1: % Template article for preprint document class `elsart'
2: % SP 2001/01/05
3:
4: \documentclass{elsart}
5:
6: % Use the option doublespacing or reviewcopy to obtain double line spacing
7: % \documentclass[doublespacing]{elsart}
8:
9: % if you use PostScript figures in your article
10: % use the graphics package for simple commands
11: % \usepackage{graphics}
12: % or use the graphicx package for more complicated commands
13: % \usepackage{graphicx}
14: % or use the epsfig package if you prefer to use the old commands
15: % \usepackage{epsfig}
16:
17: % The amssymb package provides various useful mathematical symbols
18: \usepackage{amssymb}
19: \usepackage{amsmath}
20: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}
21: \journal{Physics Letters B}
22:
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
25: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
26: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
27: \newcommand{\ga}{\alpha}
28: \newcommand{\gb}{\beta}
29: \newcommand{\gd}{\delta}
30: \newcommand{\gl}{\lambda}
31: \newcommand{\gs}{\sigma}
32: \newcommand{\go}{\omega}
33: \newcommand{\Go}{\Omega}
34:
35: \renewcommand{\hat}{\widehat}
36: \renewcommand{\tilde}{\widetilde}
37: \newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle}
38: \newcommand{\ff}{\varphi^*\overleftrightarrow{\partial}\!\varphi}
39:
40: \newcommand{\rf}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \begin{frontmatter}
46:
47: \begin{flushright}
48: hep-ph/0405104\\
49: ITFA-2004-19
50: \end{flushright}
51:
52: % Title, authors and addresses
53:
54: % use the thanksref command within \title, \author or \address for footnotes;
55: % use the corauthref command within \author for corresponding author footnotes;
56: % use the ead command for the email address,
57: % and the form \ead[url] for the home page:
58: % \title{Title\thanksref{label1}}
59: % \thanks[label1]{}
60: % \author{Name\corauthref{cor1}\thanksref{label2}}
61: % \ead{email address}
62: % \ead[url]{home page}
63: % \thanks[label2]{}
64: % \corauth[cor1]{}
65: % \address{Address\thanksref{label3}}
66: % \thanks[label3]{}
67:
68: %\title{Arguments against the geometric cross section for microscopic black hole production}
69: \title{Tests of classical gravity description for microscopic black hole
70: production}
71:
72: % use optional labels to link authors explicitly to addresses:
73: % \author[label1,label2]{}
74: % \address[label1]{}
75: % \address[label2]{}
76:
77: \author{Vyacheslav~S.~Rychkov}
78:
79: \ead{rychkov@science.uva.nl}
80:
81: \date{May 2004}
82:
83: \address{Insituut voor
84: Theoretische Fysica, Universiteit van Amsterdam\\
85: Valckenierstraat 65, 1018XE Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: The classical Einstein gravity description of black hole
89: production in transplanckian collisions in TeV-scale gravity is
90: tested for self-consistency. In addition to the ``curvature must
91: be small" test, which was shown to be violated in
92: [hep-ph/0401116], it is proposed to estimate quantum fluctuations
93: in the Aichelburg-Sexl shock waves corresponding to the colliding
94: particles. Using linearized quantum gravity, it is found that the
95: occupation numbers of gravitons with characteristic frequency are
96: too small to resolve the classical width of the shocks. This
97: raises further doubts in the classical gravity picture of black
98: hole creation and the geometric cross section estimate based on
99: it.
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \begin{keyword}
103: % keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
104: Large extra dimensions \sep TeV-scale gravity \sep Transplanckian collisions
105: % PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
106: \PACS 04.70.-s \sep 04.50.+h \sep 11.10Kk
107: \end{keyword}
108: \end{frontmatter}
109:
110: % main text
111: \section{Introduction}
112: \label{intro}
113:
114: Microscopic classical black hole (BH) production in transplanckian
115: particle collisions is one of the most exciting possible
116: experimental signatures of large extra dimensions scenarios of
117: TeV-scale gravity (see \cite{Kanti} for a recent review). However,
118: thorough theoretical understanding of this process is still
119: lacking. Classical general relativity intuition tells us that
120: gravitational collapse should occur if the center-of-mass energy
121: of the colliding particles is deposited within a region of size
122: about the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to this energy
123: \cite{tHooft,BF,factory}. But is this intuition applicable in the
124: quantum world of elementary particles? In this Letter I will
125: present arguments suggesting that classical gravity description of
126: microscopic BH production may be inadequate.
