text:
# Dynamical response to supernova-induced gas removal in two-component spherical galaxies

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Elliptical galaxies have provided important information on the formation and evolution of galaxies. So far some scaling relations among photometric properties and global structural parameters have been observed, such as the colour–magnitude relation (e.g., Baum, 1959), the velocity dispersion–magnitude relation (Faber & Jackson, 1976), and the surface brightness–size relation (Kormendy, 1977; Kodaira, Okamura & Watanabe, 1983). These relations are regarded as clues to our understanding of galaxy formation.

It is widely believed that heating up and sweeping out the galactic gas by multiple supernova (SN) explosions play a key role on the formation of dwarf elliptical/spheroidal galaxies. In a traditional framework of monolithic cloud collapse scenario for formation of ellipticals, such multiple SNe cause a galactic wind to halt subsequent star formation and chemical enrichment (Larson, 1969; Ikeuchi, 1977; Saito, 1979; Arimoto & Yoshii, 1986, 1987; Kodama & Arimoto, 1997). Since a large amount of gas is expelled by the galactic wind, the self-gravitating system expands after blowing up the wind (e.g., Hills, 1980; Mathieu, 1983; Vader, 1986). Yoshii & Arimoto (1987) found that many observed properties of ellipticals can be reproduced by the galactic wind model with the evolutionary population synthesis technique. They noticed that theoretical metallicity of galaxies, to be compared with observation, should be an average of metallicities of constituent stars weighted by their luminosities. On the other hand, Dekel & Silk (1986) considered a model in which galaxies are embedded in dominant dark haloes. They claimed that structural properties of luminous matter would not be affected by the gas removal if dark matter dominates the gravitational potential. Their model can also reproduce the observed relations, although they did not take into account the evolutionary population synthesis. Recently, Zhao (2002) argued the dynamical limit on occurrence of galactic wind given by the existence of sufficiently dense dark halo and the absence of intergalactic/escaping globular clusters, and concluded that only about 4 per cent of the total mass of the galaxy should be lost by the wind.

In contrast to the monolithic cloud collapse scenario, recent studies on the cosmological structure formation suggest the hierarchical clustering scenario based on a cold dark matter (CDM) model. In this scenario, the CDM dominates the Universe gravitationally and objects or dark haloes continuously cluster and merge together, so that larger objects form via mergers of smaller objects. Thus, simple galactic wind models must be modified in order to be consistent with the cosmological structure formation. Based on the hierarchical clustering scenario, semi-analytic models (SAMs) of galaxy formation have been developed (e.g., Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni, 1993; Cole et al., 1994, 2000; Somerville & Primack, 1999; Nagashima, Gouda & Sugiura, 1999; Nagashima et al., 2001, 2002). These models well reproduce many statistical observables of galaxies such as luminosity function, colour distribution, and gas fraction. Kauffmann & Charlot (1998) and Nagashima & Gouda (2001) have shown that their SAMs taking into account metal enrichment can reproduce the observed colour–magnitude relation of elliptical galaxies in clusters of galaxies and that this relation reflects the mass-metallicity relation, as pointed out by using the galactic wind model (Kodama & Arimoto, 1997). Thus, as a next step, it is valuable to investigate not only the photometric properties but structural properties such as size and velocity dispersion. Moreover, Okamoto & Nagashima (2001a, b) found that radial gradients of fractional number, colour, and star formation rate of ellipticals in clusters are also reproduced by using the SAM associated with an $`N`$-body simulation.

Because a large amount of mass loss might occur during the formation of ellipticals, in both scenarios of monolithic cloud collapse and hierarchical clustering, it is important to construct a formalism on the dynamical response in two-component galaxies consisting of baryon and dark matter. While self-consistent equilibrium models of such two-component elliptical galaxies have been analysed by Yoshii & Saio (1987) and Ciotti & Pellegrini (1992), we focus on the dynamical response of baryon within a dark matter halo. In this paper we consider simple models of two-component galaxies in which the baryon having either de Vaucouleurs or exponential profile is embedded in the dark matter having either isothermal or homogeneous profile. Moreover, we also consider the so-called NFW profile of dark matter that is recently suggested by $`N`$-body simulations (Navarro, Frenk & White, 1997).

This paper is outlined as follows. In section 2, general formulation for the dynamical response on size and velocity dispersion to mass loss is presented. In section 3 the dynamical response for particular choices of density distributions mentioned above is investigated. Section 4 summarizes the results of this paper. The details of models and derivations are given in Appendices.

## 2 EQUATIONS OF DYNAMICAL RESPONSE IN TWO-COMPONENT GALAXIES

We assume that the velocity fields of gas, stars and dark matter are non-rotating, homogeneous and isotropic characterized by a single parameter of velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$, and that the density distribution of baryon changes homologously. For simplicity, it is also assumed that the density distribution of dark matter does not change during the mass loss. This assumption will be justified for global structural parameters of dark matter because the total mass of dark matter dominates over baryon by a factor of 10 or so. Although the following results will be slightly modified in a dense region of baryonic matter because of non-negligible dynamical response on the local dark matter distribution, the resulting change of baryonic matter should be intermediate between the baryon-dominated and dark matter-dominated cases. We will study the dynamical response in such limiting cases in section 2.2.

The response depends on the timescale of gas removal between two extreme cases of adiabatic (slow) and instantaneous (rapid) gas removal. When the timescale is longer than the dynamical timescale of the system, it changes adiabatically in quasi-equilibrium. In this case the total change is a sum of consecutive infinitesimal changes. On the other hand, when the timescale of gas removal is much shorter than the dynamical timescale, the system drastically changes and it is possible that our assumption of homologous change might be broken. Under realistic circumstances, as hydrodynamical simulations suggest, these timescales are almost similar (e.g., Mori, Yoshii, Tsujimoto & Nomoto, 1997; Mori, Yoshii & Nomoto, 1999; Mori, Ferrara & Madau, 2002). Therefore, keeping in mind that the adiabatic gas removal is more consistent with the situation under our assumptions, we consider both adiabatic and instantaneous gas removal below.

### 2.1 Formulation

A kinetic energy $`T`$ due to velocity dispersion and a gravitational potential energy $`W`$ of baryonic component in a dark matter halo are written as

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p\rho _br_b^3\sigma ^2,`$ (1)
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`a\rho _b^2r_b^5b\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2f(z),`$ (2)
respectively, where $`p,a`$ and $`b`$ are constants dependent on density distribution, $`\rho _b`$ and $`\rho _d`$ are characteristic densities of baryon and dark matter, respectively, $`\sigma `$ is velocity dispersion of baryon, $`r_b`$ and $`r_d`$ are characteristic radii of baryon and dark matter, respectively, $`z`$ is a radius $`r_b`$ normalized by $`r_d`$, $`zr_b/r_d`$, and $`f(z)`$ is a function dependent on density distribution. Note that variables related to dark matter, with subscript $`d`$, do not change during the mass loss. From the virial theorem, we obtain

$$p\sigma _i^2=a\rho _ir_i^2+b\rho _dr_d^2f(z_i),$$
(3)
$$p\sigma _f^2=a\rho _fr_f^2+b\rho _dr_d^2f(z_f),$$
(4)
where subscripts $`i`$ and $`f`$ stand for the initial and final states, that is, before and after the mass loss, respectively, for the baryonic component. Just after the mass loss, only the baryon density changes from $`\rho _i`$ to $`\rho _i^{}`$ without any changes of other variables. Then, conserving its energy and mass, the system virializes again quickly to the final state,

$$\frac{1}{2}p\rho _i^{}r_i^3\sigma _i^2a\rho _i^2r_i^5b\rho _i^{}\rho _dr_i^3r_d^2f(z_i)=\frac{1}{2}p\rho _fr_f^3\sigma _f^2a\rho _f^2r_f^5b\rho _f\rho _dr_f^3r_d^2f(z_f).$$
(5)
After the mass loss the total mass of baryon also conserves, then $`\rho _i^{}r_i^3=\rho _fr_f^3`$. By using this relation, the above equation is transformed to

$$\frac{p}{2}(\sigma _f^2\sigma _i^2)a\rho _fr_f^2\left(1\frac{r_f}{r_i}\right)b\rho _dr_d^2[f(z_f)f(z_i)]=0.$$
(6)
Using the virial relation, $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _f`$ can be eliminated as

$$1+\frac{\rho _f}{\rho _i}\left[\left(\frac{z_f}{z_i}\right)^22\left(\frac{z_f}{z_i}\right)^3\right]+\frac{b\rho _d}{a\rho _iz_i^2}[f(z_f)f(z_i)]=0.$$
(7)
When the gas removal occurs instantaneously, the density at the final state is given by the above equation,

$$\frac{y_f}{y_i}=\frac{1+b[f(z_f)f(z_i)]/ay_iz_i^2}{(z_f/z_i)^2(2z_f/z_i1)},$$
(8)
where $`y_{i,f}=\rho _{i,f}/\rho _d`$, respectively. On the other hand, when the gas removal is sufficiently slow, the total change is a sum of consecutive infinitesimal changes, for which $`y_f=y_i+dy`$ and $`z_f=z_i+dz`$. Thus, linearizing the above equation, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{y}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{az^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{df(z)}{dz}},`$ (9)
where subscript $`i`$ is omitted for simplicity. This corresponds to the case of adiabatic change. The first term in the above equation is obtained for the self-gravitational potential of baryon. The second term gives the modification for baryon embedded in dark matter. Solving this differential equation, we obtain

$$y=\frac{C}{z^4}+q(z),$$
(10)
where

$$q(z)\frac{b}{az^4}_0^zt^2\frac{df(t)}{dt}𝑑t,$$
(11)
and $`C`$ is an integration constant. Since $`C`$ is an adiabatic constant, the value does not change during the mass loss. Thus we obtain the density at the final state,

$$\frac{y_f}{y_i}=\frac{C/z_f^4+q(z_f)}{y_i}=\frac{1}{y_i}\left[(y_iq(z_i))\frac{z_i^4}{z_f^4}+q(z_f)\right],$$
(12)
and

$$C=z^4[yq(z)]=z_i^4[y_iq(z_i)].$$
(13)
From equations (3) and (4), the velocity dispersion at the final state is obtained as

$$\frac{\sigma _f}{\sigma _i}=\left[\frac{y_fz_f^2+bf(z_f)/a}{y_iz_i^2+bf(z_i)/a}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(14)
In the next section, we derive the dependence of $`y`$ on $`z`$ by specifying the function $`f(z)`$ in each case of density distributions of baryon and dark matter. Before studying such specific cases, we see the limiting cases of no dark matter and negligible baryonic matter in the next subsection.

### 2.2 Limiting cases

First, we consider the case of self-gravitating system with no dark halo, that is, $`\rho _d/\rho _i0`$. The final form is expected to be the same as the result in Yoshii & Arimoto (1987). For instantaneous gas removal, we obtain from equation (7),

$$\frac{r_f}{r_i}\frac{M_f/M_i}{2M_f/M_i1},$$
(15)
where $`M_f/M_i=\rho _fr_f^3/\rho _ir_i^3`$. This is the well-known result that the system becomes unbound if a half of the mass is removed. On the other hand, for adiabatic gas removal, the second term in equation (9) vanishes and then

$$\frac{\rho _f}{\rho _i}\frac{r_i^4}{r_f^4}.$$
(16)
The velocity dispersion is also obtained from equation (14),

$$\frac{\sigma _f}{\sigma _i}\left[\frac{\rho _fr_f^2}{\rho _ir_i^2}\right]^{1/2}=\frac{r_i}{r_f}.$$
(17)
Next, we consider the opposite case, $`\rho _i/\rho _d0`$. As pointed out by Dekel & Silk (1986), the size and velocity dispersion of galaxies do not change during the mass loss because the gravitational potential is dominated by dark matter. Since the third term in equation (7) overwhelms other terms, $`z`$ does not change against the change of $`y`$. Thus the velocity dispersion also does not change as obtained by equation (14). This case corresponds to that of §III-c in Dekel & Silk (1986).

Therefore, we confirm that our formulation is applicable to the limiting cases of no dark matter and negligible baryonic matter.

## 3 DYNAMICAL RESPONSE ON SIZE AND VELOCITY DISPERSION IN SPECIFIC CASES

In this section, we consider some specific density distributions. As for the baryonic component, we adopt the following two distributions. One is the Jaffe model (Jaffe, 1983) that approximates the de Vaucouleurs profile when projected,

$$\rho (r)=\frac{4\rho _br_b^4}{r^2(r+r_b)^2},$$
(18)
where $`\rho _b`$ and $`r_b`$ are the characteristic density and radius, respectively. Another is a model that approximates the exponential profile when projected,

$$\rho (r)=\rho _b\sqrt{\frac{r_b}{r}}\mathrm{exp}\left[g_{\mathrm{exp}}\left(\frac{r}{r_b}1\right)\right].$$
(19)
The details of comparisons of these approximate profiles with the de Vaucouleurs and exponential profiles are given in Appendix A. As for the dark matter halo, we consider the following two distributions for truncated isothermal and homogeneous spheres,

$`\rho (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _d{\displaystyle \frac{r_d^2}{r^2}}\theta (r_dr),(\mathrm{isothermal})`$ (20)
$`\rho (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _d\theta (r_dr),(\mathrm{homogeneous})`$ (21)
respectively, where $`\rho _d`$ is a characteristic density of dark matter and $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside step function. Finally we also consider the NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk & White, 1997),

$$\rho (r)=\rho _dc^3\left[\frac{cr}{r_d}\left(1+\frac{cr}{r_d}\right)^2\right]^1,$$
(22)
where $`c`$ is the concentration parameter. Although Fukushige & Makino (1997, 2001) and Moore et al. (1998) suggest a modified NFW profile with steeper slope in the inner core, $`\rho r^{1.5}`$, we consider only the original NFW profile.

In a hierarchical clustering scenario, the isothermal profile should be applied to mergers and starbursts occurring near the centre of dark halo. This situation is realized when the mergers with satellite galaxies are caused by the dynamical friction. On the other hand, when satellite-satellite mergers occur in the envelope of dark halo by random collisions, the homogeneous profile should be applied. Recent high resolution $`N`$-body simulations suggest that many subhaloes survive and are not disrupted (e.g., Okamoto & Habe, 1999; Moore et al., 1999; Ghigna et al., 2000). If their internal structures are also maintained, the isothermal profile should be applied even in the case of mergers in the envelope of dark halo. Moreover, outer parts of individual subhaloes near the centre of their host halo would be stripped by the tidal force from the host halo, then the mass ratio of baryon to dark matter would be high. We also consider such a case below.

### 3.1 de Vaucouleurs-like distribution of baryon in an isothermal dark halo

In this subsection, we investigate the dynamical response to mass loss in the case of isothermal dark halo. As already mentioned, we adopt the Jaffe model which well reproduces the deprojected three-dimensional de Vaucouleurs profile. The corresponding mass profile for baryon is

$$M_b(r)=\frac{16\pi \rho _br_b^3r}{r+r_b},$$
(23)
and for dark matter,

$`M_d(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \rho _dr_d^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_d}}1\right)\theta (rr_d)\right].`$ (24)
In the following, we use a parameter $`m`$ that stands for the mass ratio of baryon to dark matter,

$$m\frac{M_b(r\mathrm{})}{M_d(r\mathrm{})}.$$
(25)
From the self- and interaction-potential energies of baryon, we obtain the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ in equation (2) as follows,

$$a=128\pi ^2G,\text{and}b=64\pi ^2G,$$
(26)
and the function $`f(z)`$ is

$$f(z)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{z}+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right).$$
(27)
Substituting these quantities into equation (11) for adiabatic gas removal and into equation (8) for instantaneous gas removal, we obtain the dynamical response on size to gas removal. Moreover, using equation (14), we also obtain the response on velocity dispersion. Because the corresponding equations and solutions are complicated, we summarize those in Appendix B.

We examine how the dynamical response depends on the ratio of initial mass of baryon relative to dark matter halo $`m_iM_i/M_d`$ and the ratio of initial radius of baryonic component relative to dark matter halo $`z_ir_i/r_d`$. In the following we consider two representative values of $`m_i=0.2`$ and 0.05, and $`z_i=0.2`$ and 0.05, respectively. In a standard cosmological model, the baryon fraction is about 0.1, so $`m_i0.1`$ is expected if gas cooling is sufficiently effective. Thus the two values of $`m_i`$ correspond to two extreme cases in realistic situations. The size of disk galaxies is usually considered to be a radius at which the disks are supported by their rotation under an assumption that their specific angular momenta conserve while the gas shrinks due to the cooling. The initial value of the specific angular momentum before the cooling is given by the so-called dimensionless spin parameter $`\lambda `$, which distributes log-normally around 0.05, derived by the tidal torque due to the large-scale density inhomogeneity in the Universe (White, 1984; Catelan & Theuns, 1996a, b; Nagashima & Gouda, 1997). Because an effective radius of disk is $`\lambda r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ (Fall, 1983) and the size of elliptical galaxies is not significantly different from the disk size, the values of $`z_i=0.05`$ and $`0.2`$ are realistic. If outer parts of individual subhaloes are tidally stripped by their host halo, even larger values might be realized.

In the left panels of Figure 1, we plot the responses on size (upper panel) and velocity dispersion (lower panel) for $`m_i=0.2`$. The thick solid and dashed lines indicate the results of $`z_i=0.2`$ and 0.05, respectively, for adiabatic gas removal. In the latter case of $`z_i=0.05`$, because the baryonic component is compact and gravitationally dominates in the central region, the changes of size and velocity dispersion are larger than in the former case of $`z_i=0.2`$. In the right panels, we show the results of $`m_i=0.05`$. The changes are smaller when compared to those for $`m_i=0.2`$ because of the small mass of baryonic component. Note that the changes for $`(m_i,z_i)=(0.2,0.2)`$ and $`(0.05,0.05)`$ are very similar to each other. The reason is, as pointed out by Navarro, Eke & Frenk (1996), that the changes can be measured by the value of $`m_i/z_i`$. If $`m_i/z_i`$ is sufficiently small as shown by the thick solid line in the right panels ($`m_i/z_i=0.25`$), the changes are negligible because the mass of dark matter dominates over the baryonic component. In such a case the assumption of dominant halo by Dekel & Silk (1986) can be justified.

For reference, we show the results for instantaneous gas removal by thin lines. As well known, the changes are greater than those for adiabatic gas removal. This tendency holds even in the dark matter-dominated case. Note that our results for this case are obtained under the assumption of homologous change, which might not be justified because some masses become unbound and leave the system. Actually, by using $`N`$-body simulations, Navarro, Eke & Frenk (1996) showed that some particles initially in the central region of a dark halo become unbound when a part of mass is instantaneously removed.

### 3.2 Dependence on dark matter distribution

In this subsection, we examine how the dynamical response depends on the density distribution of dark matter component, while the density distribution of baryonic component is fixed to the Jaffe model.

First we consider that the dark matter distributes homogeneously. The mass of dark matter within radius $`r`$ is

$`M_d(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}\rho _dr_d^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{r_d^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{r_d^3}}1\right)\theta (rr_d)\right].`$ (28)
Then the coefficient $`b`$ is

$$b=\frac{64}{3}\pi ^2G,$$
(29)
and the function $`f(z)`$ is

$$f(z)=\frac{12z}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{z}+z^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right).$$
(30)
In the same manner as before, we obtain the dynamical response on size and velocity dispersion for this case.

Next we consider the NFW profile. The mass within radius $`r`$ is

$$M_d(r)=4\pi \rho _dr_d^3\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{cr}{r_d}\right)\frac{cr/r_d}{1+cr/r_d}\right].$$
(31)
The coefficient $`b`$ is

$$b=64\pi ^2G,$$
(32)
and the function $`f(z)`$ is

$$f(z)=\frac{c\mathrm{ln}(cz)}{1cz}+\frac{1}{z}\left[\mathrm{ln}(1cz)\mathrm{ln}(cz)+\mathrm{Li}_2(cz)\right],$$
(33)
where Li$`{}_{2}{}^{}(z)`$ is the dilogarithm. In defining the parameter $`m`$ in equation (25), we truncate $`M_d(r)`$ at $`r=r_d`$, because it logarithmically diverges at $`r\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise we do not assume any truncation in the analysis.

The results for adiabatic gas removal are shown in Figure 2. The initial condition is $`m_i=0.2`$ and $`z_i=0.05`$ for all cases and $`c=10`$ for the NFW profile. The solid, dashed and dot-dashed lines indicate the isothermal, homogeneous and NFW profiles, respectively. In the case of the homogeneous dark halo, we find that the changes of size and velocity dispersion are larger than those in the case of the isothermal halo and the influence from dark halo is weaker. This would reflects that the concentration of dark matter is lower than that of the isothermal halo and that the gravitational potential energy from dark matter is smaller, as indicated by the value of the coefficient $`b`$. This suggests that the size and velocity dispersion can be significantly affected by mass loss even if surrounded by dark matter, particularly when galaxy mergers frequently occur in the envelope of dark halo.

In the case of the NFW halo with $`c=10`$, the responses are very similar to those for the isothermal halo. This is because these haloes have much the same density distributions.

### 3.3 Dependence on baryonic matter distribution

In this subsection, we examine how the dynamical response depends on the density distribution of baryon within a given halo. We consider the exponential-like distribution in the isothermal halo. The mass within $`r`$ is

$$M_b(r)=\rho _br_b^3\frac{\pi e^g}{g^{5/2}}\left[2\sqrt{\frac{gr}{r_b}}\left(2\frac{gr}{r_b}+3\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{gr}{r_b}\right)+3\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{gr}{r_b}}\right)\right],$$
(34)
where we replace $`g_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ by $`g`$ for simplicity. Then the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ are

$$a=\frac{\pi ^2(3\pi 4)e^{2g}}{g^4}G,\text{and}b=\frac{4\pi ^2e^g}{g^3}G,$$
(35)
and the function $`f(z)`$ is

$$f(z)=\frac{2g\mathrm{exp}(g/z)}{\sqrt{z}}+\sqrt{g\pi }\{3\gamma +\frac{2g}{z}(5+\frac{2g}{z})\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}64+3\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{g}{z}\right)\}+3\sqrt{z}G_{23}^{30}\left(\frac{g}{z}\right|{}_{1/2,1/2,1}{}^{3/2,3/2}),$$
(36)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant and $`G_{pq}^{mn}`$ is the Meijer $`G`$ function (this symbol should not be confused with the gravitational constant $`G`$).

The results for adiabatic gas removal are shown in Figure 3. Although we have calculated the exponential profile of baryonic component in the homogeneous halo (Appendix B.4), we do not show this case in the figure, because the response is very similar to that for the de Vaucouleurs profile in the homogeneous halo. The dependence on the density distribution of baryonic component is weaker compared to that of dark matter component, which suggests that the response mainly depends on the density distribution of dark matter.

## 4 SUMMARY

We analyzed the dynamical response on structural parameters of elliptical galaxies to mass loss. While in the previous analyses only two limiting cases of pure self-gravitating baryonic system and dark matter-dominated system were considered (e.g., Yoshii & Arimoto, 1987; Dekel & Silk, 1986), we extended the formalism to the intermediate case between the two. Three-dimensional density distributions of baryonic matter considered in this paper are the Jaffe model that approximates the de Vaucouleurs profile and a model that approximates the exponential profile in two dimensions. As for the density distribution of dark matter, a truncated isothermal sphere and a homogeneous sphere are considered. As a more realistic case, we also considered the NFW dark matter halo which surrounds the baryonic component having de Vaucouleurs profile. Thus we found, from five combinations of baryon and dark matter, that the response strongly depends on the central concentration of dark matter, reflecting the fraction of baryon relative to dark matter in the central region. In contrast to the simple assumption by Dekel & Silk (1986) that structural parameters are not affected by mass loss, size and velocity dispersion can change even in dark matter, if baryon has sufficiently shrunk and become dense compared to dark matter at the onset of mass loss.

In this paper we considered both adiabatic and instantaneous gas removal. The adiabatic removal is justified if the timescale of gas removal is sufficiently slow compared to the dynamical timescale of the system. On the other hand, in the case of instantaneous gas removal, the effects of gas removal are stronger. For example, when more than a half of the mass is removed instantaneously, the pure self-gravitating system becomes unbound. Thus, our results for adiabatic removal place a lower limit on the dynamical response to mass loss. In order to check the opposite case, we also derived the results for instantaneous gas removal. As expected, the changes of size and velocity dispersion are larger than those for adiabatic gas removal. Such drastic changes may not validate our simple assumptions of homologous expansion of baryon and static distribution of dark matter.

