PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 41, NUMBER 12 15 JUNE 1990

Can black holes support a gravitating massive scalar field?

Valeria Ferrari
International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Dipartimento di Fisica "G. Marconi, "
Uniuersita di Roma, 1-00185 Rome, Italy

Basilis C. Xanthopoulos
Department of Physics, Uniuersity of Crete and Research Center of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece
(Received 1 1 January 1990)
We have used the Kaluza-Klein theory to study a class of possible couplings between gravity and
massive scalar fields. The Einstein equations have been integrated and the conformal structure of
the spacetime has been explicitly determined.

I. INTRODUCTION This is usually referred to as a "minimally coupled" (MC)

One of the most remarkable predictions of the theory
of general relativity is that the collapse of astrophysical
configurations, as complicated as massive stars, eventual-
ly leads to the formation of a macroscopical object, a
black hole, which is identified by only three parameters:
the total mass, the angular momentum, and the charge.
The corresponding geometry is described by the Kerr-
Newman family of solutions. Conjectured by Wheeler,
and proved in successive steps by the work of Israel, Car-
ter, Hawking, Wald, Robinson, and Mazur, this is the
essence of the "no-hair theorem" for black holes.
The no-hair theorem has now been established (1984),
but only in the framework of the two classical interac-
tions, gravity and electromagnetism. However, since
black holes are formed out of strongly interacting materi-
al, as the nuclei of stellar components, and since scalar
and vector mesons are responsible for mediating the
strong interactions, there could exist a field exterior to
black holes associated with these particles.
The question whether the existence of black holes can
be compatible with the presence of a scalar field was con-
sidered by ~ e k e n s t e i n "in~ 1972. H e showed that a static
o r stationary black hole cannot support an exterior mass-
less or massive scalar field, if the solution is required to
be asymptotically flat and free of naked singularities. (He
also ruled out vector and spin-2 fields.)
Bekenstein's conclusions are reached on the basis of
the following assumptions: (i) The physical scalars must
be bounded everywhere in the exterior region, and on the
nonsingular horizon; (ii) the scalar field is a neutral, spin-
less meson field described by the energy-momentum ten-
sor
scalar field. m =O corresponds to the massless case.
Thus, black holes cannot support an exterior M C scalar
field. These conclusions confirmed a result obtained in
1968 by Janis, Newman, and ~ i n i c o u r . ' They found a
static spherically symmetric solution of Einstein's equa-
tions coupled to a M C scalar field, which is a generaliza-
tion of the Schwarzschild solution, and exhibits a naked
singularity instead of the horizon. In 1970 chase4 more
generally showed that in static and asymptotically flat
solutions coupled with a M C massless scalar field, the
field is always singular on a simply connected event hor-
izon. The behavior of the M C massless scalar field was
also analyzed in terms of scalar perturbations of a
Schwarzschild solution by price5 and ~ e i t e l b o i m and
, ~ it
was shown that the field must vanish in the exterior of
the star.
But the story does not end here. Subsequent investiga-
tions by ~ e k e n s t e i n ' somehow weakened his previous
conclusions about the incompatibility of scalar fields with
black holes. H e proceeded as follows. H e developed a
technique to generate from any solution of Einstein-
Maxwell equations in the presence of a minimally cou-
pled massless scalar field, a new solution coupled with a
conformal massless scalar field. The novelty of these
solutions is that a new coupling gravity-scalar field is con-
sidered. In fact, a conformal scalar field is described by
an energy-momentum tensor different from ( I ) ,
and the specific equations satisfied by the conformal sca-
lar field are

where V p indicates covariant differentiation, and p

satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation as generalized in
curved spacetimes by replacing the ordinary derivative
with the covariant derivative:
where R is the scalar curvature. Incidentally, it might be
noted that since the scalar field is massless, as a conse-
quence of the Einstein equations, R is zero in these solu-
tions. Among them, he found one of particular interest.
It is a charged solution described by the metric

3652 '8
1990 The American Physical Society
 CAN BLACK HOLES SUPPORT A GRAVITATING MASSIVE.
where
e and q are, respectively, the electric and the scalar
charge of the black hole. (The conventions of the present
paper are Rab=R ma,,,b, Gab= T a b , T a b ( e ' = ~ Fbm am
- ,ga,F,,,,Fmn.)
1 The divergence of the scalar field on the
surface r = M was first regarded as a proof of the physical
unreality of this solution. Subsequently, however, Beken-
stein8 showed that the divergence of q, is not pathologi-
cal, since it is not associated with an infinite potential
barrier for test scalar particles. In addition, it is not con-
nected with an unbounded tidal acceleration between
neighboring trajectories, and n o particle terminates its
life on the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. In
conclusion, r =M should not be considered a physical
singularity. Therefore, he predicted the existence of
charged black holes with an associated conformal mass-
less scalar field.
The no-hair theorem eventually overcame the chal-
lenge provided by the conformal scalar field: in 1978
Bronnikov and ~ i r e ~ eshowed v ~ that the Bekenstein
solution is unstable under radial perturbations. However,
the legacy of this solution remained: (i) Different cou-
plings between gravity and scalar fields produce different
results, and therefore they should be investigated; (ii)
mere divergent behavior of the scalar field, in the absence
of naked singularities in the geometry, does not exclude
the possibility of the existence of black holes with an as-
sociated massless scalar field.
More recently, the consequences of the coupling be-
tween gravity and massless scalar fields have been further
investigated. For instance, the general static spherically
symmetric solution of Einstein's equations coupled with a
massless M C scalar field has been determined by Wy-
man,'' and generalized by Xanthopoulos and Zannias"
to the case of arbitrary dimension D 2 4 of the spacetime.
In addition, the general exact nonstatic solution for a
conformal massless scalar field coupled to a Robertson-
Walker geometry has been found by Deng and
~annheim.'~
However, no comparable attention has been paid to the
case when the scalar field is massive. The only result is
the one quoted above, asserting the incompatibility of
black holes with a minimally coupled massive scalar field.
Since, as we have seen, different assumptions on the na-
ture of the interaction between gravity and scalar fields
can lead to different results, it is interesting to investigate
some other possibilities.
Following the idea introduced by Kaluza and
~ l e i n , ' ~ we
, ' ~ have used a dimensional reduction of
Einstein's equations written for five dimensions in a vacu-
um, to obtain the equations describing a gravitational
field coupled with a massive scalar field in four dimen-
sions. The nature of the couplings will be discussed in
detail in the next section.
The equations have been integrated and the conformal
structure of the resulting spacetime has been explicitly
determined. The general solution is asymptotically flat,
provided the conformal factor is chosen to tend to unity
at infinity.
For a particular selection of the parameters and of the
conformal factor, we find the Bekenstein metric ( 5 ) in the
uncharged case. In our context, however, the interpreta-
tion of the solution is different, since the scalar field is
massive, and it possesses an energy-momentum tensor
different from that of the conformal massless scalar field
given in Eq. (3). The geometry is the same in both solu-
tions, but the sources are different.
Although we d o not give a definite answer to the ques-
tion put in the title of this paper, we develop a procedure
which could be used to find solutions which have the
properties of a black hole surrounded by a gravitating
massive scalar field.
It should probably be clarified that, in considering
different couplings between gravity and scalar fields, we
d o not introduce any illegitimate element into the classi-
cal theory of gravity. Needless to say that all couplings
we are considering are consistent with the Bianchi ihenti-
ties, that the energy-momentum tensor is conserved, and
that the equation satisfied by the scalar field, the massive
Klein-Gordon equation, is a consequence of the
divergence-free condition of the energy-momentum ten-
sor. We only investigate different energy-momentum ten-
sors compatible with the standard field equations.
One might ask whether we are entitled to choose ad li-
bitum any sort of couplings, although allowed by the
mathematical structure of Einstein's equations, between
gravity and scalar fields. This is, of course, a very deli-
cate question. In fact, contrary to the Einstein-Maxwell
theory, the theory of scalar fields in the framework of
general relativity is not complete: we d o not know what
the form of the Lagrangian and of the corresponding
energy-momentum tensor should be. In the absence of
any definite prescription, we can only try "experiments,"
and analyze the consequences of different couplings.
11. FROM FIVE TO FOUR DIMENSIONS
It is known that the Kaluza-Klein theory provides a
unified geometrical description of the gravitational and
the electromagnetic fields. In 1973 Belinskii and Khalat-
nikov15 showed that scalar fields can be included in this
description, and that the Kaluza-Klein theory can be un-
derstood also as a scalar-vector-tensor theory of gravity
in the spirit of the Brans-Dicke ideas. We shall here spe-
cialize to the case when only a scalar field is coupled to
gravity, addressing the reader interested in more general
cases to their paper.15
Belinskii and Khalatnikov start their investigation by
considering the five-dimensional metric
The components of the metric are assumed to be indepen-
3654 VALERIA FERRARI AND BASILIS C. XANTHOPOULOS
dent on the fifth coordinate x4. In addition, they intro-
duce a scalar function p ( x i )and assume that
Throughout the paper we shall assume that A is not a
constant. N o assumptions are made at this level on the
symmetries of the spacetime, and gik = g i k ( x i ) . The Ein-
stein equations written for five dimensions in vacuum are
and p,,=O identically.
In these equations pOB
( ~ , D = O , .. . , 4 ) are the
components of the five-
dimensional Ricci tensor, R i k , (i,k=O, . . . , 3 ) are the
components of the four-dimensional Ricci tensor, and the
prime indicates differentiation of the functions A and B
with respect to their argument p.
We have rewritten the previous equations in a form
suitable for our successive developments:
where ( ~ p ) ~ = ( ~ , p ) ( In
~ ' the
p ) reduction
. of Eq. ( 1 1 )
use has been made of Eq. (10). The scalar curvature and
the energy-momentum tensor associated with the previ-
ous equations are
and
!I
It should be noted that the Bianchi identities for the
five-dimensional vacuum metric (6) imply that the entire
family of theories we are considering-Eqs. (10) and ( 1 1)
for any choices of A ( q ) and B ( p ) - i s consistent: the
divergence-free condition on the energy-momentum ten-
sor ( 1 3 ) is equivalent to the field equation (10).
In some respect, these theories are "naturally
designed" to describe massless scalar fields. In fact Eq.
(10)can easily be put in the form
v 2 (. . )=O,
where the parentheses contain a combination of deriva-
tives of the functions A, B, and p. One could therefore
introduce a new scalar field $ such that
and it is obvious that it would be massless. However, we
can impose an additional condition on the field p , and
select among the solutions of the entire set of Eqs. (10)
and ( 1 1 ) those which satisfy the additional constraint.
The assumption we shall make hereafter is that the scalar
field is massive, and therefore Eqs. (10) and ( 1 1) need to
be supplemented by the Klein-Gordon equation
where m is assumed to be positive. Thus the theory will
describe a massive scalar field coupled to gravity only for
those particular solutions which satisfy Eqs. ( l o ) , ( l l ) ,
and (14). Of course, the imposition of the additional con-
dition will be traded with the loss of one of the degrees of
freedom associated with the choices of A and B.
111. THE STATIC SPHERICALLY SYMMETRIC
EQUATIONS
We shall now specialize the equations obtained in the
previous section to the case when both the geometry and
the scalar field are static and spherically symmetric. We
write the metric in the form
where K, P, and A are functions of r, retaining the free-
dom to impose a coordinate gauge condition among the
metric functions. In this coordinate system the "Lapla-
cian" of the scalar field p is
Hereafter, a prime and an overdot will indicate
differentiation with respect to p and r, respectively. Since
the Klein-Gordon equation becomes
 CAN BLACK HOLES SUPPORT A GRAVITATING MASSIVE.
Equation (18) must be considered together with the field
equation (101, which is convenient to rewrite
+
v2g, [In( A 'B )]'( ~ g)I =
, 0 . (19)
Using Eqs. (16) and (17) Eq. (19) becomes
[ln [w1 /'+[In( A1B2)]'=0
Equation (20) can be integrated with respect to g, to give
where p is an integration constant. In order that Eqs.
(18) and (19) be consistent, the following condition must
hold:
or, equivalently,
Equations (21) and (23) can now take the place of Eqs.
(18) and (19) in our forthcoming analysis.
Next we have to consider the remaining Einstein equa-
tions. The nonvanishing components of the Ricci tensor
for the metric (15) are
The R dd component has not been included, and the (44)
Einstein equation will not be considered in the sequel, be-
,,
cause it differs from R only by a factor sin28.
The nonvanishing Christoffel symbols which are
relevant for computing the second covariant derivatives
appearing in Eqs. ( 11) are
We easily find that
By making use of Eqs. (17) and (261, the right-hand
sides of Eq. (11) can be written as
R,, = -[ln( AB2)]'-
KK
' - K 2 ( l n ~)'
p2 g,
[ [
+ ( l n B ) ' In ----
A 5 5 I]'
+ r 2 A 2 ( 1 n B ) [ln 1% 1 If$ .
It should be noted that the term (Vig,)(Vkg,)contrib-
utes only to the Rrr component of the Ricci tensor.
IV. THE INTEGRATION OF THE EQUATIONS
We shall now concentrate on the integration of the ( t t )
and (88) components of the Einstein equations, which
play the central role in our analysis. Putting together the
left- and the right-hand sides of Eqs. (24) and (27), and
converting the r derivatives into g, derivatives by using
Eq. (211, the ( t t ) component gives
It should be noted that the variable r has completely been
eliminated by the introduction of the prime derivatives,
and this occurrence is crucial for the subsequent integra-
tion of the equation. Equation (28) can be written in an
equivalent form
The last equation can be easily integrated, yielding
where y is an integration constant, and we have omitted
an irrelevant multiplicative constant in the right-hand
side.
Similarly, the 88 component of the Einstein equations
can be integrated. However, it is now necessary to ex-
press everything in terms of r derivatives:
3656 VALERIA FERRARI AND BASILIS C . XANTHOPOULOS
By inserting Eq. (30) into Eq. (21) we obtain
We set
w=A"+' and a = P ( y + l ) , (33)
so that Eq. (32) becomes
We can now use Eqs. (30) and (34) to eliminate K and B
from Eq. (31). The result is
The last equation clearly suggests the choice of the gauge:
which corresponds to the choice of an isotropic coordi-
nate system. In this gauge the problem reduces to solving
the third order, ordinary differential equation for the
function w(r):
By performing the successive substitutions
w = e Z and then i = $ , (37)
we eventually obtain
The general solution of Eq. (38) is
where e1,e2are integration constants.
I t turns out that the physically interesting solutions
correspond to the choice ele2<O. We shall comment on
the alternative choices ele21 0 at the end of this section.
From Eqs. (37) and (38) we eventually obtain
where have been replaced by the new constants r,
and y and we have ignored a third irrelevant multiplica-
tive constant in w . Without loss of generality we shall as-
sume that ro >O (the case ro=O should be investigated
separately) and 0 5 r < m .
Having obtained w , we reconstruct the solution
where we have chosen multiplicative constants in the
right-hand side of the expressions (41) such that
lim ( K g ) = lim (AB ) = I .
r -CS r +m
The last equation we need to satisfy is the rr com-
ponent of Einstein's equations. It turns out that its mere
role is to impose one constraint on the integration con-
stants y and y ' .
By transforming the second of Eqs. (27) in a way that
only differentiations with respect t o r appear, the right-
hand side of the rr equation becomes
where the left-hand side is meant to be given by the
second of Eqs. (24). We have evaluated the two sides of
Eq. (42),leaving B unspecified, by using the symbolic ma-
nipulation language MACSYMA. The result is that the
equation is satisfied for any B ( r ) , provided the parame-
ters satisfy the condition
In the previous equation we have ignored the f sign,
since the minus sign would merely correspond to chang-
ing rO- - ro. The final solution is
,
(44)
+ro 'y+1)/Vy2+y+l
AB=PB= I---
:;j - ] ,
and
,
Thus, we have been able to determine the conformal
structure of the spacetime, B being the unspecified con-
formal factor. The necessary and sufficient condition for
the geometry to be asymptotically flat is
lim B =const+O
I-a
 CAN BLACK HOLES SUPPORT A GRAVITATING MASSIVE. ..

Therefore, we shall assume, without loss of generality,

that
lim B = l . For the solution to be asymptotically flat we demand that
r-m

It is now straightforward to write the Klein-Gordon ry/(y+l IE? 1

B=e -, where lim Q ( r ) = l .
equation, which is equivalent to Eq. (23): Q(r) r-m

In this case K is well behaved, but for no choice of the

parameters A could exhibit the correct asymptotic behav-
ior.
It should be useful to summarize the results of this sec- (iii) When e2=0, the rr component leads to the con-
tion. For any choice of B satisfying the condition (461, +
straint y ,( y 2 + y 1 ) = 0 , which again does not admit
the geometry will be completely determined. Then one nontrivial solutions.
has to solve the Klein-Gordon equation (47). Having ob- (iv) The case y = - 1 is not covered by the analysis of
tained a solution cp=p(r), the explicit dependency of A the present section, because w = 1. In this case, for P = A ,
and B on p could be found by eliminating r in favor of p. we find
Then from Eq. (13) the energy-momentum tensor could A K B Z 1 and A B A ~ ~ = P .A
be determined and the nature of the coupling would be
specified. The 86' equation then gives
We have not been able to guess simple choices of B ( r )
for which the Klein-Gordon equation admits a simple
solution. However, as we shall see in the next section, the
conformal structure of the solution allows us to answer which, with the substitution [ln(AB = $ - I , )I'
reduces to
some of the physical questions which motivated our in- a linear equation. Eventually we obtain the solution
vestigation. given by Eqs. (44) and (45) in the case y = - 1.
T o conclude this section some additional technical re-
marks are needed.
(i) When > 0 the solution for w , A, KB, and AB V. HORIZONS AND SINGULARITIES
can be found, and it involves inverse trigonometric func-
tions. However in this case the rr component of We are mostly interested in those solutions which are
Einstein's equations leads to the condition ( y 2 + y regular on r = r o . The conformal invariance of the Weyl
+ +
1 )y:+ ( y 112=0, which does not admit nontrivial tensor suggests that the scalar is the curvature
real solutions. invariant with the simplest dependency on B. For the
(ii) When el =0, then solution (44)we find

where [ . . . ] stands for a polynomial in r. We easily see tion of our analysis will be played by the function Q ( r ) .
that, in order to avoid the occurrence of a curvature We find convenient to introduce a new parameter 6
singularity at r = r o , B should vanish at least as fast as defined as
B- ( r - r o ) 2 - [ ( ~ i ~ ) / d ~ 2 + ~ + l ~, (49)

Therefore we set
It is easy to see that
-2 < 6 < 2 for all real values of y . (53)
In terms of Q and 6 the solution is
where Q is assumed to be finite at r = r o . The necessary
6-2
and sufficient condition for the asymptotic flatness of the 1 ( r+r0)3 1
solution now becomes r 2 ( r- r o ) Q ( r ) '
lim Q = l . (51)
r- m

From now on the role of the function B as the free func- and the Klein-Gordon equation becomes
3658 VALERIA FERRARI A N D BASILIS C. XANTHOPOULOS
Next we investigate the behavior of some other curva-
ture invariants at r = r o , in order to determine the behav-
ior of Q which would avoid the occurrence of curvature
singularities at r =r,. We find that
Rabcd~ - r
a bcd -
(r+ro)
where [ . . . ] is a polynomial in {Q, Q, Q, r, r,, and 6 ) .
Obviously, when Q is smooth at r = r o , the previous sca-
lars will be well behaved there, and, although this is not a
rigorous mathematical proof, no curvature singularities
are expected to develop. On the other hand, when Q is
-
finite but not smooth at r = r,, behaving like Q ( r - r o )T
where 77 is positive but not an integer, curvature scalars
involving sufficiently high-order derivatives of Q will be
singular.
Thus, there exists a subclass of our general solution, for
which the geometry does not present any pathological be-
havior on the surface r = r o However it should be noted
that, since -2 < 6 < 2 , Eqs. (54) imply that r = r o could
not be a horizon either.
We shall next concentrate on the behavior of the scalar
field. From Eqs. (51) and (55) we find that the asymptotic
form of the Klein-Gordon equation is
which admits the two linearly independent solutions
We require that the scalar field tends to zero at infinity;
therefore, the acceptable solution is
and then we analyze the behavior of p near r =r,. As-
suming that p- ( r - r O Ik when r -ro, the leading terms
in ( r - r o in the Klein-Gordon equation give the follow-
ing indicia1 equation for k:
41
For mro#O the previous equation has always two real
roots, one positive, one negative,
and the two linearly independent solutions of the Klein-
Gordon equation have the behavior
The first will be finite, the second divergent at r = r o .
The solution which is physically acceptable at infinity,
p,,,, will be matched to a linear combination of pro,,and
pro,,. Therefore p will in general diverge on r =r,.
However the reader should be reminded that an un-
bounded scalar field is not necessarily unacceptable from
a physical point of view (see Refs. 7 and 8 and comments
in the concluding remarks).
In conclusion, we can find solutions which do not pos-
sess any curvature singularity on r =r,, but that surface
cannot, in general, be a horizon.
The energy conditions. Before working out some
specific examples, by making particular choices of the
function Q, let us find the constraints that the physical re-
quirements of the positivity of the Arnowitt-Deser-
Misner ( A D M ) mass and the other energy conditions im-
pose on that function.
The A D M mass is determined from the coefficient of
the 1/r term in the asymptotic expansion of K. We easily
find that if Q is chosen to behave as
then from Eq. (54) it follows that
Therefore M is the A D M mass, and we shall assume
M10.
Next we introduce the notation
where p is the energy density, and p,, p o , pg are the com-
ponents of the pressure. The energy conditions are
p>O and p+p, 2 0 ( i = r , Q , + ) (weak) ,
p + z p , 2 0 (strong) ,
I
p?lp,j ii=r,B,+) (dominant).
Of course, we cannot investigate whether these condi-
tions are satisfied everywhere without specifying Q ex-
plicitly. However, we can restrict ourselves to the re-
quirement that they are satisfied in the asymptotic region,
and this will determine the function Q up to the second
order [one more than in Eq. (6211. U p to the second or-
der in r, Q can be written as
41 CAN BLACK HOLES SUPPORT A GRAVITATING MASSIVE. . . 3659

where E is a new constant to be determined. From the VI. SOME PARTICULAR EXAMPLES
condition p L 0 we find that E should be
In Sec. V we investigated the nature of the geometry at
r = r o > 0 for all physically acceptable functions Q = Q ( r )
under the implicit assumption that Q ( r ) has no roots o r
poles for r = r l # r o . We reached the conclusion that (a)
where e 1 0 . From p + 2 ,pi > 0 it follows that either r = r o is a curvature singularity, or (b) r = r o is reg-
ular, but it cannot be a horizon. The scalar field always
diverges at r =ro.
In this section we shall investigate in some detail a few
In addition, more examples, considering also cases in which Q ( r ) has
poles for r = r , #ro, and r #O. In order to obtain non-
singular solutions, we shall assume also that the expres-
sion in square brackets in Eq. (56)

Thus we shall assume

has roots for r > 0. The roots of the polynomial D are
real provided

and consequently In addition, they will be positive if 6 > 0. Taking into ac-
count the permitted range of 6 given by the expression
(53), we find that D has real positive roots only if

For 6 = 1 , r = r o is a double root. For 0 < 6 < 1, the two

It is now straightforward to verify that all the energy roots r , and r, are
conditions are satisfied (for some of them to the new lead-
ing order in r), provided that we choose

and they satisfy the relation 0 < r , < ro < r,. Let us con-
sider the following cases.
(i) 6 =O.
Thus, we have determined the asymptotic form of the
function Q up to second order, which guarantees that all
the physical requirements are satisfied, at least for
sufficiently large values of r.
Equation (56)gives
We are now in a position to draw some conclusions
about the possibility that black holes could support an
exterior massive scalar field. In this section we have seen
that we can find solutions free of curvature singularities
for r > 0, provided Q has the proper asymptotic behavior Let us assume
and it is smooth at r = r o . At this level, we are still left
with a lot of freedom in the choice of the function Q. In
principle, nothing prevents us to choose Q such that it
satisfies the previous requirements not only for large r, It is apparent that for n > 2 the invariant (78) will be
and it has a pole somewhere, say r = r l . This pole would singular for r =O. Thus we shall assume n =2. It is
be a zero for K, and, by a clever choice of the parameters, straightforward to find that the only choice of the
it could combine with the terms in the parentheses of Eq. coefficients in Eq. (79) which is compatible with the ener-
(48) in such a way that the curvature scalars would not be gy conditions at infinity is
singular. In this case the solution could represent a black
hole supporting a massive scalar field. One might argue
that this procedure is very tricky and that to believe that
all these conditions can be satisfied is to believe in mira- However the resulting solution exhibits a curvature
cles. However we shall show in the next section, as an singularity at r = O which is manifested by the divergency
example, that with a suitable choice of Q and of the pa- of the scalar curvature R . In addition, for all possible
rameters one obtains the Bekenstein solution, which can values of r, and E the energy density p becomes negative
therefore be interpreted, in the framework of our theory, in some region, although it is positive asymptotically.
as representing a black hole surrounded by a massive Therefore, no physical solutions have been found for
field. 6=0.
3660 VALERIA FERRARI AND BASILIS C. XANTHOPOULOS
and
The pole in the metric (81) can be eliminated if
Q - ( r -ro )-I. With this choice the invariant (82) is
finite at r = r o If we choose Q = ( r + k ) / ( r - r , ) , and
k > 0 , we find that the energy conditions cannot be
satisfied throughout the spacetime. If we assume, in-
stead, that Q is the ratio of polynomials of second degree,
such that r = r , is a simple pole, we are forced by the en-
ergy conditions to choose
Then
and the resulting geometry
is isometric to the Bekenstein solution given by the first
of Eqs. (5) when the charge e is equal to zero. This can be
easily seen by changing r + r -M, and r o + M . Thus, in
our coordinate system, r = O corresponds to the regular
horizon of the Bekenstein solution. The energy density
and the pressure are given by
and they satisfy all the energy conditions throughout the
spacetime.
It should be stressed that, although the geometry de-
scribed by the solution (85) coincides with that of the
Bekenstein solution, the two solutions are different from
a physical point of view, since the source which produces
the geometry is different in the two cases. In the Beken-
stein case it is a conformal scalar field which satisfies the
massless Klein-Gordon equation (41, and the correspond-
ing energy-momentum tensor is given by Eq. (3). In our
case the scalar field is massiue, the Klein-Gordon equa-
tion being
However, since we have not been able to solve Eq. (87))
compute A and B in terms of the resulting q,, and then
the corresponding energy-momentum tensor given by Eq.
(13), we cannot specify the nature of the coupling we are
considering.
(iii) 0 < 6 < 1.
In this case
- e~4 ( cr- r l, l2(r
c ~ ~ ~ ~ ,- r 2~ )2 . (88)
It is interesting to choose
Q=(r-r,)-'/'~,(r), i = 1 or 2 , (89)
where Q, ( r ) is smooth at r = r,. We shall assume that Q,
does not vanish at r = r , , so that K -
( r - ri ) vanishes
smoothly at r = r , . Then we find
-
and Qi is assumed to behave like Qi r 'I2 asymptotically.
We have considered the cases ~ , = r ' / ~and
+
Q, = ( r r, )'I2, and in both cases r = r, is in fact a curva-
ture singularity (the scalar curvature R becomes infinite).
(iv) ro = 0.
In this case K = A = Q - I , and the resulting solution is
conformally flat. For a general smooth Q the scalar cur-
vature diverges like R -r -I. In order to eliminate this
singular behavior, we need to choose QQ -r. We have
considered three possible different choices: namely,
where a > 0, b > 0. In all cases, the four curvature scalars
listed in Eq. (56) are finite at r =0, which is not a hor-
izon. However no choice of a and b allows the energy
conditions to be simultaneously satisfied throughout the
spacetime.
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The analysis carried out in this paper certainly does
not provide a proof of the existence of black holes sur-
rounded by a gravitating massive field. However it gives
indications on how these solutions could be found, if they
exist.
The solution given in case (ii) of Sec. VI presents a very
interesting situation. The geometry is that of the Beken-
stein solution ( 5 ) (when e =0), and therefore it is asymp-
totically flat, it has a smooth horizon at r = r o , and it is
free of naked singularities. However, the scalar field is
now a massiue Klein-Gordon field, whose energy-
momentum tensor is given implicitly by Eqs. (13) and
(87), and it is singular at r = r o , where it diverges as a
power law. How seriously should we take a singularity
which appears in the scalar field but it is absent in the
geometry? T o answer this question, we first consider the
motion of test particles which are not coupled with the
scalar field. They are affected by the presence of the sca-
lar field only indirectly, via the geometry which deter-
!?! C A N BLACK HOLES SUPPORT A GRAVITATING MASSIVE. . .
mines their geodesic motions. Since the geometry is reg-
ular at r = r o , these particles would never get any hint
that something pathological is happening on the horizon.
The only probes that could possibly feel the divergence
of the scalar field on the horizon are those "particles"
that are coupled directly with the scalar field, in the same
sense as charged particles are coupled directly with the
electromagnetic field. The relevant question therefore is
whether these particles fall onto the singularity r = r o in a
finite, or in an infinite, amount of proper time. And one
should regard r =r, as a physical singularity if that inter-
val is finite. For these particles the equations of motion
are
gmV, = force terms
The right-hand side of this equation is determined from
the interaction action we are considering, it is chosen by
hand (it is not determined by the energy-momentum ten-
sor), and its choice derives from considerations which are
outside the realm of general relativity. In Ref. 8 Beken-
stein considered the simplest parameter-independent,
conformally invariant interaction action. His analysis
showed that the particles approach the horizon only
asymptotically. In Bekenstein's words, all test scalar
charge trajectories which approach the horizon from the
exterior are complete. Since the geometry is the same in
our solution, the same conclusions hold. Of course, one
could have considered different couplings that would
transform r =r, into a physical singularity for particles
with scalar charge.
The conclusions are similar when one considers the ti-
dal acceleration that a particle experiences near the hor-
izon. The tidal acceleration is determined by the Jacobi
' which satisfies the geodesic deviation equation
field 7
f m V m ( { n V n ~ a ) = R m n s '.~ m ~ " ~
For particles which interact only gravitationally, the
smoothness of the geometry implies the boundness of the
tidal forces. For particles that do interact directly with
the scalar field, the right-hand side of the previous equa-
tion would contain a force term as well. Whether or not
the acceleration is bounded in these cases depends again
'J. D . Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 1239 (1972).
*J. D . Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2403 11972).
3 ~ I.. Janis, E. T. Newman, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. Lett.
20, 878 (1968).
4J. E. Chase, Commun. Math. Phys. 19, 276 (1970).
5R. Price, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2419 (1972).
6C. Teitelboim, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2941 (1972).
'J. D . Bekenstein, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)82, 535 (1974).
s ~ D.. Bekenstein, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)91, 72 (1975).
'K. A. Bronnikov and Y . N. Kireyev, Phys. Lett. 67A, 95
(1978).
3661
upon the assumptions on the interaction action, and it is
bounded for the simplest one.
In one aspect the eventual outcome of the paper over-
came our initial expectations. In fact we were surprised
to realize that for all possible couplings described by Eqs.
(101, ( l l ) , (131, and (14),it is possible to determine explic-
itly the geometry of the spacetime, expressed in closed
form. However the fact that we have not been able to
determine explicitly any physically acceptable choice of
the conformal factor Q for which the Klein-Gordon
equation could be solved, and the associated coupling ex-
plicitly found, is disappointing. Apart from the Beken-
stein spacetime, we did not find any other geometry ad-
mitting a regular horizon.
It should be stressed, however, that the analysis carried
out in Sec. V I and the examples considered there are by
no means exclusive and complete. There are countless
choices of Q ( r ) which would be compatible with the
physical requirements, whose systematic investigation is
outside the scope of this paper. We also think that, in
demanding that the sought solutions should satisfy all
conceivable energy conditions, we were probably very
strict. With a more flexible attitude, one could seek for
asymptotically flat geometries with horizons, while being
willing to give up some of the energy conditions.
Note added in prooj In order to describe a massive
Klein-Gordon scalar field within the Belinskii-
Khalatnikov framework, we have introduced the nonco-
variant reduction expressed by Eqs. (18) or (23). We now
think that Einstein's equations can similarly be integrated
in the massless case, when the scalar field is subject only
to Eq. (10). The solution for the geometry is again de-
scribed by Eqs. (54) for an arbitrary Q ( r ) . However,
since the equation which determines p ( r ) in terms of Q ( r )
is different, the solution will describe a coupling different
from the one considered in this paper. In the massless
case the reductions are fully covariant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper has partially been
supported by the International Center for Relativistic As-
trophysics.
'OM. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D 24, 839 (1981).
"B. C. Xanthopoulos and T. Zannias, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2564
(1989).
I2Y. Deng and P. D . Mannheim, Astrophys. J. 324, 1 (1988).
I 3 ~ hKaluza,
. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. K1.
LIV, 966 (1921).
140.Klein, Z. Phys. 37, 875 (1926).
I5v.A. Belinskii and I. M. Khalatnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.
63, 1121 (1972) [Sov. Phys. JETP 36, 591 (1973)].
I6v.Ferrari and B. C. Xanthopoulos (in preparation).