text:
# ON A POSSIBLE SCHEME OF q-DEFORMATION OF MANY-BOSON SYSTEMS IN TIME-DEPENDENT VARIATIONAL METHOD *footnote **footnote *Talk presented by M.Y. at XXVI International Workshop on Condensed Matter Theories, Luso, Portugal, 2-7 September 2002. To appear in CMT26 (Luso) Workshop Proceedings Vol.18, Condensed Matter Theories, Nova Science Publishers.

## I INTRODUCTION

Time-dependent variational method may be one of the powerful methods for investigating time-evolution of quantum mechanical systems in the framework of a possible approximation. In this method, a trial state for the variation is prepared as a function of variational parameters. If a certain condition is introduced, the time-dependent variational method can be formulated in the framework of classical Hamiltonian mechanics .

For many-boson systems consisting of a kind of boson operator, the simplest trial state may be boson coherent state. Ref. tells us that the boson coherent state is an eigenstate of boson annihilation operator with the eigenvalue which is regarded as a canonical variable in classical mechanics. Further, we know that the boson coherent state consists of the states with the boson numbers from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ in a fixed superposition. In order to give variety to the trial state, the boson coherent state must be generalized. This generalized boson coherent state consists of the states of the boson numbers from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ with a superposition different from the boson coherent state. As for the idea for the generalization, there exists boson annihilation like operator, the eigenstate of which is just the generalized boson coherent state and the eigenvalue is the variational parameter. The above idea can be realized through introducing a function of the boson number operator. This boson annihilation like operator and its hermit conjugate form $`q`$-deformation of the boson system. By adopting various function of the boson number operator, we are able to obtain various types of the $`q`$-deformation. The concept of the $`q`$-deformation serves us an interesting viewpoint for understanding dynamics of many-body systems described by boson operators. In this sense, it may be interesting to investigate the $`q`$-deformation of many-boson systems in relation to the generalized boson coherent states as the trial states in the time-dependent variational method.

The aim of this report is to present the starting idea for the $`q`$-deformation based on the above-mentioned scheme which was recently developed by the present authors . Of course, the background of the present report is colored with the papers mainly published by the Coimbra group . Of course, the paper by Penson and Solomon  also gave us independent influence on the present work.

In §§2 and 3, the time-dependent variational method is recapitulated. Section 4 is a central part, in which three forms of generalized boson coherent states and $`q`$-deformation are discussed. In §5, the Holstein-Primakoff boson representation for the $`su(2)`$\- and $`su(1,1)`$-algebras is shown as a result of the $`q`$-deformation. In §6, as a simple example, damped and amplified oscillation is discussed in the language of the $`q`$-deformation. Finally, in §7, two remarks are mentioned.

## II TIME-DEPENDENT VARIATIONAL METHOD FORMULATED IN TERMS OF CLASSICAL CANONICAL VARIABLES

First, let us recapitulate the time-dependent variational method formulated in Ref.. For simplicity, a trial state for the time-dependent variation is parametrized in terms of two real parameters ($`p,q`$). The trial state is denoted by $`|p,q`$. Let $`|p,q`$ obey the following condition :

$$p,q|i_q|p,q=p+_qS(p,q),p,q|i_p|p,q=_pS(p,q).$$
(2$``$1)
Next, the following quantity is introduced :

$$L=p,q|i_t\widehat{H}|p,q.$$
(2$``$2)
Here, $`\widehat{H}`$ denotes the Hamiltonian under investigation. With the use of the condition (2$``$1), $`L`$ can be rewritten as

$`L=p\dot{q}H(p,q)+\dot{S}(p,q),`$ (2$``$3)
$`H(p,q)=p,q|\widehat{H}|p,q.`$ (2$``$4)
The time-dependent variational method is formulated in the following form :

$$\delta L𝑑t=0.$$
(2$``$5)
The relation (2$``$5), together with the form (2$``$3), gives us the following equation :

$$\dot{q}=_pH,\dot{p}=_qH.$$
(2$``$6)
The relation (2$``$6) is nothing but the Hamilton’s equation of motion. Of course, $`L`$ and $`H`$ denote the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian, respectively, and $`(p,q)`$ can be regarded as the canonical variable in classical mechanics. By solving Eq.(2$``$6) under an appropriate initial condition, the time-dependence of $`(p,q)`$ is determined. Then, $`|p,q`$ is obtained as a function of $`t`$ and the time-evolution of the system under investigation is described in the framework of the time-dependent variational method.

## III BOSON COHERENT STATE AS A TRIAL STATE FOR THE VARIATION

Instead of the variable $`(p,q)`$, the following ones denoted as $`(z,z^{})`$ is useful in some cases :

$$p=i(z^{}z)/\sqrt{2},q=(z^{}+z)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(3$``$1)
Then, for the case $`S=pq/2`$, the condition (2$``$1) can be rewritten as

$`p,q|_z|p,q=+z^{}/2,p,q|_z^{}|p,q=z/2,`$ (3$``$2)
$`S=i(z^2z^2)/4.`$ (3$``$3)
The Lagrangian $`L`$ can be expressed in the form

$$L=i(z^{}\dot{z}z\dot{z}^{})H(z,z^{}).$$
(3$``$4)
The time-dependent variation gives us

$$i\dot{z}=+_z^{}H,i\dot{z}^{}=_zH.$$
(3$``$5)
As a possible trial state, let us adopt the boson coherent state in the form

$$|p,q=|c=\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)^1\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma \widehat{c}^{}\right)|0.$$
(3$``$6)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the normalization constant :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{exp}\left(|\gamma |^2\right).$$
(3$``$7)
The state $`|c`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{\gamma }=\widehat{c},\widehat{\gamma }|c=\gamma |c.$$
(3$``$8)
The condition (3$``$2) can be rewritten as

$`c|_z|c=(\gamma ^{}_z\gamma \gamma _z\gamma ^{})/2=+z^{}/2,`$ (3$``$9)
$`c|_z^{}|c=(\gamma ^{}_z^{}\gamma \gamma _z^{}\gamma ^{})/2=z/2.`$ (3$``$10)
The condition (3$``$9) gives us

$$\gamma =z,\gamma ^{}=z^{}.$$
(3$``$11)
The parameter $`(\gamma ,\gamma ^{})`$ can be regarded as boson type canonical variable.

## IV THREE FORMS OF GENERALIZED BOSON COHERENT STATES AND $`q`$-DEFORMATION

In order to generalize the trial states from the boson coherent state, let us introduce the following three states :

$`|c_0=\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}\right)^1\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _0\widehat{c}^{}f_0(\widehat{N})\right)|0,`$ (4$``$1)
$`|c_P=\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_P}\right)^1\widehat{P}_{n^0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _P\widehat{c}^{}f_P(\widehat{N})\right)|0,`$ (4$``$2)
$`|c_Q=\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q}\right)^1\widehat{Q}_{n^0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _Q\widehat{c}^{}f_Q(\widehat{N})\right)|0,`$ (4$``$3)
$`\widehat{N}=\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c},`$ (4$``$4)
$`\widehat{P}_{n^0}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{n^0}{}}}|nn|,\widehat{Q}_{n^0}=1P_{n^0},`$ (4$``$5)
$`|n=\left(\sqrt{n!}\right)^1(\widehat{c}^{})^n|0.`$ (4$``$6)
The function $`f_R(\widehat{N})`$ $`(R=0,P,Q)`$ is defined by the relation

$$f_R(\widehat{N})|n=f_R(n)|n.(R=0,P,Q)$$
(4$``$7)
For the function $`f_R(n)`$, the following conditions are imposed:

$`f_0(0)=1,f_0(n)>0(n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}),`$ (4$``$8)
$`f_P(0)=1,f_P(n)>0(n=1,2,\mathrm{},n^01),`$ (4$``$9)
$`f_P(n);\text{arbitrary}(n=n^0,n^0+1,\mathrm{}),`$ (4$``$10)
$`f_Q(n)=1(n=0,1,\mathrm{},n^0),`$ (4$``$11)
$`f_Q(n)>0(n=n^0+1,n^0+2,\mathrm{}).`$ (4$``$12)
Next, the following operators are introduced :

$$\widehat{\gamma }_0=f_0(\widehat{N})^1\widehat{c},\widehat{\gamma }_P=\widehat{P}_{n^0}f_P(\widehat{N})^1\widehat{c},\widehat{\gamma }_Q=\widehat{Q}_{n^0}f_Q(\widehat{N})^1\widehat{c}.$$
(4$``$13)
They obey the relations

$$\widehat{\gamma }_0|c_0=\gamma _0|c_0,\widehat{\gamma }_P|c_P=\gamma _P\widehat{P}_{n^0}|c_P,\widehat{\gamma }_Q|c_Q=\gamma _Q|c_Q.$$
(4$``$14)
The forms (4$``$14) permit us to call the states $`|c_0`$, $`|c_P`$ and $`|c_Q`$ the generalized coherent states. The operator $`(\widehat{\gamma }_0,\widehat{\gamma }_0^{})`$ can be regarded as $`q`$-deformed boson operator which is characterized by the function $`f_0(\widehat{N})`$. It is justified through the following relations :

$`|n=\left(\sqrt{[n]_q!}\right)^1(\widehat{\gamma }_0^{})^n|0.(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ (4$``$15)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0|0=0,`$ (4$``$16)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0=[\widehat{N}]_q,\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}=[\widehat{N}+1]_q,`$ (4$``$17)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0|n=\sqrt{[n]_q}|n1,\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}|n=\sqrt{[n+1]_q}|n+1,`$ (4$``$18)
$`[\widehat{N},\widehat{\gamma }_0]=\widehat{\gamma }_0,[\widehat{N},\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}]=+\widehat{\gamma }_0^{},\widehat{N}|n=n|n.`$ (4$``$19)
The quantities $`[n]_q!`$ and $`[x]_q`$ are defined as

$`[n]_q!=n!(f_0(0)\mathrm{}f_0(n1))^2,[0]_q!=1,`$ (4$``$20)
$`[x]_q=xf_0(x1)^2,(x=\widehat{N},\widehat{N}+1,n,n+1),[0]_q=0.`$ (4$``$21)
From the relation (4$``$17), the following relation is derived :

$`\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}(f_0(\widehat{N}1)^2f_0(\widehat{N})^2+F(\widehat{N}))\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0`$ $`=`$ $`f_0(\widehat{N})^2F(\widehat{N})\widehat{N}f_0(\widehat{N}1)^2,`$ (4$``$23)
$`F(\widehat{N}):\mathrm{arbitrary}.`$
Especially, the commutation relation for $`\widehat{\gamma }_0`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}`$ is given in the form

$$[\widehat{\gamma }_0,\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}]=[\widehat{N}+1]_q[\widehat{N}]_q=\mathrm{\Delta }_N(\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0).$$
(4$``$24)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N(\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0)`$ denotes the difference with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$.

We show three concrete examples :

(1) The most popular form :

$`f_0(n)=\sqrt{(n+1)(qq^1)/(q^{n+1}q^{(n+1)})},`$ (4$``$25)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}q^1\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0=q^{\widehat{N}},`$ (4$``$26)
$`F(\widehat{N})=q^1f_0(\widehat{N}1)^2f_0(\widehat{N})^2.`$ (4$``$27)
(2) The form presented by Penson and Solomon  :

$`f_0(n)=q^{n/2},`$ (4$``$28)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}q^1\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0=q^{\widehat{N}},`$ (4$``$29)
$`F(\widehat{N})=0.`$ (4$``$30)
(3) A possible modification given by the present authors :

$`f_0(n)=\sqrt{(n+1)(1q^2)/(1q^{2(n+1)})},`$ (4$``$31)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}q^2\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0=1,`$ (4$``$32)
$`F(\widehat{N})=q^1f_0(\widehat{N}1)^2f_0(\widehat{N})^2.`$ (4$``$33)
We can formulate classical counterpart of the $`q`$-deformation. For the state $`|c_0`$, the following relation can be derived :

$`c_0|_z|c_0=(\gamma _0^{}_z\gamma _0\gamma _0_z\gamma _0^{})/2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)=+z^{}/2,`$ (4$``$34)
$`c_0|_z^{}|c_0=(\gamma _0^{}_z^{}\gamma _0\gamma _0_z^{}\gamma _0^{})/2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)=z/2,`$ (4$``$35)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}=d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0/d|\gamma _0|^2.`$ (4$``$36)
The condition (4$``$35) gives us

$$z=\gamma _0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0},z^{}=\gamma _0^{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}.$$
(4$``$37)
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is a function of $`|\gamma _0|^2`$, $`(\gamma _0,\gamma _0^{})`$ can be expressed in terms of $`(z,z^{})`$. Then, the Hamilton’s equation of motion is derived :

$$i\dot{z}=_z^{}H,i\dot{z}^{}=_zH,H=c_0|\widehat{H}|c_0.$$
(4$``$38)
However, actually, in many cases, it is impossible to express $`(\gamma _0,\gamma _0^{})`$ in terms of $`(z,z^{})`$.

The state $`|c_0`$ satisfies the relations

$`c_0|\widehat{\gamma }_0|c_0=\gamma _0,c_0|\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}|c_0=\gamma _0^{},`$ (4$``$39)
$`c_0|\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\widehat{\gamma }_0|c_0=\gamma _0^{}\gamma _0.`$ (4$``$40)
Further, $`c_0|\widehat{N}|c_0`$ is given as

$$c_0|\widehat{N}|c_0=\gamma _0^{}\gamma _0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=z^{}z(=N).$$
(4$``$41)
With the use of the relation (4$``$38), the following relations are derived :

$`[N,\gamma _0]_P=\gamma _0,[N,\gamma _0^{}]_P=\gamma _0^{},`$ (4$``$42)
$`[\gamma _0,\gamma _0^{}]_P=d_N(\gamma _0^{}\gamma _0).`$ (4$``$43)
Here, $`d_N(\gamma _0^{}\gamma _0)`$ denotes the differential with respect to $`N`$ and $`[A,B]_P`$ expresses the Poisson bracket :

$$[A,B]_P=_zA_z^{}B_z^{}A_zB.$$
(4$``$44)
Thus, the following correspondence is obtained :

$$\widehat{\gamma }_0\gamma _0,\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}\gamma _0^{},\widehat{N}N.$$
(4$``$45)
The Hamilton’s equation is written as

$`i\dot{\gamma }_0=+_{\gamma _0^{}}H(N^{})^1,i\dot{\gamma }_0^{}=_{\gamma _0}H(N^{})^1,`$ (4$``$46)
$`N^{}=dN/d|\gamma _0|^2.`$ (4$``$47)
## V THE HOLSTEIN-PRIMAKOFF BOSON REPRESENTATION FOR THE $`su(2)`$\- AND $`su(1,1)`$-ALGEBRAS AS $`q`$-DEFORMATION

Under appropriate choices of $`f_R(n)`$ ($`R=0,P,Q`$), the $`q`$-deformation leads us to the Holstein-Primakoff boson representation for the $`su(2)`$\- and $`su(1,1)`$-algebras. We show three cases.

$$(1)f_0(n)=\left(\sqrt{1+n/n^0}\right)^1:(n^0:\mathrm{positive})$$

$`\widehat{\gamma }_0=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{T}_{},\widehat{T}_{}=\sqrt{n^0+\widehat{N}}\widehat{c},`$ (5$``$1)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{T}_+,\widehat{T}_+=\widehat{c}^{}\sqrt{n^0+\widehat{N}},`$ (5$``$2)
$`[\widehat{\gamma }_0,\widehat{\gamma }_0^{}]=2(n^0)^1\widehat{T}_0,\widehat{T}_0=\widehat{N}+n^0/2.`$ (5$``$3)
The form of $`\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}`$ is identical to the Holstein-Primakoff boson representation of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra.

$$(2)f_P(n)=\left(\sqrt{1n/n^0}\right)^1:(n^0:\mathrm{positive})$$

$`\widehat{\gamma }_P=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{P}_{n^0}\widehat{S}_{}\widehat{P}_{n^0},\widehat{S}_{}=\sqrt{n^0\widehat{N}}\widehat{c},`$ (5$``$4)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_P^{}=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{P}_{n^0}\widehat{S}_+\widehat{P}_{n^0},\widehat{S}_+=\widehat{c}^{}\sqrt{n^0\widehat{N}},`$ (5$``$5)
$`[\widehat{\gamma }_P^{},\widehat{\gamma }_P]=2(n^0)^1\widehat{P}_{n^0}\widehat{S}_0\widehat{P}_{n^0},\widehat{S}_0=\widehat{N}n^0/2.`$ (5$``$6)
The form of $`\widehat{S}_{\pm ,0}`$ is identical to the Holstein-Primakoff boson representation of the $`su(2)`$-algebra.

$$(3)f_Q(n)=\left(\sqrt{n/n^01}\right)^1:(n^0:\mathrm{positive})$$

$`\widehat{\gamma }_Q=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{Q}_{n^0}\widehat{T}_{}\widehat{Q}_{n^0},\widehat{T}_{}=\sqrt{\widehat{N}n^0}\widehat{c},`$ (5$``$7)
$`\widehat{\gamma }_Q^{}=(\sqrt{n^0})^1\widehat{Q}_{n^0}\widehat{T}_+\widehat{Q}_{n^0},\widehat{T}_+=\widehat{c}^{}\sqrt{\widehat{N}n^0},`$ (5$``$8)
$`[\widehat{\gamma }_Q,\widehat{\gamma }_Q^{}]=2(n^0)^1\widehat{Q}_{n^0}\widehat{T}_0\widehat{Q}_{n^0},\widehat{T}_0=\widehat{N}n^0/2.`$ (5$``$9)
The form of $`\widehat{T}_{,0}`$ is identical to the second Holstein-Primakoff boson representation of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra.

## VI SIMPLE EXAMPLE — Damped and Amplified Oscillation —

(1) The $`su(1,1)`$-algebraic model  :

The Hamiltonian for this model consists of

$`\widehat{H}=\widehat{K}_b\widehat{K}_a+\widehat{V}_{ab},`$ (6$``$1)
$`\widehat{K}_b=e(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b})+f(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b})^2,\widehat{K}_a=e(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})+f(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})^2,`$ (6$``$2)
$`\widehat{V}_{ab}=ig(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b}).`$ (6$``$3)
Here, $`(\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})`$ denote two kinds of bosons and $`(e,f,g)`$ are constants characterizing the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian (6$``$1) can be expressed in the form

$$\widehat{H}_{su(1,1)}^{(0)}=2(ef)(\widehat{T}1/2)+4f(\widehat{T}1/2)\widehat{T}_0ig(\widehat{T}_+\widehat{T}_{}).$$
(6$``$4)
The set $`(\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0})`$ obeys the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra and commutes with $`\widehat{T}`$ :

$`\widehat{T}_{}=\widehat{a}\widehat{b},\widehat{T}_+=\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{},\widehat{T}_0=(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{})/2,`$ (6$``$5)
$`\widehat{T}=(\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})/2.`$ (6$``$6)
Since $`\widehat{T}`$ commutes with $`\widehat{T}_{\pm ,0}`$, $`\widehat{T}`$ gives us a constant of motion. Then, in the space where the eigenvalue of $`\widehat{T}`$ is equal to $`T`$, the Hamiltonian (6$``$4) can be written as

$$\widehat{H}_{su(1,1)}=2(ef)(T1/2)+4f(T1/2)\widehat{T}_0ig(\widehat{T}_+\widehat{T}_{}).$$
(6$``$7)
The Hamiltonian (6$``$7) enables us to describe the damped and the amplified oscillation. The boson $`(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})`$ plays a role of phase space doubling in the sense of the thermo field dynamics formalism presented by Umezawa et al. and it does not mean any physical object. Therefore, the Hamiltonian (6$``$7) does not mean the total energy of the system and, then, it may be very difficult to draw a picture of motion induced by the Hamiltonian (6$``$7). Of course, the results obtained in this model are quite interesting.

(2) The $`q`$-deformed model :

This model starts in the following Hamiltonian :

$`\widehat{H}=\widehat{K}_d+\widehat{K}_c+\widehat{V}_{cd},`$ (6$``$8)
$`\widehat{K}_d=\omega (\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d}),\widehat{K}_c=ϵ(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c})=ϵ\widehat{c}^{}[2/(1+[\widehat{c},\widehat{c}^{}])]\widehat{c},`$ (6$``$9)
$`\widehat{V}_{cd}=i\eta (\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{d}\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{c}).`$ (6$``$10)
Here, $`(\widehat{d},\widehat{d}^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{c},\widehat{c}^{})`$ denote two kinds of bosons and $`(\omega ,ϵ,\eta )`$ are constants characterizing the Hamiltonian.

Let Hamiltonian given in the relation (6$``$8) deform by the function $`f_0(n)=(\sqrt{1+n/n^0})^1`$ for the boson $`(\widehat{c},\widehat{c}^{})`$ :

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{def}}^{(0)}=\omega (\widehat{d}^{}\widehat{d})+ϵ(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c})i\eta \left(\widehat{c}^{}\sqrt{1+\widehat{N}/n^0}\widehat{d}\widehat{d}^{}\sqrt{1+\widehat{N}/n^0}\widehat{c}\right).$$
(6$``$11)
For the Hamiltonian (6$``$11), the following picture can be drawn : The external environment, for example, such as the heat bath, is described by the boson $`(\widehat{d},\widehat{d}^{})`$. The oscillation described by the boson $`(\widehat{c},\widehat{c}^{})`$ is damped and amplified due to the interaction with the external environment which is assumed to be extremely big system. Therefore, $`(\widehat{d},\widehat{d}^{})`$ has no fluctuation around the equilibrium value and, then, $`(\widehat{d},\widehat{d}^{})`$ can be replaced by the time-independent $`c`$-number $`(\delta ,\delta ^{})`$. It may be performed by calculating the expectation value of $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{def}}^{(0)}`$ for the boson coherent state for $`(\widehat{d},\widehat{d}^{})`$.

With the aid of the above picture, the following Hamiltonian is derived :

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{def}}=\omega |\delta |^2+ϵ(\widehat{c}^{}\widehat{c})i\eta \sqrt{|\delta |^2/n^0}[\widehat{c}^{}e^{i\varphi }\sqrt{n^0+\widehat{N}}\sqrt{n^0+\widehat{N}}\widehat{c}e^{i\varphi }],`$ (6$``$12)
$`\delta =|\delta |e^{i\varphi },\delta ^{}=|\delta |e^{i\varphi }.`$ (6$``$13)
Further, the following relations are set up :

$`\zeta =\eta \sqrt{|\delta |^2/n^0},`$ (6$``$14)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{c}=\widehat{c}e^{i\varphi },\stackrel{ˇ}{c}^{}=\widehat{c}^{}e^{i\varphi },\stackrel{ˇ}{N}=\stackrel{ˇ}{c}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{c}(=\widehat{N}),`$ (6$``$15)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{}=\sqrt{n^0+\stackrel{ˇ}{N}}\stackrel{ˇ}{c},\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_+=\stackrel{ˇ}{c}^{}\sqrt{n^0+\stackrel{ˇ}{N}},\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_0=\stackrel{ˇ}{N}+n^0/2.`$ (6$``$16)
Then, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{def}}`$ can be expressed as

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_{\mathrm{def}}=(\omega ϵ/2)n^0+ϵ\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_0i\zeta (\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_+\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{}).$$
(6$``$17)
The relation (6$``$16) shows us that $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{\pm ,0})`$ is the Holstein-Primakoff boson representation of the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra and the formal structure of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}_{\mathrm{def}}`$ is completely the same as the $`\widehat{H}_{su(1,1)}`$ given in the relation (6$``$7).

## VII CONCLUDING REMARKS

As for concluding remarks, we mention two points (A) and (B).

(A) The $`q`$-deformation of the $`su(2)`$\- and the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra in two kinds of boson operators $`(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})`$ and $`(\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{})`$ :

In the above cases, the deformations are characterized by functions $`f_0(x)`$ and $`g_0(x)`$ in the form

$$[x]_f=xf_0(x1)^2,[x]_g=xg_0(x1)^2.$$
(7$``$1)
(1) The $`su(2)`$-algebra and its $`q`$-deformation :

$`\widehat{S}_{}^0=\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a},\widehat{S}_+^0=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b},\widehat{S}_0=(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b})/2,`$ (7$``$2)
$`\widehat{S}=(\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}+\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})/2,`$ (7$``$3)
$`\widehat{S}_{}=\sqrt{[\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0+1]_f[\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0]_g}\left(\sqrt{\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0+1}\right)^1\widehat{S}_{}^0\left(\sqrt{\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0+1}\right)^1,`$ (7$``$4)
$`\widehat{S}_+=\left(\sqrt{\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0+1}\right)^1\widehat{S}_+^0\left(\sqrt{\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0+1}\right)^1\sqrt{[\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0+1]_f[\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0]_g},`$ (7$``$5)
$`[2\widehat{S}_0]{}_{q}{}^{}=[\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0]_f[\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0+1]_g[\widehat{S}+\widehat{S}_0+1]_f[\widehat{S}\widehat{S}_0]_g,`$ (7$``$6)
(2) The $`su(1,1)`$-algebra and its $`q`$-deformation :

$`\widehat{T}_{}^0=\widehat{b}\widehat{a},\widehat{T}_+^0=\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{T}_0=(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}+\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{})/2,`$ (7$``$7)
$`\widehat{T}=(\widehat{b}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a})/2,`$ (7$``$8)
$`\widehat{T}_{}=\sqrt{[\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}]_f[\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T}1]_g}\left(\sqrt{(\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T})(\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+1)}\right)^1\widehat{T}_{}^0,`$ (7$``$9)
$`\widehat{T}_+=\widehat{T}_+^0\left(\sqrt{(\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T})(\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+1)}\right)^1\sqrt{[\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}]_f[\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T}1]_g},`$ (7$``$10)
$`[2\widehat{T}_0]{}_{q}{}^{}=[\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}+1]_f[\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T}]_g[\widehat{T}_0\widehat{T}]_f[\widehat{T}_0+\widehat{T}1]_g.`$ (7$``$11)
(3) The most popular form :

$$f_0(n)=g_0(n)=\sqrt{(n+1)(qq^1)/(q^{n+1}q^{(n+1)})}.$$
(7$``$12)
For example, $`[2\widehat{S}_0]_q`$ and $`[2\widehat{T}_0]_q`$ are given in the form

$`[2\widehat{S}_0]_q=(q^{2\widehat{S}_0}q^{2\widehat{S}_0})/(qq^1),`$ (7$``$13)
$`[2\widehat{T}_0]_q=(q^{2\widehat{T}_0}q^{2\widehat{T}_0})/(qq^1).`$ (7$``$14)
(B) The generalized Schwinger boson representation for the $`su(M+1)`$\- and the $`su(N,1)`$-algebra and its $`q`$-deformation :

With the aid of Ref., it may be possible to generalize the $`q`$-deformed algebra in two kinds of boson operators. Certainly, we have the $`q`$-deformation of the $`su(2)`$\- and the $`su(1,1)`$-algebra in four kinds of boson operators . It is an example of the $`q`$-deformation of the generalized Schwinger boson representation. With the help of this form, for example, thermal effects on the pairing rotation, the paring vibration and the intrinsic structure may be described.

###### Acknowledgements.

Two of the authors (Y. T. & M. Y.) should acknowledge to Professor J. da Providência, co-author of this report and the chair of this workshop, for inviting them to Coimbra for several times in which the present work was discussed. Further, the author (M.Y.), who was given a chance to talk in this workshop, wishes thanks to Professor N. Kumar and Professor F. Bary Malik for their interest in this work.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic shells: Dynamics, horizons, and shell crossing

## I Introduction

The matching of two arbitrary spacetimes along a given hypersurface plays an important role in general relativity, with a rich plethora of applications, such as the dynamics of thin matter shells israel67 , construction of cosmological models krasinsky97 , collapse of bounded bodies mtw , and wormholes visser89 . The standard techniques to achieve such matching are not circumscribed to four-dimensional manifolds, and can be easily applied to higher-dimensional cases, such as $`n`$-branes in the so-called brane world cosmology branecosm .

Within the context of classical general relativity, the thin shell matching problem was first studied by Sen sen24 , Lanczos lanczos24  and Darmois darmois27 , and later further developed by Israel israel66-67 , who produced a coordinate invariant formalism by applying the Gauss-Codacci equations to a non-null three-dimensional hypersurface imbedded in a four-dimensional spacetime. The null case was studied by Barrabès and Israel barrabes&israel91 . On the shell, Einstein’s equations reduce to the Lanczos equation, where the jump of the extrinsic curvature across the shell plays the role of the four-dimensional Ricci tensor, being thus related to the surface stress-energy tensor. Comprehensive reviews of the matching problem in general relativity may be found in lichnerowicz95 ; lake&musgrave96 .

In this paper, we first consider two shells in vacuum, and analyze the dynamics from the viewpoint of the exterior shell, thereby reducing the problem to that of a single shell immersed in two adjacent Schwarzschild spacetimes with different mass parameters on each side. For shells with pressure, we show that (i) a strictly linear barotropic equation of state is incompatible with stable (oscillatory or stationary) solutions, and (ii) for matter with a real local sound speed ($`C_\mathrm{s}\sqrt{dp/d\sigma }0`$) obeying the weak energy condition, the strong energy condition is necessary for stability, regardless of the equation of state. We then study the formation of trapped surfaces in the spacetime, and show explicitly that the existence of a thin matter shell introduces a discontinuity in the apparent horizon curve. The related problem of shell crossings is examined, and an analytical necessary and sufficient condition for neighboring shells (defined in a precise manner) to cross is derived. We further show that, although shell crossing singularities occur in a multi-dust-shell case just as they do in the continuous Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) dust case, the former cannot be taken as the discrete analogue of the latter, since, e.g., the energy density remains finite at discrete shell crossings, whereas it diverges (together with some curvature components) in the LTB case. Physically, this is related to the fact that individual shells move geodesically in the LTB spacetime (i.e., proper time equals comoving time, for each shell), but the same does fails to hold in the discrete case: dust particles do move geodesically on each shell, but, from the viewpoint of the four-dimensional spacetime, they are accelerated.

The paper is organized as follows: Section II derives a general formalism for the matching of two arbitrary spherical spacetimes across a timelike thin shell with arbitrary matter content. In Sec. III we specialize to the case of two dust shells in vacuum; the general relativistic equation of motion for the exterior shell is derived, as well as its Newtonian analogue. The well-known case of a single dust shell in vacuum is trivially recovered. In Sec. IV, the dynamics of a dust shell with a LTB interior is discussed, and the boundary layer case of closed Lemaître-Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (LFRW) models is readily obtained as special case. Section V studies shells with a non-vanishing tangential pressure component, and several stability results are produced. In Sec. VI, we derive the condition for formation of apparent horizons in an arbitrary spherical spacetime, and then examine the particular case of a dust shell collapsing in Schwarzschild background. Section VII discusses the occurrence of shell crossing in a spacetime with a finite number of shells, derives an explicit condition for shell crossing of neighboring shells, and compares it with the continuous dust LTB case. Section VIII concludes with a summary and discussion.

Natural geometrized units, in which $`G=c=1`$, are used throughout.

## II Matching formalism for arbitrary spherical spacetimes

The complete four-dimensional spacetime consists of an interior region $`_{}`$ connected to an exterior $`_+`$ by a timelike three-dimensional thin shell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The $`_\pm `$ regions are characterized by the spherical metric:

$$ds_\pm ^2=h_\pm ^2dt_\pm ^2+f_\pm ^2dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(1)
where $`h_\pm ,f_\pm `$ are functions of $`t_\pm `$ and $`r`$, and the coordinate systems $`\{x_\pm ^\mu \}`$ are adopted. On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ there is a natural holonomic basis $`\{e_{(a)}\}`$ given by

$$e_{(a)}^\mu |_\pm =\frac{x_\pm ^\mu }{\xi ^a},$$
(2)
where $`\{\xi ^a,a=0,1,2\}`$ are intrinsic coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The induced three-metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is then

$$\gamma _{ab}=g_{\mu \nu }e_{(a)}^\mu e_{(b)}^\nu ,$$
(3)
and it is the same on both sides of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, since the four-metric must be continuous across it. The surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is parametrically defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x_\pm ^\mu )=rr_\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\pm )=0.$$
(4)
Continuity of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ across $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ requires $`r_\mathrm{\Sigma }(t_\pm )=R(\tau )`$, whence

$`ds_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\tau ^2+R^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_\pm }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`h_\pm ^1\sqrt{1+f_\pm ^2\dot{R}^2}\eta _\pm ,`$ (6)
where $`\dot{R}dR/d\tau `$, and $`\tau `$ is the proper time measured by a comoving observer with the shell, with four-velocity

$$u_\pm ^\mu =\eta _\pm \delta _{t_\pm }^\mu +\dot{R}\delta _r^\mu .$$
(7)
The spacelike (outward pointing) unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$n_\pm ^\mu =g_\pm ^{\mu \nu }\alpha ^1_\nu ^\pm \mathrm{\Phi }=h_\pm ^1f_\pm \dot{R}\delta _{t_\pm }^\mu +f_\pm ^1h_\pm \eta _\pm \delta _r^\mu ,$$
(8)
where $`\alpha ^2n_\pm ^\mu n_\mu ^\pm `$, and $`n_\mu ^\pm u_\pm ^\mu =0`$. We shall henceforth drop the $`\pm `$ subscript for clarity and without detriment, since all the formulae will apply equally to both sides of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The normal extrinsic curvature, $`K_{ab}`$, is israel66-67

$$K_{ab}:=n_\mu e_{(b)}^\nu _\nu e_{(a)}^\mu =n_\sigma \left(\frac{^2x^\sigma }{\xi ^a\xi ^b}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \frac{x^\mu }{\xi ^a}\frac{x^\nu }{\xi ^b}\right),$$
(9)
which is related to the (yet unspecified) surface stress-energy tensor $`S_{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via the Lanczos equation israel66-67

$$[K_{ab}]\gamma _{ab}[K]=8\pi S_{ab}[K_{ab}]=8\pi (S_{ab}\frac{1}{2}S\gamma _{ab}),$$
(10)
where

$$[K_{ab}]K_{ab}^+K_{ab}^{},[K]\gamma ^{ab}[K_{ab}],S\gamma _{ab}S^{ab}.$$
(11)
The four-dimensional stress-energy tensor associated with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be written as a distribution as

$$T_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{u\nu }=S^{ab}e_{(a)}^\mu e_{(b)}^\nu |\alpha |\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(12)
The Lanczos equation (for the shell), together with the (exterior) Einstein equations, lead to the standard Israel junction conditions israel66-67 :

$`S^{ab}\{K_{ab}\}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(K_{ab}^++K_{ab}^{})S^{ab}=[T_{\mu \nu }n^\mu n^\nu ],`$ (13)
$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}S_a^b`$ $`=`$ $`[e_{(a)}^\mu T_{\mu \nu }n^\nu ].`$ (14)
These two equations are identities that must be satisfied throughout the time development of the shell, and not genuine dynamical equations, since they follow from the momentum and Hamiltonian constraints imposed on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ israel66-67 ; the dynamics is encoded in the Lanczos equation (10).

With the metric (1), the non-vanishing components of $`K_{ab}`$ are:

$`K_{\tau \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{h\eta }}\left(\ddot{R}+\dot{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}D_{}f+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{f}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f^{}}{fh\eta ^2}}h^{}\right),`$ (15)
$`K_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta K_{\varphi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{Rh\eta }{f}},`$ (16)
where $`D_{}n^\mu _\mu `$ is the normal derivative in the $`n^\mu `$ direction, and $`{}_{}{}^{}_r`$.

## III Two collapsing Schwarzschild shells

We shall examine here the case of two neighboring thin shells of dust. Specifically, the model consists of an inner shell with gravitational mass $`m_{}`$ and an outer shell with $`m_+`$, in an otherwise empty spacetime. An immediate consequence of Birkhoff’s theorem is that the two-shell case can be reduced to that of a single shell with appropriate adjoint spacetime metrics. If one is interested in the dynamics of the inner shell, the problem is that of a single shell with a Minkowski interior (to ensure regularity of the metric at the center) and a Schwarzschild exterior with mass $`M=m_{}+m_+`$. Focusing on the exterior shell, the problem reduces to that of a single shell with an interior Schwarzschild metric with mass $`m_{}`$ and Schwarzschild exterior with mass $`M`$. We shall henceforth adopt this latter viewpoint. The metrics in $`_\pm `$ are then:

$$ds_\pm ^2=h_\pm ^2dt^2+h_\pm ^2dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(17)
with

$$h_{}=\sqrt{1\frac{2m_{}}{r}},h_+=\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}},Mm_{}+m_+.$$
(18)
In this case, Eqs. (15)-(16) simplify to

$$K_{\tau \tau }=\frac{\ddot{R}+h^{}h}{\eta h^2},K_{\theta \theta }=Rh^2\eta .$$
(19)
Now, let $`\sigma `$ be the total rest mass of the shell per unit proper area. The stress-energy tensor $`S_{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is then

$$S_{ab}=\sigma u_au_b=\sigma e_{(a)}^\mu e_{(b)}^\nu u_\mu u_\nu =\sigma \delta _a^\tau \delta _b^\tau ,$$
(20)
and the total rest mass of the shell is

$$m_\mathrm{\Sigma }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }S_{ab}u^au^b\sqrt{\text{det}\gamma }d\theta \mathrm{d}\varphi =4\pi R^2\sigma .$$
(21)
The conservation equation (14) gives

$$\frac{\dot{\sigma }}{\sigma }+2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\frac{\dot{m}_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{4\pi }=0,$$
(22)
i.e., the proper mass of the shell is conserved during the evolution; microscopically, this simply reflects the fact that the total number of particles in the shell is conserved, and thus the flux three-vector $`j^a=\sigma u^a`$ is divergence-free.

The dynamical evolution of the shell can be easily obtained from the $`\theta \theta `$ component of the Lanczos equation \[a straightforward calculation shows that Eq. (13) is equivalent to $`[K_{\theta \theta }]=4\pi \sigma R^2`$, and the $`\tau \tau `$ component of the Lanczos equation does not yield additional information—its first integral is automatically satisfied by Eq. (24)\]:

$$[K_{\theta \theta }]=4\pi \sigma R^2.$$
(23)
¿From Eqs. (18), (21), and (23) we obtain

$$\dot{R}^2=\left(\frac{m_+}{m_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^21+\frac{M+m_{}}{R}+\frac{m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{4R^2}.$$
(24)
This is the full general relativistic equation governing the motion of the shell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with active gravitational mass $`m_+`$ in an interior Schwarzschild background with active gravitational mass $`m_{}`$. Since both the gravitational and rest masses of the shell remain constant during the evolution, we can introduce the dimensionless constant $`km_+/m_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and rewrite the dynamical equation solely in terms of the gravitational masses:

$$\dot{R}^2=k^21+\frac{M+m_{}}{R}+\frac{m_+^2}{4k^2R^2}.$$
(25)
Based on its Newtonian analogue (derived below), one may interpret the terms in this equation as follows: $`k^21`$ is the total specific (i.e., per unit gravitational mass $`m_+`$) binding energy of the system, the second term is the potential energy, and the third term is a self-binding energy for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is a relativistic correction to the Newtonian case. We note that, since energy (potential, or otherwise) gravitates, the proper mass of the shell will only coincide with its active gravitational mass if the total binding energy of the system vanishes, when $`k=1`$. For given initial data $`\{\tau _\mathrm{i};R(\tau _\mathrm{i}),\dot{R}(\tau _\mathrm{i})\}`$, collapsing or expanding solutions may be obtained, depending on the value of $`k(0,+\mathrm{})`$. For $`k(0,1)`$, potential (negative) energy dominates, and there is a maximum radius at which the shell is momentarily at rest before recollapsing, i.e., the system is gravitationally bound; for $`k=1`$, the kinetic energy vanishes exactly at spatial infinity, and the system is said to be marginally bound; if $`k(1,+\mathrm{})`$, the kinetic energy is positive-definite at infinity \[it “equals” $`m_+(k^21)/2`$\] and the system is said to be gravitationally unbound.

### III.1 Newtonian limit

The Newtonian limit is obtained by the requirement of non-relativistic velocities, $`|\dot{R}|1`$, which implies landau&lifshitz2  the weak-field limit, $`ϵm_\pm /R<<1`$. To first-order in $`ϵ`$, Eq. (25) reads

$$\dot{R}^2=k^21+\frac{M+m_{}}{R}+𝒪(ϵ^2).$$
(26)
To check that this is indeed the correct limit, we present below a simple Newtonian derivation of the same equation. Let $`m_{}`$ be the rest masses of the inner and outer shells, respectively. We want to follow the motion of the $`m_+`$ shell in the gravitational potential of the $`m_{}`$ shell. By Gauss’s theorem, this reduces to the problem of finding the dynamical equation of a spherical shell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with radius $`r=R`$ and mass $`m_+`$, subject to the gravitational potential of a point mass $`m_{}`$ located at $`r=0`$. The action for such system is

$$S=L(R,\dot{R},t)𝑑t=\left[T(U_{}+U_\mathrm{\Sigma })\right]𝑑t,$$
(27)
where

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_+\dot{R}^2,`$ (28)
$`U_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{}m_+}{R}},`$ (29)
$`U_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)\rho (x)d^3x`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^R}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)\rho (r)r^2𝑑r={\displaystyle \frac{m_+^2}{2R}},`$
are the kinetic, potential, and self-binding (of the shell) energies, respectively. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)m_+/r`$ is the self-gravitational potential of the shell, and $`\rho (r)\sigma \delta (rR)`$ is the energy density, where $`\sigma =m_+/(4\pi R^2)`$ is the shell’s surface energy density. Extremizing $`\delta S=0`$ yields the Euler-Lagrange equation

$$\ddot{R}+\frac{2m_{}+m_+}{2R^2}=0,$$
(31)
which integrates to

$$\dot{R}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{M+m_{}}{R},$$
(32)
where $`Mm_++m_{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an integration constant, which represents (twice) the total binding energy of the system per unit shell mass. This agrees thus with Eq. (26) upon setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k^21`$.

### III.2 Single dust shell in vacuum

By setting $`m_{}=0`$, we readily obtain the case of a single spherical dust shell in an otherwise vacuum spacetime, originally studied by Israel israel67 :

$$\dot{R}^2=1+\left(k+\frac{M}{2kR}\right)^2=k^21+\frac{M}{R}+\frac{M^2}{4k^2R^2}.$$
(33)
From the first equality above it follows that $`2kR(1k)M`$. If $`k1`$, this is trivially satisfied, but for $`k<1`$ this imposes an upper bound on $`R`$:

$$R\frac{M}{2k(1k)}R_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(34)
As before, if the system is gravitationally bound ($`k<1`$), any initially expanding shell will reach a maximum radius—uniquely determined by the gravitational mass of the shell and its total binding energy—and then collapse back to $`R=0`$. Gravitationally unbound shells ($`k>1`$) will expand to $`R\mathrm{}`$. As noted by Israel, the upper bound (34) implies that $`R_{\mathrm{max}}2M`$, and hence there are no timelike stationary shells with $`R<2M`$ (any stationary shell must necessarily be spacelike), as expected. Further details, including exact solutions of Eq. (33), may be found in the original reference israel67 .

## IV Dust shell with Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi interior

Let us now consider the case of a spherical dust shell matched to an interior LTB spacetime ltb , and a Schwarzschild exterior. The interior metric reads

$$ds_{}^2=dt^2+F^2(t,r)dr^2+X^2(t,r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(35)
where $`FX^{}/\sqrt{1w(r)}`$, and $`4\pi X^2`$ is the ($`t`$ dependent) proper area of a spherical shell with coordinate radius $`r`$. For simplicity, we shall consider a class of LTB metrics given by a separable area radius function, $`X(t,r)=a(t)r`$. Included in this class are the LFRW cosmological spacetimes, given by $`w(r)=Ar^2`$, where the constant $`A`$ determines the geometry of the spatial section: hyperbolic, flat, or closed (spherical), for $`A=1,0`$, or 1, respectively. The metric (35) is not in the standard spherical form (1), so the general formulae derived in Sec. II do not apply, but it is straightforward to compute $`K_{ab}`$ directly from its definition. In terms of the $`\{x_{}^\mu \}`$ coordinates, the shell is given by

$$t=\tau ,r=x_\mathrm{c}=\text{const.},$$
(36)
and the angular coordinates are, as before, trivially identified. The outward pointing unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is

$$n_{}^\mu =\frac{\sqrt{1w_\mathrm{c}}}{a(\tau )}\delta _r^\mu ,$$
(37)
where $`w_\mathrm{c}w(x_\mathrm{c})=\text{const.}`$, and continuity of the four-metric across $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ implies $`R(\tau )=a(\tau )x_\mathrm{c}`$. As before, we only need $`K_{\theta \theta }^\pm `$:

$$K_{\theta \theta }^{}=R\sqrt{1w_\mathrm{c}},K_{\theta \theta }^+=R\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{R}+\dot{R}^2},$$
(38)
where $`M`$ is the total gravitational mass appearing in the exterior Schwarzschild metric. The equation $`[K_{\theta \theta }]=4\pi \sigma R^2`$ gives

$$\dot{R}^2=\stackrel{~}{k}^21+2\frac{M\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{k}}{R}+\frac{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}{R^2}.$$
(39)
where $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }4\pi \sigma R^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{k}\sqrt{1w_\mathrm{c}}`$. This equation is formally identical to that for the two Schwarzschild shells \[cf. Eq. (25)\] provided we make the identifications $`\stackrel{~}{k}k`$ and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }m_\mathrm{\Sigma }/2=m_+/(2k)`$. That is, a thin shell of proper mass $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ moving in an interior Schwarzschild background with mass parameter $`m_{}`$ is equivalent to a thin shell of proper mass $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }/2`$ moving in a LFRW background with total gravitational mass $`m_{}`$. The factor of $`1/2`$ may be heuristically understood due to the presence of a continuous distribution of matter adjacent to the shell, instead of vacuum: half of the proper mass of the shell in the former case has already been accounted for in the inner side of the shell, in $`m_{}`$.

Finally, we note that the usual boundary surface problem of matching a closed LFRW universe to a Schwarzschild exterior mtwmatch  is straightforwardly obtained from our construction by setting

$$m_\mathrm{\Sigma }=m_+=0M=m_{},A=1w_\mathrm{c}=x_\mathrm{c}^2.$$

The condition $`[K_{ab}]=0`$ leads to a single non-trivial equation \[cf. Eq. (39)\]

$$\dot{a}^2=2\frac{M}{a}1,$$
(40)
which is just the Friedmann equation for a closed universe ($`k=1`$) with energy density $`\mu =3M/(4\pi x_\mathrm{c}^3)`$.

## V Shells with pressure

We consider here the case of spherical shells with the following surface stress-energy tensor defined on them:

$$S_{ab}=(\sigma +p)u_au_b+p\gamma _{ab},$$
(41)
where $`p`$ is a tangential pressure, by virtue of spherical symmetry. Physically, this matter configuration can be realized by, e.g., ‘counter-rotating’ dust, where the individual dust particles are taken to follow geodesic orbits on the shell, with half of them orbiting along any given great circle with angular momentum per unit rest mass $`l`$, and the other half in the opposite direction with angular momentum per unit rest mass $`l`$, such that the net angular momentum vanishes, thereby preserving spherical symmetry ecluster .

The junction conditions yield formally the same equation of motion as in the pressureless case \[cf. Eq. (24)\], but, unlike in the latter case, the proper mass of the shell is no longer conserved. This is the crucial difference, and implies that the ratio $`m_+/m_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is now an implicit function of $`R`$. The conservation equation (14) gives

$$\dot{\sigma }+2\frac{\dot{R}}{R}(\sigma +p)=0.$$
(42)
Note that even the ‘generalized’ mass, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{\Sigma }4\pi (\sigma +2p)R^2`$ fails to be conserved in general. If the tangential pressure is constant, then $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is conserved, and the evolution equation becomes identical to the one for the pressureless case, upon the substitution $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., the constant pressure case is equivalent to the pressureless one, provided one includes pressure into the generalized mass definition (note, however, that even in this case $`\dot{m}_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$, since there is always work done against pressure ‘forces’).

The conservation equation (42) can be rewritten as a first-order ODE for $`\sigma (R)`$, by using $`\dot{\sigma }=(d\sigma /dR)\dot{R}`$, as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dR}+\frac{2}{R}(\sigma +p)=0.$$
(43)
Upon introduction of the dimensionless function $`\psi (R)2\pi \sigma (R)R`$, the equation above can be rewritten as

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{d\psi }{dR}=(\sigma +2p).$$
(44)
Now, one may either (i) specify an equation of state of the form $`p=p[\sigma ]`$ and solve Eq. (43) for $`\sigma (R)`$, or (ii) prescribe a functional form for $`\psi (R)`$, thereby fixing $`\sigma (R)`$, with $`p[\sigma ]`$ following directly from Eq. (44).

The equation of motion for the shell reads then

$$\dot{R}^2+V(R)=0,$$
(45)
with the effective potential

$$V(R)=1\frac{a}{R^2\psi ^2}\frac{b}{R}\psi ^2,$$
(46)
where

$$a\left(\frac{m_+}{2}\right)^2,bM+m_{}.$$
(47)
The dynamics of the shell will obviously depend on $`\psi `$ and vice-versa, i.e., a given form of the potential—whereby the dynamics is uniquely determined—will constrain the allowed choices for $`\psi `$, or equivalently, for the equation of state (although it will not uniquely determine them). The qualitative nature of the evolution is given by the shape of the effective potential: its zeros (if any), and first and second derivatives. From Eqs. (44) and (46), we have then

$`V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{R^2\psi ^3}}\psi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{R^3\psi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^2}},`$ (48)
$`V^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi ^{\prime \prime }\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{R^2\psi ^3}}\psi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4a\psi ^{}}{R^3\psi ^3}}`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6a}{R^2\psi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\right)^22{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^3}}\psi ^2.`$
Now, in the presence of non-vanishing pressure it is possible to design the shape of $`V`$, so as to satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for a stable solution, $`R_{}`$:

$$V(R_{})0,V^{}(R_{})=0,V^{\prime \prime }(R_{})>0.$$
(50)
If the first inequality saturates, the solution is stationary.

### V.1 Non-existence of stable solutions with a strictly linear barotropic equation of state

Proposition. There are no stable configurations with a strictly linear barotropic equation of state $`p=\alpha \sigma `$.

Proof. Let us assume that $`p=\alpha \sigma `$, with $`\alpha (1,1)`$, where the upper and lower limits are imposed by causality. Equation (44) integrates to $`\psi =A/R^{1+2\alpha }`$, where $`A>0`$ is an integration constant, and we have then

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{a}{A^2}}R^{4\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{cA^2}{R^{2(1+2\alpha )}}},`$ (51)
$`V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{a}{A^2}}R^{4\alpha 1}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^2}}+2(1+2\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{R^{3+4\alpha }}},`$ (52)
$`V^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`4\alpha (4\alpha 1){\displaystyle \frac{a}{A^2}}R^{4\alpha 2}2{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^3}}`$ (53)
$`2(1+2\alpha )(3+4\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{R^{4(\alpha +1)}}}.`$
The condition $`V^{}=0`$ leads to a quadratic equation for $`XR^{1+4\alpha }`$:

$$X^2\frac{bA^2}{4a\alpha }X\frac{(1+2\alpha )A^4}{2a\alpha }=0,$$
(54)
with solution(s):

$$X_0^\pm =\frac{bA^2}{8a\alpha }\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+32a(1+2\alpha )\alpha /b^2}\right).$$
(55)
Now, at the local extrema, from Eqs. (53) and (54), after some manipulation we obtain

$$V_0^{\prime \prime }=\frac{4a\alpha (1+4\alpha )}{A^2X_0^{4(1+\alpha )/(1+4\alpha )}}\left[X_0^2+\frac{A^4(1+2\alpha )}{2a\alpha }\right].$$
(56)
The solution $`R_0X_0^{1/(1+4\alpha )}`$ is stable if and only if $`V_0^{\prime \prime }>0`$, i.e., if and only if either of the following holds:

$`\text{(i)}\alpha (1+4\alpha )<0\text{and}X_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{A^4(1+2\alpha )}{2a\alpha }}>0,`$
$`\text{(ii)}\alpha (1+4\alpha )>0\text{and}X_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{A^4(1+2\alpha )}{2a\alpha }}<0.`$
If (i) holds, then $`\alpha (1/4,0)`$, and we must take $`X_0^{}`$ in (55) with the further condition that the discriminant is greater than unity; however, this requires $`\alpha >0`$ or $`\alpha <1/2`$, both of which contradict $`1/4<\alpha <0`$. Now, let us examine possibility (ii): we have either $`\alpha >0`$ or $`\alpha (1,1/4)`$. If $`\alpha >0`$, the condition $`X_0^2+A^4(1+2\alpha )/(2a\alpha )<0`$ is violated. If $`\alpha (1,1/2)`$, the former condition is also violated, so we are left with $`\alpha [1/2,1/4)`$. But this implies (since $`\alpha `$ is negative) that $`X_0^+<0`$, and thus we must take $`X_0^{}`$ in (55) subject to either $`\alpha >0`$ or $`\alpha <1/2`$, both of which are incompatible with $`\alpha [1/2,1/4)`$. We conclude, therefore, that there are no solutions with $`V^{}=0`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }>0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It immediately follows that all momentarily static solutions—which exist whenever $`V=0`$—are unstable, i.e., there are no stationary solutions for shells with a strictly linear barotropic equation of state.

### V.2 Energy conditions and stability criteria

From Eq. (49), together with the requirements $`V=V^{}=0`$, after some algebra, the necessary and sufficient condition for a stable solution ($`V^{\prime \prime }>0`$) may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{\prime \prime }}{\psi ^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{R^3\psi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2R^2}}\right)>{\displaystyle \frac{2a\psi ^{}}{R^3\psi ^3}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3a}{R^2\psi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\psi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2}{2}}.`$ (57)
Now, from Eqs. (43)-(44), we have

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }=\sigma ^{}\left(1+2\frac{dp}{d\sigma }\right)=\frac{2}{R}(\sigma +p)(1+2C_\mathrm{s}^2),$$
(58)
where $`C_\mathrm{s}\sqrt{dp/d\sigma }`$ is the local sound speed, if one regards $`p`$ as a hydrostatic pressure. The stability condition (57) reads then

$$\frac{(\sigma +p)(1+2C_\mathrm{s}^2)}{\sigma +2p}>\mathrm{\Theta }_1\left[\frac{a}{2\pi ^2\sigma ^2R^6}P(\varsigma )+\mathrm{\Theta }_2\right],$$
(59)
where $`\varsigma p/\sigma `$, $`P(\varsigma )=1+2\varsigma +6\varsigma ^2`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ are strictly positive terms:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\sigma ^2R^5}{a+2\pi ^2b\sigma ^2R^3}},`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{R^3}}+2\pi ^2(\sigma +2p)^2.`$ (61)
The quadratic $`P(\varsigma )`$ has an absolute positive minimum at $`\varsigma =1/6`$, and therefore the right-hand-side of (59) is strictly positive.

Now, in terms of the energy density and principal pressures, the energy conditions for this system are:

Null energy condition (NEC): $`\sigma +p>0`$

Dominant energy condition (DEC): $`\sigma >0`$, $`\sigma >|p|`$

Weak energy condition (WEC): $`\sigma >0`$, $`\sigma +p>0`$

Strong energy condition (SEC): $`\sigma +p>0`$, $`\sigma +2p>0`$

The DEC implies the WEC, which in turn implies the NEC, and the SEC also implies the NEC; the energy conditions are otherwise independent. Comparison between these energy conditions and Eqs. (44) and (58), shows that the latter provide a clear relation between the former and the matter content of the shell. Accordingly, one expects the stability, or lack thereof, of the shell to depend crucially on the energy conditions.

For a strictly linear barotropic equation of state, condition (59) implies $`\sigma +p>0`$. Clearly, if the WEC is violated, there are no stable configurations. (In fact, as shown in the previous subsection, even if the WEC is satisfied, there are no stable solutions for such equations of state).

For arbitrary equations of state, one may distinguish two cases, depending on whether $`C_\mathrm{s}^2`$ is non-negative. Most macroscopic forms of matter obey $`C_\mathrm{s}^20`$ \[including matter opaque to sound ($`C_\mathrm{s}^2=0`$), such as tenuous plasmas where electromagnetic radiation below the plasma cut-off frequency does not propagate\], whereas certain fundamental fields, such as massive scalar fields, exhibit $`C_\mathrm{s}^2<0`$. We shall assume throughout that $`\sigma >0`$, remarking, however, that matter with negative energy density has been considered from a purely theoretical standpoint, e.g., in attempts to construct stable wormhole solutions visser95 . We skip trivial algebra and present the relation between energy conditions and stability in Table I below.

## VI Trapped surfaces

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be any given compact spatial two-surface in the spacetime, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm `$ be the expansions in the future-pointing null directions orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The latter is said to be a trapped surface if $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}0`$ penrose73 . Trapped surfaces signal thus the boundary of a region where any initially expanding null congruence begins to converge; clearly, they define regions of ‘no escape’. The limiting case where expansion vanishes along future-oriented normal null directions is referred to as an outer marginally trapped surface (OMTS). It is well known that the existence of trapped surfaces implies that of OMTS wald84 . In spherical symmetry, the apparent horizon (AH)—the outer boundary of a compact trapped region—is an OMTS.

Let us consider the case of an arbitrary shell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ matched to two arbitrary spherical spacetimes, as described in Sec. II. Take the vacuum metric to be of the form (1), with $`g_{rr}=1/F_\pm (t,r)`$, without imposing a priori any sign constraints on $`F`$. Since the four-metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ is continuous across $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and one needs derivatives of null vector fields orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, it suffices to have $`g_{\mu \nu }^\pm `$ to compute $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ along ingoing and outgoing null directions. Our surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is that of a spherical shell with proper area radius $`r=R(\tau )`$ (which provides a coordinate invariant definition, and, in addition, allows for measurements by an external observer, who can measure proper circumferences, but not coordinate radii). It is convenient to introduce null coordinates $`\{u,v\}`$ defined by

$$du=hdt\frac{1}{\sqrt{F}}dr,dv=hdt+\frac{1}{\sqrt{F}}dr,$$
(62)
from which it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm =\left(\frac{1}{h}\frac{}{t}\sqrt{F}\frac{}{r}\right)R(\tau ),$$
(63)
where the ‘$`\pm `$’ sign denotes evaluation along outgoing and ingoing null directions, respectively. The condition for trapped surfaces reads then \[where Eq. (6) was used\]

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}=\frac{\dot{R}^2}{1+\dot{R}^2/F}F0.$$
(64)
The AH is given by the limit $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}0`$, which requires $`F0`$. For the case of a boundary surface, $`[K_{ab}]=0`$, the time coordinate is globally defined, and thus $`F_{}=F_+`$ everywhere, thereby uniquely defining a continuous curve $`t_{\mathrm{ah}}(r)`$, via $`F_\pm =0`$. In the presence of a thin shell, however, the functional forms of $`F_{}`$ and $`F_+`$ are different, and therefore the AH curve (implicitly defined by two different curves in $`_\pm `$, by $`F_\pm =0`$, respectively) may not necessarily be continuous.

To illustrate this, let us consider the case of a single shell with active gravitational mass $`m_+`$ moving in an interior Schwarzschild background with mass parameter $`m_{}`$. This case is of sufficient generality, since, as shown in the preceding sections, the vacuum-immersed single shell case, as well as that of a shell collapsing onto an interior LTB solution, can be trivially obtained from it. We have then

$$F_{}=1\frac{2m_{}}{r}=0,F_+=12\frac{m_++m_{}}{r}=0,$$
(65)
which defines the AH as

$$t_{\mathrm{ah}}(r)=2m_+H_1(rR)+2m_{},$$
(66)
where $`H_1(x)`$ is the unit Heaviside step-function ($`H_1=0`$ for $`x<0`$, and $`H_1=1`$, for $`x0`$). The evolution of the AH is shown in Fig. 1.

The AH coincides initially with the EH, since the inner spacetime is just static Schwarzschild, but jumps out discontinuously at $`t=t_{}`$, when the thin matter shell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ crosses the initial Schwarzschild radius. The EH is determined by the entire future development (along null generators) of the spacetime, and is therefore continuous, unlike the AH, which is defined locally in terms of the gravitational mass interior to a certain radius, on a given spacelike hypersurface.

## VII Shell crossing

In spherical gravitational collapse, one may distinguish between two different types of singularities, given by the location and relative motion of neighboring shells. A shell focusing singularity is said to occur at the center of symmetry, when the proper area radius vanishes therein, leading to the blow-up of all curvature invariants; these singularities are gravitationally strong (any volume form defined along the Jacobi fields vanishes at the singularity), and the spacetime is geodesically incomplete central . A shell crossing singularity is said to occur when neighboring shells cross each other at finite (comoving) radius, thereby leading to two-dimensional caustics, where the energy density diverges, and the metric becomes singular yodzis73 . In LTB collapse, shell crossing occurs for spatially inhomogeneous density distributions, whenever the proper time for collapse of a given shell is a monotonically decreasing function of the comoving radius. For the charged dust case, shell crossing has been shown to be inevitable, both for asymptotically flat ori91 , and asymptotically de Sitter goncalves01a  spacetimes. Physically, shell crossings signal the intersection of matter flow lines at a given spacelike surface, to the future of which the model therefore breaks down. Such shell crossing singularities have been shown to be gravitationally weak newman86 , and, in one particular LTB case, an analytical metric continuation was found in a distributional sense papapetrou&hamoui67 . Recently, Szekeres and Lun szekeres&lun99  showed that it is always possible to find a coordinate transformation that renders the metric $`C^1`$ (but not $`C^2`$) at the LTB shell crossing singularity. Their result adds considerably to our understanding of shell crossing in LTB collapse, but there remains to be shown that such $`C^1`$ transformation always exists (and is presumably unique) for a generic spherical metric.

### VII.1 Conditions for shell crossing

One might hope that a detailed analysis of the dynamics of individual thin shells could shed some light on the shell crossing process in continuous matter models. Thus motivated, we shall consider the case of two Schwarzschild shells, as described in Sec. III. Take the shells to have initial radii $`R_0^\pm `$, and dynamics given by

$$\dot{R}^\pm +V^\pm (R^\pm )=0,$$
(67)
where

$`V^\pm =\sqrt{k^21+{\displaystyle \frac{a_\pm }{R^\pm }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_\pm }{R^\pm }}\right)^2},`$ (68)
$`a_{}=2k\sqrt{b_{}}=m_{},`$
$`a_+=2(k\sqrt{b_+}+m_{})=M+m_{}.`$
For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we shall consider the marginally bound case, $`k=1`$. In this case, the dynamical equation (67) admits an analytical solution $`R^\pm (\tau )`$, which is explicitly given in Appendix A. The proper time for collapse is given by solving $`R(\tau _\mathrm{c})=0`$, which yields

$$\tau _\mathrm{c}=\frac{2}{3a^2}\left(2b^{3/2}+a^{3/2}\sqrt{\frac{4b^3}{a^3}\frac{3bR_0^2}{a}+R_0^3}\right),$$
(69)
where the ‘$`\pm `$’ subscripts have been omitted for clarity. For given gravitational masses $`m_\pm `$ (whereby the corresponding $`a_\pm ,b_\pm `$ are determined), the proper time for collapse is a function of the initial radius $`R_0^\pm `$. Now, shell crossing occurs iff, for $`R_0^+>R_0^{}`$, we have

$$\tau _\mathrm{c}(R_0^+)<\tau _\mathrm{c}(R_0^{}).$$
(70)
For given $`m_\pm `$, it is straightforward to numerically solve for condition (70), thereby obtaining a region of the two-dimensional parameter space—given by the half-plane $`\{R_0^{}(0,+\mathrm{})\}\times \{R_0^+>R_0^{}\}`$—in which (70) is satisfied. One can actually obtain an analytical criterion for shell crossing, by restricting our attention to neighboring shells, defined by

$$R_0^+=R_0^{}(1+\xi ),$$
(71)
with $`0<\xi 1`$. For shells thus defined, we can Taylor expand

$$\tau _\mathrm{c}(R_0^+)=\tau _\mathrm{c}(R_0^{})+\left(\frac{d\tau _\mathrm{c}}{dR_0}\right)_{R_0^{}}\xi +𝒪(\xi ^2).$$
(72)
Condition (70) reads then

$$\left(\frac{d\tau _\mathrm{c}}{dR_0}\right)_{R_0^{}}<0.$$
(73)
From Eq. (69), after a little algebra, this gives

$$R_0^{}(0,R_{}),$$
(74)
where $`R_{}2b_{}/a_{}=m_{}/2`$. We note that this (necessary and sufficient) condition for shell crossing for neighboring shells requires the inner shell to be inside its Schwarzschild radius. From the definition of neighboring shells, it follows that the outer shell is also inside its Schwarschild radius: Take the limiting case $`R_0^{}=m_{}/2`$, and set $`R_0^+=m_{}/2+\delta `$, with $`\delta 𝒪(m_{}^1)`$. Suppose that $`R_0^+`$ is outside its Schwarzschild radius, i.e., $`R_0^+>R_{\mathrm{Sch}}^+=2(m_++m_{})`$. This implies

$$4m_++3m_{}<2\delta ,$$

which cannot be, since $`m_+>0`$ and $`\delta 𝒪(m_{}^1)`$; hence, $`R_0^+<R_{\mathrm{Sch}}^+`$. Note that the converse is not necessarily true: one may have $`R_0^+>R_{\mathrm{Sch}}^+`$ and $`R_0^{}<R_{\mathrm{Sch}}^{}`$, provided $`m_+𝒪(m_{}^1)`$.

The case of non-neighboring shells \[i.e., $`R_0^+R_0^{}𝒪(R_0^{})`$\] is qualitatively analogous: shell crossing only occurs if either (i) both shells are “sufficiently” inside their respective Schwarzschild radii, or (ii) the inner shell is initially untrapped, and the outer shell “sufficiently” trapped <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The upper limit for the initial radius of the outer shell depends on the initial radius for the inner shell, and on both masses $`m_\pm `$.. Illustrative examples are shown below.

### VII.2 Discrete shell model vs. LTB collapse

In a multi-thin-shell model, the metric is at least $`C^0`$ at the shell crossing by construction, since $`[g_{\mu \nu }]=0`$ for all times. This is in apparent contradiction with the well-known result for LTB collapse, where the comoving metric becomes singular ($`g_{rr}0`$) at shell crossings newman86 . Whilst such a metric singularity may be removed by a $`C^1`$ coordinate transformation via the prescription of Szekeres and Lun szekeres&lun99 , one is still left with the fact that scalar quantities such as the energy density remain divergent at LTB shell crossings (in fact, tidal forces are still infinite thereon), whereas they are finite in the discrete shell case \[in particular, $`\sigma =m/(4\pi R_{\mathrm{sc}}^2)<\mathrm{}`$\]. Accordingly, the former cannot be taken as the continuous limit of the latter.

The inequivalence—as far as shell crossings are concerned—between these two models also arises from the following observation: In LTB collapse, individual shells follow geodesic motion in the four-dimensional spacetime due to the lack of any external forces (collapse is pressureless and uncharged), but this does not happen in the present case; within each shell, particle motion is geodesic, but, from the viewpoint of the four-dimensional spacetime, the shell is accelerated:

$`a^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`u^\nu _\nu u^\mu =\dot{R}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{R}}{\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h}}\left(2\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta h^2}}\right)\right]\delta _t^\mu `$ (75)
$`+\left(\ddot{R}+{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}}{h^3}}\right)\delta _r^\mu 0,`$
$`a^a`$ $`=`$ $`u^b{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}u^a=\delta _\tau ^b{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\delta _\tau ^a=0.`$ (76)
We remark that the shell crossing process cannot be determined from the field equations alone, as a matter of principle. Once two (or more) shells cross, one must specify a priori the type of interaction that takes place (which depends on the microphysics of the model at hand), in order to follow the dynamics into the causal future of the shell cross surface. Only in special cases, where a purely gravitational gravitational interaction (whence the rest mass of each shell is conserved) between different shells is assumed, can one determine the evolution of the system beyond the shell cross. For null surfaces, we have the well-known DTR (Dray-t’Hooft-Redmount) relations dtr , which relate the mass and momenta of the different regions before and after shell crossing. Such relations were subsequently generalized to the timelike case (of massive spherical shells) by Núñez, Oliveira, and Salim nunez&oliveira&salim93 .

## VIII Concluding remarks

We have analyzed in some detail the dynamics, stability, trapped surfaces, and shell crossing for spherical thin shells in vacuum. By focusing on the dynamics of the exterior shell in a vacuum two-shell model, the problem reduces to that of a single shell moving freely (albeit not geodesically) in a Schwarzschild background with different active mass parameters on each side.

We have shown that there can be no stable solutions with a strictly linear barotropic equation of state, regardless of any energy conditions satisfied by such matter fields. Whereas this rules out several idealized forms of matter as candidates for stable shell configurations, it still leaves ample room for stability with more general equations of state. For instance, by considering a quasilinear equation of state (which is a good approximation to any equation of state near equilibrium, if the latter exists), Brady, Louko, and Poison brady&louko&poison91  showed that stable static shells with an interior Schwarzschild background can exist, provided certain conditions are satisfied, which turn out to supersede energy conditions necessary for the existence (but not necessarily stability) of such shells frauendiener&hoenselaers&konrad90 . For matter configurations with $`C_\mathrm{s}^20`$ obeying the WEC, but otherwise arbitrary, we showed here that the SEC is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of stable shells around a classical Schwarzschild black hole, thereby producing a very simple and useful test for the stability of any matter content. For matter with $`C_\mathrm{s}^2(1/2,0)`$ obeying the WEC, the SEC is also necessary and sufficient for stability. For $`C_\mathrm{s}^2(1,1/2)`$ the analysis cannot be carried out further without specifying an equation of state, to evaluate inequality (59). However, the results of brady&louko&poison91  for static shells with $`C_\mathrm{s}^2<0`$ suggest that there are no stable configurations, even dropping the staticity assumption.

The collapse of a thin matter shell onto a Schwarzschild black hole introduces a step-function-type discontinuity in the apparent horizon curve, which occurs when the shell crosses the initial Schwarzschild radius, whence the jump equals the (active) gravitational mass of the shell.

Neighboring dust shells were shown to cross whenever the inner shell is sufficiently inside its Schwarzschild radius, specifically, $`R_0^{}<R_{\mathrm{Sch}}^{}/4`$. Shell crossings occur in a multi-dust-shell case, just as they do in the continuous LTB dust case, but individual shells move geodesically in the latter, whereas they are accelerated in the former. This, together with the fact that the energy density remains finite in the discrete case, but diverges in the LTB one, implies that the multi-shell case cannot be taken as the discrete analogue of LTB collapse, insofar as shell crossings are concerned.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank Vince Moncrief for several helpful discussions. This work was supported by FCT Grant SFRH-BPD-5615-2001 and by NSF Grant PHY-0098084.

## Appendix A Marginally bound collapse of two dust shells

Formally, we need to solve the equation

$$\dot{R}+\sqrt{\frac{a}{R}+\frac{b}{R^2}}=0,$$
(77)
with the initial condition $`R(0)=R_0`$. The positive real solution is

$$R(\tau )=\frac{b}{a}2\frac{b^2}{a}\chi ^{1/3}(\tau )\frac{1}{2a}\chi ^{1/3}(\tau ),$$
(78)
where

$`\chi `$ $``$ $`8b^34a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+12a^{7/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }\tau 9a^4\tau ^2+3a^2(\tau {\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}{3\sqrt{a}}})`$ (79)
$`\times (16b^3+4a^3\mathrm{\Sigma }^212a^{7/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }\tau +9a^4\tau ^2)^{1/2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $``$ $`\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{b^3}{a^3}}3{\displaystyle \frac{b}{a}}R_0^2+R_0^3\right)^{1/2}.`$ (80)
When $`b=0`$ (i.e., $`m_{}=0`$), corresponding to a single shell $`m_+`$ in vacuum, the above solution reduces to the well-known marginally bound case of LTB collapse:

$$R(\tau )=\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{4R_0^3}{9}\frac{4}{3}\sqrt{a}R_0^{3/2}\tau +a\tau ^2\right)^{1/3}.$$
(81)


text:
# Asymptotics of almost holomorphic sections of ample line bundles on symplectic manifolds: an addendum

## 1. Introduction

This note is an addendum to our study in \[ShZe2\] of almost holomorphic sections of powers of ample line bundles $`L^NM`$ over almost complex symplectic manifolds $`(M,\omega ,J)`$. Motivated by the important role now played by ‘asymptotically holomorphic’ sections in symplectic geometry (see \[Aur, Don\] and many related articles), we studied in \[ShZe2\] a conceptually related but different class $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ of ‘almost holomorphic’ sections defined by a method of Boutet de Monvel and Guillemin \[BoGu\]. The main results of \[ShZe2\] were the scaling limit law of the almost-complex Szegö projectors

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_N:L^2(M,L^N)H_J^0(M,L^N)$$

and various of its geometric consequences.

Our purpose in this addendum is to develop \[ShZe2\] in a probabilistic direction, in the spirit of our earlier work with P. Bleher on the holomorphic case \[BSZ1\], and to complete the discussion in \[BSZ2\] of correlations between zeros in the symplectic case. The space $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ is finite dimensional and carries a natural Hermitian inner product (see (9) and (16)). We endow the unit sphere $`SH_J^0(M,L^N)`$ in $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ with Haar probability measure $`\nu _N`$ and consider the joint probability distribution (JPD)

$$𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N=D^N(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n,\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^n;z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)dxd\xi $$

of a random section $`s_NSH^0(M,L^N)`$ having the prescribed values $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$ and derivatives $`\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^n`$ at $`n`$ points $`z^1,\mathrm{},z^nM`$. To be more precise, we choose local complex coordinates $`\{z_1,\mathrm{},z_m\}`$ and a nonvanishing local section $`e_L`$ of $`L`$ on an open set containing the points $`\{z^1,\mathrm{},z^n\}`$; then $`𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N`$ is the JPD of the $`n(2m+1)`$ complex random variables

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill x^p=e_L^N,s_N|_{z^p},\xi _q^p=e_L^N,N^{\frac{1}{2}}_{/z_q}s_N|_{z^p},\xi _{m+q}^p=e_L^N,N^{\frac{1}{2}}_{/\overline{z}_q}s_N|_{z^p},\\ \hfill 1pn,1qm.\end{array}$$
(1)
As the name implies, almost holomorphic sections behave in the large $`N`$ limit much as do holomorphic sections on complex manifolds. The main result of this note bears this out by showing that the JPD in the almost complex symplectic case has the same universal scaling law as in the holomorphic case, thereby finishing the proof of Theorem 1.2 of \[BSZ2\] on universal scaling limits of correlations between zeros in the symplectic case.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`L`$ be the complex line bundle over a $`2m`$-dimensional compact integral symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ with curvature $`\omega .`$ Let $`P_0M`$, and choose a local frame $`e`$ for $`L`$ and local complex coordinates centered at $`P_0`$ so that $`\omega |_{P_0}`$ and $`g|_{P_0}`$ are the usual Euclidean Kähler form and metric respectively, $`e_L_{P_0}=1`$, and $`e_L|_{P_0}=0`$. Then

$$𝐃_{(z^1/\sqrt{N},\mathrm{},z^n/\sqrt{N})}^N𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^{\mathrm{}}\left((z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)^{mn}\right),$$

where the measures $`𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^{\mathrm{}}=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}`$ are the same universal Gaussian measures as in the holomorphic case; in particular, they are supported on the holomorphic 1-jets.

Let us review the formula for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}`$. As we will recall, a (complex) Gaussian measure on $`^k`$ is a measure of the form

$$\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{e^{\mathrm{\Delta }^1z,\overline{z}}}{\pi ^kdet\mathrm{\Delta }}dz,$$
(2)
where $`dz`$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $`^k`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a positive definite Hermitian $`k\times k`$ matrix. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ is the covariance matrix of $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$z_\alpha \overline{z}_\beta _{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta },1\alpha ,\beta k.$$
(3)
Since the universal limit measures $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}`$ vanish along non-holomorphic directions, they are singular measures on the space of all 1-jets. To deal with singular measures, we introduce in §3 generalized Gaussian measures whose covariance matrices (3) are only semi-positive definite; a generalized Gaussian is simply a Gaussian measure supported on the subspace corresponding to the positive eigenvalues of the covariance matrix.

The covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ is given along holomorphic directions by the same formula as in the holomorphic case \[BSZ1, (97)\], namely

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)=\frac{m!}{c_1(L)^m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{\mathrm{}}(z)& B^{\mathrm{}}(z)\\ B^{\mathrm{}}(z)^{}& C^{\mathrm{}}(z)\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`z=(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)`$ and

$`A^{\mathrm{}}(z)_p^{}^p`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^𝐇(z^p,0;z^p^{},0),\mathrm{\Pi }_1^𝐇(u,0;v,0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^m}}e^{u\overline{v}\frac{1}{2}(|u|^2+|v|^2)},`$
$`B^{\mathrm{}}(z)_{p^{}q^{}}^p`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}(z_q^{}^pz_q^{}^p^{})\mathrm{\Pi }_1^𝐇(z^p,0;z^p^{},0)\hfill & \text{for}1qm\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}m+1q2m\hfill \end{array},`$
$`C^{\mathrm{}}(z)_{p^{}q^{}}^{pq}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\delta _{qq^{}}+(\overline{z}_q^p^{}\overline{z}_q^p)(z_q^{}^pz_q^{}^p^{})\right)\mathrm{\Pi }_1^𝐇(z^p,0;z^p^{},0)\hfill & \text{for}1q,q^{}m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}\mathrm{max}(q,q^{})m+1\hfill \end{array}.`$
In other words, the coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)`$ corresponding to the anti-holomorphic directions vanish, while the coefficients corresponding to the holomorphic directions are given by the Szegö kernel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^𝐇`$ for the reduced Heisenberg group (see \[BSZ1, §1.3.2\]) and its covariant derivatives.

A technically interesting novelty in the proof is the role of the $`\overline{}`$ operator. In the holomorphic case, $`𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N`$ is supported on the subspace of jets of sections satisfying $`\overline{}s=0`$. In the almost complex case, sections do not satisfy this equation, so $`𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N`$ is a measure on the higher-dimensional space of all 1-jets. However, Theorem 1.1 says that the mass in the non-holomorphic directions shrinks to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

An alternate statement of Theorem 1.1 involves equipping $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ with a Gaussian measure, and letting $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N`$ be the corresponding joint probability distribution, which is a Gaussian measure on the complex vector space of 1-jets of sections. We show (Theorem 4.1) that these Gaussian measures $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}^N`$ also have the same scaling limit $`𝐃^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that asymptotically the probabilities are the same as in the holomorphic case, where universality was established in \[BSZ2\]. It is then easy to see that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}_{(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n)}^N=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^N}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ is the covariance matrix of the random variables in (1). The main step in the proof is to show that the covariance matrices $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ underlying $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}^N`$ tend in the scaling limit to a semi-positive matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$. It follows that the scaled distributions $`\stackrel{~}{𝐃}^N`$ tend to the generalized Gaussian $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ ‘vanishing in the $`\overline{}`$-directions.’

In a subsequent article \[ShZe3\], we obtain further probabilistic results on holomorphic and almost holomorphic sections. Regarding almost holomorphic sections, we prove that a sequence $`\{s_N\}`$ of almost holomorphic sections satifies the bounds

$$s_N_{\mathrm{}}/s_N_{L^2}=O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N}),\overline{}s_N_{\mathrm{}}/s_N_{L^2}=O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N})$$

almost surely. Hence almost holomorphic sections satisfy similar bounds to asymptotically holomorphic sections in \[Don, Aur\].

Finally, we mention some intriguing questions relating our probabalistic approach to almost holomorphic sections to the now-standard complexity-theoretic approach to asymptotically holomorphic sections in symplectic geometry, due to Donaldson and further developed by Auroux and others. From an analytical viewpoint (which of course is just one technical side of their work), the key results are existence theorems for one or several asymptotically holomorphic sections satisfying quantitative transversality conditions, such as

$$s(z)=0\overline{}s(z)|<|s(z)|zM$$

in the case of one section. Can one use the probabalistic method to prove such existence results? It is the global nature of the problem which makes it difficult. On small balls, our methods rather easily give lower bounds for quantitative transversality of the type:

$$\mu \{s:|\overline{}s(z)|<|s(z)|zB_{\frac{D}{\sqrt{N}}}(z_0)s.th.s(z)=0\}>1\frac{C_\epsilon }{N^{1\epsilon }}.$$

However, there are roughly $`C_mN^m`$ balls of radius $`1/\sqrt{N}`$, so one cannot simply sum this small-ball estimate. To globalize, one would need to partition $`M`$ into small cubes as in \[Don\] and then analyze the dependence of transversality conditions from one cube to another.

Remark: This paper and \[ShZe2\] were originally contained in the archived preprint \[ShZe1\]. In revising that paper for publication as \[ShZe2\], we expanded the section on the Szegö kernel, added a discussion on transversality, and relocated the material on the JPD to this article. In particular, Theorem 1.1 is Theorem 0.2 of \[ShZe1\], and Theorem 4.1 is Theorem 5.4 of \[ShZe1\].

## 2. Background

To avoid duplication, we only set up some basic notation and background and refer to \[BSZ1, BSZ2, ShZe2\] for further discussion and details.

Let $`(M,\omega ,J)`$ denote a compact almost-complex symplectic manifold such that $`[\frac{1}{\pi }\omega ]`$ is an integral cohomology class, and such that $`\omega (Jv,Jw)=\omega (v,w)`$ and $`\omega (v,Jv)>0`$. We further let $`(L,h,)M`$ denote a quantizing Hermitian line bundle and metric connection with curvature $`\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_L=\omega `$. We denote by $`L^N`$ the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ tensor power of $`L`$.

We give $`M`$ the Riemannian metric $`g(v,w)=\omega (v,Jw)`$. We denote by $`T^{1,0}M,`$ resp. $`T^{0,1}M`$, the holomorphic, resp. anti-holomorphic, sub-bundle of the complex tangent bundle $`TM`$; i.e., $`J=i`$ on $`T^{1,0}M`$ and $`J=i`$ on $`T^{0,1}M`$.

We now recall our notion of ‘preferred coordinates’ from \[ShZe2\]. They are important because the universal scaling laws are only valid in such coordinates. A coordinate system $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ on a neighborhood $`U`$ of a point $`P_0M`$ is preferred at $`P_0`$ if any two of the following conditions (and hence all three) are satisfied:

1. $`/z_j|_{P_0}T^{1,0}(M)`$, for $`1jm`$,
2. $`\omega (P_0)=\omega _0`$,
3. $`g(P_0)=g_0`$,

where $`\omega _0`$ is the standard symplectic form and $`g_0`$ is the Euclidean metric:

$$\omega _0=\frac{i}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}dz_jd\overline{z}_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(dx_jdy_jdy_jdx_j),g_0=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(dx_jdx_j+dy_jdy_j).$$

Here we write $`z_j=x_j+iy_j`$, and we let $`\{\frac{}{z_j},\frac{}{\overline{z}_j}\}`$ denote the dual frame to $`\{dz_j,d\overline{z}_j\}`$.

As in \[BSZ1, BSZ2, ShZe2\], it is advantageous to work on the associated principal $`S^1`$ bundle $`XM`$, and our Szegö kernels will be defined there. Let $`\pi :L^{}M`$ denote the dual line bundle to $`L`$ with dual metric $`h^{}`$, and put $`X=\{vL^{}:v_h^{}=1\}`$. We let $`r_\theta x=e^{i\theta }x`$ ($`xX`$) denote the $`S^1`$ action on $`X`$. We then identify sections $`s_N`$ of $`L^N`$ with equivariant function $`\widehat{s}`$ on $`L^{}`$ by the rule

$$\widehat{s}_N(\lambda )=(\lambda ^N,s_N(z)),\lambda X_z,$$
(7)
where $`\lambda ^N=\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda `$; then $`\widehat{s}_N(r_\theta x)=e^{iN\theta }\widehat{s}_N(x)`$. We denote by $`_N^2(X)`$ the space of such equivariant functions transforming by the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ character.

When working on $`X`$, covariant derivatives on sections of $`L`$ become horizontal derivatives of equivariant functions. We consider preferred coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ centered at a point $`P_0M`$ and a local frame $`e_L`$ for $`L`$ such that $`e_L_{P_0}=1`$ and $`e_L|_{P_0}=0`$. This gives us coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m,\theta )`$ on $`X`$ corresponding to $`x=e^{i\theta }e_L(z)e_L^{}(z)X`$. We showed in \[ShZe2, §1.2\] that

$$\frac{^h}{z_j}=\frac{}{z_j}+\left[\frac{i}{2}\overline{z}_j+O(|z|^2)\right]\frac{}{\theta },\frac{^h}{\overline{z}_j}=\frac{}{\overline{z}_j}\left[\frac{i}{2}z_j+O(|z|^2)\right]\frac{}{\theta },$$
(8)
where $`\frac{^h}{z_j}`$ (resp. $`\frac{^h}{\overline{z}_j}`$) denotes the horizontal lift of $`\frac{}{z_j}`$ (resp. $`\frac{}{\overline{z}_j}`$).

The almost-complex Cauchy-Riemann operator $`\overline{}_b`$ on $`X`$ does not satisfy $`\overline{}_b^2=0`$ in general and usually has no kernel. Following a method of Boutet de Monvel -Guillemin, we defined in \[ShZe2\] the space $`_J^N`$ of equivariant almost-CR functions on $`X`$ as the kernel of a certain deformation $`\overline{D}_0`$ of the $`\overline{}_b`$ operator on $`_N^2(X)`$. The space $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ is then the corresponding space of sections. The Szegö kernel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N(x,y)`$ is the kernel of the orthogonal projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N:_N^2(X)_J^N.`$ The dimension $`d_N=dimH_J^0(M,L^N)`$ satisfies the Riemann-Roch formula (see \[BoGu\])

$$d_N=\frac{c_1(L)^m}{m!}N^m+O(N^{m1}).$$
(9)
Since $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ is finite dimensional, the Szegö kernel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N`$ is smooth and is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_N(x,y)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_N}{}}S_j^N(x)\overline{S_j^N(y)},$$

where $`\{S_j^N\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$.

It would take us too far afield to discuss the definition or significance of the spaces $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ here; we refer the reader to \[ShZe2\] for background.

## 3. A generalized Poincaré-Borel lemma

In this section, we give a generalization of the Poincaré-Borel lemma concerning the asymptotics of linear push forwards of measures on spheres of growing dimensions, which we shall use in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Recall that a Gaussian measure on $`^n`$ is a measure of the form

$$\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{e^{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^1x,x}}{(2\pi )^{n/2}\sqrt{det\mathrm{\Delta }}}dx_1\mathrm{}dx_n,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a positive definite symmetric $`n\times n`$ matrix. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ gives the second moments of $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$x_jx_k_{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}.$$
(10)
This Gaussian measure is also characterized by its Fourier transform

$$\widehat{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }}(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)=e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}t_jt_k}}.$$
(11)
If we let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix, we obtain the standard Gaussian measure on $`^n`$,

$$\gamma _n:=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{n/2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}|x|^2}dx_1\mathrm{}dx_n,$$

with the property that the $`x_j`$ are independent Gaussian variables with mean 0 and variance 1.

By a generalized complex Gaussian measure on $`^n`$, we mean a generalized Gaussian measure $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c`$ on $`^nR^{2n}`$ with moments

$$z_j_{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c}=0,z_jz_k_{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c}=0,z_j\overline{z}_k_{\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk},1j,kn,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk})`$ is an $`n\times n`$ positive semi-definite Hermitian matrix; i.e. $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c=\gamma _{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }^c}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^c`$ is the $`2n\times 2n`$ real symmetric matrix of the inner product on $`R^{2n}`$ induced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As we are interested here in complex Gaussians, we drop the ‘$`c`$’ and write $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }^c=\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a strictly positive Hermitian matrix, then $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by (2).

The push-forward of a Gaussian measure by a surjective linear map is also Gaussian. In the next section, we shall push forward Gaussian measures on the spaces $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ by linear maps that are sometimes not surjective. Since these non-surjective push-forwards are singular measures, we need to consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is positive semi-definite. In this case, we use (11) to define a measure $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which we call a generalized Gaussian. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has null eigenvalues, then the generalized Gaussian $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a Gaussian measure on the subspace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^n`$ spanned by the positive eigenvectors. (Precisely, $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\iota _{}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{\Lambda }_+}`$, where $`\iota :\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^n`$ is the inclusion. For the completely degenerate case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, we have $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta _0`$.) Of course, (10) also holds for semi-positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One useful property of generalized Gaussians is that the push-forward by a (not necessarily surjective) linear map $`T:^n^m`$ of a generalized Gaussian $`\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`^n`$ is a generalized Gaussian on $`^m`$:

$$T_{}\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }=\gamma _{T\mathrm{\Delta }T^{}}$$
(12)
Another useful property of generalized Gaussians is the following fact:

###### Lemma 3.1.

The map $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a continuous map from the positive semi-definite matrices to the space of positive measures on $`^n`$ (with the weak topology).

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$. We must show that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^N,\phi )(\mathrm{\Delta }^0,\phi )`$ for a compactly supported test function $`\phi `$. We can assume that $`\phi `$ is $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$. It then follows from (11) that

$$(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^N},\phi )=(\widehat{\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^N}},\widehat{\phi })(\widehat{\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^0}},\widehat{\phi })=(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^0},\phi ).$$

We shall use the following ‘generalized Poincaré-Borel lemma’ relating spherical measures to Gaussian measures in our proof of Theorem 1.1 on asymptotics of the joint probability distributions for $`SH_J^0(M,L^N)`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`T_N:^{d_N}R^k`$, $`N=1,2,`$, be a sequence of linear maps, where $`d_N\mathrm{}`$. Suppose that $`\frac{1}{d_N}T_NT_N^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`T_N\nu _{d_N}\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`V_N`$ be a $`k`$-dimensional subspace of $`^{d_N}`$ such that $`V_N^{}\mathrm{ker}T^N`$, and let $`p_N:^{d_N}V_N`$ denote the orthogonal projection. We decompose $`T_N=B_NA_N`$, where $`A_N=d_N^{1/2}p_N:^{d_N}V_N`$, and $`B_N=d_N^{1/2}T_N|_{V_N}:V_N\stackrel{}{}^k`$. Write

$$A_N\nu _{d_N}=\alpha _N,T_N\nu _{d_N}=B_N\alpha _N=\beta _N.$$

We easily see that (abbreviating $`d=d_N`$)

$$\alpha _N=A_N\nu _d=\psi _ddx,\psi _d=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\sigma _{dk}}{\sigma _dd^k}[1\frac{1}{d}|x|^2]^{(dk2)/2}& \mathrm{for}|x|<\sqrt{d}\hfill \\ 0& \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array},$$
(13)
where $`dx`$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $`V_N`$, and $`\sigma _n=\mathrm{Vol}(S^{n1})=\frac{2\pi ^{n/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)}`$. (The case $`k=1,d=3`$ of (13) is Archimedes’ formula \[Arc\].) Since $`[1|x|^2/d]^{(dk2)/2}e^{|x|^2/2}`$ uniformly on compacta and $`\frac{\sigma _{dk}}{\sigma _dd^k}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{k/2}}`$, we conclude that $`\alpha _N\gamma _k`$. (This is the Poincaré-Borel Theorem; see Corollary 3.3 below.) Furthermore,

$$\left(1\frac{1}{d}|x|^2\right)^{(dk2)/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{dk2}{2d}|x|^2\right)e^{\frac{k+2}{2}}e^{\frac{1}{2}|x|^2}\mathrm{for}dk+2,|x|\sqrt{d},$$

and hence

$$\psi _{d_N}(x)C_ke^{|x|^2/2}.$$
(14)
Now let $`\phi `$ be a compactly supported continuous test function on $`^k`$. We must show that

$$\phi 𝑑\beta _N\phi 𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(15)
Suppose on the contrary that (15) does not hold. After passing to a subsequence, we may assume that $`\phi 𝑑\beta _Nc\phi 𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since the eigenvalues of $`B_N`$ are bounded, we can assume (again taking a subsequence) that $`B_NB_0`$, where

$$B_0B_0^{}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}B_NB_N^{}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{d_N}T_NT_N^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Hence,

$$_^k\phi 𝑑\beta _N=_{V_N}\phi (B_Nx)\psi _{d_N}(x)𝑑x_{V_N}\phi (B_0x)\frac{e^{|x|^2/2}}{(2\pi )^{k/2}}𝑑x=_{V_N}\phi (B_0x)𝑑\gamma _k(x),$$

where the limit holds by dominated convergence, using (14). By (12), we have $`B_0\gamma _k=\gamma _{B_0B_0^{}}=\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and hence

$$_{V_N}\phi (B_0x)𝑑\gamma _k(x)=_^k\phi 𝑑\gamma _\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Thus (15) holds for the subsequence, giving a contradiction. ∎

We note that the above proof began by establishing the Poincaré-Borel Theorem (which is a special case of the of Lemma 3.2):

###### Corollary 3.3.

(Poincaré-Borel) Let $`P_d:^d^k`$ be given by $`P_d(x)=\sqrt{d}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$. Then

$$P_d\nu _d\gamma _k.$$

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

We return to our complex Hermitian line bundle $`(L,h)`$ on a compact almost complex $`2m`$-dimensional symplectic manifold $`M`$ with symplectic form $`\omega =\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_L`$ is the curvature of $`L`$ with respect to a connection $``$. We now describe the $`n`$-point joint distribution arising from our probability space $`(SH_J^0(M,L^N),\nu _N)`$. We introduce the Hermitian inner product on $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$:

$$s_1,s_2=_Mh^N(s_1,s_2)\frac{1}{m!}\omega ^m(s_1,s_2H_J^0(M,L^N)),$$
(16)
and we write $`s_2=s,s^{1/2}`$. Recall that $`SH_J^0(M,L^N)`$ denotes the unit sphere $`\{s=1\}`$ in $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ and $`\nu _N`$ denotes its Haar probability measure.

We let $`J^1(M,L^N)`$ denote the space of 1-jets of sections of $`L^N`$. Recall that we have the exact sequence of vector bundles

$$0T_M^{}L^N\stackrel{\iota }{}J^1(M,L^N)\stackrel{\rho }{}L^N0.$$
(17)
We consider the jet maps

$$J_z^1:H_J^0(M,L^N)J^1(M,V)_z,J_z^1s=\text{the 1-jet of}s\text{at}z,\text{for}zM.$$

The covariant derivative $`:J^1(M,L^N)T_M^{}L^N`$ provides a splitting of (17) and an isomorphism

$$(\rho ,):J^1(M,L^N)\stackrel{}{}L^N(T_M^{}L^N).$$
(18)
Definition: The $`n`$-point joint probability distribution at points $`P^1,\mathrm{},P^n`$ of $`M`$ is the probability measure

$$𝐃_{(P^1,\mathrm{},P^n)}^N:=(J_{P^1}^1\mathrm{}J_{P^n}^1)_{}\nu _N$$
(19)
on the space $`J^1(M,L^N)_{P^1}\mathrm{}J^1(M,L^N)_{P^n}`$.

Since we are interested in the scaling limit of $`𝐃^N`$, we need to describe this measure more explicitly: Suppose that $`P^1,\mathrm{},P^n`$ lie in a coordinate neighborhood of a point $`P_0M`$ and choose preferred coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m)`$ at $`P_0`$. We let $`z_1^p,\mathrm{},z_m^p`$ denote the coordinates of the point $`P^p`$ ($`1pn`$), and we write $`z^p=(z_1^p,\mathrm{},z_m^p)`$. (The coordinates of $`P_0`$ are $`0`$.) We consider the $`n(2m+1)`$ complex-valued random variables $`x^p,\xi _q^p`$ ($`1pn,1q2m`$) on $`S_N^2(X)SH_J^0(M,L^N)`$ given by

$$x^p(s)=s(z^p,0),$$
(20)
$$\xi _q^p(s)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{^hs}{z_q}(z^p),\xi _{m+q}^p(s)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{^hs}{\overline{z}_q}(z^p)(1qm),$$
(21)
for $`sSH_J^0(M,L^N)`$.

We now write

$$x=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^p),\xi =(\xi _q^p)_{1pn,1q2m},z=(z^1,\mathrm{},z^n).$$

Using (18) and the variables $`x^p,\xi _q^p`$ to make the identification

$$J^1(M,L^N)_{P^1}\mathrm{}J^1(M,L^N)_{P^n}^{n(2m+1)},$$
(22)
we can write

$$𝐃_z^N=D^N(x,\xi ;z)dxd\xi ,$$

where $`dxd\xi `$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $`^{n(2m+1)}`$.

Before proving Theorem 1.1 on the scaling limit of $`𝐃_z^N`$, we state and prove a corresponding result replacing $`(SH_J^0(M,L^N),\nu _N)`$ with the essentially equivalent Gaussian space $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ with the normalized standard Gaussian measure

$$\mu _N:=\left(\frac{d_N}{\pi }\right)^{d_N}e^{d_N|c|^2}dc,s=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_N}{}}c_jS_j^N,$$
(23)
where $`\{S_j^N\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$. This measure is characterized by the property that the $`2d_N`$ real variables $`\mathrm{}c_j,\mathrm{}c_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},d_N`$) are independent Gaussian random variables with mean 0 and variance $`1/2d_N`$; i.e.,

$$c_j_{\mu _N}=0,c_jc_k_{\mu _N}=0,c_j\overline{c}_k_{\mu _N}=\frac{1}{d_N}\delta _{jk}.$$
(24)
Our normalization guarantees that the variance of $`s_2`$ is unity:

$$s_2^2_{\mu _N}=1.$$

We then consider the Gaussian joint probability distribution

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐃}_{(P^1,\mathrm{},P^n)}^N=\stackrel{~}{D}^N(x,\xi ;z)dxd\xi =(J_{P^1}^1\mathrm{}J_{P^n}^1)_{}\mu _N.$$
(25)
Since $`\mu _N`$ is Gaussian and the map $`J_{P^1}^1\mathrm{}J_{P^n}^1`$ is linear, it follows that the joint probability distribution is a generalized Gaussian measure of the form

$$D^N(x,\xi ;z)dxd\xi =\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z)}.$$
(26)
We shall see below that the covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z)`$ is given in terms of the Szegö kernel.

We have the following alternate form of Theorem 1.1:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Under the hypotheses and notation of Theorem 1.1, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐃}_{(z^1/\sqrt{N},\mathrm{},z^n/\sqrt{N})}^N𝐃_{(z^1,\mathrm{},n^n)}^{\mathrm{}}.$$

###### Proof.

We use the coordinates $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_m,\theta )`$ on $`X`$ given by preferred coordinates at $`P_0M`$ and a local frame $`e_L`$ for $`L`$ with $`e_L_{P_0}=1`$ and $`e_L|_{P_0}=0`$ as in §2. The covariance matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z)`$ in (26) is a positive semi-definite $`n(2m+1)\times n(2m+1)`$ Hermitian matrix. If the map $`J_{z^1}^1\mathrm{}J_{z^n}^1`$ is surjective, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z)`$ is strictly positive definite and $`\stackrel{~}{D}^N(x,\xi ;z)`$ is a smooth function. On the other hand, if the map is not surjective, then $`\stackrel{~}{D}^N(x,\xi ;z)`$ is a distribution supported on a linear subspace. For example, in the integrable holomorphic case, $`\stackrel{~}{D}^N(x,\xi ;z)`$ is supported on the holomorphic jets, as follows from the discussion below.

By (10), we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B^{}& C\end{array}\right),`$ (29)
$`A=\left(A_p^{}^p\right)=x^p\overline{x}^p^{}_{\mu _N},B=\left(B_{p^{}q^{}}^p\right)=x^p\overline{\xi }_q^{}^p^{}_{\mu _N},C=\left(C_{p^{}q^{}}^{pq}\right)=\xi _q^p\overline{\xi }_q^{}^p^{}_{\mu _N},`$ (30)
$`p,p^{}=1,\mathrm{},n,q,q^{}=1,\mathrm{},2m.`$
(We note that $`A,B,C`$ are $`n\times n,n\times 2mn,2mn\times 2mn`$ matrices, respectively; $`p,q`$ index the rows, and $`p^{},q^{}`$ index the columns.)

We now describe the the entries of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ in terms of the Szegö kernel. We have by (24) and (30), writing $`s=_{j=1}^{d_N}c_jS_j^N`$,

$$A_p^{}^p=x^p\overline{x}^p^{}_{\mu _N}=\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{d_N}{}}c_j\overline{c}_k_{\mu _N}S_j^N(z^p,0)\overline{S_k^N(z^p^{},0)}=\frac{1}{d_N}\mathrm{\Pi }_N(z^p,0;z^p^{},0).$$
(31)
We need some more notation to describe the matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$: Write

$$_q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{^h}{z_q},_{m+q}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\frac{^h}{\overline{z}_q},1qm.$$

We let $`_q^1`$, resp. $`_q^2`$, denote the differential operator on $`X\times X`$ given by applying $`_q`$ to the first, resp. second, factor ($`1q2m`$). By differentiating (31), we obtain

$`B_{p^{}q^{}}^p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_N}}\overline{}_q^{}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_N(z^p,0;z^p^{},0),`$ (32)
$`C_{p^{}q^{}}^{pq}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d_N}}_q^1\overline{}_q^{}^2\mathrm{\Pi }_N(z^p,0;z^p^{},0).`$ (33)
We now use the scaling asymptotics of the almost holomorphic Szegö kernel $`\mathrm{\Pi }_N(x,y)`$ given in \[ShZe2\]. In addition to the above assumption on the the local frame $`e_L`$, we further assume that

$$^2e_L|_{P_0}=(g+i\omega )e_L|_{P_0}T_M^{}T_M^{}L.$$

(In \[ShZe3\], we called such an $`e_L`$ a ‘preferred frame’ at $`P_0`$, and the resulting coordinates were called ‘Heisenberg coordinates.’) Then we have (see \[ShZe3\], Theorem 2.3):

$$\begin{array}{c}N^m\mathrm{\Pi }_N(\frac{u}{\sqrt{N}},\frac{\theta }{N};\frac{v}{\sqrt{N}},\frac{\phi }{N})\hfill \\ \\ =\frac{1}{\pi ^m}e^{i(\theta \phi )+u\overline{v}\frac{1}{2}(|u|^2+|v|^2)}\left[1+_{r=1}^KN^{\frac{r}{2}}b_r(P_0,u,v)+N^{\frac{K+1}{2}}R_K(P_0,u,v,N)\right],\hfill \\ \\ \text{where}R_K(P_0,u,v,N)_{𝒞^j(\{|u|+|v|\rho \})}C_{K,j,\rho }\text{for}j=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
It follows from (31)–(33) and (34), recalling (8)–(9) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^N(\frac{z}{\sqrt{N}})\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)=\frac{m!}{c_1(L)^m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^{\mathrm{}}(z)& B^{\mathrm{}}(z)\\ B^{\mathrm{}}(z)^{}& C^{\mathrm{}}(z)\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
in the notation of (4).

Finally, we apply Lemma 3.1 to (26) and conclude that

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐃}_{z/\sqrt{N}}^N=\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^N(z/\sqrt{N})}\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}=𝐃_z^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Proof of Theorem 1.1: The proof is similar to that of Theorem 4.1. This time we define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^N=\frac{1}{d_N}𝒥_N𝒥_N^{}:H^0(M,L^N)^{n(2m+1)},$$

where $`𝒥_N=J_{P^1}^1\mathrm{}J_{P^n}^1`$ under the identification (22). We see immediately that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^N`$ is given by (31)–(33) and the conclusion follows from Lemma 3.2 and (4). ∎

Remark: There are other similar ways to define the joint probability distribution that have the same universal scaling limits. One of these is to use the (un-normalized) standard Gaussian measure $`\gamma _{2d_N}`$ on $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ in place of the normalized Gaussian $`\mu _N`$ in Theorem 4.1 to obtain joint densities $`D_\mathrm{\#}^N(x,\xi ;z)=D^N(\frac{x}{N^{m/2}},\frac{\xi }{N^{m/2}};z)`$. Then we would have instead

$$D_\mathrm{\#}^N(N^{m/2}x,N^{m/2}\xi ;N^{1/2}z)dxd\xi \gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}.$$

Another similar result is to let $`\lambda _N`$ denote normalized Lebesgue measure on the unit ball $`\{s1\}`$ in $`H_J^0(M,L^N)`$ and to let $`\widehat{𝐃}_z^N=𝒥_N\lambda _N`$. By a similar argument as above, we also have $`\widehat{𝐃}_{z/\sqrt{N}}^N\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}(z)}`$.