So far some scaling relations such as the velocity dispersion-magnitude relation have been discussed considering the dynamical response to mass loss in the context of monolithic cloud collapse scenario for formation of elliptical galaxies, However, since the resuting structural change of baryonic component is found to depend significantly on the density distribution of dark matter, such scaling relations in the hierarchical clustering scenario should necessarily be reconsidered. Our results suggest that the dispersed properties of dwarf/compact ellipticals would be well reproduced by a variety of their formation histories and environment, when taking into account mass-dependent gas removal.

In the hierarchical clustering scenario, galaxy formation processes are rather complicated. There are many physical processes such as radiative gas cooling and galaxy merger as well as star formation and SN feedback. It should be noted that the physical mechanism of galaxy merger would be dynamical friction and/or random collision, while the mechanism of dark halo merger is growth of density fluctuation. In order to investigate the observed properties of galaxies, we need to fully incorporate the effects of dynamical response into realistic models of galaxy formation like our SAMs. We will discuss various observables of ellipticals in more realistic situations in a forthcoming paper.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for the Center-of-Excellence research (07CE2002) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. Numerical computation in this work was partly carried out at the Astronomical Data Analysis Center of the National Astronomical Observatory and at the Yukawa Institute Computer Facility. The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for helpful comments to improve the text and the figures.

## Appendix A Simple models of density distribution

### A.1 Approximate density distribution for the de Vaucouleurs $`r^{1/4}`$ profile

Most of elliptical galaxies have the so-called de Vaucouleurs $`r^{1/4}`$ luminosity profile,

$$\mu (R)=\mu _e\mathrm{exp}\left[g_{\mathrm{dV}}\left\{\left(\frac{R}{R_e}\right)^{1/4}1\right\}\right],$$
(37)
where $`g_{\mathrm{dV}}=7.67`$, $`R`$ is the distance from the centre of luminosity distribution, and $`R_e`$ is the effective half-light radius, at which the surface brightness reaches $`\mu _e`$. In this paper, assuming that mass traces luminosity, we regard the surface brightness profile $`\mu (R)`$ as a surface mass density profile.

Since the de Vaucouleurs $`r^{1/4}`$ profile is two-dimensional projected density distribution, we need to reconstruct three-dimensional density distribution. A direct procedure is to use the Abel inversion between a surface density profile $`\mu (R)`$ and a three-dimensional density distribution $`\rho (r)`$,

$$\mu (R)=2_R^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho (r)r}{\sqrt{r^2R^2}}𝑑r,$$
(38)
$$\rho (r)=\frac{1}{\pi }_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\mu (R)}{dR}\frac{dR}{\sqrt{R^2r^2}}.$$
(39)
However, since the obtained profile is generally not given by an analytic function, it is too complicated for analyses to use the exact profile. Therefore we adopt a simple, analytic model approximating the de Vaucouleurs profile when projected, that is, the Jaffe model (Jaffe, 1983). By introducing characteristic density $`\rho _b`$ and size $`r_b`$ of baryonic matter, the density distribution $`\rho (r)`$ is written as follows,

$$\rho (r)=\frac{4\rho _br_b^4}{r^2(r+r_b)^2},$$
(40)
where the half-mass radius $`r_e`$ in three-dimensional distribution coincides with $`r_b`$. The normalization of the density distribution is given by equating the total masses of the de Vaucouleurs and the Jaffe models. From this condition, we find

$$\rho _b=\frac{2520\mathrm{exp}(g_{\mathrm{dV}})R_e^2}{g_{\mathrm{dV}}^8r_b^3}\mu _e.$$
(41)
Moreover, we also find that the relationship between three- and two-dimensional half-mass radii, $`r_e`$ and $`R_e`$, is $`R_e0.744r_e`$. These relations lead to $`\mu _e4\rho _br_e`$.

The profile of surface density $`\mu (R)`$ and the profile of surface mass $`M_{2D}(<R)`$ within $`R`$ are shown in Figure 4. The solid and dashed lines indicate the de Vaucouleurs profile and projected Jaffe model, respectively. We adopt the normalizations of density and size given by the above equations. As proved by many authors, the Jaffe model well reproduces the de Vaucouleurs profile.

### A.2 Approximate density distribution for the exponential profile

Spiral galaxies and dwarf elliptical galaxies have an exponential luminosity profile,

$$\mu (R)=\mu _e\mathrm{exp}\left[g_{\mathrm{exp}}\left(\frac{R}{R_e}1\right)\right],$$
(42)
where $`g_{\mathrm{exp}}=1.68`$. Assuming the spherical symmetry, the deprojected three-dimensional density distribution using equation (39) is expressed by the modified Bessel function of the second kind, $`\mu _eg_{\mathrm{exp}}\mathrm{exp}(g_{\mathrm{exp}})K_0(g_{\mathrm{exp}}r/R_e)/\pi R_e`$. However, because of simplicity, we use an approximate form for three-dimensional density distribution. Note that the modified Bessel function of the second kind $`K_0`$ is asymptotically proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(g_{\mathrm{exp}}r/R_e)/\sqrt{r}`$ at $`r\mathrm{}`$. Then, to obtain a simple form expressed in elementary functions, we adopt the following density distribution

$$\rho (r)=\rho _b\sqrt{\frac{r_b}{r}}\mathrm{exp}\left[g_{\mathrm{exp}}\left(\frac{r}{r_b}1\right)\right].$$
(43)
As mentioned in the previous subsection, equating the total masses of these distributions, we find

$`\rho _b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_{\mathrm{exp}}^{1/2}R_e^2}{3\pi ^{1/2}r_b^3}}\mu _e,`$ (44)
and $`R_e0.978r_b`$. The half-mass radius $`r_e`$ for three-dimensional distribution is given by $`r_e1.295r_b`$, then $`R_e0.755r_e`$. The projected density and mass profiles are also shown in Figure 4. The dot-dashed and dotted lines indicate the exponential profile and our approximated exponential model, respectively. It is found that the exponential profile is well reproduced by our model.

## Appendix B Derivations of Dynamical Response in Specific Cases

In this section we derive the relation between density and size for the adiabatic change. \[The instantaneous change can directly be solved by substituting the function $`f(z)`$ into equation (8).\]

### B.1 de Vaucouleurs-like distribution of baryon in the isothermal dark halo

Using the density and mass distributions of baryon and dark matter, the self- and interaction-potential energies of baryon in the isothermal halo of dark matter are calculated by

$`W_{\mathrm{dV}}^{\mathrm{self}}`$ $`=`$ $`128\pi ^2G\rho _b^2r_b^5,`$ (45)
$`W_{\mathrm{dV},\mathrm{iso}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`64\pi ^2G\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{z}}+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\right)\right],`$ (46)
respectively. From equation (9), the differential equation for adiabatic gas removal is

$$\frac{dy}{dz}=4\frac{y}{z}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{2z^4},$$
(47)
then we obtain a solution

$$y=\frac{C}{z^4}\frac{1}{2z^4}\left[z+(1+z)\mathrm{ln}(1+z)\right],$$
(48)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant given by equation (13). In terms of mass instead of density, the response can be expressed by

$$m=4yz^3,$$
(49)
where $`m`$ denotes the mass ratio of baryon to dark matter.

### B.2 de Vaucouleurs-like distribution of baryon in the homogeneous dark halo

The interaction-potential energies of the de Vaucouleurs-like profile of baryon in the homogeneous halo of dark matter is

$$W_{\mathrm{dV},\mathrm{hom}}^{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{64\pi ^2}{3}G\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2\left[\frac{12z}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{z}+z^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right)\right].$$
(50)
The differential equation for adiabatic gas removal is

$$\frac{dy}{dz}=4\frac{y}{z}\frac{1}{6z^2}\left[2\frac{1}{z}+\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+z)}{z^2}2z\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right)\right].$$
(51)
Then we obtain

$$y=\frac{C}{z^4}+\frac{1}{24z^4}\left[6z+z^22z^3+2z^4\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{z}\right)2(3+2z)\mathrm{ln}(1+z)\right],$$
(52)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. In terms of mass, we obtain

$$m=12yz^3.$$
(53)
### B.3 Exponential-like distribution of baryon in the isothermal dark halo

The self-potential energy for baryon is given by

$$W_{\mathrm{exp}}^{\mathrm{self}}=\frac{\pi ^2(3\pi 4)e^{2g}}{g^4}G\rho _b^2r_b^5,$$
(54)
and the interaction-potential energy for baryon embedded in the dark halo is

$`W_{\mathrm{exp},\mathrm{iso}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`G\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2e^g}{g^3}}`$ (55)
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{2g\mathrm{exp}(g/z)}{\sqrt{z}}}+\sqrt{g\pi }\{3\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{z}}(5+{\displaystyle \frac{2g}{z}})\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}64+3\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}\right)\}+3\sqrt{z}G_{23}^{30}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}\right|{}_{1/2,1/2,1}{}^{3/2,3/2})].`$
From this, the differential equation becomes

$$\frac{dy}{dz}=4\frac{y}{z}+\frac{4g^3e^g}{(3\pi 4)z^{9/2}}\left[2\sqrt{\frac{\pi z}{g}}+6\frac{z}{g}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{g}{z}\right)+\sqrt{\pi }\left\{2\sqrt{\frac{z}{g}}3\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)^{3/2}\right\}\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}\right)\right],$$
(56)
then integrating the differential equation, we obtain

$$y=\frac{C}{z^4}+\frac{4g^{7/2}e^g}{(3\pi 4)z^4}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{g}{z}\right)\left\{2\sqrt{\frac{z}{g}}+3\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)^{3/2}\right\}+2\sqrt{\pi }\left\{1\frac{z}{g}\left(1\frac{z}{g}+\frac{3}{4}\frac{z^2}{g^2}\right)\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}\right)\right\}\right],$$
(57)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. In terms of mass, we obtain

$$m=\frac{3\sqrt{\pi }e^g}{4g^{5/2}}yz^3.$$
(58)
### B.4 Exponential-like distribution of baryon in the homogeneous dark halo

The interaction-potential energy for baryon embedded in the dark halo is

$`W_{\mathrm{exp},\mathrm{hom}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`G\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2e^g}{6g^{5/2}}}`$ (59)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{16g\sqrt{\pi }}{z}}2\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}\right)\left\{8\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}}70\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}}105\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}\right)^{3/2}\right\}\sqrt{\pi }\left(105{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{g^2}}36+16{\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}\right)\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}}\right)\right].`$
Therefore the coefficient $`b`$ is

$$b=\frac{\pi ^2e^g}{6g^{5/2}}G,$$
(60)
and the function $`f(z)`$ is

$$f(z)=\frac{16g\sqrt{\pi }}{z}2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{g}{z}\right)\left\{8\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}70\sqrt{\frac{z}{g}}105\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)^{3/2}\right\}\sqrt{\pi }\left(105\frac{z^2}{g^2}36+16\frac{g}{z}\right)\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}\right).$$
(61)
The differential equation for $`y`$ is

$$\frac{dy}{dz}=4\frac{y}{z}+\frac{g^{5/2}e^g}{3(3\pi 4)z^4}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)\left\{56+140\frac{z}{g}+210\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)^2\right\}8\sqrt{\pi }+\sqrt{\pi }\left\{8105\left(\frac{z}{g}\right)^3\right\}\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{g}{z}}\right)\right],$$
(62)
then integrating the differential equation, we obtain

$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{z^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{7/2}e^g}{6(3\pi 4)z^4}}`$ (63)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}\right)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}}\left(24+28{\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}+70{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{g^2}}+105{\displaystyle \frac{z^3}{g^3}}\right)+8\sqrt{\pi }\left(32{\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}\mathrm{erf}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{z}}}\right)\left(4832{\displaystyle \frac{z}{g}}+105{\displaystyle \frac{z^4}{g^4}}\right)\right],`$
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. In terms of mass, we obtain

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{9\sqrt{\pi }e^g}{4g^{5/2}}}yz^3.`$ (64)
### B.5 de Vaucouleurs-like distribution of baryon in the NFW dark halo

The NFW density distribution is written as

$$\rho (r)=\rho _dc^3\left[\frac{cr}{r_d}\left(1+\frac{cr}{r_d}\right)^2\right]^1,$$
(65)
where $`c`$ is the concentration parameter. The mass within radius $`r`$ is

$$M_d(r)=4\pi \rho _dr_d^3\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{cr}{r_d}\right)\frac{cr/r_d}{1+cr/r_d}\right].$$
(66)
The interaction-potential energy is

$`W_{\mathrm{dV},\mathrm{NFW}}^{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`64\pi G\rho _b\rho _dr_b^3r_d^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{c\mathrm{ln}(z)}{1cz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(1cz)\mathrm{ln}(cz)+\mathrm{Li}_2(cz)}{z}}\right],`$ (67)
where Li$`{}_{2}{}^{}(z)`$ is the dilogarithm, $`_z^0[\mathrm{ln}(1t)/t]𝑑t`$. The differential equation is

$$\frac{dy}{dz}=4\frac{y}{z}+\frac{1}{2z^3}\left[\frac{c}{1cz}\frac{c(12cz)}{(1cz)^2}\mathrm{ln}(cz)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1cz)\mathrm{ln}(cz)}{z}\frac{\mathrm{Li}_2(cz)}{z}\right],$$
(68)
then integrating this equation, we obtain

$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{z^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2cz^4}}\left[4cz+(4cz)\mathrm{ln}(1cz)\mathrm{ln}(cz)+{\displaystyle \frac{cz(43cz)\mathrm{ln}(cz)}{1cz}}+(4cz)\mathrm{Li}_2(cz)\right],`$ (69)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. In terms of mass, we obtain

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{4yz^3}{\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)}}.`$ (70)


format: text

text:
# References

General Spherically Symmetric Non Singular Black Hole Solutions in Teleparallel Theory of Gravitation

Gamal G.L. Nashed

Mathematics Department, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

e-mail:nashed@asunet.shams.edu.eg

We find the most general spherically symmetric non singular black hole solution in a special class of teleparallel theory of gravitation. If $`r`$ is large enough, the general solution coincides with the Schwarzschild solution. Whereas, if $`r`$ is small, the general solution behaves in a manner similar to that of de Sitter solution. Otherwise it describes a spherically symmetric black hole singularity free everywhere. Moreover, the energy associated with the general solution is calculated using the superpotential given by Møller 1978.

1. Introduction

Møller modified general relativity by constructing a new field theory in teleparallel space . The aim of this theory was to overcome the problem of energy-momentum complex that appears in the Riemannian space . The field equations in this new theory were derived from a Lagrangian which is not invariant under local tetrad rotation. S$`\stackrel{´}{a}`$ez  generalized Møller theory into a scalar tetrad theory of gravitation. Meyer  showed that Møller theory is a special case of Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ gauge theory .

Mikhail et al.  obtained two spherically symmetric solutions in Møller’s theory when the stress-energy momentum tensor vanishing. They calculated the energy associated with those solutions and found that in one solution the energy does not coincide with the gravitational mass. Shirafuji et al.  extended the calculation to all the stationary asymptotic flat space solutions with spherical symmetry, dividing them into two classes, the first in which the components $`\left(e_{a0}\right)`$ and $`\left(e_{0\alpha }\right)`$ of the parallel vector fields $`\left(e_{i\mu }\right)`$ tend to zero faster than $`1/\sqrt{r}`$ for large $`r`$ and the second, in which these components go to zero as $`1/\sqrt{r}`$. It was found that the equality of the gravitational and inertial masses holds only in the first class. Mikhail et al.  also obtained a spherically symmetric solution of Møller’s theory starting from a tetrad which contains three unknown functions following Mazumder and Ray . The solution contains one arbitrary function of the radial coordinates $`r`$, and all the previous solutions can be obtained from it.

Dymnikova  derived a static spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole solution in orthodox general relativity assuming a specific form of the stress-energy momentum tensor. This solution practically coincides with the Schwarzschild solution for large $`r`$, for small $`r`$ it behaves like the de Sitter solution and describes a spherically symmetric black hole singularity free everywhere . It has been proved that it is possible to treat this specific form of the stress-energy momentum tensor as corresponding to an r-dependent cosmological term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$, varying from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }`$ as $`r0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }=0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ . More recently , the spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole has been used to prove that a baby universe inside a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ black hole can be obtained in the case of an eternal black hole. Also it has been shown that the probability of a quantum birth of a baby universe can not be neglected due to the existence of an infinite number of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ white hole structures. Assuming the specific form of the vacuum stress-energy momentum tensor , using a spherically symmetric tetrad contains three unknown functions of radial coordinate $`r`$ only, which was constructed by Robertson , the author  obtained a general solution of this tetrad when the stress-energy momentum tensor is not vanishing. This solution contains one arbitrary function of the radial coordinates $`r`$, and all the previous solutions could be derived from it.

