1: \documentclass[10pt,twocolumn,prd, showpacs,amssymb,preprintnumbers,nofootinbib,

2: superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: 

4: 

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{latexsym}

8: \usepackage{amsfonts}

9: \usepackage{url,hyperref}

10: \usepackage{bm}

11: \usepackage{bbm}

12: 

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%Hdr%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: \usepackage{fancyhdr}

15: %%\lhead{Doukas} \chead{} \rhead{Black holes in particle

16: %%accelerators, Draft 2} \lfoot{} \cfoot{\thepage} \rfoot{}

17: %\pagestyle{fancy}

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: \begin{figure}[t]

23: \vspace{1.4cm} \hspace{16.15cm}

24: \end{figure}

25: 

26: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}

27: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}

28: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

29: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\bed}{\begin{displaymath}}

31: \newcommand{\eed}{\end{displaymath}}

32: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

33: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

34: \newcommand{\veps}{\varepsilon}

35: \def\slash{\not\!}

36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

37: 

38: \title{Lepton number violation via intermediate black hole processes}

39: \author{Jason Doukas}

40:   \email[Email: ]{j.doukas@physics.unimelb.edu.au}

41:    \affiliation{School of Physics, Research Centre for High Energy Physics,\\

42:     University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.}

43: \author{S. Rai Choudhury}

44:   \email[Email: ]{src@physics.du.ac.in}

45:     \affiliation{Department of Physics \& Astrophysics,\\

46:      University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India,}

47: \author{G. C. Joshi}

48:   \email[Email: ]{joshi@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au}

49:    \affiliation{School of Physics, Research Centre for High Energy Physics,\\

50:     University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.}

51: \begin{abstract}

52: Black holes at the TeV scale are investigated in the extra large

53: dimension scenario. We interpret the lightest black hole

54: excitation as a singlet scalar field, and show how interaction

55: terms can be appended to the standard model at the dimension five

56: non-renormalizable level. Lepton family number violation is

57: natural in this model. Muon magnetic moment, and neutrino masses

58: are investigated. We also present a quantization scheme in n

59: dimensions.

60: \end{abstract}

61: 

62: \pacs{13.40.Em, 13.35.Bv, 14.80.-j, 04.70.-s}

63: %\preprint{RCHEP-XXX}

64: \date{\today} \maketitle

65: 

66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

67: \section{Introduction}

68: The existence of black holes at the M$_P \sim$ TeV range has been

69: conjectured \cite{Argyres:1998qn,

70: Dimopoulos:2001hw,Giddings:2001bu} within recently proposed

71: scenarios of extra large dimensions \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,

72: Arkani-Hamed:1998nn, Antoniadis:1998ig}. In light of planned

73: searches at the LHC \cite{Tanaka:2004xb}, an effective field

74: theory for black hole processes has been designed

75: \cite{Bilke:2002rf, Choudhury:2003xf}. This approach is superior

76: to other avenues for black hole analysis in the respect that it

77: allows one to calculate interference effects of black

78: hole processes with relative ease.\\

79: In this paper we show how black hole excitations can be

80: incorporated into the standard model at the dimension five

81: non-renormalizable level. We calculate the corrections that the

82: muon magnetic moment receives from a black hole at the TeV

83: scale and show that black hole corrections do not spoil the smallness of the neutrino masses. \\

84: It is assumed that their are n additional compact spatial

85: dimensions possibly at the size of a millimeter and that the

86: fundamental Planck scale is comparable to the electroweak scale

87: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}. Black hole solutions on such higher

88: dimensional backgrounds are rare. However, in the case when $\rm

89: R_{s}\ll R$ where $\rm R_{s}$ is the Schwarzschild radius and R

90: the characteristic size of the extra dimensions, we can

91: approximate the dimensions as asymptotically flat and then use the

92: results of Myers and Perry \cite{Myers:1986un}. To wit $\rm

93: R_{s}\sim \frac{1}{M_{ew}}

94: \left(\frac{M_{bh}}{M_{ew}}\right)^{1/(n+1)}$, and $\rm R\sim

95: 10^{30/n} ~TeV^{-1}$, so we would need a black hole of mass $\rm

96: \gtrsim 10^{30} ~TeV$ before this assumption breaks down.

