text:
# Electron Addition Spectrum in the Supersymmetric 𝑡-𝐽 Model with Inverse-Square Interaction

## Abstract

The electron addition spectrum $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ is obtained analytically for the one-dimensional (1D) supersymmetric $`t`$-$`J`$ model with $`1/r^2`$ interaction. The result is obtained first for a small-sized system and its validity is checked against the numerical calculation. Then the general expression is found which is valid for arbitrary size of the system. The thermodynamic limit of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ has a simple analytic form with contributions from one spinon, one holon and one antiholon all of which obey fractional statistics. The upper edge of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ in the $`(k,\omega )`$ plane includes a delta-function peak which reduces to that of the single-electron band in the low-density limit.

The concept of spinons and holons, both of which obey the fractional statistics , has turned out to be useful in approaching to 1D electron systems. In terms of these quasi-particles one can inquire into not only the low-energy and low-wavelength limit, but the global feature of the dynamics. Hence special interest has been cherished in the global dynamics from both theoretical and experimental points of view. For example, angle resolved photoemission  has revealed some evidence of the spin-charge separation by resolution of holon and spinon contributions. On the theoretical side, numerical studies have been performed for the 1D t-J model for a small number of lattice sites  and some structures have been ascribed to spinons and holons. For deeper understanding of the overall dynamics, demand is growing for analytic theory which can go to the thermodynamic limit. Partly analytic theory is available for the single-particle spectral functions of the t-J model in the $`J0`$ limit . A notable feature is that a satellite band is observed whose intensity is comparable to that of the main band. It is natural to ask how the finite $`J`$ influences the dynamics.

In the supersymmetric t-J model with $`1/r^2`$ interaction , spinons and holons appear in the simplest manner. In fact exact thermodynamics for the model  can be interpreted in terms of free spinons and holons. Ha and Haldane  analyzed numerical results for dynamics in finite-sized systems, and found that only a few number of elementary excitations contribute to spectral functions. They proposed a momentum-frequency region where each spectral function takes nonzero values in the thermodynamic limit, but they did not obtain the spectral functions themselves. Recently, exact results have been derived for a particular component , and for a particular momentum range of the spectral weight .

In this paper we report on the analytical result of the electron addition spectrum for the t-J model at zero temperature. The electron addition spectral function is relevant to the angle resolved inverse photoemission spectroscopy. Our result constitutes the first analytical knowledge for dynamical quantities of lattice electrons with no restriction on the system size, the density and the momentum-frequency range. Although we cannot provide the formal proof for the exactness, the analytic results show complete agreement with numerical results for finite systems with various sizes. Hence our result in the thermodynamic limit is also expected to be exact.

We consider the supersymmetric $`t`$-$`J`$ model given by

$`_{tJ}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}[t_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =,}{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+h.c.)`$ (2)
$`+J_{ij}(𝑺_i𝑺_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_in_j)]𝒫,`$
where $`c_{i\sigma }`$ is the annihilation operator of an electron at site $`i`$ with spin $`\sigma `$, $`n_i`$ is the number operator and $`𝑺_i`$ is the spin operator. The projection operator $`𝒫`$ excludes double occupation at each site. The transfer and exchange energies are given by $`t_{ij}=J_{ij}/2=tD_{ij}^2`$ where $`D_{ij}=(N/\pi )\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \left(ij\right)/N\right)`$ with even $`N`$ being the number of lattice sites, and the lattice constant is unity. The electron addition spectral function with the ground state $`|0`$ is defined by

$`A^+(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}|\nu ;N_\mathrm{e}+1|c_{k\sigma }^{}|0;N_\mathrm{e}|^2`$ (4)
$`\times \delta \left(\omega E_\nu (N_\mathrm{e}+1)+E_0(N_\mathrm{e})+\zeta \right),`$
where $`N_\mathrm{e}`$ is the total electron number, $`\zeta `$ the chemical potential, $`c_{k\sigma }^{}=N^{1/2}_lc_{l\sigma }^{}e^{\mathrm{i}kl}`$, and $`|\nu `$ denotes an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian with energy $`E_\nu `$.

We first give our main result and then its derivation. The addition spectrum includes the dispersion relations $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}(q)`$ of spinons, $`ϵ_\mathrm{h}(q)`$ of holons, and $`ϵ_\mathrm{a}(q)`$ of antiholons. They are given in units of $`t`$ by  $`ϵ_\mathrm{s}(q)=q(v_\mathrm{s}q)`$, $`ϵ_\mathrm{h}(q)=q(v_\mathrm{c}+q)`$ and $`ϵ_\mathrm{a}(q)=q(2v_\mathrm{c}q)/2`$, where $`v_\mathrm{s}=\pi `$ and $`v_\mathrm{c}=\pi (1\overline{n})`$ with $`\overline{n}=N_\mathrm{e}/N=2k_\mathrm{F}/\pi `$.

Analytical expression of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ with $`0k<2\pi `$ consists of the following components:

$$A^+(k,\omega )=A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )+A_\mathrm{L}(k,\omega )+A_\mathrm{U}(k,\omega ),$$
(5)
where

$`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{k_\mathrm{F}}}𝑑q_\mathrm{h}{\displaystyle _0^{k_\mathrm{F}q_\mathrm{h}}}𝑑q_\mathrm{s}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi 4k_\mathrm{F}}}𝑑q_\mathrm{a}`$ (9)
$`\times \delta (kk_\mathrm{F}q_\mathrm{s}q_\mathrm{h}q_\mathrm{a})`$
$`\times \delta (\omega ϵ_\mathrm{s}(q_\mathrm{s})ϵ_\mathrm{h}(q_\mathrm{h})ϵ_\mathrm{a}(q_\mathrm{a}))`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_\mathrm{s}(q_\mathrm{s})^{g_\mathrm{s}1}ϵ_\mathrm{h}(q_\mathrm{h})^{g_\mathrm{h}1}ϵ_\mathrm{a}(q_\mathrm{a})^{g_\mathrm{a}1}}{(q_\mathrm{h}+q_\mathrm{a}/2)^2}},`$
and $`A_\mathrm{L}(k,\omega )=A_\mathrm{R}(2\pi k,\omega )`$. In Eq.(9) we have $`g_\mathrm{s}=1/2`$, $`g_\mathrm{h}=1/2`$ and $`g_\mathrm{a}=2`$, which correspond to statistical parameters of spinons, holons, and antiholons, respectively . Thus the matrix element in Eq.(9) can be interpreted in terms of the fractional statistics as in the case of correlation functions in related continuum systems . The third component is given by

$$A_\mathrm{U}(k,\omega )=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ_\mathrm{a}(k2k_\mathrm{F})}{ϵ_0(k)}}\delta (\omega \omega _{\mathrm{aU}}(k)),$$
(10)
which contributes only in the region $`2k_\mathrm{F}k2\pi 2k_\mathrm{F}`$. Here $`ϵ_0(k)k(\pi k/2)`$ describes the spectrum of non-interacting electrons, and $`\omega _{\mathrm{aU}}(k)ϵ_\mathrm{s}(k_\mathrm{F})+ϵ_\mathrm{a}(k2k_\mathrm{F}).`$ The $`A_\mathrm{U}(k,\omega )`$ can be regarded as contribution from antiholons with fixed-energies of spinons and holons. In the dilute limit $`(k_\mathrm{F}0)`$, $`\omega _{\mathrm{aU}}(k)`$ as well as $`ϵ_\mathrm{a}(k2k_\mathrm{F})`$ tend to $`ϵ_0(k)`$. Hence the coefficient in Eq.(10) becomes unity, and $`A_\mathrm{U}(k,\omega )`$ tends to the spectral intensity of non-interacting electrons. The other contributions $`A_{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{L}}(k,\omega )`$ can be neglected in this limit.

Figure 1 shows the spectral edges by solid lines together with the spectral intensities for a finite system as explained later. The threshold behavior in $`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ is derived as follows: As the frequency approaches an upper edge given by $`\omega _\mathrm{s}(k)ϵ_\mathrm{s}(kk_\mathrm{F})`$ with $`k_\mathrm{F}k2k_\mathrm{F}`$, $`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ diverges as $`[\omega _\mathrm{s}(k)\omega ]^{1/2}`$. Along the connecting upper edge for $`2k_\mathrm{F}k2\pi 2k_\mathrm{F}`$, $`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ has a stepwise discontinuity such as $`\theta (\omega _{\mathrm{aU}}(k)\omega )`$. Here $`\theta (x)`$ is a Heaviside step function. On the other hand, near a lower edge given by $`\omega _\mathrm{h}(k)ϵ_\mathrm{h}(k+3k_\mathrm{F}2\pi )`$ with $`2\pi 3k_\mathrm{F}k2\pi 2k_\mathrm{F}`$, $`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ behaves as $`[\omega \omega _\mathrm{h}(k)]^{3/2}`$. The feature is in contrast to the result of Ref.4 where the spectrum is enhanced near $`\omega _\mathrm{h}(k)`$. Finally near another lower edge given by $`\omega _{\mathrm{aL}}(k)ϵ_\mathrm{a}(kk_\mathrm{F})`$ with $`k_\mathrm{F}k2\pi 3k_\mathrm{F}`$, there is a stepwise discontinuity such as $`\theta (\omega \omega _{\mathrm{aL}}(k))`$. We note that the asymptotic behavior of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ is fully consistent with the conformal field theory .

Let us describe derivation of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$. We represent a state vector $`|\psi `$ in the t-J model by

$$|\psi =\underset{x^\mathrm{h},x^\mathrm{s}}{}\psi (x^\mathrm{h},x^\mathrm{s})\underset{ix^\mathrm{s}}{}S_i^{}\underset{jx^\mathrm{h}}{}h_j^{}|F.$$
(11)
where $`|F`$ is the fully up-polarized state, $`S_i^{}=c_{i,}^{}c_{i,}`$, and $`h_i^{}=c_{i,}`$. The set of coordinates $`(x^\mathrm{h},x^\mathrm{s})x`$ represents $`x=(x_0^\mathrm{h},\mathrm{},x_{N_\mathrm{h}}^\mathrm{h},x_1^\mathrm{s},\mathrm{},x_{N_\mathrm{s}}^\mathrm{s})`$ $`=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ with $`n=N_\mathrm{h}+N_\mathrm{s}`$. Here $`x_i^\mathrm{h}`$ is for the $`i`$-th hole and $`x_j^\mathrm{s}`$ is for the $`j`$-th down-spin electron. In order to derive eigenfunctions of the system, it is convenient to use the Sutherland model  with the SU(1,1) supersymmetry as an auxiliary . The merit of using the Sutherland model is that much more is known about properties of the eigenfunctions than those for the t-J model. The eigenfunctions with the coupling parameter $`\beta =1`$ correspond to such part of the set $`\{\psi (x^\mathrm{h},x^\mathrm{s})\}`$ that belongs to the Yangian highest weight states (YHWS) with the SU(2,1) supersymmetry . In making the correspondence one restricts the coordinates $`x`$ to integer variables. It is convenient to introduce the complex coordinate by $`z_j=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ix_j/L)`$ where $`L(=N)`$ is the length of the ring-shaped system. The YHWS can be expressed by polynomials of $`z_j`$ where the degree of each variables lies in the range $`[N/2,N/2]`$. The YHWS form a subset of the Fock space and the other states can be generated by successive actions of Yangian generators on the YHWS.

The ground-state wave function for the t-J model with $`N_\mathrm{h}+1`$ holes and $`N_\mathrm{s}=N_\mathrm{e}/2`$ down-spin electrons is given by

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i[0,n]}{}}z_i^{\beta n/2}{\displaystyle \underset{iI_\mathrm{s}}{}}z_i^{(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2}`$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{i<j[0,n]}{}}(z_iz_j)^\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i<jI_\mathrm{s}}{}}(z_iz_j),`$
where we have introduced the interval $`I_\mathrm{s}=[N_\mathrm{h}+1,N_\mathrm{h}+N_\mathrm{s}]`$ for the suffices $`i`$ and $`j`$. We have assumed that both $`N_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{h}`$ are odd so that the ground state is non-degenerate. In the following we always take $`\beta =1`$. We fix a hole position at $`x_0^\mathrm{h}=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}}`$ which corresponds to adding an up-spin electron at this site. In terms of the ground-state wave function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{GS}}`$ for the system with $`N_\mathrm{h}`$ holes and $`N_\mathrm{s}`$ down-spin electrons, we can represent the resultant state by

$`.\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}}|_{x_0=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^me_m(z)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{GS}},`$ (14)
where $`e_m(z)=_{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_mI}z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_m}`$ is the elementary symmetric function of order $`m`$. Note that the interval $`[0,n]`$ in Eq.(13) is replaced by another interval $`I=[1,n]`$ in Eq.(14).

The spectrum of the Sutherland model $`_{\mathrm{Su}}`$ is conveniently analyzed with use of a similarity transformation generated by $`𝒪=_{i<jI}\left(z_iz_j\right)^\beta _{iI}z_i^{(\beta n+N_\mathrm{s}1)/2}`$. We obtain $`\widehat{}𝒪^1_{\mathrm{Su}}𝒪`$ as follows:

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\widehat{d}_i+\frac{\beta n}{2}\frac{N_\mathrm{s}1}{2}\right)^2,$$
(15)
where $`\widehat{d}_i`$ is called the Cherednik-Dunkl operator. It is known that the set $`\{\widehat{d}_i\}`$ can be diagonalized simultaneously with real eigenvalue $`\overline{\lambda }_i`$ for each $`\widehat{d}_i`$. The resultant eigenfunctions are polynomials $`E_\lambda (z;\beta )`$ of $`z_i`$ and are called the non-symmetric Jack polynomials. The polynomial $`E_\lambda (z;\beta )`$ has a $`triangular`$ structure with respect to a certain ordering on the set of $`\{\lambda \}`$ ; if one expands $`E_\lambda (z;\beta )`$ in terms of monomials $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iz_i^{\nu _i}`$, the expansion coefficient is zero unless $`\lambda \nu `$, where $``$ describes the ordering relation in the set.

Since we are dealing with identical particles, eigenfunctions should satisfy the following conditions of the SU(1,1) supersymmetry:
(i) symmetric with respect to exchange of $`z_i^\mathrm{h}`$’s;
(ii) anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of $`z_i^\mathrm{s}`$’s.
By taking linear combination of $`E_\lambda (z;\beta )`$, we can construct another polynomial $`K_\lambda (z;\beta )`$ with the SU(1,1) supersymmetry . We specify the set of momenta as $`(\lambda ^\mathrm{h},\lambda ^\mathrm{s})(\lambda _1^\mathrm{h},\mathrm{},\lambda _{N_\mathrm{h}}^\mathrm{h},\lambda _1^\mathrm{s},\mathrm{},\lambda _{N_\mathrm{s}}^\mathrm{s})`$ with $`\lambda _1^\mathrm{h}\mathrm{}\lambda _{N_\mathrm{h}}^\mathrm{h},\lambda _1^\mathrm{s}>\mathrm{}>\lambda _{N_\mathrm{s}}^\mathrm{s}`$. In this way we can parameterize $`K_\lambda (z;\beta )`$ by using $`\lambda (\lambda ^\mathrm{h},\lambda ^\mathrm{s})`$. At the ground state with $`2N_\mathrm{s}+1`$ electrons we have $`\lambda =\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\mathrm{GS}}=(\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{h},\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{s})`$ with $`\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{h}=((N_\mathrm{s}1)/2,(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2,\mathrm{},(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2)`$, and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{s}=(N_\mathrm{s}1,N_\mathrm{s}2,\mathrm{},0)`$.

We define the inner product $`f,g_0`$ for complex functions $`f(z)`$ and $`g(z)`$ as the constant term in the Laurent expansion of $`f(z)^{}g(z)`$. As is clear from the definition of the transformation $`𝒪`$, $`K_\lambda (z;\beta )𝒪(z)`$ is orthogonal with respect to the above inner product. In order to derive the norm of $`K_\lambda (z;\beta )`$, we generalize the procedure taken in Refs.. The result of lengthy calculation is given by

$$K_\lambda 𝒪,K_\lambda 𝒪_0=N_\mathrm{h}!N_\mathrm{s}!\rho _\lambda ^1E_\lambda 𝒪,E_\lambda 𝒪_0,$$
(16)
where $`E_\lambda 𝒪,E_\lambda 𝒪_0`$ denotes the norm of the non-symmetric Jack polynomials. We refer to the literature  for the explicit form of the latter norm since it requires many lengthy combinatorial quantities. The quantity $`\rho _\lambda =\rho _\lambda ^\mathrm{h}\rho _\lambda ^\mathrm{s}`$ is given by

$$\rho _\lambda ^\mathrm{h}=\underset{i<jI_\mathrm{h}}{}\frac{\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_j+\beta }{\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_j},\rho _\lambda ^\mathrm{s}=\underset{i<jI_\mathrm{s}}{}\frac{\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_j\beta }{\overline{\lambda }_i\overline{\lambda }_j},$$
(17)
where we use the intervals $`I_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`I_\mathrm{h}=[1,N_\mathrm{h}]`$ for the suffices $`i`$ and $`j`$.

In order to calculate $`A^+(k,\omega )`$, we need to know the expansion coefficient $`c_\lambda `$ which appears in

$$e_m(z)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{GS}}=\underset{\lambda }{}c_\lambda K_\lambda (z;\beta )𝒪(z).$$
(18)
Using the coefficient $`c_\lambda `$, $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ can be expressed as

$$A^+(k,\omega )=N_\mathrm{h}\underset{\lambda }{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda )|c_\lambda |^2\frac{K_\lambda 𝒪,K_\lambda 𝒪_0}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}}_0},$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda =E_\lambda E_0\zeta `$, the chemical potential $`\zeta `$ for the finite $`N`$ is given by $`\zeta /\pi ^2=(3\overline{n}^26\overline{n}+4)/12(\overline{n}2)/(2N)+1/(3N^2),`$ and the prime means that the summation over $`\lambda `$ is restricted by the momentum conservation $`|\lambda |=|\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{\mathrm{GS}}|+m`$ with $`|\lambda |=_j\lambda _j`$ and $`k=2\pi (m+(N_\mathrm{s}+1)/2)/N`$. The norm $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}},\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{GS}}_0`$ can be obtained by a procedure similar to that described above.

From the $`triangular`$ structure inherited to $`K_\lambda `$, the contributions to the excited states are limited to the cases where $`\lambda ^\mathrm{s}=\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{s}+(1^{\lambda _\mathrm{s}},0^{N_\mathrm{s}\lambda _\mathrm{s}})`$. Here $`p^\alpha `$ means the sequence $`p,\mathrm{},p`$ with the number of $`p`$’s being $`\alpha `$. Therefore the spin part can be parameterized by the single variable $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}`$. We first calculate $`K_\lambda `$ by a brute force for small systems (up to $`N_\mathrm{h}=5`$ and $`N_\mathrm{s}=15`$) in the small momentum region $`m(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2`$. In this region, we have $`\lambda ^\mathrm{h}=\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{h}+\nu `$. The coefficient $`c_\lambda `$ is zero if the partition $`\nu `$ contains $`s=(2,2)`$ where $`s=(i,j)`$ denotes a square in the Young diagram . We find that the results for $`K_\lambda `$ are expressed in the following form:

$$c_\lambda =\underset{s\nu }{}\frac{a^{}(s)+1+\beta ^{}(l^{}(s)1)}{a(s)+1+\beta ^{}l(s)},$$
(20)
where $`\beta ^{}=\beta /(\beta +1)=1/2`$, $`a(s)=\nu _ij`$ (arm-length), $`a^{}(s)=j1`$ (arm-colength), $`l(s)=\nu _j^{}i`$ (leg-length) with $`\nu _j^{}`$ the length of the column, and $`l^{}(s)=i1`$ (leg-colength). Thus, we can parameterize $`\nu `$ as $`\nu =(\lambda _\mathrm{h},1^{\lambda _\mathrm{a}1},0^{N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}})`$ in this small momentum region. Namely $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ is determined by the three parameters $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}`$, $`\lambda _\mathrm{h}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{a}`$, which are related directly with momenta of the excitations. We have checked numerically that the expression given by Eq.(20) can in fact be extended beyond the small momentum region. Note that $`c_\lambda `$ is independent of $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}`$ which, however, enters $`A^+(k,\omega )`$ through the norm $`K_\lambda 𝒪,K_\lambda 𝒪_0`$.

We thus obtain the finite-size version of Eq.(9):

$`A_\mathrm{R}(k,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{}_{}{}^{^{}}I_{\mathrm{R}}^{}(\lambda )\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda )`$ (21)
and similar results with the suffix R replaced by L and U. In Eq.(21) we have

$`I_\mathrm{R}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{h}1/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{h}+N_\mathrm{h}/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{h})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{h}+(N_\mathrm{h}+1)/2)}}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\mathrm{a}(N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}+1)}{(2\lambda _\mathrm{h}+\lambda _\mathrm{a}1)(2\lambda _\mathrm{h}+\lambda _\mathrm{a}2)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{s}+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda _\mathrm{s}+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N/2\lambda _\mathrm{s})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((N+1)/2\lambda _\mathrm{s})}},`$
with $`Nk/(2\pi )=\lambda _\mathrm{h}+\lambda _\mathrm{a}+\lambda _\mathrm{s}+(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{N^2}}[\lambda _\mathrm{s}(N12\lambda _\mathrm{s}).`$ (26)
$`.+\lambda _\mathrm{h}(2\lambda _\mathrm{h}+N_\mathrm{h}2)+(\lambda _\mathrm{a}1)(N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a})].`$
The $`triangularity`$ leads to $`0\lambda _\mathrm{s}+\lambda _\mathrm{h}(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2`$. The parameter $`\lambda _\mathrm{a}`$ varies from zero to $`N_\mathrm{h}`$. For the case where $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}>(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2`$, we use the reflection symmetry about $`k=\pi `$. We obtain $`I_\mathrm{L}(\lambda )=I_\mathrm{R}(\overline{\lambda })`$ where the components in $`\overline{\lambda }=(\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{s},\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{h},\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{a})`$ are given by $`\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{s}=N_\mathrm{s}\lambda _\mathrm{s}`$, and by the relation $`\lambda ^\mathrm{h}+(0^{N_\mathrm{h}\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{a}},1^{\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{a}1},\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{h})=\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{h}+(1^{N_\mathrm{h}}).`$ We obtain the allowed range $`0\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{s}+\overline{\lambda }_\mathrm{h}(N_\mathrm{s}+1)/2`$.

Finally the case where $`\lambda _\mathrm{s}=(N_\mathrm{s}1)/2`$ should be considered separately. In this case, the $`triangular`$ structure requires that $`c_\lambda `$ should be unity, and that $`\lambda ^\mathrm{h}=\lambda _{\mathrm{GS}}^\mathrm{h}+(1^{\lambda _\mathrm{a}},0^{N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}})`$ with $`1\lambda _\mathrm{a}N_\mathrm{h}`$. We obtain for this special case

$`I_\mathrm{U}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\lambda _\mathrm{a}+2)/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}+2)/2]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(\lambda _\mathrm{a}+1)/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}+1)/2]}}`$ (28)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{s}+\lambda _\mathrm{a})/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{s}+N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}+2)/2]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{s}+\lambda _\mathrm{a}+1)/2]\mathrm{\Gamma }[(N_\mathrm{s}+N_\mathrm{h}\lambda _\mathrm{a}+2)/2]}},`$
where $`Nk/(2\pi )=\lambda _\mathrm{a}+N_\mathrm{s}`$. The excitation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\lambda `$ is given by Eq.(26) in the case $`(\lambda _\mathrm{s},\lambda _\mathrm{h},\lambda _\mathrm{a})=((N_\mathrm{s}1)/2,1,\lambda _\mathrm{a})`$. Thus in terms of $`I_\mathrm{R}`$, $`I_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`I_\mathrm{U}`$ we obtain the finite-size version of $`A^+(k,\omega )`$.

In Fig. 1, we present the result for $`N=60`$, $`N_\mathrm{h}=29`$ and $`N_\mathrm{s}=15`$. We have checked the validity of Eqs.(24) and (28) by comparison with numerical results up to $`N=16`$ . In the special case $`\nu =(0^{N_\mathrm{h}})`$, momenta of the holon and the antiholon are both zero, and we obtain a form different from Eq.(24). However, this case can be neglected in the thermodynamic limit. Following the same procedure as that in the spinless Sutherland model , we obtain the expressions (9) and (10) in the thermodynamic limit.

We hope that the quasi-particle structure discussed in this paper is found in future experiment of inverse photoemission.

The authors would like to thank Y. Kato and T. Yamamoto for valuable discussions. M. A. wishes to thank the support of the Visitor Program of the MPI-PKS.


format: text

text:
# MM/SUBMM OBSERVATIONS OF SYMBIOTIC BINARY STARS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MASS LOSS AND MASS EXCHANGE11footnote 1Paper presented at COSPAR 2000 “New Results in FIR and Submm Astronomy”, to be published in Adv. Space Res.

## INTRODUCTION

Symbiotic stars are long-period interacting binaries composed of an evolved cool giant and a hot and luminous companion – in most cases a wind-accreting post-AGB star – surrounded by an ionized nebula. The nature of the cool giant plays a key role in the symbiotic phenomenon: it constrains the size of the binary, which must have enough room for a red giant, and yet allow the giant to transfer sufficient mass to its companion. As a result, we have two distinct classes of symbiotic binaries: the S-type (stellar) with normal red giants and orbital periods of about 1–15 yr, and the D-type (dusty) with Mira primaries usually surrounded by a warm dust shell and orbital periods generally longer than 15 yr. The hot star in most cases appears to be a white dwarf powered by thermonuclear burning of the material accreted from its companion wind. The presence of both the evolved giant, often heavily losing mass, and the hot companion copious in ionizing photons and in many cases possesing its own wind lends a large variety to the circumstellar environment of symbiotic stars. In particular, one can expect: ionized and neutral region; dust forming region(s); accretion/excretion disks; interacting winds; bipolar outflows and jets.

Such a complex multi-component structure makes symbiotic stars a very attractive laboratory to study evolution and interaction of binary systems, and excellent targets for both ground-based and space observations in practically any spectral range. The radio and far infrared studies are here of great importance as they can best probe the circumstellar evelopes of symbiotic binaries providing information about stellar winds and their interaction.

So far $`25`$% of all symbiotic stars have been detected at cm radio range. In practically all cases, the radio emission is consistent with free-free radiation from ionised gas (Seaquist & Taylor 1990, hereafter ST90). Seaquist et al. (1984) proposed a simple binary model (the STB model) in which the radio emission originates from a conical region of the red giant wind ionized by the hot companion. The geometry of this region is governed by a single parameter, $`X`$, which depends on the red giant mass-loss rate, the binary separation, and the Lyman continuum luminosity of the ionizing source. The predicted radio spectrum turns over from optically thick to optically thin emission at a turnover frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, which is related to the binary parameters. The observations of $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ in quiescent S-type systems with known orbital parameters thus provides a critical test for the STB model. Unfortunately, the spectral turnovers have been thusfar determined only in either D-type systems (where orbital periods are not known) or S-type systems – e.g. AG Peg – recovering from nova-type outbursts (Seaquist & Taylor 1992; Ivison et al. 1992, 1995).

In the following, we present and discuss preliminary results of mm/submm observations of a sample of quiescent S-type symbiotic systems. In particular, we show that they are in general consistent with the predictions of the STB model. We also estimate mass-loss rates for the cool giant and discuss relations between intensity of the mass loss and other parameters of these binary systems.

## OBSERVATIONS

In February 1997, a sample of about 40 symbiotic stars was surveyed at 1.3 mm witth the IRAM 30-m MRT. In 1997-98, 12 of these objects were also observed with the JMCT at 2, 1.3, 0.85 and 0.45 mm, respectively. We have combined our mm/submm flux densities with other published data to provide information about the continuum spectra in the radio/IR region for all of the symbiotic systems in our sample. In particular, cm-wave data were from Seaquist & Taylor (1990, hereafter ST90) and Seaquist et al. (1993, hereafter SKT93); $`IRAS`$ fluxes were from Kenyon et al. (1988); near-IR photometric data were from Kenyon (1988) and Munari et al. (1992). We have ignored the possible effect of time variability on the interpretation of these spectra although we are aware of its importance, at least in some systems.

For the following analyses we have selected 20 S-type systems quiescent at the time of our observations. Most of these systems are also well-studied in the optical and UV; the appropriate binary periods are known for 14 of them, and for 7 systems we also have spectroscopic orbits (Belczyński et al. 2000). symbiotic binaries.

## TESTING THE STB MODEL

Figure 1 shows the relation between the radio flux density at 1.3 mm plotted vs. the H$`\beta `$ flux corrected for interstellar extinction. The diagonal lines represent optically thin case B emission for electron temperatures appropriate for symbiotic nebulae. The systematic downward displacement with respect to the band shown suggests that the radio emission is optically thick at least up to $`1.3`$ mm (243 GHz) in agreement with the STB model which predicts the spectral turnover at $`10^3`$ GHz, i.e. at submm wavelengths, for typical quiescent S-type systems (SKT93). The mm radio emission shows also some correlation with the mid-IR flux, and the radio luminosity increases with the $`K[12]`$ colour (Figure 2), which indicates that both the ionised gas and warm dust are involved in the mass flow, and suggest that the cool giant may be the source of this material. Similar results were obtained by SKT93 based on cm radio observations.

In fact, all stars in our sample but CI Cyg have continua that rise with increasing frequency in cm–mm range, and our IRAM and JMCT data together with other radio data show a single power law with slope $`+0.6`$ over nearly 3 decades in frequency. In Figure 3, for example, we show the spectrum of RW Hya, which is typical for non-variable S-type systems, and eruptive systems in quiescence. To constrain the turnover frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, for RW Hya, and other well-studied systems, we have estimated the optically thin ff emission in the mm range using the H I ff+bf emission measure derived from the optical and UV data.

In the STB model, knowledge of $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ allows to estimate the binary separation, $`a`$, which can then be compared with the independently known values. For a range in $`X`$ covering two orders of magnitude, the binary separation within a factor of 2 is (ST90; Mikołajewska & Ivison 2001)

$$a=300(T_\mathrm{e}/10^4\mathrm{K})^{1/2}(\nu _\mathrm{t}/\mathrm{GHz})^1(S_\mathrm{t}/\mathrm{mJy})^{1/2}(d/\mathrm{kpc})\mathrm{a}.\mathrm{u}.$$
(1)
where $`S_\mathrm{t}`$ is the optically thin flux near the turnover, and d is the distance.

The comparison of binary separations predicted by Eq.(1) is shown in Figure 4, and it provides the strongest support for the STB model.

The only system for which the STB model does not work is CI Cyg, which shows flat continuum in mm/sub-mm range with a turnover at $`27`$ GHz. Both the relatively low turnover frequency (as compared with other quiet S-type systems in our sample) and optically thin flux density require parameters entirely inconsistent with the well-known binary parameters of CI Cyg (Mikołajewska & Ivison 2001). One possible cause of its low, optically thin radio emission (as compared with its very strong H i bf+ff and line emission in the optical and near UV) is that CI Cyg is one of the few symbiotic systems, in which the M giant shows strong tidal distortion, and losses mass via Roche-lobe overflow rather than via stellar wind.

## IONIZATION GEOMETRY

Most systems in our sample have radio spectra with the optically thick spectral index $`\alpha `$ greater than 0.6, which implies an ionization geometry with $`X<\pi /4`$, and for these cases knowledge of both the turnover frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$, and $`\alpha `$ provides a measure of the value of $`X`$ which is related to the physical parameters of the system by the expresion (ST90, STB)

$$X=4.7\times 10^{17}(a/\mathrm{a}.\mathrm{u}.)(L_{\mathrm{ph}}/10^{46})[(\dot{M}/v)/(\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1/\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1)]^2$$
(2)
where $`L_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is the Lyman continuum photon luminosity of the hot component, while $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v`$ are the mass-loss rate the terminal wind velocity of the cool giant, respectively. The spectral index never exceeds 0.8, which implies $`X0.2`$ (STB).

This is consistent with results of numerical simulations of Raman scattered O vi $`\lambda \lambda `$ 6825, 7082 emission lines observed in many symbiotic stars which suggest that symbiotic systems have preferentially an ionization geometry with an $`X`$-parameter of about 1, which means that the ’average shape’ of the ionization front does not differ significantly from the plane between the two stellar components (Schmid 1996). Moreover, the observed properties of the Raman scattered O vi lines in AG Dra, Z And, and few other systems suggest scattering geometry with $`0.4X4`$ (Schmid & Schild 1997a,b). Finally, recent study of optical spectra of 67 symbiotic systems shows that more than 50% of them have the O vi 6825 feature (Mikołajewska et al. 1997). The hot component luminosity in these systems is correlated with the luminosity in the O vi 6825 line, which can be qualitatively understood in terms of similar scattering geometry, and so similar efficiency of the scattering process, for all systems that show this feature. In our sample, 7 objects show the O vi lines, and it seems reasonable to assume that all of them have, within a factor of 4, $`X1`$.

## MASS-LOSS RATES

To estimate mass-loss rates for symbiotic giants from radio data, Wright & Barlow’s (1975) relation is usually applied. This relation, however, underestimates $`\dot{M}`$ if the wind is only partially ionized, which seems to be the case for most if not all quiescent symbiotic systems. SKT93 estimated the magnitude of this underestimate from numerical models as a factor of 2, 1.5 and 1.15 for $`X=0.5,1,`$ and 5, respectively. Comparison of our estimates with $`\dot{M}`$’s for field giants (e.g. Dupree 1986) shows that symbiotic giants have systematically higher mass-loss rates than normal red giants do, and $`\dot{M}/v`$ is only weakly correlated with the spectral type of the giant (Figure 5).

Similar conclusion was reached by SKT93 based on analysis of radio emission at 3.6 cm, and Kenyon et al. (1988), who found that many symbiotic giants have large $`[25][12]`$ and $`K[12]`$ colour excesses that are not caused by interstellar extinction. Figure 6 shows that our mass-loss rates are correlated with $`K[12]`$ colour.

There are at least two possible explanation for the higher than average mass- loss rates for symbiotic giants. First, it can be a selection effect in the sense that only the very evolved giants, and so those with the highest mass- loss rates, can support symbiotic behaviour in widely separated binary systems. Second, it is possible that the mass-loss rate of the symbiotic giant is enhanced by its binary companion, which reduces the gravity at some points in the outflowing material due to illumination heating and/or causes tidal friction and perhaps enhanced dynamo activity. Tout & Eggleton (1988) argued that the tidal friction enhances mass loss by up to $`2`$ orders of magnitude in binary systems containing red giants. Tidal interactions are certainly important in symbiotic systems as suggested by practically circular orbits of all our target sample, as well as of most ($`80`$%) other symbiotic systems with known orbital solutions (Belczyński et al. 2000).

On the other hand, Figure 7 shows that the giant mass-loss rate is apparently correlated with the hot component luminosity, $`L_\mathrm{h}`$, which suggests importance of the illumination heating of the outer atmosphere of the red giant. Although one can naively interpret this correlation as a proof that in fact the radio emission originates from a wind emanating predominantly from the hot component, this is certainly not the case for our targets. The hot component wind with $`\dot{M}/v10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ should produce prominent P-Cyg profiles in high-excitation emission lines which are not observed. Moreover, in such case the turnover frequency would be not related to the binary separation. On the contrary, the very good agreement between the binary separations derived from $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$ and the spectroscopic orbits (Figure 4) as well the correlation of $`\dot{M}/v`$ with $`K[12]`$ colour provide strong evidence that the wind originates from the cool giant.

The correlation between the giant mass-loss rate and $`L_\mathrm{h}`$ also has a natural interpretation in the frame of proposed models for the hot component. In general, the stronger is the cool giant wind the more material can be accreted by its hot companion. Most symbiotics interact by wind-driven accretion, and the expected accretion rate is a few per cent of $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{wind}}`$, and in the case of our sample targets the corresponding accretion luminosity is of order of $`10100\mathrm{L}_{}`$. Although the hot component of a typical quiescent symbiotic system, with $`L_\mathrm{h}1000\mathrm{L}_{}`$ and $`T10^5`$ K, cannot be powered solely by accretion, the situation improves radically if the white dwarfs burn H-rich material as they accrete it. For a typical $`0.40.6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ symbiotic white dwarf (Mikołajewska 1997) the minimum accretion rate at which this happens is of order of $`10^8\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, while the maximum steady burning rate is set by the core mass-luminosity relation, and it is a few times higher. Thus depending on accretion rate (which is related to the giant mass-loss rate) the hot component luminosity is powered either by accretion or by thermonuclear burning of the accreted material, and in both cases its luminosity will be somehow related to the giant mass-loss rate. The mass-loss rates for symbiotic giants derived from our radio observations are thus sufficient to power via wind-accretion and thermonuclear burning the observed luminosities of their hot companions.

Finally, the giant-mass loss rates tend to increase with the orbital period (Figure 8). It is interesting that a correlation between the hot component luminosity and the orbital period was first find by Mikołajewska & Kenyon (1992), while Mürset & Schmid (1999) found a relation between the giant spectral type and the orbital period. Mikołajewska & Kenyon suggested that their result in fact implies a relation between the white dwarf mass and the binary period if the hot components lie on the plateau portion of white dwarf cooling curves and follow some standard core-mass luminosity relation. Mürset & Schmid noted that the limiting line from the spectral type – orbital period diagram is practically identical with the relation $`l_1=2R_{\mathrm{giant}}`$ (where $`l_1`$ is the distance from the giant’s center to the Lagrangian point $`\mathrm{L}_1`$), suggesting that this configuration is ideal for producing long-lived symbiotic phenomena.

## CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the radio emission in quiescent S-type systems except CI Cyg (and other systems containing Roche-lobe filling giants) originates from the red giant wind partially ionized by the hot component as proposed by STB. The mass-loss rates from symbiotic giants are systematically higher that in single field giants which suggest that only the giants with the highest mass-loss rates can support symbiotic behaviour in widely separated binary systems, in particular can power via wind-accretion and subsequent thermonuclear burning the observed luminosities of their hot companions.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research has been supported by the KBN grant 2P03D02112, and by the JUMELAGE program “Astronomie France-Pologne” of CNRS/PAN. RJI acknowledge the award of a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.


text:
# CONFORMALLY FLAT ANISOTROPIC SPHERES IN GENERAL RELATIVITY.

## 1 Introduction

In the study of self-gravitating systems there are three factors whose relevance has been recurrently and separately stressed in the literature. These are, the Weyl tensor, the local anisotropy of pressure and the inhomogeneity of energy density distribution (density contrast).

The Weyl tensor  or some functions of it , have been proposed to provide a gravitational arrow of time. The rationale behind this idea being that tidal forces tend to make the gravitating fluid more inhomogeneous as the evolution proceeds, thereby indicating the sense of time. However, some works have thrown doubts on this proposal . Also, as it will be seen below, it is worth noticing that the relation between the Weyl tensor and the density contrast is affected by the presence of local anisotropy of pressure.

The role of density inhomogeneities in the collapse of dust  and in particular in the formation of naked singularities , has been extensively discussed in the literature.

Finally, the assumption of local anisotropy of pressure, has been proved to be very useful in the study of relativistic compact objects (see  and references therein).

A hint pointing to the relevance of the above mentioned three factors in the fate of spherical collapse is also provided by the expression of the active gravitational mass in terms of those factors , .

These three factors are usually considered separately, their relationship being omitted from discussion,even though they are related by a simple expression, which we shall present below , .

The purpose of this work is twofold. On one hand we shall integrate the vanishing Weyl tensor condition, which will allow us to construct conformally flat models (with anisotropic pressure). The obtained solutions represent static or slowly evolving (in the quasi-static approximation) spheres, which could serve for the modelling of compact self-gravitating objects. On the other hand, we want to study, comparatively, the effects of the above mentioned parameters on the (slow) evolution of relativistic spheres. For doing this we shall contrast the evolution of the conformally flat models with the evolution of models with the same energy density or radial pressure distribution, but non-vanishing Weyl tensor. With this purpose it will be useful to calculate the active gravitational mass and the fluid velocity for each model.

The paper is organized as follows: In the next Section all relevant equations and conventions are given. The condition for the vanishing of the Weyl tensor is integrated in Section 3 and the models are described in Section 4. Finally a discussion of results is presented in the last Section.

## 2 Relevant equations and conventions

### 2.1 The field equations

We consider a spherically symmetric distribution of collapsing fluid, which we assume to be locally anisotropic and bounded by a spherical surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The line element is given in Schwarzschild-like coordinates by

$$ds^2=e^\nu dt^2e^\lambda dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`\nu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are functions of $`t`$ and $`r`$. The coordinates are: $`x^0=t;x^1=r;x^2=\theta ;x^3=\varphi `$.

The metric (1) has to satisfy Einstein field equations

$$G_\nu ^\mu =8\pi T_\nu ^\mu $$
(2)
which in our case read :

$$8\pi T_0^0=\frac{1}{r^2}+e^\lambda \left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\lambda ^{}}{r}\right)$$
(3)
$$8\pi T_1^1=\frac{1}{r^2}+e^\lambda \left(\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}}{r}\right)$$
(4)
$`8\pi T_2^2=8\pi T_3^3=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\nu }{4}}\left(2\ddot{\lambda }+\dot{\lambda }(\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu })\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\lambda }{4}}\left(2\nu ^{\prime \prime }+\nu ^2\lambda ^{}\nu ^{}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{r}}\right)`$
$$8\pi T_{01}=\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{r}$$
(6)
where dots and primes stand for partial differentiation with respect to $`t`$ and $`r`$ respectively.

In order to give physical significance to the $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ components we apply the Bondi approach , i.e we introduce local Minkowski coordinates ($`\tau ,x,y,z`$), defined by

$$d\tau =e^{\nu /2}dtdx=e^{\lambda /2}drdy=rd\theta dz=rsin\theta d\varphi $$

Then, denoting the Minkowski components of the energy tensor by a bar, we have

$$\overline{T}_0^0=T_0^0\overline{T}_1^1=T_1^1\overline{T}_2^2=T_2^2\overline{T}_3^3=T_3^3\overline{T}_{01}=e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}T_{01}$$

Next we suppose that, when viewed by an observer moving relative to these coordinates with velocity $`\omega `$ in the radial direction, the physical content of space consists of an anisotropic fluid of energy density $`\rho `$, radial pressure $`P_r`$ and tangential pressure $`P_{}`$. Thus, when viewed by this moving observer, the covariant energy-momentum tensor in Minkowski coordinates is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\rho & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& P_r& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& P_{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& P_{}\end{array}\right)$$

Then a Lorentz transformation readily shows that

$$T_0^0=\overline{T}_0^0=\frac{\rho +P_r\omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}$$
(7)
$$T_1^1=\overline{T}_1^1=\frac{P_r+\rho \omega ^2}{1\omega ^2}$$
(8)
$$T_2^2=T_3^3=\overline{T}_2^2=\overline{T}_3^3=P_{}$$
(9)
$$T_{01}=e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}\overline{T}_{01}=\frac{(\rho +P_r)\omega e^{(\nu +\lambda )/2}}{1\omega ^2}$$
(10)
Note that the velocity in the ($`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$) system, $`dr/dt`$, is related to $`\omega `$ by

$$\omega =\frac{dr}{dt}e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}$$
(11)
Outside of the fluid, the spacetime is Schwarzschild,

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)dt^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^1dr^2r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(12)
In order to match the two metrics smoothly on the boundary surface $`r=r_\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$, we require continuity of the first and second fundamental forms across that surface. As result of this matching we obtain the well known result

$$\left[P_r\right]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0$$
(13)
Next,the radial component of the conservation law

$$T_{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0$$
(14)
gives

$$\left(8\pi T_1^1\right)^{}=\frac{16\pi }{r}\left(T_1^1T_2^2\right)+4\pi \nu ^{}\left(T_1^1T_0^0\right)+\frac{e^\nu }{r}\left(\ddot{\lambda }+\frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}\frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }}{2}\right)$$
(15)
which in the static case becomes

$$P_r^{}=\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\left(\rho +P_r\right)+\frac{2\left(P_{}P_r\right)}{r}$$
(16)
representing the generalization of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkof equation for anisotropic fluids .

In this work we shall consider exclusively static or slowly evolving (quasi-static) systems. By this we mean that our sphere either does not change or changes slowly on a time scale that is very long compared to the typical time in which the sphere reacts to a slight perturbation of hydrostatic equilibrium (this typical time scale is called hydrostatic time scale). Thus our system is always very close to or in hydrostatic equilibrium and its evolution may be regarded as a sequence of static models linked by (6). This assumption is very sensible because the hydrostatic time scale is very small for almost any phase of the life of the star. It is of the order of $`27`$ minutes for the Sun, $`4.5`$ seconds for a white dwarf and $`10^4`$ seconds for a neutron star of one solar mass and $`10`$ Km radius. It is well known that any of the stellar configurations mentioned above, change on a time scale that is very long compared to their respective hydrostatic time scales. Let us now translate this assumption in conditions to $`\omega `$ and metric functions.

First of all, slow contraction means that the radial velocity $`\omega `$ as measured by the Minkowski observer is always much smaller than the velocity of light ($`\omega 1`$). Therefore we shall neglect terms of the order $`O(\omega ^2)`$.

Then (15) yields

$$\ddot{\lambda }+\frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}\frac{\dot{\nu }\dot{\lambda }}{2}=8\pi re^\nu \left[P_r^{}+\left(\rho +P_r\right)\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}2\frac{P_{}P_r}{r}\right]$$
(17)
Since by assumption, our system is always (not only at a given time $`t`$) in equilibrium (or very close to), (16) and (17) imply then, for an arbitrary slowly evolving configuration

$$\ddot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }\dot{\lambda }\dot{\lambda }^20$$
(18)
and of course, time derivatives of any order of the left hand side of the hydrostatic equilibrium equation must also vanish, for otherwise the system will deviate from equilibrium. This condition implies, in particular, that we must demand

$$\ddot{\nu }0$$

Finally, from the time derivative of (6), and using (10), it follows that

$$\dot{\omega }O(\ddot{\lambda },\dot{\lambda }\omega ,\dot{\nu }\omega )$$
(19)
which implies that we shall also neglect terms linear in the acceleration. On purely physical considerations, it is obvious that the vanishing of $`\dot{\omega }`$ is required to keep the system always in equilibrium.

Thus, from now on, we shall always assume

$$O(\omega ^2)=\dot{\lambda }^2=\dot{\nu }^2=\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu }=\ddot{\lambda }=\ddot{\nu }=0$$
(20)
implying that the system remains in (or very close to) equilibrium.

### 2.2 The Weyl tensor

We can now calculate the components of the Weyl tensor. Neglecting terms of order $`\dot{\lambda }\dot{\nu },\dot{\lambda }^2,\dot{\nu }^2,\ddot{\lambda }`$ and $`\ddot{\nu }`$, we find that all non-vanishing components can be expressed through $`C_{232}^3`$. Thus,

$$W\frac{r}{2}C_{232}^3=\frac{r^3e^\lambda }{6}\left(\frac{e^\lambda }{r^2}+\frac{\nu ^{}\lambda ^{}}{4}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\nu ^2}{4}\frac{\nu ^{\prime \prime }}{2}\frac{\lambda ^{}\nu ^{}}{2r}\right)$$
(21)
Next, defining the mass function as usual

$$m(r,t)=4\pi _0^rT_0^0r^2𝑑r$$
(22)
the following relations may be established (,)

$$W=\frac{4}{3}\pi _0^rr^3\left(T_0^0\right)^{}𝑑r+\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3\left(T_2^2T_1^1\right)$$
(23)
$$m(r,t)=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3T_0^0\frac{4}{3}\pi _0^rr^3\left(T_0^0\right)^{}𝑑r$$
(24)
Both, (23) and (24) are valid in the general (dynamic) case. However only in the static or the quasi-static case $`T_0^0`$ and $`T_1^1`$ denote the proper energy density and the radial pressure respectively.

### 2.3 The Tolman-Whittaker mass

The Tolman-Whittaker mass  within a sphere of radius $`r`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is defined as

$$m_{TW}(r,t)=4\pi _0^rr^2e^{\left(\nu +\lambda \right)/2}\left(T_0^0T_1^12T_2^2\right)𝑑r$$
(25)
Two alternative expressions, easily obtained from the field equations (see  for details) are

$$m_{TW}=e^{\left(\nu +\lambda \right)/2}\left(m+4\pi P_rr^3\right)$$
(26)
and

$$m_{TW}=\frac{1}{2}e^{\left(\nu \lambda \right)/2}\nu ^{}r^2$$
(27)
The interpretation of $`m_{TW}`$ as the active gravitational mass follows at once from (27) and (16). Indeed, the first term on the right side of (16) (the “gravitational force” term) is the product of the passive gravitational mass density ($`\rho +P_r`$) and a term proportional to $`m_{TW}/r^2`$. A similar conclusion can be obtained if we recall that the gravitational acceleration of a test particle, instantaneously at rest in a static gravitational field, as measured with standard rods and coordinate clocks is given by

$$a=\frac{e^{(\nu \lambda )/2}\nu ^{}}{2}=\frac{m_{TW}}{r^2}$$
(28)
### 2.4 The velocity of a fluid element

For the comparative study of the (slow) evolution of different solutions, it will be useful to plot the velocity ($`\omega `$) profiles for different pieces of material. A simple expression for $`\omega `$, may be obtained as follows: from (3) and (22), it results

$$e^\lambda =1\frac{2m}{r}$$
(29)
and from (29)

$$\dot{m}=\frac{\dot{\lambda }re^\lambda }{2}$$
(30)
then using (6)

$$\omega =\frac{\dot{m}e^{(\lambda \nu )/2}}{4\pi r^2(\rho +P_r)}$$
(31)
## 3 The vanishing Weyl condition

We shall now proceed to integrate the condition

$$W=0$$
(32)
which, using (21), may be written as

$$\left(\frac{e^\lambda \nu ^{}}{2r}\right)^{}+e^{(\nu +\lambda )}\left(\frac{e^\nu \nu ^{}}{2r}\right)^{}\left(\frac{e^\lambda 1}{r^2}\right)^{}=0$$
(33)
Introducing new variables

$$y=e^\lambda ;\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}=\frac{u^{}}{u}$$
(34)
equation(33) is cast into

$$y^{}+\frac{2y\left[u^{\prime \prime }u^{}/r+u/r^2\right]}{\left[u^{}u/r\right]}\frac{2u}{r^2\left[u^{}u/r\right]}=0$$
(35)
whose formal solution is

$$y=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k(r)𝑑r}}\left[e^{{\scriptscriptstyle k(r)𝑑r}}f(r)𝑑r+C_1\right]$$
(36)
where $`C_1`$ is a constant of integration, and

$$k(r)=2\frac{d}{dr}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(u^{}\frac{u}{r}\right)\right]$$
(37)
$$f(r)=\frac{2u}{r^2\left(u^{}u/r\right)}$$
(38)
changing back to the original variables, eq.(36) becomes

$$\frac{\nu ^{}}{2}\frac{1}{r}=\frac{e^{\lambda /2}}{r}\sqrt{1c^2r^2e^\nu }$$
(39)
with $`c^2C_1`$.

Next, (39) may be formally integrated, to obtain

$$e^\nu =c^2r^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\left[\frac{e^{\lambda /2}}{r}𝑑r+\stackrel{~}{C}\right]$$
(40)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is a constant of integration (a function of $`t`$, in the slowly evolving case). The reader may check that (40) satisfies (39) and (32) (or (33)).

In the next section we shall present some models satisfying (39) (or (40)).

## 4 The models

A simple counting of equations ((3)–(6)) and unknowns ($`\nu ,\lambda ,\rho ,P_r,P_{},\omega `$) indicates that we have to provide two additional relations (in the form of equations of state and/or restrictions on metric variables), in order to integrate the system ((3)–(6)).

If one assumes that the fluid is locally isotropic ($`P_r=P_{}`$) then, demanding $`W=0`$, we are driven to a unique solution (the Schwarzschild interior solution), a fact also obvious from (23). However, if $`P_rP_{}`$, then the condition $`W=0`$, does not single out a unique model.

In what follows we shall construct two models with $`W=0`$. One of them characterized by $`P_r=0`$, and for the other we prescribe a given energy density distribution which is similar to the one proposed by Gokhroo and Mehra . Additionally, we present two other models with $`W0`$. One is characterized by $`P_r=0`$ and $`\rho =\rho (t)`$ (,), and the other has the same energy density distribution as one of the conformally flat solutions.

### 4.1 Model I

Our first model is characterized by

$$W=0$$
(41)
and

$$P_r=0$$
(42)
Then, from (4) and (39), it follows

$$e^\nu =\frac{g}{c^2r^2}\frac{(49g)}{(12g)}$$
(43)
with

$$g\frac{m(r,t)}{r}$$
(44)
and where (29) has been used.

Next, taking $`r`$-derivative of (43), and using

$$\nu ^{}=\frac{2m}{r^2\left(12m/r\right)}\frac{2g}{r(12g)}$$
(45)
easily derived from (4), we obtain

$$g^{}=\frac{54g^342g^2+8g}{r\left(18g^218g+4\right)}$$
(46)
which after integration yields

$$Dr=\frac{g^{1/2}}{(49g)^{1/6}}$$
(47)
where $`D`$ is a constant (a function of $`t`$ in the slowly evolving case) of integration. Solving (47) for $`g`$, one obtains

$$g=a^{1/3}\left\{\left[2+\left(27a+4\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/3}+\left[2\left(27a+4\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/3}\right\}$$
(48)
with

$$(Dr)^6=a\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^6\frac{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }^3}{49g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(49)
where subscript $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ indicates that the quantity is evaluated at the boundary surface $`r=r_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The remaining variables are now easily obtained from the field equations and (43), (48). Thus,

$$\rho =\frac{3g}{2\pi r^2}\frac{(12g)}{(23g)}$$
(50)
$$P_{}=\frac{3g^2}{4\pi r^2}\frac{1}{(23g)}$$
(51)
$$e^\lambda =12g$$
(52)
For the Tolman-Whittaker mass we obtain, using either (26) or (27)

$$m_{TW}=g\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)r\left[\frac{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(1\frac{9}{4}g_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)}{g\left(1\frac{9}{4}g\right)}\right]^{1/2}$$
(53)
or, using the dimensionless varibles

$$x\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }};n=\frac{m_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}=g_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(54)
$$m_{TW}=\frac{Mx^3\left(Z_1+Z_2\right)^{1/2}\left(49n\right)^{1/2}}{\left[4\left(49n\right)^{1/2}9nx^2\left(Z_1+Z_2\right)\right]^{1/2}}$$
(55)
with

$$Z_{1,2}=\left[2\left(49n\right)^{1/2}\pm \left(27x^6n^3+1636n\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/3}$$
(56)
It is worth noticing that from the requirement $`\rho 0`$, it follows, using (50)

$$g<\frac{2}{3}$$
(57)
a stronger restriction appears from the condition

$$\rho P_{}$$
(58)
which requires

$$g<\frac{2}{5}$$
(59)
Finally, the velocity $`\omega `$ of any fluid element is given by

$`\omega =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }n^{1/2}x^2(23g)(49g)^{1/2}(12n)}{g^{1/2}(49n)^2(12g)^2}}\times `$ (60)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{2\left(Z_1+Z_2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3nx^2\left(Z_2^2Z_1^2\right)}{\left(27x^6n^3+1636n\right)^{1/2}}}\right\}`$
where (11), (31), (48)–(50), (54), and (56) have been used.

### 4.2 Model II

The second model we shall consider, is well known. It is characterized by

$$P_r=0$$
(61)
$$\rho =\rho (t)$$
(62)
and is not conformally flat.

A static version of this model was studied by Florides . Models with vanishing radial pressure have been discussed in the past , and more recently in relation with the formation of naked singularities .

The corresponding variables are (see  for details)

$$\rho =\rho (t);P_r=0$$
(63)
$$P_{}=\frac{2\pi r^2\rho ^2}{3\left(1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho \right)}$$
(64)
$$e^\nu =\frac{\left(1\frac{8\pi }{3}r_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\rho \right)^{3/2}}{\left(1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho \right)^{1/2}}$$
(65)
$$e^\lambda =1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho $$
(66)
$$W=\frac{8\pi ^2r^5\rho ^2}{9\left(1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho \right)}$$
(67)
$$m_{TW}=\frac{4\pi }{3}r^3\rho \left(\frac{1\frac{8\pi }{3}r_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\rho }{1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho }\right)^{3/4}$$
(68)
$$\omega =\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{r}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)\left(\frac{1\frac{8\pi }{3}r_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\rho }{1\frac{8\pi }{3}r^2\rho }\right)^{1/4}$$
(69)
### 4.3 Model III

This model is conformally flat and is further characterized by

$$e^\lambda =\left(1\frac{r^2}{b^2}\right)^2$$
(70)
where $`b`$ is a constant (a function of $`t`$ in the slowly evolving case).

Then, from (40) one obtains

$$e^\nu =\frac{c^2}{4B^2}\frac{\left[B^2r^2+b^2r^2\right]^2}{\left(b^2r^2\right)}$$
(71)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{C}=\mathrm{ln}B$$
(72)
¿From the field equations, (70) and (71), we can now obtain the expressions for $`\rho `$, $`P_r`$ and $`P_{}`$.

$$\rho =\frac{3}{4\pi b^2}\left(1\frac{5r^2}{6b^2}\right)$$
(73)
$$8\pi P_r=\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{(b^2r^2)^2}{b^4}\left[\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{4B^2b^22[B^2r^2+b^2r^2]}{(b^2r^2)[B^2r^2+b^2r^2]}\right]$$
(74)
$$8\pi \left(P_rP_{}\right)=\frac{2r^2}{b^4}$$
(75)
$`b`$, $`c`$ and $`B`$ are related to the total mass and the radius of the sphere through the boundary conditions

$$e^{\lambda _\mathrm{\Sigma }}=1\frac{2M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(76)
$$e^{\nu _\mathrm{\Sigma }}=1\frac{2M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(77)
$$P_{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}=0$$
(78)
the corresponding expressions are

$$b=\frac{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\left[1\left(1\frac{2M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}}$$
(79)
$$c=\frac{1}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left[\frac{4M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{9M^2}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}\right]^{1/2}$$
(80)
$$B=\frac{\left(12M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^{1/4}\left[\left(12M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^{1/2}+\left(3M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }1\right)\right]}{\left[1\left(12M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}\left[4M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }9M^2/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right]^{1/2}}$$
(81)
For the Tolman-Whittaker mass the obtained expression is

$$m_{TW}=\frac{cr^3}{2Bb^2(b^2r^2)^{1/2}}\left[2B^2b^2B^2r^2b^2+r^2\right]$$
(82)
or, using (79)–(81) and (54)

$`m_{TW}={\displaystyle \frac{Mx^3(12n)^{1/4}}{\left[1x^2+x^2(12n)^{1/2}\right]^{1/2}}}\times `$ (83)
$`\left\{32x^2{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)}{n}}\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4n9n^2}{2(12n)^{1/2}\left[(12n)^{1/2}+3n1\right]}}\right]\right\}`$
and the expression for $`\omega `$ in this model, results in

$`\omega =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\dot{b}Bx\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]}{\left(4n9n^2\right)^{1/2}\left(1x^2\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]\right)^{1/2}}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[2B^2+B^2x^2\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]+1x^2\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]\right]}}`$
where $`\dot{b}`$ is easily obtained from (79)

$$\dot{b}=\frac{\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }n(12n)^{1/2}\left(5\frac{2}{n}\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]\right)}{2\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]^{3/2}}$$
(85)
### 4.4 Model IV

This model has the same energy density distribution as the previous one (same $`\lambda `$), but is not conformally flat ($`W0`$). Instead, the model is further characterized by

$$P_r=0$$
(86)
Then, from (70), (86) and field equations, we obtain

$$\rho =\frac{3}{4\pi b^2}\left(1\frac{5r^2}{6b^2}\right)$$
(87)
$$e^\nu =\frac{\beta }{\left(b^2r^2\right)^{1/2}}e^{\frac{b^2}{2\left(b^2r^2\right)}}$$
(88)
$$P_{}=\frac{\left(2b^2r^2r^4\right)\left(6b^25r^2\right)}{32\pi b^4\left(b^2r^2\right)^2}$$
(89)
with

$$\beta b\left(1\frac{2M}{r_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)^{5/4}e^{\frac{1}{2\left(12M/r_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^{1/2}}}$$
(90)
and $`b`$ is given by (79).

For the active gravitational mass, we obtain, after some lengthly calculations

$`m_{TW}`$ $`=`$ $`M(12n)^{5/8}x^3(1(12n)^{1/2}){\displaystyle \frac{\left[1\frac{x^2}{2}\left(1(12n)^{1/2}\right)\right]}{n\left(1x^2\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]\right)^{5/4}}}\times `$ (91)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(x^21)\left(1(12n)^{1/2}\right)}{(12n)^{1/2}\left[1x^2\left(1(12n)^{1/2}\right)\right]}}\right]`$
where $`n`$ and $`x`$ are defined by eq.(54). Observe that condition $`\rho 0`$ is satisfied for all $`n`$, however if we demand $`\rho P_{}`$, then

$$n0.4$$
(92)
Finally, the expression for the velocity takes the form

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }x\left[1x^2+x^2(12n)^{1/2}\right]^{1/4}\left[5n2+2(12n)^{1/2}\right]}{(12n)^{1/8}\left[65x^2+5x^2(12n)^{1/2}\right]\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]}}\times `$ (93)
$`\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1x^2)\left[1(12n)^{1/2}\right]}{(12n)^{1/2}\left[1x^2+x^2(12n)^{1/2}\right]}}\right]`$
## 5 Discussion

We have integrated the vanishing Weyl condition. The resulting expression (39) (and (40)) allows to find conformally flat models in a very simple way, once an additional condition on physical or metric variables is imposed. Specifically we have found two conformally flat models (I, III). In order to bring out the role of Weyl tensor in its slow evolution, we have also presented two other models (II, IV) with non-vanishing Weyl tensor. Model II, as model I has vanishing radial pressure, whereas model IV has the same energy density distribution as model III. This will allow to see the effect of the three abovementioned factors (local anisotropy, Weyl tensor, density contrast) on the Tolman-Whittaker mass distribution within the sphere, and on the velocity profile of different pieces of matter. With this purpose, all models are considered with the same total mass $`M`$ and surface velocity $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Figure 1 exhibits the evolution of $`m_{TW}/M`$ as function of $`x`$, in the process of slow contraction (increasing $`n`$), for the model I. For all other models the behaviour is qualitatively the same, i.e. as the contraction proceeds, the active gravitational mass within the sphere decreases. However, the absolute value of $`m_{TW}`$ is different for different models (for same $`n`$ and $`x`$) as can be seen from figures 2–4, which display the ratio $`m_{TW}/m_{TW}(\mathrm{II})`$ for the three models (I, III, IV).

As it can be seen, for any $`r<r_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (for the same total mass $`M`$), we have

$$m_{TW}(\mathrm{III})>m_{TW}(\mathrm{I})>m_{TW}(\mathrm{IV})>m_{TW}(\mathrm{II})$$

the differences being larger for more compact (larger $`n`$) configurations. Parenthetically, the two conformally flat models present the largest $`TW`$ masses.

For models II, III and IV the collapse proceeds in a quasi-homologous (quasi-linear) regime as indicated in figure 5 for model III (for models II and IV the figures are similar), deviating from that regime as $`n`$ increases.

However for model I, the contraction is not homologous even for small $`n`$ as indicated in figure 6.

Figures 7–9 display the ratio $`\omega /\omega (\mathrm{II})`$ for the three models (I, III, IV).

Except for extremely high fields in model I, we see that

$$\omega (\mathrm{IV})>\omega (\mathrm{III})>\omega (\mathrm{II})>\omega (\mathrm{I})$$

which indicate that for the same energy density distribution (III,IV) or radial pressure distribution (I,II), the slow contraction of interior shells proceeds slower in the conformally flat case.

## Acknowledgment

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education under Grant No. PB96-1306. We also wish to thank J. L. Hernández-Pastora for his valuable help in editing this manuscript.

## 6 Figure captions

Figure 1: $`m_{TW}/M`$ as function of $`x`$ for the model I, and ten values of $`n`$, from .04 to .4.

Figure 2: $`m_{TW}(I)/m_{TW}(II)`$ as function of $`x`$ ,curves $`aj`$ correspond to $`n`$=.4; .36; .32; .28; .24; .20; .16; .12, .08; .04.

Figure 3:$`m_{TW}(III)/m_{TW}(II)`$ as function of $`x`$ ,for the same values of $`n`$ as in figure 2.

Figure 4: $`m_{TW}(IV)/m_{TW}(II)`$ as function of $`x`$ ,for the same values of $`n`$ as in figure 2.

Figure 5: $`\omega /\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as function of $`x`$ for the model III, and ten values of $`n`$, from.04 to .4

Figure 6: Same as figure 5 for the model I.

Figure 7: The ratio $`\omega (\mathrm{I})/\omega (\mathrm{II})`$ as function of $`x`$, for ten values of $`n`$ from .04 to .4.

Figure 8: The ratio $`\omega (\mathrm{IV})/\omega (\mathrm{II})`$ as function of $`x`$,curves $`aj`$ correspond to $`n`$=.4; .36; .32; .28; .24; .20; .16; .12, .08; .04.

Figure 9: The ratio $`\omega (\mathrm{III})/\omega (\mathrm{II})`$ as function of $`x`$, for ten values of $`n`$ from .04 to .4.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9