# Traversable wormholes from massless conformally coupled scalar fields

## 1 Introduction

The equations of general relativity relate the geometry of a spacetime manifold to its matter content. Given a geometry one can find the distribution of mass-energy and momenta that support it. Unless there are restrictions on the features that the matter content can possess, general relativity allows the existence of spacetime geometries in which apparently distant regions of space are close to each other through wormhole connections. The existence or not of traversable wormhole geometries has many implications that could change our way of looking at the structure of spacetime (see  for a survey and bibliography on the subject).

The analysis of M. Morris and K. Thorne  regarding traversable wormhole geometries showed that, in order for the flaring out of geodesics characteristic of a Lorentzian wormhole throat to happen, it is necessary that the matter that supports the wormhole throat be peculiar: it has to violate the Null Energy Condition (NEC) . That is to say, even a null geodesic observer would see negative energy densities on passing the throat. This analysis was originally done with static spherically symmetric configurations, but the NEC violation is a generic property of an arbitrary wormhole throat .

It is often (mistakenly) thought that classical matter always satisfies NEC. By contrast, in the quantum regime there are well-known situations in which NEC violations can easily be obtained . For this reason, most investigations regarding wormhole physics are developed within the realm of semiclassical gravity, where the expectation value of the quantum energy-momentum tensor is used as the source for the gravitational field .

However, one can easily see that the energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field conformally coupled to gravity can violate NEC even at the classical level . We would like to highlight that this energy-momentum tensor is the most natural one for a scalar field at low energies (energies well below the Planck scale, or any other scale below which a scalar field theory might become non-renormalizable), because its matrix elements are finite in every order of renormalized perturbation theory . In flat spacetime, this energy-momentum tensor defines the same four-momentum and Lorentz generators as that associated with a minimally coupled scalar field and, in fact, it was first constructed as an improvement of the latter . Thus, we wish to focus attention on the so-called “new improved energy-momentum tensor” of particle physics. At higher energies, still well below the Planck scale, there may also be other forms of classical violations of the NEC, such as higher derivative theories , Brans–Dicke theory , or even more exotic possibilities.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 For instance, we mention the work by H. Ellis  in which he considered changing the sign in front of the energy-momentum tensor for a minimally coupled scalar field. Reversing this sign from the usual one, he found classical wormhole solutions, which with hindsight is not surprising since reversing the energy-momentum tensor explicitly violates the energy conditions. This paper is of particular interest since it pre-dates the Morris–Thorne analysis by 15 years.

In this paper, we will concentrate on the massless conformally coupled scalar field. We will explicitly show that it can provide us with the flaring out condition characteristic of traversable wormholes. We have analytically solved the Einstein equations for static and spherically symmetric geometries. We find a three-parameter class of exact solutions. These solutions include the Schwarzschild geometry, certain naked singularities, and a collection of traversable wormholes. However, in all these wormhole geometries the effective Newton’s constant has a different sign in the two asymptotic regions. At the end of the paper we will briefly discuss some ways of escaping from this somewhat disconcerting conclusion.

## 2 Einstein conformal scalar field solutions

In this section, we will describe the exact solutions to the combined system of equations for Einstein gravity and a massless conformally coupled scalar field, in the simple case of static and spherically symmetric configurations.

The Einstein equations can be written as $`\kappa G_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`G_{\mu \nu }=R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R`$ is the Einstein tensor, with $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ the Ricci tensor and $`R`$ the scalar curvature. $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the matter field, and $`\kappa =(8\pi G_N)^1`$, with $`G_N`$ denoting Newton’s constant. For a massless conformal scalar field $`\varphi _c`$, the energy-momentum tensor acquires the form 

$$T_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _c_\nu \varphi _c\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }(\varphi _c)^2+\frac{1}{6}\left[G_{\mu \nu }\varphi _c^22_\mu (\varphi _c_\nu \varphi _c)+2g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda (\varphi _c_\lambda \varphi _c)\right],$$
(2.1)   
with the field satisfying the equation $`(^2\frac{1}{6}R)\varphi _c=0`$. This is the generalization to curved spacetime of the “new improved energy-momentum tensor” more usually invoked in a particle physics context .

The key feature of the energy-momentum tensor for a conformal field is that it is traceless, $`T_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }=0`$, and therefore $`R=0`$. For this reason, we can write the coupled Einstein plus conformal scalar field equations as

$`R_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\left(\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\varphi _c^2\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}_\mu \varphi _c_\nu \varphi _c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_{\mu \nu }(\varphi _c)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\varphi _c_\mu _\nu \varphi _c\right),`$ (2.2)   
$`^2\varphi _c=`$ $`0.`$ (2.3)   
We are interested in static and spherically symmetric solutions of these equations. In order to find these solutions, we will start by looking for metrics conformally related to the Janis–Newman–Winicour–Wyman (JNWW)  static spherically symmetric solutions of the Einstein minimally coupled massless scalar field equations:

$`R_{\mu \nu }=`$ $`\kappa ^1\left(_\mu \varphi _m_\nu \varphi _m\right),`$ (2.4)   
$`^2\varphi _m=`$ $`0.`$ (2.5)   
The JNWW solutions can be expressed  as

$`ds_m^2=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right)^{\mathrm{cos}\chi }dt^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right)^{\mathrm{cos}\chi }dr^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right)^{1\mathrm{cos}\chi }r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Phi }^2),`$   
(2.6)   
$`\varphi _m=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right).`$ (2.7)   
The JNWW solutions possess obvious symmetries under $`\chi \chi `$, (with $`\varphi _m\varphi _m`$). Less obvious is that by making a coordinate transformation $`r\stackrel{~}{r}=r2\eta `$, one uncovers an additional symmetry under $`\{\eta ,\chi \}\{\eta ,\chi +\pi \}`$, (with $`\varphi _m+\varphi _m`$). In view of these symmetries one can without loss of generality take $`\eta 0`$ and $`\chi [0,\pi ]`$. Similar symmetries will be encountered for conformally coupled scalars.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 The key to this symmetry is to realise that    
$$\left(1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right)=\left(1+\frac{2\eta }{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^1.$$

The requirement that a metric conformal to the JNWW metric, $`ds=\mathrm{\Omega }(r)ds_m`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ the conformal factor, have a zero scalar curvature \[necessary if it has to be solution of the system of equations (2.2)\], easily provides a second-order differential equation for the conformal factor as a function of $`\varphi _m`$:

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Omega }(\varphi _m)}{d\varphi _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=\frac{1}{6\kappa }\varphi _m.$$
(2.8)   
Its solutions can be parametrized in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)+\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right),$$
(2.9)   
with $`\alpha _+`$ and $`\alpha _{}`$ two real constants. The equation $`^2\varphi _c=0`$ can now be integrated yielding

$$\varphi _c=A\frac{\sqrt{6\kappa }}{4\alpha _+\alpha _{}}\left[\frac{\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)}{\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)+\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)}\right]+B,$$
(2.10)   
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two additional integration constants.

In order that the metric and conformal scalar field just found be solutions of the whole set of equations (2.2), the four integration constants, $`\alpha _+`$, $`\alpha _{}`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$, must be inter-related in a specific way. After a little algebra the equation for the $`tt`$ component in (2.2) implies the following relations<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 In view of the assumed static and spherical symmetries, the Einstein equations provide only three constraints, and by the contracted Bianchi identities only two of these are independent. Thus it is only necessary to consider the trace $`R`$ and the $`tt`$ component $`R_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}`$ to guarantee a solution of the entire tensor equation.

$`AB\alpha _+\alpha _{}=0,`$ (2.11)   
$`\alpha _+^2\alpha _{}^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{6\kappa }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{16}}=0.`$ (2.12)   
Therefore, we have two options:

Case i) $`B=0`$, $`A=\pm 4\alpha _+\alpha _{}`$;   

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)+\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right),`$ (2.13)   
$`\varphi _c=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)}{\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)+\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)}}\right].`$ (2.14)   
Case ii) $`A=0`$, $`B=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }`$;

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\alpha _+\mathrm{exp}\left(+\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right)+\alpha _{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa }\right),`$ (2.15)   
$`\varphi _c=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }.`$ (2.16)   
Notice that these two branches of solutions intersect when either $`\alpha _+`$ or $`\alpha _{}`$ are equal to zero.

The set of solutions we have found is a generalization of the solutions found by Froyland , and some time later by Agnese and La Camera . Indeed, in the case $`\alpha _+=\alpha _{}`$ the conformal factor becomes $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{cosh}(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa })`$, (we drop a unimportant constant factor), and the field $`\varphi _c=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }\mathrm{tanh}(\varphi _m/\sqrt{6\kappa })`$, in agreement with the expression given by Agnese and La Camera. The Froyland solution is in fact identical to that of Agnese–La Camera though this is not obvious because Froyland chose to work in Schwarzschild coordinates. Because of this, Froyland could only provide an implicit (rather than explicit) solution.<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 That is, Froyland calculated $`(\varphi _c)`$, which in Schwarzschild coordinates is not analytically invertible to provide $`\varphi _c()`$. The coordinate system chosen by Agnese and La Camera is much better behaved in this regard and $`\varphi _c(r)`$ can be explicitly calculated as we have seen above. The trade-off is that whereas $`(r)`$ can be written down explicitly, there is no way of analytically inverting this function to get $`r()`$.

Let us now analyze the different behaviours of these solutions. For this task, it is convenient to look at the conformal factor as a function of $`r`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=\alpha _+\left(1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right)^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi }{2\sqrt{3}}}+\alpha _{}\left(1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right)^{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi }{2\sqrt{3}}}.$$
(2.17)   
In the same way, as a function of $`r`$, the Schwarzschild radial coordinate $``$ has the form

$$(r)=r\left(1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right)^{\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\chi }{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }(r).$$
(2.18)   
If we define an angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by $`\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)=(\alpha _+\alpha _{})/(\alpha _++\alpha _{})`$, then the domain $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\pi ,\pi ]`$ exhausts all possible metric configurations, as a constant overall factor in the metric can be absorbed in the definition of coordinates. We have a three-parameter family of solutions depending on $`\eta `$, the angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the angle $`\chi (\pi ,\pi ]`$. In fig. 1 we have drawn the parameter space as a square. Indeed, parallel edges are identified, so the parameter space is an orbifold (a two-torus subjected to symmetry identifications). In fact, the solution space is invariant if we change $`\{\eta ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ to $`\{\eta ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. Furthermore, the coordinate transformation $`r\stackrel{~}{r}=r2\eta `$ can now be used to deduce an invariance under $`\{\eta ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}\{\eta ,\chi +\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. Combining the two symmetries, we deduce an invariance under $`\{\eta ,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}\{\eta ,\pi \chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. Thus without loss of generality we only have to deal with the region $`\eta 0`$ with $`\chi [0,\pi ]`$. Also, we need only consider the geometries in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ because, for that value, the geometries do not have an asymptotic flat region when $`r`$ approaches infinity.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5 We mention in particular that the physical scale length, effective Newton constant, and physical mass of the spacetime can be isolated from a weak-field expansion near spatial infinity. We find    
$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}M=\eta \left(\mathrm{cos}\chi +\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right]\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi }{\sqrt{3}}\right).$$
We note that this scale length is invariant under all the symmetries mentioned above (as it must be). The effective Newton constant is    
$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{8\pi (\kappa \frac{1}{6}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^2)}=\frac{1}{8\pi \kappa }\left(1\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right)^1.$$
Thus $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`M`$, and $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}M`$ are separately invariants of the symmetries discussed above. For the objectional value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi `$, the lack of an asymptotically flat region is reflected in an infinite physical mass.

For the rest of parameter space, an analysis when $`r`$ approaches $`2\eta `$ of the behaviour of the $`tt`$ component of the Ricci tensor ($`R_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}`$ in an orthonormal coordinate basis) shows that it diverges for every point in parameter space except when $`\chi =0`$, $`\{\chi =\frac{\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\pi }{2}\}`$, $`\{\chi =\frac{2\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\pi }{2}\}`$, or $`\chi =\pi `$. Thus, except for these parameter values, we have geometries with a naked curvature singularity at $`r=2\eta `$.

Among these singular geometries, those with $`0<\chi <\frac{\pi }{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\pi }{2}`$ deserve additional attention. For them, the Schwarzschild radial coordinate blows up when approaching $`r=2\eta `$. They are geometries with wormhole shape, but with something “strange” in the other “asymptotic” region. We can easily check that the proper radial distance between every point $`r>2\eta `$ and $`r=2\eta `$ is finite. Also the proper volume beyond every sphere at finite $`r>2\eta `$ is itself finite, even though the proper area of the spherical sections diverges as one approaches $`r=2\eta `$. Therefore, although one certainly encounters a flare-out (a wormhole throat) before reaching $`r=2\eta `$, we cannot speak properly of another asymptotic region.<sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6 Thus these geometries are certainly Lorentzian wormholes, and could even be called “traversable in principle”, but because of the nasty behaviour on the other side of the wormhole throat, they do not deserve to be called “traversable in practice”.

The first non singular case is $`\chi =0`$. In this case we recover the Schwarzschild black hole geometry. This geometry, of course, does not have a curvature singularity at $`r=2\eta `$, just a coordinate singularity. It is instead singular at $`r=0`$.

For the special cases $`\{\chi =\frac{\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\pi }{2}\}`$ there exist situations in which the Schwarzschild radial coordinate $``$ and the gravitational potential $`g_{tt}`$ go to non-zero constants when approaching $`r=2\eta `$. This suggests that we might be able to extend the geometry beyond $`r=2\eta `$. We leave for the next section the analysis of how this extension can be done, showing that there exist genuine wormhole solutions.

In the case $`\{\chi =\frac{2\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\pi }{2}\}`$ we can write the metric as

$$ds^2=dt^2+\left(1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right)dr^2+(r2\eta )^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Phi }^2).$$
(2.19)   
Writing $`\stackrel{~}{r}=r2\eta `$, so that

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{d\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{\left(1+\frac{2\eta }{\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)}+\stackrel{~}{r}^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Phi }^2),$$
(2.20)   
a brief calculation shows that this geometry is also singular at $`\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$, $`r=2\eta `$, even though $`R_{\widehat{t}\widehat{t}}`$ remains finite there. (The other Ricci components, $`R_{\widehat{r}\widehat{r}}`$ and $`R_{\widehat{\theta }\widehat{\theta }}`$, diverge as $`\stackrel{~}{r}0`$.)

Finally, the case $`\chi =\pi `$ corresponds to a negative mass Schwarzschild geometry. It has a naked curvature singularity at $`r=2\eta `$, but after the coordinate change $`r\stackrel{~}{r}=r2\eta `$, the naked curvature singularity moves to $`\stackrel{~}{r}=0`$, and the character of the geometry becomes obvious.

## 3 Traversable wormhole solutions

This section is devoted to the analysis of the case $`\{\chi =\frac{\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{\pi }{2}\}`$. For this task, it is convenient to change to isotropic coordinates

$$r=\overline{r}\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)^2.$$
(3.21)   
With the new radial coordinate running from $`\overline{r}=\eta /2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ we cover the same portion of the metric manifold that $`r[\eta ,\mathrm{})`$ did before. However, can the manifold be analytically extended beyond $`\overline{r}=\eta /2`$? The answer is yes. We can write the metric in isotropic coordinates as

$$ds^2=\left[\alpha _+\frac{\left(1\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)}{\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)}+\alpha _{}\right]^2\left[dt^2+\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)^4[d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Phi }^2)]\right],$$
(3.22)   
noticing that it is perfectly well behaved at $`\overline{r}=\eta /2`$. We want to point out that for $`0<\overline{r}<\eta /2`$ the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is real and negative, while the JNWW solution is ill-behaved in the sense that the metric $`ds_m^2`$ has opposite signature to the usual. Nevertheless, the metric $`ds^2`$ is perfectly well behaved. Thus, strictly speaking, only the region $`\overline{r}>\eta /2`$ is conformally related with its corresponding JNWW solution.

Among these solutions, in those with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\pi ,0)`$ the Schwarzschild radial coordinate $`(\overline{r})`$ reaches a minimum value at $`\overline{r}=(\eta /2)|\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)|^{1/2}`$, and comes back to infinity at $`\overline{r}=0`$, showing up as another asymptotically flat region. As well as this, the $`tt`$ component of the metric is everywhere non-zero. Therefore, the region in parameter space $`\{\chi =\frac{\pi }{3},\mathrm{\Delta }(\pi ,0)\}`$ represents genuine traversable wormhole solutions, with the throat of the wormhole being located at $`\overline{r}=(\eta /2)|\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)|^{1/2}`$. For completeness, in the solution with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, $`(\overline{r})`$ reaches a minimum at $`\overline{r}=0`$, but this sphere is at a infinite proper distance from every other $`\overline{r}`$ so we can conclude that this geometry is a “cornucopia” (tube without end). ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi `$ represents the reversed cornucopia with no asymptotic region at $`\overline{r}=\mathrm{}`$). For the remaining values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,\pi )`$ the geometry pinches off (the conformal prefactor in equation (3.22) goes to zero) at finite positive radius $`\overline{r}=(\eta /2)\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$.

We have seen that a scalar field coupled conformally to gravity can support wormhole geometries. On these wormhole configurations the conformal scalar field takes the following form

$$\varphi _c=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }\frac{\alpha _+\left(1\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)\alpha _{}\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)}{\alpha _+\left(1\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)+\alpha _{}\left(1+\frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}\right)}.$$
(3.23)   
It is a monotonically increasing or decreasing function (depending on the overall sign) between one asymptotic region and the other, taking the values

$$\varphi _c|_{\mathrm{asym}_1}=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2},\mathrm{and}\varphi _c|_{\mathrm{asym}_2}=\pm \frac{\sqrt{6\kappa }}{\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}.$$
(3.24)   
This monotonic behaviour for the scalar field causes an asymmetry between the asymptotic regions. In fact, we can realize of the real importance of this asymmetry by looking at the effective Newton’s constant, $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}=8\pi (\kappa \frac{1}{6}\varphi _c^2)^1`$, that can be defined on these systems. It not only reaches a different value on each asymptotic region,

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}|_{\mathrm{asym}_1}=\frac{1}{8\pi \kappa }\frac{1}{(1\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})},G_{\mathrm{eff}}|_{\mathrm{asym}_2}=\frac{1}{8\pi \kappa }\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}{(1\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})},$$
(3.25)   
it also reaches a different sign. From the point of view of the asymptotic region with a positive effective Newton’s constant, the wormhole throat is located in the region in which $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has already changed its sign. This asymmetry is reflected also in the values of the asymptotic masses measured on the two sides of the wormhole throat. The scale lengths are

$$(G_{\mathrm{eff}}M)|_{\mathrm{asym}_1}=\frac{\eta }{2}\left(1+\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\right),(G_{\mathrm{eff}}M)|_{\mathrm{asym}_2}=\frac{\eta }{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\right).$$
(3.26)   
The observers in the asymptotic region with a positive $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ see a positive asymptotic mass, while those in the other asymptotic region see a negative $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and a positive asymptotic mass. The case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ corresponds to $`\alpha _+=0`$, so

$`ds^2=dt^2+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2\overline{r}}}\right)^4[d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Phi }^2)],`$ (3.27)   
$`\varphi _c=\pm \sqrt{6\kappa }.`$ (3.28)   
This describes a limiting symmetric wormhole with an everywhere zero effective Newton’s constant and both asymptotic masses equal to zero.

These asymmetric features are disappointing because we would like to have wormholes connecting equivalent regions of space. At this point we have to say that while a conformal scalar field can provide us with the “flaring out” condition for geodesics, it has the drawback of reversing the sign of the effective Newton’s constant in the other asymptotic region.

## 4 Discussion

We have found that, among the classical solutions of general relativity coupled to a massless conformal scalar field there exist genuine Lorentzian traversable wormhole geometries. Although perfectly well behaved from a geometrical point of view, they are asymmetric in the sense that the effective Newton’s constant has a different sign in each asymptotic region.

Inspecting the expression for the Laplacian of a scalar field in a static and spherically symmetric geometry

$$^2\varphi _c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_r\left[\sqrt{g}g^{rr}_r\varphi _c\right],$$
(4.29)   
we see that in order for the scalar field to be able to change its monotonic behaviour in a non-singular geometry, there must be some points at which $`^2\varphi _c0`$. This suggests that in more general situations that those analyzed in this paper we could find traversable wormhole solutions with no asymmetry between the asymptotic regions. For example, if we add to our system a quantity of normal matter with a positive trace for the energy-momentum tensor ($`T>0`$), and we place this normal matter in two thin spherical shells (see fig. 2), we can join smoothly an inner region with the geometry of the symmetric wormhole solution (3.27) to two outer asymptotic geometries, both with positive effective Newton’s constants.<sup>7</sup><sup>7</sup>7 Thus we are considering geometries that are built piecewise out of segments of the solutions considered in this paper, with junction conditions applied at the thin shells. The requirement that $`T>0`$ in the shells translates into a localized negative scalar curvature, $`R<0`$, necessary for bringing down the value of the scalar field from that in the inner region.

Finally, we conclude by emphasising that it is not so much the occurrence of classical wormholes in and of themselves that is the main surprise of this paper. Rather, what is truly surprising here is that such an inoffensive and physically well-motivated classical source, the “new improved stress-energy tensor”, leads to classical traversable wormholes.

## Acknowledgments

The research of CB was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC). MV was supported by the US Department of Energy.