The general form of the tetrad, $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$, having spherical symmetry was given by Robertson . In the Cartesian form it can be written as***In this paper Latin indices $`(i,j,\mathrm{})`$ represent the vector number, and Greek indices $`(\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{})`$ represent the vector components. All indices run from 0 to 3. The spatial part of Latin indices are denoted by $`(a,b,\mathrm{})`$, while that of Greek indices by $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}).`$ In the present convention, Latin indices are never raised.

$`e_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ $`=`$ $`iA,e_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=Cx^a,e_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }=iDx^\alpha `$
$`e_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _a^\alpha B+Fx^ax^\alpha +ϵ_{a\alpha \beta }Sx^\beta ,`$ (1)
where A, C, D, B, F, and S are functions of t and $`r=(x^\alpha x^\alpha )^{1/2}`$, and the $`zero^{th}`$ vector $`e_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ has the factor $`i=\sqrt{1}`$ to preserve Lorentz signature. We consider an asymptotically flat space-time in this paper, and impose the boundary condition that for $`r\mathrm{}`$ the tetrad (1) approaches the tetrad of Minkowski space-time, $`\left(e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)=\mathrm{diag}(i,\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha })`$.

The aim of the present work is to find a general solution with spherical symmetry in Møller’s tetrad theory of gravitation when the vacuum stress-energy momentum tensor is not vanishing and has the same form given by Dymnikova . Moreover, the energy of that solution is calculated. In section 2 we briefly review Møller’s tetrad theory of gravitation. In section 3, we study the general solution without the $`S`$-term (see 1), where the remaining unknown functions are allowed to depend on $`t`$ and $`r`$ and the general solution with an arbitrary function of $`t`$ and $`r`$ is obtained. Then we compare this general solution with that obtained before , it is found that this general tetrad is just the $`t`$-independent case of our general tetrad without the $`S`$-term. Also we first study the general, spherically symmetric solution with a non-vanishing $`S`$-term and a solution with one parameter is obtained. In section 4 we calculate the energy content of those general solutions using the superpotential given by Møller in 1978. The final section is devoted to discussion and conclusion.
Computer algebra system Maple 6 is used in some calculations.

2. Møller’s tetrad theory of gravitation

In a space-time with absolute parallelism the parallel vector fields $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ define the nonsymmetric connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }e_{i\mu ,\nu },$$
(2)
where $`e_{i\mu ,\nu }=_\nu e_{i\mu }`$. The curvature tensor defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\lambda }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ is identically vanishing, however.

Møller’s constructed a gravitational theory based on this space-time. In this theory the field variables are the 16 tetrad components $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$, from which the metric tensor is derived by

$$g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }.$$
(3)
We assume an imaginary values for the vector $`e_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ in order to have a Lorentz signature. We note that, associated with any tetrad field $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ there is a metric field defined uniquely by (3), while a given metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ does not determine the tetrad field completely; for any local Lorentz transformation of the tetrads $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ leads to a new set of tetrads which also satisfy (3). The Lagrangian $`L`$ is an invariant constructed from $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }`$ is the contorsion tensor given by

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}e_{i\mu }e_{i\nu ;\rho },$$
(4)
where the semicolon denotes covariant differentiation with respect to Christoffel symbols. The most general Lagrangian density invariant under the parity operation is given by the form

$$\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\sqrt{g}\left(\alpha _1\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu +\alpha _2\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }+\alpha _3\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho }\gamma _{\rho \nu \mu }\right),$$
(5)
where

$$g\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{det}(g_{\mu \nu }),$$
(6)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$ is the basic vector field defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\gamma _{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \rho }{}^{}.$$
(7)
Here $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,`$ and $`\alpha _3`$ are constants determined by Møller such that the theory coincides with general relativity in the weak fields:

$$\alpha _1=\frac{1}{\kappa },\alpha _2=\frac{\lambda }{\kappa },\alpha _3=\frac{1}{\kappa }(12\lambda ),$$
(8)
where $`\kappa `$ is the Einstein constant and $`\lambda `$ is a free dimensionless parameter***Throughout this paper we use the relativistic units, $`c=G=1`$ and $`\kappa =8\pi `$.. The same choice of the parameters was also obtained by Hayashi and Nakano .

Møller applied the action principle to the Lagrangian density (5) and obtained the field equation in the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }+H_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$$
(9)
$$F_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(10)
where the Einstein tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by

$$G_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R.$$
(11)
Here $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ are given by

$$H_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\lambda \left[\gamma _{\rho \sigma \mu }\gamma _{}^{\rho \sigma }{}_{\nu }{}^{}+\gamma _{\rho \sigma \mu }\gamma _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }+\gamma _{\rho \sigma \nu }\gamma _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }+g_{\mu \nu }\left(\gamma _{\rho \sigma \lambda }\gamma ^{\lambda \sigma \rho }\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{\rho \sigma \lambda }\gamma ^{\rho \sigma \lambda }\right)\right],$$
(12)
and

$$F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\lambda \left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu ,\nu }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu ,\mu }\mathrm{\Phi }_\rho \left(\gamma _{}^{\rho }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\gamma _{}^{\rho }{}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}\right)+\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{;\rho }{}^{}\right],$$
(13)
and they are symmetric and skew symmetric tensors, respectively.

Møller assumed that the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields is symmetric. In the Hayashi-Nakano theory, however, the energy-momentum tensor of spin-$`1/2`$ fundamental particles has non-vanishing antisymmetric part arising from the effects due to intrinsic spin, and the right-hand side of (10) does not vanish when we take into account the possible effects of intrinsic spin.

It can be shown  that the tensors, $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, consist of only those terms which are linear or quadratic in the axial-vector part of the torsion tensor, $`a_\mu `$, defined by

$$a_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\frac{1}{3}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma ^{\nu \rho \sigma },$$
(14)
where $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is defined by

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\sqrt{g}\delta _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma },$$
(15)
where $`\delta _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ being completely antisymmetric and normalized as $`\delta _{0123}=1`$. Therefore, both $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ vanish if the $`a_\mu `$ is vanishing. In other words, when the $`a_\mu `$ is found to vanish from the antisymmetric part of the field equations, (10), the symmetric part (9) coincides with the Einstein equation.

3. Spherically symmetric solutions

In this section we find the most general, spherically symmetric non singular black hole solution of the form (1) in Møller’s theory. The axial-vector part of the torsion tensor, $`a^\mu `$, is vanishing, and the skew part of the field equation is satisfied identically as is explained above. We discuss two cases separately: One with $`S=0`$ and the other with $`S0.`$

(i) The case without the S-term. In this case the axial-vector part of the torsion tensor $`a^\mu `$ is identically vanishing. Thus, when this tetrad is applied to the field equations, the skew part (10) is automatically satisfied and the solution of the symmetric part is the nonsingular black hole solution given before by Dymnikova . Therefore, the solution of the form (1) with $`S=0`$ can be obtained from the diagonal tetrad of the nonsingular black hole metric by a local Lorentz transformation which keeps spherical symmetry,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kl}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}L& iH\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & iH\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & iH\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ iH\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & 1+\left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^2& \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ iH\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi & 1+\left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^2& \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ iH\mathrm{cos}\theta & \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \left(L1\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1+\left(L1\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`H`$ is an arbitrary function of t and $`\widehat{R}`$ and

$$L=\sqrt{H^2+1}.$$

Namely, we see that

$$e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{il}e_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)\mu }$$
(17)
is the most general, spherically symmetric solution without the S-term. Here $`e_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)\mu }`$ is the diagonal tetrad in the spherical polar coordinates given by

$$\left(e_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{(0)\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{i}{\widehat{X}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \widehat{X}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& \widehat{X}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& \widehat{X}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\widehat{R}}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
where

$$\widehat{X}=\sqrt{1\frac{2m}{\widehat{R}}\left(1e^{\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\right)}$$

and $`\widehat{R}`$ is defined as $`\widehat{R}=r/B`$ . The explicit form of the $`e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }`$ is then given by

$$\left(e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{iL}{\widehat{X}}& iH\widehat{X}& 0& 0\\ \frac{H\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{X}}& L\widehat{X}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ \frac{H\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{X}}& L\widehat{X}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ \frac{H\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\widehat{X}}& L\widehat{X}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\widehat{R}}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where $`r_1`$ is defined by

$`r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ $`=`$ $`r_gr_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
$`r_g`$ $`=`$ $`2m,`$
$`r_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ϵ_0}}.`$ (20)
If we apply the tetrad (19) to the symmetric part of the field equation (9), the right hand side takes the form

$`T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=T_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0e^{\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}},`$
$`T_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=T_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0e^{\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3\widehat{R}^3}{2r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}}\right).`$ (21)
The metric associated with the tetrad (19) is given by

$$ds^2=\xi dt^2+\frac{d\widehat{R}^2}{\xi }+\widehat{R}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(22)
where

$$\xi =\widehat{X}^2,andd\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2,$$
(23)
which is the spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole solution .

(ii) The case with non-vanishing S-term. We start with the tetrad of (1) with the six unknown functions of t and r. In order to study the condition that the $`a^\mu `$ vanishes it is convenient to start from the general expression for the covariant components of the tetrad,

$`e_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{ˇ}{A},e_{a0}=\stackrel{ˇ}{C}x^a,e_{0\alpha }=i\stackrel{ˇ}{D}x^\alpha `$
$`e_{a\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{a\alpha }\stackrel{ˇ}{B}+\stackrel{ˇ}{F}x^ax^\alpha +ϵ_{a\alpha \beta }\stackrel{ˇ}{S}x^\beta ,`$ (24)
where the six unknown functions, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{A}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{C}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{D}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{F}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{S}`$, are connected with the six unknown functions of (1). We can assume without loss of generality that the two functions, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{F}`$, are vanishing by making use of the freedom to redefine $`t`$ and $`r`$ . We then transform the tetrad (24) to the spherical polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\varphi ,t)`$ to take the form

$$\left(e_{i\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}iA& 0& 0& 0\\ r\stackrel{ˇ}{C}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +r^2\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\mathrm{sin}\varphi & r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +r^2\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ r\stackrel{ˇ}{C}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi r^2\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\mathrm{cos}\varphi & r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +r^2\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ r\stackrel{ˇ}{C}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{cos}\theta & r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\mathrm{sin}\theta & r^2\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(25)
Then the condition that the axial vector part $`a^\mu `$ vanishes is to be .

$$0=\sqrt{(g)}a^\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}& 3\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}+r(\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{B}^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}),\mu =0,\\ & 2\stackrel{ˇ}{C}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}+(\stackrel{ˇ}{\dot{S}}\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\stackrel{ˇ}{S}\stackrel{ˇ}{\dot{B}}),\mu =1\end{array}$$
(26)
with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{S}^{}=d\stackrel{ˇ}{S}/dr`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\dot{S}}=d\stackrel{ˇ}{S}/dt`$. This condition can be solved to give

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{C}=0,\stackrel{ˇ}{S}=\frac{\eta }{r^3}\stackrel{ˇ}{B},$$
(27)
where $`\eta `$ is a constant with dimension of $`(length)^2`$.

The symmetric part of the field equations now coincides with the Einstein equation. The metric tensor formed of the tetrad (25) with (27) is not of the non singular black hole solution form. Taking the new radial coordinate

$$R=r\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\sqrt{1+\frac{\eta ^2}{r^4}},$$
(28)
then the metric tensor takes the well-known non singular black hole solution form .

Applying the transformation (28) to the tetrad (25) with (27), we finally obtain the general, spherically symmetric non singular black hole solution with non-vanishing S-term: The non-vanishing, covariant components of the tetrad are given by

$`e_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`iX`$
$`e_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{X}}`$
$`e_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}\left(4\eta f^2(R)\mathrm{sin}\varphi +4f^4(R)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \eta ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \right)`$
$`e_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}\left(4\eta f^2(R)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi 4f^4(R)\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\eta ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`e_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{X}}`$
$`e_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}\left(4\eta f^2(R)\mathrm{cos}\varphi 4f^4(R)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +\eta ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \right)`$
$`e_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}\left(4\eta f^2(R)\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +4f^4(R)\mathrm{cos}\varphi \eta ^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`e_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{X}}`$
$`e_{32}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}\left(4f^4(R)\eta ^2\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta `$
$`e_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{Y}}4\eta f^2(R)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (29)
where

$$X=\sqrt{1\frac{2m}{R}\left(1e^{R^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\right)},Y=4f^4(R)+\eta ^2$$

and $`f(R)`$ is given by

$$f(R)=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑R/\left(RX\right)}},$$
(30)
The tetrad (29) when applies to the symmetric part of field equation (9), the right hand side takes the form

$`T_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=T_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0e^{R^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}},`$
$`T_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=T_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_0e^{R^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3R^3}{2r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}}\right).`$ (31)
The metric associated with the tetrad (29) is given by

$$ds^2=\xi _1dt^2+\frac{dR^2}{\xi _1}+R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(32)
where

$$\xi _1=X^2,$$
(33)
which is the spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole solution .

It is clear that if $`\eta `$ and $`H(\widehat{R},t)`$ are equal to zero the two classes of solutions given by
(19) and (29) coincide with each other, and reduce to the solution given before . Furthermore, if the exponential term is equal to zero then the two solutions coincides with each other and give the Schwarzschild solution.

The solutions (19) and (29) are the exact solutions of the Møller’s field equations. They practically coincide with the Schwarzschild solution for $`R>>r_1`$ or $`\widehat{R}>>r_1`$ and behave like the de Sitter solution, for $`R<<r_1`$ or $`\widehat{R}<<r_1`$.

As is clear from (21), the spherically symmetric stress-energy momentum tensor is really anisotropic. The difference between the principle pressures

$$T_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}=p_k,$$
(34)
correspond to the well known anisotropic character of evolution of the space-time inside a black hole undergoing a spherically symmetric gravitational collapse . For $`R<<r_1`$ isotropization occurs and the stress-energy momentum tensor takes the isotropic form

$$T_{\alpha \beta }=ϵg_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(35)
When $`R0`$ the energy density tends to $`ϵ_0`$. For $`R>>r_1`$ all the components of the stress-energy momentum tensor tend to zero very rapidly. The same properties satisfied for the stress-energy momentum tensor (31).

Now let us compare the solution (19) with that given before . Started from a spherically symmetric tetrad with three unknown functions of the radial coordinate $`r`$ only, which is given in the spherical polar coordinates by

$$\left(e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}iA& iDr& 0& 0\\ 0& B\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{B}{r}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{B\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& B\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{B}{r}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{B\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& B\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{B}{r}\mathrm{sin}\theta & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(36)
Applying the tetrad (36) to the field equations, (9) and (10), we obtained a general solution of the form

$`𝒜(\widehat{R})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\widehat{R}^{}}},`$
$`𝒟(\widehat{R})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\widehat{R}^{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\widehat{R}^3}}\left(1e^{\left(\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\right)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{^{}}{\widehat{R}}}\left(\widehat{R}^{}2\right)},`$ (37)
where $`𝒜(\widehat{R})`$, $`(\widehat{R})`$ and $`𝒟(\widehat{R})`$ are connected to $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`D`$ through the transformation
$`\widehat{R}=r/B`$, $`^{}={\displaystyle \frac{d(\widehat{R})}{d\widehat{R}}}`$, and $``$ is an arbitrary function of $`\widehat{R}`$. The tetrad (36) can further be expressed in the form

$$\left(e_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{i𝒜}{1𝒟^2\widehat{R}^2}& i𝒟\widehat{R}(1\widehat{R}^{})& 0& 0\\ \frac{𝒜𝒟\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{1𝒟^2\widehat{R}^2}& (1\widehat{R}^{})\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ \frac{𝒜𝒟\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{1𝒟^2\widehat{R}^2}& (1\widehat{R}^{})\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\widehat{R}}& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\widehat{R}\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ \frac{𝒜𝒟\widehat{R}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1𝒟^2\widehat{R}^2}& (1\widehat{R}^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\widehat{R}}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(38)
Thus, it is easy to verify that this tetrad can be obtained from (19) by choosing the function $`H`$ as

$$H=\frac{\left[\widehat{R}^2^22\widehat{R}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\widehat{R}}}\left(1e^{\left(\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\right)}\right)\right]^{1/2}}{\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\widehat{R}}}\left(1e^{\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\right)}}$$
(39)
4. The Energy Associated with each Solution

The superpotential of the Møller’s tetrad theory of gravitation is given by Mikhail et al.  as

$$𝒰_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }=\frac{(g)^{1/2}}{2\kappa }P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^\rho g^{\sigma \chi }g_{\mu \tau }\lambda g_{\tau \mu }\gamma ^{\chi \rho \sigma }(12\lambda )g_{\tau \mu }\gamma ^{\sigma \rho \chi }\right],$$
(40)
where $`P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }`$ is

$$P_{\chi \rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau \nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\delta _{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }+\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\sigma \chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\tau }g_{\chi \rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }$$
(41)
with $`g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }`$ being a tensor defined by

$$g_{\rho \sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu \lambda }\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }\delta _{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\delta _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{\lambda }.$$
(42)
The energy is expressed by the surface integral

$$E=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}_{r=constant}𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }n_\alpha 𝑑S,$$
(43)
where $`n_\alpha `$ is the unit 3-vector normal to the surface element $`\mathrm{𝑑𝑆}`$.

Now we are in a position to calculate the energy associated with the two solutions (19) and (29) using the superpotential (40). As is clear from (43), the only component which contributes to the energy is $`𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }`$. Thus substituting from the solution (19) into (40) we obtain the following non-vanishing value

$$𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }=\frac{2\widehat{X}x^\alpha }{\kappa \widehat{R}}\left(L\widehat{X}\right).$$
(44)
Substituting from (44) into (43) we get

$$E(\widehat{R})=\widehat{X}\widehat{R}\left(L\widehat{X}\right).$$
(45)
As is clear from (45) that the energy depends on the arbitrary function $`H`$. If this arbitrary function takes the value (39) then

$$E(\widehat{R})=2m\left(1e^{\widehat{R}^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\right)\widehat{R}^2^{},$$
(46)
which is the same as that obtained before .

Now let us turn our attention to the solution (29). Calculating the necessary components of the superpotential, we get

$$𝒰_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{0\alpha }=\frac{4Xx^\alpha }{\kappa R}\left(\frac{(4f(R)^4\eta ^2)}{Y}X\right).$$
(47)
Substituting from (47) into (43) we get

$$E(R)=XR\left(\frac{(4f(R)^4\eta ^2)}{Y}X\right),$$
(48)
where $`f(R)`$ is given by (30). As is clear from (48) that if the constant $`\eta =0`$, then

$$E(R)=m(1e^{R^3/r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}),$$
(49)
which is the same as that given before , Yang  and Radinschi . This is a very satisfactory result since the two tetrads (29), (36) coincide when $`\eta =0`$ and $`D=0`$, and accordingly their energies must be identical. We can also see from (48) that if $`R0`$, then $`E(R)0`$ and form (49) if $`R\mathrm{}`$ then $`E(R)m`$. Thus the total energy will coincide with that of the Schwarzschild solution.

5. Main results and Discussion

We have studied the general spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole solutions in teleparallel theory of gravitation. Tetrads with spherical symmetry are classified into two groups.
i) The groups in which the S-term is vanishing, and therefore, the axial vector part $`a^\mu `$ is identically vanishing. Accordingly we obtain a family of solutions with arbitrary function of t and $`\widehat{R}`$, i.e., $`H(t,\widehat{R})`$. A relation with the solution given before  had been established by assuming a specific form of the arbitrary function $`H(t,\widehat{R})`$ as given by (39).
ii) The groups which possess the S-term, namely, the term $`S(t,r)ϵ_{a\alpha \beta }x^\beta `$. When the S-term is non-vanishing, we obtain the condition (27) which is the condition for vanishing the axial vector part, i.e. $`a^\mu =0`$. In this case we obtain a family of solutions with a constant parameter, i.e., $`\eta `$. For comparison if this constant is set equal to zero then the tetrad (29) will reduce to the diagonal form of (36).

Pereira et al.  studied the teleparallel version of the exact solutions ( Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions) of general relativity. As is well known that the torsion tensor can be decomposed into three parts tracless part, vector part and the axial vector part . Using the weak-field limit they  show that the vector and the tracless parts of the Schwarzschild torsion combine to yield the Newtonian force. By considering the slow rotation and weak-field approximation they show that for the Kerr solution the axial vector part is nothing but the gravitomagnetic components of the gravitational field and is therefore the responsible for the Lense Thirring effect.

We also calculated the energy associated with the two solutions (19) and (29). Concerning the energy associated with the solution without the S-term, it is found that the energy depends on the arbitrary function $`H(t,\widehat{R})`$. If the function $`H(t,\widehat{R})`$ takes the value (39), then the energy coincides with that obtained before  and if $`H(t,\widehat{R})=0`$, then the energy coincides with that obtained by Yang  and Radinschi

As for the energy associated with the solution when the S-term is non-vanishing we obtain the expression (48). It is clear from this expression that the energy depends on the parameter $`\eta `$ and if this parameter equals zero then the tetrad (29) will coincide with the diagonal form of the tetrad (36) and the associated energy will be the same as that obtained before . It is clear from (48), that if $`R0`$, then $`E(R)0`$ and from (49) if $`R\mathrm{}`$ then $`E(R)m`$. Thus the total energy will coincide with that of the Schwarzschild solution, since the metric associated with the tetrad (29) in this case gives the Schwarzschild metric.

It is readily seen from equations (46) and (49) that the factors in front of the gravitational mass m are different. This is because that when $`H(t,\widehat{R})=0`$, the components $`\left(e_{a0}\right)`$ and $`\left(e_{0\alpha }\right)`$ of the parallel vector fields (19) tend to zero as $`1/\sqrt{\widehat{R}}`$ and in that case the gravitational mass will not coincide with the inertial mass even in the simple case of vacuum, i.e., $`ϵ_0=0`$ . In contrast to the tetrad (29) when $`\eta =0`$, the components $`\left(e_{a0}\right)`$ and $`\left(e_{0\alpha }\right)`$ tend to zero faster than $`1/\sqrt{R}`$ and this case is satisfactory since the gravitational mass equals to the inertial mass .

In the case of the ADM mass we obtain the same result as we can see from (49)

$$M_{ADM}=E(R)_R\mathrm{}=m.$$

But for equation (46) the result will depend on the form of the arbitrary function $``$.

We calculate the energy using expression (43) mainly given by Møller . Blagojevi$`e^{}`$ and Vasili$`e^{}`$  presented an investigation of the connection between the asymptotic Poincar$`e^{}`$ symmetry of space-time and the related conservation laws of energy-momentum and angular momentum in teleparallel theory of gravity. They  derived the generators of the global Poincar$`e^{}`$ symmetry in the asymptotic region from the related gauge generators. They  concluded that the Poincar$`e^{}`$ generators have to be improved by adding certain surface terms, which represent the values of energy-momentum and angular momentum of the gravitating system. These results for energy-momentum and angular momentum are valid for general teleparallel theory of gravity.

Chang et al.  argued that every energy-momentum complex is associated with a legitimate Hamiltonian boundary term, and, because of this the energy-momentum complexes are quasi-local and acceptable. Each is the energy-momentum density for some physical situation. This Hamiltonian approach to quasi-local energy-momentum rehabilitates of the energy-momentum complexes.

A summary of the main results is given in the table below. The general solution of spherically symmetric nonsingular black hole is classified into two groups according to whether or not the space-space components $`e_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ have the term $`Sϵ_{a\alpha \beta }x^\beta `$ (referred to as the $`S`$-term for short). The general solution without the $`S`$-term has an arbitrary function of $`t`$ and $`r`$. The general solution with the $`S`$-term has a constant parameter.

|  | Field equation | | Energy |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | skew part | Symmetric part |  |
| Tetrad | Satisfied | Nonsingular black | $`\widehat{X}\widehat{R}\left(L\widehat{X}\right)`$ |
| without the $`S`$-term | identically | hole solution |  |
| Tetrad | Gives | Nonsingular black | $`XR\left({\displaystyle \frac{(4f(R)^4\eta ^2)}{Y}}X\right)`$ |
| with $`S`$-term | $`a^\mu =0`$ | hole solution |  |

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor I.F.I. Mikhail; Ain Shams University, for his stimulating discussions.