1: \documentclass[twocolumn,preprintnumbers,prl,nobibnotes,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprintnumbers,prl,nobibnotes,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}
3:
4:
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9:
10: \newcommand{\ev}{{\ \rm eV}}
11: \newcommand{\mev}{{\ \rm MeV}}
12: \newcommand{\gev}{{\ \rm GeV}}
13: \newcommand{\tev}{{\ \rm TeV}}
14: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}}
15:
16: \def\mpl{\ifmmode \overline M_{Pl}\else $\bar M_{Pl}$\fi}
17: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
18:
19: \newskip\zatskip \zatskip=0pt plus0pt minus0pt
20: \def\matth{\mathsurround=0pt}
21: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\atversim<}}
22: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\atversim>}}
23: \def\atversim#1#2{\lower0.7ex\vbox{\baselineskip\zatskip\lineskip\zatskip
24: \lineskiplimit 0pt\ialign{$\matth#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
25: \def\undertext#1{$\underline{\smash{\vphantom{y}\hbox{#1}}}$}
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \author{JoAnne L. Hewett} \email{hewett@slac.stanford.edu}
30: \author{Ben Lillie} \email{lillieb@slac.stanford.edu}
31: \author{Thomas G. Rizzo} \email{rizzo@slac.stanford.edu}
32: \affiliation{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, 2575 Sand Hill
33: Rd. Menlo Park, CA 94025}
34: \thanks{Work supported by the
35: Department of Energy
36: Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.}
37:
38: \title{Black holes in many dimensions at the LHC: testing critical string theory}
39:
40: \date{\today}
41: \preprint{SLAC-PUB-11024}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We consider black hole production at the LHC in a generic scenario with
45: many extra dimensions where the Standard Model fields are confined to a
46: brane. With $\sim 20$ dimensions the hierarchy problem is shown to be naturally
47: solved without the need for large compactification radii. We find that in such
48: a scenario the properties of black holes can be used to determine the number
49: of extra dimensions, $n$. In particular, we demonstrate that measurements of
50: the decay distributions of such black holes at the LHC can determine if $n$ is
51: significantly larger than 6 or 7 with high confidence, and thus can probe one
52: of the critical properties of string theory compactifications.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57:
58: %\section{Introduction}
59:
60: %\subsection{intro to HP, QG, and ST}
61:
62: One of the most difficult questions facing theoretical high-energy
63: physics is how to consistently combine General
64: Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, as naive quantization produces
65: unrenormalizable divergences. This issue is exacerbated by the
66: hierarchy problem, which asks why the electroweak scale,
67: $M_{wk}\sim$ TeV, is so small compared with the (reduced) Planck
68: scale, $\mpl \sim$ a few $10^{18}$ GeV, which is associated with the
69: energy at which non-renormalizable Einstein gravity becomes strong.
70: It appears that resolution of these puzzles may require a complete
71: theory of quantum gravity.
72:
73: In recent years it has been proposed that the fundamental scale of
74: gravity might not be $\mpl$, but rather $M_* \sim \tev$
75: \cite{Antoniadis:1990ew,Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}. There is then no large
76: hierarchy between the gravitational and electroweak scales. In this
77: scenario, the observed weakness of gravity results from the presence
78: of extra dimensions with large radii. In the simplest picture,
79: gravity is able to propagate in all $D$ dimensions, but the Standard
80: Model (SM) fields are restricted to a $3+1$ dimensional ``brane''. The
81: strength of gravity at long distances is then diluted by the volume of the
82: extra dimensions. Here, we examine a scenario where the
83: number of extra dimensions is large. In this case, as we will see below,
84: additional hierarchies do not arise between $M_*$ and the size of the
85: additional dimensions. In particular, we examine the
86: properties of black hole (BH) production and decay at the LHC with
87: different numbers of extra dimensions and show that the number of
88: additional dimensions $n$ can be determined at high confidence, in
89: particular when $n$ is large. Our results hold in the {\it generic case}
90: where the size of the BH is much less than the curvature of the additional
91: dimensions, and where the SM is confined to a 3-brane.
92:
93: As of now, the best candidate for a complete theory of quantum
94: gravity is (critical)
95: string theory (CST), which reduces to Einstein gravity at low
96: energies and allows for the computation of finite $S-$matrix
97: amplitudes. For CST to be a consistent theory there are three
98: essential ingredients: ($i$) the fundamental objects of the theory
99: are no longer point-like and must have a finite size of order
100: $M_{s}$, the string scale; ($ii$) supersymmetry must be a good
101: symmetry, at least at scales $\gtrsim M_{s}$; ($iii$) space-time
102: must be ten or eleven dimensional, (\ie, $D=4+n=10$, if the string
103: coupling is perturbative, $D=11$ if it is non-perturbative), with
104: the additional dimensions being compactified at a radius $R_c\gtrsim
105: 1/M_{s}$. Most research in string theory so far has focused on
106: critical string theories, where the world-sheet anomalies are
107: automatically canceled. It is precisely this anomaly cancelation
108: that requires $D=10$. However, there are consistent non-critical
109: backgrounds of string theory in arbitrary numbers of dimensions.
110: Here, the anomalies are canceled by solving the equations of motion
111: taking into account the tree level moduli potential as well as
112: contributions to the equations of motion from other sources such as
113: fluxes, orientifolds, and branes \cite{Myers:1987fv}. In either
114: case, the common expectation is that $M_{s}$ is slightly below or
115: equal to $\mpl$ which would imply that the predictions of CST are
116: difficult to test directly. Currently there is no evidence for any
117: of these basic assumptions. If indeed $M_{s} \sim \mpl$ it may be
118: that CST can never be directly tested in laboratory experiments.
119: Furthermore, even if supersymmetry and/or extra dimensions were
120: discovered in future experiments, this would be no guarantee that
121: CST represents the correct theory of nature.
122:
123: We will show in this paper that the number of compactified
124: large dimensions can be determined from black hole production at the LHC.
125: This would provide a probe of classes of CST models. Specifically,
126: if $n > 6(7)$ is measured with high confidence then present CST
127: compactifications would be tested.
128: As a proof of principle for our
129: proposal, we will show that there exists a region in the
130: parameter space where we can experimentally exclude
131: the case $n\le 6(7)$ at $5\sigma$ significance.
132:
133: For purposes of demonstration, we perform our calculations in the
134: the large extra dimensions picture of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and
135: Dvali (ADD) \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}. We emphasize that our results
136: are {\it general} and we only use ADD as a calculational framework.
137: Here, $M_*$ and $\mpl$ are related
138: by $\mpl^2=V_nM_*^{n+2}$, where $V_n$ is the volume of the $n$
139: compactified large dimensions.
140: For simplicity in what follows, we will assume that this
141: $n-$dimensional space is compactified on a torus of equal radii so
142: that $V_n=(2\pi R_c)^n$, where $R_c$ is the compactification radius.
143: Given $\mpl$ and $M_*\sim$ a few$\tev$, $R_c$ becomes completely
144: fixed by the relation above. Note that the case $n=1$ is excluded
145: while $n=2$ with low $M_*$ is disfavored by current data
146: \cite{Hewett:2002hv}. For the case of a torus, the graviton has
147: Kaluza-Klein(KK) excitations $h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}$, with masses given
148: by $M_n^2=${\bf n}$^2/R_c^2$, where {\bf n} labels a set of
149: occupation numbers. The KK graviton couplings to the Standard Model
150: (SM) fields are described by the stress-energy tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$,
151: given in $D$ dimensions by ${\cal L}=-\sum_n
152: h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}T^{\mu\nu}/M_*^{1+n/2}$. This scenario has three
153: distinct experimental signatures which have been studied in some
154: detail in the literature: ($i$) missing energy events associated
155: with KK graviton emission in the collisions of SM fields; ($ii$) new
156: contact interactions associated with spin-2 KK exchanges between SM
157: fields \cite{Han:1998sg}; ($iii$) black hole production in particle
158: collisions \cite{Dimopoulos:2001hw,Giddings:2001bu}.
159:
160: Is there any guide as to what values of $n>6(7)$ we should consider?
161: For $n\leq 6$ it is well known that the hierarchy problem
162: is {\it not} truly solved. Although we have reduced $M_*$ to a few
163: TeV, $M_*R_c \gg 1$, as seen in Fig \ref{fig:rcvsn}. By contrast,
164: with $n$ large we could have $M_*R_c \lesssim 10$. Note that, if
165: $M_*R_c <1$ the theory would lose its predictive power since the
166: compactification scale is above the cutoff. To obtain the
167: interesting range of compactification radii, $1\lesssim M_*
168: R_c\lesssim 10$, requires $17 \lesssim n \lesssim 39$, hence we will
169: focus on this set of values in what follows. If the compactification
170: topology is a sphere, rather than a torus, this changes to $n\gsim
171: 30$, as seen in Fig \ref{fig:rcvsn}. It is important to notice that
172: this model does solve the hierarchy problem for large $n$, but this
173: would lie outside the realm of CST. Note that some other
174: modifications of the compactification geometry can obtain $R_cM_*
175: \lesssim 10$ \cite{Kaloper:2000jb}. For such large values of $n$ the
176: Kaluza-Klein masses are at the$\tev$ scale. For example, in the ADD
177: case, since each graviton KK state is
178: coupled with 4 dimensional Planck strength, $\mpl$, to the SM
179: fields, it is clear that this significantly weakens the KK
180: contributions to the processes ($i$) and ($ii$) above. Thus, no
181: meaningful collider constraints would be obtainable; this may also
182: happen in the generic model we consider here. For example, in ADD with
183: $n=2$, precision measurements at the International Linear Collider at
184: $\sqrt{s} = 1 \tev$ will be sensitive to $M_* \lesssim 10 \tev$,
185: while with $n=21$, this drops to $M_* \lesssim 1 \tev $. Thus for
186: reasonable values of $M_*$ the {\it only} signal for large $n$ in
187: ADD is black hole production.
188:
189:
190: \begin{figure}
191: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
192: \includegraphics[height=6cm,width=4cm,angle=-90]{rc.ps}\\
193: \caption{$M_* R_c$ as a function of $n$ for $M_* = 1$ TeV for a torus (solid) and sphere (dashed) compactifications.}\label{fig:rcvsn}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: We now investigate BH production at the LHC in detail; for previous
197: studies see \cite{Harris:2004xt}. When $\sqrt s \gtrsim M_*$ BHs are
198: produced with a geometric (subprocess) cross section, $\hat \sigma
199: \simeq \pi R_s^2$. We expect this to hold in all models which satisfy
200: our assumptions. Here $R_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius
201: corresponding to a BH of mass $M_{BH}\simeq \sqrt {\hat s}$. $R_s$
202: is given by \cite{Kanti:2004nr}
203: \begin{equation}
204: M_* R_s=\Bigg[\frac{\Gamma({\frac{n+3}{2}})}{(n+2)\pi^{(n+3)/2}}
205: \frac{M_{BH}}{M_*}\Bigg]^{1/(n+1)}\,.\label{eq:rs}
206: \end{equation}
207: Note that $\hat \sigma \sim n$ for large n. Numerical simulations
208: and detailed arguments have shown that the geometric cross section
209: estimate is good to within factors of a few \cite{Giddings:2004xy}.
210: The total number of BH events at the LHC with invariant mass above
211: an arbitrary value $M_{\rm BH, min}$ is shown in Fig.
212: \ref{fig:xsec}. The scale of the total inclusive BH cross-section,
213: $\sim 100$ pb, is huge compared to that which is typical of new
214: physics processes, $\lesssim 1$ pb. Thus, over much of the parameter
215: space the LHC will be producing over a million BH events per year.
216: This high rate means that there will be tremendous statistical
217: power, and essentially all measurements will be systematics limited.
218:
219:
220: \begin{figure}
221: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
222: \includegraphics[height=8cm,width=4.3cm,angle=-90]{xsec.ps}
223: \includegraphics[height=8cm,width=4.3cm,angle=-90]{pt.ps}
224: \caption{Top panel: Cross-section for production of black holes with mass
225: $M>M_{BH, min}$ with $M_*= 1.5 \tev$, for $n=2$(bottom) to $25$(top) of the band. Also shown is the
226: QCD dijet cross-section for dijet invariant mass $M\ge M_{BH, min}$, and $|\eta| < 1$.
227: Bottom panel: $\not\! p_T$ distribution of BH events passing cuts described in the text for $M_* = 1 \tev$
228: and $n=2,6,21$.}\label{fig:xsec}
229: \end{figure}
230:
231: The semiclassical treatment, used here and in all previous studies
232: \cite{Kanti:2004nr}, may recieve potentially large corrections from
233: two sources: ({\it i}) distortions from the finite compactification
234: scale as $R_s$ approaches $R_c$, and ({\it ii}) quantum gravity.
235: Case ({\it i}) is easily controllable. We know that in 5 dimensions
236: the critical point for instabilities due to finite compactification
237: is $(R_s/R_c)^2 \approx 0.1$ \cite{Gregory:1993vy}. For LHC energies
238: we always have $(R_s/R_c)^2 \ll 0.1$, so these corrections are
239: negligible. In more dimensions the ratio of the volume of a BH with
240: fixed $R_s$ to the volume of the torus with fixed $R_c$ drops
241: rapidly with $n$, so we expect the corrections to be even smaller.
242: Case ({\it ii}) is more problematic; we estimate the quantum gravity
243: effects by looking at the corrections from higher curvature terms in
244: the action, {\it e.g.}
245: \begin{gather}
246: S = \frac{M_*^{D-2}}{2}\int d^D x\ \left(R +
247: \frac{\alpha_1}{M_*^2}{\mathcal L}_2 +
248: \frac{\alpha_2}{M_*^4}{\mathcal L}_3 +
249: \ldots\right).\label{eq:action}
250: \end{gather}
251: Here $R$ is the Ricci scalar, and ${\mathcal L}_i$ is the $i$th
252: order Lovelock invariant, with ${\mathcal L}_2$ being the
253: Gauss-Bonnet term \cite{lovelock:498}. This equation also defines
254: our convention for the fundamental scale $M_*$.\footnote{We note
255: that this is related to the other definitions in the literature by
256: $M_* = (8\pi)^{-\frac{1}{n+2}}M_{\rm DL}$\cite{Dimopoulos:2001hw} $=
257: [2(2\pi)^n]^{-1\frac{1}{n+2}} M_{\rm GT}$\cite{Giddings:2001bu} $=
258: (2\pi)^{-n/(2+n)}M_D$, as used in Giudice {\it et. al}
259: \cite{Han:1998sg}.} Schwartzchild solutions are known for arbitrary
260: values of the $\alpha_i$ \cite{Whitt:1988ax}. If we assume that the
261: higher curvature terms are radiatively generated, and hence each
262: $\alpha_i$ is the $i$th power of an expansion parameter $\alpha$ (as
263: occurs in string models \cite{Zwiebach:1985uq}), we find that
264: $\alpha D^2 \le 1$. For $\alpha$ of this size we find that the
265: corrections are always less severe as $n$ increases, with a $\sim
266: 20\%$ correction to $R_s$ for $n=20$. This does not qualitatively
267: affect our conclusions here; for a more detailed study of these
268: corrections, see \cite{hlr-progress,Rizzo:2005fz}.
269:
270: We now come to the crucial question, is there any property of the
271: produced black holes that can resolve the number of dimensions? The
272: cross-section is $n$-dependent, but the overall scale is set by
273: $1/M_*^2$, so one would first have to measure $M_*$ independently to
274: good accuracy to obtain any resolution on $n$. Cross section ratios
275: at different BH masses could be used, however, the range of energies
276: that are clearly in the geometric regime and accessible to the LHC
277: is not likely to be large. This leads us to the decay properties of
278: black holes. One generically expects that black holes produced at
279: colliders are formed in highly asymmetric states, with high angular
280: momentum, and possibly a non-zero charge. However, they quickly shed
281: their charge and angular momentum by emitting bulk graviton modes
282: and soft brane modes, and relax to a simple Schwartzchild state;
283: their decay then proceeds primarily by thermal emission of Hawking
284: radiation \cite{Kanti:2004nr} until $M_{BH} \sim M_*$, where quantum
285: gravity effects will mediate the final decay. The Hawking
286: temperature is given by
287: \begin{gather}
288: T_H = \frac{(n+1)M_*}{4\pi}
289: \Bigg[\frac{\Gamma({\frac{n+3}{2}})}{(n+2)\pi^{(n+3)/2}}
290: \frac{M_{BH}}{M_*}\Bigg]^{-1/(n+1)}.
291: \end{gather}
292: From this we can see that, at fixed $M_{BH}$, higher dimensional BHs
293: are hotter. Since the average multiplicity goes inversely with the
294: temperature, a low dimensional BH will emit many quanta before
295: losing all of it's energy. By contrast, the decay of a high
296: dimension BH will have fewer final state particles, and each emitted
297: quanta will carry a larger fraction of the BH energy. We will use
298: this difference to obtain experimental resolution on $n$. It was
299: seen in \cite{Harris:2004xt} that for $n\le 6$ an error of $\pm
300: 0.75$ could be obtained. However, as $n$ gets large the BH
301: properties at adjacent $n$ converge, so it is {\it a-priori} unclear
302: at what level $n$ can be determined, if at all, in this case.
303:
304: The previous argument suggests we examine the final state
305: multiplicity, or the individual particle $p_T$ distributions as a
306: probe of $n$. The multiplicity is affected by two major sources of
307: uncertainty: (a) contributions from initial and final state
308: radiation that produce additional jets, and (b) the details of the
309: final quantum gravity decay of the BH are unknown. In what follows
310: we will assume that this {\it remnant} decay is primarily 2-body.
311: However, this is clearly model-dependent; we prefer observables that
312: are independent of this assumption, disfavoring the multiplicity. By
313: contrast, the $p_T$ spectra of individual particles, particularly at
314: high-$p_T$, will be mostly sensitive to the {\it initial}
315: temperature of the BHs. There are many such distributions that one
316: could consider. In particular, one would like to examine all
317: possible distributions and see that the candidate BH states are
318: coupling equally to each SM degree of freedom, verifying that these
319: are gravitational phenomena \cite{hlr-progress}. For illustration we
320: will focus here on the $\not\! p_T$ and individual jet $p_T$
321: distributions for the BH final state.
322:
323: To calculate these distributions, we have simulated BH events using
324: a modified version of CHARYBDIS \cite{Harris:2003db}, linked to
325: PYTHIA \cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}. First, a large sample of BHs with
326: masses above a critical value $M_{\rm min} = M_*$ is generated. From
327: these we select events by cutting on the reconstructed invariant
328: mass, $M_{\rm inv}$ of the event, defined by summing over all
329: visible final state particles or jets with rapidity $|\eta|<3$, and
330: with $p_T \ge 50 \gev$. We would like to select events where the BH
331: mass is large enough that the event is in the geometrical regime,
332: and quantum gravity corrections are small. To do this, one would
333: need to extract from the data an estimate of the size of $M_*$.
334: While we have no fundamental model for the quantum gravity effects
335: near threshold, we can assume that there will be a turn-on for BH
336: production near $M_*$, and the cross-section will then asymptote to
337: the geometric value. While this will not lead to a precision
338: determination of $M_*$, it can clearly be used to set an optimum cut
339: on $M_{\rm inv}$. In the context of a particular model of the
340: threshold based on the action (\ref{eq:action}), we find that
341: $M_{\rm inv} \ge 2M_*$ is a reasonable cut \cite{hlr-progress}. We
342: include initial-state radiation in the simulations, since that can
343: lead to a contamination of lower $\sqrt{\hat s}$ events in our
344: sample. In the case of jets, for simplicity we turn off
345: hadronization, and simply look at the parton-level characteristics.
346:
347: To be specific, we generate a ``data'' set of $\sim 300k$ events
348: with $n=21$ and $M_* = 1 \tev$. We use this size sample as a
349: conservative lower estimate of BH production. If the cross section
350: is within an order of magnitude of that in Fig. \ref{fig:xsec}, the
351: LHC will collect many millions of events, giving an increase in
352: statistical power over that presented here. Alternatively, if we
353: employed a stiffer cut on the lower value of $M_{inv}$, this would
354: yield a lower statistical sample, similar to the size of $300k$ events
355: considered here, and we would expect our results to then
356: qualitatively hold in this case as well.
357: These ``data'' events
358: are then compared to a number of template sets of events. We then
359: ask at what confidence the template can be excluded by performing a
360: $\chi^2$ test using only the resulting $\not\! p_T$ distribution
361: (shown in Fig. \ref{fig:xsec}). We examine the range $2\le n\le 21$,
362: and $0.75 \le M_* \le 5 \tev$. The lower bound on $M_*$ comes from
363: non-observation at the Tevatron and cosmic rays
364: \cite{Anchordoqui:2003jr}, while the upper bound is set by demanding
365: that the LHC be able to collect at least $50k$ events given the
366: cross-section uncertainties. We then determine whether the CST
367: region can be probed at high confidence within this scenario.
368: For this test case, we
369: find at least a $5\sigma$ exclusion for the entire CST region using
370: the $\not\! p_T$ distribution alone, or $\sim 40\sigma$ using the
371: jet-$p_T$ spectrum. Though the statistical power in jets is much
372: higher, it suffers from more systematic uncertainties. Fig.
373: \ref{fig:sigmapt} shows the 3, 5, and 10$\sigma$ exclusion contours
374: in the $(n,M_*)$ plane obtained using the $\not\! p_T$ distribution
375: for this test case. If the LHC collects a few million events rather
376: than the $300k$ sample used here, simple scaling tells us that the
377: $5\sigma$ curve excludes $n\le 20$, and the $10\sigma$ curve
378: excludes $n\le 11$.
379:
380: \begin{figure}
381: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
382: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90]{map.eps}\\
383: \caption{Exclusion curves in the $(n,M_*)$ plane, assuming the data
384: lies at the point $(21,1\tev)$. Points outside the curves are excluded
385: at 3, 5, or 10$\sigma$.}\label{fig:sigmapt}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: We have shown that the CST region can be excluded within this scenario
389: if $n=21$. What
390: about other values of $n$? On changing the number of dimensions used
391: in generating the``data'', we find that for any $n\ge 15$ the CST
392: region can be excluded by at least $5\sigma$, with $300k$ events. We
393: would, of course, like to know in what region of the parameter space
394: this type of definitive test can be performed. A more detailed study
395: of the parameter space is in progress \cite{hlr-progress}.
396:
397: In conclusion, we have shown that if there exist many$\tev$ sized
398: extra dimensions with the SM fields confined to a 3-brane,
399: then there
400: exists an observable that can probe classes of critical string theory
401: models.
402:
403: \begin{acknowledgments}
404: The authors would like to thank N. Arkani-Hamed, C. Berger, D. J.
405: Copeland, S. Dimopolous, G. Landsberg, L. McAllister, P. Richardson,
406: E. Silverstein, B. Webber, R. Wijewardhana, and T. Wiseman for many
407: helpful discussions.
408: \end{acknowledgments}
409:
410: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
411:
412:
413:
414: %\cite{Antoniadis:1990ew}
415: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1990ew}
416: I.~Antoniadis,
417: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''
418: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990).
419: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%
420: %\cite{Lykken:1996fj}
421: %\bibitem{Lykken:1996fj}
422: J.~D.~Lykken,
423: %``Weak Scale Superstrings,''
424: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3693 (1996)
425: [arXiv:hep-th/9603133].
426: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9603133;%%
427: %\cite{Witten:1996mz}
428: %\bibitem{Witten:1996mz}
429: E.~Witten,
430: %``Strong Coupling Expansion Of Calabi-Yau Compactification,''
431: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 471}, 135 (1996)
432: [arXiv:hep-th/9602070].
433: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9602070;%%
434:
435:
436: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
437: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
438: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
439: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
440: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315].
441: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
442:
443: %\cite{Myers:1987fv}
444: \bibitem{Myers:1987fv}
445: R.~C.~Myers,
446: %``New Dimensions For Old Strings,''
447: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 199}, 371 (1987).
448: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B199,371;%%
449: %\cite{Maloney:2002rr}
450: %\bibitem{Maloney:2002rr}
451: A.~Maloney, E.~Silverstein and A.~Strominger,
452: %``De Sitter space in noncritical string theory,''
453: arXiv:hep-th/0205316.
454: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205316;%%
455:
456: %\cite{Cullen:2000ef}
457: \bibitem{Cullen:2000ef}
458: %\cite{Dudas:1999gz}
459: %\bibitem{Dudas:1999gz}
460: E.~Dudas and J.~Mourad,
461: %``String theory predictions for future accelerators,''
462: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 575}, 3 (2000)
463: [arXiv:hep-th/9911019].
464: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9911019;%%
465: S.~Cullen, M.~Perelstein and M.~E.~Peskin,
466: %``TeV strings and collider probes of large extra dimensions,''
467: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 055012 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0001166].
468: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001166;%%
469:
470: %\cite{Randall:1999ee}
471: \bibitem{Randall:1999ee}
472: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
473: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
474: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)
475: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].
476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
477:
478: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2003me}
479: \bibitem{Davoudiasl:2003me}
480: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie and T.~G.~Rizzo,
481: %``Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking in warped backgrounds: Constraints
482: %and signatures,''
483: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015006 (2004)
484: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312193].
485: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312193;%%
486:
487: %\cite{Hewett:2002hv}
488: \bibitem{Hewett:2002hv}
489: J.~Hewett and M.~Spiropulu,
490: %``Particle physics probes of extra spacetime dimensions,''
491: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 52}, 397 (2002)
492: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205106].
493: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205106;%%
494:
495: %\cite{Han:1998sg}
496: \bibitem{Han:1998sg}
497: T.~Han, J.~D.~Lykken and R.~J.~Zhang,
498: %``On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions,''
499: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 105006 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811350].
500: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811350;%%
501: %\cite{Hewett:1998sn}
502: %\bibitem{Hewett:1998sn}
503: J.~L.~Hewett,
504: %``Indirect collider signals for extra dimensions,''
505: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 4765 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811356].
506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811356;%%
507: %\cite{Giudice:1998ck}
508: %\bibitem{Giudice:1998ck}
509: G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,
510: %``Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,''
511: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544}, 3 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811291].
512: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811291;%%
513: %\cite{Mirabelli:1998rt}
514: %\bibitem{Mirabelli:1998rt}
515: E.~A.~Mirabelli, M.~Perelstein and M.~E.~Peskin,
516: %``Collider signatures of new large space dimensions,''
517: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 2236 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811337].
518: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811337;%%
519: %\cite{Rizzo:1998fm}
520: %\bibitem{Rizzo:1998fm}
521: T.~G.~Rizzo,
522: %``More and more indirect signals for extra dimensions at more and more
523: %colliders,''
524: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 115010 (1999)
525: [arXiv:hep-ph/9901209].
526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901209;%%
527:
528: %\cite{Dimopoulos:2001hw}
529: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:2001hw}
530: %\cite{Argyres:1998qn}
531: %\bibitem{Argyres:1998qn}
532: P.~C.~Argyres, S.~Dimopoulos and J.~March-Russell,
533: %``Black holes and sub-millimeter dimensions,''
534: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441}, 96 (1998)
535: [arXiv:hep-th/9808138].
536: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808138;%%
537: S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Landsberg,
538: %``Black holes at the LHC,''
539: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 161602 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295].
540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106295;%%
541:
542: %\cite{Giddings:2001bu}
543: \bibitem{Giddings:2001bu}
544: S.~B.~Giddings and S.~Thomas,
545: %``High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance
546: %physics,''
547: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 056010 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219].
548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106219;%%
549:
550: %\cite{Kaloper:2000jb}
551: \bibitem{Kaloper:2000jb}
552: N.~Kaloper, J.~March-Russell, G.~D.~Starkman and M.~Trodden,
553: %``Compact hyperbolic extra dimensions: Branes, Kaluza-Klein modes and
554: %cosmology,''
555: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 928 (2000)
556: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002001].
557: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002001;%%
558:
559: %\cite{Harris:2004xt}
560: \bibitem{Harris:2004xt}
561: C.~M.~Harris, M.~J.~Palmer, M.~A.~Parker, P.~Richardson,
562: A.~Sabetfakhri and B.~R.~Webber,
563: %``Exploring higher dimensional black holes at the Large Hadron Collider,''
564: arXiv:hep-ph/0411022.
565: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411022;%%
566: %\cite{Tanaka:2004xb}
567: %\bibitem{Tanaka:2004xb}
568: J.~Tanaka, T.~Yamamura, S.~Asai and J.~Kanzaki,
569: %``Study of black holes with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,''
570: arXiv:hep-ph/0411095.
571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411095;%%
572:
573: %\cite{Kanti:2004nr}
574: \bibitem{Kanti:2004nr}
575: P.~Kanti,
576: %``Black holes in theories with large extra dimensions: A review,''
577: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19}, 4899 (2004)
578: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402168].
579: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402168;%%
580:
581: %\cite{Giddings:2004xy}
582: \bibitem{Giddings:2004xy}
583: S.~B.~Giddings and V.~S.~Rychkov,
584: %``Black holes from colliding wavepackets,''
585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 104026 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0409131].
586: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0409131;%%
587: %\cite{Yoshino:2005hi}
588: %\bibitem{Yoshino:2005hi}
589: H.~Yoshino and V.~S.~Rychkov,
590: %``Improved analysis of black hole formation in high-energy particle
591: %collisions,''
592: arXiv:hep-th/0503171.
593: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0503171;%%
594: %\cite{Cardoso:2005jq}
595: %\bibitem{Cardoso:2005jq}
596: V.~Cardoso, E.~Berti and M.~Cavaglia,
597: %``What we (don't) know about black hole formation in high-energy
598: %collisions,''
599: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 22}, L61 (2005)
600: [arXiv:hep-ph/0505125].
601: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505125;%%
602:
603: %\cite{Gregory:1993vy}
604: \bibitem{Gregory:1993vy}
605: R.~Gregory and R.~Laflamme,
606: %``Black strings and p-branes are unstable,''
607: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 2837 (1993)
608: [arXiv:hep-th/9301052].
609: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9301052;%%
610:
611: \bibitem{lovelock:498}
612: D.~Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.
613: \textbf{12}, {498} {1971}.
614:
615: %\cite{Whitt:1988ax}
616: \bibitem{Whitt:1988ax}
617: B.~Whitt,
618: %``Spherically Symmetric Solutions Of General Second Order Gravity,''
619: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 38}, 3000 (1988).
620: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D38,3000;%%
621:
622: %\cite{Zwiebach:1985uq}
623: \bibitem{Zwiebach:1985uq}
624: B.~Zwiebach,
625: %``Curvature Squared Terms And String Theories,''
626: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 156}, 315 (1985).
627: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B156,315;%%
628: %\cite{Boulware:1985wk}
629: %\bibitem{Boulware:1985wk}
630: D.~G.~Boulware and S.~Deser,
631: %``String Generated Gravity Models,''
632: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 55}, 2656 (1985).
633: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,2656;%%
634: %\cite{Zumino:1985dp}
635: %\bibitem{Zumino:1985dp}
636: B.~Zumino,
637: %``Gravity Theories In More Than Four-Dimensions,''
638: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 137}, 109 (1986).
639: %%CITATION = PRPLC,137,109;%%
640:
641: \bibitem{hlr-progress} J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie and T.~G.~Rizzo, in
642: preparation, 2005.
643:
644: %\cite{Rizzo:2005fz}
645: \bibitem{Rizzo:2005fz}
646: T.~G.~Rizzo,
647: %``Collider production of TeV scale black holes and higher-curvature
648: %gravity,''
649: arXiv:hep-ph/0503163.
650: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503163;%%
651:
652: %\cite{Harris:2003db}
653: \bibitem{Harris:2003db}
654: C.~M.~Harris, P.~Richardson and B.~R.~Webber,
655: %``CHARYBDIS: A black hole event generator,''
656: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 033 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0307305].
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307305;%%
658:
659: %\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}
660: \bibitem{Sjostrand:2000wi}
661: T.~Sjostrand, P.~Eden, C.~Friberg, L.~Lonnblad, G.~Miu, S.~Mrenna and E.~Norrbin,
662: %``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1,''
663: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 135}, 238 (2001)
664: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010017].
665: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%
666:
667: %\cite{Anchordoqui:2003jr}
668: \bibitem{Anchordoqui:2003jr}
669: L.~A.~Anchordoqui, J.~L.~Feng, H.~Goldberg and A.~D.~Shapere,
670: %``Updated limits on TeV-scale gravity from absence of neutrino cosmic ray
671: %showers mediated by black holes,''
672: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 104025 (2003)
673: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307228].
674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307228;%%
675:
676: \end{thebibliography}
677:
678: \end{document}
679: