1: \chapter{Introduction to Black Holes}
2: \chaptermark{Black Hole Introduction}
3: \label{bhintro}
4: \let\om=\omega
5: \let\si=\sigma
6: \let\Ga=\Gamma
7:
8: \section{Black holes in four dimensions}
9:
10: The work in this thesis relates to extra-dimensional black holes, but it is useful to first summarize some of the properties and features of black holes in four dimensions, as well as the history of the theory describing them. Black holes (or `frozen stars' as they were originally called) can only be correctly described by Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity (GR). Einstein himself was never completely convinced by the idea of black holes but, in 1916, Karl Schwarzschild applied GR to a static non-spinning massive object and obtained his well-known metric showing that an object of mass $M$ has a singularity at the Schwarzschild radius $r_\text{S}=2GM/c^2$. Therefore an object with radius smaller than $r_\text{S}$ is a black hole with an event horizon at this radius. The Schwarzschild radius can be calculated for any object but, since most objects do not have the density required to be black holes, it is usually much smaller than the object's physical size---for example, the Schwarzschild radius of the earth is easily calculated to be approximately 1~cm.
11: \enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
12:
13: It is entirely coincidental that the exact horizon radius can be derived using an `escape velocity' argument which would be expected to be only qualitative since it is entirely Newtonian and fails to take into account the relativistic effects. However both Wheeler (1783) and Laplace (1796) independently used such an argument to postulate the existence of black holes as follows. An object of mass $m$ propelled vertically upwards (with velocity $v$) from the surface of a mass $M$ with radius $r$ can only escape from the gravitational pull if
14: %%%%%%%%%
15: \begin{equation}
16: \frac{1}{2} m v^2 > \frac{GMm}{r}\,.
17: \end{equation}
18: %%%%%%%%%%
19: If $r$ decreases, $v$ must be larger if the object is to escape. The radius at which escape is only just possible even if travelling at the speed of light is found by setting $v=c$. Hence we obtain
20: %%%%%%%%%
21: \begin{equation}
22: r=\frac{2GM}{c^2}\,,
23: \end{equation}
24: %%%%%%%%%
25: exactly as Schwarzschild derived using the later relativistic theory.
26:
27: The above argument---that not even light can escape from a black hole---would seem to suggest that black holes can only grow. However Hawking showed that the combination of general relativity and quantum mechanics predicts that black holes can evaporate by emitting Hawking radiation \cite{Hawking:1975sw}. The mechanism for this is that a particle anti-particle pair is created at the event horizon; one has positive energy and escapes the black hole's gravitational attractions but the other negative energy one falls back into the black hole leading to a net decrease in its mass.
28:
29: Hawking found that the radiation spectrum is almost like that of a black body, and can be described by a characteristic Hawking temperature given by
30: %%%%%
31: \begin{equation}
32: T_\text{H}=\frac{\hbar c}{4\pi k r_\text{S}}\,,
33: \end{equation}
34: %%%%%
35: where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. Throughout the rest of this work natural units are used with the following definitions:
36: %%%%%
37: \begin{equation}
38: \hbar=c=k=1\,.
39: \end{equation}
40: %%%%%
41: This makes it possible to use energy units (usually GeV) to express distances ($1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}=1.97\times 10^{-16}$~m), time intervals ($1\mbox{ GeV}^{-1}=6.58\times 10^{-25}$~s) and temperatures ($1\mbox{ GeV}=1.16\times 10^{13}$~K).
42:
43: It is important to remember that, despite the wide acceptance of the theory, Hawking radiation has not been experimentally verified.\footnote{Compare this with the comments about the Higgs boson in \secref{thesm}.} In a four dimensional world we would only be able to observe Hawking radiation by studying astrophysical black holes. In fact although there are many astrophysical black hole candidates, it is difficult to uniquely identify them as black holes (for a review of some of the difficulties see \cite{Menou:1997qd} and the references therein). The two main classes of black hole candidate are stellar black holes (with masses of order a few solar masses) in binary star systems, and super-massive black holes ($\sim 10^{12}$ solar masses) at galactic centres which may power quasars and other active galactic nuclei.
44: \enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
45:
46: The masses of black hole candidates in binary systems can be estimated by studying the Doppler shift of emission lines from the secondary star and, since neutron stars have a maximum mass above which they will collapse to a black hole, this provides indirect evidence for the existence of astrophysical black holes. Additionally, there seems to be confirmation that the primary stars are black holes from the emission spectra of Doppler-shifted X-rays. These come from metals (e.g.\ iron) which are stripped off the outer layer of the secondary star and are then ionized due to the high temperatures of the accretion disc around the black hole candidate.
47:
48: Observation of intense emission from super-massive black hole candidates is consistent with matter accretion by relatively small objects and hence also supports the black hole hypothesis. The most significant difference between black holes and other massive compact objects is the presence of an event horizon. Accretion models can provide evidence for both stellar and super-massive black holes by predicting how much energy falling on the central object from the accretion disc is `lost' (as for a black hole event horizon) and how much is re-radiated and observed (as in the case of an ordinary compact object).
49:
50: Observing astrophysical Hawking radiation would absolutely verify the existence of black holes, but unfortunately the huge masses of these objects make this impossible. The large masses mean that even the highest black hole temperatures would be $\sim$~nK---lower than the lowest temperatures achieved in the laboratory ($\sim \mu$K) and much lower than the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (2.7~K). This means that the observation of astronomical Hawking radiation is impossible: it would take $\sim 10^{14}$~years for a single photon from the closest black hole candidate to hit the earth and these photons would be swamped by the X-ray emission from matter being accreted into the disc surrounding the black hole. This is one of the reasons why the idea of observing Hawking radiation from miniature black holes produced in particle colliders is so exciting.
51:
52: %Cite some Page, MacGibbon stuff here?
53:
54: In spite of the difficulties in studying black holes there is a huge body of work in the mathematical literature considering their properties including the emitted radiation, the singularities, and the effect of charge and angular momentum. A full review of this literature is not attempted here, but instead a few points particularly relevant for work on extra-dimensional black holes will be highlighted.
55:
56: \subsection{Grey-body factors}
57:
58: Black holes are often spoken about as if the Hawking radiation is exactly like that of a black body. However this is not the case---Hawking's original work showed that the energy spectrum is in fact `grey-body'. The spectrum is modified from that of a perfect black body by an energy-dependent grey-body factor; these factors are also spin-dependent and the main effect in four dimensions is to suppress the low-energy part of the spectrum (see Figure 1 of \cite{MacGibbon:1990zk}).
59:
60: Perhaps counter-intuitively the grey-body factors for particle emission from black holes are equal to the absorption cross sections for the same particles incident on the black hole. However it is this property which ensures that the grey-body factors do not destroy the thermal nature of the black hole; equilibrium with a heat bath at the same temperature is still possible. Of course this equilibrium is unstable---black holes have a negative heat capacity so if the the temperature of the black hole is slightly below (above) that of the heat bath, there will be a net absorption (emission) of energy so the black hole mass will increase (decrease) with a corresponding further decrease (increase) in Hawking temperature.
61:
62: A substantial part of the work in this thesis (see Chapter~\ref{greybody}) describes the numerical calculation of extra-dimensional grey-body factors.
63:
64: \subsection{Super-radiance}
65: \enlargethispage{-2\baselineskip}
66:
67: As mentioned above, the grey-body factor for a particular particle can be calculated from the absorption cross section of that particle incident on the black hole. However in the case of rotating black holes it was found that for incident bosons with low energies it is possible for the absorption cross section to be negative \cite{Zeldovich:1971,Misner:1972kx,Press:1972}. This is equivalent to the reflection coefficient being greater than unity which means that energy incident on the black hole can be amplified. This amplification was found to be greatest when the black hole was maximally rotating, and for a particle of spin $s$ was found to occur in the mode with angular momentum quantum numbers $\ell=m=\max(s,1)$. Perhaps most significant is the increase in magnitude of the super-radiant effect as $s$ increases; peak amplifications quoted in \cite{Press:1974} are 0.3\% for scalars, 4.4\% for gauge bosons but 138\% for gravitons. In theory, the phenomenon of super-radiance makes it possible to construct a `black hole bomb' \cite{Press:1972} by surrounding a rotating black hole with a spherical reflector; the trapped electromagnetic energy would grow exponentially and eventually the mirror would explode.
68:
69: \subsection{Back reaction}
70:
71: The calculation of the Hawking radiation emitted by a black hole relies on the assumption that the back reaction of the black hole metric can be ignored. Essentially this is a requirement that the black hole mass $M_\text{BH}$ (and equivalently the Hawking temperature $T_\text{H}$) can be considered constant during the emission of each particle. For this to be a good approximation requires that the energy of the emitted particle satisfies $\omega \ll M_\text{BH}$.\footnote{The spectrum for the emission of higher energy particles (with $\omega \sim M_\text{BH}$) must clearly be modified from Hawking's grey-body spectrum if for no other reason than that $\omega > M_\text{BH}/2$ is kinematically forbidden.} This will be true for the majority of particle emissions provided that $T_\text{H} \ll M_\text{BH}$ (equivalent to the requirement that $M_\text{BH} \gg M_{P}$ or that $S_\text{BH} \gg 1$ \cite{Preskill:1991tb}, where $M_{P}$ and $S_\text{BH}$ are the Planck mass and black hole entropy respectively). Regardless of the initial black hole mass, the radiation will no longer be described by Hawking's formula in the later stages of the decay.
72:
73: \subsection{Black hole charges}
74:
75: The `no-hair' theorem states that the only meaningful characteristics of black holes are the charges related to continuous local symmetries. This means that we expect the electric charge of a black hole to be a meaningful quantity, but the same is not true for baryon and lepton number, for example. Black hole production and decay cannot violate Abelian gauge symmetries so electric charge must be conserved. Coloured black holes have to be treated slightly differently to electrically charged holes because of the non-Abelian nature of the gauge symmetry (of course colour charges are irrelevant for very massive 4D black holes, but they will be more significant for the extra-dimensional holes to be introduced in \secref{bhined}). Although coloured black hole solutions can be found \cite{Kanti:1997gs} the charge can never be observed by an observer at infinity, and so is not considered to characterize the black hole.
76: % Move this to the comment about colour to the next section
77:
78: The Hawking emission process occurs just outside the event horizon where the metric is described only by the charge, mass and angular momentum of the black hole. Hence the emission from, and decay of, the black hole cannot be dependent on any other properties of the black hole (or the matter from which it was originally made up). This is equivalent to saying that these properties (e.g.\ baryon number) are meaningless and will be violated in the decay.
79:
80: \subsection{Information paradox}
81: \label{inpar}
82: \enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
83:
84: There are many unanswered questions regarding the black hole information loss paradox, and these are intimately related to how the black hole decays, particularly in its final stages. The essence of the problem is that since a black hole evaporates to a mixture of thermal radiation (according to Hawking) any information which has fallen into the black hole appears to be lost. Since mass, angular momentum and charge are the only observable characteristics of a black hole, any other information carried by matter which becomes trapped would appear to be lost.
85:
86: Many of the suggested solutions to this problem relate to what happens once the black hole mass becomes comparable with the Planck mass. Hawking's semi-classical calculations are no longer valid but without a quantum theory of gravity it is unclear what will happen to the remnant. Some argue that information is not lost but might be stored in a stable remnant of the black hole. A more popular idea is that information actually comes out of the black hole as non-thermal correlations within the Hawking radiation, whilst other theories accept and incorporate the loss of quantum information (for reviews of all these issues and possible resolutions, see \cite{Preskill:1992tc,Page:1993up,Stephens:1994an,Strominger:1994tn,Banks:1995ph}).
87:
88: \section{Black holes in extra dimensions}
89: \label{bhined}
90:
91: The extra-dimensional models of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali (ADD) \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Arkani-Hamed:1998nn,Antoniadis:1998ig} and
92: Randall and Sundrum (RS) \cite{Randall:1999ee,Randall:1999vf} which were introduced in Chapter~\ref{introch} were motivated by the desire to explain the hierarchy problem---that is, the sixteen orders of magnitude difference between the electroweak energy scale and the Planck scale.
93:
94: % Include theses references somewhere?
95: %(for some early works, see \cite{Akama:1982jy,Rubakov:1983bz,Rubakov:1983bb,Visser:1985qm,Antoniadis:1990ew,Antoniadis:1994yi,Lykken:1996fj}).
96:
97: In the standard version of those works the Standard Model fields are
98: localized on a 3-brane, which plays the role of our 4-dimensional world,
99: while gravity can propagate both on the brane and in the bulk---the
100: space-time transverse to the brane.
101: In theories with large extra dimensions the traditional reduced Planck scale,
102: $\hat{M}_{(4)}\sim 10^{18}$ GeV, is only an effective energy scale derived
103: from the fundamental higher-dimensional one, $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$, through the
104: relation
105: \begin{equation}
106: \hat{M}_{(4)}^2 \sim M_{\text{P}(4+n)}^{n+2}\,R^n.
107: \label{MPl}
108: \end{equation}
109: The above relation involves the volume of the extra dimensions, $V \sim R^n$,
110: under the assumption that $R$ is the common size of all $n$ extra compact
111: dimensions. Therefore, if the volume of the internal space is large (i.e.\ if
112: $R \gg \ell_\text{P}$, where $\ell_\text{P} =10^{-33}$ cm is the Planck length)
113: then $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ can be substantially lower than $\hat{M}_{(4)}$. Only if $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ can be as low as $\sim$~TeV does such a model provide a solution to the hierarchy problem (and permit study at the next generation of colliders).
114:
115: In the regime $r\ll R$, the extra dimensions `open up' and gravity becomes
116: strong. Hence, Newton's law for the gravitational interactions in this
117: regime is modified, with the gravitational potential assuming a $1/r^{n+1}$
118: dependence on the radial separation between two massive particles. As a result there are limits on the fundamental scale from short-scale gravity experiments, but the most stringent constraints (at least for $n=2$ and 3) were found in \secref{edcon} to be cosmological, specifically from observations of neutron stars. Although there are many uncertainties these tend to exclude even the $n=3$ case, while allowing models with $M_{\text{P}(4+n)} \sim 1$~TeV for $n \geq 4$.
119:
120: If extra dimensions with $R \gg \ell_\text{P}$ exist, then black holes with
121: a horizon radius $r_\text{h}$ smaller than the size of the extra dimensions $R$
122: are higher-dimensional objects centred on the brane and extending
123: along the extra dimensions. It is these black holes which are the subject of the remaining chapters of this thesis. It has been shown that extra-dimensional black holes have modified properties, e.g.\ they are larger and colder than four-dimensional black holes of the same mass \cite{Argyres:1998qn}.
124: One striking consequence of the theories with large extra dimensions is that
125: the lowering of the fundamental gravity scale allows for the production of
126: such miniature black holes during scattering processes
127: with centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{\hat{s}} \gg M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$
128: \cite{Banks:1999gd,Giddings:2001bu,Dimopoulos:2001hw,Voloshin:2001vs,Voloshin:2001fe,Giddings:2001ih,Dimopoulos:2001qe,Giudice:2001ce}.
129:
130: There has already been a significant amount of work on production of black holes at future particle colliders \cite{Hossenfelder:2001dn,Kim:2001pg,Cheung:2001ue,Bleicher:2001kh,Casadio:2001wh,Park:2001xc,Landsberg:2001sj,Ahn:2002mj,Rizzo:2002kb,Solodukhin:2002ui,Cardoso:2002ay,Cheung:2002aq,Konoplya:2002zu,Uehara:2002gv,Guedens:2002km,Kotwal:2002wg,Frolov:2002as,Chamblin:2002ad,Han:2002yy,Frolov:2002gf,Anchordoqui:2002cp,Frolov:2002xf,Cardoso:2002jr,Cardoso:2002pa,Frolov:2003en,Chamblin:2003wg,Mocioiu:2003gi,Konoplya:2003ii,Casadio:2003vk,Vasilenko:2003ak,Cavaglia:2003qk,Konoplya:2003dd} and that is also the focus of the work in this thesis. However, as mentioned in \secref{crlim}, a low fundamental energy scale would also make it possible for miniature black holes to be created in the earth's atmosphere \cite{Goyal:2000ma,Feng:2001ib,Anchordoqui:2001ei,Emparan:2001kf,Anchordoqui:2001cg,Uehara:2001yk,Alvarez-Muniz:2002ga,Ringwald:2001vk,Kowalski:2002gb,Kazanas:2001ep,Jain:2002kf,Ringwald:2002if,Ahn:2003qn,Nicolaidis:2003hi,Anchordoqui:2003jr,Mironov:2003jw}. For the highest energy cosmic neutrinos ($>10^4$~TeV) the black hole production cross section from neutrino-nucleon interactions would be larger than the Standard Model interaction rate. There are several different techniques involved in detecting cosmic ray particle showers (for a review see \cite{Anchordoqui:2002hs}) but showers from black hole production and decay are expected to be characterized by particular particle content and multiplicity, and a favoured quasi-horizontal direction. Before the LHC becomes operational cosmic ray experiments should be able to improve their present limits \cite{Anchordoqui:2001cg} on the Planck scale or, more optimistically, observe black hole production. Recently it has been suggested \cite{Mironov:2003jw} that black hole production could be one explanation for the hadron-rich `Centauro' cosmic ray events. The theoretical results derived in Chapter~\ref{greybody} should also be useful for the study of black hole decay in a cosmic ray context.
131:
132: \subsection{Black hole production}
133: \label{bhprod}
134:
135: There has been much discussion in the literature (e.g.\ \cite{Giddings:2001bu,Voloshin:2001vs,Giddings:2001ih,Voloshin:2001fe,Eardley:2002re}) about what the cross section for black hole production is, but the consensus opinion that the geometrical $\sigma\sim\pi r_\text{S}^2$ is valid seems to have been confirmed by the numerical work in \cite{Yoshino:2002tx}. More formally we can write
136: %%%%%%
137: \begin{equation}
138: \label{fndef}
139: \sigma=F_n\pi r_\text{S}^2\,.
140: \end{equation}
141: %%%%%%
142: In order to obtain the coefficient $F_n$ it is necessary to consider the black hole production process in detail. Various analytic techniques are available but for collisions with non-zero impact parameter in more than four dimensions, the collision must be modelled numerically \cite{Yoshino:2002tx}. This allows the determination of both $F_n$ and $b_\text{max}$, the maximum impact parameter for which black hole formation will occur. It is found that $F_n$ is of order 1 (for example $F_0=0.647$ and $F_7=1.883$) and that $b_\text{max}/r_\text{S}$ ranges from 0.804 ($n=0$) to 1.37 ($n=7$).
143:
144: Although a full numerical relativistic approach was necessary to obtain these values, a simple model of the collision can give good agreement. In four dimensions Thorne's hoop conjecture \cite{Thorne:1972ji} predicts the creation of a black hole in the case where any two partons from the colliding particles pass within the horizon radius corresponding to their centre-of-mass energy. In the extra-dimensional case there is probably an equivalent `volume conjecture' \cite{Ida:2002hg,Yoshino:2002br}, but a similar prediction is expected.
145:
146: Here we follow the approach in \cite{Ida:2002ez} and assume that a black hole will form if $b < 2r_\text{h}(M_\text{BH},J)$, where $r_\text{h}$ is the horizon radius for a black hole with mass $M_{BH}$ and angular momentum $J$. This differs from that in \cite{Anchordoqui:2001cg} which assumes $b < r_\text{h}(M_\text{BH},J)$, but provides less good agreement with the numerical results.\footnote{Reference \cite{Anchordoqui:2001cg} was published before the numerical results in \cite{Yoshino:2002tx}, whereas \cite{Ida:2002ez} was published afterwards.} The angular momentum $J$ can be usefully related to a dimensionless rotation parameter $a_*$ by
147: %%%%%%%%
148: \begin{equation}
149: \label{astardef}
150: a_*=\frac{(n+2)J}{2 r_\text{h} M_\text{BH}}\,.
151: \end{equation}
152: %%%%%%%%%
153: There will be more discussion of this in \secref{rotbh}, but $r_\text{h}$ is found to be related to $r_\text{S}$ by
154: %%%%%%%%%
155: \begin{equation}
156: r_\text{h}=\frac{r_\text{S}}{(1+a_*^2)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}}\,.
157: \end{equation}
158: %%%%%%%%%
159: It is therefore possible to determine $b_\text{max}$ by setting $b=2r_\text{h}$ and assuming that $J=bM_\text{BH}/2$. This gives
160: %%%%
161: \begin{equation}
162: b_\text{max}=2\left[1+\left(\frac{n+2}{2}\right)^2\right]^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}r_\text{S}\,,
163: \end{equation}
164: %%%%
165: which is in excellent agreement with \cite{Yoshino:2002tx} for $n\ge 1$. It is then possible to estimate $F_n$ (assuming $\sigma=\pi b_\text{max}^2$) and again the agreement is very good.
166:
167: Above we have assumed that the mass of the black hole will be equal to the centre-of-mass energy of the colliding partons. It is possible to put a lower bound (dependent on the ratio $b/b_\text{max}$) on the fraction of the energy which is trapped by the black hole. Lower bounds were derived for head-on ($b=0$) collisions in \cite{penrose,D'Eath:1992hb,D'Eath:1992hd,D'Eath:1992qu,D'Eath:1993gr} (for four dimensions) and in \cite{Eardley:2002re} (for the extra-dimensional case). However the value when the impact factor is close to its maximum is most important, since this is expected to give the largest contribution to the cross section. The 4D case was studied in \cite{Eardley:2002re} and then the extra-dimensional case in \cite{Yoshino:2002tx} showing that the bound on the fraction of trapped energy can be as low as $\sim 0.1$ for larger values of $n$. A significant amount of angular momentum could also be lost at this stage. More work is required in this area since if this bound is saturated the black hole decay discussed in this work would be significantly affected \cite{Anchordoqui:2003ug} since only if the black hole mass is larger than a few times the fundamental Planck mass can these objects be treated semi-classically.
168:
169: At this point it is worth stressing the difference between black holes as a signature for extra dimensions and the graviton emission signatures briefly mentioned in \secref{led} and \secref{collim}. The graviton emission signatures are necessarily in the `cis-Planckian' or `sub-Planckian' regime ($\sqrt{\hat{s}} \ll M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$) where the low-energy effective theory is valid and graviton emission can be reliably calculated with a perturbative expansion. This means that if $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ is too \emph{low}, the ability of the LHC to extract information from these signatures will be severely limited. In contrast, black holes would be produced in the `trans-Planckian' or `super-Planckian' regime ($\sqrt{\hat{s}} \gg M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$) where a semi-classical approach is valid. If $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ is too \emph{high} it will not be possible to investigate this regime at the LHC, although it is hard to make a good estimate of what the minimum value of $\sqrt{\hat{s}}/M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ should be if we are to be confident of examining trans-Planckian physics. Black holes are not the only feature of such a regime---for colliding partons with larger impact parameter (i.e.\ large compared to the horizon radius corresponding to their centre-of-mass energy) there will instead be gravitational elastic scattering with small momentum transfer. This can be calculated using the eikonal approximation and would result in jet-jet production close to the beam and with high centre-of-mass energy \cite{Giudice:2001ce}. There have been some preliminary experimental studies of this by the ATLAS collaboration which suggest that it might be possible to extract information on $n$ and $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ from these signatures \cite{azuelos}.
170:
171: Another possibility in the trans-Planckian regime is the production of `black' $p$-branes ($p$-dimensional, spatially extended solutions of gravitational theories in extra dimensions). The production and decay of $p$-branes would exhibit some similar features to black holes (which can be considered as 0-branes) but the details of the decay are more model-dependent. Although the cross section for the production of $p$-branes can dominate that for black holes this is only found to be the case in compactifications with a mixture of small and large extra dimensions \cite{Ahn:2002mj,Ahn:2002zn,Cheung:2002aq,Cheung:2002uq}. Qualitatively the explanation for this is that symmetric compactifications (with all extra dimensions of a similar size) favour the production of 0-branes (spherically-symmetric black holes) whereas non-spherically-symmetric $p$-branes are more likely to be produced in models with an asymmetric compactification, e.g.\ \cite{Lykken:1999ms}. There will be no further discussion of $p$-brane production in this work, although it is an area in need of more study since string theory would seem to favour the existence of more than one compactification scale.
172:
173: The trans-Planckian and cis-Planckian energy regimes in which it might be possible to extract parameters in a relatively model-independent way are separated by the Planckian regime in which quantum gravity effects become important. A theory of quantum gravity is required to predict cross sections and experimental signals in this regime. One possibility is string theory; this would introduce another energy scale, the string scale $M_\text{s}$, which could naturally be slightly smaller than $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ (see \secref{astcon}). Therefore, in the Planckian regime it might be possible for the colliding partons to be excited into string modes or even very excited `string balls'.
174:
175: %Maybe add a figure here which illustrates the different energy scales and what effects are expected in each. Could be similar to the Table 4 in Cavaglia review.
176:
177: \subsection{Black hole decay}
178:
179: Once produced, these miniature black holes are expected to decay almost
180: instantaneously (typical lifetimes are $\sim 10^{-26}$~s).\footnote{This is only true in the ADD model; in the RS model the black holes can be stable on collider time scales\cite{Casadio:2001wh}.} According to
181: refs. \cite{Giddings:2001bu,Giddings:2001ih}, the produced black holes will go through a number
182: of phases before completely evaporating.
183:
184: \begin{itemize}
185:
186: \item
187: {\it Balding phase}\,: The black hole emits mainly gravitational radiation
188: and sheds the `hair' inherited from the original particles, and the asymmetry
189: due to the violent production process.\footnote{This phase can also be considered as a production phase since it is predominantly the emission of the `junk energy' which is not trapped by the event horizon as the black hole forms.}
190:
191: \item
192: {\it Spin-down phase}\,: The typically non-zero impact parameter
193: of the colliding partons leads to black holes with some angular momentum
194: about an axis perpendicular to the plane. During this phase, the black
195: hole loses its angular momentum through the emission of Hawking radiation
196: \cite{Hawking:1975sw} and, possibly, through super-radiance.
197:
198: \item
199: {\it Schwarzschild phase}\,: A spherically-symmetric black hole loses
200: energy due to the emission of Hawking radiation. This results in the gradual
201: decrease of its mass and the increase of its temperature.
202:
203: \item
204: {\it Planck phase}\,: The mass and/or the Hawking temperature approach
205: the Planck scale. A theory of quantum gravity is necessary to study this
206: phase in detail but it is suggested that the black hole will decay to a few quanta with Planck-scale energies \cite{Giddings:2001bu}.
207:
208: \end{itemize}
209:
210: As in the 4-dimensional case \cite{Page:1976df}, it is reasonable to expect
211: that the Schwarzschild
212: phase in the life of a small higher-dimensional black hole will be the
213: longest one, and will account for the greatest proportion of the mass loss
214: through the emission of Hawking radiation.
215:
216: \subsection{Experimental signatures}
217: \label{expsig}
218:
219: The phases of black hole decay described in the previous section combine to produce distinctive experimental signatures which make it unlikely that black hole events would be mistaken for many other processes. Some of these features are outlined below:
220:
221: \begin{itemize}
222: \item{There is a very large total cross section, particularly at high centre-of-mass energies (because the parton-level cross section grows with energy);}
223: \item{The ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity is roughly 5:1 and as a result the amount of energy visible in the detector is large (the relative emission into gravitons is also relatively small);}
224: \item{Most events have a relatively high multiplicity with many hard jets and hard prompt leptons;}
225: \item{As the total event transverse energy increases the average multiplicity increases and the average energy of each primary emitted parton decreases---a manifestation of the infra-red ultra-violet connection of gravity;}
226: \item{Events have a high sphericity since most black holes are produced almost at rest;}
227: \item{Hard perturbative scattering processes are suppressed by the non-perturbative black hole production at high energies.}
228: \end{itemize}
229:
230: It has been suggested \cite{Anchordoqui:2002cp} that the high temperature of the black hole ($\gg \Lambda_\text{QCD}$, the scale above which physics becomes perturbative) might cause a quark-gluon `chromosphere' to form around the decaying black hole; the Hawking radiation would then thermalize leading to a suppression of the number of hard hadronic jets. However this would require $\sim 10$ quarks to be emitted as primary partons \cite{Anchordoqui:2002cp,Anchordoqui:2003ug} which is unlikely to be a problem for many black hole events at the LHC because of the lower entropy of higher-dimensional black holes (see the multiplicity discussion in \secref{totfandp}). For future higher energy particle colliders, the black hole signatures are more likely to be modified although there would still be hard hadronic jets from W, Z and Higgs bosons (as well as $\tau$ leptons) which would penetrate the chromosphere before decaying \cite{Landsberg:2002sa}.
231:
232: Experimental cuts proposed to isolate black hole events with negligible SM background include requiring the total energy deposited in the calorimeter to be $\ge 1$~TeV and there to be $\ge 4$ jets with energies above 100~GeV (including a high-energy lepton or photon which is useful for triggering) \cite{Dimopoulos:2001hw}. The theoretical work in Chapter~\ref{greybody} and the event generator described in Chapter~\ref{generator} will eventually make it possible for more quantitative predictions to be made about typical black hole events, and for experimental cuts to be tailored accordingly.
233:
234: \subsection{Proton decay}
235: \label{protonbh}
236:
237: Proton decay is always a potential problem for models which describe physics beyond the Standard Model. The present limits on proton lifetime require that, at a 90\% confidence level, the partial lifetime for the decay $\text{p}\rightarrow \text{e}^+ \pi^0$ is greater than $1.6 \times 10^{33}$~years \cite{Shiozawa:1998si}. In general introducing new physics at a scale of $\Lambda$ can allow the decay of the proton (mass $m_\text{p}$) with a width $\Gamma \sim (m_\text{p}^5/\Lambda^4)$ unless the operators in the Lagrangian which would allow this are explicitly forbidden or at least heavily suppressed.
238:
239: To stop present experimental limits on proton decay being violated in models of new physics it is usually necessary to artificially impose symmetries which forbid the problematic higher dimensions operators (as in the Standard Model this does not completely forbid proton decay since $B$ and $L$ symmetries can be broken by radiative effects).
240:
241: In extra dimension models there is new physics at the fundamental Planck scale (so $\Lambda\sim M_{\text{P}(4+n)} \sim 1$~TeV) and the possible production of black holes in extra dimension models means that gravity itself could be responsible for proton decay. This could occur through the production of virtual black holes in processes like $\text{q} + \text{q} \rightarrow \mbox{Black Hole} \rightarrow \bar{\text{q}} + \ell + \ldots$, where the ellipsis represents possible additional particles (e.g.\ gravitons, gluons, photons or neutrinos). The consequence of the `no hair' theorem is that the only requirement for such processes is the conservation of charge, energy and angular momentum.
242:
243: The usual method of suppressing proton decay in models of new physics is by imposing symmetries on the high-energy theory---for example, R-parity in supersymmetry. However in the extra-dimensional case the high-energy theory is an unknown theory of quantum gravity so it is not clear whether it is possible to impose such a symmetry to suppress but not totally forbid proton decay. The safest approach is to explicitly forbid proton decay by imposing a symmetry on the low-energy effective theory but again this is not trivial. A global symmetry for baryon number does not seem to be viable since the black hole decay is not guaranteed to conserve quantum numbers associated with global symmetries. This leaves discrete gauge symmetries involving combinations of $B$ and $L$ as apparently the only possibilities, since it is argued in \cite{Krauss:1989zc} that quantum numbers associated with discrete gauge symmetries as well as continuous gauge symmetries will be conserved in the decay of black holes. Care must be taken to ensure that any such symmetries introduced are anomaly free, and that they still allow the generation of baryon asymmetry and neutrino masses.
244: \enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
245:
246: Of course the above argument has made the usual assumption that quantum numbers associated with global symmetries can be violated, i.e.\ information is lost in the black hole decay process. Some would argue \cite{Kobakhidze:2001yk} that the solution of the Hawking information loss paradox discussed in \secref{inpar} might involve the conservation of global charges like baryon number in which case many of the above problems would be avoided.
247:
248: Some of the $\mbox{TeV}^{-1}$ extra dimension models introduced in \secref{tev-1} provide another way of avoiding proton decay issues. The models involve physically separating the quarks and leptons \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999za,Arkani-Hamed:1999dc} which exponentially suppresses their wave-function overlap and hence also the possibility of proton decay. To obtain normal SM physics the Higgs and gauge bosons must propagate in the bulk (or the `thick' brane) between the lepton and quark fields. This requires the mass of the lowest KK modes for the bosons to be high enough to avoid the experimental constraints from the precision electroweak measurements, and translates to a lower limit on $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ (at least of order 20~TeV \cite{Han:2002yy}). As a result such models are disfavoured phenomenologically because the high value of $M_{\text{P}(4+n)}$ rules out black hole production at the next generation of colliders.
249:
250: \section{Basic formulae and assumptions}
251: \label{basic}
252:
253: Although extra dimension models have only recently become popular among particle physicists, Myers and Perry \cite{Myers:1986un} had previously worked on black holes in higher-dimensional space-times. They considered the form of the gravitational background around an uncharged $(4+n)$-dimensional black hole. In the non-rotating (Schwarzschild) case the line-element is found to be given by
254: %%%%%%%%%%%
255: \begin{equation}
256: ds^2=- h(r)\,dt^2 + h(r)^{-1}\,dr^2 + r^2\,d \Omega^2_{2+n}\,,
257: \label{metric-D}
258: \end{equation}
259: %%%%%%%%%%%
260: where
261: \begin{equation}
262: h(r) = 1-\biggl(\frac{r_\text{S}}{r}\biggr)^{n+1},
263: \label{h-fun}
264: \end{equation}
265: %%%%%%%%%%
266: and
267: %%%%%%%%
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: d\Omega_{2+n}^2=d\theta^2_{n+1} + \sin^2\theta_{n+1} \,\biggl(d\theta_n^2 +
270: \sin^2\theta_n\,\Bigl(\,... + \sin^2\theta_2\,(d\theta_1^2 + \sin^2 \theta_1
271: \,d\varphi^2)\,...\,\Bigr)\biggr).
272: \end{eqnarray}
273: %%%%%%%%%%%
274: In the above, $0 <\varphi < 2 \pi$ and $0< \theta_i < \pi$, for
275: $i=1, ..., n+1$. As shown in \cite{Myers:1986un}, the extension of the usual 4-dimensional Schwarzschild calculation gives the following horizon radius:
276: %%%%%%%%%%%%
277: \begin{equation}
278: r_\text{h} = r_\text{S} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}M_{P(4+n)}}\left(\frac{M_\text{BH}}{M_{P(4+n)}}\right)^
279: {\frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\frac{8\Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right)}{n+2}\right)
280: ^{\frac{1}{n+1}},
281: \end{equation}
282: where $M_{P(4+n)}$ is the fundamental $(4+n)$-dimensional Planck scale in convention `d' of Table~\ref{consum}.
283:
284: The black holes being considered in this work are assumed to have horizon radii satisfying the relation $\ell_\text{P} \ll r_\text{S} \ll R$.
285: The former inequality guarantees that quantum corrections are not important
286: in the calculations, while the latter is necessary for the black holes to
287: be considered as higher-dimensional objects (i.e.\ the curvature of the extra dimensions can be ignored on the scale of the black hole). The tension of the brane on which the black hole is centred is assumed to be much smaller than the black hole mass which means it can be neglected in this analysis, and a zero bulk cosmological constant is also assumed. This is essentially equivalent to the assumption of the ADD scenario although much of what follows can also be applied to the RS models provided the bulk cosmological constant is small; this corresponds to a small warp factor and so the space-time can be considered as almost spherically symmetric. If this is not the case, singularity problems emerge and the black hole solutions lose their spherical symmetry (the horizon becomes flattened on the brane in a pancake shape \cite{Giddings:2000mu}).
288:
289: A black hole of a particular horizon radius is characterized by a
290: Hawking temperature related by
291: %%%%%%%%%%
292: \begin{equation}
293: T_\text{H}=\frac{(n+1)}{4\pi\,r_\text{S}}\,,
294: \end{equation}
295: %%%%%%%%%%%
296: and the black hole entropy is given by
297: %%%%%%
298: \begin{equation}
299: S_\text{BH}=\frac{4\pi r_\text{S} M_\text{BH}}{n+2}=\left(\frac{n+1}{n+2}\right)\frac{M_\text{BH}}{T_\text{H}}\,.
300: \label{bhent}
301: \end{equation}
302: %%%%%%%
303:
304: The emitted Hawking radiation is {\it almost} like that of a black body at this temperature. In fact the flux spectrum, i.e.\ the number of particles emitted per unit time, is given by \cite{Hawking:1975sw}
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
306: \begin{equation}
307: \label{3flux}
308: \frac{dN^{(s)}(\om)}{dt} = \sum_{\ell} \sigma^{(s)}_{\ell}(\om)\,
309: \frac{1}{\exp\left(\om/T_\text{H}\right) \mp 1}
310: \,\frac{d^{n+3}p}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}\,,
311: \end{equation}
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313: while the power spectrum, i.e.\ the energy emitted per unit time, is
314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
315: \begin{equation}
316: \frac{dE^{(s)}(\om)}{dt} = \sum_{\ell} \sigma^{(s)}_{\ell}(\om)\,
317: \frac{\om}{\exp\left(\om/T_\text{H}\right) \mp 1}\,\frac{d^{n+3}p}{(2\pi)^{n+3}}\,.
318: \label{3power}
319: \end{equation}
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
321: In the above, $s$ is the spin of the degree of freedom being considered
322: and $\ell$ is the angular momentum quantum number. The spin statistics factor
323: in the denominator is $-1$ for bosons and $+1$ for fermions. For
324: massless particles $|p|=\om$ and the phase-space integral reduces to
325: an integral over $\omega$. The term in
326: front, $\sigma^{(s)}_{\ell} (\om) $, is the grey-body factor which encodes valuable information about the structure of the surrounding space-time including its dimensionality. Chapter~\ref{greybody} will give more detail on how the grey-body factors are calculated.
327:
328: As the decay progresses, the black hole mass decreases and the Hawking temperature rises. The work performed here will allow some comments to be made on whether the usual `quasi-stationary' approach to the decay is valid; if such an approach is correct then the black hole has time to come into equilibrium at each new temperature before the next particle is emitted.
329:
330: An important point to stress is that eqs.~(\ref{3flux}) and (\ref{3power})
331: refer to individual degrees of freedom and not to elementary
332: particles, like electrons or quarks, which contain more than one polarization.
333: Combining the necessary degrees of freedom and their corresponding flux
334: or power spectra, the relative numbers of different elementary particles
335: produced, and the energy they carry, can be easily computed. Since the higher-dimensional black holes which might be produced at the LHC have relatively high Hawking temperatures ($\sim$100~GeV) in most cases it is possible for all elementary particles to be produced. The numbers of degrees of freedom $d_s$ are summarized in Table~\ref{pprobs}. These take account of the fact that for each massive gauge bosons one of the degrees of freedom comes from the Higgs mechanism.
336: The numbers of degrees of freedom will be important in calculating total flux and power emission in \secref{totfandp}, and for the construction of the black hole event generator (see Chapter~\ref{generator}).
337:
338:
339: \begin{table}
340: \begin{center}
341: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
342: \hline
343: Particle type & $d_0$ & $d_{1/2}$ & $d_1$ \\
344: \hline
345: Quarks & 0 & 72 & 0\\
346: Gluons & 0 & 0 & 16\\
347: Charged leptons & 0 & 12 & 0\\
348: Neutrinos\footnotemark & 0 & 6 & 0\\
349: Photon & 0 & 0 & 2\\
350: Z$^0$ & 1 & 0 & 2\\
351: W$^+$ and W$^-$ & 2 & 0 & 4\\
352: Higgs boson & 1 & 0 & 0\\
353: \hline
354: Total & 4 & 90 & 24\\
355: \hline
356: \end{tabular}
357: \capbox{Degrees of freedom for different particle types}{Degrees of freedom for different particle types emitted from a black hole.\label{pprobs}}
358: \end{center}
359: \end{table}
360:
361: \footnotetext{It is possible that $d_{1/2}=12$ should be used for the neutrinos since right-handed neutrinos, if they exist, will also be emitted by the black hole.}\stepcounter{footnote}
362: \enlargethispage{-\baselineskip}
363:
364: In reference \cite{Emparan:2000rs} it was argued that the majority of energy during
365: the emission of Hawking radiation from a higher-dimensional black hole is
366: emitted into modes on the brane (i.e.\ Standard Model fermions and gauge bosons,
367: zero-mode gravitons and scalar fields). This argument was based on their
368: result that a single brane particle carries as much energy as the
369: whole Kaluza-Klein tower of massive excitations propagating in the bulk. Essentially the reasoning is that the KK tower is simply the result of the projection onto four dimensions; from the extra-dimensional view-point there is only one graviton mode. Since there are many brane modes for the Standard Model particles the majority of energy is expected to be emitted on the brane.
370:
371: Chapter~\ref{greybody} of this thesis is concerned with the numerical calculation of the extra-dimensional grey-body factors. These will be a key part of the state-of-the-art black hole event generator described in Chapter \ref{generator}. The event generator simulates both the production and decay of small black holes at hadronic colliders and, by using the new results for the grey-body factors provides estimates for the spectra and relative numbers of the different types of elementary particles emitted.
372: