1: \documentstyle[12pt,graphicx]{article}
2: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
3: %\usepackage{amstex}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Gravitating Magnetic Monopole in the Global Monopole Spacetime}
6: \author{J. Spinelly\thanks{E-mail: spinelly@fisica.ufpb.br},\\
7: U. de Freitas\thanks{E-mail: umbelino@ccen.ufpb.br}\\ and
8: E. R. Bezerra de Mello \thanks{E-mail: emello@fisica.ufpb.br}\\
9: Departamento de F\'{\i}sica-CCEN\\
10: Universidade Federal da Para\'{\i}ba\\
11: 58.059-970, J. Pessoa, PB\\
12: C. Postal 5.008\\
13: Brazil}
14: \maketitle
15: \begin{abstract}
16: In this paper we study the regular self-gravitating 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic
17: monopole in a global monopole spacetime. We show that for the large distance,
18: the structure of the manifold corresponds to the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m
19: spacetime with a solid angle deficit factor. Although we analyze static and
20: spherically symmetric solutions, it is not possible to solve analytically
21: the system of coupled differential equations and only numerical evaluations
22: can provide detailed information about the behavior of this system at the
23: neighborhood of the defect's core. So, for this reason we solve numerically
24: the set of differential equations for the metric tensor and for the matter
25: fields for different values of the Higgs field vacuum expectation value,
26: $\eta$, and the self-coupling constant, $\lambda$.
27: \\PACS: 04.20-q, 41.20-q, 04.20Jb, 11.15Ex.
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \newpage
31: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}.}
32: \section{Introduction}
33: $ $
34:
35: The self-gravitating 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic monopole \cite{HP} in a curved
36: spacetime has been studied a few years ago considering it as a magnetic
37: point charge \cite{Bais, Cho}. The exact solution obtained for the metric
38: tensor has the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m form corresponding to a point (magnetic)
39: charge $g=1/e$. A regular solution for this system has been presented by
40: Nieuwenhuizen {\it et al} \cite{Nieuw}. There, they have constructed a
41: positive-definite functional energy function of the matter fields only.
42: They claimed that this is enough to prove the existence of non-singular
43: monopole solutions. More recently Lee {\it et al} \cite{Lee} and Ortiz
44: \cite{Ortiz} have shown that non-singular monopole solutions exist only if
45: the Higgs vacuum expectation value, $\eta$, is smaller or equal to a critical
46: value, $\eta_{cr}$, which is of order of the Planck mass. In the limiting
47: case the monopole becomes a black hole, with the region outside the horizon
48: described by the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solution.
49:
50: Barriola and Vilenkin \cite{BV} have analyzed the effect in the geometry
51: of the spacetime produced by a system composed by Higgs field only, which
52: undergoes to a spontaneous breakdown of global $O(3)$ gauge symmetry.
53: They noticed that the solution for the metric tensor is similar to the
54: Schwarzchild spacetime with an additional solid angle deficit and a nonzero
55: scalar curvature. They pointed out that for large value of the
56: geometric mass, the model describes a black hole carrying a global monopole.
57:
58: One of the main differences between the large distance behaviors in the
59: geometries of the spacetime produced by both topological defects, the local
60: and the global monopoles, is due to their energy densities, which for the
61: global monopole case decreases as $1/r^2$. This behavior
62: is responsible for the solid angle deficit presented by this geometry.
63:
64: In this paper we continue the discussion related with this
65: topic and consider both type of topological defects in the same
66: model. We analyze the effects produced by local and global monopole on the
67: geometry of the manifold. We investigate the possibility
68: of this system to present regular solution and we also analyze its behavior
69: near and far away from the defect's core. So the basic idea of this model
70: is to describe a regular topological defect which presents a magnetic field
71: besides to present a solid angle deficit.
72:
73: Assuming the existence of such object in a typical galaxy, the total energy
74: contained inside it would be strongly provided by the global Higgs
75: field \cite{Salgado} \footnote{In fact, the energy density outside the
76: global monopole is $T^t_t \approx -\eta^2/r^2$, consequently the total
77: Newtonian mass inside a space region of radial extent $R$ is $E(R)\approx
78: 4\pi G\eta^2R$. Considering $R$ the typical radius of a galaxy $R\approx
79: 15Kpc$ and for the symmetry breaking scale $\eta \approx 10^{16} GeV$ which
80: is the value for grand unified theories, this total energy due to the global
81: monopole is approximately ten times the mass of the galaxy.}. Astrophysics
82: bounds on the flux of magnetic monopole and evidence that the galactic
83: magnetic field is mainly azimuthal \cite{Parker} indicate that the excess
84: number density of such object, if they really exist, is very small. Moreover,
85: upper bounds on the number density of global monopole is at most one in the
86: local group of galaxies as pointed out by Hiscock \cite{Hiscock}.
87:
88: Differently from a pure global monopole, this compost topological defect
89: exerts a gravitational interaction on surrounding matter, apart from the
90: electromagnetic one on charged particles. So, such object shares with both,
91: global and magnetic monopole, some of their relevant properties. Numerical
92: simulation related with the upper bound on the number density of them in the
93: Universe, may be developed in a similar manner as it was developed to
94: global monopole only in the paper by Bennett and Rhie \cite{BE}.
95:
96: The complete information about this system requires the knowledge of the
97: behaviors of the matter and gravitational fields, i.e., we have to know how
98: these fields change along the distance and how they are connected; besides we
99: also want to know how these fields' behaviors are affected when the energy
100: scale of breakdown of gauge symmetry and the Higgs self-coupling are varying.
101: Because it is impossible to solve analytically the complete set of coupled
102: differential equation associated with this system, only numerical
103: analysis makes possible to obtain these informations. Numerical analysis
104: of self-gravitating magnetic monopole has been developed by several
105: authors, see for example Refs. \cite{Lee} and \cite{Peter}. For the global
106: monopole case Harari and Loust\'{o} \cite{Lousto} have shown numerically the
107: behavior of the Higgs field and how it is affected by the variation of the
108: parameter $\eta$. More recently Maison \cite{Maison} and Liebling
109: \cite{Liebling} have analyzed the stability condition for the global monopole
110: solution. They found that for $\eta$ bigger than some critical value, the
111: global monopole fail to be static.
112:
113: This paper is organized as follows. In section $2$ we briefly review some
114: of the relevant characteristics of the local and global monopole in a
115: curved spacetime. We also introduce the model used to describe the system
116: which presents the topological defect formed by both monopoles and derive
117: the equations of motion which governs the behavior of this object.
118: Because it is impossible to solve analytically this set of differential
119: equations we leave for the section $3$ its numerical analysis. From our
120: results it is possible to exhibit the behaviors for matter and gravitational
121: fields, their dependence with the distance from the point to the monopole's
122: core and how they are connected among other pertinent informations. In
123: section $4$ we present our conclusions and some important remarks about
124: this paper.
125:
126:
127: \section{Field Equation for the Compost Topological Defect}
128:
129: In this section we introduce the model which, by a spontaneous breakdown of
130: gauge symmetry, gives rise to a non-Abelian magnetic and global monopoles in a
131: curved spacetime. This defect presents both properties of its
132: constituent: a magnetic field and a solid angle deficit. Below we shall
133: briefly review both topological defects separately.
134:
135: The global monopole is a defect obtained by a system composed by a
136: self-coupling Higgs isotriplet field which undergoes to a spontaneous breakdown
137: of global $O(3)$ gauge symmetry to $U(1)$. Coupling this matter field with
138: the Einstein equation, a spherically symmetric metric tensor given by the
139: line element
140: \begin{equation}
141: \label{S}
142: ds^2=-B(r)dt^2+A(r)dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin\theta^2d\phi^2) \ ,
143: \end{equation}
144: presents regular solutions for the radial functions $B(r)$ and $A(r)$, that
145: for points far from the monopole's core are given by \cite{BV}
146: \begin{equation}
147: B(r)=A(r)^{-1}=1-8\pi G\eta^2-2GM/r \ ,
148: \end{equation}
149: $\eta$ being the scale energy where the symmetry is broken. The parameter $M$
150: is approximately the mass of the monopole. Neglecting the mass term and
151: rescaling the time variable, we can rewrite the monopole metric tensor as
152: \begin{equation}
153: \label{GM}
154: ds^2=-dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{\alpha^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin\theta^2d\phi^2) \ ,
155: \end{equation}
156: where the parameter $\alpha^2=1-8\pi G\eta^2$ is smaller than unity. The
157: above geometry presents no Newtonian potential, it is not flat\footnote{The
158: scalar curvature associated with this spacetime is $R=\frac{2(1-
159: \alpha^2)}{r^2}$.} and the solid angle of a sphere of unity radius is
160: $4\pi\alpha^2$, so smaller than $4\pi$.
161:
162: The energy-momentum tensor associated with the matter field, outside the
163: monopole's core can be approximately written by
164: \begin{equation}
165: T^t_t\approx T^r_r \approx -\frac{\eta^2}{r^2} \ ,\ T^\theta_\theta
166: \approx T^\phi_\phi \approx 0 \ ,
167: \end{equation}
168: consequently the energy is linearly divergent at large distance: $E(r)\approx
169: 4\pi G\eta^2 r$.
170:
171: The magnetic monopole is also a topological defect described by a system
172: composed by a self-coupling Higgs isotriplet field which interacts with a
173: Yang-Mills gauge field. This system presents a local $SO(3)$ gauge symmetry
174: which is spontaneously broken down to $U(1)$. In a flat spacetime this theory
175: gives rise to 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole with magnetic charge and finite
176: energy \cite{HP}. This system has been firstly analyzed in a curved spacetime
177: in Refs. \cite{Bais, Cho}. In these papers the authors have shown that
178: this system presents as an exact solution a metric tensor identical with
179: the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m one
180: \begin{equation}
181: B(r)=\frac1{A(r)}=1-\frac{2GM}r+\frac{4\pi G}{e^2r^2} \ ,
182: \end{equation}
183: where $M$ ia a constant of integration, identified as the mass of the
184: monopole and $1/e$ is its magnetic charge.
185:
186: The energy-momentum tensor associated with the matter fields compatible
187: with this singular solution is
188: \begin{equation}
189: T^t_t=T^r_r=-T^\theta_\theta=-T^\phi_\phi=-\frac1{2e^2r^4} \ .
190: \end{equation}
191:
192: In their remarkable paper Nieuwenhuizen {\it et al} \cite{Nieuw} have
193: proved the existence of non-singular self-gravitating magnetic monopole.
194: In order to do that, they have constructed a positive-definite functional
195: energy whose minimum value was claimed to be attained by a stable non-singular
196: solution. They also have presented the boundary conditions obeyed by regular
197: solutions at the monopole's core and show that the asymptotic form of the
198: metric tensor is a Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m geometry. More recently Lee
199: {\it et al} \cite{Lee} and Ortiz \cite{Ortiz} have analyzed again the
200: self-gravitating magnetic monopole system and observed that for very heavy
201: monopole there is no non-singular solutions. They pointed out that when
202: $G\eta^2$ becomes large $A^{-1}(r)$ presents a local minimum which approaches
203: to zero; so for some critical value there appears a horizon and the monopole
204: becomes a black-hole with the region outside to the horizon described by the
205: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m metric spacetime. They present numerical solutions
206: for the matter and gravitational fields for different values of the parameter
207: $\eta^2$, where explicitly the horizon shows up.
208:
209: After this brief review let us introduce the model proposed by us. The basic
210: idea of this model is to describe both topological defects on the same time.
211: In order to do that we endow this model with a gauge group product of
212: two different gauge groups symmetry. Because we want to obtain magnetic
213: monopole configuration we have to gauge one of them. Also we introduce two
214: Higgs fields in $({\bf 3,1})$ and $({\bf 1,3})$ representations of the
215: $G:=SO_L(3)\otimes O_G(3)$ groups, where the subindices refer to local
216: $(L)$ and global $(G)$ gauge symmetries. The Higgs fields are responsible
217: for the spontaneous break of gauge symmetries $SO_L(3)\otimes O_G(3)$
218: to $U_L(1)\otimes U_G(1)$. Moreover in order to simplify our analysis
219: we shall consider two situations: The first case is obtained taking the Higgs
220: self-coupling constants and vacuum expectation values the same in both
221: sectors and do not admit a direct coupling between them. The second case
222: is a particular situation of the first one taking the self-coupling associated
223: with the local sector vanishing. In the latter, the system also presents
224: localized self-gravitating magnetic monopole. The Lagrangian density which
225: governs the more general case, i.e., the first one, is:
226: \begin{equation}
227: \label{L}
228: {\cal L}_M=-\frac14(F^a_{\mu\nu})^2-\frac12g^{\mu\nu}(D_\mu\phi^a)
229: (D_\nu\phi^a)-\frac12g^{\mu\nu}(\partial_\mu \chi^a)(\partial_\nu\chi^a)-
230: V(\phi^a,\chi^a) \ ,
231: \end{equation}
232: with the Latin indices referring to the internal gauge groups $a,\ b=1, \ 2,
233: \ 3$. We also have
234: \begin{equation}
235: D_\mu\phi^a=\partial_\mu\phi^a-e\epsilon_{abc}A_\mu^b\phi^c \ ,
236: \end{equation}
237: \begin{equation}
238: F_{\mu\nu}^a=\partial_\mu A_\nu^a-\partial_\nu A_\nu^a-e\epsilon_{abc}
239: A_\mu^b A_\nu^c \ ,
240: \end{equation}
241: and
242: \begin{equation}
243: V(\phi^a,\chi^a)=\frac{\lambda}4\left(\phi^a\phi^a-\eta^2\right)^2+
244: \frac{\lambda}4\left(\chi^a\chi^a-\eta^2\right)^2 \ .
245: \end{equation}
246:
247: In the following analysis we shall consider only static spherically
248: symmetric solutions, for this reason the metric tensor is written in the
249: form presented by (\ref{S}).
250:
251: The ansatz adopted to describe both topological defects is the usual one in
252: flat spacetime written in terms of 'Cartesian' coordinates as
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{Higgs1}
255: \chi^a(x)=\eta f(r)\hat{x}^a \ ,
256: \end{equation}
257: \begin{equation}
258: \phi^a(x)=\eta h(r)\hat{x}^a \ ,
259: \end{equation}
260: \begin{equation}
261: A_i^a(x)=\epsilon_{iaj}\hat{x}^j\frac{1-u(r)}{er} \ ,
262: \end{equation}
263: and
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{A0}
266: A_0^a(x)=0 \ .
267: \end{equation}
268:
269: Because we are seeking static solutions all properties of the system may be
270: described by the Lagrangian which is the sum of the Einstein one, $L_E$, and
271: the covariant matter Lagrangian, $L_M$:
272: \begin{equation}
273: L_E=\frac1{16\pi G}\int d^3x \ \sqrt{-g}\ R
274: \end{equation}
275: and
276: \begin{equation}
277: L_M=\int d^3x\ \sqrt{-g}\ {\cal L}_M \ .
278: \end{equation}
279:
280: Substituting the configurations (\ref{Higgs1}) - (\ref{A0}) into (\ref{L}),
281: together with the spherically symmetric metric tensor (\ref{S}), we obtain
282: for the matter field the following Lagrangian:
283: \begin{equation}
284: \label{LM}
285: L_M=-4\pi\int_0^\infty dr \ r^2 \ \sqrt{AB}\left[\frac{{\cal K}(f,h,u)}A+
286: {\cal U}(f,h,u)\right] \ ,
287: \end{equation}
288: where
289: \begin{equation}
290: \label{K}
291: {\cal K}(f,h,u)=\frac12\eta^2(f')^2+\frac12\eta^2(h')^2+\frac{(u')^2}
292: {e^2r^2} \ ,
293: \end{equation}
294: and
295: \begin{equation}
296: \label{U}
297: {\cal U}(f,h,u)=\frac{(u^2-1)^2}{2e^2r^4}+\frac{\eta^2 u^2 h^2}{r^2}+
298: \frac{\eta^2f^2}{r^2}+\frac{\lambda\eta^4}4(h^2-1)^2+\frac{\lambda\eta^4}4
299: (f^2-1)^2 \ ,
300: \end{equation}
301: where the primes denote differentiation with respect to $r$.
302:
303: The Einstein Lagrangian for the metric tensor (\ref{S}) reads
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: L_E&=&\frac1{4G}\int_0^\infty dr\ \left[-\frac1{\sqrt{AB}}\left(r^2B'\right)'+
306: \frac{r^2B'A'}{2A\sqrt{AB}}+\frac{r^2(B')^2}{2B\sqrt{AB}}+\right.
307: \nonumber\\
308: &&\left.\frac{2rA'}A\sqrt{\frac B A}+2\sqrt{AB}\left(1-
309: \frac1A\right)\right] \ .
310: \end{eqnarray}
311:
312: Following the procedure adopted in \cite{Nieuw} it is possible to work
313: with the Lagrangian below, $L_E'$, which differs from the previous one
314: by a total derivative:
315: \begin{equation}
316: \label{LE}
317: L_E'=\frac1{4 G}\int_0^\infty \ dr\ r \sqrt{AB}\left(\frac1A-1\right)
318: \left(\frac{A'}A+\frac{B'}B\right) \ .
319: \end{equation}
320:
321: The total Lagrangian for this system can be given as the sum of (\ref{LM})
322: with (\ref{LE}). As we can see (\ref{LE}) can be written in terms of two
323: new radial fields $X=\sqrt{AB}$ and $Y=\sqrt{B/A}$. The Euler-Lagrange equations
324: for the gravitational degrees of freedom can be obtained by:
325: \begin{equation}
326: \label{Y}
327: \left(rY\right)^{'}=X\left(1-8\pi G r^2{\cal U}\right)
328: \end{equation}
329: and
330: \begin{equation}
331: \label{X}
332: \frac{X'}X=8\pi Gr{\cal K} \ .
333: \end{equation}
334:
335: Integrating (\ref{X}) assuming that at infinity $X(\infty)=1$ we obtain
336: \begin{equation}
337: \label{A}
338: A(r)=\frac1{B(r)}\exp\left[16\pi G\int_\infty^rdr^{'}\ r^{'}\ {\cal K}(f,h,u)
339: \right] \ .
340: \end{equation}
341:
342: Now going back to (\ref{Y}) we obtain
343: \begin{equation}
344: \label{A2}
345: \left(\frac r A\right)'=1-8\pi Gr^2\left[\frac{{\cal K}(f,h,u)}A+
346: {\cal U}(f,h,u)\right] \ .
347: \end{equation}
348:
349: Integrating the above equation assuming the regularity condition on $r/A(r)$ at
350: origin, we have
351: \begin{equation}
352: \label{A1}
353: \frac1{A(r)}=\alpha^2-\frac{2GM(r)}r \ ,
354: \end{equation}
355: being $\alpha^2=1-8\pi G\eta^2$ and $M(r)$ given by the integral
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: \label{M}
358: M(r)&=&4\pi\int_0^r dr'\ r'^2\left[\frac{\eta^2}{2A}\left[(f')^2+(h')^2\right]
359: +\frac{(u')^2}{Ae^2{r^{'}}^2}+\frac{\eta^2u^2h^2}{{r^{'}}^2}+\eta^2\frac{(f^2-1)}{{r^{'}}^2}
360: \right.
361: \nonumber\\
362: &&\left.+\frac{(u^2-1)^2}{2e^2{r^{'}}^4}+\frac{\lambda\eta^4}4(h^2-1)^2+\frac{\lambda\eta^4}4(f^2-1)^2
363: \right] \ .
364: \end{eqnarray}
365:
366: We can also rewrite $M(r)$ in a different way substituting (\ref{A1}) into the
367: right hand side of (\ref{A2}). After some steps we get
368: \begin{equation}
369: M(r)=\exp\left[-\int_0^r dr'\ p(r')\right]\int_0^r dr'\ q(r')\ \exp\left[
370: \int_0^{r'} dr''\ p(r'')\right] \ ,
371: \end{equation}
372: with
373: \begin{equation}
374: p(r)=8\pi Gr{\cal K}(f,h,u)
375: \end{equation}
376: and
377: \begin{equation}
378: q(r)=4\pi \left[r^2\left(\alpha^2{\cal K}(f,h,u)+{\cal U}(f,h,u)\right)-
379: \eta^2\right] \ .
380: \end{equation}
381: With this procedure we have removed the factor $1/A(r)$ in the integral
382: definition of $M(r)$ given in (\ref{M}). From the above equations
383: we can obtain the total mass written as
384: \begin{equation}
385: {\cal M}=M(\infty)=4\pi\int_0^\infty\left[r^2\left({\cal U}(f,h,u)+
386: \alpha^2{\cal K}(f,h,u)\right)-\eta^2\right]e^{-P(r)} \ ,
387: \end{equation}
388: where
389: \begin{equation}
390: P(r)=8\pi G\int_r^\infty dr'\ r'\ {\cal K}(f,h,u) \ ,
391: \end{equation}
392: which is a positive-definite quantity.
393:
394: The gravitational field equations, (\ref{Y}) and (\ref{X}) can be rewritten
395: in a different way in terms of the radial function $M(r)$ as follows:
396: \begin{equation}
397: \label{AB}
398: \frac{(AB)'}{AB}=16\pi Gr{\cal K}(f,h,u)
399: \end{equation}
400: and
401: \begin{equation}
402: M'(r)+8\pi Gr{\cal K}M(r)=4\pi r^2\left({\cal U}+\alpha^2{\cal K}\right)-
403: 4\pi\eta^2 \ .
404: \end{equation}
405:
406: For the matter fields we have:
407: \begin{equation}
408: \label{U1}
409: \frac1{\sqrt{AB}}\left[\sqrt{\frac BA}u'\right]'=\frac{e^2r^2}2\frac{\partial
410: {\cal U}}{\partial u}=\frac{u(u^2-1)}{r^2}+\eta^2e^2h^2u \ ,
411: \end{equation}
412: \begin{equation}
413: \label{H1}
414: \frac1{r^2\sqrt{AB}}\left[r^2\sqrt{\frac BA}h'\right]'=\frac1{\eta^2}\frac
415: {\partial {\cal U}}{\partial h}=\frac{2hu^2}{r^2}+\lambda\eta^2 h(h^2-1) \ ,
416: \end{equation}
417: and
418: \begin{equation}
419: \label{F}
420: \frac1{r^2\sqrt{AB}}\left[r^2\sqrt{\frac BA}f'\right]'=\frac1{\eta^2}
421: \frac{\partial {\cal U}}{\partial f}=\frac{2f}{r^2}+\lambda\eta^2f(f^2-1) \ .
422: \end{equation}
423:
424: From these set of differential equations it is possible to observe that there
425: is no direct interaction between the global Higgs field expressed in terms of
426: $f(r)$ with the magnetic sector represented by $h(r)$ and $u(r)$. However the
427: gravitational field interacts with both sectors. Moreover these equations
428: are invariant under the discrete symmetries $f \rightarrow-f$, $h \rightarrow
429: -h$ and $u \rightarrow -u$. The first two transformations correspond to
430: specific choice of monopoles configurations and the last one corresponds to a
431: gauge transformation.
432:
433: In order to analyze this set of differential equations let us first discuss
434: the boundary conditions obeyed by the fields.
435:
436: The boundary condition on the matter fields at infinity follows by the
437: requirement of the topological defect be localized
438: \begin{equation}
439: f \rightarrow \pm 1, \ h \rightarrow \pm 1\ and \ u \rightarrow 0 \ .
440: \end{equation}
441:
442: Due to the presence of the global Higgs sector, the metric components do not
443: asymptote to unity. So according to the results exhibited
444: for the purely global monopole spacetime we can write the following boundary
445: conditions at infinity:
446: \begin{equation}
447: AB \rightarrow 1\ and \ M/r \rightarrow 0 \ .
448: \end{equation}
449:
450: The last two conditions above follows from the previous one obeyed by the
451: matter fields, as can be easily observed by the expressions (\ref{K}) and
452: (\ref{U}). The double sign which appear for the behavior of $h$ and
453: $f$ at infinity corresponds to the monopole or anti-monopole configurations.
454: In this paper we shall adopt the positive sign for both Higgs fields.
455:
456: The boundary conditions at origin required by regularity of our
457: solutions are:
458: \begin{equation}
459: \label{O}
460: u\rightarrow 1,\ f\rightarrow 0,\ h\rightarrow 0,\ AB\rightarrow 1,\
461: and\ M\rightarrow -4\pi\eta^2 r \ .
462: \end{equation}
463:
464: Being satisfied these conditions, the behavior of the integrand for the
465: Lagrangian associated with the matter and gravitational fields,
466: Eqs. (\ref{LM}) and (\ref{LE}), vanish at origin.
467:
468: As it was pointed out in Refs. \cite{Bais, Cho}, the differential equations
469: obeyed by the matter fields associated with the local monopole sector only,
470: admit exact (singular) solution $u=0$ and $h=1$ everywhere. However as to the
471: global monopole sector, the field $f$ goes to unity only at infinity.
472:
473: So, unfortunately the complete set of differential equations does not admit
474: closed solution, even singular one. So the relevant aspects about this
475: compost defect can only be observed numerically. We leave this analysis for
476: the next section. Before to end the present section we would like to make
477: two comments about this model:\\
478: $a)$ The first one refers to the positive-definite functional
479: energy property enjoyed by this model. In fact, eliminating the gravitational
480: degrees of freedom from the total Lagrangian, $L_T=L_M+L_E'$, by using
481: (\ref{X}), we obtain a energy-functional, $E=-L_T$, expressed in terms of the
482: matter fields as:
483: \begin{equation}
484: E=\int d^3x\ \sqrt{-g}\left({\cal U}+{\cal K}\right) \ .
485: \end{equation}
486: \noindent
487: $b)$ The second point that we want to mention is that a pointlike
488: topological defect which takes into account a (point) magnetic charge
489: $g=1/e$ in a solid angle deficit geometry, can be obtained by considering
490: a non-dynamical energy-momentum tensor below in the Einstein equation:
491: \begin{equation}
492: T^t_t=T^r_r=-\frac1{r^2}\left(\frac1{2e^2r^2}+\eta^2\right), \ T_\theta^\theta
493: =T^\phi_\phi=\frac1{2e^2r^4} \ .
494: \end{equation}
495: The gravitational field associated with the above tensor reads:
496: \begin{equation}
497: B(r)=\frac1{A(r)}=\alpha^2-\frac{2GM}r+\frac{4\pi G}{e^2r^2} \ ,
498: \end{equation}
499: which corresponds to the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m spacetime with an additional
500: solid angle deficit factor. This metric tensor, as mentioned above, describes
501: the effect produced in the geometry by two distinct objects: the
502: global monopole, responsible for a solid angle deficit, and the magnetic
503: monopoles, responsible for a non-vanishing radial magnetic field
504: \begin{equation}
505: B_i=B_i^a\hat{\phi}^a=\hat{x}_i/er^2 \ .
506: \end{equation}
507:
508: Although the above expressions represent exact solutions for this system,
509: unfortunately they cannot be accepted as physical solution. The non-integrable
510: factor $1/r^4$ of $T^t_t$ provides an infinity energy inside
511: a finite space region around the defect. Finally we want to say that
512: the scalar curvature associated with the above spacetime is
513: $R=\frac{2(1-\alpha^2)}{r^2}$.
514:
515: \section{Numerical Analysis}
516:
517: In this section we shall exhibit the most relevant aspects about this
518: compost defect under a numerical analysis. Our strategy is to present
519: numerical solutions for the matter and gravitational fields which obey
520: regularity conditions at origin. See Eq. (\ref{O}). Mainly we are interested to
521: analyse their behaviors as the parameters $\eta$, associated with the energy
522: scale where the symmetry is spontaneously broken and $\lambda$, the
523: self-coupling constant, both vary. In order to start the numerical analysis
524: we shall express the set of differential equations, (\ref{AB}) - (\ref{F}),
525: in terms of two dimensionless parameters $\Delta=8\pi G\eta^2$ and $\beta=
526: \lambda/e^2$, rescaling the radial coordinate $r$ as $x=re\eta$.
527:
528: The case $\Delta=0$, i.e., $G=0$ corresponds to the flat-space one. The
529: solutions for the matter fields is the 't Hooft-Polyakov magnetic monopole
530: for the local sector with the global sector independent. Choosing $\beta=0$
531: the solution for the $u$ and $h$ can be given in a closed form \cite{PS}.
532: As to the global sector, vanishing $\beta$ the system does not
533: provide localized solution: the differential equation for $f$ becomes
534: linear and a regular solution at origin diverges as $r \to \infty$. An
535: intermediate situation happens when we assume $\Delta \neq 0$ and the
536: self-coupling constant for the local Higgs sector only vanishes. In
537: this case the matter field equation becomes
538: \begin{equation}
539: \label{AB1}
540: \frac1{\sqrt{AB}}\left(\sqrt{\frac BA}\ u'\right)'=\frac{u(u^2-1)}{x^2}+
541: h^2u \ ,
542: \end{equation}
543: \begin{equation}
544: \frac1{x^2 \sqrt{AB}}\left(x^2 \sqrt{\frac BA}\ h'\right)'=\frac{2hu^2}{x^2}
545: \end{equation}
546: and
547: \begin{equation}
548: \label{F1}
549: \frac1{x^2\sqrt{AB}}\left(x^2\sqrt{\frac BA} \ f'\right)'=\frac{2f}{x^2}+
550: \beta f(f^2-1) \ ,
551: \end{equation}
552: where the primes in the above equations denote differentiation with
553: respect to $x$.
554:
555: As we have said before, in this section we shall analyse, numerically,
556: both cases: The first one described by Eqs. (\ref{AB}) - (\ref{F}), and
557: the second one by Eqs. (\ref{AB1}) - (\ref{F1}).
558:
559: Now let us start first with the complete model. Casting the differential
560: equations in first-order form by auxiliaries fields $P=u'$, $Q=h'$, $D=f'$ and
561: defining a new other variable $g=1/A$, the set of differential equations
562: becomes
563: \begin{equation}
564: P=u', \ Q=h', \ D=f' , \ g=1/A \ ,
565: \end{equation}
566: \begin{equation}
567: g'=\frac1x-\frac gx-\Delta x\left[U(f,h,u)+g\left(\frac{P^2}
568: {x^2}+\frac{Q^2}2+\frac{D^2}2\right)\right]\ ,
569: \end{equation}
570: \begin{equation}
571: P'=\frac1g\left[\frac{gP}x-\frac Px+\frac{u(u^2-1)}{x^2}+h^2u+\Delta xP\
572: U(f,h,u)
573: \right] \ ,
574: \end{equation}
575: \begin{equation}
576: \label{Q}
577: Q'=\frac1g\left[\frac{2hu^2}{x^2}+\beta h(h^2-1)-\frac{gQ}x-\frac Qx+
578: \Delta xQ U(f,h,u)\right] \
579: \end{equation}
580: and
581: \begin{equation}
582: D'=\frac1g\left[\frac{2f}{x^2}+\beta f(f^2-1)-\frac{gD}x-\frac Dx+
583: \Delta xD U(f,h,u)\right] \ ,
584: \end{equation}
585: being
586: \begin{equation}
587: \label{U1}
588: U(f,h,u)=\frac{(u^2-1)^2}{2x^4}+\frac{u^2f^2}{x^2}+\frac{f^2}{x^2}+
589: \frac\beta 4(h^2-1)^2+\frac\beta 4(f^2-1)^2 \ .
590: \end{equation}
591:
592: Near the origin, regular solutions must behave as
593: \begin{equation}
594: \label{f}
595: f=c_fx+O(x^3), \ h=c_hx+O(x^3), \ u=1-c_ux^2+O(x^4), \
596: \end{equation}
597: and
598: \begin{equation}
599: g=1-\Delta\left[2c_u+\frac12\left(c_f^2+c_h^2\right)+\frac\beta6\right]x^2+
600: O(x^4) \ ,
601: \end{equation}
602: where the three constants $c_f$, $c_h$ and $c_u$ must be chosen in order
603: to have $f$, $h$ and $u$ approaching to the correct values as
604: $x\rightarrow\infty$.
605:
606: The case $c_h=c_u=0$ and $c_f\neq 0$ corresponds to the global monopole
607: spacetime. In this case there is only one constant to be adjusted. The set
608: of differential equations presents only one parameter $\Delta$. This model
609: has been first numerically analyzed by Harari and Loust\'{o} \cite{Lousto}.
610: There, they show that the behavior of the Higgs field is quite insensitive
611: to the values of $\Delta$ in the interval $0\leq \Delta \leq 1$. More recently,
612: Maison and Liebling \cite{Maison} and Liebling \cite{Liebling} returned to
613: the numerical analysis of this model and found that for $\Delta \geq 1$,
614: $1/A$ decreases toward zero indicating the presence of a horizon.
615:
616: A more complicated case is when $c_f=0$ with $c_h$ and $c_u$ different from
617: zero. This case corresponds to a gravitating magnetic monopole. There are
618: two constants to be adjusted numerically in order the system to present
619: localized topological defect. This model has been analyzed by Lee {\it et
620: al} \cite{Lee}, Ortiz \cite{Ortiz} and Breitenlohner {\it et al}
621: \cite{Peter}. In these papers the authors observed that the system presents
622: singular solutions when $\Delta$ is greater than some critical value,
623: $\Delta_{cr}$. For these situations $1/A$ has zeros, the Schwarzchild
624: radius becomes greater than the monopole's size, so the monopole must be
625: a black-hole.
626:
627: Now returning to our system, we present in what follows our numerical results.
628: Defining by the radius of the global and magnetic monopoles' core the value
629: of the dimensionless variable $x$ corresponding to $f(x_L)=0.9$ and
630: $h(x_G)=0.9$, respectively, we can observe by Figs. $1(a)$ and $1(b)$,
631: that $r_L<r_G$. Also we can notice that both radiuses decrease as $\beta$
632: becomes larger. So, these results confirm that, for this model, the magnetic
633: monopole configuration
634: approaches to its vacuum value faster than the global monopole. In this sense
635: the magnetic monopole's core is firstly formed. Moreover, other graphs
636: not included in this paper indicate that the shapes of $f(x)$ and $h(x)$ are
637: almost insensitive to the values of the parameter $\Delta$.\footnote{A similar
638: conclusion has been reached by Harari and Loust\'{o} \cite{Lousto} in their
639: analysis of a pure global monopole system}
640:
641: The Figs. $2(a)$ and $2(b)$ display the behavior of the function $u(x)$
642: with $x$ for different values of $\beta$ and $\Delta$. From them it is
643: possible to observe that its behavior is sensitive to the values of the
644: parameters $\Delta$ and $\beta$, in such way that $u$ reaches its asymptotic
645: value faster for greater values of these two parameters.
646:
647: The Figs. $3(a)$ and $3(b)$ exhibit the behavior of the fields $f$ and $h$
648: for fixed value of $\Delta$ and different values of $\beta$. We can see that
649: their behaviors are very sensitive to this parameter, and that their
650: radius decrease when $\beta$ increases. From numerical point of view,
651: solutions with large $\beta$ become more difficult to be analysed, this is
652: the reason why they are presented in different intervals of
653: the variable $x$. \footnote{The stability problem related with numerical
654: solutions for large $\beta$ has been pointed by Breitenlohner {\it at all}
655: in Ref. \cite{Peter} for $\beta>5$ in the gravitating magnetic monopole
656: system.}
657:
658: As to $g(x)=\frac1{A(x)}$, which asymptotes to non-unity values $\alpha^2=
659: 1-\Delta$, it develops a local minimum for large values of the parameters
660: $\Delta$ and $\beta$, independently. Moreover, as $\Delta$ increases
661: the asymptotic value of $g$ decreases toward zero, and becomes negative
662: for $\Delta > 1$ indicating the presence of a horizon. So, for $\Delta \geq 1$
663: this system presents a horizon for any nonzero value of $\beta$. However,
664: for $\Delta <1$ there exist a critical value for $\beta$ above which this
665: compost defect becomes a black hole. To find a domain of existence of
666: regular solution is possible only formally, analysing the set of
667: differential equations at horizon, i. e., substituting $g=0$ at the
668: point $x=x_H$ in the set. Only numerical calculations allows the obtainement
669: of related parameters $\beta$ and $\Delta$ associated with a specific
670: singular solution.
671:
672: The figures $4(a)$ and $4(b)$ exhibit the behavior of $M(x)$ with $x$,
673: being $M(x)$ a dimensionless function obtained by $M(r)$ given in (\ref{M}).
674: In fact this dimensionless mass function which depends only the two
675: parameter $\beta$ and $\Delta$ is defined by $M(r)=4\pi\eta/e M(x)$.
676: The asymptotic behavior of $M(x)$ provides information about the effective
677: monopole mass. Fig $4(a)$ shows that for $\beta=1$ this function
678: asymptotes a negative value. This very peculiar feature has been detected
679: for the global monopole defect by Harari and Loust\'{o} in \cite{Lousto}.
680: \footnote{In \cite{Lousto} it was observed that the shape of the curves are
681: very insensitive to $\Delta$ in the interval $0\leq\Delta\leq 1$.} However for
682: $\beta=10$ the Fig. $4(b)$ shows that the effective mass of this topological
683: defect becomes positive. (The same behavior is observed for $\beta=80$.) So
684: this compost defect presents repulsive or attractive gravitational
685: interactions which depends on the magnitude of the self-coupling constant
686: $\lambda$.
687:
688: The second case can be numerically analyzed in similar way as the
689: previous one; however some changes must be done in order to take
690: into account the vanishing of the self-coupling constant in the local
691: sector of the system. The first-order differential equation set for
692: this case can be written discarding the terms $h(h^2-1)$ in (\ref{Q})
693: and (\ref{U1}). The behavior for the fields $f$, $h$ and $u$ at the origin
694: are similar to (\ref{f}); however for $g$ it is
695: \begin{equation}
696: g=1-\Delta\left[2c_u+\frac12\left(c_f^2+c_h^2\right)+\frac\beta{12}\right]x^2+
697: O(x^4) \ .
698: \end{equation}
699: Once more three new constants must be chosen in order to have solutions with
700: appropriated behavior at infinity.
701:
702: The most important characteristic observed by us about this model are
703: summarized below:\\
704: $i)$ The Figs. $5(a)$ and $5(b)$ show the behavior of the fields $f$
705: and $h$. Considering again the same definition to the radius of the
706: defects as given before, we can see that for this case $r_G<r_L$. This is
707: in contrast with the result found in the previous model. So comparing
708: the results found in these two models it is possible to conclude that
709: the sizes of the global and magnetic monopole's core depends on the
710: intensity of their respective self-interactions. Moreover, we can
711: infer that for specific values of these constants, both topological defects
712: present equal radius, though we cannot ensure that both fields $f$ and $h$
713: have the same behavior.\\
714: $ii)$ The Figs. $6(a)$ and $6(b)$ exhibit, respectively, an explicit
715: dependence of $u$ and $h$ with $\beta$. Although there is no direct
716: interaction between the local sector, represented by these fields, with
717: the self-coupling constant associated with the global sector, our
718: numerical analysis indicate a sensitive dependence of both fields
719: with $\lambda$.\\
720: $iii)$ The Fig. $6(c)$ exhibits the behavior of $f$ with $\beta$. In
721: this case its dependence is more prominent than for $h$, i.e., the radius
722: of the global monopole decreases more rapidly with the increasing of
723: $\beta$ than the magnetic's one.
724:
725: As to the effective mass associated with this case, $M(x)$, it is observed
726: the same behavior exhibited in the previous case. So we decided do not included
727: extra figures in this part.
728:
729:
730: \section{Concluding Remarks}
731:
732: In this paper we have presented a model which describes two topological
733: defects at the same time: The global and magnetic monopole in a curved
734: spacetime. The Lagrangian density which governs this system contains
735: two distinct bosonic sectors. In order to make our analysis easier we
736: decided do not include a direct interaction between them. Two different
737: situations were analyzed: the first one considering the Higgs
738: self-interactions and vacuum expectation values equal for both sectors.
739: The second situation is a particular case when we switch off the
740: self-coupling constant associated with the local sector only. In both
741: cases the set of coupled differential equations does not allow to
742: obtain a closed solutions, even singular. Only asymptotic behavior
743: for matter and gravitational fields can be provided analytically.
744: Specifically, for regions very far from the topological defect's
745: core, the spacetime corresponds to a Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m spacetime
746: with a solid angle deficit factor
747: \begin{eqnarray}
748: B(r)=\frac1{A(r)}&=&\alpha^2-\frac{2GM}r+\frac{4\pi G}{e^2r^2} \ . \nonumber
749: \end{eqnarray}
750:
751: Here we have provided numerical informations about the behavior
752: of these fields in a non-asymptotic region. These informations concern to
753: the relative sizes of both defects, their dependence on the two parameters
754: presented in this model, the self-coupling constant, through $\beta$, and the
755: gravitational constant, through $\Delta$, etc.
756:
757: The numerical method applied by us in this paper was double-precision
758: fourth-order Runge-Kutta routine. For all calculations the errors found
759: were of order $10^{-3}$ or less.
760:
761: It is our intention to continue investigating the behavior of the fields
762: for larger value of the parameter $\Delta$. As shown in previous
763: papers analysing global \cite{Maison, Liebling} and gravitational
764: \cite{Lee, Nieuw, Peter} monopoles, for $\Delta$ bigger than some critical
765: value, the system presents horizons. For both distinct cases, the horizons
766: appears when $\Delta$ is of order unity.
767:
768:
769:
770: \newpage
771: \begin{thebibliography}{100}
772: \bibitem{HP} G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B79}, 276 (1974) and A. M. Polyakov,
773: Pisma v. Zh. E.T.F. {\bf 20}, 430 (1974), (JETP Lett. {\bf 20}, 194 (1974)).
774: \bibitem{Bais} F. A. Bais and R. J. Russel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11}, 2692 (1975).
775: \bibitem{Cho}Y. M. Cho and P. G. O. Freund, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 12}, 1588 (1975).
776: \bibitem{Nieuw} P. van Nieuwenhuizen, D. Wilkinson and M. J. Perry, Phys.
777: Rev. D {\bf 13}, 778 (1976).
778: \bibitem{Lee} K. Lee, V. P. Nair and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 2751
779: (1992).
780: \bibitem{Ortiz} M. E. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45} R2586 (1992).
781: \bibitem{BV} M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 341
782: (1989).
783: \bibitem{Salgado} U. Nucamendi, M Salgado and D. Sudarsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.
784: {\bf 84}, 3037 (2000).
785: \bibitem{Parker} M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker and T. J. Bogdan, Phys. Rev. D
786: {\bf 26}, 1296 (1982).
787: \bibitem{Hiscock} W. Hiscock, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 344 (1990).
788: \bibitem{BE} D. P. Bennett and S. H. Rhie, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65}, 1709
789: (1990).
790: \bibitem{Peter} P. Breitenlohner, P. Forg\'acs and D. Maison, Nucl. Phys.
791: {\bf B383}, 357 (1992) and P. Breitenlohner, P. Forg\'acs and D. Maison,
792: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B442}, 126 (1995).
793: \bibitem{Lousto} D. Harari and C. Loust\'{o}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 2626
794: (1990).
795: \bibitem{Maison} D. Maison and S. Liebling, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 5218
796: (1999).
797: \bibitem{Liebling} S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 024030 (2000).
798: \bibitem{PS} M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35}, 760
799: (1975).
800:
801: \end{thebibliography}
802:
803: \section{Figure Captions}
804:
805: {\bf Figure 1}: These graphs show simultaneously the behavior of $f$ and $h$
806: for: $(a)$ $\beta=1$ and $\Delta=0.1$ and $(b)$ for $\beta=80$ and
807: $\Delta=10^{-6}$.\hfill\\
808: [6mm]
809: {\bf Figure 2}: These graphs show the behavior of $u$ for three different
810: values of $\Delta$ for $(a)$ $\beta=10$ and $(b)$ $\beta=80$.\hfill\\[6mm]
811: {\bf Figure 3}: These graphs show the behavior of $(a)$ $f$ and $(b)$ $h$
812: for $\Delta=0.1$ and three different values of $\beta$.\hfill\\
813: [6mm]
814: {\bf Figure 4}: These graphs show the behavior of the effective mass, $M(x)$
815: for $(a)$ $\beta=1$ and $(b)$ $\beta=10$ for three different values of
816: $\Delta$.\hfill\\
817: [6mm]
818: {\bf Figure 5}: These graphs show simultaneously the behavior of $f$ and $h$
819: for: $(a)$ $\beta=10$ and $\Delta=10^{-6}$ and $(b)$ for $\beta=10$ and
820: $\Delta=0.1$.\hfill\\
821: [6mm]
822: {\bf Figure 6}: These graphs show the behavior of $(a)$ $u$, $(b)$ $h$ and
823: $(c)$ $f$ for three different values of $\beta$ for $\Delta=0.1$.\hfill\\
824: [6mm]
825:
826: \begin{figure}[t]
827: \begin{center}
828: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{fehl1d011.eps}
829:
830: (a)
831:
832: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{fehl80d061.eps}
833:
834: (b)
835:
836: \label{fig1}
837: \caption{}
838: \end{center}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841: \newpage
842:
843: \begin{figure}[t]
844: \begin{center}
845: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{ul101.eps}
846:
847: (a)
848:
849: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{ul801.eps}
850:
851: (b)
852:
853: \label{fig2}
854: \caption{}
855: \end{center}
856: \end{figure}
857:
858: \newpage
859:
860: \begin{figure}[t]
861: \begin{center}
862: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{fd011.eps}
863:
864: (a)
865:
866: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{hd011.eps}
867:
868: (b)
869:
870: \label{fig3}
871: \caption{}
872: \end{center}
873: \end{figure}
874:
875:
876: \newpage
877:
878: \begin{figure}[t]
879: \begin{center}
880: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{ml1.eps}
881:
882: (a)
883:
884: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{ml10.eps}
885:
886: (b)
887:
888:
889: \label{fig4}
890: \caption{}
891: \end{center}
892: \end{figure}
893:
894:
895: \newpage
896:
897: \begin{figure}[t]
898: \begin{center}
899: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{hefl10d062.eps}
900:
901: (a)
902:
903: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{hefl10d012.eps}
904:
905: (b)
906:
907:
908:
909:
910:
911:
912:
913: \label{fig5}
914: \caption{}
915: \end{center}
916: \end{figure}
917:
918: \newpage
919:
920: \begin{figure}[t]
921: \begin{center}
922: \includegraphics[width=5.1cm,angle=-90]{ud012.eps}
923:
924: (a)
925:
926: \includegraphics[width=5.1cm,angle=-90]{hd012.eps}
927:
928: (b)
929:
930: \includegraphics[width=5.1cm,angle=-90]{fd012.eps}
931:
932: (c)
933: \label{fig6}
934: \caption{}
935: \end{center}
936: \end{figure}
937:
938:
939:
940: \end{document}
941:
942:
943:
944:
945:
946:
947:
948:
949:
950:
951:
952:
953: