Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

A model of a spheroidal body

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

1998 Class. Quantum Grav. 15 351

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/15/2/009)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 200.16.16.13
The article was downloaded on 13/12/2011 at 18:00

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Class. Quantum Grav. 15 (1998) 351–356. Printed in the UK PII: S0264-9381(98)87119-0

A model of a spheroidal body

W B Bonnor
Queen Mary and Westfield College, London E1 4NS, UK

Received 27 August 1997, in final form 27 October 1997

Abstract. Electrically counterpoised dust (ECD) is incoherent electrically charged matter in

which the charge density is equal to the mass density in relativistic units. Einstein’s equations
admit static solutions modelling bodies of arbitrary shape composed of ECD. In this paper I
present a model of a non-singular prolate spheroid of ECD, and consider its size and mass
in relation to the hoop conjecture and to the isoperimetric conjecture for black holes. The
conclusion is that it satisfies the hoop conjecture, but, for any given mass, the surface area can
be arbitrarily small.

PACS numbers: 0440D, 0420D

1. Introduction

General relativity (GR) seems to impose restrictions on the size of a static body of given
mass. This was recognized long ago for spherical bodies when it was found that the
Schwarzschild interior solution enforces a minimum radius on a body of incompressible
material if the pressure is to remain finite. Later Thorne [1] put forward the hoop conjecture,
which suggests that if the linear dimensions of a body become too small in relation to its
mass it will become a black hole, and therefore not static. Another possibility is that a
static body of given mass might have a certain minimum surface area: this would be an
extension of the isoperimetric conjecture for black holes (ICBH).
To investigate these conjectures it would be useful to have models of realistic static
bodies but, except for spheres, these are hard to find, and few are known. Electrically
counterpoised dust (ECD) offers the opportunity to study the shapes and dimensions of
non-spherical bodies; it is realistic, and satisfies the energy conditions of GR. Some years
ago I put forward, with S P B Wickramasuriya, a model of an oblate spheroid made of
ECD [2]. Our main interest was to show that large redshifts can be obtained from such a
body, but it later turned out [3] that a limiting case is a counterexample to the original form
of the hoop conjecture (see section 2). For the study of minimum surface areas, prolate
spheroids seem likely to have greater interest, and this is what I turn to in this paper. Briefly,
the model satisfies a revised hoop conjecture, but shows that the prescription of the mass
imposes no minimum on the surface area.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 I describe in more detail the hoop and
surface area conjectures, and follow this in section 3 with the solution of the field equations
corresponding to ECD. The particular prolate spheroidal model and its geometry are given
in sections 4 and 5, and section 6 gives a brief conclusion.

0264-9381/98/020351+06$19.50
c 1998 IOP Publishing Ltd 351
352 W B Bonnor

2. Conjectures about size

The original statement [1] of the hoop conjecture was as follows:

Black holes with horizons form when and only when a mass m gets compacted into a region
whose circumference in every direction is . 4π m.

It subsequently became clear [3] that if electromagnetic fields are present the coefficient of
m must be less than 4π, and 2π is probable. This is the value I shall take in this paper.
There have been many papers on the hoop conjecture [4–17], and it seems likely to be true
for some value of the coefficient.
A precise statement of the ICBH has been given by Gibbons [18]. It may be stated in
the following form:

Given an asymptotically flat initial data set satisfying the dominant energy condition, the
mass m and the area of the outermost apparent horizon A in any asymptotically flat region
must satisfy

m > (A/16π)1/2 , (1)

with equality only if the data are vacuum and have zero electric charge.
If electric charge e is present and the Einstein–Maxwell data are regular outside a single
connected apparent horizon the following inequalities must be satisfied
p p p
m+ m2 − e2 > A/4π > m − m2 − e2 . (2)

The hoop conjecture says something not only about black holes but also about static
bodies, but as it stands the ICBH refers only to black holes. To put it differently, the hoop
conjecture states a necessary and sufficient condition for black holes, but the ICBH gives a
necessary condition only.
Nevertheless, Isham [25] has written that ‘any attempt to place√ a quantity of energy
E in a spatial region with boundary area A—and such that E > A—will cause a black
hole to form’; and other authors have considered the surface area of static bodies of given
mass. Esposito and Witten [20], in an interesting but largely neglected paper, suggested
that there might be such bodies whose surface area is less than that of the event horizons of
Schwarzschild particles of the same mass. Inspired by this work, Junevicus [21] found some
prolate spheroidal shells, obeying energy conditions, which seem to fulfil the conjecture.
His results are supported by the work of Redmount [14], who studied momentarily static
bodies. The relation between mass and surface area has also been considered by Burnett
[6], Flanagan [9], Heusler [19] and Malec [11].
In this paper I shall, by an example, prove the following:

Surface area theorem. There exist static, isolated, non-singular bodies, satisfying the energy
conditions, whose surface area A satisfies A < km2 , where m is their mass and k is any
positive number.

The example is a prolate spheroid of ECD; it is not a counterexample to the hoop

conjecture.
 A model of a spheroidal body 353

3. Electrically counterpoised dust

We take the Einstein–Maxwell equations in the usual notation ([1], pp 568–70)

R ik − 12 g ik R = −8π T ik + E ik ,
4πEki = −F ia Fka + 14 δki F ab Fab ,
Fik = Ai,k − Ak,i ,
F;kik = 4πJ i
and use the solution of Papapetrou [22] and Majumdar [23] for charged dust held in
equilibrium because gravitational attraction and electrical repulsion balance precisely; this
is so if the mass and charge densities ρ and σ are numerically equal (in relativistic units):
T ik = ρv i v k , J i = σ vi , (3)
v =
i
δ4i U, Ai = δi4 φ, (4)
δ U,αβ = −4πU ρ,
αβ 3
(5)
−1
φ = −U , (6)
σ = ρ, (7)
where  = ±1, α, β = 1, 2, 3, and a comma means partial differentiation, U is a positive
function of x, y, z, and the metric is


ds 2 = −U 2 dx 2 + dy 2 + dz2 + U −2 dt 2 . (8)
v i is the 4-velocity of the dust and φ is the electrostatic potential. This is an exact static
solution of the Einstein–Maxwell equations, and it need have no spatial symmetry. Its
source, namely the region where ρ 6= 0, σ 6= 0, is composed of ECD.
To model an isolated body of ECD one can proceed as follows. In empty space (5)
reduces to Laplace’s equation:
E
δ αβ U ,αβ = 0, (9)
so for the exterior one takes a solution of (9) tending to zero at infinity. This is bound
to have a singularity somewhere, which one covers up by a suitably differentiable interior
I
function U , ensuring that it generates a positive mass density ρ via (5). It is easy to choose
I
U so that
I E I E
U = U, U ,α = U ,α (10)
on some surface which then represents the boundary of the body. The electric field and
charge density are obtained from (4), (6) and (7). One now has a globally regular solution
of the Einstein–Maxwell equations modelling an isolated body of ECD.

4. A prolate spheroid of ECD

I now describe a model similar to one originally given by Wickramasuriya [24]. One starts
with the metric (8) in prolate spheroidal coordinates:


ds 2 = −a 2 U 2 X du2 + dθ 2 + sinh2 u cos2 θ dφ 2 + U −2 dt 2 , (11)
where
X = cosh2 u − sin2 θ, (12)
354 W B Bonnor

where a is a positive constant, and the ranges of the coordinates are

u > 0, π/2 > θ > −π/2, 2π > φ > 0, ∞ > t > −∞.
E
For U one takes the simplest non-trivial solution of Laplace’s equation in prolate spheroidal
coordinates, namely
E m u
U= 1 + log coth . (13)
a 2
An interior function satisfying (10) on a boundary u = u0 > 0, and having sufficient
differentiability in u < u0 to ensure smoothness of the density and the curvature tensors is
 
I m u0 u50 − u5
U= 1 + log coth + 4 . (14)
a 2 5u0 sinh u0
The mass density is from (5),
 I I 
 I
3 −1 ∂ 2U ∂U
ρ = − 4πa X U 2
+ coth u , (15)
∂u2 ∂u
I
so, inserting U from (14) we have
 I −1
ρ = m(u/u0 )3 (4 + u coth u) 4π u0 sinh u0 X(U )3 a 3 . (16)
X vanishes at u = 0, θ = ±π/2, so in the numerator a power of u at least equal to 3 is
necessary to ensure the continuity of ρ at these points. Similar considerations apply to the
curvature tensors; this was the reason for the choice of the power 5 in (14).
I have specified a non-singular global solution of the Einstein–Maxwell equations
representing a prolate spheroid of ECD. The solution depends on three parameters m, a
and u0 . In the next section I shall describe its geometrical properties.

5. Geometry of the spheroid

Let us introduce
Y0 = a + m log coth(u0 /2). (17)
The following properties of the surface u = u0 of the spheroid can be written down from
the exterior solution alone (the lengths and area referred to are proper quantities).
(i) Equatorial circumference: C1 = 2πY0 sinh u0 .
(ii) Polar circumference: C2 = 4Y0 cosh u0 E(u0 ) where
Z π/2


E(u0 ) = 1 − sin2 θ/ cosh2 u0 dθ
0

is an elliptic integral of the second kind.

(iii) Eccentricity† of the polar section: sech u0 .
(iv) The surface area is
Z π/2

1/2
A = 4πY0 2
cosh2 u0 − sin2 θ sinh u0 cos θ dθ (18)
0

† The eccentricity is calculated with respect to the background Euclidean 3-space of (8), i.e. the part in parentheses.
 A model of a spheroidal body 355

which on evaluation gives

 
A = 2πY02 sinh u0 sinh u0 + cosh2 u0 sin−1 (sech u0 ) , (19)
−1
where sin (sech u0 ) is to be taken in (0, π/2).
One can show numerically that as u0 runs from 0 to ∞, sinh u0 log coth(u0 /2) runs
monotonically from 0 to 1, so by choosing a sufficiently small we can make C1 < 2π m.
However, cosh u0 log coth(u0 /2) runs monotonically from ∞ to 1, and numerical calculation
shows that, however small a may be, C2 > 2π m, though if we put a = 0 C2 tends to 2π m
as u0 → ∞. It follows that, for finite u0 , the polar circumference is greater than 2π m, and
the hoop conjecture is satisfied.
From (19) it is clear that, whatever the values of m and a, A can be made arbitrarily
small by the choice of u0 . This proves the surface area theorem stated in section 2. In fact,
one finds numerically that given any u0 , one can choose a so small that
A < 4πm2 . (20)
In the case of a spherical black hole with e = m the surface area of the apparent horizon
2 2

is 4πm2 (the value in (2)), so there exist spheroids of ECD, of arbitrary eccentricity, whose
surface area is less than that of a spherical black hole of the same mass.
The equatorial radius R, the polar distance D and the volume V all depend on the
interior metric. Their precise values are of no special interest, so I do not give them here,
but I note that as u0 → 0 R and V tend to zero, whereas D tends to infinity. From these
properties, from (i) and (ii) above, and from the value of the eccentricity of polar sections it
is clear that as u0 tends to infinity the spheroid approaches spherical shape, and as u0 tends
to zero it tends towards the shape of an infinite rod.

6. Conclusion

We have been considering the size of a static prolate spheroid of ECD in relation to its mass
m. We found that one of its circumferences has to be greater than 2π m, in accordance with
the hoop conjecture. However, its surface area was not constrained by the value of m, and
could be arbitrarily small, in agreement with the surface area theorem stated in section 2.
This shows that the isoperimetric conjecture for black holes, if true at all, could not be made
into a sufficient condition for the existence of a black hole, though it may be a necessary
one.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Dr G W Gibbons for a useful correspondence, and to a referee for helpful

criticism

References

[1] Misner C W, Thorne K S and Wheeler J A 1973 Gravitation (San Francisco, CA: Freeman) p 868
[2] Bonnor W B and Wickramasuriya S B P 1975 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 170 643
[3] Bonnor W B 1983 Phys. Lett. 99A 424
[4] Barrabès C, Gramain E, Lesigne E and Letelier P S 1992 Class. Quantum Grav. 9 L105
[5] Bernstein D H and Tod K P 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 2808
[6] Burnett G A 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 5832
[7] Chamorro A, Gregory R and Stewart J M 1987 Proc. R. Soc. A 413 251
[8] Clarke C J S 1988 Class. Quantum Grav. 5 1029
356 W B Bonnor

[9] Flanagan E 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 2409

[10] Lamberti P W and Hamity V H 1989 Gen. Rel. Grav. 21 869
[11] Malec E 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 949
[12] Nakamura T, Shapiro S L and Teukolsky S A 1988 Phys. Rev. D 38 2972
[13] Ponce de León J 1987 Gen. Rel. Grav. 19 289
[14] Redmount I H 1983 Phys. Rev. D 27 699
[15] Shapiro S L and Teukolsky S A 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 994
[16] Tod K P 1992 Class. Quantum Grav. 9 1581
[17] Wojtkiewicz J 1990 Phys. Rev. D 41 1867
[18] Gibbons G W 1984 Global Riemannian Geometry ed T J Willmore and N Hitchen (New York: Ellis Horwood)
[19] Heusler M 1995 Class. Quantum Grav. 12 779
[20] Esposito F P and Witten L 1975 Phys. Lett. 58B 357
[21] Junevicus G J G 1983 Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on General Relativity and Gravitation (Padua) ed B Bertotti,
F de Feliice and A Pascolini p 269
[22] Papapetrou A 1947 Proc. R. Irish Acad. 51 191
[23] Majumdar S D 1947 Phys. Rev. 72 390
[24] Wickramasuriya S B P 1972 PhD Thesis University of London
[25] Isham C J 1997 Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on General Relativity and Gravitation ed M Francaviglia, G Longhi,
L Lusanna and E Sorace (Singapore: World Scientific) p 191