text:
# Hall Coefficient and electron-electron interaction of 2D electrons in Si-MOSFET’s.

## I Introduction

Strongly interacting two-dimensional systems of electrons and holes have drawn intensive recent attention due to their anomalous behavior as a function of temperature and magnetic field: the resistance exhibits metallic temperature-dependence above a critical density, $`n_c`$, raising the possibility of a metallic phase in two dimensions . An additional intriguing characteristic of these systems is their enormous response to magnetic fields applied in the 2D plane of the carriers . The resistivity increases substantially with in-plane magnetic field and saturates to a new value above a density-dependent characteristic magnetic field $`H_{sat}`$. Several experiments  have shown that the field $`H_{sat}`$ corresponds to the onset of full spin polarization of the 2D electron system. With increasing in-plane magnetic field the system thus evolves from zero net spin polarization, with equal numbers of spin-up and spin-down electrons, to a completely spin-polarized state above the field $`H_{sat}`$.

Recent measurements of the Hall resistance in parallel magnetic field  have revealed another unexpected physical property: the Hall coefficient does not vary with parallel magnetic field for fields ranging from $`0`$ to well above $`H_{sat}`$. This is in apparent contradiction with expectations based on straightforward arguments  that predict different mobilities of the spin-up and spin-down electrons and, therefore, a substantial variation of the Hall coefficient with in-plane magnetic field . The purpose of the present paper is to provide a possible explanation of the behavior of the Hall coefficient. The electron-electron ($`ee`$) scattering is considered as the main reason for the invariance of the Hall coefficient with in-plane magnetic field. A comparison with experiment demonstrates that the frequency of the electron-electron scattering events $`\nu _{ee}=1/\tau _{ee}`$ increases with decreasing electron density $`n_s`$. At density $`1.22\times 10^{11}<n_s<2\times 10^{11}cm^2`$, the $`ee`$ scattering rate $`1/\tau _{ee}`$ is found to be higher than the transport scattering      FIG. 1. The Hall coefficient, $`R_H=R_{xy}/H_{}`$, as a function of parallel magnetic field at different electron densities as labeled. Temperature is about 100mK for $`n_s>1.9\times 10^{11}cm^2`$ and is 250 mK for other curves. The arrows indicates the field $`H_s`$ of the complete spin polarization obtained from the saturation of the longitudinal magnetoconductivity.  rate $`1/\tau _p`$. This indicates that the $`ee`$ interaction can be a dominant reason of decay of the electron states in the dilute 2D system near the apparent metal-insulator transition in the silicon MOSFET’s at temperature above 0.1K.

## II Experiment

The data used in the paper were obtained on two silicon MOSFETs of comparable mobility $`\mu 20,000`$V/(cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}s)`$ at $`T=4.2`$ The samples were mounted on a rotating platform at the end of a low temperature probe. Measurements were taken at temperature $`T=0.235`$ K and magnetic fields $`H`$ up to $`12`$ T in a 3He Oxford Heliox system at City College of NY. The Hall coefficient was measured at higher magnetic fields up to 18T at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. The details of the experiment are presented in the paper. The Hall coefficient $`R_H`$, corresponding to different electron densities from $`n_s=1.22\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 to $`n_s=4.42\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2, is shown in Fig.1. $`R_H`$ is a weak function of the magnetic field, varying by less the 3-7% over a wide range of magnetic field for all electron densities. For several electron densities, the arrows mark the magnetic field $`H_s`$ above which the longitudinal conductivity saturates  and 2D electrons are spin polarized completely . A considerable change in $`R_H`$ is observed for the lowest electron density $`n_s=1.22\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 at $`H>4T`$, where the system is in the insulating regime. This behavior requires further investigation.

The longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma `$ depends strongly on in-plane magnetic field $`H`$. This indicates that the average mobility of the electrons changes substantially with magnetic field. In the absence of interactions between carriers, the mobility of spin-up and spin-down electrons should vary independently of each other. Taking into account the very different, variable Fermi velocities of spin-up and spin-down electrons in an in-plane field, we expect that the mobilities of the two subbands are most likely different in a magnetic field. The Hall coefficient measurements indicate, however, that the mobility of spin-up and spin-down electrons in the field $`H`$ are close to each other. Electron-electron interaction are a promising candidate to explain this result. Indeed, it is known, that due to the strong $`ee`$ interband scattering the nonequilibrium averaged velocities of two different conducting bands in an external electric field are, in fact, the same. Below I will employ this approach for the 2D electron system, which is spin polarized by an external magnetic field.

## III Model

Boltzman transport theory provides a description of the classical magnetoconductivity and Hall resistance of carriers occupying several different subbands in $`k`$-space. For example, the carriers in different subbands can have different electrical charge (electrons and holes) or different kinematic properties such as mass (light and heavy holes in GaAs). The 2D electrons in a Si-MOSFET in a strong in-plane magnetic field occupy two subbands, one containing spin-up and the other spin-down electron states. Below I present a simple description of a two band model, based on analysis of the total averaged nonequilibrium momentum of each band in the mean free time approximation . A more general approach can be found in reference .

In the absence of electron-electron scattering the spin-up and spin-down electrons can be considered independently. In this case we describe the relaxation of the total momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}_,`$ of the nonequilibrium electron distribution in each spin subband by a scattering time $`\tau _,`$. The electron-electron interaction (or scattering) induces a redistribution of the non-equilibrium momentum of carriers between two spin subbands and, therefore, changes the total momenta $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$. To account for the inter-subband redistribution of the nonequilibrium momentum an effective force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ acting between spin-up and spin-down electron subbands is used. The force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ changes the total momentum of each spin subband. Newton’s equations for total momentum $`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$, ($`\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$) of the spin-up (spin-down) electrons in an external electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and a normal magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{H}_{}`$ yield:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{P}_{}}{dt}=en_{}\stackrel{}{E}+\frac{e}{c}n_{}[\stackrel{}{v}_{}\times \stackrel{}{H}_{}]\frac{\stackrel{}{P}_{}}{\tau _{}}+<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>$$
$`(1a)`$
$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{P}_{}}{dt}=en_{}\stackrel{}{E}+\frac{e}{c}n_{}[\stackrel{}{v}_{}\times \stackrel{}{H}_{}]\frac{\stackrel{}{P}_{}}{\tau _{}}<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>,$$
$`(1b)`$
where $`n_{},\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$, ($`n_{},\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$) are the density and average velocity of spin-up (spin-down) electrons. The functional dependence of the force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ was determined from the following observations . We assumed that each interaction (or collision) between two particles does not depend on other particles. In this case the total effective force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ should be proportional to the product of the densities of spin-up and spin-down electrons: $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>n_{}\times n_{}`$. In the absence of a relative drift of the spin-up electrons with respect to spin-down electrons ($`\stackrel{}{v}_{}=\stackrel{}{v}_{}`$) the force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ is expected to be equal to 0. This result is, in fact, a consequence of invariance of the system under Galileo’s transformations, if we neglect variations of the electron distribution with drift velocity (in other words, if we consider the linear response of the system). In this approximation the force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$ is proportional to the difference between average velocities of spin-up and spin-down electrons: $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>(\stackrel{}{v}_{}\stackrel{}{v}_{})`$. Thus we use the following expression for the force $`<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>`$:

$$<\stackrel{}{F}_{int}>=\alpha n_{}n_{}(\stackrel{}{v}_{}\stackrel{}{v}_{}),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant. In stationary states the momenta $`\stackrel{}{P}_{},\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ of the spin subbands are constant. Therefore the left sides of Eq.(1) are equal to $`0`$. Combining Eqs. (1) and (2) we obtain a linear relation between the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and the momenta $`\stackrel{}{P}_{},\stackrel{}{P}_{}`$ of the spin subbands:

$$(i\omega _c+ϵ_{})P_{}\gamma _{}P_{}=en_{}E$$
$`(3a)`$
$$(i\omega _c+ϵ_{})P_{}\gamma _{}P_{}=en_{}E,$$
$`(3b)`$
where $`P=P_x+iP_y`$, $`E=E_x+iE_y`$, $`\gamma _,=\alpha n_,/m`$, $`ϵ_,=1/\tau _,+\gamma _,`$, $`\omega _c=eH_{}/mc`$ is the cyclotron frequency and $`m`$ is the band mass of the electrons. The current density is given by

$$J=en_{}v_{}+en_{}v_{}=\frac{e}{m}(P_{}+P_{})$$
$`(4)`$
The solution of the linear equations (3) gives the subband momenta $`P_{}`$ and $`P_{}`$ as a function of external electric and magnetic fields. The longitudinal and Hall conductivities of the system were obtained using the real and imaginary parts of Eq.(4), respectively:

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{(ϵ_{}ϵ_{}\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\omega _c^2)[n_{}(ϵ_{}+\gamma _{})+n_{}(ϵ_{}+\gamma _{})]+}{(ϵ_{}ϵ_{}\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\omega _c^2)^2+\omega _c^2(ϵ_{}+ϵ_{})^2}$$

$$\frac{+\omega _c^2(ϵ_{}+ϵ_{})(n_{}+n_{})}{}$$
$`(5)`$
$$\sigma _{xy}=\frac{\omega _c[(n_{}(ϵ_{}+\gamma _{})+n_{}(ϵ_{}+\gamma _{}))(ϵ_{}+ϵ_{})}{(ϵ_{}ϵ_{}\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\omega _c^2)^2+\omega _c^2(ϵ_{}+ϵ_{})^2}$$

$$\frac{(n_{}+n_{})(ϵ_{}ϵ_{}\gamma _{}\gamma _{}\omega _c^2)}{}$$
$`(6)`$
The Hall resistivity was obtained by inverting the conductivity tensor $`\sigma `$.

In order to evaluate the strength of the electron-electron scattering quantitatively we consider a model for the in-plane field dependence of the longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma (H)`$. One possible explanation of the field dependence of $`\sigma (H)`$ was proposed recently by Dolgopolov and Gold (DG) . They have argued that the screening of electrically charged impurities by the 2D electrons depends substantially on the populations of the spin-up and spin-down subbands and therefore varies with in-plane magnetic field. This causes the resistance to increase with field $`H`$, saturating when the electrons reach full spin polarization at $`H>H_s`$. In the DG approach  the average scattering probabilities, $`1/\tau _,`$, are calculated corresponding to spin-up and spin-down electrons in a parallel magnetic field. The longitudinal conductivity is the sum of contributions of spin-up and spin-down bands: $`\sigma =\sigma ^{}+\sigma ^{}=e^2n_{}\tau _{}/m+e^2n_{}\tau _{}/m`$, where $`n_,=n_0(1\pm \xi )`$ is the density of the spin-up (spin-down) electrons and $`\xi =H/H_s,(H<H_s)`$ is the degree of spin polarization of the 2D system. We use their expression for the conductivity $`\sigma (H)`$  to find the scattering times $`\tau _{}(H)`$ as a function of parallel magnetic field $`H`$. In accordance with the eq.(5,6) the variations of the Hall coefficient $`R_H(H)`$ are result of different mobilities of spin-up and spin-down electrons in a magnetic field H. Therefore we expect a similar dependence of the $`R_H(H)`$ (and the $`ee`$ scattering rate) for any other models of magnetoconductivity corresponding to the experiment, in which the bare mobilities of spin-up and spin-down electrons are different considerably.

FIG. 2. (a) The Hall coefficient as a function of the spin polarization $`\xi =H/H_s`$ at different value of the parameter $`B=(\omega _c\tau _0)_{H=H_s}`$ as labeled in the absent of the $`ee`$ scattering ($`A=0`$). (b) The Hall coefficient as a function of the spin polarization $`\xi =H/H_s`$ at different value of the $`ee`$ scattering $`A=\tau _0/\tau _{ee}`$ as labeled. The parameter $`B=0.3`$

According to Eq.(5,6), the behavior of the Hall coefficient as function of $`H`$ depends on two parameters. One is the strength of      FIG. 3. The Hall coefficient as a function of the in-plane magnetic field at high electron density. The solid lines are numerical fit corresponding to the two band model (see eq. (5,6)). The parameter $`B=(\omega _c\tau _0)_{H=H_s}`$ was obtain as a ratio of the $`R_{xy}(H=H_s)/\rho (H=0)`$ for each curve. The spin polarization field $`H_s`$ was found from the saturation of the magnetoconductivity. The arrows indicate the field $`H_s`$ for each electron density. The ratio of the transport scattering time $`\tau _p`$ to $`ee`$ scattering time $`\tau _{ee}`$, founded from the fitting, are labeled.  the $`ee`$ interaction, which we characterize by a factor $`A=\alpha n_0\tau _0/m=\tau _0/\tau _{ee}`$, the ratio of the inter subband $`ee`$ scattering rate to the transport scattering rate at $`H=0`$T. The second parameter is $`B=(\omega _c\tau _0)_{H=H_s}`$ calculated at field $`H=H_s`$, where the time $`\tau _0`$ is the scattering time at $`H=0`$ T without $`ee`$ interaction ($`A=0`$). In Fig. (2a) we show the Hall coefficient calculated for different scattering times $`\tau _0`$ (B) without $`ee`$ scattering ($`A=0`$). The Hall coefficient depends substantially on the parameter $`B`$. The behavior of the Hall coefficient for different $`B`$ and $`A=0`$ is similar to results obtained earlier, neglecting the intersubband $`ee`$ scattering. In the experiment, the parameter $`B`$ was varied between $`0.1`$ and $`3.4`$ depending on electron density and the angle $`\varphi `$ between the magnetic field and the plane of the electrons. In accordance with Fig.2a for all angles and electron densities measured excepting the highest, we should expect a substantial change of the Hall coefficient in the absence of $`ee`$ scattering ($`A=0`$). In Fig.2b we present the Hall coefficient as a function of in-plane magnetic field at $`B=0.3`$ and different rate of $`ee`$ scattering. The Hall coefficient behavior depends substantially on the $`ee`$ interband scattering. For $`A=1`$ the variation of the Hall coefficient is less than 4%.

FIG. 4. (a) The ratio of the electron-electron scattering rate $`1/\tau _{ee}`$ to the rate of the transport scattering $`1/\tau _p`$ at different electron densities $`n_s`$. The shadow area indicates the possible values of the $`ee`$ scattering rate in the dilute 2D electron system. (b) the transport scattering rate $`1/\tau _p`$ vs $`n_s`$.

## IV Comparison with experiment

We now compare the results of the two band model presented above with experiment. The parameter $`B=(\omega _c\tau _0)_{H=H_s}`$ was found from experiment as the ratio of the Hall resistance $`\rho _{xy}=H_{}/(nec)(H=H_s)`$ at magnetic field $`H=H_s`$ to the longitudinal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}=m/(ne^2\tau _0)`$ at $`H=O`$T. The strength of the $`ee`$ scattering (coefficient $`A`$) was varied to obtain agreement with experiment. A comparison is shown on Fig.3 for four different electron densities. The accuracy of the experiment is not sufficient to extract the value of the $`ee`$ scattering time $`\tau _{ee}`$ in the system at electron densities below $`n_s=3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. The main difficulty is that the time $`\tau _{ee}`$ appears to be too short and comparable with the mean free time of the electrons $`\tau _p`$ at $`n_s<3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. We determined an upper limit for $`\tau _{ee}`$ or lower limit for the spin scattering rate $`\nu _{ee}`$ for electron densities $`n_s<3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2. The ratio of the electron-electron scattering rate to the transport scattering rate extracted from the experiment is presented in Fig.4. The transport scattering rate $`1/\tau _p`$, obtained from the Drude conductivity ( neglecting the $`ee`$ mass enhancement), is shown for comparison. Fig.4 demonstrates that the electron-electron scattering is strong in the dilute 2D system of electrons in SI-MOSFETs at electron density below $`n_s=3\times 10^{11}cm^1`$. It increases with decreasing electron density and becomes higher than the transport scattering rate at $`n_s<2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2.

In summary, we have shown that the independence of the Hall coefficient of dilute 2D electrons in SI-MOSFETs on in-plane magnetic field can be the result of electron-electron scattering between two spin subbands. Comparison of experimental results with a two band model yields the electron-electron scattering rate $`\nu _{ee}=1/\tau _{ee}`$ between spinup and spindown 2D electrons in Si-MOSFETs. The $`ee`$ scattering was found to be a decreasing function of the electron density at $`1.22\times 10^{11}<n_s<4\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in accordance with general expectations. At $`1.22\times 10^{11}<n_s<3\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 the $`ee`$ scattering rate $`\nu _{ee}`$ of the 2D electrons in silicon MOSFET’s is comparable or even higher that the transport scattering rate $`1/\tau _p`$ at temperature $`T>0.1K`$ .

## V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank V.T. Dolgopolov, A. I. Larkin and V. Falko for helpfull discussions, M. P. Sarachik for support and comments of the manuscript, and T. M. Klapwijk for providing of the MOSFET’s. This work was supported by DOE grant No. DOE-FG02-84-ER45153. Partial support was also provided by NSF grant DMR-9803440.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational Memory ? — a Perturbative Approach —

## 1 Introduction

In the early universe, black holes may have been formed due to inhomogeneous initial conditions, phase transitions, or other mechanisms. They are called primordial black holes (PBHs). The mass of the PBHs is of order the mass contained within the Hubble horizon at the formation epoch. Hawking  discovered that black holes emit radiation due to the quantum effects of the curved spacetime. PBHs therefore lose mass and those lighter than $`10^{15}\text{g}`$ may contribute to the cosmic gamma-ray background and spoil the success of the big bang nucleosysthesis scenario. PBHs heavier than that may dominate the density of the universe at present. Therefore the fraction $`\beta `$ of the universe which may have gone into PBHs can be constrained from various cosmological observations (Carr ).

It has been pointed out that gravity in the early universe may have been dilatonic, since this arises naturally as a low-energy limit of string theory. In such theories, the gravitational “constant” is given by a function of a scalar field which couples non-minimally with gravity. In particular, the gravitational constant in the early universe may have been different from that at the present epoch. The Brans-Dicke theory is the simplest such theory of gravity. Barrow  considered PBHs in Brans-Dicke theory and proposed two scenarios. In scenario A, the gravitational constant at the black hole event horizon is always the same as that at the cosmological particle horizon, i.e., $`G_{EH}(t)=G_{PH}(t)`$. In scenario B, the gravitational constant at the black hole event horizon is constant with time and therefore always the same as that at the formation epoch, i.e., $`G_{EH}(t)=G_{EH}(t_f)=G_{PH}(t_f)`$. Scenario B corresponds to what is called the gravitational memory, while scenario (A) entails no gravitational memory.

Barrow and Carr  obtained observational constraints on $`\beta `$ in both scenarios. They assumed that the energy emission due to the Hawking radiation is determined by the temperature $`T_H=(8\pi G_{EH}(t)M)^1`$, so that the mass loss rate is $`\dot{M}(G_{EH}(t)M)^2`$. The results for the two scenarios can be significantly different. Subsequently, Carr and Goymer  argued that the true situation may be intermediate between Scenario A and Scenario B and this allows other possibilities. Therefore, in order to deduce the history of the early universe from the present observations, it is very important to examine which scenario is realized.

Recently, Jacobson  has argued that there is no gravitational memory for a Schwarzschild black hole with a time-varying boundary condition which mimics the cosmological evolution of a scalar field. However, this argument applies only if the black hole is much smaller than the particle horizon, so we must consider more general situations. The purpose of this article is to solve the problem self-consistently for a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) background.

## 2 Basic Equations

The field equations in Brans-Dicke theory are given by

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\varphi }}T_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}}\left(\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi ^{,\alpha }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}\left(_\mu _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\varphi \right),`$ (1)
$`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega }}T_\mu ^\mu ,`$ (3)
where the constant $`\omega `$ is the Brans-Dicke parameter and $`\varphi `$ is the Brans-Dicke scalar field, which is related to the gravitational constant by $`G\varphi ^1`$. In the limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, the theory goes to general relativity with a minimally coupled scalar field. The constraint $`\omega \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3300`$ is required by recent observations of light deflection . However, if we consider more general scalar-tensor theories, $`\omega `$ also becomes a function of $`\varphi `$. In this case, $`\omega `$ may have been small in the early universe, even though it is large today.

Here we calculate the time evolution of the gravitational constant by using the following post-general-relativistic expansion. First we assume that the scalar field is constant, i.e., $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. Then we find the general relativistic solution $`(g_{GR},T_{GR})`$ which satisfies Eqs. (1) and (2) with $`G=\varphi _0^1`$. Next we put $`(g,T)=(g_{GR},T_{GR})`$ in Eq. (3) and assume that $`\delta \varphi =\varphi \varphi _0`$ is of order $`\omega ^1`$ for $`\omega 1`$. We can then obtain $`\varphi `$ to this order, denoting it as $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$, by solving the following equation:

$$\mathrm{}_{GR}\varphi ^{(1)}=\frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega }T_{GR}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{\mu },$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}_{GR}`$ denotes the d’Alembertian in the geometry given by $`g_{GR}`$. Substituting the solution $`\varphi ^{(1)}`$ of Eq. (4) into the right-hand side of Eq. (1), we can then determine $`g^{(1)}`$ and $`T^{(1)}`$ by solving Eqs. (1) and (2). Then, $`\varphi ^{(2)}`$, which is the solution up to $`O(\omega ^2)`$, is determined by solving Eq. (3) for the background $`(g^{(1)},T^{(1)})`$. Repeating this process, we can construct the Brans-Dicke solution from the general relativity solution order by order.

Here we truncate the expansion for the scalar field at $`O(\omega ^1)`$. This implies that we only have to solve Eq. (4) and we can neglect the effect of the scalar field on the background curvature. This approximation was shown to be very good for the generation and propagation of gravitational waves from the collapse to a black hole in asymptotically flat spacetime for Brans-Dicke theory with $`\omega \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}4`$ .

## 3 Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi solution

We adopt the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi model as the background solution $`(g_{GR},T_{GR})`$ in which the scalar field evolves. This model is an exact solution of general relativity which describes a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous universe with dust. The line element in the synchronous comoving coordinates is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+A^2(t,r)dr^2+R^2(t,r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(5)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2.$$
(6)
The function $`R(t,r)`$ is given by

$`R=\left({\displaystyle \frac{9F(r)}{4}}\right)^{1/3}(tt_s(r))^{2/3}\text{for}f=0,`$ (7)
$`\{\begin{array}{c}R={\displaystyle \frac{F(r)}{2f(r)}}(\mathrm{cosh}\eta 1)\hfill \\ tt_s(r)={\displaystyle \frac{F(r)}{2f^{3/2}(r)}}(\mathrm{sinh}\eta 1)\hfill \end{array}\text{for}f>0,`$ (10)
$`\{\begin{array}{c}R={\displaystyle \frac{F(r)}{2(f)(r)}}(1\mathrm{cos}\eta )\hfill \\ tt_s(r)={\displaystyle \frac{F(r)}{2(f)^{3/2}(r)}}(\eta \mathrm{sin}\eta )\hfill \end{array}\text{for}f<0,`$ (13)
where the prime and dot denote the derivatives with respect to $`r`$ and $`t`$, respectively. The function $`A(t,r)`$ is given by

$$A^2(t,r)=\frac{(R^{})^2}{1+f(r)}.$$
(14)
The functions $`t_s(r)`$, $`f(r)>1`$ and $`F(r)0`$ are arbitrary and one of them corresponds to the gauge freedom. The first two relate to the big bang time and the total energy per unit mass for the shell at radius $`r`$. The third relates to the mass within radius $`r`$, the density of the dust being given by

$$\rho =\frac{F^{}}{8\pi R^2R^{}}.$$
(15)
## 4 Method

We are interested in the behavior of the scalar field long after the black hole has formed. In this case, the characteristic method is suitable. This method was first applied to the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi background by Iguchi, Nakao and Harada . If we introduce the retarded time $`u`$, the line element becomes

$$ds^2=\alpha (u,\overline{r})du^22\alpha (u,\overline{\alpha })A(u,\overline{r})dud\overline{r}+R^2(u,\overline{r})d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(16)
where $`\alpha `$ must satisfy

$$\frac{}{\overline{r}}\alpha =\dot{A}\alpha .$$
(17)
In terms of the derivatives, $`d/du`$ and $`/\overline{r}`$, the d’Alembertian is given by

$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha AR}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi }{du}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A^3R}}\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{AR}}\left[(A\dot{R})^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^{}}{A}}\right)^{}\right]\varphi ,`$ (18)
$`\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{r}}}(R\varphi ).`$ (19)
We can then integrate Eq. (4) along the characteristic curves, i.e., null geodesics. With this choice of coordinate system, we can calculate the behavior of the scalar field long after black hole formation without having to impose boundary conditions on the event horizon.

## 5 Models

As we have seen, the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi solution has three arbitrary functions. We want to obtain models which describe a PBH in a flat FRW universe by fixing these functions appropriately. Here we adopt the following assumptions: the big bang occurs at the same time everywhere; the model is asymptotically flat FRW, which requires the overdense region to be compensated by a surrounding underdense region; the model is free from naked singularities. In order to satisfy these assumptions, we first choose

$$t_s(r)=0,$$
(20)
and

$$f(r)=\{\begin{array}{c}\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\text{for}r<r_w\hfill \\ \left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{rr_w}{r_w}\right)^4\right]\text{for}rr_w\hfill \end{array},$$
(21)
where $`r_c`$ and $`r_w`$ are the curvature scale and the size of the overdense region. Using the arbitrary function $`F(r)`$, we then set the radial coordinate $`r`$ to be

$$r=R(t_0,r)$$
(22)
where $`t=t_0`$ is the initial time.

Before integrating Eq. (4), we have to fix the initial data for $`\varphi `$, so we choose the cosmological homogeneous solution given by

$$\varphi =\varphi _0\left(1+\frac{1}{3+2\omega }\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{ln}\frac{t}{t_0}\right).$$
(23)
We set the initial null hypersurface as the null cone whose vertex is at $`(t,r)=(t_0,0)`$ and regard the cosmological solution as the initial data on this hypersurface. Although the value of the scalar field at the cosmological particle horizon must be given by this solution, the value in the perturbed region may be different from this. We have therefore examined the effects of other initial data which are different from the cosmological solution in the perturbed region. However, the results are not changed much.

## 6 Results

We adopt units in which the asymptotic value of the Hubble parameter at $`t=t_0`$ is unity. We set the parameters which specify the initial data as $`r_c=2`$ and $`r_w=1`$, while the Brans-Dicke parameter is chosen as $`\omega =5`$. It is noted that $`r_c`$ must satisfy $`r_c\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}r_w`$, else the overdense region is isolated from the rest of the universe, as Carr and Hawking  pointed out.

The results are shown in Figs. 1-3. In Figs. 1 (a) and (b), a set of initial data for the background geometry is shown. The initial density perturbation $`\delta `$ is defined as

$$\delta (t,r)\frac{\rho (t,r)\rho (t,\mathrm{})}{\rho (t,\mathrm{})}.$$
(24)
In Fig. 2, the trajectories of outgoing light rays in this background geometry are shown. It is shown that the event horizon is formed at $`R10`$.

The results of integrating Eq. (4) are shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \frac{\varphi (t,r)\varphi _0}{\varphi _0}.$$
(25)
It is found that the value of the scalar field around the black hole is slightly smaller than the asymptotic value because of the underdensity of the surrounding region. Nevertheless, the scalar field as a whole is almost spatially homogeneous at each moment, in spite of the existence of the black hole. The evolution of the scalar field near the event horizon is well described by the cosmological homogeneous solution.

## 7 Summary

We have calculated the evolution of the Brans-Dicke scalar field in the presence of a primordial black hole formed in a flat FRW universe. We have found that the value of the scalar field at the event horizon almost maintains the cosmological value at each moment. This suggests that primordial black holes “forget” the value of the gravitational constant at their formation epoch. However, it should be stressed that this result has only been demonstrated for a dust universe in which the scalar field does not appreciably affect the background curvature. It remains to be seen whether the same conclusion applies when these assumptions are dropped.

We are grateful to T. Nakamura for helpful discussions and useful comments.