127:
128: The starting point of my discussion is the classical gravity
129: analysis of \cite{EG,YN}, which makes more precise the intuitive
130: picture described above.
131: These authors considered classical gravitational field of two fast
132: point particles in a grazing collision. They found that for impact
133: parameters of the order of the corresponding Schwarzschild radius,
134: the collision spacetime contains a closed trapped surface (CTS).
135: From this fact, BH formation follows by the singularity theorems
136: of classical general relativity and the cosmic censorship
137: conjecture.
138:
139: My goal is to subject this analysis to validity checks, which have
140: to be passed by any classical field theory computation. The well-known
141: necessary conditions which have to be satisfied are: 1) field strengths
142: have to be small; 2) the number of field quanta has to be large.
143:
144: The meaning of ``small'' and ``large'' in the preceding paragraph
145: depends on the situation and has to be decided on a case-by-case
146: basis. Familiar examples are provided by electromagnetism. The
147: first condition is violated when the electric field reaches the
148: critical value $\sim m_{\text{e}}^2/e$. The classical solution
149: will be destroyed by copious electron-positron pair production.
150: The second condition is violated by a classical electromagnetic
151: pulse whose energy $\mathcal{E}$ is small compared to the
152: characteristic frequency $\omega$. In quantum theory, such a pulse
153: will correspond to a state with a small mean number of photons.
154: Thus quantum fluctuations are large, and classical field theory
155: description is inadequate.
156:
157: In the gravitational case, the first condition takes form of the
158: requirement that curvature should be $\ll 1$ (in Planck units). As
159: I have shown in \cite{bh1}, this condition is violated in the
160: collision spacetime of \cite{EG,YN} in a region relevant for the
161: horizon formation (see Section 2). The main purpose of this Letter
162: is to carry out the second check, by estimating the number of
163: gravitons participating in the collision (Section 3).
164:
165:
166: \section{Classical gravity picture and curvature estimates}
167: \label{class}
168:
169: Let us focus on the ADD large extra dimension scenario
170: %\ {\it a l\'a}
171: \cite{ADD} with fundamental
172: $D$-dimensional energy scale of gravity $\sim 1$ TeV. The
173: compactification radius $R$ is fixed so that at large distances we
174: recover the usual effective scale $M_\text{Pl}\sim 10^{19}$ GeV.
175: To avoid contradiction with the existing short-distance gravity
176: measurements \cite{short-distance}, we have to assume $D\ge 7$.
177: The Standard Model fields are localized on a 4-dimensional brane
178: embedded in the $D$-dimensional bulk.
179:
180: If such or a similar scenario is realized in nature,
181: next-generation accelerators will be able to probe the
182: transplanckian regime of quantum gravity, colliding particles with
183: energy $E\gg 1$. (Here and below the $D$-dimensional Planck units
184: are used with $8\pi G=1$.) It is in such collisions that we may
185: hope to produce microscopic $D$-dimensional BHs which have mass
186: $M_\text{BH}\gg 1$ and are thus essentially classical. For
187: $M_\text{BH}\lesssim 1$ quantum gravity effects would be
188: significant without doubt.
189:
190: The BH production process may always be considered as happening in
191: flat $D$-dimensional spacetime, because the Schwarzschild radius
192: of the created BH is much smaller than the compactification
193: radius:
194: \begin{equation}
195: R_S\sim E^\frac 1{D-3}\quad \ll\quad R\sim M_\text{Pl}^\frac
196: 2{D-4}.
197: \end{equation}
198:
199: In \cite{EG,YN} BH production was described by considering two
200: fast ($\gamma=E/m\gg 1$), point-like particles in a grazing
201: collision with an impact parameter $b$. Gravitational field of one
202: such particle in the limit $\gamma\to\infty$ has curvature
203: concentrated on the plane transverse to the direction of motion.
204: Introducing longitudinal coordinates $u=t-z$, $v=t+z$, and $D-2$
205: transverse coordinates $x_i$, the only nonzero components of the
206: Riemann tensor for the right-moving particle are \cite{EG}
207: \begin{equation}
208: \label{Riemann}
209: %R_{uiuj}\propto E \left(\partial_i\partial_j\frac1{|x|^{D-4}}\right)\,\delta(u).
