format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-P.025/2002

Massive Superstring Vertex Operator  in $`D=10`$ Superspace

Nathan Berkovits1 e-mail: nberkovi@ift.unesp.br

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Osvaldo Chandía2 e-mail: ochandia@maxwell.fis.puc.cl

Facultad de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile

Using the pure spinor formalism for the superstring, the vertex operator for the first massive states of the open superstring is constructed in a manifestly super-Poincaré covariant manner. This vertex operator describes a massive spin-two multiplet in terms of ten-dimensional superfields.

April 2002

1. Introduction

To study the implications of spacetime supersymmetry for the superstring, it is useful to have a formalism in which super-Poincaré covariance is manifest. Although the super-Poincaré covariant Green-Schwarz formalism  can be used to classically describe the superstring, it has not yet been quantized in a covariant manner. This prevented the construction of super-Poincaré covariant expressions for massive vertex operators since, unlike massless vertex operators, massive vertex operators cannot be obtained from the classical action in a curved background.

Recently, a new super-Poincaré covariant formalism for the superstring has been proposed using a BRST-like operator $`Q=\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$ where $`d_\alpha `$ is the $`D=10`$ supersymmetric derivative and $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ is a pure spinor variable. In this formalism, physical vertex operators are defined in a manifestly super-Poincaré covariant manner as states in the cohomology of $`Q`$. Massless vertex operators have been explicitly constructed using this formalism and tree amplitudes have been shown to coincide with Ramond-Neveu-Schwarz amplitudes  .

In this paper, the vertex operator for the first massive states of the open superstring will be explicitly constructed in super-Poincaré covariant notation and shown to describe a massive spin-two multiplet containing 128 bosonic and 128 fermionic degrees of freedom. Although this construction is guaranteed to succeed because of the cohomology arguments of , it is interesting to see how the vertex operator for this massive multiplet is expressed in terms of ten-dimensional superfields.

2. Physical Vertex Operator

Physical states in the pure spinor formalism for the open superstring are defined as ghost-number one states in the cohomology of $`Q=\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$ where $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ is a pure spinor variable constrained to satisfy $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0`$,

$$d_\alpha =p_\alpha \frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta x_m\frac{1}{8}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\gamma _{m\gamma \delta }\theta ^\beta \theta ^\gamma \theta ^\delta ,$$

$`\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }`$ are $`16\times 16`$ symmetric matrices which are the off-diagonal components of the $`32\times 32`$ ten-dimensional gamma matrices, $`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ,p_\alpha ]`$ for $`m=0`$ to 9 and $`\alpha =1`$ to $`16`$ are free worldsheet fields satisfying the OPE’s

$$x^m(y)x^n(z)\alpha ^{}\eta ^{mn}(\mathrm{log}|yz|+\mathrm{log}|y\overline{z}|),p_\alpha (y)\theta ^\beta (z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}\delta _\alpha ^\beta ,$$

and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the inverse of the string tension. One can use (2.1) to show that $`d_\alpha `$ is spacetime supersymmetric and satisfies the OPE’s

$$d_\alpha (y)d_\beta (z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m(z),d_\alpha (y)\mathrm{\Pi }^m(z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta (z),$$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^m(y)V(z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{yz}^mV(z),d_\alpha (y)V(z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}D_\alpha V(z),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m=x^m+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta `$, $`V(x,\theta )`$ is an arbitrary ten-dimensional superfield, and $`D_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta _m`$ is the supersymmetric covariant derivative which satisfies $`\{D_\alpha ,D_\beta \}=2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m_m`$.

The pure spinor constraint $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0`$ implies that the canonical momentum for $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, which will be called $`w_\alpha `$, only appears in combinations which are invariant under the gauge transformation $`\delta w_\alpha =(\gamma ^m\lambda )_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$ for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$. This implies that $`w_\alpha `$ only appears in the Lorentz-covariant combinations $`N_{mn}=\frac{1}{2}(w\gamma _{mn}\lambda )`$ and $`J=w_\alpha \lambda ^\alpha `$. By solving $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0`$ in terms of unconstrained fields, one can show that $`N_{mn}`$ and $`J`$ satisfy the OPE’s

$$N^{mn}(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4(yz)}(\gamma ^{mn})^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\lambda _{}^{\beta }(z),J(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}\lambda ^\alpha (z),$$

$$N^{kl}(y)N^{mn}(z)\frac{3(\alpha ^{})^2}{4(yz)^2}\eta ^{k[n}\eta ^{m]l}+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2(yz)}(\eta ^{m[l}N^{k]n}(z)\eta ^{m[l}N^{k]m}(z)),$$

$$J(y)J(z)\frac{(\alpha ^{})^2}{(yz)^2}.$$

Furthermore, $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0`$ implies that $`N^{mn}`$and $`J`$ satisfy the relation

$$:N^{mn}\lambda ^\alpha :\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}:J\lambda ^\alpha :\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^n=\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^n\lambda ^\alpha (z)$$

where the normal-ordered product is defined as

$$:U^A(z)\lambda ^\alpha (z):=\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z).$$

To prove (2.1), note that $`w_\alpha `$ drops out of the left-hand side because $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =0`$. And the coefficient in the normal ordering contribution $`\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^n\lambda ^\alpha `$ can be determined by computing the double pole of (2.1) with $`J`$ using the OPE $`J(y)J(z)\frac{(\alpha ^{})^2}{(yz)^2}`$.

When $`\alpha ^{}(mass)^2=n`$, open superstring vertex operators are constructed from arbitrary combinations of $`[x^m,\theta ^\alpha ,d_\alpha ,\lambda ^\alpha ,N^{mn},J]`$ which carry ghost number one and conformal weight $`n`$ at zero momentum. Note that $`[d_\alpha ,N_{mn},J]`$ carry conformal weight one and $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ carries ghost number one. For example, the most general vertex operator at $`(mass)^2=0`$ is $`V=\lambda ^\alpha A_\alpha (x,\theta )`$ where $`A_\alpha (x,\theta )`$ is an unconstrained spinor superfield . One can easily check that $`QV=0`$ and $`\delta V=Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$ and $`\delta A_\alpha =\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$, which are the super-Maxwell equations of motion and gauge invariances written in terms of a spinor superfield.

When $`\alpha ^{}(mass)^2=1`$, the first massive states of the open superstring are described by the vertex operator

$$V=\lambda ^\alpha A_\alpha (x,\theta )+:\theta ^\beta \lambda ^\alpha B_{\alpha \beta }(x,\theta ):+:d_\beta \lambda ^\alpha C_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(x,\theta ):$$

$$+:\mathrm{\Pi }^m\lambda ^\alpha H_{m\alpha }(x,\theta ):+:J\lambda ^\alpha E_\alpha (x,\theta ):+:N^{mn}\lambda ^\alpha F_{\alpha mn}(x,\theta ):$$

where $`:U^A\lambda ^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha A}(x,\theta )(z):`$ =$`\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha A}(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha A}(x,\theta )`$ are the various superfields appearing in (2.1). Note that because of (2.1), $`V`$ is invariant under the field redefinition

$$\delta F_{\alpha mn}=\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_n^\beta \gamma _{n\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^\beta ,\delta E_\alpha =\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^\beta ,\delta A_\alpha =2\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Lambda }_m^\beta .$$

As will now be shown, the equations of motion and gauge invariances implied by $`QV=0`$ and $`\delta V=Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ imply that the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha A}(x,\theta )`$ describe a massive spin-two multiplet containing 128 bosonic and 128 fermionic degrees of freedom.

3. Equations of Motion

Using the OPE’s of (2.1) and (2.1), one finds that

$$\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}QV=\frac{dy}{yz}[\lambda ^\beta (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)(D_\alpha A_\beta (z)+B_{\alpha \beta }(z))\theta ^\gamma (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)D_\beta B_{\alpha \gamma }(z)$$

$$\gamma _{m\gamma \beta }\lambda ^\gamma (y)\mathrm{\Pi }^m(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)C_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(z)d_\gamma (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)D_\beta C_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(z)$$

$$+\gamma _{\gamma \delta }^m\lambda ^\gamma (y)\theta ^\delta (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)H_{m\alpha }(z)+\mathrm{\Pi }^m(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)D_\beta H_{m\alpha }(z)$$

$$\lambda ^\gamma (y)d_\gamma (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)E_\alpha (z)+J(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)D_\beta E_\alpha (z)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\delta }{}^{}\lambda ^\delta (y)d_\gamma (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)F_{\alpha mn}(z)+N^{mn}(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)D_\beta F_{\alpha mn}(z)]$$

$$=:\theta ^\gamma \lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta [D_\alpha B_{\beta \gamma }\gamma _{\alpha \gamma }^mH_{m\beta }]:+:\mathrm{\Pi }^m\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta [D_\alpha H_{m\beta }\gamma _{m\alpha \gamma }C_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta }{}^{}]:$$

$$:d_\gamma \lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta [D_\alpha C_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta }{}^{}+\delta _\alpha ^\gamma E_\beta +\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn})^\gamma {}_{\alpha }{}^{}F_{\beta mn}^{}]:$$

$$+\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta [D_\alpha A_\beta +B_{\alpha \beta }+\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^m_mC_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\beta E_\alpha +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma ^{mn}D)_\beta F_{\alpha mn}]$$

$$+:J\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta D_\alpha E_\beta :+:N^{mn}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta D_\alpha F_{\beta mn}:,$$

where $`:U^A\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta A}(x,\theta )(z):`$ =$`\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\lambda ^\beta (z)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta A}(z)`$.

Since $`\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda =\lambda \gamma ^m\lambda `$ =0, $`QV=0`$ implies that the superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha A}`$ satisfy

$$(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }[D_\alpha B_{\beta \gamma }\gamma _{\alpha \gamma }^sH_{s\beta }]=0,$$

$$(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }[D_\alpha H_{s\beta }\gamma _{s\alpha \gamma }C_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta }{}^{}]=0,$$

$$(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }[D_\alpha C_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta }{}^{}+\delta _\alpha ^\gamma E_\beta +\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{st})^\gamma {}_{\alpha }{}^{}F_{\beta st}^{}]=0,$$

$$(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }[D_\alpha A_\beta +B_{\alpha \beta }+\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s_sC_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\beta E_\alpha +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma ^{st}D)_\beta F_{\alpha st}]$$

$$=2\alpha ^{}\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{vwxys}\eta _{st}K_{vwxy}^t,$$

$$(\gamma _{mnp})^{\alpha \beta }[D_\alpha A_\beta +B_{\alpha \beta }+\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s_sC_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\beta E_\alpha +\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma ^{st}D)_\beta F_{\alpha st}]$$

$$=16\alpha ^{}\gamma _{mnp}^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{wxy}K_{wxys}^s,$$

$$\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha E_\beta =\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }(\gamma ^{vwxy}\gamma _s)_{\alpha \beta }K_{vwxy}^s,$$

$$\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha F_\beta ^{st}=\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }(\gamma ^{vwxy}\gamma ^{[s})_{\alpha \beta }K_{vwxy}^{t]},$$

where $`K_{vwxy}^s`$ is an arbitrary superfield. The possibility of introducing $`K_{vwxy}^t`$ into the right-hand side of (3.1) comes from the fact that for arbitrary $`K_{vwxy}^s`$,

$$:N_{st}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :(\gamma ^{vwxy}\gamma ^{[s})_{\alpha \beta }K_{vwxy}^{t]}+:J\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :(\gamma ^{vwxy}\gamma _s)_{\alpha \beta }K_{vwxy}^s$$

$$+\alpha ^{}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta [2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{vwxys}\eta _{st}K_{vwxy}^t+16\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{wxy}K_{wxys}^s]=0,$$

which follows from the identity

$$:N_{st}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s\frac{1}{2}:J\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :\gamma _{t\beta \gamma }=\frac{5\alpha ^{}}{4}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \gamma _{t\beta \gamma }\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\lambda ^\delta \lambda ^\beta (\gamma _{st})^\alpha {}_{\delta }{}^{}\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^{s}.$$

To derive (3.1), first define

$$:U^A\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :=\underset{wz}{lim}_{C_w}\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\lambda ^\alpha (w)\lambda ^\beta (z)+\underset{wz}{lim}_{C_z}\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\lambda ^\alpha (w)\lambda ^\beta (z)$$

where $`C_w`$ encircles the point $`w`$ and $`C_z`$ encircles the point $`z`$. Using (2.1) and (2.1), one finds

$$:N_{st}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s\frac{1}{2}:J\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta :\gamma _{t\beta \gamma }$$

$$=\alpha ^{}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \gamma _{t\beta \gamma }+\underset{wz}{lim}_{C_w}\frac{dy}{yz}(N_{st}(y)\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s\frac{1}{2}J(y)\gamma _{t\beta \gamma })\lambda ^\alpha (w)\lambda ^\beta (z)$$

$$=\alpha ^{}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \gamma _{t\beta \gamma }+\underset{wz}{lim}\frac{1}{wz}[\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma _{st})^\alpha {}_{\delta }{}^{}\lambda _{}^{\delta }(w)\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^s\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\lambda ^\alpha (w)\gamma _{t\beta \gamma }]\lambda ^\beta (z)$$

$$=\alpha ^{}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \gamma _{t\beta \gamma }\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\lambda ^\delta \lambda ^\beta (\gamma _{st})^\alpha {}_{\delta }{}^{}\gamma _{\beta \gamma }^{s}+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \gamma _{t\beta \gamma }.$$

4. Gauge Transformations

In order to determine the physical content of the equations of motion (3.1), one needs to gauge fix the superfields using the gauge transformations implied by $`\delta V=Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as well as the transformations implied by the field redefinition of (2.1). Since the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should have ghost number zero and conformal weight one, the most general gauge parameter is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=:\theta ^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }(x,\theta ):+:d_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^\alpha (x,\theta ):+:\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}(x,\theta ):$$

$$+:J\mathrm{\Omega }_4(x,\theta ):+:N^{mn}\mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}(x,\theta ):,$$

where $`:U^A\mathrm{\Omega }_A(x,\theta ):`$ =$`\frac{dy}{yz}U^A(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_A(z).`$

Using the OPE’s of (2.1) and (2.1), one finds that

$$\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}Q\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{dy}{yz}[\lambda ^\alpha (y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }(z)\theta ^\beta (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{1\beta }(z)\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\lambda ^\beta (y)\mathrm{\Pi }^m(y)\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\alpha (z)$$

$$d_\beta (y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta (z)+\gamma _{\gamma \delta }^m\lambda ^\gamma (y)\theta ^\delta (y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}(z)+\mathrm{\Pi }^m(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}(z)$$

$$\lambda ^\gamma (y)d_\gamma (y)\mathrm{\Omega }_4(z)+J(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_4(z)$$

$$\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\delta }{}^{}\lambda ^\delta (y)d_\gamma (y)\mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}(z)+N^{mn}(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}(z)]$$

$$=\lambda ^\alpha [\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }+\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m_m\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_4\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}D_\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}]$$

$$+:\theta ^\beta \lambda ^\alpha [D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{1\beta }+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}]:$$

$$+:d_\beta \lambda ^\alpha [D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta \delta _\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_4\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}]:$$

$$+:\mathrm{\Pi }^m\lambda ^\alpha [D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta ]:$$

$$+:J\lambda ^\alpha D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_4:+:N^{mn}\lambda ^\alpha D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}:.$$

So $`\delta V=\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies the following gauge transformations for the superfields in (2.1):

$$\delta A_\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }+\alpha ^{}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m_m\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta \frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_4\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}D_\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn},$$

$$\delta B_{\alpha \beta }=D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{1\beta }+\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{3m},$$

$$\delta C_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}=D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta \delta _\alpha ^\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_4\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn})_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn},$$

$$\delta H_{m\alpha }=D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}\gamma _{m\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\beta ,$$

$$\delta E_\alpha =D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_4,$$

$$\delta F_{\alpha mn}=D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}.$$

5. Massive Spin-Two Multiplet

In this section, we shall show that the equations of motion of (3.1) and the gauge transformations of (4.1) and (2.1) imply that the superfields appearing in (2.1) describe a spin-two multiplet with $`(mass)^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}`$. Note that the 128 bosonic and 128 fermionic component fields in a massive spin-two multiplet consist of a traceless symmetric tensor $`g_{mn}`$, a three-form $`b_{mnp}`$, and a spin-3/2 field $`\psi _{m\alpha }`$ satisfying the equations:

$$\eta ^{mn}g_{mn}=^mg_{mn}=^mb_{mnp}=^m\psi _{m\alpha }=\gamma ^{m\alpha \beta }\psi _{m\beta }=0.$$

These ten-dimensional component fields can be understood as Kaluza-Klein modes of an eleven-dimensional supergravity multiplet.

The first equation of motion of (3.1) implies that $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma D_\alpha B_{\beta \gamma }=0`$ where $`\lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma B_{\beta \gamma }=(\lambda \gamma ^{mnpqr}\lambda )B_{mnpqr}`$. As discussed in reference , this is the same equation of motion as for the super-Maxwell antifield $`A_{\beta \gamma }^{}=A_{mnpqr}^{}(\gamma ^{mnpqr})_{\beta \gamma }`$. But up to the gauge transformation $`\delta A_{mnpqr}^{}=\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\beta \gamma }D_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma `$, $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma D_\alpha A_{\beta \gamma }^{}=0`$ has only massless solutions. Since the fourth equation of (3.1) implies at $`\alpha ^{}=0`$ that $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }(B_{\alpha \beta }+D_\alpha A_\beta )=0`$, $`B_{mnpqr}`$ has no massless solutions. So $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma D_\alpha B_{\beta \gamma }=0`$ implies that $`B_{mnpqr}=\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\beta \gamma }D_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma `$ for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\gamma `$. Using the gauge parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{3m}`$, one can therefore gauge $`B_{\alpha \beta }=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{mnp}B_{mnp}`$. Note that this gauge-fixing condition still leaves gauge invariances parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\alpha }`$ that satisfy $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_{1\beta }=0`$.

Plugging $`B_{\alpha \beta }=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{mnp}B_{mnp}`$ into the first equation of (3.1), one finds that

$$(\gamma ^s\gamma _{mnpqr})_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\alpha }H_{s\alpha }^{}=(\gamma ^{stu}\gamma _{mnpqr})_\gamma {}_{}{}^{\alpha }D_{\alpha }^{}B_{stu},$$

which implies that

$$D_\alpha B^{mnp}=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{[m}Z^{np]\beta }\frac{1}{48}(\gamma ^{[mn})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }H_{\beta }^{p]}+\gamma _{\alpha \gamma }^{mnp}Y^\gamma $$

for some $`Y^\gamma `$ and $`Z^{np\beta }`$ satisfying $`Z^{np\beta }\gamma _{p\alpha \beta }=0`$. It will now be argued that (5.1) implies that $`B_{mnp}`$ describes a massive spin-two multiplet whose mass will be determined by the fifth equation of (3.1).

To analyze the physical content of (5.1), it will be useful to choose a reference frame in which the spatial momenta $`k_a=0`$ for $`a=1`$ to 9 where the indices $`[a,b,c,\mathrm{}]`$ denote spatial directions.3 Although the analysis would be more complicated, the physical content of (5.1) could also be covariantly derived by applying combinations of $`D_\alpha `$ and using $`\gamma `$-matrix identities. This reference frame is always possible since the fifth equation of (3.1) at $`\alpha ^{}=0`$ implies that $`\gamma _{mnp}^{\alpha \beta }(B_{\alpha \beta }+D_\alpha A_\beta )=0`$, so $`B_{mnp}`$ has no massless solutions. The spatial polarizations of (5.1) imply that

$$D_\alpha B^{abc}=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{[a}S^{bc]\beta }$$

for some superfield $`S^{bc\beta }`$. To show that $`B^{bcd}`$ describes a massive spin-two multiplet, recall that massive representations of $`D=10`$ supersymmetry (or massless representations of $`D=11`$ supersymmetry) are described by the states $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A^P`$ where $`P`$ indices range over the 128 bosonic and 128 fermionic components of the smallest $`SO(9)`$ supersymmetric multiplet and $`A`$ indices describe the degeneracy of the “ground” state. Note that supersymmetry transformations act only on the $`P`$ index and leave the $`A`$ index invariant.

Defining $`b^{bcd}=B^{bcd}|_{\theta =0}`$, the indices $`[bcd]`$ on $`b^{bcd}`$ could in principle come from contractions of $`P`$ indices with $`A`$ indices. But the constraint of (5.1) implies that the supersymmetry transformation of $`b^{bcd}`$ is $`\delta b^{bcd}=(ϵ\gamma ^{[b}S^{cd]})|_{\theta =0}`$, which implies through the supersymmetry transformation of the $`P`$ index that all indices in $`b^{bcd}`$ come from $`P`$. So the “ground state” $`\mathrm{\Omega }^P`$ is non-degenerate and $`b^{bcd}`$ is the three-form of the smallest $`SO(9)`$ supersymmetric multiplet. Furthermore, the supersymmetry transformation of $`b^{bcd}`$ implies that

$$S^{bc\beta }=(\gamma ^{[b}\mathrm{\Psi }^{c]})^\beta $$

where $`\gamma _c^{\beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^c=0`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_\gamma ^c)|_{\theta =0}=\psi _\gamma ^c`$ is the spin $`\frac{3}{2}`$ field. The remaining 44 bosonic degrees of freedom in the $`SO(9)`$ multiplet are described by the $`\theta =0`$ components of the superfield $`G^{bc}=D\gamma ^{(b}\mathrm{\Psi }^{c)}`$ which satisfies $`\eta _{bc}G^{bc}=0`$. Since $`G^{mn}`$ is a spin-two superfield, one can interpret $`H_{n\alpha }`$ as a $`D=10`$ vector-spinor prepotential as in . Note that in $`D=4`$, a similar role is played by a vector prepotential for a massive spin-two superfield  .

To complete the proof that $`B^{mnp}`$ describes the massive spin-two multiplet of (5.1), it will now be shown that $`B^{0bc}=0`$ when $`k_a=0`$ for $`a=1`$ to 9. Comparing (5.1), (5.1) and (5.1), one finds that

$$Y^\gamma =0,Z^{bc}=h(\gamma ^{[b}\mathrm{\Psi }^{c]})^\gamma ,H_\beta ^b=96(h1)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^b$$

for some constant $`h`$. And $`(\gamma _mZ^{mn})_\alpha =0`$ implies that $`Z^{0b\gamma }=7h(\gamma ^0\mathrm{\Psi }^b)^\gamma `$. After using the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2^\alpha `$ to gauge $`(\gamma ^mH_m)^\alpha =0`$, one learns from (5.1) that

$$D_\alpha B^{0bc}=(416h)(\gamma ^0\gamma ^{[b}\mathrm{\Psi }^{c]})_\alpha .$$

Using similar arguments as before, one can argue that the only solution to (5.1) is $`B^{0bc}=0`$ and $`h=\frac{1}{4}`$. To prove this, note that $`b^{obc}=B^{0bc}|_{\theta =0}`$ transforms under supersymmetry as $`\delta b^{obc}=(416h)(ϵ\gamma ^0\gamma ^{[b}\psi ^{c]}).`$ But there are no states in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A^P`$ which transform in this manner, so $`b^{0bc}`$ must vanish.

So (5.1) implies that $`B^{mnp}`$ describes a massive spin-two multiplet. Furthermore, after using the gauge parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{5mn}`$ and (2.1) to gauge-fix

$$C^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=(\gamma ^{mnpq})^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}C_{mnpq}^{}\mathrm{and}\gamma ^{m\alpha \beta }F_{\beta mn}=0,$$

the first three equations of (3.1) imply that $`[H_{m\alpha },C_{mnpq},E_\alpha ,F_{\alpha mn}]`$ are determined from $`B^{mnp}`$ by the equations

$$H_\alpha ^p=\frac{3}{7}(\gamma _{mn}D)_\alpha B^{mnp},C_{mnpq}=\frac{1}{48}_{[m}B_{npq]},E_\alpha =0,$$

$$F_{\alpha mn}=\frac{7}{16}_{[m}H_{n]\alpha }\frac{1}{16}^q(\gamma _{q[m})^\beta {}_{\alpha }{}^{}H_{n]\beta }^{},$$

and the trace of the seventh equation of (3.1) implies that

$$K_{mnpq}^s=\frac{1}{1920}(\gamma _{mnpqu}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha F_\beta ^{su}\frac{1}{72}\gamma _{ru[mnp}^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{q]}^sD_\alpha F_\beta ^{ru}).$$

Plugging (5.1) and (5.1) into the fourth equation of (3.1) implies that $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$, so one can gauge-fix $`A_\beta =0`$ using the remaining gauge transformation parameterized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{1\beta }`$. And plugging (5.1) and (5.1) into the fifth equation of (3.1) implies that

$$(_m^m\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}})B_{npq}=0$$

so that $`(mass)^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}`$. Finally, the sixth equation and the traceless part of the seventh equation of (3.1) provide no new information, as can be seen from the fact that if the first five equations of (3.1) are satisfied,

$$QV=:J(\lambda \gamma ^{mnpqr}\lambda ):S_{mnpqr}+:N_{st}(\lambda \gamma ^{mnpqr}\lambda ):T_{mnpqr}^{st}$$

for some $`S_{mnpqr}`$ and traceless $`T_{mnpqr}^{st}`$. But $`Q^2=0`$ implies that

$$0=Q[:J(\lambda \gamma ^{mnqpr}\lambda ):S_{mnpqr}+:N_{st}(\lambda \gamma ^{mnpqr}\lambda ):T_{mnpqr}^{st}]$$

$$=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha (\lambda \gamma ^{mnqpr}\lambda )S_{mnpqr}+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}(\lambda \gamma _{st}d)(\lambda \gamma ^{mnpqr}\lambda )T_{mnpqr}^{st}+\mathrm{}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ does not involve $`d_\alpha `$. So $`Q^2=0`$ implies that $`S_{mnpqr}=T_{mnpqr}^{st}=0`$.

So it has been shown that the vertex operator of (2.1) describes a spin-two multiplet with $`(mass)^2=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}`$ in terms of ten-dimensional superfields.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Brenno Carlini Vallilo for his participation in the early stages of this project and the ICTP for their hospitality where part of this work was done. OC would like to thank FONDECYT grant 3000026 for financial support and NB would like to thank CNPq grant 300256/94-9, Pronex grant 66.2002/1998-9 and FAPESP grant 99/12763-0 for partial financial support. This research was partially conducted during the period that NB was employed by the Clay Mathematics Institute as a CMI Prize Fellow.

References

relax M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, “Covariant Description of Superstrings,” Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 367. relax N. Berkovits, “Super-Poincaré Covariant Quantization of the Superstring,” JHEP 0004 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035. relax N. Berkovits and B.C. Vallilo, “Consistency of Super-Poincaré Covariant Superstring Tree Amplitudes,” JHEP 0007 (2000) 015, hep-th/0004171. relax N. Berkovits, “Relating the RNS and Pure Spinor Formalisms for the Superstring,” JHEP 0108(2001) 026, hep-th/0104247. relax N. Berkovits, “Cohomology in the Pure Spinor Formalism for the Superstring,” JHEP 0009 (2000) 046, hep-th/0006003; N. Berkovits and O. Chandía, “Lorentz Invariance of the Pure Spinor BRST Cohomology for the Superstring,” Phys. Lett. B514 (2001) 394, hep-th/0105149. relax W. Siegel, “Classical Superstring Mechanics,” Nucl. Phys. B263 (1986) 93. relax P.S. Howe, “Pure Spinor Lines in Superspace and Ten-Dimensional Supersymmetric Theories,” Phys. Lett. B258 (1991) 141. relax P.A. Grassi, G. Policastro and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The Massless Spectrum of Covariant Superstrings,” hep-th/0202123. relax N. Berkovits, “Covariant Quantization of the Superparticle Using Pure Spinors,” JHEP 0109 (2001) 016, hep-th/0105050. relax S.J. Gates, Jr. and S. Vashakidze, “On D = 10, N = 1 Supersymmetry, Superspace Geometry and Superstring Effects,” Nucl. Phys. B291 (1987) 172. relax N. Berkovits and M.L. Leite, “First Massive State of the Superstring in Superspace,” Phys. Lett. B415 (1997) 144, hep-th/9709148; N. Berkovits and M.L. Leite, “Superspace Action for the First Massive States of the Superstring,” Phys. Lett. B454 (1999) 38, hep-th/9812153. relax I.L. Buchbinder, S.J. Gates, Jr., J. Phillips and W.D. Linch, “New 4D N=1 Superfield Theory: Model of Free Massive Superspin 3/2 Multiplet,” hep-th/0201096.


text:
# Atomistic Description of Shallow Levels in Semiconductors

## Abstract

The wave function and binding energy for shallow donors in GaAs are calculated within the tight binding (TB) approach, for supercells containing up to two million atoms. The resulting solutions, coupled with a scaling law, allow extrapolation to the bulk limit. A sharp shallow-deep transition is obtained as the impurity perturbation increases. The model allows investigating the quantitative consistency between the effective mass theory and the TB formalism. Although the calculated binding energies are in excellent agreement, anisotropies and the overall decay obtained in the TB envelope function can not be afforded by the hydrogenlike effective mass prediction.

Electronic states in condensed matter systems may exist in either localized atomic-like states or in delocalized running-wave states . Such dualistic behavior has led naturally to two well-established frameworks in which to describe the electronic behavior of solids: Real space pictures privilege the atomic aspects of electronic behavior, whereas Bloch states provide a foundation to describe the wave-like properties. For an ideal periodic crystal, these two views were reconciled several decades ago, when Wannier  showed that a set of orthogonal “atomic” functions localized at the crystal’s atomic sites may be obtained from the Bloch eigenfunctions, and that either may be taken as the basis set for the general description of electrons in solids. Any electronic theory which adopts a basis set localized in real space is generally referred to as following the tight-binding (TB) approach. In some practical cases, it is also possible to utilize a basis set localized in reciprocal space about an appropriate point in the Brillouin zone. Such an approach then gives rise to the so-called Effective Mass Theory (EMT) . EMT is the most successful comprehensive approach for the description of electronic excitations in insulators, of transport and optical properties in semiconductors, of dynamics of electrons in metals .

A crowning achievement, dating as far back as the 1950’s, of the EMT is undoubtedly the quantitative understanding obtained of shallow impurity states in semiconductors . A complementary TB theory for deep impurities was presented later by Hjalmarson et al, . The choice of approach in each case is defined naturally, given the extended nature of the shallow levels described within EMT versus the localized nature of the deep states considered in the TB scheme. A basic limitation of the EMT, however, is that the approximation (i.e., a single dominant k-point) breaks down as the impurity state becomes increasingly delocalized throughout the Brillouin zone, such as the case for deep levels. Similarly, a practical limitation of the TB approach is that until now it could not be extended to the shallow impurity limit due to the slow decay of the defect wave function which requires extremely large supercells for meaningful calculations. As a result, for decades a gap has existed between two of the most widely used theories for impurities in semiconductors: The TB approach was confined to deep states, whereas the EMT was used for shallow states.

In the present work we demonstrate that the gap between shallow and deep levels may be bridged via the TB formalism in conjunction with extrapolation schemes for the binding energies  and for the envelope functions. Our proposed atomistic description provides a flexible way to explore and test key predictions of EMT for shallow levels. In particular, the following points are addressed and explained: (a) The values of ionization energies, (b) the independence of these ionization energies on the impurity species, and (c) the shape of the envelope function for the defect state. We show that wave functions may substantially deviate from the hydrogen-like predictions of EMT. Besides the obvious academic interest of unifying shallow and deep impurity level descriptions within a single theoretical approach, problems of current interest in nanostructured materials demand an atomistic description for which the TB approach coupled to the theoretical tools adopted herein may provide a reliable alternative to EMT and to ab-initio treatments based in the local density approximation.

In the EMT, it is assumed that the impurity wave function is highly delocalized in real space, which in turn implies a strong localization in k-space. The electronic properties of the host material are thus described by a few parameters related to the energy bands near the set of k-points in consideration. In particular, effective masses are defined from the bands’ curvatures at these points. The simplest case is that of a nondegenerate conduction band with an extremum at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`(𝐤=0)`$, corresponding to the Bloch eigenstate $`\psi _C^\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫)`$ and eigenvalue $`E_C(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The cubic symmetry of the lattice implies that the nondegenerate band is isotropic around this extremum, leading to a single effective mass $`m^{}`$: $`E_C(𝐤0)=E_C(\mathrm{\Gamma })+\mathrm{}^2𝐤^2/2m^{}`$. Following the original EMT formulation , the perturbation potential for donor impurities is

$$U(r)=e^2/\epsilon r,$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the static dielectric constant of the host. Within a set of additional approximations , the impurity wave function is written as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=F(𝐫)\psi _C^\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫)`$, and the eigenvalue problem for the one-electron Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+U(r)`$, where $`H_0`$ describes the perfect host material, maps into an hydrogenic equation

$$[\mathrm{}^2^2/2m^{}+U(r)]F(\text{r})=[EE_C(\mathrm{\Gamma })]F(\text{r})$$
(2)
leading to the ground state envelope function $`F(\text{r})=(1/\sqrt{\pi a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}})\mathrm{exp}(r/a^{})`$, where $`a^{}=a_0\epsilon (m_0/m^{})`$ is the effective Bohr radius, $`a_0`$=0.53 Å is the Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom and $`m_0`$ is the free electron mass. The EMT basic assumptions are fulfilled if $`a^{}`$ is much larger than the host lattice parameter. In this case, the donor binding energy for a single impurity is $`E_d^{}=E_H[m^{}/(\epsilon ^2m_0)]`$, where $`E_H`$=13.6 eV is the hydrogen ionization energy.

For donor levels in semiconductors with a conduction-band minimum at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the above model combines simplicity and physical intuition and moreover leads to a good agreement with experimental results. In the case of GaAs, $`\epsilon =12.56`$ and $`m^{}/m_0=0.068`$, leading to $`a^{}=97.7`$ Å (which is indeed much larger than the host lattice parameter $`\mathrm{a}_{\mathrm{GaAs}}`$ = 5.65Å), and to $`E_d^{}=5.86`$ meV, which is in remarkable agreement with the experimental data for donor binding energies in this material . It is intriguing that most donor levels in GaAs are essentially independent of the substitutional species, e.g. 5.91, 5.84 and 5.88 meV respectively for C, Si and Ge replacing Ga, while acceptor levels vary by almost a factor of two for these same species substituting As . We choose this extreme situation of very shallow donor levels, for which EMT predictions for the binding energy work remarkably well, to explore the limits and capabilities of the TB formalism within a recently proposed scheme .

We consider a single impurity placed in a large cubic supercell containing $`N=8(L/\mathrm{a}_{\mathrm{GaAs}})^3`$ atoms arranged in the zincblende structure, where $`L`$ is the supercell edge length. Periodic boundary conditions are imposed, and supercells containing up to 2 million atoms ($`L=64\times \mathrm{a}_{\mathrm{GaAs}}=361.6`$ Å) are considered. We use the $`sp^3s^{}`$ basis for the TB description of the electronic structure, with the bulk GaAs Hamiltonian taken from Boykin’s parametrization , which includes first and second neighbor interactions and leads to an accurate value for the conduction band effective mass at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Due to the $`s`$-character of the GaAs conduction band edge, spin-orbit corrections may be neglected in our calculations. The TB Hamiltonian is written as

$$H=\underset{ij\mu \nu }{}h_{ij}^{\mu \nu }c_{i\mu }^{}c_{j\nu }+\underset{i\mu }{}U(r_i)c_{i\mu }^{}c_{i\mu }$$
(3)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote the sites in the zincblende structure, $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ denote the atomic orbitals and $`r_i`$ is the distance from site $`i`$ to the impurity site. The $`h_{ij}^{\mu \nu }`$ define all the on-site energies and first and second neighbor hoppings for the bulk material. The perturbation potential $`U(r_i)`$ is described by Eq.(1), except at the impurity site $`(r_i=0)`$, where it is assigned the value $`U_0`$, describing central cell effects according to the substitutional species. In the present calculations, $`U_0`$ is kept as a free parameter. Estimates for this parameter are of the order of one to a few eV . Note that the impurity potential in (3) incorporates both the long-range component of the original EMT formulation  and the short- range perturbation ($`U_0`$ restricted to the impurity site) of the original TB formulation .

The exact ground state wave function and binding energy $`E_L`$ for a donor level within a supercell of size $`L`$ was obtained by minimizing the expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left|\left(H\epsilon _{ref}\right)^2\right|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\epsilon _{ref}`$ is a reference energy chosen below the conduction band minimum , with the TB wave function expansion coefficients $`\{C_{i\mu }\}`$ taken as independent variational parameters. This procedure is equivalent to the exact diagonalization of $`H`$ for the eigenvalue and eigenfunction closest to $`\epsilon _{ref}`$. The calculated binding energies as a function of $`U_0`$ are given in Fig. 1(a). It is clear that there is a range of the values of $`U_0`$ for which $`E_L(U_0)`$ is constant, indicating that the binding energy does not depend on the impurity species, in agreement with the EMT and with experiments . A well defined shallow-to-deep transition occurs for $`U_01.8`$ eV, above which the binding energy increases approximately linearly with $`U_0`$. Aiming at a better characterization of this transition, we calculate the orbital averaged spectral weight of the donor state,

$$W\left(𝐤\right)=\frac{2}{N}\underset{\mu ,i,j}{}e^{i𝐤(𝐑_𝐢𝐑_𝐣)}C_{i\mu }C_{j\mu },$$
(4)
where $`𝐑_i`$ and $`𝐑_j`$ denote the position vectors of the $`i`$ and $`j`$ atomic sites. The calculated $`W\left(𝐤\right)`$ for $`𝐤=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, X and L points in the fcc Brillouin zone are given in Fig. 1(b). We visualize in this Figure the k-space counterpart of the shallow-to-deep transition around $`U_0=1.8`$ eV. For $`U_01.8`$ eV, the wave function has an almost pure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ character, since $`W(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is very close to 1. This extreme localization in $`k`$-space is consistent with the EMT assumptions, and indicates a highly delocalized wave function in real space. Increasing $`U_0`$ beyond 1.8 eV, the dominant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ character breaks down and the impurity state must be described in terms of the several $`𝐤`$-point components, indicating delocalization in k-space, localization in real space. This is consistent with the deeper character of the state obtained in Fig. 1(a) in this range of $`U_0`$.

In their original TB study, Hjalmarson et al  noted that shallow levels are unbound by the central cell potential alone, and thus could not be obtained there. Our calculations are in complete agreement with this interpretation: We find that, in the whole range of $`U_0`$ for which $`E_L(U_0)`$ is constant, no bound state is obtained if the Coulomb potential is not included in the impurity perturbation. This result confirms a simple physical criterion characterizing shallow levels, and the reason why they do not depend on the substitutional impurity species, i.e. on $`U_0`$, since the binding is entirely due to the Coulomb attraction part of the perturbation potential. On the other hand, when deeper levels are obtained, $`U_0`$ alone also leads to a bound state, and therefore the binding energy is sensitive to the impurity species.

In the following we focus on shallow donors. Given that the binding energy is independent of $`U_0`$ in this regime, we arbitrarily take $`U_0=1.0`$ eV in the model calculations. This is a reasonable choice given the value of the Coulombic potential at the nearest-neighbor distance. Fig. 2(a) gives the donor ionization energy calculated at increasing supercell sizes. Results for $`E_L`$ presented there, even for the largest sizes, are still decreasing with $`L`$. This difficulty was overcome in Ref. by assuming that, asymptotically, the convergence of $`E_L`$ to the isolated-impurity limit ($`L\mathrm{}`$) should be exponential, namely

$$E_L=E_{\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{E}e^{L/\lambda }.$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, $`\lambda `$ and the donor ionization energy for infinite cells $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ are taken as adjustable parameters. The validity of Eq.(5) implies a linear dependence of $`\mathrm{ln}[(E_LE_{\mathrm{}})/E_{\mathrm{}}]`$ on the system size $`L`$. These are the circles in Fig. 2(b). As indicated by the straight solid line, a linear behavior is obtained for $`L/a^{}1.5`$ with the extrapolated bulk donor binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}=6.7`$ meV and $`\lambda =1.25a^{}`$. We note a much slower convergence of the donor shallow level with $`L`$ as compared to previous calculations for acceptors . Similar fits were obtained for $`E_{\mathrm{}}=6.7\pm 0.7`$ meV, while values of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ outside this range lead to systematic deviations of the calculated data points from a linear behavior. The extrapolated binding energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is indicated in Fig. 2(a). Although the EMT value is slightly off the lower limit estimated numerically, our results do not indicate any significant discrepancy between the binding energies determined by the two approaches .

We now focus on the analysis of the donor wave function. Fig. 3 gives the TB envelope function squared (expansion coefficients squared, summed over the five orbitals for the cation sublattice), calculated for $`L=48\mathrm{a}_{\mathrm{GaAs}}270`$Å, as a function of distance from the impurity along the ,  and  directions. At long distances, the wave function shows no angular dependence, as predicted by EMT. However, in the vicinity of the impurity there are noticeable anisotropies, which are highlighted in the inset. This is an effect of the crystalline environment that is automatically captured in an atomistic method such as TB. A more important discrepancy with respect to EMT is that the donor-state wave functions cannot be described by a simple exponentially decaying behavior. In fact, the line in Fig. 3 is a sum of exponential functions centered at each supercell-periodic replica of the impurity, decaying with the EMT Bohr radius of 97.7 Å. The agreement is not good, and it cannot be improved by varying the Bohr radius.

It is not surprising that EMT works well for the binding energies but not so well for wave functions. This can be seen as a manifestation of the variational principle: Small variations in the ground-state wave functions do not affect the ground-state energies in linear order. We test this hypothesis through a set of variational calculations in which trial wave functions are constructed by rescaling the TB expansion coefficients of the true wave function in such a way that they are constrained to an envelope composed of summing exponential functions centered at each periodic replica of the impurity. In other words, in these test calculations, the TB wave function expansion coefficients $`\{C_{i\mu }\}`$ are not independent variational parameters, but follow an exponential-decay behavior, corrected for the periodic boundary conditions. The decay length is now the sole variational parameter and it is then varied to minimize energy. We name these calculations “hydrogenic tight-binding” (HTB). The binding energies resulting from these constrained variational calculations also scale with supercell size as in Eq. (5), as shown by the triangles in Fig. 2(b). The extrapolated value, $`E_{\mathrm{}}^{HTB}=6.4\pm 0.6`$ meV, is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from the full TB value. We also calculate, for different supercell sizes $`L`$, the optimum decay length $`a_L`$, as illustrated in Fig. 4. We find that the calculated lengths also converge exponentially:

$$a_L=a_{\mathrm{}}+\stackrel{~}{a}e^{L/\lambda }.$$
(6)
The extrapolated Bohr radius is $`a_{\mathrm{}}=(93\pm 5)`$Å, entirely consistent with the EMT prediction! Therefore, even though the true wave function is not exponentially decaying, if such a constraint is imposed (as in EMT), the optimum Bohr radius agrees with EMT predictions and the binding energy is essentially correct.

In conclusion, we study the problem of shallow donors in GaAs within the TB formalism. The use of large supercells (up to $`L=361.6`$ Å), together with a finite-size scaling procedure, allows an unprecedented test of EMT for shallow levels in semiconductors. We find good agreement between TB and EMT in the determination of the binding energy, but hydrogenlike wave functions do not provide an accurate description of the impurity state. In addition, by varying the central cell corrections to the potential, we confirm the EMT predictions that the binding energy is independent on atomic impurity species for shallow levels. Our results are inconsistent with the commonly accepted idea that it is straightforward to describe bound states within atomistic approaches if the supercell is large compared to the Bohr radius (or typical localization lengths). For the binding energy, the value obtained for a cell at least 3 times the EMT Bohr radius is about 30% above the converged value. An extrapolation scheme is required to reach reliable results. Description of the wave function is even more subtle, due to the adopted boundary conditions. Periodic boundary conditions requires careful consideration of contributions from the impurity periodic images. We demonstrate these inconsistencies and propose general and original ways to overcome them, applicable to any atomistic approach.

We thank H. Chacham and F.J. Ribeiro for helpful discussions, and CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, MCT-PRONEX, and FUJB for financial support.


text:
# (In)finiteness of Spherically Symmetric Static Perfect Fluids

## I Introduction

In this paper we consider non-rotating stellar models, i.e., we consider static, self-gravitating perfect fluids with a barotropic equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ relating density and pressure. The basic equations are the Euler-Poisson equations in Newtonian theory and the Euler-Einstein equations in General Relativity. We are concerned with globally regular solutions on $`^3`$ consisting of a perfect fluid region and possibly a vacuum region. We focus on spherically symmetric solutions in particular.

In Newtonian theory spherical symmetry is no restriction; static stellar models are necessarily spherically symmetric (see Lindblom:1993  for an overview). In General Relativity, although conjecturable, a general theorem establishing spherical symmetry of solutions does not exist so far, although some progress has been made Beig/Simon:1991 ; Beig/Simon:1992  Lindblom/Masood-ul-Alam:1994 . Some more remarks follow below.

Existence and uniqueness of spherically symmetric solutions has been proven satisfactorily in Newtonian theory (for rather general equations of state Schaudt:2000 ) as well as in General Relativity (for smooth equations of state Rendall/Schmidt:1991 ). For results regarding topology see Masood-ul-Alam:1987 .

Mathematical issues apart, perfect fluid solutions are of interest in astrophysics. Primarily, perfect fluid solutions represent stellar models (we refer to the classic Chandrasekhar:1957 ; a recent review addressing some issues is Beig/Schmidt:2000 ). But also other astrophysical objects as globular clusters possess descriptions in terms of perfect fluid solutions Spitzer:1987 .

The main question we pose in this work is the (in)finiteness question. Under which conditions on the equation of state does the corresponding perfect fluid solution possess finite or infinite extent? We briefly recall some criteria existing in the literature: The polytropic equations of state $`p=K\rho ^{(n+1)/n}`$ ($`K>0`$, $`n>0`$ constants) have been studied extensively, both analytically and numerically. In Newtonian theory finiteness is guaranteed for $`n<5`$, $`K`$ arbitrary (for a general discussion see Horedt:1987 ), in General Relativity the case is considerably more complex Nilsson/Uggla:2000 . Criteria for more general classes of equations of state are, e.g., the following: In Newtonian theory and in General Relativity, spherical symmetry presupposed, the perfect fluid solution is finite, if $`\rho |_{p=0}>0`$. This result can be subsumed under the criterion guaranteeing finiteness of the fluid configuration if $`_0^p𝑑p^{}\rho (p^{})^2<\mathrm{}`$ holds. In the case $`\rho |_{p=0}=0`$ monotonicity of the equation of state must be assumed here. As a counterpart to this criterion, under the same assumptions, there exists the following theorem: If $`_0^p𝑑p^{}\rho ^1(p^{})\mathrm{}`$ (Newtonian theory) or $`_0^p𝑑p^{}(\rho (p^{})+c^2p^{})^1\mathrm{}`$ (General Relativity), then the fluid solution must necessarily extend to infinity (see Rendall/Schmidt:1991  for a good presentation of these criteria). Note incidentally that the last two quantities will play an important role for our considerations as well (see below). For equations of state of the type $`p=K\rho ^{(n+1)/n}(1+O(\rho ^{1/n}))`$ (as $`\rho 0`$) with $`1<n<3`$ finiteness of the fluid solution has be proven in Makino:1998  (some detail follow below). Note that these criteria involve the behavior of the equation of state for small $`p`$ only. More general criteria, however, must be based on the behavior of the equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ for all $`p`$. To show that consider the polytropic equation of state for $`n=5`$ in Newtonian theory as an example. Perturbing $`\rho (p)`$ in a small neighborhood of some finite value of $`p`$ suffices to produce either finite or infinite fluid configurations. Criteria which are capable of dealing with such phenomena have been derived in Simon:1993  and Simon:2001 . Some of those criteria will be reproduced in this paper (see, e.g., theorems IV.5 and VII.2); the other criteria we present here can be regarded as generalizations or modifications in a certain sense. In Simon:2001  the assumptions on the equation of state and the solutions are kept rather general, several theorems are formulated for Sobolev functions. Occasionally we give cross references to Simon:2001 .

The paper is divided into three main parts. Part one (Newton): In sections IIIV we treat the (in)finiteness question for perfect fluid solutions in Newtonian theory. Section II is concerned with the Euler-Poisson equations; in section III some quantities are studied which are necessary to formulate the (in)finiteness criteria in section IV (theorem IV.5 and theorem IV.6). The crucial tool for the proofs of the theorems is Pohozaev’s identity Pohozaev:1965 . Part two (General Relativity): Sections VVII deal with general relativistic perfect fluid solutions. The presentation parallels the Newtonian case in order to facilitate comparison; section V: the Euler-Einstein equations, section VI: definitions. The (in)finiteness theorems are formulated in section VII; the main ingredient for the proofs is a relativistic generalization of Pohozaev’s identity. To conclude the first two parts of the paper, in section VIII we discuss applications of the criteria we have derived both for the Newtonian and the relativistic case. Part three (Pohozaev-like identities): In section IX we present a powerful method of deriving “Pohozaev-like” identities. In particular we treat the relativistic Pohozaev identity which has been used for the proof of theorem VII.6 in section VII.

## II Newton: Basics

Newtonian static perfect fluids are regular solutions to the Euler-Poisson equations (on $`(^3,\delta _{ij})`$), given a barotropic equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ relating the pressure and the density.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)`$ $`=4\pi \rho (x)`$ (1a)
$`_ip(x)`$ $`=\rho _iu(x)`$ (1b)
Here, $`u`$ denotes the Newtonian potential, $`_i=\frac{}{x^i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=^i_i`$.

In section III we discuss which classes of equations of state we consider in this paper (see definition III.1 ff.). In all cases under consideration the potential $`u`$ can be viewed as a function of $`p`$; integrating (1b) we obtain

$$u(p)u_S=_0^pdp^{}\rho ^1(p^{})=:\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\text{where}u_S:=u|_{p=0}.$$
(2)
We distinguish solutions of (1) according to whether they extend to infinity or not. A solution with finite extent (surface $`\{p=0\}`$) possesses the surface potential $`u_S`$. At the surface the interior solution is joined to an exterior vacuum solution (standard junction conditions). Solutions extending to infinity satisfy $`p>0`$ everywhere.

We define the “normalized” potential $`v`$ as $`v:=uu_S`$. Obviously, $`v(p)`$ is monotonic with $`v|_{p=0}=0`$. Consequently, both $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ can be viewed as functions of $`v`$, and, moreover, $`p(v)=_0^v\rho (v^{})𝑑v^{}`$. For monotonic equations of state $`\rho (p)`$, $`\rho (v)`$ is monotonic as well (the converse also being true).

Remark. The quantities $`p(x),\rho (x)`$ vanish at infinity, i.e., $`p(x),\rho (x)0`$ ($`x\mathrm{}`$) for solutions of (1). In spherical symmetry this can be proven rather easily (see, e.g., Berestycki:1981 ). Using the standard asymptotic condition for $`u(x)`$, it follows that $`u(x)0`$ ($`x\mathrm{}`$). As a consequence, $`v=u`$, if the fluid has infinite extent.

Remark. Newtonian static perfect fluid solutions are necessarily spherically symmetric. For a short overview on the topic of symmetries of stellar models see Lindblom:1993  (and references therein).

Remark. The potential $`u(r)`$ ($`r=x`$) is monotonically increasing. This follows directly from the maximum principle applied to (1a). Hence, $`u(r)`$ assumes its minimal value $`u_c`$ at the center. Correspondingly, $`p(r)`$ is a strictly decreasing function (with maximum $`p_c`$), which results from monotonicity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ in (2). $`p_c`$ ($`u_c,\mathrm{}`$) is a suitable parameter to characterize the one-parameter family of regular solutions to (1).

## III Newton: The quantities $`I_i`$

Throughout this paper we consider barotropic equations of state $`\rho (p)`$ given at least on an interval $`[0,p_{max}]`$. We assume that $`\rho `$ is positive for all $`p[0,p_{max}]`$. Recall that perfect fluid configurations are always finitely extended in the case $`\rho |_{p=0}>0`$. Therefore we focus on equations of state with $`\rho |_{p=0}=0`$. “Microscopically stable” matter (see, e.g., Harrison/Thorne/Wakano/Wheeler:1983 ) is described by monotonic equations of state, i.e., by increasing functions $`\rho (p)`$. Often we will restrict ourselves to this class of equations of state.

To formulate our theorems in section IV we now introduce some quantities. Note that all these definitions depend on the equation of state only.

###### Definition III.1.

Consider a barotropic equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ as described above with $`\rho (p)`$ piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ on $`[0,p_{max}]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p):=_0^p𝑑p^{}\rho ^1(p^{}).$$
(3)
###### Assumption 1.

Throughout this paper we assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ exists for some $`p>0`$. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ is $`𝒞^0[0,p_{max}]`$.

###### Assumption 2.

We require the limit $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ to exist.

Remark. Note that assumptions 1 and 2 are independent. However, if the equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ is monotonic (at least on $`[0,ϵ]`$ for some $`ϵ>0`$), then assumption 2 follows from assumption 1. Note further that $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=0`$, if 1 and 2 hold. For the details we refer the reader to appendix A.

Remark. Provided that $`\rho (p)`$ is at least piecewise $`𝒞^1`$ we may investigate $`\frac{d\rho }{dp}`$. From $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=0`$ we conclude $`lim_{p0}(\frac{d\rho }{dp})^1=0`$, if this limit exists. For details see appendix A.

###### Definition III.2.

Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ satisfying assumptions 1 and 2. We define the following quantities:

$`I_1(p)`$ $`:=7{\displaystyle _0^p}𝑑p^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^{})6\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)p`$ (4a)
$`I_0(p)`$ $`:=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)6\rho ^1p`$ (4b)
$`I_1(p)`$ $`:=6p\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}}5\rho ^1`$ (4c)
$`I_2(p)`$ $`:=5p\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\rho }{dp^2}}+p\rho ^3({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}})^2`$ (4d)
We require $`\rho (p)`$ to be piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ on $`[0,p_{max}]`$; in order to define $`I_1`$ let $`\rho (p)`$ be $`𝒞^0[0,p_{max}]`$ and piecewise $`𝒞^1`$; for $`I_2`$ we require differentiability of one order higher.

Remark. From the comments above we conclude that $`I_0(p)`$ is well-defined and piecewise continuous on $`[0,p_{max}]`$. Moreover, $`I_0|_{p=0}=0`$.

###### Proposition III.3.

Let $`\{I_i0\}`$, $`\{I_i0\}`$, and $`\{I_i0\}`$ denote the sets of all equations of state $`\rho (p)`$ (as in definition III.2) such that, for all $`pp_{max}`$, $`I_i0`$, $`I_i0`$, or $`I_i0`$ respectively. Then

$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{I_10\}`$ (5a)
$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{I_10\}`$ (5b)
$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{I_10\}.`$ (5c)
Proof. $`I_i`$ is the integral of $`I_{i+1}`$ ($`i=1,0`$), i.e.

$$\frac{d}{dp}I_1(p)=I_0(p)\frac{d}{dp}I_0(p)=I_1(p).$$
(6)
Together with $`I_0|_{p=0}=0`$ and $`I_1|_{p=0}=0`$, the claim is proven.

Remark. $`\{I_i0\}`$ ($`i=1,0,1`$) corresponds to the set of polytropic equations of state $`p=K\rho ^{\frac{n+1}{n}}`$ ($`K=\text{const}`$) with polytropic index $`n=5`$. This can be obtained easily by solving the differential equation given by $`I_10`$.

Remark. We also have the relations $`\{I_20\}\{I_10\}`$ and $`\{I_20\}\{I_10\}`$. For a proof see Beig/Simon:1991 ; Beig/Simon:1992 .

Comments. In this paper we will only be concerned with the quantities $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$. In Simon:2001  it has be shown that $`I_1`$ plays the main role in a theorem related to part A of theorem IV.5 and IV.6 ; basically it states that by controlling the sign of $`I_1`$ it becomes possible to get rid of the AFMD requirement (see section IV for the context). $`I_2`$ itself is not as relevant as its relativistic counterpart; some comments follow in section VI.

## IV Newton: Criteria

In the present section we prove the main theorems in the Newtonian case (theorems IV.5 and IV.6). These theorems formulate criteria on the equation of state ensuring (in)finiteness of the corresponding static perfect fluid solutions. The main ingredient for the proofs is Pohozaev’s identity Pohozaev:1965  (proposition IV.2).

Remark. For the following we assume that the equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ (and thus $`\rho (v)`$) is at least piecewise $`𝒞^0`$, that the function $`p(r)`$ is continuous and piecewise $`𝒞^1`$, $`\rho (r)`$ piecewise $`𝒞^0`$, and $`u(r)`$ $`𝒞^1`$ and piecewise $`𝒞^2`$. These requirements are sensible: In Schaudt:2000 , beyond existence and uniqueness, it has been shown that for the large class of so-called admissible equations of state (including step functions, polytropic behavior, etc.) the (in general non-classical) solutions $`u(r)`$ of (1) are $`𝒞^1`$. If in addition the equation of state is piecewise $`𝒞^{k,\alpha }`$ (with $`k0,0<\alpha <1`$), then $`u(r)`$ is piecewise $`𝒞^{k+2,\alpha }`$ (and therefore $`𝒞^{k+2}`$). Here, $`𝒞^{k,\alpha }`$ means that the $`k`$th derivative is Hölder continuous.

###### Definition IV.1.

Beig:2000 . From $`v`$, its derivatives, and from $`p`$, $`\rho `$ we define the following symmetric tensor $`\sigma _{ij}`$ on $`^3`$:

$$\sigma _{ij}:=2vv_{,ij}+6v_{,i}v_{,j}2\delta _{ij}v_{,k}v^{,k}+8\pi \delta _{ij}(\rho v+4p)$$
(7)
$`\sigma _{ij}`$ is divergence free, $`^j\sigma _{ij}=0`$; its trace $`\sigma _i^i=16\pi (\rho v+6p)`$. Note that by (1) $`v_{ij}`$ can be written as first derivatives. Pohozaev’s identity is a direct consequence. In its present form it is due to Beig:2000 ; Simon:1993 .

###### Proposition IV.2.

(Pohozaev identity). With $`\xi ^j`$ a dilation, i.e., $`\xi ^j=x^j`$ we have the following identity:

$$^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=16\pi (\rho v+6p)$$
(8)
###### Definition IV.3.

(Asymptotic conditions). A solution of (1) is called AFMD (asymptotically flat with mass decay conditions), if for some $`ϵ>0`$

$$u=O^{\mathrm{}}(x^1)\rho =O^{\mathrm{}}(x^{3ϵ}).$$
(9)
Consequently, using Euler’s equation (1b), $`p=O^{\mathrm{}}(x^{4ϵ})`$. For a generalization in terms of Sobolev spaces see Simon:2001 .

###### Proposition IV.4.

(Pohozaev integrated). Consider a static perfect fluid solution in Newtonian theory, i.e., let $`v(r)=u(r)u_S`$, $`p(r)`$, $`\rho (r)`$ be a solution of (1). Furthermore, assume AFMD. Then,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3x(\rho v+6p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{R}},`$ for solutions with finite extent, and, (10a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3x(\rho v+6p)`$ $`=0,`$ if the fluid extends to infinity. (10b)
In (10a), $`M`$ denotes the mass, and $`R`$ the radius of the finite fluid object.

Proof. Integrating (8) for fluid solutions with finite extent we get for the l.h. side

$$\underset{\mathrm{Ball}(R)}{}d^3x^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=4\pi R^2\sigma _{ij}|_Rx^jR^1x^i=16\pi R^3v_{,r}^2|_R.$$
(11)
The exterior solution is vacuum, i.e., $`u=M/r`$ ($`rR`$), so that $`v_{,r}|_R=u_{,r}|_R=MR^2`$. For solutions extending to infinity, $`_{\mathrm{Ball}(r)}d^3x^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=4\pi r\sigma _{ij}x^jx^i`$. Making use of the AFMD conditions, this expression can be shown to converge to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

Remark. The identities (10a) plus (10b) can be combined to give

$$\underset{^3}{}d^3x(\rho u+6p)=0.$$
(12)
This is because, for the finite body case, $`d^3x\rho u=d^3x\rho (v+u_S)=d^3x\rho v+u_SM`$, and $`u_S=M/R`$.

###### Theorem IV.5.

Simon:1993 ; Simon:2001 . Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ being piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ and satisfying assumptions 1 and 2.

1. Let $`(v=uu_S,\rho ,p)`$ be an AFMD solution to the Euler-Poisson equations (1) with $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{p}>0`$. If $`I_00`$ ($`I_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then the solution has finite extent.
2. If $`I_00`$ ($`I_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then there is no AFMD solution to the Euler-Poisson equations (1) satisfying $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

Proof. $`I_0(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)6\rho ^1p=(v(p)+6\rho ^1p)`$. Hence, the l.h. side of (10) equals $`d^3x\rho I_0(p(x))`$. The rest follows easily from proposition IV.4.

Remark. Since $`p(r)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function, $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$ corresponds to $`pp_c`$, where $`p_c`$ is the central pressure of the perfect fluid solution.

Remark. In the proof only the quantity $`\rho I_0`$ was used. Thus, proposition IV.5 also holds without assuming 2.

Remark. Recall that $`I_00`$ corresponds to $`p=\frac{1}{6}\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{5}}\rho ^{\frac{6}{5}}`$ ($`\rho _{}=\text{const}`$). The associated static perfect fluid solutions are known explicitly Chandrasekhar:1957  and read

$$v(r)=u(r)=\frac{M}{\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _{}M^4+r^2}}(M0).$$
(13)
Obviously, (13) are AFMD solutions extending to infinity.

###### Theorem IV.6.

Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ being $`𝒞^0`$, piecewise $`𝒞^1`$ and monotonic, and assume 1.

1. Let $`(v=uu_S,\rho ,p)`$ be an AFMD solution to the Euler-Poisson equations (1) with $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{p}>0`$. If $`I_10`$ ($`I_10`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then the solution has finite extent.
2. If $`I_10`$ ($`I_10`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then there is no AFMD solution to the Euler-Poisson equations (1) satisfying $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

Proof. The proof is based on Pohozaev’s identity in the form encountered in proposition IV.4. According to the remarks at the end of section II spherical symmetry is no restriction.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{Ball}(\stackrel{~}{r})}{}}d^3x(\rho v+6p)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{r}}{}}}𝑑rr^2\rho (r)I_0(p(r))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\pi {\displaystyle \underset{p_c}{\overset{p(\stackrel{~}{r})}{}}}𝑑pr^2v_{,r}^1I_0`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`4\pi \left[r^2v_{,r}^1I_1\right]_{p_c}^{p(\stackrel{~}{r})}4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{p_c}{\overset{p(\stackrel{~}{r})}{}}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}(r^2v_{,r}^1)I_1`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi \left[r^2v_{,r}^1I_1(p(r))\right]_0^{\stackrel{~}{r}}4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{r}}{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(r^2v_{,r}^1)I_1(p(r))`$
Here, the subscript $`c`$ refers to the central value of the quantity, e.g., $`p_c=p|_{r=0}`$. Regularizing and solving the Euler Poisson equations in a small neighborhood of $`r=0`$, we obtain $`v(r)=v_c+\frac{4\pi }{6}\rho _cr^2+o(r^2)`$; this implies that $`r^2v_{,r}^1I_1(p(r))`$ vanishes as $`r0`$. At $`r=\stackrel{~}{r}`$ we have the boundary term $`\stackrel{~}{r}^2v_{,r}^1|_{\stackrel{~}{r}}I_1(p(\stackrel{~}{r}))`$. For solutions with finite extent we may choose $`\stackrel{~}{r}=R`$ in order to obtain $`R^2v_{,r}^1|_RI_1|_{p=0}=R^4M^1I_1|_{p=0}=0`$. For AFMD solutions extending to infinity the boundary term vanishes as $`\stackrel{~}{r}\mathrm{}`$: Note that $`I_1(p)`$ is $`𝒞^1`$ at $`p=0`$ and $`I_1|_{p=0}=0`$ as well as $`\frac{d}{dp}I_1|_{p=0}=I_0|_{p=0}=0`$. Therefore, $`I_1(p)=pf(p)`$, where $`f(p)`$ is some function with $`f|_{p=0}=0`$. Consequently, $`\stackrel{~}{r}^2v_{,r}^1|_{\stackrel{~}{r}}I_1(p(\stackrel{~}{r}))=\stackrel{~}{r}^2\rho (\stackrel{~}{r})\frac{p(\stackrel{~}{r})}{p_{,r}(\stackrel{~}{r})}f(p(\stackrel{~}{r}))`$, which must go to zero as $`\stackrel{~}{r}\mathrm{}`$, if the AFMD conditions are assumed. Now, we define

$$a(r):=r^2\frac{d}{dr}(r^2v_{,r}^1)=4r^1v_{,r}^14\pi \rho v_{,r}^2.$$
(15)
The function $`a(r)`$ is strictly positive, as we will show in the following. We investigate the function $`b(r):=r^3v_{,r}^2a(r)=4r^2v_{,r}4\pi r^3\rho `$. In a neighborhood of $`r=0`$, i.e., in the limit $`r0`$, $`b(r)`$ is given by the positive function $`b_{approx}(r)=4r^2\frac{4\pi r}{3}\rho _c4\pi r^3\rho _c=\frac{4\pi }{3}r^3\rho _c0`$. Differentiating $`b(r)`$ we obtain $`b_{,r}(r)=4\pi r^2\rho 4\pi r^3\rho _{,r}>0`$, which results from $`\rho _{,r}=\frac{d\rho }{dp}p_{,r}<0`$. We conclude that $`b(r)`$ is monotonic and $`b(r)>0`$ for all $`r>0`$. Therefore, $`a(r)>0`$ for all $`r>0`$.

Combining (10) and (14) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3xa(r)I_1(p(x))`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{R}},`$ for solutions with finite extent, and, (16a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3xa(r)I_1(p(x))`$ $`=0,`$ if the fluid extends to infinity, (16b)
provided that the solution is AFMD. From these equations the claim of the theorem follows easily.

Remark. (Relationship between theorem IV.5 and theorem IV.6). For the large class of monotonic, piecewise $`𝒞^1`$ equations of state the $`I_1`$-theorem IV.6 comprises the $`I_0`$-theorem IV.5. This is simply because $`I_1(p)`$ is the integral of $`I_0(p)`$ (compare proposition III.3).

Remark. One might conjecture that it is possible to achieve further improvements of theorem IV.6 by introducing higher integrals of $`I_0(p)`$, i.e., $`I_2(p)`$, $`I_3(p)`$, etc. In particular one might think of an extension of theorem IV.6 where $`I_1`$ is replaced by such an integral. However, already the $`I_3`$-analogue of theorem IV.6 seems to be wrong (see the following example). So we may say that theorem IV.6 is almost the “best we can get”, at least in the sense that probably no further “integral extension” exists.

Example. Consider the equation of state given by $`\rho (v)=\rho _{}v^6(1|v|^{2.5})`$, $`p(v)=\rho (v)𝑑v`$. This equation of state is differentiable and monotonic (at least up to $`|v_{max}|=0.87`$). Applying the $`I_1`$-theorem IV.6 we find that $`I_1(v)`$ is greater than zero up to $`|v_1|=0.76`$. For all solutions with central potential $`|v_c|`$ less than $`|v_1|`$, theorem IV.6 guarantees infinite extent and infinite mass. The hypothetical $`I_3`$-criterion would predict infinite extent for all $`|v_c|`$ in the considered range, i.e., for all $`|v_c||v_{max}|=0.87`$. Now, the numerical observations are the following: Every solution corresponding to central potential $`|v_c|`$ less than a critical value $`|v_{crit}|=0.86`$ has infinite extent and infinite mass. However, for $`|v_c|>|v_{crit}|`$ the solution possesses finite extent! The numerical results are in accord with theorem IV.6, but they contradict the hypothetical $`I_3`$-analogue.

## V Einstein: Basics

We will now investigate static perfect fluids in General Relativity. Several quantities and equations which have been relevant in the Newtonian description possess direct analogues in General Relativity. To facilitate comparison we will use the same symbols for corresponding quantities; moreover, wherever permitted, we will investigate the Newtonian limit.

The metric for a static spacetime can be written as

$$ds^2=V^2(x)dt^2+g_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j.$$
(17)
Here, $`g`$ is a Riemannian metric on the 3-space $`M`$, $`V`$ a (positive) scalar function on $`M`$. $`M`$ can be viewed as a hypersurface orthogonal to a timelike Killing vector whose norm is $`V`$.

A static perfect fluid solution is a regular solution to the Euler-Einstein system, i.e., $`(V,g_{ij})`$ must satisfy

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ $`=4\pi (\rho +3p)V`$ (18a)
$`R_{ij}`$ $`=V^1_i_jV+4\pi (\rho p)g_{ij}`$ (18b)
$`_ip`$ $`=V^1(\rho +p)_iV.`$ (18c)
The covariant derivative $`_i`$ and the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ refer to $`g`$. Note that (18c) is not an independent equation; it can be derived from the Bianchi identity, using (18b) and (18a). Equations (18) are to be understood in connection with an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ relating the (energy) density and the pressure.

Integrating (18c) we see that the function $`V`$ can be regarded as a function of $`p`$.

$$\mathrm{log}Y(p):=\mathrm{log}V(p)\mathrm{log}V_S=_0^pdp^{}(\rho (p^{})+p^{})^1=:\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)$$
(19)
$`Y:=V/V_S`$ is the “normalized” quantity. For solutions with finite extent, $`V_S`$ is the value of $`V`$ at the surface $`\{p=0\}`$ (such that $`Y=1`$ there); at the surface the interior metric (17) is joined to an exterior vacuum solution (by standard junction conditions), i.e., a Schwarzschild metric in spherical symmetry. By (19) we see that $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ can be viewed as functions of $`Y`$. If $`\rho (p)`$ is monotonic, then $`\rho (Y)`$ is monotonic as well. $`p(Y)`$ and $`\rho (Y)`$ are related by $`_1^Y𝑑Y^{}\rho (Y^{})=pY`$.

Remark. For smooth, monotonic equations of state, it has been shown Rendall/Schmidt:1991  that spherically symmetric solutions of (18) satisfy $`p(r)0`$, $`\rho (r)0`$ and $`V(r)1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ (where $`r`$ is an appropriate radial coordinate). Hence, $`V=Y`$, if the fluid extends to infinity. Like in Newtonian theory $`p(r)`$ is a decreasing and $`V(r)`$ is an increasing function; their central values are again denoted by $`p_c`$, $`V_c`$.

Remark. The Newtonian equations follow from (17) and (18). Writing $`V`$ as $`V=c^2\mathrm{exp}(\frac{u}{c^2})`$ we may regard $`u`$ as the generalization of the Newtonian potential. E.g., (18c) becomes $`_ip=(\rho +\frac{p}{c^2})_iu`$. In the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$ the metric (17) coincides with the Minkowski metric, and, e.g., (18c) becomes $`_ip=\rho _iu`$. Analogously, in the Newtonian limit, the normalized $`Y`$ is related to the normalized Newtonian potential $`v`$, $`Y=V/V_S=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{uu_S}{c^2})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{v}{c^2})`$.

## VI Einstein: The quantities $`I_i`$

###### Definition VI.1.

Consider a barotropic equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ ($`pp_{max}`$) with $`\rho (p)`$ piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ on $`[0,p_{max}]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p):=_0^p𝑑p^{}(\rho (p^{})+p^{})^1.$$
(20)
###### Assumption 3.

We require that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ exists. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ is $`𝒞^0[0,p_{max}]`$

###### Assumption 4.

We assume that the limit $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ exists.

###### Definition VI.2.

Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ as above. We define the following quantities:

$`J_0(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho }}[1e^\mathrm{\Gamma }]H_0(p)3\rho ^1{\displaystyle _0^p}𝑑p^{}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^{})}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho (p^{})+p^{}}}H_0(p^{})`$ (21a)
$`\text{where}H_0(p):=\rho (p)+\rho (p)e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)}+6pe^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)}`$ (21b)
$`I_0(p)`$ $`:=1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)}6e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)}\rho ^1p`$ (21c)
$`I_1(p)`$ $`:=6e^\mathrm{\Gamma }p\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}}5e^\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho +p)^1`$ (21d)
$`I_2(p)`$ $`:=5(\rho +p){\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa }{dp}}+\kappa ^2+10\kappa (\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\rho +p}{\rho +3p}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dp}})`$ (21e)
Remark. In complete analogy with section III, $`J_0|_{p=0}=0`$ and $`I_0|_{p=0}=0`$. The comments concerning assumption 1 and 2 in section III apply here as well.

Remark. (The Newtonian limit). In the Newtonian limit, i.e., $`c\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)=_0^p𝑑p^{}(\rho (p^{})+p^{}/c^2)^1`$ coincides with the Newtonian $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)=_0^p𝑑p^{}\rho ^1(p^{})`$. According to (21b), $`H_0(p)=\rho +\rho \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/c^2)+6p/c^2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/c^2)`$ becomes $`H_0(p)=2\rho `$ in the limit. Therefore, $`J_0(p)=c^2/(2\rho )[1e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }/c^2}]H_0(p)3\rho ^1_0^p𝑑p^{}(\mathrm{})`$ approximates $`J_0(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }6\rho ^1p`$, which coincides with (4b). Note that also $`I_0`$ (21c) coincides with $`J_0`$ in the limit $`c\mathrm{}`$. Analogously, $`I_1J_1`$ and the relativistic $`I_2`$ (21e) approximates the Newtonian $`I_2`$.

###### Proposition VI.3.

Using the same notation as in proposition III.3 we have

$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{J_00\}`$ (22a)
$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{J_00\}`$ (22b)
$`\{I_10\}`$ $`\{I_00\}\{J_00\}.`$ (22c)
Proof. For the first inclusions note that $`I_0`$ is the integral of $`I_1`$, i.e., $`\frac{d}{dp}I_0(p)=I_1(p)`$, and $`I_0|_{p=0}=0`$. Second, with $`I_0\rho =\rho \rho Y6pY`$ we obtain $`H_0=2\rho I_0\rho `$, whereby $`J_0`$ becomes $`J_0=\frac{1}{2\rho }[(1+Y)I_0\rho 6_1^YI_0\rho 𝑑Y]`$. Note that $`Y(0,1]`$. Therefore, $`I_00`$ implies $`J_00`$ and the other inclusions hold as well.

Remark. $`\{J_00\}`$ defines the so-called Buchdahl equation of state Buchdahl:1964 , i.e., $`p=\frac{1}{6}(\rho _{}^{1/5}\rho ^{1/5})^1\rho ^{6/5}`$ ($`\rho <\rho _{}`$).

Remark. The following relations also hold: $`\{I_20\}\{I_10\}`$ and $`\{I_20\}\{I_10\}`$. For a proof see Beig/Simon:1992 .

Comments. In the subsequent sections we will only be concerned with the quantities $`I_0`$ and especially $`J_0`$. $`I_1`$ appears in a theorem which basically states that a solution (not necessarily AFMD) with $`I_10`$ must have finite extent. See Simon:2001 . In General Relativity spherical symmetry of perfect fluid solutions is a rather involved topic Lindblom/Masood-ul-Alam:1994 ; Lindblom:1993 . $`I_2`$ plays the main part in a “symmetry theorem”. From $`I_20`$ it can be concluded that the (asymptotically flat) solution must necessarily be spherically symmetric Beig/Simon:1991 ; Beig/Simon:1992 .

## VII Einstein: Criteria

In analogy to the Newtonian case we formulate criteria for (in)finiteness of static perfect fluid solutions. The proofs involve relativistic generalizations of Pohozaev’s identity.

Remark. The differentiability assumptions for $`p(r)`$, $`V(r)`$, etc. are analogous to the Newtonian case.

###### Definition VII.1.

A solution of (18) is called AFMD, if for some $`ϵ>0`$

$$1V=O^{\mathrm{}}(x^1)g_{ij}\delta _{ij}=O^{\mathrm{}}(x^1)\rho =O^{\mathrm{}}(x^{3ϵ})$$
(23)
in suitable coordinates $`\{x^i\}`$. By (18c), $`p=O^{\mathrm{}}(x^{4ϵ})`$. For a generalization in terms of Sobolev spaces see Simon:2001 .

###### Theorem VII.2.

Simon:1993 ; Simon:2001 . Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ being piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ and satisfying assumptions 3 and 4.

1. Let $`(Y=V/V_S,\rho ,p)`$ be an AFMD solution to the Euler-Einstein equations (18) with $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{p}>0`$. If $`I_00`$ ($`I_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then the solution has finite extent.
2. If $`I_00`$ ($`I_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then there is no AFMD solution to the Euler-Einstein equations (18) satisfying $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

Sketch of proof. The proof of A is based on an inequality which can be understood as some kind of “Pohozaev inequality”. To establish B a version of the positive mass theorem is used.

Remark. For the Buchdahl case $`I_00`$, i.e., $`p=\frac{1}{6}(\rho _{}^{1/5}\rho ^{1/5})^1\rho ^{6/5}`$ ($`\rho <\rho _{}`$), we have the following explicit form for the corresponding static perfect fluid solutions Buchdahl:1964 :

$$V(r)=1\frac{M}{\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}\rho _{}M^4+r^2}+\frac{M}{2}}g_{ij}=\left(\frac{2}{1+V(r)}\right)^4\delta _{ij}.$$
(24)
Here, $`M`$ is bounded by $`3M^2<16\pi \rho _{}`$.

###### Definition VII.3.

From $`Y`$, its derivatives, and $`p`$, $`\rho `$ we define the following symmetric tensor $`\sigma _{ij}`$:

$`\sigma _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1Y^2}{Y}}_a_cY+6Y_{,a}Y_{,c}2g_{ac}Y_{,d}Y^{,d}+g_{ac}[4\pi (1Y^2)(\rho +p)16\pi pY(1Y)]`$ (25)
$`16\pi g_{ij}{\displaystyle _1^Y}𝑑Y^{}H_0(Y^{}),`$
where $`H_0(Y)`$ is again $`H_0(Y)=\rho +\rho Y+6pY`$.

###### Proposition VII.4.

(Relativistic Pohozaev identity). Assume spherical symmetry. The metric $`g_{ij}`$ can be written as $`ds^2=h(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, and, moreover, there exists the conformal Killing vector $`\xi _adx^a=r\sqrt{h}dr`$ (“asymptotic dilation”). We have the following identity:

$$^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=8\pi \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}[(1Y)H_0(Y)+6_1^Y𝑑Y^{}H_0(Y^{})]$$
(26)
Proof. $`_{(a}\xi _{b)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}g_{ab}`$. The tensor $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is divergence free, $`_i\sigma ^{ij}=0`$; its trace is $`8\pi [(1Y)H_0(Y)+6_1^Y𝑑Y^{}H_0(Y^{})]`$.

###### Proposition VII.5.

(Integrated version). Consider a spherically symmetric static perfect fluid solution, i.e., let $`V(r)`$, $`p(r)`$, $`\rho (r)`$ (with $`g_{ij}(r)`$) be a solution of (18). Assume AFMD. Then,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3x(\rho J_0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{R}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{R}}\right)^1,`$ for solutions with finite extent, and, (27a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{^3}{}}d^3x(\rho J_0)`$ $`=0,`$ if the fluid extends to infinity. (27b)
In (27a), $`M`$ denotes the mass, and $`R`$ the radius of the finite fluid object; $`\{x^i\}`$ are the Cartesian coordinates associated with the spherical coordinates $`\{r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$, so that $`d^3x=r^2drd\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof. From (26) we have $`^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=16\pi \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\rho J_0`$. We integrate the l.h. side of this equation for fluids with finite extent first.

$$\underset{\mathrm{Ball}(R)}{}\sqrt{g}d^3x^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=4\pi R^2\sigma _{ij}|_R\xi ^jR^1\frac{1}{\sqrt{h(R)}}x^i=16\pi R^3Y_{,r}^2|_Rh(R)^1$$
(28)
The exterior solution is Schwarzschild, i.e., $`V^2(r)=(1\frac{2M}{r})`$ and $`h(r)=V^2(r)`$ ($`rR`$), so that $`Y_{,r}|_R=V_S^1V_{,r}|_R=V_S^2MR^2`$ (with $`V_S=V(R)`$). Hence, in (28), $`Y_{,r}^2|_Rh(R)^1=M^2R^4(1\frac{2M}{R})^1`$ and (27a) is established. For solutions extending to infinity, again $`_{\mathrm{Ball}(r)}\sqrt{g}d^3x^i(\sigma _{ij}\xi ^j)=4\pi r\sigma _{ij}x^jx^ih(r)^1`$. Structurally, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is mainly built up by terms such as $`Y_{,r}^2g_{ij}`$ or $`\rho g_{ij}`$ . Taking account of $`g_{ij}x^ix^j=r^2h(r)`$ we obtain $`\sigma _{ij}x^jx^irh(r)^1r^3Y_{,r}^2`$, or $`r^3\rho `$, or the like. By the AFMD conditions (23) these terms converge to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In similar expressions appearing in $`\sigma _{ij}`$ it is helpful to use $`h(r)=(1\frac{2m(r)}{r})^1`$ (where $`m(r)=4\pi _0^r𝑑rr^2\rho `$), which follows from the field equations (18b). Eventually, by (23), $`\sigma _{ij}x^jx^irh(r)^10`$ ($`r\mathrm{}`$).

###### Theorem VII.6.

Assume spherical symmetry. Consider an equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ being piecewise $`𝒞^0`$ and satisfying assumptions 3 and 4.

1. Let $`(Y=V_S^1V,\rho ,p)`$ be an AFMD solution to the Euler-Einstein equations (18) with $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{p}>0`$. If $`J_00`$ ($`J_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then the solution has finite extent.
2. If $`J_00`$ ($`J_00`$) for all $`p[0,\stackrel{~}{p}]`$, then there is no AFMD solution to the Euler-Einstein equations (18) satisfying $`p\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

Proof. The theorem is a direct consequence of proposition VII.5.

Remark. (Relationship between theorem VII.2 and theorem VII.6). The $`I_0`$-theorem VII.2 does not rely on the existence of a conformal Killing vector; spherical symmetry need not be presupposed. In spherical symmetry, however, the $`I_0`$-theorem is covered by the wider $`J_0`$-theorem VII.6. See proposition VI.3.

## VIII Examples and Discussion

Example. (The Generalized Buchdahl family of equations of state). Consider the following family of equations of state,

$$p(\rho )=\frac{1}{n+1}\frac{\rho ^{\frac{n+1}{n}}}{\rho _{}^{\frac{1}{n}}\rho ^{\frac{1}{n}}}(\rho <\rho _{}).$$
(29)
The case $`n=5`$ corresponds to the Buchdahl equation of state (see section VI). Equivalently, (29) can be represented by

$$\rho (Y)=\rho _{}(1Y)^np(Y)=\frac{\rho _{}}{n+1}Y^1(1Y)^{n+1}(Y(0,1]).$$
(30)
From (21a) and (21b) we can compute $`J_0(Y)`$ which results in

$$J_0(Y)=\left[1\frac{6}{n+1}\right](1Y)\left[1\frac{1}{2}(1Y)(1\frac{6}{n+2})\right].$$
(31)
The last bracket is greater than zero for all $`Y[0,1]`$, so we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& n>5& & J_0>0& \\ & n=5& & J_00& \\ & n<5& & J_0<0& .\end{array}$$
(32)
Consequently, theorem VII.6 applies, i.e., we get finiteness of the fluid configuration for $`n<5`$ and infiniteness for $`n>5`$. Note incidentally that this result could also have been obtained using the weaker $`I_0`$-criterion VII.2.

Remark. Note that (32) also holds for the polytropes in Newtonian theory. We see that in this sense the Generalized Buchdahl family is the relativistic analogue of the (Newtonian) polytropes.

Example. (The polytropes in General Relativity). The polytropic equations of state, $`p(\rho )=(n+1)^1\rho _{}^{1/n}\rho ^{(n+1)/n}`$, have the following $`[\rho (Y),p(Y)]`$ form:

$$\rho =\rho _{}(n+1)^n(Y^{\frac{1}{n+1}}1)^np=(n+1)^n\rho _{}(Y^{\frac{1}{n+1}}1)^{n+1}$$
(33)
With some support of a computer algebra program one can show that

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& n>5& & J_0>0& (Y)\\ & n=5& & J_0>0& (Y)\\ & n<5& & J_0<0& (YY_0(n))\end{array}$$
(34)
Here, $`Y_0(n)`$ is some value of $`Y`$, where $`J_0(Y)`$ changes sign; e.g., $`Y_0|_{n=4}0.64`$. For $`n5`$, $`Y_0(n)`$ approximates $`1`$. Obviously, for solutions with central “potential” $`Y_cY_0`$, theorem VII.6 applies (predicting finiteness of solutions).

Remark. Applying the $`I_0`$-criterion (theorem VII.2) to the last example we obtain qualitatively similar results. However, since it is weaker, the breakdown of the $`I_0`$-criterion occurs somewhat earlier. Note further that for certain values $`Y_c<Y_0`$ one indeed finds solutions which are not finite but still AFMD Nilsson/Uggla:2000 .

Example. (Asymptotically polytropic equation of state). In Newtonian theory asymptotically polytropic equations of state can be written as $`\rho (v)=K|v|^n(1+O(|v|^m))`$ (for some $`m>0`$). For $`m1`$ they coincide with the quasipolytropic equations of state Makino:1998 ; Simon:2001  (see below). In analogy to above, up to a certain central density, theorems IV.5 and IV.6 ensure finiteness/infiniteness (for $`n<5`$/$`n>5`$ respectively). Again, for certain values exceeding the critical central density, one finds (AFMD) solutions extending to infinity or finite solutions (for $`n<5`$ or $`n>5`$ respectively). Compare partly with the remarks at the end of section IV. Note that these examples indicate that the breakdown of the $`I_0`$\- or $`I_1`$-criterion is not at all artificial; on the contrary it seems to be an important feature, anticipating the appearance of the counterintuitive behavior we observe for higher densities.

Example. (Degenerate matter). An equation of state satisfying $`p=K\rho ^{(n+1)/n}(1+O(\rho ^{1/n}))`$ (as $`\rho 0`$) is called quasipolytropic Simon:2001 . Note the following important result: Spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions corresponding to quasipolytropic equations of state with $`n<3`$ have finite extent Makino:1998 . Degenerate matter is usually described by quasipolytropic equations of state with $`n=3/2`$, so we know that the corresponding star model is finite. In this connection it is instructive to investigate how restrictive the $`J_0`$-criterion is. Consider the equation of state of a completely degenerate, ideal Fermi gas (see, e.g., Shapiro/Teukolsky:1983 ). For degenerate electrons (white dwarfs) $`J_0`$ is negative for all admissible densities (and far beyond), i.e., as long as the energy density is dominated by the rest mass of the ions. For neutron stars (degenerate neutrons) $`J_00`$ is valid up to densities of $`10^{17}\text{g}\text{cm}^3`$ which is beyond the top end of neutron star densities. As an example for a more realistic neutron star model take the Harrison-Wheeler equation of state (see, e.g., Shapiro/Teukolsky:1983  for an introduction). $`J_00`$ holds for $`\rho 7\times 10^{11}\text{g}\text{cm}^3`$. This is slightly beyond the density region where “neutron drip” occurs. Sometimes the Harrison-Wheeler equation of state is replaced by different equations of state for such densities, so the outcome is satisfying enough also in this case. Summing up we see that the $`J_0`$-theorem VII.6 is rather generally applicable also for these (already known) situations.

## IX Pohozaev Identities

The present section provides the necessary background material to understand how “Pohozaev-like” identities come into existence: We outline a method of constructing such identities. In particular, we re-derive Pohozaev’s identity Pohozaev:1965  in the Newtonian case (see equation (8)) and we construct its direct analogue for the relativistic case (see (26)).

Basics. Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Riemannian manifold, $`\mathrm{dim}M=3`$, with Ricci tensor $`R_{ij}`$ and curvature scalar $`R`$. Assume that $`M`$ possesses a conformal Killing vector $`\xi `$, $`_{(a}\xi _{b)}=\frac{1}{3}^c\xi _cg_{ab}`$. Consider the conformal rescaling

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{ij}.$$
(35)
We define

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{ij}:=\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{R},\tau _{ij}:=\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{ij}.$$
(36)
The tensor $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is divergence free (with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) and symmetric, thus $`_i\tau ^{ij}=\mathrm{\Omega }^1\tau _k^kg^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, wherefore

$$_i(\tau ^{ij}\xi _j)=\tau _k^k\left[\frac{1}{3}(^l\xi _l)+\mathrm{\Omega }^1g^{ij}(_i\mathrm{\Omega })\xi _j\right].$$
(37)
Aim. Our aim is to construct Pohozaev-like identities, i.e., relations of the form

$$^i(\alpha _i(x))=\beta (x)J+\gamma (x),$$
(38)
where $`\alpha _i(x)`$ shows sensible asymptotic behavior, and $`\beta (x)`$ and $`\gamma (x)`$ are strictly positive (or negative) functions. We require $`J`$ to consist of expressions manifestly determined by the equation of state, such as $`\rho `$, $`p`$, $`\frac{d\rho }{dp}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$, and others. Such identities might give rise to nontrivial theorems; compare with the Pohozaev identity (8) and the resulting theorem IV.5. Our starting point to obtain these identities will be equation (37).

Identities in the Newtonian case. We will illustrate the procedure for the (easier) Newtonian case first. The relativistic case is completely analogous, even though slightly complex. Recall that Newtonian perfect fluid solutions are described by the potential $`v`$, a scalar field on a flat background $`g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$. We consider conformal rescalings where the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a function of $`v`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$.

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(v)g_{ij}g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(39)
From (36) we get the following for the tensor $`\tau _{ij}`$ (we use the notation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dv}`$):

$$\tau _{ij}=(2\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime })v_{,i}v_{,j}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}v_{,ij}+(\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)v^{,k}v_{,k}\delta _{ij}+\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }v\delta _{ij}.$$
(40)
On $`(^3,\delta _{ij})`$ we may use the dilation $`\xi _i=x_i`$ as the conformal Killing vector, i.e., $`_{(a}x_{b)}=\delta _{ab}`$, and (37) becomes

$$_i(\tau ^{ij}x_j)=\tau _k^k+\mathrm{\Omega }^1\tau _k^kx^i\mathrm{\Omega }_{,i}.$$
(41)
Based on (41) the idea is to modify the tensor $`\tau _{ij}`$ in order to get a r.h. side of the form (38). We define

$`\sigma _{ij}`$ $`:=\tau _{ij}+d_{ij}`$ (42a)
$`d_{ij}`$ $`:=d_1\delta _{ij}+d_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}x_{(i}v_{,j)}+d_3v_{,i}v_{,j}`$ (42b)
In (42b) the $`d_i`$ are functions $`d_i(v)`$, $`\xi _i=x_i`$ is the conformal Killing vector, $`r`$ its norm. Hence, $`d_{ij}`$ is a tensor consisting of functions of $`v`$, derivatives of $`v`$ and the conformal Killing vector. The ansatz (42b) for $`d_{ij}`$ is general provided that we assume spherical symmetry. This is because we are only interested in the trace of $`d_{ij}`$ and the expression $`x^j^id_{ij}`$ (see below). Terms like $`v_{ij}`$ , $`v_{,k}v^{,k}\delta _{ij}`$, or $`x_ix_j`$ can be subsumed under the ansatz (42b).

Replacing $`\tau _{ij}`$ by $`\sigma _{ij}`$ in (41) we obtain $`_i(\sigma ^{ij}x_j)=\tau _k^k+\mathrm{\Omega }^1\tau _k^kx^i\mathrm{\Omega }_{,i}+d_k^k+x^j^id_{ij}`$, i.e., explicitly,

$`_i(\sigma ^{ij}x_j)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi \rho \mathrm{\Omega }^{}(v)+3d_1(v)+4\pi \rho d_2(v)+`$
$`+v_{,r}^2[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}+d_2^{}d_3]+rv_{,r}[8\pi \rho \mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2+d_1^{}+8\pi \rho d_3]+`$
$`+rv_{,r}^3[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+d_3^{}].`$
Here, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ abbreviates $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=2\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. Without loss of generality we have restricted ourselves to spherical symmetry.

For a large class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)`$ and the free functions $`d_i(v)`$, the r.h. side of equation (IX) is exactly of the form (38). Integrating the total divergence on the l.h. side we obtain

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{\mathrm{Ball}(r)}{}d^3x^i(\sigma _{ij}x^j)=r^3v_{,r}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2r^2v_{,r}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+r^3[d_1+\frac{v_{,r}}{r}d_2+v_{,r}^2d_3].$$
(44)
If this expression can be evaluated at $`r=R`$ for finite fluid solutions, then (IX) is a candidate for a sensible Pohozaev-like identity. For AFMD solutions the existence of the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ of (44) should be investigated.

Example. (Pohozaev identity). We choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }(v)=v^2`$. Note that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=0`$. Choose $`d_20`$ and $`d_30`$, so (IX) becomes

$$_i(\sigma ^{ij}x_j)=16\pi \rho v+3d_1(v)+rv_{,r}[32\pi \rho +d_1^{}].$$
(45)
The last bracket vanishes if $`d_1(v)=32\pi p`$, so that we obtain

$$_i(\sigma ^{ij}x_j)=16\pi (\rho v+6p),$$
(46)
which coincides with the Pohozaev identity (8). Moreover, as expected, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ (as given by (42) which is essentially (40)) coincides with (7).

Remark. An even wider class of identities could be constructed admitting more general conformal factors in (39), e.g., let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(v,v_{,r})`$. In this way one could possibly obtain identities adapted to specific problems (i.e., classes of equations of state).

Relativistic Pohozaev identity. The relativistic case can be treated in analogy to the Newtonian one. However, in order to simplify the presentation we confine ourselves to a certain choice of the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from the beginning. The metric for a spherically symmetric 3-space can be written as

$$g_{ij}dx^idx^j=h(r)dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)(h>0).$$
(47)
Such a metric is conformally flat and possesses the conformal Killing vector $`\xi ^a`$,

$$\xi _adx^a=r\sqrt{h}dr,_{(a}\xi _{b)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}g_{ab}.$$
(48)
For perfect fluid solutions $`h(r)=(1\frac{2m(r)}{r})^1`$, where $`m(r)=4\pi _0^r𝑑rr^2\rho `$, so that –for AFMD solutions– $`\xi `$ can be viewed as an “asymptotic dilation”.

We make the following choice for the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(Y)g_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)=(1Y)^2$$
(49)
From (36) we calculate the tensor $`\tau _{ac}`$,

$`\tau _{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1Y^2}{Y}}_a_cY+6Y_{,a}Y_{,c}2g_{ac}Y_{,d}Y^{,d}+`$ (50)
$`+g_{ac}[4\pi (1Y^2)(\rho +p)16\pi pY(1Y)]`$
With $`\sigma _{ij}:=\tau _{ij}+d_{ij}`$ and the simplified ansatz $`d_{ij}=d_1(Y)g_{ij}`$ we modify equation (37) in order to get

$`_i(\sigma ^{ij}\xi _j)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}\tau _k^k+\mathrm{\Omega }^1\tau _k^kg^{ij}\xi _i\mathrm{\Omega }_{,j}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}d_k^k+\xi ^j^id_{ij}`$ (51a)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}(\tau _k^k+d_k^k)+h^1Y_{,r}\xi _r[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dY}}d_1(Y)+16\pi \rho +16\pi \rho Y+96\pi pY].`$ (51b)
Equation (51b) suggests the choice $`\frac{d}{dY}d_1(Y)=16\pi H_0(Y)=16\pi \rho 16\pi \rho Y96\pi pY`$. Consequently, $`d_1(Y)=16\pi 𝑑YH_0(Y)`$, and

$$_i(\sigma ^{ij}\xi _j)=8\pi \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\left[(1Y)H_0(Y)+6\underset{1}{\overset{Y}{}}𝑑Y^{}H_0(Y^{})\right]$$
(52)
$$\text{with}H_0(Y)=\rho +\rho Y+6pY.$$
(53)
Equation (52) is the relativistic counterpart of Pohozaev’s identity (see (26)). Recall that the tensor $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is given by $`\sigma _{ij}=\tau _{ij}+d_{ij}`$, i.e.,

$$\sigma _{ij}=\text{(}\text{50}\text{)}16\pi g_{ij}_1^Y𝑑Y^{}H_0(Y^{}).$$
(54)
Remark. In order to simplify the presentation we have chosen a particular conformal factor in (49). Obviously, without specifying $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Y)`$, via a more general ansatz for $`d_{ij}`$ (as in 42b), we would arrive at relativistic analogues of (IX). Since we have not used such identities in the paper, we refrain from presenting the (lengthy) formulae here.

## Appendix A Mathematical properties of $`\rho (p)`$

Assumptions 1 and 2 in section III are independent. From the existence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$, by (56), we may conclude that $`\rho p^1`$ cannot be bounded as $`p0`$. However, $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ need not exist as is shown by the following example. Define a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ function $`s(p)`$ with the properties $`0s1`$, $`s(p_n)=1`$, $`\mathrm{supp}s_n[p_np_n^2,p_n+p_n^2]`$; where $`p_n=2^n`$ ($`n`$). Consider the equation of state $`\rho (p)=p(s(p)+p^ϵ)^1`$ ($`0<ϵ<1`$). $`\rho `$ is in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(0,1)`$ and in $`𝒞^0[0,1)`$, with $`\rho (p=0)=0`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ exists, as can easily be seen. However, the limit $`\rho ^1p`$ as $`p0`$ does not exist. Conversely, take the equation of state $`\rho (p)=p\mathrm{log}p`$ ($`pp_{max}<1`$). The limit $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p`$ exists. However, $`_ϵ^p𝑑p^{}p^1(\mathrm{log}p^{})^1=\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}p)\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}ϵ)`$ diverges as $`ϵ0`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ does not exist.

If the equation of state $`\rho (p)`$ is monotonic on $`[0,ϵ)`$, then assumption 2 follows from assumption 1. To show this note that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)=_0^p𝑑p^{}\rho ^1(p^{})\rho ^1(p)_0^p𝑑p^{}=\rho ^1(p)p.$$
(55)
This is because $`\rho ^1(p^{})\rho ^1(p)`$ $`p^{}p`$. Letting $`p0`$ the claim is established.

Evidently, if 1 and 2 hold, $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=0`$. For $`\rho |_{p=0}>0`$ this is obvious, so let us indirectly assume that $`\rho |_{p=0}=0`$ with $`lim_{p0}\rho ^1p=c0`$. Choose $`\stackrel{~}{p}>0`$, such that $`\rho ^1p>c/2p<\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

$$\mathrm{}>_0^{\stackrel{~}{p}}\rho ^1(p)𝑑p=_0^{\stackrel{~}{p}}\rho ^1(p)pp^1𝑑p>\frac{c}{2}_0^{\stackrel{~}{p}}p^1𝑑p=\mathrm{}$$
(56)
A contradiction.

If it exists, $`lim_{p0}(\frac{d\rho }{dp})^1=0`$; this is shown by simply applying de l’Hospital’s rule. Note, however, that there are monotonic equations of state satisfying assumption 1 (and, consequently, assumption 2), whose limit $`lim_{p0}\frac{dp}{d\rho }`$ is not defined. As an example, take $`\rho (p)=_0^pp^{1/(n+1)}(1s(p))𝑑p`$ (where $`s(p)`$ is defined as above).

### Acknowledgements

I am grateful to R. Beig for helpful discussions and his support and to C. Uggla for inspiring conversations. In particular I would like to thank W. Simon who initiated the work on finiteness of static perfect fluids; his comments were always very valuable and highly appreciated. This work was supported by the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Doktorandenprogramm der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften).