1:
2: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,floats,epsfig,prd]{revtex}
3:
4: % Uncomment next two lines for A4 paper size, comment for letter size
5: %\addtolength{\textheight}{17.6mm}
6:
7: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
8: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
9: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
10: %%%%% number equations by section %%%%%%%%
11: %\makeatletter
12: %\@addtoreset{equation}{section}
13: %\makeatother
14:
15: % Command Definitions
16:
17: \def\real{I\negthinspace R}
18: \def\zed{Z\hskip -3mm Z }
19: \def\half{\textstyle{1\over2}}
20: \def\quarter{\textstyle{1\over4}}
21: \def\sech{\,{\rm sech}\,}
22: \def\ie{{\it i.e.,}}
23: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
24: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
25: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
26: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
27: \newcommand{\bml}{\begin{mathletters}}
28: \newcommand{\eml}{\end{mathletters}}
29: %\newcommand{\bml}{\begin{subequations}}
30: %\newcommand{\eml}{\end{subequations}}
31: %
32: \def\aprle{\buildrel < \over {_{\sim}}}
33: \def\aprge{\buildrel > \over {_{\sim}}}
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \tighten
37:
38: \preprint{DCPT-03/15}
39: \draft
40:
41: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44:
45: %\wideabs{ % Uncomment this line for two-column output
46:
47: \title{de Sitter/ Anti-de Sitter global monopoles}
48: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
49: \author{Bruno Bertrand \ \ and \ \ Yves Brihaye\footnote{Yves.Brihaye@umh.ac.be}}
50: \address{Facult\'e des Sciences, Universit\'e de Mons-Hainaut,
51: B-7000 Mons, Belgium}
52: \author{Betti Hartmann\footnote{Betti.Hartmann@durham.ac.uk}}
53: \address{Department of Mathematical Sciences, University
54: of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K.}
55: \date{\today}
56: \setlength{\footnotesep}{0.5\footnotesep}
57:
58: \maketitle
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: \begin{abstract}
61: We consider global monopoles in asymptotic de Sitter/ Anti- de Sitter
62: space-time. We present
63: the by our numerical
64: analysis confirmed asymptotic behaviour of the metric and Goldstone field functions.
65: We find that the appearance of horizons in this model depends strongly on the sign
66: and value of the cosmological constant as well as on the value of the gravitational coupling.
67: In Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, we find that for a fixed value of the cosmological
68: constant, global monopoles without horizons exist only up to a critical value of the gravitational
69: coupling.
70: Moreover, we observe (in contrast to another recent study)
71: that the introduction
72: of a cosmological constant can {\bf not} render a positive
73: mass of the global monopole.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \pacs{PACS numbers: 04.20Jb, 04.40.Nr, 14.80.Hv }
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: %\newpage
80: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
81:
82: \section{Introduction}
83: In recent years topological defects \cite{vilenkin} in asymptotic de Sitter (dS)/
84: Anti- de Sitter (AdS) space-time have gained renewed interest.
85: This is mainly due to the proposed dS/CFT \cite{strominger}, resp.
86: AdS/CFT \cite{adscft} correspondences. These correspondences
87: suggest a holographic duality between gravity in a $d$-dimensional
88: dS, resp. AdS space and a conformal field theory (CFT) ``living''
89: on the boundary of the dS, resp. AdS spacetime and thus being $d-1$-dimensional.
90: However, dS space-time is also interesting from a cosmological point of
91: view since it seems to be confirmed by observational data \cite{super}
92: that we live in a universe with positive cosmological constant.
93:
94: Gravitating global monopoles in asymptotically flat space-time
95: were first discussed in \cite{vile,harari}. These topological defects
96: were found to have a negative mass and a deficit angle depending on the
97: vacuum expectation value (vev) of the scalar Goldstone field and the gravitational
98: coupling. For sufficiently high enough values of the vev the solutions
99: have an horizon \cite{lieb}. These solutions were named (after their string counterparts
100: \cite{laguna}) ``supermassive monopoles''.
101:
102: In \cite{li}, it was found that the introduction of a cosmological constant
103: can render the mass of the monopole positive. This was demonstrated by a figure showing the mass
104: function as function of the radial coordinate for different choices of the cosmological
105: constant. In our recent work, we are mainly interested in composite monopole
106: defects \cite{com} in dS/ AdS space-time \cite{ybe}. This is why we cross-checked the
107: results of \cite{li} and found discrepancies between our results and those in \cite{li}.
108:
109: The paper is organised as follows: we give the model in Section II and discuss the
110: asymptotic behaviour, which should be compared to that in \cite{li}, in Section III.
111: We give our numerical results in Section IV and conclude in Section V.
112:
113:
114: \section{The Model}
115: We consider the following action~:
116: \begin{equation}
117: \label{action}
118: S =\int \left( \frac{1}{16\pi G}(R- 2 \Lambda)
119: - \frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu} \xi^a \partial^{\mu} \xi^a -
120: \frac{ \lambda}{4}(\xi^a\xi^a- \eta^2)^2 \right) \sqrt{-g} d^4 x
121: \end{equation}
122: which describes a Goldstone triplet $\xi^a$, $a=1,2,3$, interacting with
123: gravity in an asymptotically de Sitter (dS) (for the cosmological constant
124: $\Lambda > 0$), resp. Anti-de Sitter (AdS) ($\Lambda < 0$) space-time.
125: $G$ is Newton's constant,
126: $\lambda$ is the self-coupling constant of the Goldstone field
127: and $\eta$ the vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Goldstone field.
128:
129: For the metric, the spherically symmetric Ansatz
130: in Schwarzschild-like coordinates reads~:
131: \begin{equation}
132: ds^{2}=g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}=
133: -A^{2}(r)N(r)dt^2+N^{-1}(r)dr^2+r^2 (d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
134: d^2\varphi)
135: \label{metric}
136: \ , \end{equation}
137: while for the Goldstone field, we choose the hedgehog Ansatz \cite{vile}~:
138: \begin{equation}
139: {\xi}^a = \eta h(r) {e_r}^a
140: \ .
141: \end{equation}
142: We introduce the following dimensionless variable and coupling constants~:
143: \begin{equation}
144: x = \eta r \quad , \quad
145: \alpha^2 = 4 \pi G \eta^2 \quad , \quad
146: \gamma = \frac{\Lambda}{\eta^2} \ .
147: \end{equation}
148:
149:
150: Varying (\ref{action}) with respect to the metric fields gives
151: the Einstein equations which can be combined to give two first order
152: differential equations for $A$ and $\mu$:~
153: \begin{equation}
154: \label{a}
155: A' = \alpha^2 A x (h')^2
156: \end{equation}
157: \begin{equation}
158: \label{mu}
159: \mu' = \alpha^2 \left( h^2-1 + x^2\frac{\lambda}{4}(h^2-1)^2 +\frac{1}{2}
160: x^2N (h')^2 \right)
161: \end{equation}
162: and $N$ and $\mu$ are related as follows:~
163: \begin{equation}
164: \label{nmu}
165: N(x) = 1 - 2\alpha^2 - 2 \frac{\mu(x)}{x}
166: - \frac{\gamma}{3} x^2 \ . \
167: \end{equation}
168: Note that for $\gamma=0$, the existence of solutions without horizon
169: is restricted by $\alpha < \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}$ \cite{lieb}.
170:
171: Variation with respect to the matter fields yields the Euler-Lagrange
172: equations for the Goldstone field~:
173: \begin{equation}
174: (x^2 A N h')' = A( 2 h + \lambda x^2 h(h^2-1)) \ , \\
175: \label{feq}
176: \end{equation}
177: The prime denotes the derivative with respect to $x$.
178: Note that the equations have the same structure as for the
179: asymptotically flat space-time \cite{vile,harari}. The cosmological
180: constant just appears in the relation defining $\mu(x)$ and $N(x)$.
181:
182:
183: In order to solve the system of equations uniquely,
184: we have to introduce $4$ boundary conditions, which we choose to be~:
185: \begin{equation}
186: \mu(0) = 0 \quad , \quad h(0) = 0 \quad , \quad A(\infty) = 1 \quad ,
187: \quad h(\infty) = 1 \quad .
188: \end{equation}
189:
190:
191: The dimensionless mass of the solution is determined by the asymptotic
192: value $\mu(\infty)=\mu_{\infty}$ of the function $\mu(x)$ and is given
193: by $\mu_{\infty}/\alpha^2$.
194:
195:
196:
197:
198: \section{Asymptotic behaviour}
199: Expanding the functions
200: around the origin gives~:
201: \begin{equation}
202: h( x\rightarrow 0) = c_1 x + O(x^3) \ \ , \ \
203: \mu(x\rightarrow 0) = - \alpha^2 x + O(x^2) \ \ , \ \
204: A(x\rightarrow 0) = A(0)(1 + O(x^2))
205: \end{equation}
206: where $c_1$ and $A(0)$ are free parameters to be determined numerically.
207: The asymptotic behaviour ($x\rightarrow\infty$) is given by~:
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \label{asp}
210: h(x >> 1) = 1
211: &+& \frac{3}{(\gamma-3\lambda)} \frac{1}{x^2}
212: - \frac{9 (4\alpha^2(\gamma - 3\lambda)+ 9 \lambda)}
213: {2(2 \gamma + 3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)^2} \frac{1}{x^4} \nonumber \\
214: &-& \frac{36 \mu_{\infty}}
215: {(5\gamma+3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)}
216: \frac{1}{x^5}
217: + O(\frac{1}{x^6}) \ ,
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: A(x >>1 ) = 1
221: &-& \frac{9\alpha^2}{(\gamma-3\lambda)^2} \frac{1}{x^4}
222: + \frac{36\alpha^2(4\alpha^2(\gamma - 3\lambda)+ 9 \lambda)}
223: {(2 \gamma + 3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)^3} \frac{1}{x^6} \nonumber \\
224: &+& \frac{2160 \mu_{\infty} \alpha^2}
225: {7(5\gamma+3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)^3}
226: \frac{1}{x^7}
227: + O(\frac{1}{x^8})
228: \label{ainfty}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: and
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: \label{muinfty}
233: \mu(x >> 1) = \mu_{\infty}
234: &+& \frac{9\alpha^2\lambda}{(\gamma-3\lambda)^2} \frac{1}{x}
235: - \frac{6\alpha^2
236: (\gamma^2(2\alpha^2 + 3) -12\gamma\lambda(\alpha^2-1)
237: + 9 \lambda^2(1-2\alpha^2))}
238: {(2 \gamma + 3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)^3} \frac{1}{x^3}
239: \nonumber \\
240: &-& \frac{27 \mu_{\infty} \alpha^2(\lambda-\gamma)}
241: {(5\gamma+3\lambda)(\gamma-3\lambda)^2}
242: \frac{1}{x^4}
243: + O(\frac{1}{x^5}) \ .
244: \end{eqnarray}
245: It is worthwhile to contrast the coefficient of the $1/x$ correction for the
246: mass function $\mu(x)$ appearing in the above equation (\ref{muinfty})
247: with its counterpart in \cite{li}, eq.(18). While in the latter
248: the coefficient is independent on both the cosmological constant and the
249: self-coupling of the Goldstone field, we find here a non-trivial dependence
250: on these parameters (which is indeed confirmed by our numerical analysis).
251: We also remark that the expansion presented in \cite{li} is in contradiction
252: with the figure presented in that paper. The figure of \cite{li} seems incompatible
253: with the fact that the first asymptotic correction to the mass is
254: supposed to be independent of the cosmological constant.
255:
256: \section{Numerical results}
257: We remark that without loosing generality, we can choose $\lambda=1.0$.
258:
259: \subsection{The $\gamma=0$ limit}
260: This limit was studied previously in great detail in \cite{vile,harari} and \cite{lieb}.
261: It was found that for $\gamma=0$
262: global monopoles have a negative mass \cite{vile,harari}. Thus, the global monopole
263: has a repulsive effect on a test particle in its neighbourhood.
264: Further, it was shown \cite{lieb} that global monopoles without horizon only
265: exist for $\alpha < \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}$, while for $\alpha > \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}$ no static
266: solutions exist at all. The configurations for $\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}< \alpha < \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}$
267: were called ``supermassive'' monopoles.
268:
269: We have redone the calculations and found perfect agreement with the results
270: in \cite{vile,harari,lieb}. Especially, we remark in view of Fig.~1 that
271: for $\gamma=0$, the mass of the solution is close to
272: $-\frac{\pi}{2}$. Since the mass of the global monopole
273: in flat space is just $=-\frac{\pi}{2}$ \cite{harari} (of course in rescaled units in comparison
274: to here), the value of $\frac{\mu_{\infty}}{\alpha^2} \lesssim -\frac{\pi}{2}$
275: is in good agreement with these results. We found in addition that the mass function at large $x$ is always negative
276: and becomes more and more negative for increasing $\alpha$ \cite{remark1}.
277:
278: \subsection{Anti-de Sitter (AdS) monopoles}
279:
280: By solving the three equations numerically we constructed
281: solutions for negative values of $\gamma$. First, we checked whether the asymptotic behaviour found in (\ref{ainfty})
282: is correct. We indeed confirmed numerically that the coefficients have the
283: given dependence on the coupling constants
284:
285: Following the investigation in \cite{li}, we have then studied the dependence of the mass
286: $\mu_{\infty}/\alpha^2$ on the cosmological constant $\gamma$ for a fixed value
287: of $\alpha$.
288: As is demonstrated in Fig.~1 for $\alpha=0.1$ and $\alpha=1.0$, we find
289: that the mass increases, but stays negative for {\bf all}
290: values of the cosmological constant.
291: In fact, as is evident from Fig.~1, the mass decreases
292: further with the increase
293: of $\alpha$ for a fixed $\gamma$. In the limit $\gamma\rightarrow -\infty$, the
294: mass tends to zero.
295: We contrast the behaviour of the mass-function $\mu(x)$
296: for different values of $\gamma$ with that in Fig.1
297: of \cite{li}. Since the authors choose the vev of the Goldstone field to be $=0.01$, while we choose it to
298: be $1$, the values of the negative valued cosmological constant in their plot corresponds to choosing
299: $\gamma=-10$, $-3$ here. Moreover, their choice of $G$ leads to $\alpha=0.0355$.
300: In Fig.~2, we show the profile of the mass function $\mu(x)$
301: for this choice of parameters. Clearly, the mass
302: function is negative for all $x$. Of course, we have to add that we have integrated
303: the equations only up to some maximal value of $x=x_{max}\approx 200$.
304: However, as can been seen for the asymptotic expansion (\ref{muinfty}), the
305: derivative of $\mu(x)$ at large $x$ is always negative and thus the function continues
306: to decrease. Because of that, local minima or even zeros of the function $\mu(x)$ in the
307: asymptotic region are excluded.
308:
309: Fixing $\gamma$ and varying $\alpha$, we observe a phenomenon not previously discussed
310: in the literature. This is demonstrated in Fig.~3 for $\gamma=-0.1$. Increasing $\alpha$, we observe that
311: a horizon starts to form and at $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}(\gamma)$, the solution
312: has a degenerate horizon at $x=x_h(\alpha_{cr})$. Thus AdS monopoles without horizon only
313: exist for $\alpha < \alpha_{cr}$. We find that the value of $\alpha_{cr}$ depends on $\gamma$ and
314: that it is increasing with the decrease of $\gamma$. E.g. we find that $\alpha_{cr}(\gamma=-0.1)\approx 1.1$ and
315: $\alpha_{cr}(\gamma=-1.0)\approx 1.85$ . Note that the solution outside the horizon can {\bf not} be completely described
316: by a AdS solution of the form:
317: \begin{equation}
318: \label{ads}
319: N(x)=1-2\alpha^2-\frac{2\mu_{\infty}}{x}-\frac{\gamma}{3}x^2
320: \end{equation}
321: where $\mu_{\infty}/\alpha^2$ is the mass of the solution. The reason is that $h(x)\equiv 1$ is not
322: a solution of (\ref{feq}). However, $h(x)$ is close to $1$ for $x > x_h$ and thus (\ref{ads}) can be thought of as
323: an approximation.
324: The solution (\ref{ads}) has a degenerate horizon at $x^{a}_{h}=\sqrt{(1-2\alpha^2)/\gamma}$ with corresponding
325: mass $\mu_{\infty}^{a}/\alpha^2=\frac{\gamma}{3\alpha^2}\sqrt{((1-2\alpha^2)/\gamma)^3}$. For the values of the parameters
326: given in Fig.~3 (especially $\alpha=1.098\approx \alpha_{cr}$), we find that $x_h^a = 3.756$ and $\mu_{\infty}^{a}/\alpha^2= -1.465$.
327: From our numerical analysis, we obtain $x_h\approx 3.5$ and $\mu_{\infty}/\alpha^2\approx -1.7$.
328:
329: Finally, to study the appearance of horizons in this model in more detail,
330: we have fixed $\alpha=0.7 < \sqrt{1/2}$ and $\alpha=0.8 > \sqrt{1/2}$,
331: respectively, and studied the dependence of
332: the value of the zero of $N(x)$, $x_h$ with $N(x_h)=0$
333: in dependence on $\gamma$. We have chosen these two values of $\alpha$
334: because only for $\alpha \ge \sqrt{1/2}$ do horizons appear in the
335: asymptotically flat case $(\gamma=0)$ \cite{lieb}. Our results
336: are shown in Fig.~4. Clearly, for $\alpha=0.7$ and $\gamma \le 0$ no horizons
337: appear which confirms the results of \cite{lieb}, while for $\alpha=0.8$ and
338: $\gamma \le 0$ we find horizons. In fact, for a specific range of $\gamma < 0$
339: two horizons exist. For $\alpha=0.8$, we find that this is for $-0.00236 \le
340: \gamma < 0$. At $\gamma=-0.00236$ the two horizons join and form a degenerate
341: horizon of type shown in Fig.~3. Thus, we have $\alpha_{cr}(-0.00236)=0.8$ which
342: is in good agreement with the previously presented results. In the limit
343: $\gamma\rightarrow 0$, the outer horizon tends to infinity, while the inner
344: horizon tends to the one of the ``supermassive'' monopoles observed
345: previously \cite{lieb}.
346:
347: \subsection{de Sitter monopoles}
348:
349: In \cite{li} the question was addressed whether the mass of the global monopole
350: can become positive for specific choices of the
351: cosmological constant. It was found that for positive cosmological
352: constants
353: this is possible. As a check for a future publication \cite{ybe} on composite
354: monopole defects in dS/AdS space-time, we have tried to obtain the results given in \cite{li}
355: and found contradictions.
356:
357: Choosing $\gamma$ positive a cosmological horizon appears at $x=x_c(\gamma)$
358: in dS space. We find that $x_c$ is a decreasing function of the cosmological
359: constant. For increasing $\gamma$, the value of $x_c=x_0$ tends to zero
360: as is demonstrated in Fig.~4.
361: We find further that
362: $\left( \mu_{\infty}(\gamma > 0)-\mu_{\infty}(\gamma=0)\right)/\alpha^2 < 0$ for all $\gamma >0$.
363: Since the mass curve does only alter its shape very little when choosing different $\alpha$,
364: we conclude that in contrast to what is claimed in \cite{li}, the appearance of
365: a cosmological constant (of either sign) can {\bf not} alter the sign of the mass of the global monopole.
366: Rather, we find that the mass gets more negative for increasing $\gamma >0$ which can be related to the
367: fact that the core of the monopole increases due to increased cosmological expansion.
368:
369:
370: In Fig.~2, we present the mass function for $\alpha=0.0355$ and $\gamma=0.073$.
371: This should be compared to the Fig.1 in \cite{li}.
372: First, we remark that we are surprised that the authors of \cite{li} have managed to find
373: solutions which correspond to our $\gamma=5$. We find that increasing $\gamma$ from zero to positive values,
374: we can construct solutions only for $\gamma \lesssim 0.073$. The reason is that with increasing
375: cosmological constant the horizon which appears for the dS solutions decreases to lie closer and closer to
376: the core of the monopole.
377: Clearly, the mass function $\mu(x)$ is a constantly decreasing function of the coordinate $x$ and
378: doesn't have local extrema like in \cite{li}. Moreover, the asymptotic values of $\mu(x)$ are always negative.
379:
380:
381:
382: \section{Conclusions}
383: Topological defects \cite{vilenkin} are believed to be relevant
384: for structure formation in the universe.
385: Global defects, i.e. defects which don't involve gauge fields
386: are of special interest in this context since they have
387: a long-range scalar field. This leads to the infiniteness of energy
388: in flat space, but however renders a strong gravitational
389: effect when the topological defects are studied in curved space.
390: Moreover, in the case of the global monopole, the coupling to gravity
391: can remove the singularity present in flat space. The space-time then
392: has a deficit angle and is not locally flat. Moreover, the mass
393: of the monopole is negative, which was interpreted as a repulsive effect
394: of the monopole.
395:
396: While for positive cosmological constant (dS space) a horizon, the so-called ``cosmological
397: horizon'' always appears independent on the gravitational coupling $\alpha$, the existence
398: of horizons in AdS space depends strongly on the values of the cosmological and gravitational constants.
399: For vanishing cosmological constant $\gamma=0$, it was found previously that
400: horizons exist only for $\alpha \ge \sqrt{1/2}$ \cite{lieb}.
401: For $\gamma < 0$ a monotonically decreasing curve in the $\gamma$-$\alpha$-plane
402: appears which represents the solutions with one, degenerate horizon.
403: Above this curve, solutions with two horizons exist, while below the solutions
404: have no horizons at all.
405:
406: The authors of \cite{li} have studied global monopoles in a dS/AdS space-time and
407: found that the inclusion of the cosmological constant can render the mass of the
408: monopole positive. Reconsidering these solutions with a highly accurate numerical routine (see
409: \cite{bhk} for a short description) and
410: studying the asymptotic behaviour we come to a different conclusion~:
411: global monopoles do {\bf not} acquire a positive mass in AdS or dS space-time.
412:
413:
414:
415:
416: \begin{acknowledgments}
417: BH was supported by an EPSRC grant. YB gratefully acknowledges the Belgian FNRS
418: for financial support.
419: \end{acknowledgments}
420:
421: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
422: \bibitem{vilenkin}
423: A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, {\it Cosmic Strings and Other
424: topological defects}, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
425: \bibitem{strominger} A. Strominger, JHEP {\bf 0110}, 034 (2001);
426: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 049 (2001).
427: \bibitem{adscft} J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Phys. {\bf 2}, 231 (1998);
428: E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 2}, 253 (1998).
429: \bibitem{super} S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J. {\bf 517}, 565 (1999);
430: A. G. Riess et al., Astron. J. {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998).
431: \bibitem{vile} M. Bariolla and A. Vilenkin,
432: %gravitational field of a monopole
433: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 341 (1989).
434: \bibitem{harari} D. Harari and C. Lousto
435: %%%repulsive gravitational effects of global monopoles
436: Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 2626 (1990).
437: \bibitem{lieb} S. Liebling, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 024030 (1999).
438: \bibitem{laguna} P. Laguna and D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. {\bf D40}, 1011 (1989).
439: \bibitem{li} X. Li and J. Hao, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 107701 (2002).
440: \bibitem{com} J. Spinelly, U. de Freitas and E. R. Bezerra de Mello,
441: Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 024018 (2002);
442: Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 064018 (2002);
443: E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann,
444: Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 045015 (2003).
445: \bibitem{ybe} E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Y. Brihaye and B. Hartmann, {\it in preparation}
446: \bibitem{remark1} Note that the mass function $m_L(x)$ used in \cite{lieb} and the function $\mu(x)$
447: used here are defined differently. It is $m_L(x)=x \alpha^2 + \mu(x)$. Thus even if we find $\mu(x) < 0$
448: the mass function $m_L(x)$ stays positive asymptotically:
449: $m_L(x >>1) \sim x \alpha^2 > 0$.
450: \bibitem{bhk} Y. Brihaye, B. Hartmann and J. Kunz,
451: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 024019 (2002).
452:
453:
454:
455:
456:
457:
458:
459: \end{thebibliography}
460:
461:
462: \newpage
463: \begin{figure}
464: \centering
465: \epsfysize=10cm
466: \mbox{\epsffile{bbh1.eps}}
467: \caption{The value of the mass $\mu_{\infty}/\alpha^2$ is given for the AdS monopoles
468: ($\gamma < 0$) as function of $-\gamma$. We have chosen $\alpha=0.1$, =1.0$ and $$\lambda=1.0$. }
469: \end{figure}
470: \newpage
471: \begin{figure}
472: \centering
473: \epsfysize=10cm
474: \mbox{\epsffile{bbh2.eps}}
475: \caption{The mass function $\mu(x)$ is shown as function of $x$ for
476: $\gamma=-10$, $-3$ and $0.073$. We have chosen $\alpha=0.0355$, $\lambda=1.0$. }
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: \begin{figure}
480: \centering
481: \epsfysize=10cm
482: \mbox{\epsffile{bbh3.eps}}
483: \caption{The profile of the metric function $N(x)$ is shown for $\gamma=-0.1$, $\lambda=1.$
484: and four different choices of $\alpha$, including $\alpha=1.098\approx\alpha_{cr}$. }
485: \end{figure}
486:
487: \begin{figure}
488: \centering
489: \epsfysize=10cm
490: \mbox{\epsffile{bbh4.eps}}
491: \caption{The value of the radial coordinate, where $N(x=x_h)=0$ is shown
492: as function of the cosmological constant $\gamma$ for two different
493: values of $\alpha$ and $\lambda=1.0$. We have chosen $\alpha$ smaller (resp. larger) than
494: $\sqrt{1/2}$, such that for $\gamma=0$ no (resp. one) horizon appears.
495: }
496: \end{figure}
497: \end{document}
498:
499:
500:
501:
502:
503:
504:
505:
506:
507:
508:
509: