text:
# Threshold analyses and Lorentz violation

## I Introduction

For several decades, a sizeable amount of theoretical work has been directed towards a unified quantum description of all fundamental interactions including gravity. Comparable experimental efforts have been inhibited, partly by the expected minuscule size of Planck-scale effects, and partly by the absence of a realistic underlying framework. One approach to overcome this phenomenological obstacle is to identify exact symmetries in present-day physics that may be violated in underlying theories and are amenable to high-precision tests.

Lorentz and CPT invariance satisfy these criteria. They are cornerstones of our present understanding of nature at the fundamental level, and certain Lorentz and CPT tests belong to the most precise null experiments available. Moreover, a mechanism that could cause spontaneous Lorentz and CPT breaking in the framework of string field theory was discovered more than a decade ago . Subsequent investigations have considered the possibility of Lorentz violation in other contexts, such as spacetime foam , nontrivial spacetime topology , loop quantum gravity , realistic noncommutative field theories , and spacetime-varying couplings .

Low-energy effects of Lorentz breaking are described by the Standard-Model Extension (SME) . This dynamical framework is constructed to contain all Lorentz- and CPT-violating lagrangian terms consistent with coordinate invariance, a fundamental requirement to be discussed below. The SME has provided the basis for numerous experimental Lorentz- and CPT-violation searches involving hadrons , protons and neutrons , electrons , photons , muons , and neutrinos .

Within the SME, it is straightforward to confirm that spacetime-symmetry breakdown generally modifies one-particle dispersion relations . This feature of Lorentz violation permits the prediction of possible experimental signatures based purely on kinematical arguments. For example, primary ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECR) at energies eight orders of magnitude below the Planck mass have been observed. At these scales, Lorentz-breaking effects might be amplified relative to the ones in low-energy experiments leading to potentially observable threshold modifications for particle reactions. This idea has been adopted in a number of recent investigations . In many of these studies, however, the dispersion relations are constructed phenomenologically without reference to an effective dynamical framework and other physical principles.

The goal of the present work is to investigate how some of the arbitrariness in the construction of Lorentz-violating dispersion relations can be removed. Our investigation is based on the principle of coordinate invariance and on the condition of compatibility with an effective dynamical framework. It is argued that these two features are fundamental enough for being physical requirements, while maintaining relative independence of the details of the Planck-scale theory. Moreover, the implementation of general dynamical properties significantly increases the scope of threshold investigations. We also discuss positivity and causality, properties which further add to the viability of kinematical analyses. Throughout we assume energy-momentum conservation.

In Sec. 2, we comment on the requirement of coordinate independence and its consequences for dispersion relations. Section 3 discusses dispersion relations from the viewpoint of compatibility with the SME. In Sec. 4, issues regarding positivity and causality are addressed. Further results and a discussion of sample dispersion relations often considered in the literature can be found in Sec. 5. A brief summary is contained in Sec. 6.

## II Coordinate independence

Coordinate independence is essential in physics, and its role in the context of Lorentz violation is well established . However, many threshold analyses lack coordinate invariance, and occasionally Lorentz breaking is identified with the loss of coordinate independence. It is therefore appropriate to review some arguments behind this fundamental principle before discussing its consequences for dispersion relations.

A certain labeling scheme for events in space and time corresponds to a choice of coordinate system. Such a labeling of events is a pure product of human thought and thus arbitrary to a large extent. Despite being one of the most common and important tools in physics, coordinate systems fail to possess physical reality in the sense that the physics must remain independent of the choice of coordinates. This principle, also called observer invariance, is one of the most fundamental in science. Mathematically, observer invariance can be implemented by choosing a spacetime manifold as the arena for physical events and certain tensors or spinors for the representation of physical quantities.

We also mention that coordinate invariance is much more general than Lorentz symmetry. For example, nonrelativistic classical mechanics and Newton’s law of gravitation fail to be Lorentz invariant but can be formulated in the coordinate-free language of three-vectors. Only when the spacetime manifold is taken to be lorentzian, the Lorentz transformations acquire a significant role: They implement changes between local Minkowski frames.

Lorentz violation is associated with nontrivial vacua described at low energies by nondynamical tensorial backgrounds. A tensor background can lead, for instance, to direction-dependent particle propagation, a situation comparable to the one inside certain crystals. One then says that particle Lorentz invariance is broken . However, observer Lorentz invariance remains fully intact, so that locally one can still work with the metric $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, particle four-momenta still transform in the usual way under coordinate changes, and the conventional tensors and spinors still represent physical quantities.

The important difference between observer and particle Lorentz symmetry can be illustrated in the conventional context of a classical point particle of mass $`m`$ and charge $`q`$ in an external electromagnetic field $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ obeying

$$m\frac{dv^\mu }{d\tau }=qF^{\mu \nu }v_\nu .$$
(1)
Here, $`v^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the particle and $`\tau `$ is its proper time. In general, invariance under rotations of the particle’s trajectory (and thus particle Lorentz symmetry) is broken by the external $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ resulting in the nonconservation of the charge’s angular momentum, for instance. However, Eq. (1) is a tensor equation valid in all coordinate systems maintaining observer Lorentz symmetry. We remark that in the above example, the background $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is a local electromagnetic field generated by other four-currents that can in principle be controlled. On the other hand, a background in the Lorentz-violating context is a global property of the effective vacuum outside of experimental control.

Observer-invariant dispersion-relation ansatz. In the published literature, Lorentz-violating dispersion relations are usually taken to be of the form

$$\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=m^2+\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda }),$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is the usual mass parameter and $`\lambda ^\mu =(\lambda ^0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ is the plane-wave four-vector (before the reinterpretation of negative energies, see Eq. (14)). The function $`\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ controls the extent of the Lorentz-breaking. We proceed under the assumption that the dynamics of the free particle is described by a linear partial differential equation with constant coefficients. In the absence of nonlocalities, we obtain the polynomial ansatz

$$\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })=\underset{n1}{}\stackrel{n\mathrm{indices}}{\stackrel{}{T_{(n)}^{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}}}}\underset{n\mathrm{factors}}{\underset{}{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta \mathrm{}}}.$$
(3)
Here, $`T_{(n)}^{\alpha \beta \mathrm{}}`$ denotes a constant tensor of rank $`n`$ parametrizing the violation of particle Lorentz symmetry. All the tensor indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ are understood to be distinct but each one is contracted with a momentum factor, so that all terms in the sum are observer Lorentz invariant. Note that the $`T_{(n)}`$ can be taken as totally symmetric. The above arguments are summarized in Result (i): Lorentz-violating dispersion relations must satisfy the the requirement of coordinate independence, and therefore they hold in any frame and contain only nonnegative integer powers of $`\lambda _0`$ and $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ .

Energy degeneracy. For a given $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$, Eq. (2) is a polynomial in $`\lambda _0`$, which has generally multiple roots lifting the conventional energy degeneracy between particle, antiparticle, and possible spin-type states. This is intuitively reasonable because degeneracies usually arise through symmetries, and in the present context the number of symmetries is normally reduced. This raises the question what degree of physical Lorentz violation is described by dispersion-relation modifications preserving the usual degeneracy. This issue assumes particular importance in light of the fact that the majority of threshold analyses employ dispersion relations maintaining the conventional degeneracy.

For example, it is known that “doubly special relativities”  maintain the conventional number of spacetime symmetries and exhibit the ordinary equality of all particle and antiparticle energies for a given three-momentum. However, such approaches to the loss of Lorentz symmetry appear to be physically indistinguishable from the conventional case . In the present context, degeneracy is maintained, e.g., when $`\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ contains only $`\lambda _0`$-independent and $`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ terms. In certain models, one can then find transformations removing the Lorentz breaking from the particle species in question at the cost of introducing the violations in a different sector of the theory . Then, Lorentz-violating and Lorentz-symmetric sectors can have the same number of spacetime symmetries and associated conserved currents but the symmetry generators and the conserved quantities differ in the two sectors. This could potentially lead to additional conservation constraints on particle reactions.

The above arguments support the conjecture that Lorentz violation can be completely removed from a theory with identical, degeneracy-preserving dispersion-relation corrections in all sectors. In summary, we are lead to Result (ii): For generality and to avoid possible triviality, degeneracy-lifting dispersion relations must be included into kinematical investigations. We remark that terms with more than four powers of $`\lambda _0`$ generally result in more than four particle states, which could lead to interpretational difficulty.

Rotational symmetry. Most threshold analyses make the simplifying assumption of rotation invariance in certain frames, and then $`\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ is expanded in powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ with $`\lambda _0`$ contributions absent. We remark in passing that this procedure is associated with potential triviality problems because the particle energies remain degenerate. But there is also another unsatisfactory aspect of this approach. Many authors include odd powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ into the expansion of $`\delta f(|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|)`$ violating coordinate independence: The implementation of rotation symmetry requires that the $`T_{(n)}`$ are constructed from $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and constant tensors with vanishing spacelike and mixed components. Then, odd powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ are absent because the spacelike and mixed contributions to $`T_{(n)}`$ are of $`\delta ^{jk}`$-type, so that $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ always appears contracted with itself. For example, the respective dispersion-relation corrections for $`n=1,\mathrm{},4`$ (up to constants) are:

$`\lambda _0,`$ (4)
$`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}},`$ (5)
$`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{3},\lambda _0\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}},`$ (6)
$`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4},\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}},\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}}.`$ (7)
For completeness, we mention that certain special choices of the tensors $`T_{(n)}`$ could generate effective corrections with odd powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$. For instance, consider a case with an unsuppressed correction $`\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ leading to the observer-invariant dispersion relation $`\lambda ^42m^2\lambda ^2+m^4=N^2|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^{2j}`$, where $`\lambda ^2=\lambda ^\nu \lambda _\nu `$, $`N`$ is a parameter for Lorentz breaking, and $`j`$ is an integer. Taking the square root yields $`\lambda _0^2\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=m^2\pm N|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^j`$. For appropriate values of $`j`$, odd powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ are generated. Note, however, the partial nondegeneracy. This yields Result (iii): Odd powers of $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ are excluded in dispersion-relations modifications $`\delta f(\lambda _0,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ when rotational invariance is assumed . An explicit example, which also demonstrates that this result cannot be bypassed by the common substitution $`\lambda _0|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$, is discussed in Sec. 5.

## III The standard-model extension

Implementing general dynamical features significantly increases the scope of particle-reaction analyses. However, the use of dynamics in threshold investigations has recently been questioned on the grounds of framework dependence . We disagree with this claim and begin with a few remarks about purely kinematical analyses.

Although kinematics imposes powerful constraints on particle reactions, it provides only an incomplete description of reaction processes: An expected high-energy reaction can be suppressed by modified dispersion relations but also by novel symmetries, for example. Similarly, the presence at high energies of a reaction kinematically forbidden at low energies could perhaps be explained by additional channels due to the loss of low-energy symmetries or new undetected particles. Moreover, models of both acceleration mechanisms for UHECRs and shower development in the atmosphere involve conventional dynamics. Thus, in studying threshold bounds on Lorentz violation, assumptions outside kinematics such as dynamical quantum-field aspects cannot be eliminated completely.

Possible dynamical features are constrained by the requirement that known physics must be recovered in certain limits, despite some freedom in introducing dynamics compatible with a given set of kinematical rules. Moreover, it appears difficult and may even be impossible to find an effective theory containing the Standard Model with dynamics significantly different from the SME. We also mention that kinematics investigations are limited to only a few potential Lorentz-violating signatures from fundamental physics. From this viewpoint, it is desirable to explicitly implement dynamics of sufficient generality into the search for Lorentz breaking.

The generality of the SME. To appreciate the generality of the SME, we review the philosophy behind its construction . One adds to the usual Standard-Model lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ Lorentz-violating terms $`\delta `$:

$$_{\mathrm{SME}}=_{\mathrm{SM}}+\delta .$$
(8)
Here, $`_{\mathrm{SME}}`$ denotes the lagrangian of the SME. The correction $`\delta `$ is formed by contracting standard-model field operators of unrestricted dimensionality with Lorentz-violating tensorial parameters yielding observer Lorentz scalars. It is thus apparent that the complete set of possible contributions to $`\delta `$ yields the most general effective dynamical description of Lorentz breaking at the level of observer Lorentz-invariant quantum field theory.

Note that instead of constructing corrections to the energy-momentum relation, one proceeds at the level of the lagrangian. This superior approach yields a much more powerful and dynamical framework, despite employing a philosophy that is at its base de facto identical to the dispersion-relation case considered in the previous section.

Potential Planck-scale features, such as a certain discreteness of spacetime or a possible non-pointlike nature of elementary particles, are unlikely to invalidate the above effective-field-theory approach at present energies. On the contrary, the extremely successful Standard Model is normally viewed as an effective field theory approximating more fundamental physics. If the underlying theory indeed incorporates minute Lorentz-violating effects, it would appear contrived to consider low-energy effective models outside the framework of quantum fields. We mention in passing that Lorentz-symmetric aspects of candidate fundamental theories, such as new symmetries, novel particles, or large extra dimensions, are also unlikely to require a low-energy description beyond effective field theory and can therefore be implemented into the SME, if necessary . The above discussion indicates that dispersion-relation phenomenology offers at best narrow advantages in generality when compared to the SME.

Advantages of the SME. The SME allows the identification and direct comparison of virtually all presently feasible Lorentz and CPT tests. Moreover, the SME contains classical kinematics test models of relativity (such as Robertson’s framework, its Mansouri-Sexl extension, or the $`c^2`$ model) as limiting cases . Another advantage of the SME concerns the implementation of additional desirable conditions besides observer Lorentz invariance. For instance, one can choose to impose translation invariance, power-counting renormalizability, SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry, hermiticity, and point-like interactions, which further restricts the parameter space for Lorentz breaking. As in the dispersion-relation case, one can adopt simplifying choices, such as rotational invariance in certain frames. This latter simplification of the SME has been assumed in Ref. .

Concerning threshold investigations, the quadratic, translationally invariant sector of the SME determines possible one-particle dispersion relations, so that the correction (3) is constrained. Further restrictions are obtained by implementing the general conditions discussed in the previous paragraph.

For example, the free renormalizable gauge-invariant contribution to the photon sector of $`\delta `$ is given by

$$\delta (k_{AF})_\mu A_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}(k_F)_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma },$$
(9)
where $`A_\nu `$ is the usual four-potential, $`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ denote the field-strength tensor and its dual, respectively, and $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ and $`(k_F)_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ are constant parameters controlling the Lorentz violation. If in addition rotation invariance is assumed for the photon, suitable transformations move the Lorentz violation due to the $`(k_F)`$ term into other sectors of the theory and map $`(k_{AF})^0(\stackrel{~}{k}_{AF})^0`$ , so that only one Lorentz-violating parameter $`\xi =(\stackrel{~}{k}_{AF})^0`$ remains. Then, the usual methods yield

$$(\lambda ^\mu \lambda _\mu )^2+4\xi ^2\lambda ^\mu \lambda _\mu 4(\xi \lambda _0)^2=0.$$
(10)
Equation (10) is only one example of many other natural dispersion relations never considered in UHECR analyses.

As an additional advantage, the SME provides the basis for the calculation of reaction rates, a determining factor for observational relevance. An example is given by vacuum Čerenkov radiation . The above discussion supports Result (iv): Threshold analyses within the SME ensure compatibility with dynamics and permit a much broader scope, while maintaining greatest possible generality . The above result strongly suggests that particle-reaction investigations are best performed in the context of the SME.

## IV Positivity and causality

Positivity and causality are fundamental principles in conventional physics and have been investigated in the Lorentz-violating context . However, we are not aware of any threshold analysis discussing these principles carefully. Therefore it seems appropriate to review some important aspects of positivity and causality before investigating the implementation of these properties into particle-reaction studies.

A postulate of Special Relativity states that velocities of material bodies and radiation are limited by the vacuum light speed. This postulate both contains a notion of causality and leads to the Lorentz transformations. This fact results in the common misconception that Lorentz breaking implies superluminal propagation, and hence causality violations. However, in many conventional situations involving a background, Lorentz symmetry is broken but causality is maintained. For instance, the anisotropic propagation of electromagnetic waves inside certain crystals is normally causal . Moreover, in such a situation the total conserved energy is clearly positive definite for all observers. Thus, the principles of positivity and causality are a priori independent and distinct from the principle of Lorentz symmetry. On the one hand, positivity and causality lead, e.g., to the spin-statistics theorem , which is a cornerstone of quantum field theory. On the other hand, polynomial Lorentz-violating dispersion relations fail to satisfy these requirements above scales associated with the underlying theory . It is therefore natural to ask whether positivity or causality violations become acceptable in the presence of Lorentz breaking.

Positivity. Lorentz violation introduces positivity problems through spacelike four-momenta for particles , which can then have negative energies in an arbitrary frame. In general, these negative energies can neither be eliminated by a shift of the energy zero nor by a coordinate-independent reinterpretation as corresponding to antiparticles. This loss of positivity can lead to unconventional instabilities for one-particle states , but it may leave unaffected the stability of the vacuum. Note also the existence of a mechanism that avoids positivity problems despite the presence of spacelike momenta , so that such particles could potentially become admissible from a purely phenomenological viewpoint.

In light of the previous section, it is also necessary to investigate whether spacelike states can be incorporated into quantum field theory. Although it may be feasible to construct a Fock space of spacelike particles , we are unaware of any internally consistent interacting quantum field theories involving such particles as asymptotic states. The usual assumptions in perturbation theory, for example, seem to exclude negative energies and spacelike on-shell momenta.

Causality. Causality breakdown in the present context occurs for particles with superluminal group velocities . For such particles, the chronology of events, and in particular cause and effect, become observer-dependent concepts. Note also that in most frames, particle propagation forward and backward in time can become possible. It then appears difficult to make meaningful physical predictions. We mention, however, that the causality breakdown due to small Lorentz-violating effects appears mild enough to permit the existence of concordant frames, in which particle propagation is always forward in time, so that closed causal loops and therefore many causal paradoxes could be avoided.

Although superluminal particles may potentially be acceptable for concordant observers, it is unlikely that this type of causality breakdown can be accommodated within the framework of relativistic quantum field theory. Generally, a hermitian hamiltonian for massive fermions fails to exist in the majority of frames . In addition, the usual covariant perturbative expansion relies on time ordering, an operation no longer coordinate invariant, when microcausality is violated . Again, it appears that privileged observers would have to be introduced to apply the conventional methods.

Implications for threshold analyses. From a conservative viewpoint, it is natural to ask whether reaction-threshold kinematics is significantly affected if positivity and causality are imposed. Let $`M`$ and $`m`$ denote the scales of the fundamental theory and present-day low-energy physics, respectively. Then, the scale $`p_{s\text{-}c}`$ for the occurrence of spacelike momenta or causality problems in the case for dimension four operators can be as low as

$$p_{s\text{-}c}𝒪(\sqrt{mM}).$$
(11)
For instance, if $`m`$ is the proton mass and $`M`$ is taken to be the Planck scale, then $`p_{s\text{-}c}3\times 10^{18}`$ eV. UHECRs with a spectrum extending beyond $`10^{20}`$ eV are often employed to bound Lorentz violation or to suggest evidence for Lorentz breaking. Thus, imposing positivity and causality could require modifications in threshold analyses.

As specific example, consider the process $`\gamma \pi ^0+\gamma `$ kinematically forbidden in conventional physics. The usual dispersion-relation modifications in the literature permitting this process are associated with positivity or causality violations: Take the photon energy $`E`$ to be $`E=(\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+\delta f(\stackrel{}{p}))^{1/2}`$. Here, $`\delta f(\stackrel{}{p})`$ excludes a mass term  and depends only on the photon three-momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. Then the point $`(E,\stackrel{}{p})=(0,\stackrel{}{0})`$ on the momentum-space lightcone satisfies the modified dispersion relation. For some three-momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{0}`$, a nontrivial $`\delta f(\stackrel{}{p})`$ forces $`E(\stackrel{}{p})`$ to curve to the outside or inside of the lightcone leading to spacelike four-momenta or superluminal group velocities, respectively. But taking the photon dispersion relation to be conventional requires spacelike pions for the decay to occur .

The above arguments lead to Result (v): Positivity and causality should be maintained in threshold investigations. To enforce positivity and causality one could perform all reaction analyses well below the breakdown scale for these properties. However, in many practical applications this approach may be unsatisfactory because of the limited accessible momentum range. It thus seems desirable to employ dispersion relations for Lorentz violation that preserve positivity and causality at all scales. Such dispersion relations can be motivated in string field theory and have been investigated in the context of the SME .

## V Further results

In this section, we consider additional, important kinematics issues that are best discussed by example. We focus on the rotationally invariant $`n=3`$ case, which has received a lot of attention in the literature . We also take this opportunity to illustrate some of our results from the previous sections.

The $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^3`$ correction. The standard approach to $`n=3`$ dispersion relations assumes

$$\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=m^2+\frac{|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{M},$$
(12)
Note that Result (iii) implies that (12) has problems with coordinate invariance. Note also the fourfold degeneracy of the energies, an undesirable feature in light of Result (ii). Moreover, it will become clear below that dispersion relations of the type (12) develop positivity or causality violations at energies that are phenomenologically accessible, when $`M`$ is taken to be a Planck-scale mass.

We first consider a positive $`M`$. Equation (12) has the roots $`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{\pm }{}^{}=\pm (|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}/M+\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+m^2)^{1/2}`$. We proceed by assuming that the usual reinterpretation of the negative-energy roots $`\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is still applicable, so that these solutions correspond to positive-energy reversed-momentum particle states:

$`p_+^\mu =(E_+,\stackrel{}{p})`$ , $`E_+(\stackrel{}{p})=\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (13)
$`p_{}^\mu =(E_{},\stackrel{}{p})`$ , $`E_{}(\stackrel{}{p})=\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (14)
The respective particle and antiparticle energies $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ are then given by

$$E_\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{M}+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+m^2}.$$
(15)
Note that spacelike particle momenta are absent. The corresponding group velocities $`\stackrel{}{v}_g^\pm =E_\pm /\stackrel{}{p}`$ obey

$$\stackrel{}{v}_g^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1+3|\stackrel{}{p}|/2M}{\sqrt{|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}/M+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+m^2}}\stackrel{}{p}.$$
(16)
It can be shown that above momentum scales $`p_c\sqrt[3]{m^2M/2}`$ both the particle and the antiparticle develop superluminal group velocities violating causality.

Suppose we had chosen the correction term $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}/M`$ to enter the dispersion relation (12) with a minus instead of a plus sign. The resulting particle energies and group velocities are then obtained by the replacement $`MM`$ in Eqs. (15) and (16), respectively. In this case, superluminal group velocities are absent, but positivity problems due to spacelike momenta occur at scales $`p_s=\sqrt[3]{m^2M}`$. At three-momenta $`|\stackrel{}{p}|>2M/3`$ the particle energy decreases with increasing $`|\stackrel{}{p}|`$, so that monotonicity of $`E_\pm (|\stackrel{}{p}|)`$ is lost. Moreover, at momenta above the scale $`M`$, dispersion relation (12) admits imaginary particle energies. Both of these features signal the breakdown of validity of (12). However, if $`M`$ is of the order of the Planck mass, the required particle momenta are phenomenologically uninteresting.

In the context of (12), we next consider the photon decay $`\gamma e^++e^{}`$ into an electron-positron pair, which is kinematically forbidden in conventional physics. For all particles, we assume the same $`M`$ parameter, and we set $`m=0`$ for the photon. Energy-momentum conservation requires

$$k^\mu =p_+^\mu +p_{}^\mu ,$$
(17)
where $`k^\mu `$ is the photon four-momentum, and $`p_+^\mu `$ and $`p_{}^\mu `$ are the four-momenta of the positron and electron, respectively. In App. A, we show rigorously that the decay is kinematically allowed provided the photon three-momentum obeys $`|\stackrel{}{k}|\sqrt[3]{4m^2M}`$. Then, causality problems occur because at least one decay product must be superluminal. If a dispersion relation of the type (12) but with the opposite sign of the correction term is used, the above photon-decay process is kinematically forbidden within the validity range $`|\stackrel{}{p}|<2M/3`$. This fact is also demonstrated rigorously in App. A.

The $`\pm |\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^3`$ correction. Consider now enforcing observer Lorentz invariance by allowing two simultaneous signs for the correction term in (12). The particle and antiparticle energies are then

$$E_\pm ^{(\alpha )}(\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{(1)^\alpha \frac{|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}}{M}+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+m^2},$$
(18)
where $`\alpha =1,2`$ labels the two possible particle (antiparticle) energies, which perhaps correspond to different spin-type states. As a result, six kinematically distinct decays have to be considered. Note, however, that additional conservation laws associated with rotational invariance may preclude some of the six reactions. A proper investigation of this case therefore requires dynamical concepts. This is our Result (vi): The effects of assumed symmetries, such as rotational invariance, must be incorporated into threshold analyses.

The $`\lambda _0\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$ correction. Another $`n=3`$ coordinate-independent dispersion relation is

$$\lambda _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}=m^2+\frac{\lambda _0\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{M}.$$
(19)
The usual reinterpretation (14) yields the respective particle and antiparticle energies $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$:

$$E_\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}}}{4M^2}+\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+m^2}\pm \frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}}{2M}.$$
(20)
Note that the particle-antiparticle degeneracy is lifted, and only the antiparticles develop spacelike momenta, and thus difficulty with positivity, above the scale $`p_s=\sqrt[3]{m^2M}`$. The particle momenta $`(E_+,\stackrel{}{p})`$ remain timelike for all $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{0}`$. The corresponding group velocities are

$$\stackrel{}{v}_g^\pm (\stackrel{}{p})=\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+2M^2}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}}+4M^2\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}+4M^2m^2}}\pm 1\right)\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}.$$
(21)
Thus, at any given nonzero three-momentum the particle travels faster than the antiparticle. Moreover, one can verify that above the scale $`p_c\sqrt[3]{m^2M/2}`$ the particle speed becomes superluminal leading to causality problems. The antiparticle always remains subluminal. For $`|\stackrel{}{p}|M`$, the antiparticle’s speed goes to zero, a feature indicating the validity breakdown of (19). In any case, this momentum range appears phenomenologically uninteresting at the present time.

Consider again photon decay into an electron-positron pair. We now assume a dispersion relation of the type (19), take the lepton and photon corrections to be controlled by the same parameter $`M`$, and set $`m=0`$ for the photon. For notational simplicity we define the positron as the particle and the electron as the antiparticle. Because of the two possible incoming photon states $`\gamma _+`$ and $`\gamma _{}`$, two kinematically distinct processes must be investigated. The subscripts $`+`$ and $``$ correspond to ones for the particle energy in (20). In App. B, it is demonstrated that the decay $`\gamma _+e^++e^{}`$ is allowed above a certain threshold. If the observed value $`m=0.511`$ MeV for the electron and positron masses is used, and $`M`$ is taken to be the Planck mass, the numerically determined threshold value for the incoming photon three-momentum is $`|\stackrel{}{k}_{\mathrm{min}}|7.21`$ TeV. Appendix B also contains a proof that the decay channel in question is kinematically forbidden for $`\gamma _{}`$ photons.

Suppose we had chosen the Lorentz-violating correction to enter the dispersion relation with the opposite sign. In such a situation, the roles of particle and antiparticle are interchanged. However, apart from this trivial reinterpretation, the above discussion remains unaffected. In particular, the threshold for photon decay into an electron-positron pair is left unchanged.

The above example demonstrates that, contrary to claims in the literature, a $`\lambda _0\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$ correction kinematically permits photon decay irrespective of the sign of the correction. In addition, the discussion in this section identifies the common assumption $`\lambda _0|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$ as the source of this confusion. In a general context, we arrive at Result (vii): In threshold analyses, many approximations, such as $`\lambda _0|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|`$, and others leading to additional degeneracies are typically invalid. We remark that Result (vii) applies also to the conventional case.

## VI Conclusion

This work has considered Lorentz-violating dispersion-relation modifications and some of their implications in the search for possible signatures for fundamental physics. More specifically, we have discussed the role of a dynamical framework and the requirements of coordinate independence, positivity, and causality in the subject.

The consequences of these principles are summarized in the various Results (i) to (vii) given in the text. Correct threshold investigations within the SME are automatically compatible with these requirements.

None of the particle-reaction analyses known to the author is consistent with all of the Results (i) to (vii). It would therefore be of great interest to revisit many threshold studies implementing the findings of the present work.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrofísica (CENTRA).

## A Thresholds in the $`|\stackrel{}{\lambda }|^3`$ case

Implementing momentum conservation, we write $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}`$ for the photon, positron, and electron three-momenta, respectively. Then, the dispersion relation (12) (for the photon with $`m=0`$) yields the respective particle energies $`k_0(\stackrel{}{k})`$, $`p_0(\stackrel{}{p})`$, and $`p_0(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p})`$, which obey the conservation equation

$$k_0(\stackrel{}{k})=p_0(\stackrel{}{p})+p_0(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(A1)
At $`\stackrel{}{k}=\stackrel{}{0}`$, the reaction is forbidden because the left-hand side of (A1) is smaller than the right-hand side for all $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. To find the threshold for the reaction, one can imagine to increase $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ until $`k_0(\stackrel{}{k})`$ becomes large enough to equal the minimum of the right-hand side of (A1) viewed as a function $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. The energy of the decay products is smallest, when the outgoing three-momenta are parallel : Suppose adding transverse momenta to $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}`$ taken as parallel. This would increase the total outgoing energy because $`p_0`$ is strictly monotonic for positive arguments. A similar reasoning can be employed to exclude antiparallel final configurations.

Next, we show that for a given $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, the minimum of the outgoing energy is attained, when the three-momentum is shared equally by the decay products, i.e., $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{k}/2`$. Equation (A2) would then yield the threshold quoted in the text. Using the expression for the particle energies (15) and implementing the above considerations yields:

$$\sqrt{\frac{k^3}{M}+k^2}=\sqrt{\frac{p^3}{M}+p^2+m^2}+(ppk),$$
(A2)
where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`p=|\stackrel{}{p}|k`$. The first derivative of the right-hand side of (A2) with respect to $`p`$ vanishes at $`p=k/2`$ consistent with the presence of an extremum. To complete the argument, we have to confirm that $`p=k/2`$ is the location of a minimum and that for $`p[0,k]`$ all values of the right-hand side of (A2) lie above the one at $`p=k/2`$. This will be the case if the second derivative of right-hand side of (A2) with respect to $`p`$ is nonnegative on $`[0,k]`$.

Consider the positron energy and take the second derivative:

$$\frac{^2}{p^2}p_0(p)=g(p)h(p).$$
(A3)
Here, the functions $`g`$ and $`h`$ are given by

$`g(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3p+M}{(Mp^3+M^2p^2+M^2m^2)^{1/2}}}`$ (A4)
$`h(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M(3p^2/2+Mp)^2}{(Mp^3+M^2p^2+M^2m^2)^{3/2}}}.`$ (A5)
To see that $`g>h`$ for $`p[0,k]`$, we begin with the trivial inequality $`0<3p^4+4Mp^3+12Mm^2p+4M^2m^2`$. Addition of $`(3p^2+2Mp)^2`$ to both sides of this inequality yields $`(3p^2+2Mp)^2<4(3p+M)(p^3+Mp^2+Mm^2)`$. We finally multiply both sides with $`M/4(Mp^3+M^2p^2+M^2m^2)^{3/2}`$ to obtain $`^2p_0(p)/p^2>0`$. Replacing $`pkp`$ in the above argument shows that $`^2p_0(kp)/p^2>0`$. This establishes the positivity of the second derivative of the right-hand side of (A2) with respect to $`p`$, which concludes our proof.

We next consider the case with the opposite sign in (12) and show that the decay $`\gamma e_++e_{}`$ is kinematically forbidden within the validity range $`0<k,p<2M/3`$. Since monotonicity still holds, similar considerations as above imply that we must demonstrate

$$\sqrt{\frac{k^3}{M}+k^2}<\sqrt{\frac{p^3}{M}+p^2+m^2}+(ppk)$$
(A6)
for any value of $`k`$ and $`p`$ less than $`2M/3`$. Let us denote the right-hand side of the above inequality (A6) by $`R(k,p)`$. We observe that in the validity range, $`R`$ can be decreased setting $`m=0`$:

$$\sqrt{p^2\frac{p^3}{M}}+\sqrt{(kp)^2\frac{(kp)^3}{M}}<R(k,p).$$
(A7)
Inequality (A7) will continue to hold, when its left-hand side $`L(k,p)`$ is minimized with respect to $`p`$. If we can demonstrate that the minimum is attained at either $`p=0`$ or $`p=k`$, then (A7) reduces to (A6), and we are done.

We will show that $`L(k,p)`$ has a local maximum at $`p/2`$ and decreases monotonically in directions away from the maximum. Indeed, the derivative of $`L`$ with respect to $`p`$ vanishes at $`p/2`$. Negativity of the second derivative of $`L`$ would establish the desired result. One can show that

$$\frac{^2}{p^2}L(k,p)=G(p)H(p)+(pkp),$$
(A8)
where the functions $`G`$ and $`H`$ are defined by

$`G(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M3p}{(M^2p^2Mp^3)^{1/2}}},`$ (A9)
$`H(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M(Mp3p^2/2)^2}{(M^2p^2Mp^3)^{3/2}}}.`$ (A10)
We start from $`0>p^3(4M3p)`$, which holds within the validity range. Adding $`(2Mp3p^2)^2`$ to both sides of this inequality yields $`(2Mp3p^2)^2<4(Mp^2p^3)(M3p)`$. Multiplication with $`M/(M^2p^2Mp^3)^{3/2}`$ shows that $`G(p)<H(p)`$. Since $`kp`$ is also within the range of validity, we can infer $`G(kp)<H(kp)`$. Together with (A8), these results establish the negativity claim.

## B Thresholds in the $`\lambda _0\stackrel{}{\lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}}`$ case

To see that the decay is permitted, consider the special case of the decay $`\gamma _+e^++e^{}`$, in which the $`e^+`$ particle has zero three-momentum and the $`\gamma _+`$ and $`e^{}`$ particles both have three-momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$. Energy conservation and Eq. (20) then imply

$$\sqrt{\frac{k^4}{4M^2}+k^2}=m+\sqrt{\frac{k^4}{4M^2}+k^2+m^2}\frac{k^2}{M},$$
(B1)
where $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$, as before. Note that at $`k=0`$, the left-hand of (B1) is smaller than the right-hand side. For large $`k`$, the situation is vice-versa: The left-hand side grows quadratically, whereas the right-hand side decreases quadratically. By continuity, there must be some value of $`k`$, for which (B1) is satisfied, and the decay is allowed.

For completeness, we demonstrate that the decay of $`\gamma _{}`$ is forbidden in the present context. Arguments similar to the ones in App. A imply that we have to show the validity of

$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^4}{4M^2}}+k^2}`$ $`<`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{4M^2}}+p^2+m^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{(kp)}{M}}k`$ (B3)
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(kp)^4}{4M^2}}+(kp)^2+m^2}`$
for $`p[0,k]`$, where $`p=|\stackrel{}{p}|`$ is the three-momentum magnitude of the $`e^{}`$ particle. The right-hand side $`r(k,p)`$ of (B3) can be reduced by replacing in the second term the factor of $`k`$ by $`p`$ and setting $`m=0`$ under the square roots:

$$\sqrt{\frac{p^4}{4M}+p^2}+(pkp)+\frac{(kp)}{M}p<r(k,p).$$
(B4)
This inequality remains true, when the left-hand side is minimized with respect to $`p`$. If we can show that the minimum is attained at $`p=0`$ or at $`p=k`$, the inequalities (B4) and (B3) become identical, and the claim follows.

We will establish that $`r(k,p)`$ has a local maximum at $`p=k/2`$ and decreases in directions away from this maximum. The necessary condition $`r/p=0`$ at $`p=k/2`$ can be verified straightforwardly. We also show that $`^2r/p^2<0`$ for $`p[0,k]`$. An explicit expression involving the second derivative is given by:

$$M\frac{^2}{p^2}r(k,p)=F(p)+F(kp)2,$$
(B5)
where the function $`F`$ is defined by

$$F(p)=\frac{p(6M^2+p^2)}{(p^2+4M^2)^{3/2}}.$$
(B6)
Thus, it suffices to prove $`F<1`$. We observe that $`0<64M^6p^2+12M^4p^4`$ and add $`p^4(6M^2+p^2)^2`$ to both sides of this inequality. Then, the right-hand side can be cast into the form $`p^2(p^2+4M^2)^3`$. Dividing by this expression yields $`F^2<1`$, which completes the proof.


format: text

text:
# Alternative model of the Antonov problem

## I Introduction

Thermodynamical properties of selfgravitating systems are very different from the ones exhibited by the traditional systems. They are typical nonextensive systems since they are nonhomogeneous and the total energy is not extensive, which is a consequence of the long-range character of gravitational interaction. They also exhibit energetic regions with a negative specific heat, which persist even in the thermodynamic limit pad ; kies ; ruelle ; lind ; antonov ; Lynden ; Lynden1 ; thirring . That is the reason why the Gibbs canonical ensemble is non applicable to the description of selfgravitating systems, since this ensemble is not able to access to those macroscopic states possesing a negative heat capacity. At first glance, the selfgravitating systems could only be described by using the microcanonical ensemble.

Gravitation is not able to confine the particles: it is always possible that some of them have the sufficient energy for escaping out from the system, so that, the selfgravitating systems always undergo an evaporation process. Therefore, they will never be in a real thermodynamic equilibrium. This difficulty is usually avoided by enclosing the system in a rigid container antonov ; Lynden ; Lynden1 , which could be justified when the evaporation rate is small and certain kind of quasistationary state might be reached. There are some approaches which have taken into account this kind of regularization of the long-range singularity of the Newtonian potential in a microcanonical framework gross ; de vega .

The use of the rigid container can be conveniently substituted by imposing the following energetic prescription:

$$\frac{1}{2m}p^2+m\varphi \left(𝐫\right)ϵ_S<0,$$
(1)
where $`\frac{1}{2m}p^2`$ is the kinetic energy of a particle of mass $`m`$ and $`m\varphi \left(𝐫\right)`$ its gravitational potential energy at the point $`𝐫`$, being $`ϵ_S`$ an energy cutoff which is determined from the existence of certain tidal forces. All those particles satisfying the condition (1) are confined by the gravity, on contrary, they will be able to scape out from the system if they do not lose their excessive energy. This regularization procedure is characteristic of the Michie-King model for globular clusters bin , which supposes that those stars that gain suficient velocity through encounters are able to escape or are removed by tidal forces. The main motivation of such regularization scheme relies on the consideration of evaporation effects, and therefore, this regularization procedure is more realistic than the box regularization (the use of the rigid container). The aim of this paper is to develop an alternative model to the standard isothermal sphere model of Antonov antonov  based on the consideration of this energetic prescription starting from microcanonical basis.

## II Statistical description

Let us consider the N-body selfgravitating Hamiltonian system:

$$H_N=T_N+U_N=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑁}{}}\frac{1}{2m}𝐩_k^2\underset{j>k=1}{\overset{𝑁}{}}\frac{Gm^2}{\left|𝐫_j𝐫_k\right|}.$$
(2)
Taking into consideration the above regularization prescription (1), the admissible stages of this system are those in which the kinetic energy of a given particle satisfies the condition:

$$\frac{1}{2m}𝐩_k^2<u_k=m\left[\varphi _S\varphi \left(𝐫_k\right)\right]\text{,}$$
(3)
being $`\varphi \left(𝐫_k\right)`$ the gravitational potential at the point $`𝐫_k`$ where the k-th particle is located:

$$\varphi \left(𝐫_k\right)=\underset{jk}{\overset{𝑁}{}}\frac{Gm^2}{\left|𝐫_k𝐫_j\right|},$$
(4)
where we introduce the tidal potential $`\varphi _S`$($`ϵ_S=m\varphi _S`$).

The regularized microcanonical accessible volume $`W_R`$ is given by:

$$W_R=\frac{1}{N!}_{X_R}\delta \left[EH_N\right]𝑑X,$$

where $`X_R`$ is a subspace of the N-body phase-space where the condition (3) takes place, being $`dX=d^{3N}Rd^{3N}P/(2\pi \mathrm{})^{3N}=\underset{𝑘}{}\frac{d^3𝐫_kd^3𝐩_k}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^3}`$ the volume element. The spacial coordinates should be also regularized in order to avoid the short-range divergenge of the Newtonian potential, which will be performed below by using the mean field approximation. This integral is rewritten by using the Fourier representation of the delta function as follows:

$$W_R=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(zE\right)𝒵_R(z,N),$$
(5)
where $`𝒵_R(z,N)`$:

$$𝒵_R(z,N)=\frac{1}{N!}_{X_R}\mathrm{exp}\left(zH_N\right)𝑑X,$$
(6)
is the canonical partition function with complex argument $`z=\beta +ik`$, with $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. Integration by $`d^{3N}P`$ yields:

$$\frac{1}{N!}_{\mathrm{}^{3N}}d^{3N}R\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2z}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}N}\mathrm{exp}\left[zU_N\left(R\right)+\chi (R;z)\right],$$
(7)
being $`\chi (R;z)`$:

$$\chi (R;z)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{𝑁}{}}\mathrm{ln}F\left[\sqrt{zu_k}\right].$$
(8)
where $`F\left(z\right)`$ is defined by:

$$F\left(z\right)=\mathrm{erf}\left(z\right)\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}z\mathrm{exp}\left(z^2\right)\text{.}$$
(9)
and shown in the figure (1). The asymptotic behaviors of $`F\left(z\right)`$ are given by:

$$F\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi }}z^3+O\left(z^3\right)& \text{when }z0\\ 1& z2.5\end{array}\text{.}$$
(10)
We are interested in describing the large $`N`$ limit. This aim can be carried out by using following procedure: we partition the physical space in cells $`\left\{c_\alpha \right\}`$ being $`𝐫_\alpha `$ the positions of their centers. We denoted by $`n_\alpha =n\left(𝐫_\alpha \right)`$ the number of particles inside the cell at the position $`𝐫_\alpha `$. Introducing the density $`\rho \left(𝐫_\alpha \right)=n\left(𝐫_\alpha \right)/v_\alpha `$, being $`v_\alpha `$ the volume of the cell $`c_\alpha `$, the functions $`U_N\left(R\right)`$ and $`\chi (R;z)`$ are rewritten by using a mean field approximation as follows:

$$U_N\left(R\right)U[\rho ,\varphi ]=_\mathrm{}^3\frac{1}{2}m\rho \left(𝐫\right)\varphi \left(𝐫\right)d^3𝐫,$$
(11)
$`\chi (R;z)`$ $`\chi [\rho ,\varphi ;z]`$
$`={\displaystyle _\mathrm{}^3}\rho \left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{ln}F\left(\sqrt{zm\left[\varphi _S\varphi \left(𝐫\right)\right]}\right)d^3𝐫,`$ (12)
being $`\varphi \left(𝐫\right)`$ the Newtonian potential for a given $`\rho `$ profile:

$$\varphi \left(𝐫\right)=𝒢\left[\rho \right]=_\mathrm{}^3\frac{Gm\rho \left(𝐫_1\right)d^3𝐫_1}{\left|𝐫𝐫_1\right|},$$
(13)
which is the Green solution of the problem:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =4\pi G\rho .$$
(14)
It is easy to understand that this mean field approximation acts as a partial regularization procedure for the short-range singularity of the Newtonian potential. The microscopic fluctuations of the Newtonian potential are disregarded in this approximation, since this field is considered constant inside the volume of each cell. Thus, the gravity effects on the microscopic picture of each cell are reduced to the truncation of the velocity distribution of the particles. This regularization is partial since it does not avoid the gravitational collapse antonov .

Using the partition of the physical space in cells, the integration by $`d^{3N}R`$ can be approximately given by:

$$\frac{1}{N!}_{\mathrm{}^{3N}}d^{3N}R\underset{\left\{n_\alpha \right\}}{}\delta _D\left(N\underset{𝛼}{}n_\alpha \right)\underset{𝛼}{}\frac{v_\alpha ^{n_\alpha }}{n_\alpha !},$$
(15)
where:

$$\delta _D\left(k\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }k=0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\text{ and }\underset{\left\{n_\alpha \right\}}{}\underset{n_1}{}\underset{n_2}{}\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
The following factor can be rephrased in the mean field approximation as follows:

$$\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2z}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}N}\underset{𝛼}{}\frac{v_\alpha ^{n_\alpha }}{n_\alpha !}e^{p_f[\rho ,z]},$$
(17)
being

$$p_f[\rho ,z]=_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫\text{ }\rho \left(𝐫\right)\left[\mathrm{ln}\rho \left(𝐫\right)1+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2z}{m}\right)\right],$$
(18)
where the Stirling formula $`\mathrm{ln}n!n\mathrm{ln}nn`$ was used. Finally, we rephrase the summation in the mean field approximation as follows:

$$\underset{\left\{n_\alpha \right\}}{}\delta _D\left(N\underset{𝛼}{}n_\alpha \right)𝒟\rho \left(𝐫\right)\delta \left[N_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫\text{ }\rho \left(𝐫\right)\right].$$
(19)
Taking into consideration all approximations introduced above, the canonical partition function (6) is rewritten as:

$$𝒵_c[z,N]=𝒟\rho \left(𝐫\right)\delta [NN\left[\rho \right]]\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{p_f[\rho ,z]zU[\rho ,\varphi \left[\rho \right]]+\chi [\rho ,\varphi \left[\rho \right];z]\right\},$$
(20)
being $`N\left[\rho \right]`$ the particles number functional:

$$N\left[\rho \right]=_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫\text{ }\rho \left(𝐫\right).$$
(21)
In order to avoid the complicate $`\rho `$ dependence of $`\varphi \left[\rho \right]`$ in (20), we introduce the identity:

$$𝒟\varphi \left(𝐫\right)\delta \left\{\varphi \left(𝐫\right)𝒢\left[\rho \right]\right\}=1,$$
(22)
in the functional integral (20):

$$𝒟\rho \left(𝐫\right)𝒟\varphi \left(𝐫\right)\delta \{\varphi \left(𝐫\right)𝒢\left[\rho \right]\}\delta (NN\left[\rho \right])\times $$

$$\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{p_f[\rho ;z]zU[\rho ,\varphi ]+\chi [\rho ,\varphi ;z]\right\}.$$
(23)
The delta functions are also conveniently rewritten by using their Fourier representation:

$$\delta \left\{\varphi \left(𝐫\right)𝒢\left[\rho \right]\right\}𝒟h\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫J\left(𝐫\right)\left\{\varphi \left(𝐫\right)𝒢\left[\rho \right]\right\}\right],$$
(24)
as well as

$$\delta \left(NN\left[\rho \right]\right)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dq}{2\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[z_1\left(NN\left[\rho \right]\right)\right],$$
(25)
being $`z_1=\mu +iq`$ with $`\mu \mathrm{}`$; $`J\left(𝐫\right)=j\left(𝐫\right)+ih\left(𝐫\right)`$, a complex function with $`j\left(𝐫\right)`$ and $`h\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{}`$. Thus, the canonical partition function $`𝒵_c[z,N]`$ is finally expressed as:

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dq}{2\pi }𝒟\rho \left(𝐫\right)𝒟\varphi \left(𝐫\right)𝒟h\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{z_1NH[\rho ,\varphi ;z,z_1,J]\right\}.$$
(26)
The functional $`H[\rho ,\varphi ;z,z_1,J]`$ is given by:

$$=p_f[\rho ;z]+zU[\rho ,\varphi ]\chi [\rho ,\varphi ;z]+z_1N\left[\rho \right]+K[\varphi ,\rho ,J],$$
(27)
being $`K[\varphi ,\rho ,J]`$ the exponential argument of the expression (24).

The reader may check that when $`N`$ is scaled as $`N\alpha N`$, and the following quantities are scaled as follows:

| $`\rho \alpha ^2\rho ,\text{ }𝐫\alpha ^{\frac{1}{3}}𝐫,\text{ }\varphi \alpha ^{\frac{4}{3}}\varphi ,`$ |
| --- |
| $`z\alpha ^{\frac{4}{3}}z,z_1z_1,J\alpha ^{\frac{2}{3}}J,`$ |

(28)
all terms in (27) scale proportional to $`\alpha `$, and therefore:

$$H[\rho ,\varphi ;z,z_1,J]\alpha H[\rho ,\varphi ;z,z_1,J].$$
(29)
The thermodynamic limit is carry out tending $`\alpha `$ to the infinity, $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Thus, we can estimate $`𝒵_c[z,N]`$ for $`N`$ large by using the steepest decent method. The Planck potential $`𝒫(\beta ,N)=\mathrm{ln}𝒵_c[\beta ,N]`$ is thus obtained as follows:

$$𝒫[\beta ,N]\underset{\rho ,\text{ }\varphi }{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\underset{\text{ }\mu ,\text{ }j}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\mu NH[\rho ,\varphi ;\beta ,\mu ,j]\right]\right\}.$$
(30)
where the stationary conditions:

$$\frac{\delta H}{\delta \rho }=\frac{\delta H}{\delta \varphi }=\frac{\delta H}{\delta j}=\frac{\delta H}{\delta \mu }N=0,$$
(31)
lead to the following relations:

$`\rho `$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta }}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{exp}[\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta m\varphi +𝒢\left[j\right]]\times `$
$`\times F\left[\sqrt{\beta m\left[\varphi _S\varphi \right]}\right],`$ (32)
$$j=\frac{1}{2}\beta m\rho +\rho _\varphi \mathrm{ln}F\left[\sqrt{\beta m\left[\varphi _S\varphi \right]}\right],$$
(33)
$$\varphi =𝒢\left[\rho \right]\text{ and }N=N\left[\rho \right],$$
(34)
The relations (32) and (33) define the state equation; and the relations (34) establish the Newtonian potential $`\varphi `$ for a given $`\rho `$ profile as well as the normalization constrain for the number of particles. The relation (32) is conveniently rewritten by using (33) as follows:

$$\rho =N(\beta ,\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }+C\right]F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\beta m\left[\varphi _S\varphi \right]`$ and $`N(\beta ,\mu )=\left(\frac{m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\beta }\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu \beta m\varphi _S\right)`$, being $`C`$ a new function which is given by:

$$C=\beta m𝒢\left[\rho _\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right].$$
(36)
It is not difficult to show that the Planck potential is given by:

$$𝒫(\beta ,N)=\left(1+\mu +\frac{1}{2}\beta m\varphi _S\right)N+_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫\text{ }\rho \left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }+C\right).$$
(37)
The Boltzmann entropy can be estimated by using the steepest decent method as follows:

$$S_B(E,N)\underset{𝛽}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\beta E𝒫[\beta ,N]\right],$$
(38)
being $`E[\beta ,\rho ,\varphi ]`$ the energy functional:

$$E[\beta ,\rho ,\varphi ]=_\mathrm{}^3d^3𝐫\text{ }\left[3\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]\frac{1}{2\beta }\rho +\frac{1}{2}m\rho \varphi .$$
(39)
It can be easily seen that the quantity:

$$ϵ(\beta ,\mathrm{\Phi })=\left[3\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]\frac{1}{2\beta },$$
(40)
represents the kinetic energy per particle at a given point of the selfgravitating system. Note that $`\rho `$ vanishes when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ tends to zero in (35), so that, the particle distribution has been regularized. This state equation differs from the one obtained in the isothermal model by the presence of the truncation function $`F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)`$ as well as the driving function $`C`$. Although $`C`$ naturally appears in our derivation, its existence is closely related with the modification provoked in the microscopic picture of the system by the evaporation. An example of this affirmation is the deviation of the Maxwell distribution along the system, which can be noted in the kinetic energy per particle $`ϵ(\beta ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (40). A naive energy truncation of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:

$$\omega _{MB}=C_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \left(\frac{1}{2m}p^2+m\varphi \right)\right].$$
(41)
leads to the state function:

$$\rho \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\right]F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),$$
(42)
but here the driving function $`C`$ does not appear.

According to the scaling laws (28), this astrophysical model obeys to the following thermodynamic limit:

$$N\mathrm{},\text{ keeping constant }\frac{E}{N^{\frac{7}{3}}}\text{ and }LN^{\frac{1}{3}},$$
(43)
being $`L`$ the characteristic system size. This thermodynamic limit was obtained in ref.chava  for the self-gravitating fermions model. The reader may surprise of the $`N`$-dependence of the characteristic system size $`L`$. However, there is nothing strange in this behavior since the selfgravitating gas is constituted by punctual particles, and therefore, this model system can be reduced to a point in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

It is easy to understand that this is an asymptotical behavior which disappears when the particles size or/and the relativistic effects are taken into account. It means that it should exist a superior limit of $`N`$ in which these N-dependences of the energy and system size become invalid, and therefore, the selfgravitating nonrelativistic gas model is inapplicable for describing the thermodynamical properties of such massive astrophysical systems.

It is interesting to analyze the asymptotic behavior of the particles density state function $`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi };\beta ,\mu )`$. According to the asymptotic behaviors (10) of the function $`F\left(z\right)`$, the state equation (35) becomes in the isothermal distribution when $`\mathrm{\Phi }>2.5`$ :

$$\rho \mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\right],$$
(44)
which is characteristic of the inner regions of the system (the core). At local level, the particles velocities obey to a Maxwell distribution, where the kinetic energy per particle (40) is given by $`3/2\beta `$. When we move from the inner regions towards the outer ones, the kinetic energy per particle decreases until zero, being this approximately given by $`ϵ3\mathrm{\Phi }/5\beta `$. There the particles velocities obey to an uniform distribution, and so, the state equation in the halo obey to a polytropic distribution:

$$\rho \frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$
(45)
All these behaviors appear as consequence of the high energy cutoff (3) in the Maxwell distribution for the kinetic energy $`f\left(k\right)=2\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}k^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(k\right)`$ ($`k=\beta 𝐩^2/2m`$ ), which is shown in the figure (2). Note that the cutoff value of $`k`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In the inner regions where $`\mathrm{\Phi }>2.5`$, this energy cutoff is unimportant because of it is located in the tail of the distribution. However, it modifies considerably the character of the state function for $`\rho `$ in the halo due to the fact that it is located before the pick. The particles density $`\rho `$ will obey to the polytropic dependence (45) throughout the whole system volume when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also small in the inner regions.

Thus, the consideration of the energetic prescription (1) always leads to the existence of a polytropic halo, where the system core can be isothermal or polytropic, according to the values of the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the inner regions of the system. Due to the general properties of the spherical solutions with a polytropic profile, the particles density will vanish at a finite radio $`R_{tidal}`$, which can be identify with the characteristic size of the system. This radio is related with the tidal potential $`\varphi _S`$ throughout the relation:

$$\varphi _S=\frac{GM}{R_{tidal}},$$
(46)
being $`M`$ the system total mass. Thus, the characteristic size of the system is determined by the tidal interactions.

## III Numerical study

In order to perform a numerical study of the equations obtained in the previous section, we express the energy in units of $`E_0=GM^2/R_{tidal}`$ and the lenght in units of the system size $`R_{tidal}`$, and the mass in unit of $`M`$. It is not difficult to show that the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`C`$ obey to the following structure equations:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_r\mathrm{\Phi }=4\pi F_1(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }),\mathrm{\Delta }_r\mathrm{\Psi }=4\pi F_2(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })\text{ ,}$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ru=r^2_r\left(r^2_ru\right)`$ is the radial part of the Laplace operator, being the functions $`F_1(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`F_2(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ defined by:

$`F_1(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)F\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),`$
$`F_2(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (48)
In the expressions above the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }=C+\mathrm{ln}𝒦(\beta ,\mu )`$, with $`𝒦(\beta ,\mu )=\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu +\beta \right)`$. The solutions of the nonlinear system (47) satisfy the following conditions at the surface:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1\right)=0,\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\left(1\right)=\beta ,C\left(1\right)=C^{}\left(1\right)$$
(49)
which are derived from the boundary conditions of Green solutions (13).

The solution can be obtained from the imposition of the following boundary conditions at the origin:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(0\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_0>0\text{,}`$ (50)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right),`$ (51)
where the value of $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)`$ depends on the parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ because of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ must vanish when $`r=1`$. This situation can be overcome redefining the problem as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left(r\right)=\psi \left(\xi \right)+2\mathrm{ln}R_m,\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(r\right)=\phi \left(\xi \right)$$
(52)
being $`\{\phi \left(\xi \right),\psi \left(\xi \right)\}`$ the solution of (47) whose boundary conditions are given by:

$$\phi \left(0\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0>0,\phi ^{}\left(0\right)=0,\psi \left(0\right)=0,\psi ^{}\left(0\right)=0,$$
(53)
where $`\xi `$ is related with $`r`$ throughout the relation:

$$r=\xi /R_m,$$
(54)
being $`R_m`$ the radio at which $`\phi `$ vanishes ($`\phi \left(R_m\right)=0`$).

The canonical parameter $`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$ are obtained from the relations:

$$R_m_\xi \phi \left(R_m\right)=\beta =\beta \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right),$$
(55)
$$\psi \left(R_m\right)+R_m_\xi \psi \left(R_m\right)=h,$$
(56)
being $`h=h\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[𝒦(\beta ,\mu )/R_m^2\right]`$, which allow us to express $`\mu `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$:

$$\mu =h+\beta \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\beta 2\mathrm{ln}R_m.$$
(57)
Taking into consideration the equations (39) and (37), the total energy and the Planck potential per particle are rewritten as follows:

$$ϵ\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)=\frac{3}{2\beta }\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\beta ^2R_m}h_1\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right),$$
(58)
$$𝒫\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)=1\mu +\frac{1}{2}\beta +h\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)+\frac{1}{\beta R_m}h_2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right).$$
(59)
being

$$h_1\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)=_0^{R_m}4\pi \xi ^2𝑑\xi \frac{1}{2}\phi \left[F_1(\psi ,\phi )+F_2(\psi ,\phi )\right],$$
(60)
$$h_2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)=_0^{R_m}4\pi \xi ^2𝑑\xi \text{ }F_1(\psi ,\phi )\left(\frac{1}{2}\phi +\psi \right).$$
(61)
## IV Results and discussions

Figures (3) and (4) show respectively the caloric curve and the central density of the model. These dependences evidence that this model system exhibits the main features of the Antonov isothermal model: the existence of a negative specific heat when $`ϵ_A<ϵ<ϵ_B`$, and the gravitational collapse for $`ϵ<ϵ_A`$, where the central density grows towards the infinity and the system develops a core-halo structure, being $`ϵ_A=0.806`$ and $`ϵ_B=0.446`$.

This conclusion is supported by the analysis of the thermodynamical potentials of the model: the entropy in the microcanonical ensemble, at figure (5), and the Planck potential in the canonical ensemble, at figure (6). The figure (5) shows that the points of the superior branch of the caloric curve (3) correspond to equilibrium configuration while the others represent unstable saddle points. No equilibrium states exist when $`ϵ<ϵ_A`$.

On the other hand, the figure (6) evidences that the canonical ensemble can access only to those equilibrium states beloging to the interval $`0<\beta <\beta _B`$ (with $`ϵ>ϵ_B`$), where $`\beta _B=1.193`$. The energetic region $`ϵ_A<ϵ<ϵ_B`$ is invisible for the canonical description due to the negativity of the heat capacity. No equilibrium states exist for $`\beta >\beta _B`$. This fact evidences the existence of a gravitational collapse in the canonical ensemble beyond the critical point $`\beta _B`$, which is usually refered as an isothermal collapse chava3 .

The Gibbs’ argument, the equilibrium of a subsystem with a thermal bath, is non applicable to this situation because of no reasonable thermal bath exits for the astrophysical systems.Therefore, the isothermal catastrophe is not a phenomenon with physical relevance since it can be never obtained in nature: the consideration of a thermal bath in the astrophysical system is outside of context. A different significance possesses the gravothermal catastrophe. The gravitational collapse is the main engine of structuration in astrophysics and it concerns almost all scales of the universe: the formation of planetesimals in the solar nebula, the formation of stars, the fractal nature of the interstellar medium, the evolution of globular clusters and galaxies and the formation of galactic clusters in cosmology chava3 .

Let us now carry out a comparative study between the isothermal model and this alternative onel. As already mentioned, the only difference between these approaches relies on the regularization prescription of the long-range singularity of the selfgravitating gas: the isothermal model avoids the particles evaporation by using a rigid container, while the present model takes into account the effect of this evaporation by truncating the kinetic energy distribution function. This study is carried out by considering a spherical container in the isothermal model with a linear dimension $`R=R_{tidal}`$.

Figure (7) shows the caloric curves of these models. In spite of the qualitative similarity of these dependences, the alternative model is able to describe an additional energetic range: from $`0.806`$ to $`0.335`$; but the isothermal model describes equilibrium configurations belonging to the interval $`1.193<\beta <2.518`$, which are cooler than the ones described by using the first model..

A second difference is evidenced in regard to the central density versus energy dependence, which is shown in the figure (8). The central density at the critical energy of the gravitational collapse is much greater in the alternative model than the isothermal one, and this qualitative relationship seems to be applicable to the whole energetic range.

The figure (9) shows two interesting observables: the radio in which the system exhibits an isothermic behavior, $`R_{i.c}`$, and the mass content enclosed inside, $`M_{i.c}`$. This quantities characterizes the size and the mass of the isothermal core. The reader may observe that the isothermal core contains at the critical energy of the gravitational collapse, the half of the system total mass inside the $`1\%`$ of the system volume. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that this isothermal core disappears at $`ϵ^{}0.066`$.

The quantitative differences in the thermodynamical description between these models seem to be explained by the following reasonings. Most of the energy contribution to the total energy comes from the isothermal core. The contribution of the gravitational potential energy is dominant in the core due to the high mass concentration enclosed inside this region, where moreover, the Newtonian potential exhibits its highest values. Outside the isothermal core, the kinectic energy contribution decreases considerably as consequence of the deviation from the isothermal character of the microscopic particles distribution function due to the evaporation.

These arguments can be rephrased as follows: in the isothermal region, where $`0.806<ϵ<0.066`$, the present model behaves as an isothermal model with a characteristic size equal to the size of the isothermal core. Since the relevant canonical variables in the isothermal model is $`\eta =\beta GM/R`$ antonov ; chava3 , a rough estimation of the maximal value $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}=\beta _B`$ in which the isothermal collapse takes places is given by:

$$\beta _B\frac{R_{i.c}}{M_{i.c}}\beta _{\mathrm{max}}^{isoth.}.$$
(62)
By using the characteristics values $`R_{i.c}0.2`$, $`M_{i.c}0.5`$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}^{isoth.}2.5`$ (obtained from the isothermal model), the formula (62) gives a fairly good estimation of $`\beta _B1`$ ($`\beta _B=1.193`$).

The main difference between these model is in regard to the character of the equilibrium profiles in the high energy region with $`ϵ>0`$. As already discussed, the isothermal core has disappear in this energetic region and the equilibrium configurations of the system are essentially polytropic, while the isothermal model leads to a uniform distribution of the particles throughout the volume of the rigid container.

In this case, the structure equations (47) become in a quasi-polytropic model:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=4\pi \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\sqrt{\pi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{3}{2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=4\pi \mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (63)
which exhibits the same fractal characteristics of a polytropic model with polytropic index $`\gamma =\frac{5}{3}`$. This polytropic index characterizes an adiabatic process of the ideal gas of particles, which is in our case the evaporation of the system in the vacuum. However, this equation system is not equivalent to the polytropic model due to the presence of the driving function $`C`$. This purely polytropic profile is obtained by disregarding the second equation and setting $`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ in the first one.

Let us finalize our discussion by carrying out a comparative study among the equilibrium profiles obtained from the alternative model with the well-known isothermal and polytropic profiles. These equilibrium profiles are shown in the figure (10). Equilibrium profiles A and C were obtained from the alternative model: profile A corresponds to an equilibrium configuration possessing an isothermal core, while C is a quasi-polytropic equilibrium profile. Profiles B and D correspond respectively to an isothermal and polytropic configurations. The reader can note that the alternative model profiles differ essentially in regard to the existence of the isothermal core, since no qualitative differences are evidenced in the halo structure. On the other hand, these results suggest that a system undergoing an evaporation process concentrates their particles in the inner regions more than what the isothermal or the polytropic models predict.

## V Conclusions

As already shown in the present paper, the consideration of the energetic prescription (1) leads to an alternative version of the Antonov problem. This model, besides of exhibiting the main features of the isothermal model: the gravitational collapse and the energetic region with a negative specific heat, has the advantage that the system size naturally appears as consequence of the particles evaporation. There is no need of enclosing the system in a rigid container in order to avoid long-range singularity of the Newtonian potential because this regularization procedure is sufficient to access to finite equilibrium configurations.

It is remarkable that the present approach unifies the well-known isothermal and polytropic equilibrium profiles. As already mentioned, the equilibrium profiles derived from this alternative model differ essentially in regard to the existence of the isothermal core, since no qualitative differences are evidenced in the halo structure. The comparative study of the equilibrium $`\rho `$ profiles suggests that a system undergoing an evaporation process concentrates the particles in the inner regions more than what predict by the isothermal or the polytropic models.

There are many open questions in the study of this model system by using this kind of regularization scheme, as example, the dynamical aspects: Which is the influence of the particles evaporation in the system dynamical evolution? and how could it be performed this dynamical description by preserving this energetic prescription? Further studies should clarify these questions. The present study is carried out by considering that the evaporation rate is small enough in order to ensure that the system reaches a quasistationary state. This assumption is satisfied by the globular clusters, since the relaxation time $`t_{relax}`$ in them differs considerable from the evapotation time $`t_{evap}`$, $`t_{relaz}t_{evap}`$ (see in ref.berna ). The dynamical approch could be developed by considering that the system evolutes slowly throughout these quasistationary states.