210: R_{uiuj}= \frac{E}{(D-4)\Omega}
211: \,\delta(u)\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i\partial
212: x_j}\left(\frac 1 {r^{D-4}}\right),
213: \end{equation}
214: ($r=|x|$; $\Omega=\Omega_{D-3}$ is the volume of the unit
215: $(D-3)$-sphere.) This is the $D$-dimensional generalization of the
216: 4-dimensional Aichelburg-Sexl shock wave spacetime
217: \cite{Pirani,AS,D'Eath,DH}.
218:
219: This field should be superposed with the similar field of the
220: left-moving particle, shifted by $b$ in the transverse direction.
221: The resulting field is valid outside the region $u,v>0$, where the
222: colliding shocks start influencing each other. The metric in this
223: region should be found by solving Einstein's equation and remains
224: unknown even in the simplest $b=0$ case. Thus, BH formation may be
225: concluded only indirectly, using the CTS argument. The CTS's found
226: in \cite{EG,YN} are located in the known part of the spacetime.
227: They lie in the union of pre-collision parts of the shock planes
228: $u=0$ and $v=0$. In shape they look roughly like a union of two
229: throats narrowing around the particle worldlines in the far past
230: and glued together at an angle at the transverse collision plane
231: $u=v=0$ at radii $r\sim R_S$.
232:
233: The validity of this classical Einstein gravity argument was
234: questioned by the present author in \cite{bh1} on the grounds that
235: curvature becomes large on the transverse collision plane at
236: $r\sim R_S$, i.e. in a region relevant for BH horizon formation.
237: Coordinate-invariant measure of curvature is provided by the
238: curvature invariant $(R_{\mu\nu\gl\gs})^2$. Notice that for a
239: single shock wave \rf{Riemann} this invariant vanishes, although
240: individual curvature components are large. This is not surprising,
241: since the Aichelburg-Sexl shock wave is a boost of a manifestly
242: low-curvature static Schwarzschild solution. However, when we add
243: a second particle, its left-moving shock wave will have large
244: $R_{vivj}$ components. As a result, nonzero contractions can be
245: formed, and we get
246: \begin{equation}
247: \label{Rsq} (R_{\mu\nu\gl\gs})^2 \sim E^{-\frac
248: 2{D-3}}\,\gd(u)\,\gd(v)\qquad (r\sim R_S).
249: \end{equation}
250:
251: To complete the curvature estimate, nonzero shockwave width
252: \begin{equation}\label{width}
253: w \sim E^{-1}
254: \end{equation}
255: has to be taken into account. This width arises from the fact that
256: point particles are an idealization: in reality relativistic
257: quantum particles cannot be localized better then their wavelength
258: $\sim E^{-1}$. As a result, the delta functions in \rf{Rsq} have
259: to be smeared out on a scale $\sim w$. This gives the final
260: estimate \cite{bh1} of curvature at $r\sim R_S$:
261: \begin{equation}
262: \label{Rsq1}
263: (R_{\mu\nu\gl\gs})^2 \sim E^{-\frac 2{D-3}} w^{-2} \sim
264: E^{\frac{2(D-4)}{D-3}}\gg 1.
265: \end{equation}
266: This result means that higher curvature corrections to the
267: Einstein gravity may become important in the collision front and
268: significantly modify or even preclude BH formation \cite{bh1}.
269:
270: \section{Graviton counting and quantum fluctuations in shock front}
271: \label{count}
272:
273: The gravitational field of colliding particles was treated in the
274: previous section as classical. Was this justified?
275:
276: To answer this question, we first of all have to decide about a
277: criterion when a quantum field can be considered classically. Such
278: a criterion is well known for the free electromagnetic field, and
279: in its strongest form it says that relevant photon occupation
280: numbers should be large \cite{BLP}. The weak form of the criterion
281: is to require that the {\it total} number of photons with relevant
282: frequencies be large. This condition guarantees that the
283: zero-point energy of quantum fluctuations is small compared to the
284: classical energy of the field.
285:
286: I would like to apply an analogous criterion to gravitational
287: field. This should be possible for linearized gravity, when
288: deviation from the Minkowski metric is small:
289: \begin{equation}\label{linear}
290: g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu},
291: \qquad\left|h_{\mu\nu}\right|\ll 1.
292: \end{equation}
293: In this case $h_{\mu\nu}$ can be quantized as a free field, with
294: quanta being transverse gravitons\footnote{It should be noted
295: however that there are some indications that quantum gravity may
296: be very different from quantum field theory (e.g. because of the
297: ``holographic principle" it may be required to satisfy, see
298: \cite{Hol} for a review). In such a case our analysis would not
299: apply.}.
300:
301: Thus, I would like to count gravitons contained in the
302: gravitational field of colliding particles, say, of the
303: right-moving one. The presence of the other particle does not play
304: a role in this counting before the shock waves collide.
305:
306: The standard shock wave metric \cite{EG}
307: \begin{equation}
308: \label{m1} ds^2=du\,dv-\frac {2 E}{(D-4)\Omega\,
309: r^{D-4}}\,\gd(u)\,du^2-dr^2-r^2\,d\Omega^2,
310: \end{equation}
311: corresponding to the Riemann tensor \rf{Riemann}, has blowing up
312: components and does not satisfy \rf{linear}. We will instead use
313: the metric \begin{equation} ds^2=du\,
314: dv-\left[1+\frac{(D-3)E}{\Omega\, r^{D-2}}\,
315: u\theta(u)\right]^2dr^2 -\left[1-\frac{E}{\Omega\, r^{D-2}}\,
316: u\theta(u)\right]^2r^2\,d\Omega^2 \label{m2},
317: \end{equation}
318: following from \rf{m1} by a coordinate transformation
319: \cite{D'Eath,EG,bh1}.
320: Near the shock front, this metric can be approximated as
321: \begin{equation}\label{lin}
322: ds^2\approx dx_\mu^2 -
323: \frac{2{E}}{\Omega\,r^{D-2}}\,u\theta(u)\left[(D-3)dr^2-r^2\,d\Omega_{D-3}^2\right].
324: \end{equation}
325: We see that \rf{linear} is satisfied in the region of interest
326: $r\sim R_S$ and at $|u|\ll R_S$.
327:
328: Since we want to count quanta, it is convenient to quantize the
329: graviton field $h_{\mu\nu}$ is one of the physical gauges. We will
330: use the transverse-traceless (TT) gauge, specified by conditions
331: \cite{MTW}
332: \begin{equation}\label{TT}
333: h_{\mu0}=0,\quad h_{ik,k}=0,\quad h_{ii}=0.
334: \end{equation}
335: We can also take advantage of the fact that the shock profile is
336: slowly varying compared to the shock width \rf{width}. We can thus
337: work in plane wave approximation \cite{bh1}, neglecting transverse
338: derivatives of the metric:
339: \begin{equation}
340: \label{nonzero}
341: h_{ij}\approx h_{ij}(u,v).
342: \end{equation}
343:
344:
345: Our goal is to estimate the number of gravitons contained in the
346: shock front at $r\sim R_S$, since this is the region relevant for
347: horizon formation. The $h_{ij}$ corresponding to \rf{lin} can be
348: written as
349: \begin{equation}
350: \label{pwa}
351: h_{ij} = \begin{pmatrix}
352: -(D-3) C u\theta(u) && && &&\\
353: && Cu\theta(u) && && \\
354: && && \ddots && \\
355: && && && Cu\theta(u) \end{pmatrix}.
356: \end{equation}
357: In the plane wave approximation the difference between polar and
358: Cartesian coordinates disappears. We can also neglect the
359: transverse dependence of $C$, so that it becomes a constant $\sim
360: R_S^{-1}$. After these simplifications, \rf{pwa} becomes precisely
361: of the form \rf{TT}, \rf{nonzero}.
362:
363: Linearized gravity equations of motion satisfied by \rf{nonzero}
364: are just
365: \begin{equation}
366: \label{eom}
367: h_{ij,uv}=0.
368: \end{equation}
369: Quantization is performed by expanding into plane waves
370: \begin{equation}
371: \label{quant}
372: \hat{h}_{ij}=Z \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{dk}{(4\pi|k|)^{1/2}}
373: \sum_{\alpha}\eps^{(\alpha)}_{ij}\,e^{ikz-i|k|t}\,\hat{a}_{k\alpha} + \text{h.
374: c.},
375: \end{equation}
376: where the sum is over $D(D-3)/2$ independent symmetric traceless
377: graviton polarization tensors normalized by
378: $$
379: \eps^{(\alpha)}_{ij}\eps^{(\alpha')}_{ij}=\gd_{\alpha\alpha'}.
380: $$
381: The coefficient $Z$ has to be fixed so that the creation and
382: annihilation operators satisfy the standard commutation relations
383: \begin{equation}
384: \label{comm}
385: [\hat{a}_{k\alpha},\hat{a}^\dagger_{k'\alpha'}]=2\pi\, \gd_{\alpha\alpha'}\,\gd(k-k').
386: \end{equation}
387: This field normalization can be performed starting from the linearized Einstein-Hilbert action in the TT
388: gauge:
389: \begin{equation}
390: \label{act}
391: S=\frac 18\int d^{D}x\, h_{ij,\ga} h_{ij}{}^{,\ga}.
392: \end{equation}
393: In the plane wave approximation this becomes
394: \begin{equation}
395: \label{actpw}
396: S=\frac A8\int dt\,dz \left[(\partial_t h_{ij})^2-(\partial_z h_{ij})^2\right],
397: \end{equation}
398: where $A$ is the transverse area of the considered planar field
399: configuration, $A\sim R_S^{D-2}$ in our case. We see that $\half
400: A^{1/2} h_{ij}$ has the standard normalization of a 2-dimensional
401: massless scalar field. Thus we must take $Z=2A^{-1/2}$ for
402: consistency.
403:
404: Now we are ready to count gravitons. First we expand $u\theta(u)$
405: in plane waves:
406: \begin{equation}
407: \label{FT}
408: u\theta(u)=-\frac 1{2\pi}\int dk\, e^{iku}\frac 1{(k-i0)^2}.
409: \end{equation}
410: The coherent state $|\Psi\rangle$ corresponding to a classical
411: solution $h_{ij}$ is characterized by the equation
412: \begin{equation}
413: \label{Psi}
414: \langle \Psi|\hat{h}_{ij}|\Psi\rangle = h_{ij}.
415: \end{equation}
416: From \rf{FT} and \rf{quant} we see that for our classical solution
417: \rf{pwa}
418: \begin{equation}
419: \label{occ}
420: \langle\Psi|\hat{a}_{k\alpha}|\Psi\rangle\
421: \sim \frac C {Z k^{3/2}}
422: \end{equation}
423: (at $k>0$; the left-moving modes are of course in the vacuum
424: state). The mean occupation number of such quantum oscillator
425: state is
426: \begin{equation}
427: \label{N}
428: n_k=\langle\Psi|\hat{a}^\dagger_{k\alpha}\hat{a}_{k\alpha}|\Psi\rangle\sim
429: \frac {C^2}{Z^2 k^3}
430: \end{equation}
431: Finally, the total number of quanta with energy $\sim \omega$ is
432: \begin{equation}
433: \label{Ntot}
434: N_{\omega}\sim \int_{k\sim \omega} dk\,n_k\sim
435: R_S^{D-4}\omega^{-2}.
436: \end{equation}
437: This formula is only valid for $\omega\lesssim w^{-1}$ [see
438: \rf{width}] beyond which point the graviton spectrum sharply cuts
439: off.
440:
441: Condition $N_\omega\gg 1$ gives the frequency range in which
442: graviton modes are classical:
443: \begin{equation}
444: \label{classmod}
445: \omega \ll \omega_{\max}\sim R_S^{(D-4)/2}.
446: \end{equation}
447: For modes with $\go\gtrsim\go_{\max}$ occupation numbers
448: are small and quantum fluctuations become significant. This means
449: that classical gravity description is adequate only at distances
450: $|u|\gg\go_{\max}^{-1}$ from the shock front. It is easy to see
451: that this range is strictly smaller than the range $|u|\gtrsim w$
452: [see \rf{width}] necessary to resolve the full structure of the
453: classical gravitational field. In particular,
454: \begin{equation}\label{comp}
455: N_{\go\sim w^{-1}}\sim E^{-\frac{D-2}{D-3}} \ll 1.
456: \end{equation}
457:
458: \section{Discussion}
459:
460: As we have seen, the gravitational fields involved in the problem
461: of BH production in particle collisions are of rather peculiar
462: nature. On the one hand, in the collision front curvature becomes
463: large, so that we expect transplanckian phenomena to take place
464: there (Section 2). On the other hand, precisely on the shock front
465: we find that gravitational field cannot even be considered
466: classical, in the sense that quantum fluctuations are large,
467: already for one shock (Section 3).
468:
469: These elementary considerations strongly suggest that classical
470: Einstein gravity cannot be used to describe BH production
471: processes in TeV-scale gravity. In particular, one cannot put too
472: much trust in the ``geometric cross section'' estimate for
473: microscopic black hole production \cite{BF,tHooft}:
474: \begin{equation}
475: \label{geom}
476: \sigma \sim \pi b_{\max}^2,
477: \end{equation}
478: where $b_{\max}$ is the maximal impact parameter for which a black
479: hole would be formed classically. The applicability of classical
480: gravity, against which I argued, is at the very foundation of this
481: estimate.
482:
483: It is instructive to compare this dramatic situation with what
484: happens in fast collisions of macroscopic (say, solar mass) black
485: holes in $D=4$. In this case the shock wave width $w\sim r/\gamma$
486: is a purely classical finite-$\gamma$ effect \cite{D'Eath}.
487: Quantum wavelength contribution, which was dominant in the
488: microscopic case, is now absolutely negligible. The curvature in
489: the collision front at $r\sim R_S$ will be
490: \begin{equation}
491: \label{Rsqmacro} (R_{\mu\nu\gl\gs})^2 \sim E^{-4}\gamma^2 \ll 1
492: \end{equation}
493: for any reasonably imaginable value of $\gamma$. The number of
494: gravitons with characteristic frequency $\go\sim w^{-1}$ is
495: \begin{equation}
496: N_{\go\sim w^{-1}}\sim E^2\gamma^{-2} \gg 1.
497: \end{equation}
498: These estimates should be contrasted with \rf{Rsq1} and \rf{comp}.
499: Not surprisingly, both conditions for applicability of classical
500: general relativity are satisfied by a huge margin, and the
501: problems discussed in this Letter do not arise here.
502:
503: In conclusion, I would like to mention some of the recent
504: literature on the validity of the geometric cross section (see
505: \cite{Kanti} for a more complete list). That curvature may become
506: large in the collision front was previously suggested in
507: \cite{Hsu,Kan}, although without precise estimates. In \cite{Hsu}
508: it was stated without proof that the gravitational fields in
509: question contain many gravitons, which as we saw in Section
510: \ref{count} is not true at least in some part of the relevant
511: frequency range. The fact that the number of gravitons in the
512: shock front is small suggests that a perturbative treatment
513: similar to \cite{Kan} may be attempted in order to estimate the
514: resulting suppression of the geometric cross section. To avoid
515: possible confusion, it also has to be noted that my considerations
516: have nothing in common with Voloshin's exponential suppression
517: \cite{Vol} or arguments based on the ``generalized uncertainty
518: principle" \cite{Cav}.
519:
520:
521:
522: % The Appendices part is started with the command \appendix;
523: % appendix sections are then done as normal sections
524: % \appendix
525:
526: % \section{}
527: % \label{}
528:
529: \section*{Acknowledgements}
530: I would like to thank A.~Allahverdyan, J.~de Boer, L.~Cornalba,
531: J.-W. van Holten, A.~Naqvi, A.~Polyakov, K.~Skenderis, and J.~Smit for useful discussions.
532: This work was supported by Stichting FOM.
533:
534:
535: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------
536:
537: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
538:
539: \bibitem{Kanti}
540: P.~Kanti,
541: ``Black holes in theories with large extra dimensions: A review,''
542: arXiv:hep-ph/0402168.
543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402168;%%
544:
545: \bibitem{tHooft}
546: G.~'t Hooft,
547: ``Graviton dominance in ultrahigh-energy scattering,''
548: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 198}, 61 (1987).
549: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B198,61;%%
550:
551:
552: \bibitem{BF}
553: T.~Banks and W.~Fischler,
554: ``A model for high energy scattering in quantum gravity,''
555: arXiv:hep-th/9906038.
556: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906038;%%
557:
558:
559: \bibitem{factory}
560: S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Landsberg,
561: ``Black holes at the LHC,''
562: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 161602 (2001)
563: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295];
564: \newline
565: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106295;%%
566: S.~B.~Giddings and S.~Thomas,
567: ``High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short
568: distance physics,''
569: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 056010 (2002)
570: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219].
571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106219;%%
572:
573: \bibitem{EG}
574: D.~M.~Eardley and S.~B.~Giddings,
575: ``Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions,''
576: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 044011 (2002)
577: [arXiv:gr-qc/0201034].
