text:
# Analytical treatment of critical collapse in 2+1 dimensional AdS spacetime: a toy model

## 1 Introduction

Since its discovery, the BTZ black hole solution  of 2+1 dimensional AdS gravity has attracted much interest because it represents a simplified context in which to study the classical and quantum properties of black holes. A line of approach which has been opened only recently  concerns black hole formation through collapse of matter configurations coupled to 2+1 gravity with a negative cosmological constant. As first discovered in four dimensions by Choptuik , collapsing configurations which lie at the threshold of black hole formation exhibit properties, such as universality, power-law scaling of the black hole mass, and continuous or discrete self-similarity, which are characteristic of critical phenomena . In the case of a spherically symmetric massless, minimally coupled scalar field, a class of analytical continously self-similar (CSS) solutions was first given by Roberts . These include critical solutions, lying at the threshold between black holes and naked singularities, and characterized by the presence of null central singularities. Linear perturbations of these solutions  lead to approximate black hole solutions with a spacelike central singularity.

Numerical simulations of circularly symmetric scalar field collapse in 2+1 dimensional AdS spacetime were recently performed by Pretorius and Choptuik  and Husain and Olivier . Both groups observed critical collapse, which was determined in  to be continuously self-similar near $`r=0`$. In , Garfinkle has found a one-parameter family of exact CSS solutions of 2+1 gravity without cosmological constant, and argued that one of these solutions should give the behaviour of the full critical solution ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$) near the singularity.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new CSS solution to the field equations with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ which can be extended to a threshold solution of the full $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ equations. The new $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ solution is derived in Sect. 3. It presents a null central singularity and, besides being CSS, possesses four Killing vectors. In Sect. 4 we address the extension of this CSS solution to a quasi-CSS solution of the full $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ problem, and show that the requirement of maximal symmetry selects a unique extension. This inherits the null central singularity of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ solution, and has the correct AdS boundary at spatial infinity. Finally, we perform in Sect. 5 the linear perturbation analysis in this background, find that it does lead to black hole formation, and determine the critical exponent.

## 2 CSS solutions

The Einstein equations for cosmological gravity coupled to a massless scalar field in (2+1) dimensions are

$$G_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.1)
with the stress-energy tensor for the scalar field

$$T_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \varphi _\lambda \varphi .$$
(2.2)
The signature of the metric is (+ - -), and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is negative for AdS spacetime, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=l^2`$. Static solutions of these equations include the BTZ black hole solutions  with a vanishing scalar field $`\varphi =0`$, and singular solutions when a non-trivial scalar field is coupled with the positive sign for the gravitational constant $`\kappa `$ .

We shall use for radial collapse the convenient parametrisation of the rotationally symmetric line element in terms of null coordinates $`(u,v)`$:

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma }dudvr^2d\theta ^2,$$
(2.3)
with metric functions $`\sigma (u,v)`$ and $`r(u,v)`$. The corresponding Einstein equations and scalar field equation are

$`r_{,uv}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}re^{2\sigma },`$ (2.4)
$`2\sigma _{,uv}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}e^{2\sigma }\kappa \varphi _{,u}\varphi _{,v},`$ (2.5)
$`2\sigma _{,u}r_{,u}r_{,uu}=\kappa r\varphi _{,u}^2,`$ (2.6)
$`2\sigma _{,v}r_{,v}r_{,vv}=\kappa r\varphi _{,v}^2,`$ (2.7)
$`2r\varphi _{,uv}+r_{,u}\varphi _{,v}+r_{,v}\varphi _{,u}=0`$ $`.`$ (2.8)
From the Einstein equations, the Ricci scalar is

$$R=6\mathrm{\Lambda }+4\kappa e^{2\sigma }\varphi _{,u}\varphi _{,v}.$$
(2.9)
It follows from (2.9) and (2.5) that the behavior of the solutions near the singularity is governed by the equations (2.4)-(2.8) with vanishing cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (see also ). Assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, Garfinkle has found  the following family of exact CSS solutions to these equations

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`A\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{v}+\sqrt{u})^4}{uv}}\right)^{\kappa c^2}dudv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(v+u)^2d\theta ^2,`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2c\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{v}+\sqrt{u}),`$ (2.10)
depending on an arbitrary constant $`c`$ and a scale $`A>0`$. In (2), $`u`$ is retarded time, and $`v`$ is advanced time. These solutions are continuously self-similar with homothetic vector $`(u_u+v_v)`$. An equivalent form of these CSS solutions, obtained by making the transformation

$$u=(\overline{u})^{2q},v=(\overline{v})^{2q}(1/2q=1\kappa c^2)$$
(2.11)
to the barred null coordinates $`(\overline{u},\overline{v})`$, is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{A}(\overline{v}^q+(\overline{u})^q)^{2(2q1)/q}d\overline{u}d\overline{v}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{v}^{2q}(\overline{u})^{2q})^2d\theta ^2,`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`2c\mathrm{ln}(\overline{v}^q+(\overline{u})^q).`$ (2.12)
The corresponding Ricci scalar is

$$R=\frac{4\kappa c^2}{A}(\overline{v}^q+(\overline{u})^q)^{2(13q)/q}(\overline{u})^{q1}(\overline{v})^{q1}.$$
(2.13)
Garfinkle suggested that the line element (2) describes critical collapse in the sector $`r=(u+v)/20`$, near the future point singularity $`r=0`$ (where the Ricci scalar behaves, for $`vu`$, as $`u^2`$). The corresponding Penrose diagram (Fig. 1) is a triangle bounded by past null infinity $`u\mathrm{}`$, the other null side $`v=0`$, and the central regular timelike line $`r=0`$. For $`\kappa c^21`$ ($`q<0`$), the Ricci scalar

$$R(\overline{v})^{q1}(v)^{(q1)/2q}$$
(2.14)
is regular near $`v=0`$, which moreover turns out to be at infinite geodesic distance. To show this, we consider the geodesic equation

$$(e^{2\sigma }\dot{v})\dot{}=2rr_{,u}\dot{\theta }^2=2l^2r^3r_{,u}$$
(2.15)
($`l`$ constant) near $`v=0`$, $`u`$ constant, which gives $`v(ls)^{4q}`$ for $`l0`$, or $`s^{2q}`$ for $`l=0`$, so that in all cases the affine parameter $`s\mathrm{}`$ for $`v0`$, and the spacetime is geodesically complete. For $`\kappa c^2<1`$ ($`q>0`$), we see from (2.13) that the null line $`v=0`$ is a curvature singularity if $`\kappa c^2<1/2`$ ($`q<1`$). If $`1/2\kappa c^2<1`$ ($`q1`$), the surface $`v=0`$ is regular. However, as discussed by Garfinkle, the metric (2) can be extended through this surface only for $`q=n`$, where $`n`$ is a positive integer. For $`n`$ even, the extended spacetime is made of two symmetrical triangles joined along the null side $`\overline{v}=0`$, and has two coordinate singularities $`r=0`$, one timelike ($`\overline{u}\overline{v}=0`$) and one spacelike ($`\overline{u}+\overline{v}=0`$), but no curvature singularity. For $`n`$ odd, one of the $`r=0`$ sides becomes a future spacelike curvature singularity ($`e^{2\sigma }=0`$), similar to that of Brady’s supercritical solutions for scalar field collapse in (3+1) dimensions , except for the fact that in the present case the singularity is not hidden behind a spacelike apparent horizon (Fig. 2).

Let us point out that, besides the solutions (2), the system (2.4)-(2.8) also admits for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ another family of CSS solutions

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`A\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{v}\sqrt{u})^4}{uv}}\right)^{\kappa c^2}dudv{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(v+u)^2d\theta ^2,`$ (2.16)
$`=`$ $`\overline{A}(\overline{v}^q(\overline{u})^q)^{2(2q1)/q}d\overline{u}d\overline{v}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\overline{v}^{2q}(\overline{u})^{2q})^2d\theta ^2,`$
with $`\varphi =2c\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{v}\sqrt{u})`$, and we choose $`A>0`$ and consider the sector $`0vu`$. These solutions have a future spacelike central ($`r=0`$) curvature singularity at $`(\overline{u})^q=\overline{v}^q`$ (where the Ricci scalar (2.13) diverges) for all $`q<0`$ or $`q>0`$ (implying $`q>1/2`$). For $`q<0`$, the Penrose diagram is a triangle bounded by past null infinities $`\overline{u}\mathrm{}`$ and $`\overline{v}=0`$ (which is at infinite geodesic distance). For $`q>0`$, geodesics terminate at $`\overline{v}=0`$, unless $`q=n`$ integer. For $`n`$ even, the extended spacetime has two central curvature singularities $`r=0`$, one spacelike and the other timelike. The extended spacetime for $`n`$ odd is more realistic. In this case the extension from $`\overline{v}>0`$ to $`\overline{v}<0`$ amounts to replacing (2.16) with $`A>0`$ by the original Garfinkle solution (2) with $`A>0`$, the resulting Penrose diagram being that of Fig. 2.

## 3 A new CSS solution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$

Among the one-parameter ($`c`$ or $`q`$) family of CSS solutions (2), the special solution, corresponding to $`\kappa c^2=1`$,

$$ds^2=A(\sqrt{v}+\sqrt{u})^4\frac{du}{u}\frac{dv}{v}\frac{1}{4}(v+u)^2d\theta ^2,$$
(3.1)
is singled out by the fact that the transformation (2.11) breaks down for this value. The transformation appropriate to this case,

$$u=2e^U,v=2e^V=2e^{U2T}$$
(3.2)
(with $`TU`$ for $`u+v0`$) transforms the solution (3.1) to

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2U}[4A(1+e^{UT})^4dUdV(1e^{2(UT)})^2d\theta ^2],`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`U2\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{UT})`$ (3.3)
(we use from now on units such that $`\kappa =1`$, and have dropped an irrelevant additive constant from $`\varphi `$).

Starting from this special CSS solution of the Garfinkle class, we now derive, by a limiting process, a new CSS solution which, as we shall see, exhibits a null singularity. We translate $`T`$ to $`TT_0`$, and take the late-time limit $`T_0\mathrm{}`$, leading to the new CSS solution (written for $`A=1/2`$)

$$ds^2=e^{2U}(2dUdVd\theta ^2),\varphi =U,$$
(3.4)
with a very simple form which is reminiscent of the Hayward critical solution for scalar field collapse in 3+1 dimensions ,

$$ds^2=e^{2\rho }(2d\tau ^22d\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2),\varphi =\tau .$$
(3.5)
The transformation

$$\overline{u}=e^{2U},\overline{v}=V$$
(3.6)
leads from (3.4) to the even more simple form of this solution

$$ds^2=d\overline{u}d\overline{v}+\overline{u}d\theta ^2,\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{u}),$$
(3.7)
which is reminiscent of the other form of the Hayward solution

$$ds^2=2d\overline{u}d\overline{v}+\overline{u}\overline{v}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{u}/\overline{v}).$$
(3.8)
The solution (3.4) or (3.7) is continuously self-similar, with homothetic vector

$$K=_U=2\overline{u}_{\overline{u}}.$$
(3.9)
It also has a high degree of symmetry, with 4 Killing vectors

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`_U+2V_V+\theta _\theta ,`$
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _V+U_\theta ,`$
$`L_3`$ $`=`$ $`_V,`$
$`L_4`$ $`=`$ $`_\theta ,`$ (3.10)
generating the solvable Lie algebra

$`[L_1,L_2]=L_4L_2,`$ $`[L_2,L_3]=0,`$ (3.11)
$`[L_1,L_3]=2L_3,`$ $`[L_2,L_4]=L_3,`$
$`[L_1,L_4]=L_4,`$ $`[L_3,L_4]=0.`$
The Ricci scalar (2.9) is identically zero for the solution (3.4), for which the sole nonvanishing Ricci tensor component is $`R_{UU}=1`$. It follows that this metric is devoid of curvature singularity. However there is an obvious coordinate singularity at $`U+\mathrm{}`$, or $`\overline{u}=0`$ (where $`r=0`$). To determine the nature of this singularity, we study geodesic motion in the spacetime (3.7). The geodesic equations are integrated by

$$\dot{\overline{u}}=\pi ,\overline{u}\dot{\theta }=l,\pi \dot{\overline{v}}+l\dot{\theta }=\epsilon ,$$
(3.12)
where $`\pi `$ and $`l`$ are the constants of the motion associated with the Killing vectors $`L_3`$ and $`L_4`$, and the sign of $`\epsilon `$ depends on that of $`ds^2`$ along the geodesic. The null line $`\overline{u}=0`$ can be reached only by those geodesics with $`\pi 0`$. Then, the third equation (3.12) integrates to

$$\overline{v}=\frac{\epsilon }{\pi ^2}\overline{u}\frac{l}{\pi }\theta +\mathrm{c}onst.=\frac{\epsilon }{\pi ^2}\overline{u}\frac{l^2}{\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{u})+\mathrm{c}onst..$$
(3.13)
It follows that nonradial geodesics ($`l0`$) terminate at $`\overline{u}=0,\overline{v}+\mathrm{}`$, while radial geodesics ($`l=0`$), which behave as in cylindrical Minkowski space, can be continued through the null line $`\overline{u}=0`$ to $`\overline{u}+\mathrm{}`$ . So in this sense only the endpoint $`\overline{v}+\mathrm{}`$ of the null line $`\overline{u}=0`$ is singular. However formal analytic continuation of the metric (3.7) from $`\overline{u}<0`$ to $`\overline{u}>0`$ involves a change of signature from (+ - -) to (+ - +), leading to the appearance of closed timelike curves. So the null line $`\overline{u}=0`$ corresponds to a singularity in the causal structure of the spacetime, analogous to the central singularity in the causal structure of the BTZ black holes . The resulting Penrose diagram, reminiscent of that of the Hayward critical solution , is a diamond bound by three lines at null infinity ($`\overline{v}=\mathrm{},\overline{u}=\mathrm{},\overline{v}=+\mathrm{}`$) and the null singularity $`\overline{u}=0`$ (Fig. 3).

## 4 Extending the new solution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$

In the preceding section we have found an exact solution for scalar field collapse with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, which presents a central null singularity. This property makes it a candidate threshold solution, lying at the boundary between naked singularities and black holes. However black holes exist only for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, so the solution (3.7) can only represent the behavior of the true threshold solution near the central singularity, where the cosmological constant can be neglected. This hypothetical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ solution cannot be self-similar, essentially because the scale is fixed preferentially by the cosmological constant . So what we need is to find some other way to extend (3.7) to a solution of the full system of Einstein equations with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$.

A first possible approach is to expand this solution in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with the zeroth order given by the CSS solution (3.7). In the parametrisation (2.3), this zeroth order is (dropping the bars in (3.7) )

$$r_0=(u)^{1/2},\sigma _0=0,\varphi _0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}|u|.$$
(4.1)
We look for an approximate solution to first order in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the form

$$r=(u)^{1/2}+\mathrm{\Lambda }r_1,\sigma _=\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _1,\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}|u|+\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi _1,$$
(4.2)
with the boundary condition that the fonctions $`r_1`$, $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ vanish on the central singularity $`u=0`$ . Eq (2.4) gives

$$r_1=(u)^{1/2}(\frac{1}{3}uv+f(u)),$$
(4.3)
with $`f(0)=0`$. Then, the linearized Eq. (2.7) gives

$$2r_0^{1/2}(r_0^{1/2}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{,v}{}^{})_{,u}=r_{1}^{}{}_{,v}{}^{}\varphi _{0}^{}{}_{,u}{}^{}=\frac{1}{6}(u)^{1/2},$$
(4.4)
which is solved by

$$\varphi _1=(\frac{1}{15}uv+g(u)).$$
(4.5)
The linearized Eq. (2.5)

$$2\sigma _{1}^{}{}_{,uv}{}^{}=1\varphi _{0}^{}{}_{,u}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{,v}{}^{}=\frac{8}{15}$$
(4.6)
then gives

$$\sigma _1=\frac{4}{15}uv+h(u).$$
(4.7)
Finally Eq. (2.5) leads to the relation between the arbitrary functions $`f`$, $`g`$, $`h`$

$$uf^{\prime \prime }(u)+f^{}(u)=g^{}(u)+h^{}(u).$$
(4.8)
Not only does this first order solution break the continuous self-similarity generated by (3.9), as expected, but it also breaks the isometry group generated by the Killings (3) down to $`U(1)`$ (generated by $`L_4=_\theta `$), except in the special case $`f=g=h=0`$, where the Killing subalgebra $`(L_1,L_4)`$ remains. This suggests looking for an exact $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ extension of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ CSS solution of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (x)}dudv+u\rho ^2(x)d\theta ^2,\varphi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}|u|+\psi (x),$$
(4.9)
with $`x=uv`$. This will automatically preserve to all orders the Killing subalgebra $`(L_1,L_4)`$. Inserting this ansatz into the field equations (2.4)-(2.8) leads to the system

$`x\rho ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}\rho e^{2\sigma },`$ (4.10)
$`2(x\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\sigma ^{})+\psi ^{}(x\psi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}e^{2\sigma },`$ (4.11)
$`x^2(\rho ^{\prime \prime }+2\rho ^{}\sigma ^{}\rho \psi ^2)+x(\rho ^{}+\rho (\sigma ^{}+\psi ^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.12)
$`\rho ^{\prime \prime }+2\rho ^{}\sigma ^{}\rho \psi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4.13)
$`2x(\rho \psi ^{})^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\rho \psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho ^{}.`$ (4.14)
($`{}_{}{}^{}=d/dx`$). The unique, maximally symmetric extension of the CSS solution (3.7) reducing to (3.7) near $`u=0`$ is the solution of the system (4.10)-(4.14) with the boundary conditions

$$\rho (0)=1,\sigma (0)=0,\psi (0)=0.$$
(4.15)
The comparison of (4.12) and (4.13) yields

$$\rho =e^{\sigma +\psi }.$$
(4.16)
The combination $`(\text{4.10})+x(\text{4.13})`$ then gives, together with (4.16),

$$x(2\sigma ^2+2\sigma ^{}\psi ^{}\psi ^2)+\frac{3}{2}(\sigma ^{}+\psi ^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}e^{2\sigma }.$$
(4.17)
The third independent equation is for instance (4.11):

$$2(x\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\sigma ^{})+\psi ^{}(x\psi ^{}\frac{1}{2})=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}e^{2\sigma }.$$
(4.18)
Using these last two equations with the boundary conditions (4.15), one can in principle write down series expansions for $`\sigma (x)`$ and $`\psi (x)`$. Another simple relation, deriving from (4.13) and (4.16), is

$$\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+\psi ^{\prime \prime }\sigma ^2+2\psi ^2=0.$$
(4.19)
We are interested in the behavior of this extended solution in the sector $`u<0`$, $`v>0`$, i.e. $`x<0`$. In this sector, Eqs. (4.10), (4.14) and (4.11) can be integrated to

$`(x)^{3/2}\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle _x^0}(x)^{1/2}\rho e^{2\sigma }𝑑x,`$ (4.20)
$`(x)^{5/4}\rho \psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _x^0}(x)^{1/4}\rho ^{}𝑑x,`$ (4.21)
$`x\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x^0}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}e^{2\sigma }+\psi ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x\psi ^{}))𝑑x.`$ (4.22)
As long as $`\rho >0`$, Eq. (4.20) (with $`x<0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) implies $`\rho ^{}<0`$, so that $`\rho (x)`$ decreases to 1 when $`x`$ increases to 0. It then follows from (4.21) that $`\psi ^{}<0`$. Also, (4.21) can be integrated by parts to

$$x\psi ^{}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{16(x)^{1/4}\rho }_x^0(x)^{3/4}\rho 𝑑x,$$
(4.23)
showing that $`x\psi ^{}<1/4`$. It then follows from (4.22) that $`\sigma ^{}<0`$. So, as $`x`$ decreases, the functions $`\rho `$ and $`e^{2\sigma }`$ increase and possibly go to infinity for a finite value $`x=x_1`$. If this is the case, the behavior of these functions near $`x_1`$ must be

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _1({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{x}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{x})}{48x_1^2}}+\mathrm{})`$
$`e^{2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4x_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{x}^2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}^2\mathrm{ln}(\overline{x})}{48x_1^2}}+\mathrm{})`$
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}}{4x_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}^2}{32x_1^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\overline{x})+\mathrm{}`$ (4.24)
($`\overline{x}=xx_1`$).

These expectations are borne out by the actual numerical solution of the system

$`x\rho ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\rho ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho e^{2\sigma },`$
$`\rho ^{\prime \prime }\rho +4\rho \rho ^{}\sigma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^2+\rho ^2\sigma ^2,`$ (4.25)
(this last equation comes from (4.13) where $`\psi ^{}`$ is given by derivation of (4.16) ) where we have set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2`$, with the boundary counditions $`\rho (0)=1`$, $`\rho ^{}(0)=2/3`$ (see eqs. (4.3) and (4.2) ), $`\sigma (0)=0`$. The plots of the functions $`\rho (x)`$ , $`\sigma (x)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x)`$ are given in Figs. (4,5,6,). The value of $`x_1`$ is found to be approximately $`1.94`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }x_1=+3.88`$).

The coordinate transformation<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We have taken care that in (4.9) $`u`$ has the dimension of a length squared while $`v`$ is dimensionless.

$$u=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1e^{\overline{U}},v=e^{\overline{V}}(\overline{U}=\overline{T}\overline{R},\overline{V}=\overline{T}+\overline{R})$$
(4.26)
leads to $`x=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1e^{2\overline{R}}`$ and, on account of (4.9) and (4.16), to the form of the metric

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1e^{2(\sigma (\overline{R})+\overline{R})}(d\overline{U}d\overline{V}e^{2\psi (\overline{R})\overline{V}}d\theta ^2).$$
(4.27)
Near the spacelike boundary $`\overline{R}=\overline{R}_1`$ of the spacetime, the collapsing metric and scalar field behave, from (4), as

$$ds^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\overline{R}_1\overline{R})^2(d\overline{T}^2d\overline{R}^2e^{\overline{T}_1\overline{T}}d\theta ^2),\varphi =\varphi _1+\overline{T}/2$$
(4.28)
($`\overline{R}\overline{R}\overline{x}/2x_1`$). This metric is asymptotically AdS, as may be shown by making the further coordinate transformation,

$$\overline{R}\overline{R}_1=2/XT,\overline{T}\overline{T}_1=2\mathrm{ln}(T/2),$$
(4.29)
leading to

$$ds^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\left(X^2dT^2\frac{dX^2}{X^2}X^2d\theta ^2\right),\varphi =\varphi _1+\mathrm{ln}(T/2).$$
(4.30)
The next-to-leading terms in the metric containing logarithms, this asymptotic behavior differs from that of BTZ black holes.

It follows from this discussion that the Penrose diagram of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ threshold solution in the sector $`v>0`$, $`u<0`$ is a triangle bounded by the null line $`v=0`$, the null causal singularity $`u=0`$, and the spacelike AdS boundary $`X\mathrm{}`$. The null singularity $`u=0`$ remains naked, i.e. is not hidden behind a trapping horizon, which would correspond to

$$_vr=(u)^{3/2}\rho ^{}(x)=0,$$
(4.31)
because $`\rho ^{}<0`$ (as discussed above) implies that the only solution of this equation is $`u=0`$.

For the sake of completeness, let us also discuss the behavior of the solution of the system (4.10)-(4.14) in the sector $`x>0`$. In this case, one can write down integro-differential equations similar to (4.20)-(4.22), from which one again derives that $`\rho ^{}<0`$, $`\psi ^{}<0`$ and $`\sigma ^{}<0`$. It follows that the metric function $`e^{2\sigma }`$ decreases as $`x`$ increases, eventually vanishing for a finite value $`x=x_0`$, corresponding to a spacelike curvature singularity (this has been confirmed numerically). The behavior of the solution near this singularity is found to be

$$\psi \gamma \mathrm{ln}(x_0x),\sigma \frac{\gamma ^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}(x_0x),\rho (x_0x)(\gamma =\sqrt{3}1),$$
(4.32)
and the coordinate transformation $`u=e^U,v=e^V(x=e^{2T})`$ leads to the form of the metric near the singularity

$$ds^2(T_0T)^{\gamma ^2}(dT^2dR^2)+e^{R_0R}(T_0T)^2d\theta ^2.$$
(4.33)
## 5 Perturbations

To check whether the quasi-CSS solution (4.9) of the full $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ problem determined in the preceding section is indeed a threshold solution, we now study linear perturbations of this solution. Our treatment will follow the analysis of perturbations of critical solutions in the case of scalar field collapse in 3+1 dimensions .

The relevant time parameter in critical collapse being the retarded time $`U=(1/2)\mathrm{ln}(u)`$ (the “scaling variable” of ), we expand these perturbations in modes proportional to $`e^{kU}=(u)^{k/2}`$, with $`k`$ a complex constant. We recall that only the modes with $`Rek>0`$ grow as $`U+\mathrm{}`$ ($`u0`$) and lead to black hole formation, whereas those with $`Rek<0`$ decay and are irrelevant. The other relevant variable is the “spatial” coordinate $`x=uv`$, and the perturbations are decomposed as

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`(u)^{1/2}(\rho (x)+(u)^{k/2}\stackrel{~}{r}(x)),`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}|u|+\psi (x)+(u)^{k/2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x),`$ (5.1)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\sigma (x)+(u)^{k/2}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(x).`$
Then, the Einstein equations (2.4)-(2.8) are linearized in $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, using

$$\delta \varphi _{,u}=(u)^{k/21}(x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\frac{k}{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),\delta \varphi _{,v}=(u)^{k/2+1}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}.$$
(5.2)
The resulting equations are homogeneous in $`u`$, which drops out, and the linearized system reduces to

$`x\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }+(k/2+3/2)\stackrel{~}{r}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}e^{2\sigma }(\stackrel{~}{r}+2\rho \stackrel{~}{\sigma }),`$ (5.3)
$`2x\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\prime \prime }+(k+2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(2x\psi ^{}1/2)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}+(k/2)\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi },`$ (5.4)
$`(k+1)x\stackrel{~}{r}^{}+((k+1)x\sigma ^{}(k^21)/4)\stackrel{~}{r}+\rho x\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{}k(x\rho ^{}+\rho /2)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=`$
$`\rho (x\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}k(1/2x\psi ^{})\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+(1/4x\psi ^{})\stackrel{~}{r},`$ (5.5)
$`2(\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{}+\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{r}^{})\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }=\psi ^{}(2\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}+\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{r}),`$ (5.6)
$`2x\rho \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }+(2x\rho ^{}+(k+5/2)\rho )\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}(k/2)\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+(2x\psi ^{}1/2)\stackrel{~}{r}^{}`$
$`+(2x\psi ^{\prime \prime }+(k/2+5/2)\psi ^{})\stackrel{~}{r}=0.`$ (5.7)
What is the number of the independent constants for this system? The perturbed Klein-Gordon equation (5.7) is clearly redundant, while Eqs. (5.5) and (5.6) are constraints. So, as in the (3+1)-dimensional case , the order of the system is four, and the general solution depends on four integration constants. However, one of these four independent solutions corresponds to a gauge mode and is irrelevant. The parametrisation (4.9) is invariant under infinitesimal coordinate transformations $`vv+f(v)`$. For $`f(v)=\alpha v^{1+k/2}`$, these lead to $`xx\alpha (u)^{k/2}(x)^{1+k/2}`$, giving rise to the gauge mode

$`\stackrel{~}{r}_k(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x)^{1+k/2}\rho ^{}(x),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x)^{1+k/2}\psi ^{}(x),`$ (5.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_k(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha [(x)^{1+k/2}\sigma ^{}(x){\displaystyle \frac{k+2}{4}}(x)^{k/2}],`$
which solves identically the system (5.3)-(5.7). So, up to gauge transformations, the general solution of this system depends only on three independent constants.

These will be determined, together with the possible values of $`k`$ (the eigenfrequencies) by enforcing appropriate and reasonable boundary conditions. We shall use here the “weak boundary conditions” of  on the boundaries $`u=0`$ and $`x=x_1`$ ($`X\mathrm{}`$)

$$\underset{u0}{lim}r^10,\underset{xx_1}{lim}r0,$$
(5.9)
together with the condition

$$\stackrel{~}{r}(0)=0,$$
(5.10)
which guarantees that the singularity of the perturbed solution starts smoothly from that of the unperturbed one. On the third boundary $`v=0`$, we shall impose a stronger condition by requiring that the perturbations are analytic in $`v`$, in order for the perturbed solution to be extendible beyond $`v=0`$ to negative values of $`v`$ at finite $`u`$.

First, we consider the region $`x0`$ where, according to Eqs. (4.1), (4.3), (4.5) and (4.7),

$$\rho 1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }x,e^{2\sigma }1+\frac{4}{15}\mathrm{\Lambda }x,\psi \frac{1}{15}\mathrm{\Lambda }x.$$
(5.11)
Let us assume a power-law behavior

$$\stackrel{~}{r}(x)a(x)^p$$
(5.12)
where $`p`$ is a constant to be determined. Then Eqs. (5.3), (5.4) and (5.6) can be approximated near $`x=0`$ as

$`x\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }+(k/2+3/2)\stackrel{~}{r}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{\sigma },`$ (5.13)
$`x\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\prime \prime }+(k/2+1)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}`$ (5.14)
$`2\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }2\rho \psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}.`$ (5.15)
Eliminating the functions $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ between these three equations and using Eq. (5.11), we obtain the fourth-order equation

$$4x^2\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+(4k+13)x\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime \prime }+(k/21)(2k5)\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }0,$$
(5.16)
which implies the power-law behavior (5.12) with the exponent $`p`$ constrained by

$$p(p1)(pk/23/4)(pk/21)=0.$$
(5.17)
Obviously the root $`p=k/2+1`$ corresponds to the gauge mode (5) and must be discarded as irrelevant. As a consequence the general solution near $`x=0`$ can be given in terms of three independent constants as

$`\stackrel{~}{r}(x)A+B(x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }C(x)^{3/4+k/2},`$ (5.18)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(x){\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^1{\displaystyle \frac{(k3)B}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5C}{8}}(k+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})(x)^{1/4+k/2},`$ (5.19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x){\displaystyle \frac{(1k)A}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1{\displaystyle \frac{(k3)B}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5C}{8}}(k+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})(x)^{1/4+k/2}.`$ (5.20)
Let us note that this solution remains valid in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, leading to the limiting solution $`\stackrel{~}{r}A+B(x)`$ (with $`B=0`$ for $`k3`$), which could also be obtained directly by solving the equation $`\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ which results from (5.6) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, together with the stronger condition (from Eq. (5.3)) $`(k3)\stackrel{~}{r}^{}=0`$.

Now we enforce the boundary conditions at $`x=0`$. For $`k>0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is dominated by its first constant term in (5.18), so that the condition (5.10) can only be satisfied for $`u0`$ if

$$A=0.$$
(5.21)
Then, for $`k>1/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is dominated by its second term $`Bx`$, leading to a perturbation $`(u)^{1/2k/2}\stackrel{~}{r}(x)`$ which blows up as $`u0`$ and violates (5.9) unless

$$k3.$$
(5.22)
Then we impose the condition of analyticity in $`v`$ at fixed $`u`$. This is satisfied if

$$k=2n3/2,$$
(5.23)
where $`n`$ is a positive integer. Combining eqs. (5.22) and (5.23) we find that $`k`$ has only two positive eigenvalues

$$k=1/2,k=5/2.$$
(5.24)
However, in the above analysis we have disregarded the fact that $`k=1/2`$ is a double root of the secular equation (5.17). For $`k=1/2`$ the correct behavior of the general solution near $`x=0`$ is

$`\stackrel{~}{r}(x)A+B(x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }C(x)\mathrm{ln}|x|,`$ (5.25)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(x){\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1{\displaystyle \frac{5B}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{9C}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{5C}{4}}\mathrm{ln}|x|`$ (5.26)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x){\displaystyle \frac{A}{4}}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^1{\displaystyle \frac{5B}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9C}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5C}{4}}\mathrm{ln}|x|,`$ (5.27)
which satisfies the condition of analyticity only if $`C=0`$.

At the AdS boundary ($`xx_1`$) the leading behaviour of the background is, from Eqs. (4),

$$\rho \frac{\rho _1}{xx_1},e^{2\sigma }\left(\frac{4x_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\frac{1}{(xx_1)^2},\psi \psi _1.$$
(5.28)
We again assume a power-law behavior

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }b\overline{x}^q$$
(5.29)
($`\overline{x}=xx_1`$). Then Eq. (5.4), where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ can be neglected, gives

$$q(q1)=2,$$
(5.30)
i.e. $`q=1`$ or $`q=2`$. Then, Eq. (5.3) reduces near $`\overline{x}=0`$ to

$$\stackrel{~}{r}^{\prime \prime }2\overline{x}^2\stackrel{~}{r}4b\rho _1\overline{x}^{q3}.$$
(5.31)
If $`q=1`$, the behavior of the solution is governed by the right-hand side, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{r}\overline{x}^2`$, which violates the boundary condition (5.9) for $`xx_1`$. So the behavior $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }b\overline{x}^1`$ must be excluded, which fixes another integration constant $`D=0`$ (where $`D`$ is a linear combination of $`B`$ and $`C`$). Then, the generic behavior of the solution of Eq. (5.31) with $`q=2`$ is governed by that for the homogeneous equation, i.e.

$$\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{E}{xx_1}.$$
(5.32)
This is consistent with the boundary condition (5.9), and is an admissible small perturbation if its amplitude is small enough, $`E\rho _1`$.

For $`k=1/2`$, we have seen that two of the three integration constants in (5.25)-(5.27) are fixed ($`A=C=0`$) by condition (5.10) and the analyticity condition, while the weak boundary condition at the AdS boundary fixes a third constant $`D=0`$. However this is impossible, as the perturbation amplitude must remain as a free parameter. So the mode $`k=1/2`$ cannot satisfy all our boundary conditions, and we are left with a single eigenmode,

$$k=5/2,$$
(5.33)
completely determined up to an arbitrary amplitude by the two conditions $`A=D=0`$.

The corresponding perturbed metric function $`r`$ behaves near $`x=0`$ as

$$r(u)^{1/2}[1+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }x(u)^{5/4}Bx].$$
(5.34)
For $`B<0`$, the central singularity $`r=0`$ is approximately given by

$$(u)^{1/4}Bv.$$
(5.35)
Our boundary conditions guarantee that it starts at $`u=v=0`$ (as for the unperturbed solution) and then becomes spacelike in the region $`v>0`$. This singularity is hidden behind a trapping horizon (defined by Eq. (4.31)) which, near $`x=0`$, is null,

$$(u)^{5/4}=\frac{3B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(5.36)
(a null trapping horizon was also found in ). Let us point out the crucial role played by the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the formation of this trapping horizon. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`\rho (x)=1`$, while, as discussed after Eq. (5.20), the perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ with the boundary condition (5.10) vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, so that the perturbed radial function $`r`$ is (as in ) identical to the CSS one, and the trapping horizon does not exist. Near the AdS boundary $`xx_1`$, it follows from (5.28) and (5.32) that both the central singularity and the trapping horizon are tangent to the null line

$$(u)^{5/4}=E(\frac{4x_1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^{1/2}.$$
(5.37)
Thus, perturbations of the quasi-CSS solution lead to black hole formation, showing that this solution is indeed a threshold solution, and is a candidate to describe critical collapse. Near-critical collapse is characterized by a critical exponent $`\gamma `$, defined by the scaling relation $`Q|pp^{}|^{s\gamma }`$, for a quantity $`Q`$ with dimension $`s`$ depending on a parameter $`p`$ (with $`p=p^{}`$ for the critical solution). Choosing for $`Q`$ the radius $`r_{AH}`$ of the apparent horizon, and identifying $`pp^{}`$ with the perturbation amplitude $`B`$, we obtain from (5.36)

$$r_{AH}(\frac{3B}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^{2/5},$$
(5.38)
leading to the value of the critical exponent $`\gamma =2/5`$, in agreement with the renormalization group argument  leading to $`\gamma =1/k`$.

## 6 Conclusion

We have discussed in detail the causal structure of the Garfinkle CSS solutions (2) to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ Einstein-scalar field equations. From a special solution of this class, we have derived by a limiting process a new CSS solution, which we have extended to a unique solution of the full $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ equations, describing collapse of the scalar field onto a null central singularity. This is not a curvature singularity (all the curvature invariants remain finite), but a singularity in the causal structure similar to that of the BTZ black hole. Finally, we have analyzed linear perturbations of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ solution, found a single eigenmode $`k=5/2`$, checked that this mode does indeed give rise to black holes, and determined the critical exponent $`\gamma =2/5`$.

For comparison, Choptuik and Pretorius  derived, by analysing the observed scaling behavior of the maximum scalar curvature, the value $`1.15<\gamma <1.25`$ for the critical exponent. This value is different from the value $`\gamma 0.81`$ obtained in the numerical analysis of Husain and Olivier  from the scaling behavior of the apparent horizon radius. Our value $`\gamma =0.4`$, while significantly smaller than these two conflicting estimates, is of the order of the theoretical value $`\gamma =1/2`$ derived either from the analysis of dust-ring collapse , of black hole formation from point particle collisions , or of the $`J=0`$ to $`J0`$ transition of the BTZ black hole .

It is worth mentioning here that, even though they were obtained for a vanishing cosmological constant and thus solve the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ equations only near the singularity, the Garfinkle CSS solutions are, for the particular value (chosen in order to better fit the numerical curves) $`c=(7/8)^{1/2}0.935`$, in good agreement  with the numerical results of  at an intermediate time. The fact that this value is close to 1 suggests that the $`c=1`$ CSS solution (3) approximately describes near-critical collapse at intermediate times. If this the case, then it would not be surprising if its late-time limit, our new CSS solution Eq. (3.4), gives a good description of exactly critical collapse near the singularity. A fuller understanding of the relationship between the numerically observed near-critical collapse and these various $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ CSS solutions could be achieved by extending them to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, as done in the present work for the special solution (3.7).


format: text

text:
# Collision of spinning black holes in the close limit

## I Introduction

There is considerable current interest in studying the collision of two black holes, since these events could be primary sources of gravitational waves for interferometric gravitational wave detectors currently under construction. The mathematics describing such events consists of the nonlinear partial differential equations of general relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravitation. These equations are very difficult to solve especially in the case of two merging holes, or of the highly distorted final hole that is formed by the merger. Limited (in resolution and evolution time) full numerical simulations of grazing collisons of black holes are being done now , but long term stable evolutions are still distant in the future. It is therefore of interest to have at hand approximate results which in certain regimes could be used to test and possibly even complement the full numerical evolutions. Among such approximation methods is the “close-limit” approximation in which spacetime of a black hole collision is represented as a single distorted black hole and evolutions are done with simple linear perturbative equations. In the past, this method has been applied to the case of a head-on collision of two boosted holes  and the case of slow inspiral  with considerable success. In both these cases, the black holes considered had no spin. In this work, we will consider the collision of spinning holes.

Since we are attempting a linear, first order perturbative calculation, it is sufficient to study the coalescence of two spinning holes with zero initial linear momentum. This is because, to obtain the results for the inspiral of spinning holes, one can simply do a linear superposition of these results with those from our past work . However, the first order perturbative treatment imposes several restrictions on the physical scenarios we can treat. In addition to the close-slow limitations, we can only easily analyze cases in which the spins of the two black holes are equal and opposite. This happens because, to lowest order, the (perturbative) extrinsic curvature of a black hole with spin $`S`$ and a conformal distance $`L`$ from the origin is of order $`SL`$. Superposing another hole with parallel and equal spin and at $`L`$ will yield a situation with zero perturbation in extrinsic curvature, which is not a case of interest.

So in the following, we shall present two cases that are exhaustive. Case I, when the two spins are equal and opposite and aligned along the common axis of the two holes. Specifically, we place the two holes at $`x=\pm L/2`$ and have their spins parallel and anti-parallel to the x-axis. Case II, when the two spins are equal and opposite and perpendicular to the common axis of the two holes. Here, we place the two holes at $`x=\pm L/2`$ and have their spins parallel and anti-parallel to the y-axis. These cases have no net angular momentum. So we expect Zerilli and Teukolsky formalisms to agree exactly (Kerr parameter $`a=0`$). We, therefore report calculations and results from the Teukolsky formalism only. Part of this work, in the context of the Zerilli formalism can be found in this reference .

## II Initial data

To evolve a spacetime in general relativity, one needs to provide initial data, a 3-geometry $`g_{ab}`$ and an extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}`$, that solve Einstein’s equations on some starting hypersurface (i.e., at some starting time). These initial value equations have the form,

$`^a(K_{ab}g_{ab}K)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (1)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}RK_{ab}K^{ab}+K^2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2)
where $`g_{ab}`$ is the spatial metric, $`K_{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature and $`{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ is the scalar curvature of the three metric. If we propose a 3-metric that is conformally flat $`g_{ab}=\varphi ^4\widehat{g}_{ab}`$, with $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ a flat metric, and $`\varphi ^4`$ the conformal factor, and we use a decomposition of the extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}=\varphi ^2\widehat{K}_{ab}`$, and assume maximal slicing $`K_a^a=0`$, the constraints become,

$`\widehat{}^a\widehat{K}_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`\widehat{}^2\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\varphi ^7\widehat{K}_{ab}\widehat{K}^{ab},`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{}`$ is a flat-space covariant derivative.

To solve the momentum constraint, we start with a solution that represents a single hole with spin $`S`$ ,

$$\widehat{K}_{ab}^{\mathrm{one}}=\frac{3}{r^3}\left[ϵ_{cad}S^dn^cn_b+ϵ_{cbd}S^dn^cn_a\right].$$
(5)
In this expression for the conformally related extrinsic curvature at some point $`x^a`$, the quantity $`n_b`$ is a unit vector, in the “base” flat space with metric $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$, directed from a point representing the location of the hole to the point $`x^a`$. The symbol $`r`$ represents the distance, in the flat base space, from the point of the hole to $`x^a`$. It is straightforward to show that the solution of the Hamiltonian constraint corresponding to eq. (5) corresponds to a spacetime with ADM angular momentum $`S^a`$.

The next step is to modify this to represent holes centered at $`x=\pm L/2`$ in the conformally flat metric. Since the momentum constraint is linear, we can simply add two expressions of the above form,

$$\widehat{K}_{ab}^{\mathrm{two}}=\widehat{K}_{ab}^{\mathrm{one}}\left(xxL/2,S_x\mathrm{or}S_y=S\right)+\widehat{K}_{ab}^{\mathrm{one}}\left(xx+L/2,S_x\mathrm{or}S_y=S\right).$$
(6)
We will choose in further expressions to use a polar coordinate system in the flat space determined by $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ centered in the mid-point separating the two holes and label the polar coordinates as $`(R,\theta ,\varphi )`$. So $`R`$ will be the distance in the flat space from the midpoint between the holes.

To solve the Hamiltonian constraint 4, we introduce an approximation, (the slow approximation) which we will show is enough for our purposes. In fact, in this approximation the solution for the conformal factor turns out to be the familiar Misner  solution if one chooses the topology of the slice to have a single asymptotically flat region, or the Brill–Lindquist  solution if there are three asymptotically flat regions.

### A The slow approximation

We assume that the black holes are initially close, and that the initial spins $`S`$ are small. We denote by $`\stackrel{}{n}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}^{}`$ the normal vectors corresponding, respectively, to the one hole solutions at $`x=+L/2`$ and at $`x=L/2`$, and we recall $`R`$ to be the distance to a field point, in the flat conformal space, from the point midway between the holes. For large $`R`$, the normal vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}^{}`$ almost cancel. More specifically $`\stackrel{}{n}^+=\stackrel{}{n}^{}+O(L/R)`$. A consequence of this is that the total initial $`\widehat{K}^{ab}`$ is first order in $`L/R`$. It scales linearly with the spin $`S`$ as well. Thus the source term in the Hamiltonian constraint is quadratic in $`S`$. If we choose to find a solution to the conformal factor to first order in $`S`$ (which should give us a good approximation in the case of slowly spinning holes), we can ignore this quadratic source term. So now, the Hamiltonian constraint looks like the one for zero momentum, which is simply the Laplace equation. A well known solution to this, is the Misner solution . This solution, is characterized by a parameter $`\mu _0`$ which describes the separation of the two throats. We can relate this parameter to the conformal distance $`L`$ in the following way ,

$$L/M=\frac{\mathrm{coth}\mu _0}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\underset{n=1}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}n\mu _0}.$$
(7)
We must now map the coordinates of the initial value solution to the coordinates for the Schwarzschild (Kerr with $`a=0`$) background. To do this, we interpret the $`R`$ as the isotropic radial coordinate of a Schwarzschild spacetime, and we relate it to the usual Schwarzschild radial coordinate $`r`$ by $`R=(\sqrt{r}+\sqrt{r2M})^2/4`$. From this we arrive at the following expressions for the components of the metric and extrinsic curvature.

### B Initial data for the Teukolsky function – Case I

Following the construction as outlined in the last section, we get the following expressions for the initial spatial metric and extrinsic curvature:

$$K_{ab}=\frac{3SL}{Rr^2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}& \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}\\ \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}& r\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi & r\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi \mathrm{sin}^2\phi )\\ \frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}& r\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi \mathrm{sin}^2\phi )& r\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi \end{array}\right].$$
(8)
The metric has a form, identical to the Misner solution . Now, we use the methodology and expressions in , to find the initial data for the Teukolsky function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\rho ^4\psi _4`$, where $`\rho =1/(ria\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$.

For the azimuthal modes $`m=\pm 2`$ we get these expressions,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{4}i(\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm 1)^2LS\frac{(r2M)(1+2\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}$$
(9)
$$\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{4}i(\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm 1)^2LS\frac{(r2M)(3r+8M+3(r7M)\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r^3(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}.$$
(10)
And for the azimuthal mode $`m=0`$ we get,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{2}i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta LS\frac{(r2M)(1+2\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}$$
(11)
$$\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{2}i\mathrm{sin}^2\theta LS\frac{(r2M)(3r+8M+3(r7M)\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r^3(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}.$$
(12)
To all these expressions, we also need to add metric contributions. They have the same form as the ones in , therefore we will not list them here.

### C Initial data for the Teukolsky function – Case II

Again, following the construction as outlined in the last section, and using the close-slow approximation, we arrive at the following expressions for the initial spatial metric and extrinsic curvature:

$$K_{ab}=\frac{3SL}{Rr^2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r2M}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta (4\mathrm{cos}^2\phi 1)}{\sqrt{12M/r}}& \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}\\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta (4\mathrm{cos}^2\phi 1)}{\sqrt{12M/r}}& 2r\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\phi & \frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{sin}2\phi \\ \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi }{\sqrt{12M/r}}& \frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta (1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\mathrm{sin}2\phi & \frac{r}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{sin}2\phi \end{array}\right].$$
(13)
The metric again has a form, identical to the Misner solution . Using the methodology and expressions we discussed in , the initial data for the Teukolsky function, is:

For the azimuthal modes $`m=\pm 2`$ we get,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{4}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm 1)^2LS\frac{(r2M)(1+2\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}$$
(14)
$$\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{\sqrt{2\pi }}=\frac{3}{4}(\mathrm{cos}\theta \pm 1)^2LS\frac{(r2M)(3r+8M+3(r7M)\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})}{r^3(r(1+\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{r}})M)}.$$
(15)
And for the azimuthal mode, $`m=0`$ the initial data are identically zero. To all these expressions we need to add the metric contributions, that have a form identical to the ones in our past work .

## III Evolution of the Data using the Teukolsky equation

Given the Cauchy data from the last section, the time evolution is obtained from the Teukolsky equation ,

$`\left\{\right[a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}]_{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{4Mar}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}_{t\phi }+4[r+ia\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{M(r^2a^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}]_t`$ (16)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }^2_r\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^1_r\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\theta \left(\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta \right)+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]_{\phi \phi }`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}[{\displaystyle \frac{a(rM)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}]_\phi (4\mathrm{cot}^2\theta +2)\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (18)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole, $`a`$ its angular momentum per unit mass (which is zero in our case), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r^22Mr+a^2`$. Evolving the initial data we just calculated, with this equation will enable us to extract gravity wave waveforms that correspond to the late stage merger of spinning holes. We can also estimate the energy carried away by these gravitational waves. The radiated energy is given by ,

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{\frac{1}{4\pi r^6}_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left|_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{t},r,\theta ,\phi )\right|^2\right\},d\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\vartheta d\phi .$$
(19)
Note that the angular momentum radiated in the cases we consider is zero.

## IV Results of the evolutions

In this section we show waveforms and plots for energy radiated from the collision of two spinning holes. Recall that the two holes have equal mass and equal and opposite spin, and we are considering two cases, Case I in which the spins are aligned along the common axis of the two holes, and Case II in which the two spins are perpendicular to the common axis of the two holes.

The waveforms that follow, are for a collision of two black holes that were initially separated by a conformal distance of $`0.91`$ and had an individual spin of $`0.1`$ in units of ADM mass.

In figure 1 we show the $`m=2`$ mode of the Teukolsky function for a Case I collision. We see the typical quasi-normal ringing, in both the real and imaginary parts of the function. In figure 2 we plot the $`m=2`$ mode of the Teukolsky function for a Case II collision. Note that the initial data is purely real for this case, hence the imaginary part of the waveform is identically zero. Quasi-normal ringing is self-evident here as well. This is the type of signal that gravity wave observatories like LIGO, will detect if they happen to witness a collision of the kind we are considering.

Let us turn now to the evaluation of the radiated energies for these two cases. Figure 3 shows the radiated energy as a function of the initial spin, for a fixed separation of the holes. The first noteworthy thing is that the two curves, corresponding to Case I and Case II are very close to each other throughout. This indicates that the geometry of the initial configuration does not matter much as far as energy loss is concerned. But, it should be observed that for any spin $`S`$, Case I radiates more than Case II. The next important observation (by looking at the trend of the curves for large spin) is that, even for high values of the initial spin of the two holes this type of collision radiates less than $`1\%`$ of its total mass. This means that inclusion of spin does not dramatically change our original estimate   of a percent of the mass-energy being carried away by gravity waves in binary black hole inspiral.

## V Conclusions

We performed a first order, perturbative calculation to study the merger of two spinning holes. The exhaustive cases considered had holes with spins either aligned or perpendicular to the common axis of the two holes. For these cases we extracted waveforms and estimated energy radiated. We observed that in the case in which the spins of the two holes are perpendicular to the common axis, the system radiates a little less than the case in which the spins are along the common axis. In either case, the energy radiated appears to be a fraction of a percent of the total mass of the system. Since we know that the late stage inspiral of two non-spinning holes typically radiates about a percent of the mass-energy   this implies that adding spin to the holes doesn’t really change such estimates by much.

With these results (along with our earlier ones ) we can predict the properties of the gravity waves radiated from the ringdown phase of the slow inspiral of two spinning, equal mass black holes.

## VI Acknowledgments

The author is grateful for research support and equipment from Long Island University. Part of this work was done at the Pennsylvania State University with support from NSF grants PHY-9800973 and PHY-9423950. The author thanks J. Pullin, P. Laguna, R. Gleiser, D. Cartin, D. Arnold and L. Smolin for comments and suggestions.


text:
# Charge-ordering quantum criticality in the phase diagram of the cuprates

## Abstract

We discuss how the quantum-critical-point scenario for high-$`T_c`$ superconductors with density-driven charge order or stripe formation finds support from recent EXAFS experiments. Our phase diagram has the interesting feature, which is also suggested by the EXAFS experiments, that some cuprates may not show well-formed stripe phase. We also consider the extensions of the scenario to include the interesting possibility of first-order transitions which call for further experimental and theoretical investigation.

There are by now several evidences of the existence of a Quantum Critical Point (QCP) arountd the optimal doping of the cuprates. The issue we address here is to interpret the recent experimental results of Ref.  as further evidence for the QCP scenario for high $`T_c`$ cuprates, that we have been proposing along the years. This scenario found one of its possible realizations within a model of strongly correlated electrons interacting with phonons, i.e. the simple one-band Hubbard-Holstein model in the presence of long-range Coulombic forces. Starting from the comparison with the recent experiments, we here also propose possible extensions of this model. The simplifications with respect to models taking into account the complex structure of the cuprates was adopted for two main reasons: first of all it makes the model manageable despite the formal complications related to the treatment of strong e-e correlations via the slave-boson large-N expansion formalism. Moreover it allows to concentrate on the relevant spects providing both a non-Fermi-liquid behavior and a strong pairing mechanism. Although the relevant features related to quantum criticality should be generic, different cuprates should of course show different aspects related to their specific structure.

Two major results were obtained within the Hubbard-Holstein model: i) Charge collective fluctuations mediate a doping- and temperature-dependent singular scattering among the quasiparticles, and ii) the $`T=0`$ phase diagram here reported in Fig. 1 with a line of the electron-phonon (e-ph) coupling $`g`$ as a function of the doping $`\delta `$. This line marks a second-order transition for the onset of charge ordering (CO) characterized by an order parameter $`\rho _{q_c}`$ representing the microscopic charge modulation at a wavevector $`q_c`$ 111In the framework of Ref.  the charge ordering instability is a second-order transition leading to a gradual increase of the charge modulation. It is only when one enters deeply inside the (locally) ordered phase that anharmonic distortions of the charge profile may arise from the enhanced interactions with the spin and the lattice degrees of freedom. This may lead to the stripe formation. The low-doping region is only indicative since the magnetic effects have not been considered. The separation between the homogeneous phase and the CO phase is marked by a line having a minimum $`g=g_{min}`$ controlling the transition. For $`g<g_{min}`$ no CO (or stripes) could be formed as a static phase. Of course strong quantum fluctuations mediating pairing and non-Fermi-liquid behavior in the normal phase would be present both above and below the quantum critical line. For each value of $`g_c(\delta _c)`$ there is a QCP, which is the $`T=0`$ end-point of a critical line $`T_{CO}(\delta )`$. This line extends to finite temperature the effective scattering mediated by the critical fluctuations. A recent analysis has shown that $`T_{CO}`$ is of the order of the observed pseudogap crossover temperature $`T^{}`$. Indeed, within the CO-QCP scenario, the pseudogap temperature $`T^{}`$ arises because the quasiparticles feel an increasingly strong attractive interaction by approaching the critical line $`T_{CO}(\delta )`$. In the particle-hole channel, this interaction can produce a gap due to the incipient CO. At the same time in the particle-particle channel, the strong attraction can lead to the formation of Cooper pairs even in the absence of phase coherence, which is only established at a lower temperature $`T_c`$. Therefore $`T^{}`$ closely tracks the underlying transition line $`T_{CO}(\delta )`$, and merges with $`T_c`$ around optimal doping, when the opening of the pseudogap and the phase coherence occur simultaneously.

The Hubbard-Holstein model is therefore able to describe a system with a (lattice-driven) electronic instability at $`T=0`$ occurring below optimal doping, which divides the $`T`$ vs. $`\delta `$ phase diagram into a (nearly) ordered, quantum critical and a quantum disordered region naturally corresponding to the under-, optimal, and over-doped regions respectively. However, despite this gross correspondence, the model and its solution are too schematic to determine the relationship between the model parameters and the microscopic quantities of the real materials (in this sense the Hubbard-Holstein model can be regarded as the analog of the Ising model in critical phenomena: More involved models lead to different universality classes maintaining the main features related to scaling). In particular, the specific phonons involved, their coupling to the quasiparticles, the orbitals needed for a proper band description, are open issues presently under investigation. In this regard, experiments can provide crucial informations. In particular, recent EXAFS experiments  identified interesting features associated to the lattice structure. A microstrain of the Cu-O bonds was measured in terms of the deviation of the Cu-O distance with respect to a reference distance $`d_0=1.985(\pm 0.05)\AA `$

$$\epsilon =2\left(1\frac{R_{CuO}}{d_0}\right),$$
(1)
which introduces a mismatch in the lattice between the CuO2 layers and the rock-salt layers. In the $`(\epsilon ,\delta )`$ plane the experiments suggest a line separating a homogeneous phase from a “coexistence region of fluctuation bubbles of superconducting stripes”. Actually, the published experimental data summarized in Fig. 7 of Ref.  leave various possibilities open: i) the above line could mark second-order transitions smoothly connecting the homogeneous and the “charge-ordered” phases, alternatively ii) it could be a first-order line ending into a single QCP or into a finite segment of QCP’s, or, finally, iii) it could entirely be a line of first-order transitions. The experiments also suggest the remarkable possibility, that some cuprates may not show a stripe phase since their microstrain is lower than a critical value $`\epsilon _c`$ estimated in Ref.  to be $`\epsilon _c0.045`$ from the onset of local lattice distortions.

We address now the issue whether and how the experimental results presented in Ref.  can be connected with the above theoretical model and its extensions, both at the level of the calculated properties and of the open possibilities to be investigated with a further analysis. First of all one observes that the close resemblance between the experimental $`(\epsilon ,\delta )`$ and the theoretical $`(g,\delta )`$ phase diagrams is a clear indication that the Cu-O microstrain and the e-ph coupling $`g`$ of the simplified Hubbard-Holstein model are strictly related. From the microscopic point of view it is indeed quite natural that a lattice contraction in the CuO2 planes can enhance the effective coupling between the electrons and the ions. Therefore the comparison between experiments and theory allows to draw the conclusion that a one-to-one monotonic relation $`g=g(\epsilon )`$ is likely to exist.

Once this general framework is settled, one can move to identify more detailed possible scenarios. In particular the order of the homogeneous-metal to charge-ordered-metal transition is of obvious relevance. The simplest possibility is that in the real materials this transition is of the second order. In this case, at $`T=0`$, the different microstrains determined by the rock-salt layers directly correspond to different e-ph couplings and are reflected in the similar phase diagrams. Of course this simple picture is not necessarily realized in the quite complex real materials where i) anharmonic effects and/or ii) additional non-ordering fields can partially or entirely transform the second-order transition into a first-order one. Both these possibilities can be considered within our Hubbard-Holstein scheme. The idea, which is standard in the theory of critical phenomena, is that both these mechanisms can change the sign of the quartic term $`u|\rho _{q_c}|^4`$ of an effective Ginzburg-Landau description of the free energy of the system. If this is the case a first-order transition is obtained and higher-order terms like $`v|\rho _{q_c}|^6`$ become important. In case i) diagrams like in Fig. 2a, involving a coupling between a first and a second harmonic charge modulation $`\stackrel{~}{u}(\rho _{q_c}^2\rho _{2q_c}+c.c.)`$, induce a negative correction to $`u`$.

If the charge fluctuations around the second-harmonic $`2q_c`$ are large enough, this correction $`(\stackrel{~}{u}^2)`$ can drive $`u`$ to negative values. The alternative possibility ii) is that the microstrain enhances the coupling of the electrons with an additional phonon field, in general not coupled à la  Holstein, but, more likely, coupled to the Cu-O hopping like in Su-Schrieffer-Heeger models. At small values of this coupling the fluctuations of the additional phonon field weakly dress the electrons, which still undergo a second-order instability because of the coupling to the original phonon mode. However, for sufficiently large values of the microstrain, it could happen that the additional phonon field introduces a non-ordering field $`\psi `$, which is generically bilinear in the electronic variables. Within the Ginzburg-Landau approach, this generates a four-leg vertex of the form $`u^{}|\rho _{q_c}|^2|\psi |^2`$. Second-order processes $`(u_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ involving the propagator of the new field $`\psi `$, like the one depicted in Fig. 2b, can also drive the $`u|\rho _{q_c}|^4`$ term negative and naturally transform partially or entirely the line of QCP’s in Fig. 1 into a line of first-order transition. According to the grneral discussion of density-driven first-order phase transitions in the presence of long-range forces, nearby the first-order line one expects in this case bubbles of stripes in the homogeneous metallic background.

We stress here that these two possible mechanisms to change the order of the CO transition naturally extend the simple second-order transition theoretically determined in Ref. . In the previous work the technical large-N scheme within the leading-order approximation and the consideration of a single phonon mode did not allow for the inclusion of processes like those exemplified in Fig. 2. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned resemblance of the experimental and the theoretical phase diagrams make it clear that the qualitative determination of the region where the instability takes place is already captured within the simplified scheme. Without qualitatively modifying the generic appearance of the phase diagram, the additional terms discussed above would simply shift the instability line and possibly replace partially or completely the second-order line with first-order coexistence regions.

We also notice that the reentrant behavior of the instability region at low doping is a consequence of the increased residual repulsion between the quasiparticles at finite wavelengths, when the large quasiparticle effective mass no longer allows for an effective screening of the large (actually infinite in our model) Hubbard repulsion between the electrons. This physically reasonable effect occurs regardless of magnetism, which is surely present in real systems at low doping, but is poorly described within out large-N approach. Nevertheless, if the resemblance between our theoretical and the experimental phase diagrams is confirmed, this suggests that magnetic effects should become relevant at doping lower than the doping at which the reentrant behavior sets in.

Further experiments are needed to establish which of the above-mentioned possibilities i)-iii) for the phase diagram is realized in the cuprates. However, in all the three cases the implications of our QCP scenario maintain their full validity unless the transition becomes strongly first-order. Indeed all the relevant observables mainly depend on the deviation from criticality fixed by $`\xi ^2(T,\delta \delta _c)`$, where $`\xi `$ is the correlation length for the onset of charge ordering. The only difference is now that $`\xi `$ would acquire an additional dependence on $`\epsilon \epsilon _c`$. We stressed in several papers that the actual onset of a fully developed CO phase was competing with local or coherent pair formation, which modifies the fermionic spectrum stabilizing the system against the electronic CO transition. There is the complementary possibility that the CO state can never be reached because $`g`$ is below $`g_{min}`$. The corresponding observable quantity identified by the experiments in Ref.  is the critical microstrain $`\epsilon _c`$, below which no stripe phase can be observed. Therefore the cuprates can deviate from criticality not only by $`\delta \delta _c`$ in the (overdoped) quantum-disordered region, or by $`T`$ and $`TT_{CO}(\delta )`$ in the quantum-critical or underdoped region respectively, but also because $`\epsilon `$ is smaller or larger than $`\epsilon _c`$, thereby tending to a homogeneous or an inhomogeneous phase respectively. As long as $`\epsilon \epsilon _c`$ is not too large and $`T`$ is finite, for $`\delta \delta _c`$ we enter again the quantum-critical region with strong dynamical fluctuations in both cases. According to the proposed mechanism of pairing mediated by critical fluctuations, the stronger are these fluctuations and the larger is $`T_c`$. Indeed in the experiment the mercury compound Hg1212, having $`\epsilon \epsilon _c`$, has the the largest $`T_c`$, while Hg1201 (with $`\epsilon <\epsilon _c`$) and Bi2212 or La214 (with $`\epsilon >\epsilon _c`$) have a lower $`T_c`$. Moreover, since $`\epsilon <\epsilon _c`$ in Hg1201, we expect no $`T_{CO}(\delta )`$, and therefore no $`T^{}`$, for this material.

We acknowledge stimulating discussions with C. Castellani.