97: Typically, we will be dealing with black holes of $\rm M_{bh}\sim 1~TeV$.\\

98: %

99: The black hole in this paper is treated as a particle quantized in

100: mass \cite{Bekenstein:1974jk}. Originally this quantization was

101: constructed in 4 dimensions. In Appendix 1

102: %(\ref{Appendix:quantisation})

103: we present the analogous result for a charged spin zero black hole

104: in n+3 spatial dimensions.\\

105: \section{Summary of the model} In essence the philosophy of

106: the model is to interpret each quantized black hole excitation as

107: an independent quantum field. The lightest such excitation has

108: zero charge and zero angular momentum and thus corresponds to a

109: neutral scalar field. The original ansatz \cite{Bilke:2002rf} was

110: constructed for the interaction between two charged fermions and a

111: doubly charged black hole. It consisted of a Yukawa Lagrangian of

112: the type:

113: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:Lagrangian2}

114: &&{\cal L}_{\rm int} = i\rm k_{\rm eff} M_{\rm bh} \phi_{\rm bh}

115: \overline \Psi_f \hat C \Psi_f + h.c.\,,

116: \end{eqnarray}

117: where $\rm \hat C=i \gamma_2 \mathcal{K}$ is the charge

118: conjugation operator, $\mathcal{K}$ being complex conjugation and

119: $\Psi_f$ is the fermion field.

120: %

121: Similarly, one can write an effective Lagrangian for a neutral

122: scalar black hole by removing the $\rm \hat C$ operator:

123: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:LagrangianScalar} \mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=

124: i\rm k_{\rm eff}M_{\rm bh}\phi_{\rm bh}\overline{\Psi}_{f}\Psi_{f}

125: +h.c.

126: \end{equation}

127: %

128: Photon-black hole interactions have also previously been

129: considered \cite{Choudhury:2003xf}:

130: \begin{equation}

131: \mathcal{L} _{int} = \rm \frac{k_{eff}}{M_{p}}  \phi_{bh}

132: F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} .

133: \end{equation}

134: In this paper we present a rationale for the choice of these black

135: hole interactions. That is, they all arise from non-renormalizable

136: dimension five operators that respect the standard model

137: symmetries. Thus one imagines that this effective theory is the

138: remnant of some quantum gravity theory broken at the $\rm M_p$ scale.\\

139: For simplicity we focus on the phenomenology of a single neutral

140: scalar black hole, $\rm \phi_{bh}$. This is a singlet under the

141: standard model gauge group. Therefore at the dimension five level

142: we have:

143: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:LagrangianDim5}

144: \mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{SM}+\frac{g'}{\Lambda}\mathcal{L}_{SM}

145: \phi_{bh}+(D\phi_{bh})^2-V(\phi_{bh})+h.c.,

146: \end{equation}

147: where $\rm g'\mathcal{L}_{SM} \phi_{bh}$ is symbolic for all

148: standard model operators times a $\rm\phi_{bh}$ operator with

149: possibly different coupling constants $g'$ on each term and D is

150: the covariant derivative. We expect that the theory will be cut

151: off at the fundamental planck scale $\rm

152: \Lambda=M_{p}$, where a new theory that accommodates gravity will take over.\\

153: It is the second term of (\ref{eqn:LagrangianDim5}) that contains

154: the black hole interactions used in previous work. For example one

155: sees that the interaction in equation (\ref{eqn:LagrangianScalar})

156: can be obtained from the $\rm

157: \frac{g'}{M_p}\overline{L}\Phi_{H}e_R\phi_{bh}$ term after Higgs

158: breaking $<\phi_H>=v$,

159: \begin{eqnarray*}

160: \rm

161: \frac{g'}{M_p}\overline{L}\Phi_{H}e_R\phi_{bh}+h.c.&\rightarrow&\rm

162: %\frac{g' v}{M_p}\bar{e}_Le_R\phi_{bh} + \frac{g'

163: %v}{M_p}\bar{e}_Re_L\phi_{bh},\\ &=&

164: \rm k_{eff}M_{bh}\overline{\Psi}_e\Psi_e \phi_{bh},

165: \end{eqnarray*}

166: if we make the identification $\rm k_{eff}=\frac{g'