578: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0201034;%%
579:
580: \bibitem{YN}
581: H.~Yoshino and Y.~Nambu,
582: ``Black hole formation in the grazing collision of high-energy particles,''
583: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 024009 (2003)
584: [arXiv:gr-qc/0209003].
585: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0209003;%%
586:
587: \bibitem{bh1}
588: V.~S.~Rychkov, ``Black hole production in particle collisions and
589: higher curvature gravity,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D, to appear
590: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401116].
591: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401116;%%
592:
593: \bibitem{ADD}
594: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
595: ``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
596: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
597: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315];
598: \newline
599: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
600: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
601: ``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
602: {\it ibid.} {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)
603: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398];
604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
605:
606: \bibitem{short-distance}
607: C.~D.~Hoyle, U.~Schmidt, B.~R.~Heckel, E.~G.~Adelberger,
608: J.~H.~Gundlach, D.~J.~Kapner and H.~E.~Swanson, ``Sub-millimeter
609: tests of the gravitational inverse-square law: A search for
610: `large' extra dimensions,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 1418
611: (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0011014].
612: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011014;%%
613:
614: \bibitem{Pirani}
615: F.~A.~E.~Pirani,
616: ``Gravitational waves in general relativity. IV. The gravitational field of a fast-moving particle,''
617: Proc.\ Roy.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ A {\bf 252}, 96 (1959).
618:
619: \bibitem{AS}
620: P.~C.~Aichelburg and R.~U.~Sexl,
621: ``On the gravitational field of a massless particle,''
622: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\ {\bf 2}, 303 (1971).
623: %%CITATION = GRGVA,2,303;%%
624:
625: \bibitem{D'Eath}
626: P.~D.~D'Eath,
627: ``High speed black hole encounters and gravitational radiation,''
628: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18}, 990 (1978).
629: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,990;%%
630:
631: \bibitem{DH}
632: T.~Dray and G.~'t Hooft,
633: ``The gravitational shock wave of a massless particle,''
634: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 253}, 173 (1985).
635: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B253,173;%%
636:
637: \bibitem{BLP}
638: V.~B.~Berestetsky, E.~M.~Lifshitz and L.~P.~Pitaevsky, {\it
639: Quantum Electrodynamics} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982).
640: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=1094556}{SPIRES
641: %entry}
642:
643: \bibitem{Hol}R.~Bousso,
644: ``The holographic principle,'' Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 74}, 825
645: (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0203101].
646: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203101;%%
647:
648: \bibitem{MTW}
649: C.~W.~Misner, K.~S.~Thorne, J.~A.~Wheeler, {\it Gravitation}
650: (Freeman, San Fransisco, 1973)
651:
652: \bibitem{Hsu}
653: S.~D.~H.~Hsu,
654: ``Quantum production of black holes,''
655: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 555}, 92 (2003)
656: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203154];
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203154;%%
658:
659: \bibitem{Kan}
660: O.~V.~Kancheli,
661: ``Parton picture of inelastic collisions at transplanckian energies,''
662: arXiv:hep-ph/0208021.
663: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208021;%%
664:
665: \bibitem{Vol}
666: M.~B.~Voloshin, ``Semiclassical suppression of black hole
667: production in particle collisions,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518},
668: 137 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0107119];
669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107119;%%
670: ``More remarks on suppression of large black hole production in
671: particle collisions,''
672: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524}, 376 (2002)
673: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111099].
674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111099;%%
675:
676: \bibitem{Cav}
677: M.~Cavaglia, S.~Das and R.~Maartens,
678: %``Will we observe black holes at LHC?,''
679: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 20}, L205 (2003)
680: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305223];
681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305223;%%
682: \newline
683: S.~Hossenfelder,
684: %``Suppressed black hole production from minimal length,''
685: arXiv:hep-th/0404232.
686: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404232;%%
687:
688:
689: \end{thebibliography}
690:
691: % \bibitem{label}
692: % Text of bibliographic item
693:
694: % notes:
695: % \bibitem{label} \note
696:
697: % subbibitems:
698: % \begin{subbibitems}{label}
699: % \bibitem{label1}
700: % \bibitem{label2}
701: % If there is a note, it should come last:
702: % \bibitem{label3} \note
703: % \end{subbibitems}
704:
705: \end{document}
706: