 (a). Above 230 K in the paramagnetic region, the $`R_H`$ decreases with an increasing temperature. This is the same result obtained by Jaime et al.19, suggesting small polaron conduction. Below $`T_c`$=140 K in the ferromagnetic region with a decreasing temperature, the $`R_H`$ decreases, which indicates that the carrier density increases as shown in Fig. 2 (b). The increase of the carrier density results in a decrease of resistivity with a decreasing temperature, which is not characteristic of the metallic state but instead is suggestive of a condensed state with a polaronic conduction. This suggestion is consistent with the results obtained by optical methods20,21 and a photoemission experiment20. At $`T_c`$, the $`R_H`$ has a peak, indicating a carrier density collapse which is the cause of the HTCMR, as suggested by Alexandrov and Bratkovsky23. The carrier density of 1.3$`\times `$1018 cm-3 at 5 K was calculated by assuming that the effective mass is equal to the bare electron mass. The absolute value of the carrier density is uncertain because the effective mass of the carrier could not be evaluated accurately. In the polaron case the effective mass is larger than the bare mass; moreover, for the LCMO9/15H a negative $`R_H`$ was also observed. The negative $`R_H`$ is consistent with negative thermopower as measured in a thin film of La0.67Ca0.33MnO3 fabricated by a simple metalorganic decomposition technique 24, but it contrasts with Asamitsu and Tokura’s result25 and that of Cao $`etal.^{26}`$ in which the carriers are holes at very low temperatures below $`T_c`$. Furthermore, it was reported that the Mn3d band with electrons increases near the Fermi energy and that the O2p peak with holes decreases as the photon energy increases in the photoemission experiment; this supports the negative $`R_H`$.27 Therefore, for LCMO2/12H and LCMO9/15H films the measurement of the negative $`R_H`$ indicates that the value of the LTCMR rather than the HTCMR is considerably lower. Here, in measuring the $`R_H`$, the resistance measured along the applied current direction was negative, which indicates that the $`R_H`$ is caused by the anomalous Hall coefficient which is generally larger than the ordinary Hall coefficient for ferromagnetic materials.

We now discuss comments on Cao $`etal.`$’s Hall-measurement data 26 on which Ziese28 commented. Cao $`etal^{29}`$ responded to Ziese’s comment. Effects of two phases in Cao’s $`R_H`$ data were not separated completely because the $`R_H`$ was determined by Hall resistance in a $`\rho _{xy}`$ (or diagonal) direction. In this case, when the sample is annealed at 900C for at least 10 hours, the $`R_H`$ can become negative at low temperatures far below $`T_c`$. Cao’s suggestion, which includes two types of conduction mechanisms in LCMO, can be explained by introducing a two-phase concept, as suggested in this paper. However, Ziese did not mention a two-phase concept in his comment. The analysis of data in which effects of two phases are merged is very complicated as Ziese mentioned. For our analysis, we selected data obtained from 30 samples.

For the LCMO3/1H film, the LTCMR, $`x`$-HTCMR, positive MR, and $`R_H`$ are shown in Fig. 3. Magnetoresistances, $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}`$, were measured with 50 $`\mu `$A from 5 to 400 K by the van der Pauw method. The LTCMR in $`\rho _{yy}`$ measured along the $`y`$-axis with a peak at 90 K and the $`x`$-HTCMR with a peak at 210 K are well separated, as shown in Figs. 3 (a) and (b). The LTCMR in $`\rho _{yy}`$ is much more sensitive to the magnetic field than the HTCMR. Evidently the $`y`$-HTCMR was overshadowed by the LTCMR in Fig. 3 (b). With a 500$`\mu `$A current flow through the film, a screened $`y`$-HTCMR approximately three times the size of the $`x`$-HTCMR was observed near 250 K in Fig. 4 (b). This indicates that the film has two phases and that the magnetic moment is anisotropic. Peak positions of the HTCMR in Fig. 4 shifted from 210 K to 250 K, though the positions did not shift. Identifying the cause of the shift remains an open problem in this paper. The LTCMR is reduced with an increasing annealing time but does not disappear because it might have arisen from a non-perfect crystalline order due to a dislocation, a defect, an oxygen deficiency or compositional inhomogeneity.12 For example, Jaime et al.30 measured the HTCMR without the LTCMR but also observed a thermopower peak near 150 K corresponding to an LTCMR for a MN6/48H film deposited with a La0.67Ca0.33MnO3 target by laser ablation on MgO and annealed in oxygen for 48 hours, as shown in Fig. 3 in their paper30. Moreover, by the four-probe method with line electrodes for LCMO3/1H, the HTCMR, which depends on the ferromagnetic moment, was not found but instead the LTCMR was observed. This indicates that the HTCMR was screened by the LTCMR because the HTCMR is much smaller than the LTCMR as shown in Figs. 3 (a) and (b).

Figure 3 (c) shows the $`R_H`$ obtained by the van der Pauw method in the diagonal direction of the film. The shape of the $`R_H`$ is similar to that of the LTCMR in Fig. 3 (b). No effect of the HTCMR is seen because the small Hall voltage is screened by the large Hall voltage induced by the LTCMR. The positive value of the $`R_H`$ indicates that carriers are holes and corresponds to the ordinary Hall coefficient because the semiconducting phase is not ferromagnetic. The carrier density of approximately 1.2$`\times `$1015 cm-3 at 90 K increased exponentially up to 2.2$`\times `$1017 cm-3 at 400 K. These densities were calculated by assuming that the effective mass is equal to the bare electron mass. The activation energy of the resistivity is 61 $`meV`$ which is calculated from the $`R_H`$ data from 90 K to 400 K in Fig. 3 (c). This energy, due to excitation by thermal phonons, can not be observed by optical methods. Thus, the activation energy is not a broad mid-infrared peak observed by optical methods20,21 and a minority spin gap ($`0.6eV`$) observed by spin-resolved photoemission14, but instead corresponds to a pseudogap. Calculated from the resistivity and the $`R_H`$ measured at 5 Tesla, the mobility is below 4 $`cm^2/Vs`$ and decreases overall with an increasing temperature except for a broad convex curvature near 160 K, as shown in the inset of Fig. 3 (c). This indicates that the conduction is polaronic below and above 90 K. The polaronic state observed by Zhou et al.11 corresponds to this LTCMR with hole carriers.

Figure 3 (d) shows remnant resistivities measured along the x-axis as a function of field at $`\pm `$field at 5 K and 90 K. The resistivities are of the order of 10$`{}_{}{}^{3}m\mathrm{\Omega }cm`$ (or 10$`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{\Omega }m`$) below 100 K, as indicated by A in Fig. 3 (a). They are nearly constant below 1 Tesla and increase with an increasing field above 1 Tesla (positive MR), except for peaks near 400 Oe for resistivities at 90 K. This positive MR is the same as that observed for the LCMO8/10H as shown at A in Fig. 1.

Figure 5 shows temperature dependences of resistances measured along the x-axis and y-axis by the four-probe method with line electrodes without magnetic field for an LSMO/MgO film deposited with a La0.67Sr0.33MnO3 target by laser ablation. The current between electrodes was 50$`\mu `$A. The film was not annealed at a high temperature. The dimension of the film was 5$`\times `$5 mm2. The resistance $`\rho _{xx}`$ was measured along the x-axis by the four-probe method with the y-axis-line electrodes deposited with gold, as shown in the inset of Fig. 5. After measuring $`\rho _{xx}`$, the gold electrodes on the film were removed with an etchant KI (Potassium Iodine) solution. The surface of the film might have been slightly damaged, but the damage was not obvious. After removing the y-axis-line electrodes completely, the x-axis-line electrodes were deposited to measure $`\rho _{yy}`$. The resistance $`\rho _{yy}`$ was measured along the y-axis by the same method as $`\rho _{xx}`$. The resistances have peaks A and C near 70 K corresponding to the LTCMR and peaks B and D near 150 K corresponding to the HTCMR. The peaks of the HTCMR were screened below 100 K by the peaks of the LTCMR. Thus, low temperature information of the HTCMR is not revealed here. This is different from the resistances shown in Fig. 1, Figs. 3 (a) and (b), and Fig. 4.

The two-phase concept was introduced to justify the van der Pauw method. This concept has generally been accepted for oxide materials. Some examples have been suggested as follows. Scanning tunneling microscopy observed microscopic electronic inhomogeneity on the surprisingly short scale of approximately 30$`\AA `$ for high-$`T_c`$ superconductors.31-33 Metal-insulator instability34 near an optimal doping was theoretically found. Heat capacity anomalies for strongly correlated metals were explained by means of measurement.35 Many papers reported the phase separation in CMR materials,13 which indicate that the existence of two phases is intrinsic. Therefore, the four-probe method with line electrodes, measuring the resistance where the two-phase effects of metallic and semiconducting properties are merged, is less effective for magnetic materials than the van der Pauw method which is known to be applicable to homogeneous materials.

## IV CONCLUSION

When magnetic moments are anisotropic and current flows along a direction with a large spin polarization, the resistivity of the ferromagnetic phase reaches a minimum. However, the minimum resistivity is screened by the LTCMR when the LTCMR and the HTCMR are not separated.

The semiconducting phase of the LTCMR is regarded as an impurity phase imbedded in the ferromagnetic phase with the HTCMR. Thus, this LTCMR phase is attributed not to the semiconducting electronic structure predicted in a half-metallic electronic structure14 but to the remnant phase due to the metal-insulator instability near an optimal doping33.

The low resistivity, the positive CMR, and the non-metallic temperature dependence of both the resistivity and the Hall coefficient below $`T_c`$ indicate that ferromagnetic conduction is not governed by free carriers, but instead by mobile polarons condensed by an attractive potential energy due to a strong electron-phonon interaction known as the Jahn-Teller effect7.

Other possibilities for condensation of the ferromagnetic phase have been presented as follows. A structure-phase transition with a magnetic transition, caused by a large breathing-mode distortion, was observed.8 Electronic specific heat anomalies were observed for a ceramic La0.67Ca0.33MnO3 by Ramirez et al al.36 and La0.8Ca0.2MnO3 by Tanaka and Mitsuhasi37, who suggested the anomaly was evidence of a second-order transition. The density of states (DOS) of the ferromagnetic phase, as the conductance of a tunnel junction, was measured for La0.67Sr0.33MnO3 at 4.2 K by Yu Lu et al.38 (see FIG. 3 in Yu Lu’s paper). The DOS has a parabolic shape within $`\pm `$0.2V and $`V`$ shape within $`\pm `$0.05V regarded as the effect of LTCMR, indicating that when the effect of LTCMR is removed, quasiparticles (or carriers) exist not near the Fermi surface but below it. The same experimental result was also observed by high resolution photoemission spectroscopy by Park et al.39 (see FIG. 3(c) in Park’s paper). The parabolic DOS is similar to the DOS of a ferromagnet40,41, a half metal40,41, and a p-wave superconductor as the ABM state42.

Furthermore, we suggest that both the LTCMR and the van der Pauw method can be applied to a magnetoresistance sensor.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge Ms. Juli Scherer as an editorial supervision of the ETRI journal for proofreading.