167: \emph{v}}{M_pM_{bh}}$.\\

168: %

169: The authors \cite{Bilke:2002rf} have determined $\rm k_{\rm eff}$

170: by comparing the black hole effective production cross section

171: with the geometrical cross section $\rm\sigma_{geom}=\pi R_{bh}^2$

172: on resonance, ie multiplied by a dimensionless generalized

173: function peaked at the com energy $\rm \sqrt{s}=M_{bh}$:

174: \begin{equation}

175: \rm\sigma_{geom}=\pi R_{bh}^2 M_{bh}\delta(\sqrt{s}-M_{bh}),

176: \end{equation}

177: The relevant effective production process is shown in FIG.

178: \ref{fig:production}.

179: %

180: \begin{figure}[h]

181: \centering

182: \includegraphics{decay.eps}

183: \caption{Black hole production.} \label{fig:production}

184: \end{figure}

185: \newline

186: This has the cross section,

187: %

188: \begin{equation}

189: \rm \sigma_{eff} =\frac{1}{4} |k_{eff}|^2

190: M_{bh}\delta(\sqrt{s}-M_{bh}).

191: \end{equation}

192: %

193: After equating $\rm \sigma_{eff}$ and $\rm \sigma_{geom}$ the

194: relationship $\rm k_{eff}=2R_{s}$ is made.

195: %

196: The radius of the n+3 dimensional Schwarzschild black hole is

197: solved in \cite{Myers:1986un}, thus,

198: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:2}

199: \rm k_{eff}=\rm \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}

200: M_{p}}\left[\frac{M_{bh}}{M_{p}}\frac{8\Gamma(\frac{n+3}{2})}{n+2}\right]^{1/(n+1)}.

201: \end{eqnarray}

202: This gives the same $\rm k_{eff}\propto \frac{1}{M_p}$ dependence

203: that we expect if the theory is cut off at the $\rm \Lambda=M_p$

204: scale. The two approaches are consistent if the black hole mass is

205: at the electroweak scale. From here on we assume that $\rm

206: k_{eff}=g'/M_p$. Where $\rm g'$ is a coupling constant dependent

207: on the

208: particular interaction under investigation.\\

209: %

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: \section{Lepton number violation}\label{sec:LeptonViolation}

212: It has been conjectured that black hole processes will violate

213: certain approximate global symmetries like lepton number

214: \cite{Dimopoulos:1979ma,Witten:2000dt,Zichichi:1977ri}. Presently,

215: we wish to extend the original work

216: \cite{Bilke:2002rf,Choudhury:2003xf} to include lepton family

217: number violation. This is implemented in equation

218: (\ref{eqn:LagrangianDim5}) by allowing the usual 3 generations of

219: fermion fields in $\mathcal{L}_{SM}$.

220: %

221: Consider the terms

222: \begin{eqnarray}

223: \mathcal{L}=\rm\ldots+\frac{1}{M_p} \overline{L}_i \Phi_H

224: g'_{ij}e_{Rj}\phi_{bh}+\overline{L_i}\Phi_H\lambda_{ij}e_{Rj},

225: \end{eqnarray}

226: where a summation over generations is understood ($i,j \in 1,2,3

227: $). Now after Higgs breaking and rotating the weak eigenstates

228: into mass eigenstates, ie $\rm \mathbbm{m}=\mathbbm{U}\lambda

229: \mathbbm{V}^{\dagger}$, this Lagrangian becomes

230: \begin{eqnarray}

231: \rm \mathcal{L}\rightarrow\overline{e}_{Li}

232: k_{ij}e_{Rj}\phi_{bh}+m_i\overline{e}_{Li}e_{Ri}.

233: \end{eqnarray}

234: Importantly $\rm \mathbbm{k}\equiv

235: \frac{\emph{v}}{M_p}\mathbbm{U}\mathbbm{g}'\mathbbm{V}^{\dagger}$

236: is not in general diagonal. Thus lepton family violating

237: interactions like $\rm k_{e\mu}\overline{\mu}e\phi_{bh}$ arise

238: naturally in this picture as off diagonal terms in $\rm

239: \overline{e}_{Li} k_{ij}e_{Rj}\phi_{bh}$. \\

240: \newline

241: We now consider the decay mode $\rm \mu^{-}\rightarrow

242: e^{-}e^{+}e^{-}$ \cite{PDBook}, which proceeds through the

243: processes shown in FIG. \ref{fig:Muondecay}. It has been said

244: \cite{Bilke:2002rf} that the experimental bound on this process

245: would require a Planck scale at the 100 TeV range. In our approach

246: we have an extra parameter in $\rm g'$, recall $\rm k=

247: \frac{g'}{M_p}$, if we want a TeV scaled Planck mass then we must

248: also tolerate $\rm g'\sim 10^{-3}-10^{-4}$ sized couplings.

249: 

250: 

251: \newpage

252: The decay rate is:

253: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:Gamma}

254: \rm \Gamma(\mu^{-}\rightarrow

255: e^{-}e^{+}e^{-})= m_{\mu}^5 k_{ee}^2k_{\mu e}^2,\\

256: \end{equation}

257: which puts a bound on the product of the two couplings,

258: \begin{equation*}\nonumber

259: \rm k_{ee}k_{\mu e}<1.5\times10^{-7}~TeV^{-2}.

260: \end{equation*}

261: \newline

262: \begin{figure}[h]

263: 

264: \includegraphics{muondecay.eps}

265: 

266: \caption{Feynman diagram for the muon decay via the neutral scalar

267: black hole interaction.} \label{fig:Muondecay}

268: \end{figure}\newline\newline

269: \newline\newline\newline

270: Since we take $\rm M_p\sim 1 ~TeV$ this means

271: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:coupling}

272: \rm g_{ee}g_{\mu e}<1.5\times10^{-7},

273: \end{equation}

274: which is consistent with a TeV scaled Planck mass. It is also

275: interesting that with tolerable tuning we could have one g rather

276: large $\sim 10^{-1}$ and the other small $\sim 10^{-6}$. Our model

277: would therefore be able to accommodate black holes that favor

278: certain processes. This does not contradict thermal arguments as

279: our understanding of Hawking radiation breaks down at the Planck

280: scale.\\

281: ~\\ ~\\

282: \newline

283: \newline

284: \begin{widetext}

285: \section{Muon Magnetic moment correction}\label{sec:muon}

286: In this section we calculate the correction to the muon magnetic

287: moment from the diagram shown in FIG. \ref{fig:muon}.\\

288: \begin{figure}[h]

289: \centering

290: \includegraphics{magneticmoment.eps}

291:  \caption{Muon magnetic moment correction}

292: \label{fig:muon}

293: \end{figure}

294: The matrix element for this process is:

295: \begin{equation}

296: \rm

297: \mathcal{M}=ek_{el}^{2}M_{bh}^{2}\overline{U}(p')\Lambda^{\mu}U(p)\mathcal{A}_{\mu}(p'-p),

298: \end{equation}

299: where,

300: \begin{equation} \rm \Lambda^{\mu}=

301: \frac{-i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\int\frac{dk^4}{k^{2}-M_{bh}^{2}+i\epsilon}\frac{

302: \slash{p'}-\slash{k}

303: +m_{l}}{(p'-k)^2-m_{l}^2+i\epsilon}\gamma^{\mu} \frac{

304: \slash{p}-\slash{k} +m_{l}}{(p-k)^2-m_{l}^2+i\epsilon},

305: \end{equation}

306: \end{widetext}and we have allowed for lepton number violating vertices, ie the internal fermion lines

307: in FIG. \ref{fig:muon} could be non-muonic charged leptons of mass $\rm m_l$.\\

308: This gives a corresponding correction to the muon magnetic moment

309: of

310: \begin{eqnarray*} \rm

311: a_{bh}&=&

312: \rm\frac{k_{el}^2m_{\mu}^2}{8\pi^2}\int^1_0dz\frac{z^2(\beta-z)}{(1-z)+\alpha

313: z^2},

314: \end{eqnarray*}

315: where $\rm\beta =1+\frac{m_l}{m_{\mu}}$ and $\rm\alpha=(\frac{m_l}{M_{bh}})^2$.\\

316: If one assumes a $\rm g_{\mu\mu}\lesssim 1$ the correction is of

317: order $\rm a_{bh} \sim 10^{-10}$, which is close to the current

318: level of deviation between standard model and experiment $\rm

319: |a_{exp}-a_{theory}|~ < ~42.6 \times 10^{-10}$

320: \cite{Czarnecki:2001pv}. Choosing $\rm g_{\mu\mu}\lesssim 1$ is

321: not inconsistent with the muon decay result (\ref{eqn:coupling}),

322: however it does require some tuning. Assuming that all couplings

323: are of the same order brings us to corrections of the size

324: $10^{-15}$. In any case it is not possible for perturbative $\rm

325: g$ to produce corrections that would contradict experimental

326: results. Specifically, an overestimate can be obtained by taking

327: $\rm g=1$ and multiplying the correction for a tauon in the loop

328: by 3 since this contributes the most of the 3 leptons. This leads

329: to $\rm a_{bh}<1.5 \times 10^{-10}$.\\

330: \section{Neutrino masses}

331: It is interesting that black hole process at the TeV scale can

332: induce small neutrino masses. Consider the process shown below:\\

333: \begin{figure}[h]

334: \centering

335: \includegraphics{neutrino.eps}

336: \caption{Neutrino mass term} \label{fig:neut}

337: \end{figure}

338: \newline

339: This loop has a momentum integral:

340: \begin{equation}\rm

341: \int_0^{M_p} d^4k\frac{1}{k^2+M^2_{bh}}\frac{1}{k},

342: \end{equation}

343: which induces a mass $\rm m\sim g^2M_p$. Taking $\rm g$ of the

344: order of $\sim 10^{-6}$ would give masses of $\rm \sim 1~ eV$

345: size. If one is willing to believe that black hole processes at

346: the TeV range are the dominate source of neutrino mass then one

347: could place constraints on the $\rm g'_{ij}$ couplings using the

348: neutrino mass differences and

349: the mixing angles.\\

350: %

351: \section{Conclusion}

352: In this work we have shown that the phenomenology of a single

353: scalar black hole excitation at the TeV scale can be introduced

354: into the standard model without spoiling current experimental

355: results either for the muon magnetic moment or the neutrino

356: masses. All calculations made in this paper are done within the

357: effective non-renormalizable theory. One imagines that these

358: operators are remnant radiative effects of some high energy theory

359: like string theory. The true worth of our approach lies in its

360: ability to attain sensible results that are comparable with

361: experiment. Our approach has the flexibility to accommodate

362: alternative black hole phenomenology that would be dependent on

363: the results of forthcoming searches planned for the LHC.\\

364: \section*{Appendix 1}\label{Appendix:quantisation} In this appendix

365: we present the quantization scheme of a

366: charged spin zero black hole in n+3 spatial dimensions. \\

367: The full Kerr solution in higher dimensions is not analytically

368: tractable, nevertheless scalar excitations are the most important

369: in the present work and these we can solve for. In units with $\rm

370: \hbar=c=1$ we have the Einstein-Hilbert-Maxwell action:\\

371: \begin{equation}\rm

372: S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{4+n}} \int

373: d^{n+4}x\sqrt{-g}\left(R-\mathcal{F_{\mu \nu}}\mathcal{F^{\mu

374: \nu}}\right).

375: \end{equation}

376: The solution \cite{Myers:1986un} is,\\

377: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:RNF}\rm

378: f=g^{-1}

379: =(1-\frac{C}{r^{n+1}}+\frac{D^2}{r^{2(n+1)}})^{\frac{1}{2}},

380: \end{eqnarray}

381: where $\rm C=\frac{16\pi G_{4+n} M_{bh}}{S_{n+3}(n+2)}$ and

382: $\rm D^2=\frac{2Q^2G_{4+n}}{(n+2)(n+1)}$.\\

383: From equation (\ref{eqn:RNF}) there is an event horizon if:

384: \begin{eqnarray}\rm

385: r_{\pm}^{n+1}=\frac{1}{2}C \pm \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}C^2-D^2}.

386: \end{eqnarray} We now want to perform the canonical quantization

387: on the area of the outer horizon $\rm (A=A(r_{+}))$ in the same

388: spirit as Bekenstein \cite{Bekenstein:1974jk}. Recall that the

389: irreducible mass of a black hole, $\rm M_{ir}$, is related to its

390: area via:

391: \begin{eqnarray*}\rm

392: M_{ir}^2= \frac{A}{16\pi G_{4+n}^2}.

393: \end{eqnarray*}

394: Quantizing the irreducible mass $\rm M_{ir}=n_{b} g_{p}$ and the

395: charge $\rm Q=q e$ and rearranging for $\rm M_{bh}$ we find:

396: %

397: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:1}

398: \rm \frac{M_{bh}}{M_p}=c_{1}

399: (n_bg_{p})^{\frac{n+1}{n+2}}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}\frac{c_2 q^2

400: \alpha_{em} }{ (n_bg_{p})^{\frac{2n+2}{n+2}}}\right].

401: \end{equation}

402: Where,

403: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber \rm

404: c_1&\equiv& (n+2)

405: \left(\frac{S_{n+3}}{16\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+2}},\\\rm \nonumber

406: c_2 &\equiv & 2 \sqrt{2 (n+2)(n+1)}

407: \left(\frac{S_{n+3}}{16\pi}\right)^{\frac{2n+2}{n+2}},

408: \end{eqnarray}

409: %

410: $\rm S_m=\frac{2 \pi^{m/2}}{\Gamma(m/2)}$ is the surface area of a

411: unit m-sphere (ie in the case of an (n+3)-sphere $\rm

412: A=S_{n+3}r_{+}^{n+2}$) and $\rm n_b (\in \mathbbm{N})$ and q ($\in

413: \rm \mathbbm{Z}$) are the quantization numbers for mass and charge

414: respectively. $\rm n_{b}$ is not to be confused with n the number

415: of extra dimensions; we have adopted the notation used in

416: \cite{Bilke:2002rf}. The black hole mass gap, $\rm g_{p}$, is

417: controversial. Some authors use $\rm g_{p}=0.614/\pi$, which is

418: calculated in a loop quantum gravity

419: framework \cite{Khriplovich:2001je}.\\

420: %

421: In the n=0 case $\rm c_1$ and $\rm c_2$ are equal to one and we

422: recover the 3 dimensional quantization scheme:

423: %

424: \begin{equation}\nonumber

425: \rm \frac{M_{\rm

426: bh}}{M_{p}}=(n_bg_{p})^{1/2}\left[1+\frac{1}{4}\frac{q^2\alpha_{em}}{n_bg}\right].

427: \end{equation}

428: %

429: 

430: In quantizing, see equation (\ref{eqn:1}), we have introduced an

431: infinite tower of black holes labelled by the numbers $\rm n_{b}$,

432: q (and if we took the realistic case with angular momentum J also)

433: each with a definite mass, $\rm M_{bh}^{(n_{b},q,J)}$, and

434: therefore a different propagator. Thus, to calculate the $\cal{M}$

435: matrix for any given process we would need to sum over all the

436: black hole modes that can contribute. In the current work the

437: tower is naturally cut off at the $\rm M_p$ scale. The exact

438: number of modes that can participate will therefore depend on the

439: value of $\rm g_{p}$ and the number of

440: extra dimensions.\\

441: As $\rm \phi_{bh}$ is an effective 4 dimensional field for a

442: higher dimensional black hole Kaluza-Klein modes will also be

443: present of mass $\rm M_{bh}^n=\sqrt{M_{bh}^2+n^2/R}$ . For

444: simplicity we choose a black hole mass such

445: that the higher modes can be pushed above the cut off. \\

446: In this paper we have focused on the observable effects that a

447: single scalar excitation will produce. If in new experiments black

448: hole effects are discovered one can then use equation

449: (\ref{eqn:1}) to determine both $\rm g_{p}$ and $\rm n$ and

450: the related black hole phenomenology.\\

451: 

452: %

453: \acknowledgements JD wishes to thank K.L. McDonald for useful

454: discussions, SRC thanks the SERC, DST, India for support.

455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

456: \bibliography{bhbib}

457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

458: 

459: \end{document}

460: