1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{feynmf}
3: %\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{graphics}
7: \usepackage{amsmath, amsthm, amssymb}
8: \usepackage{color}
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: % basic data for the eprint:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13:
14: \textwidth=6.0in \textheight=8.25in
15:
16: %% Adjust these for your printer:
17: \leftmargin=-0.3in \topmargin=-0.10in
18: \parskip=0.1truein
19:
20: %% preprint number data:
21: \newcommand\pubnumber{SLAC-PUB-12183}
22: \newcommand\pubdate{November 7, 2006}
23: %% If you will submit to hep-th, change hep-ph to hep-th below
24: %% Do not change 0611091; this will be automatically converted
25: %% to the Los Alamos hep number during the submission process
26: \newcommand\hepnumber{hep-ph/0611091}
27:
28: %% address and funding acknowledgement data:
29: \def\SLAC{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\\
30: 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 USA}
31: \def\doeack{\footnote{Work supported by the US Department of Energy,
32: contract DE--AC02--76SF00515.}}
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34: % shortcuts for symbols
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: %\def\gsim{\,\,\rlap{\raise 3pt\hbox{$>$}}{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\,\,}
37: %\def\lsim{\,\,\rlap{\raise 3pt\hbox{$<$}}{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\,\,}
38: %\def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\atversim<}}
39: %\def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\atversim>}}
40: %\def\atversim#1#2{\lower0.7ex\vbox{\baselineskip\zatskip\lineskip\zatskip
41: % \lineskiplimit 0pt\ialign{$\matth#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
42: \def\tev{\,{\ifmmode\mathrm {TeV}\else TeV\fi}}
43: \def\gev{\,{\ifmmode\mathrm {GeV}\else GeV\fi}}
44: \def\mev{\,{\ifmmode\mathrm {MeV}\else MeV\fi}}
45: \def\mpl{\ifmmode M_{pl}\else $M_{pl}$\fi}
46: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
47: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} % less than or approx. symbol
48: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
49: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} % greater than or approx. symbol
50:
51: %\def\mpl{\ifmmode \overline M_{Pl}\else $\bar M_{Pl}$\fi}
52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
53: % document style macros
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: \def\Title#1{\begin{center} {\Large #1 } \end{center}}
56: \def\Author#1{\begin{center}{ \sc #1} \end{center}}
57: \def\Address#1{\begin{center}{ \it #1} \end{center}}
58: \def\andauth{\begin{center}{and} \end{center}}
59: \def\submit#1{\begin{center}Submitted to {\sl #1} \end{center}}
60: \newcommand\pubblock{\rightline{\begin{tabular}{l} \pubnumber\\
61: \pubdate \\ \hepnumber \end{tabular}}}
62: \newenvironment{Abstract}{\begin{quotation} \begin{center}
63: ABSTRACT
64: \end{center}\bigskip }{\end{quotation}}
65: \newenvironment{Presented}{\begin{quotation} \begin{center}
66: PRESENTED AT\end{center}\bigskip
67: \begin{center}\begin{large}}{\end{large}\end{center} \end{quotation}}
68: \def\submit#1{\begin{center}Submitted to {\sl #1} \end{center}}
69: \def\Acknowledgements{\bigskip \bigskip \begin{center} \begin{large}
70: \bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \end{large}\end{center}}
71:
72: %% Title and authors
73: \begin{document}
74: %\begin{fmffile}{TFTRelicDiags}
75: \begin{titlepage}
76: \pubblock
77: \vfill
78: \Title{Microscopic Primordial Black Holes and Extra Dimensions}
79: \vfill
80: \Author{John Conley and Tommer Wizansky\doeack}
81: \Address{\SLAC}
82: \vfill
83: \begin{abstract}
84: We examine the production and evolution of microscopic black holes in the early universe
85: in the large extra dimensions scenario. We demonstrate that, unlike in the standard
86: four-dimensional cosmology, in large extra dimensions
87: absorption of matter from the primordial plasma by the black
88: holes is significant and can lead to rapid growth of the black hole mass density. This effect can
89: be used to constrain the conditions present in the very early universe. We demonstrate that this
90: constraint is applicable in regions of parameter space not excluded by existing bounds.
91: \end{abstract}
92: \vfill
93: \end{titlepage}
94: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
95: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
96: %
97:
98: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
99: The possible formation of black holes in the early universe
100: has long been discussed. The idea was first proposed by Carr and Hawking \cite{Carr:1974nx}, who
101: considered the formation of such primordial black holes (PBHs) by the gravitational
102: collapse of density perturbations
103: and their subsequent evolution. They found that the PBH mass distribution is determined by the
104: initial spectrum of density perturbations and the expansion of the universe, with accretion playing
105: a negligible role. Soon
106: after, Hawking discovered that black holes can emit particles \cite{Hawking:1974sw}, so that microscopic
107: black holes decay very rapidly.
108: PBHs smaller than about $10^{15}$ g would have evaporated by today, while larger ones could have
109: survived. It has been proposed that these relics could make up the cosmic dark matter \cite{Carr:1985tk},
110: while on the other hand their non-observation constrains the initial spectrum
111: of density fluctuations \cite{Carr:1975qj}. It has also been suggested that the endpoint
112: of black hole evaporation could be a stable Planck-sized remnant \cite{Bowick:1988xh},
113: leading to additional observational consequences \cite{Barrow:1992hq}.
114:
115: Primordial black holes have also been considered in the context of extra dimensional theories
116: \cite{Argyres:1998qn}. In these theories, the fundamental scale of quantum gravity, called $M_*$, can
117: be as low as $1~\tev$.
118: It is well known that with extra dimensions, the properties
119: of microscopic black holes (those smaller than the size of the extra dimensions) are significantly
120: altered. A black hole in extra
121: dimensions will be colder, larger, and longer lived than one of the same mass in four
122: dimensions \cite{Myers:1986un},
123: with significant cosmological consequences. In particular, production of PBHs by
124: the collapse of primordial density perturbations in large extra dimensions has been studied
125: \cite{Argyres:1998qn}. The authors show that the unique properties of extra dimensional black
126: holes lead to a relaxation of the bound on the spectral index.
127:
128: In this paper we discuss a different class of PBHs--microscopic black holes produced by high-energy
129: particle collisions in the early universe. The consequences of these tiny black holes
130: have generally been neglected in the literature, under the premise that they are too hot and
131: short lived to have any observational effects.
132: We argue that in the presence of extra dimensions,
133: absorbtion of matter from the surrounding plasma cannot be neglected, and in fact can lead to
134: rapid growth.
135: Consequently, the production and evolution of these black holes must be
136: analyzed.
137: As we will demonstrate, the mass density of
138: PBHs is determined by the initial
139: temperature of the universe $T_I$, the number of extra dimensions $n$, and $M_*$.
140: We find that for different values of $n$, large regions of $T_I$--$M_*$ parameter space
141: can be excluded by observational constraints. It is worth noting that the effects of accretion
142: in extra dimensional scenarios have previously been considered
143: \cite{Guedens:2002sd,Majumdar:2002mr,Tikhomirov:2005bt,Sendouda:2003dc,Sendouda:2004hz}.
144: These authors analyzed rapidly growing black holes formed by other mechanisms
145: in Randall-Sundrum cosmologies.
146:
147: There already exist constraints on theories of
148: large extra dimensions \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn,Hannestad:2003yd},
149: the most stringent of which come from astrophysical
150: considerations. For $n=1$ a natural value of
151: $M_*$ requires an extra dimension whose size is comparable to that of
152: the solar system. This would lead to obvious conlicts with observation.
153: For $n=2$ the overheating of neutron stars by captured Kaluza-Klein (KK)
154: gravitons constrains $M_*\gsim 700~\tev$.
155: Larger values of $n$ are less tightly constrained.
156:
157: Independent bounds have already been placed by previous authors on the initial temperature of
158: the universe in these theories \cite{Hannestad:2001nq, Hall:1999mk}.
159: These are obtained by considering the production of KK gravitons in the early universe.
160: The KK bounds can always be evaded by considering high enough values of $M_*$ and $n$, in which
161: case the gravitons decay too early to have observational consequences.
162: We demonstrate that in many cases these regions of parameter space are excluded by the PBH bounds.
163: In addition, the graviton constraints can be evaded by,
164: for example, rapid graviton decay onto another brane or a heavier graviton
165: spectrum arising from a complicated bulk geometry. For example, Starkman, Stojkovic and Trodden \cite{Starkman:2000dy}
166: have argued that all existing astrophysical and cosmological bounds can be evaded if the extra dimensions
167: have the geometry of a compact hyperbolic manifold.
168: The PBH constraints cannot be avoided so easily.
169:
170: For definiteness, we consider the model of
171: large extra dimensions proposed by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali (ADD)
172: first presented in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs,Antoniadis:1998ig}. In a subsequent paper \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
173: these authors noted that bounds can be placed on the so-called ``normalcy'' temperature of the
174: universe---the temperature below
175: which the extra-dimensional bulk must be stable in size and empty. In contrast, we
176: constrain the properties of the universe prior to attaining normalcy.
177: We do not specialize to any specific cosmological model. Instead we consider
178: two possible thermal states for the extradimensional bulk without specifiying the
179: dynamics which lead to these states. We examine scenarios where the bulk is cold and empty,
180: and where it is in thermal equilibrium with the brane.
181:
182: The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:evo} we analyze the evolution of a
183: single black hole in the hot primordial plasma. In Section~\ref{sec:prod} we
184: present a simple model for black hole production in the early universe, and use it to derive bounds
185: on $T_I$ and $M_*$. In Section~\ref{sec:asmp}
186: we show that the results we obtain with this simple model apply also to much less restrictive and more
187: realistic scenarios.
188: Our conclusions are given in Section~\ref{sec:conc}.
189:
190:
191:
192:
193: \section{Evolution of an extra-dimensional black hole}\label{sec:evo}
194:
195: In the ADD model, Standard Model particles are bound to a three-dimensional brane in a $3+n$-dimensional
196: bulk space.
197: The black holes relevant to this analysis are created on the brane and remain there.
198: The brane is populated by
199: a thermal distribution of relativistic Standard Model particles. We claim that, in this scenario,
200: a black hole upon its creation will instantaneously (compared to the timescale of cosmological
201: evolution) attain a maximum mass. In the case that the bulk is in thermal equilibrium
202: with the brane, this mass
203: will simply be the mass of a black hole the size of the extra dimension,
204: \begin{equation}
205: \label{eqn:ml}
206: M_{max}=M_L=\left[\left(\frac{\mpl}{M_*}\right)^\frac{2}{n}\frac{1}{a_n}\right]^{n+1}M_*,
207: \end{equation}
208: where
209: \begin{equation}
210: \label{eqn:rn}
211: a_n=\left(\frac{8\,\Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right)}{(n+2)\pi^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}\right)^\frac{1}{n+1}.
212: \end{equation}
213: If the bulk is empty of energy density, the mass attained by the black hole depends on the temperature
214: $T_0$ of the universe when the black hole is created and is given by
215: \begin{equation}
216: \label{eqn:mmax}
217: M_{max}=\left(\gamma_n\frac{\mpl}{M_*^3}T_0^2\right)^\frac{n+1}{n-1}M_*,
218: \end{equation}
219: where
220: \begin{equation}
221: \label{eqn:gamman}
222: \gamma_n\equiv\sqrt{\frac{180}{\pi g_*}}\frac{n-1}{2(n+1)}\sigma_4 r_n^2\, .
223: \end{equation}
224: The remainder of this section is devoted to demonstrating this claim.
225:
226: The properties of black holes in
227: infinitely large extra dimensions were first derived in \cite{Myers:1986un}. In ADD, the extra
228: dimensions are of finite size; the four dimensional Planck scale \mpl~and $M_*$ are related by
229: \begin{equation}
230: \mpl^2\simeq L^n M_*^{n+2},
231: \end{equation}
232: where $L$ is the size of the extra dimensions. We now review the properties of ADD black holes
233: as discussed in \cite{Argyres:1998qn}. We note that they are only valid for black holes much smaller
234: than $L$. Larger black holes behave effectively four dimensionally.
235: The Schwartzschild radius
236: of an ADD black hole of mass M is given by
237: \begin{equation}
238: \label{eqn:rs}
239: r_s=a_n\frac{1}{M_*}\left(\frac{M}{M_*}\right)^\frac{1}{n+1}.
240: \end{equation}
241: The temperature of the black hole is given by
242: \begin{equation}
243: T_{BH}=\frac{n+1}{4\pi r_s}.
244: \end{equation}
245:
246: We consider a black hole with $r_s\ll L$ submerged in a thermal plasma at temperature $T$. If we ignore
247: gravitational attraction, the absorption and emission can both be
248: characterized by the Stefann-Boltzmann law.
249: The rate of change of the black hole mass $M$ is then
250: \begin{equation}
251: \label{eq:dMdt}
252: \frac{dM}{dt} = \sigma_4 A_4 (T^4-T_{BH}^4) + \sigma_{n+4} A_{n+4} (T^{n+4}-T_{BH}^{n+4}).
253: \end{equation}
254: Here,
255: \begin{eqnarray*}
256: \sigma_4 & = & \frac{g_* \pi^2}{120}\;\;\;\;\mathrm{and} \\
257: \sigma_{n+4} & = & \frac{g_b \Omega_{n+1} \Gamma(n+4) \zeta(n+4)}{2\pi^{n+3}(n+2)}
258: \end{eqnarray*}
259: are the 4 and $4+n$-dimensional Stefann-Boltzmann constants, and
260: $A_4$ and $A_{4+n}$ are the black hole surface areas on the brane and in the bulk.
261: The number of effective degrees of freedom on the brane is $g_*$ and $g_b=(n+1)(n+4)/2$ is
262: the number of polarization states of a bulk graviton.
263:
264: In the early universe, the relationship between time, $t$,
265: and $T$ is determined by the
266: Friedmann equations. We will show in the next section that the phase of black hole
267: growth takes place long before matter-radiation equality and that
268: the fraction of the universe's energy density
269: in black holes is small. Radiation domination can therefore be assumed, and
270: \begin{equation}
271: t=\sqrt{\frac{45}{16\pi^3 g_*}}\frac{\mpl}{T^2}.
272: \end{equation}
273:
274: For a given temperature there is a threshold mass above which a black hole will absorb more than it emits.
275: This mass, which we call $M_{thresh}$, is plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:mthresh}. It has almost the same value
276: whether the bulk is empty or thermalized.
277: \begin{figure}[t]
278: \begin{center}
279: \leavevmode
280: \epsffile{Mthresh.ps}
281: \end{center}
282: \caption{$M_{thresh}$ (see text) as a function of temperature, for a thermalized (solid)
283: and empty (dashed) bulk. Here, $M_*=1~\tev$ and
284: from bottom to top, $n=2,3,4,5,6,7$.}\label{fig:mthresh}
285: \end{figure}
286: For \mbox{$M\gg M_{thresh}$}, we can neglect Hawking radiation entirely, and Equation~\ref{eq:dMdt}
287: becomes
288: \begin{equation}
289: \label{dMdt_abs}
290: \frac{dM}{dt} = \sigma_4 A_4 T^4 + \sigma_{n+4} A_{n+4} T^{n+4}.
291: \end{equation}
292:
293: If the bulk is empty, the second term on the RHS can be dropped.
294: The resulting equation can be trivially solved to obtain
295: \begin{equation}
296: \label{mass}
297: M(T)=M_*\left[\left(\frac{M_0}{M_*}\right)^\frac{n-1}{n+1}+\gamma_n\frac{\mpl}{M_*^3}
298: \left(T_0^2-T^2\right)\right]^\frac{n+1}{n-1},
299: \end{equation}
300: where $\gamma_n$ is given in Equation~\ref{eqn:gamman}.
301:
302: This equation takes into account the competition between the growth of the black hole by
303: the accretion of plasma and the cooling of the plasma by the expansion of the universe.
304: But there is no competition.
305: Because $\mpl\gg M_*$, the second term dominates
306: almost immediately and as the universe cools the mass rapidly approaches the value of $M_{max}$
307: given in Equation~\ref{eqn:mmax}. This value is plotted as a function of time for different values of
308: $n$ in Figure~\ref{fig:branemass}. Numerical integration confirms that,
309: in the regime considered, Hawking radiation is indeed negligible.
310: \begin{figure}[t]
311: \begin{center}
312: \leavevmode
313: \epsffile{MmaxEmpty.ps}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{The maximum mass $M_{max}$ attained by a black hole in the empty bulk scenario shown as a
316: function of time after the big bang. From top to bottom, $n=3,4,5,6,7$.}\label{fig:branemass}
317: \end{figure}
318:
319: In Figure~\ref{fig:growth}, the evolution of a black hole mass with an empty bulk is depicted.
320: The almost instantaneous growth to $M_{max}$ is evident.
321: \begin{figure}[t]
322: \begin{center}
323: \leavevmode
324: \epsffile{BHmassMmaxEmpty.ps}
325: \end{center}
326: \caption{The solid lines show the evolution of the mass of a black hole with $M_0=10M_{thresh}$ for
327: $M_*=1~\tev$ and $n=3$, assuming an empty bulk. From top to bottom, $T_0=1000,900,400,50~\gev$.
328: The dashed line is $M_{max}$.}\label{fig:growth}
329: \end{figure}
330: In this plot, we take the initial mass $M_0=10M_{thresh}$. We find, however, that
331: the rapid growth depicted occurs even for initial masses extremely close to $M_{thresh}$.
332: Similarly, initial masses even slightly less than $M_{thresh}$ lead to rapid decay
333: of the black hole.
334:
335: Now consider the opposite case in which the bulk is in thermal equilibrium with the brane.
336: For simplicity, consider integrating Equation~\ref{dMdt_abs} with the second term only.
337: Once again the equation can be solved to obtain
338: \begin{equation}
339: M(T)=M_* \left[\gamma_n^{bulk}\frac{M_{pl}}{M_*^{n+3}}(T^{n+2}-T_0^{n+2})+
340: \left(\frac{M_*}{M_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\right]^{-(n+1)},
341: \end{equation}
342: where
343: $$
344: \gamma_n^{bulk}\equiv\sqrt{\frac{45}{4 \pi^3 g_*}}\frac{\sigma_{n+4}\Omega_{n+2}a_n^{n+2}}{(n+1)(n+2)}\, .
345: $$
346: This solution will formally diverge after a finite time if
347: \begin{equation}
348: \label{Mdiv}
349: M_0 > M_*\left(\frac{M_*^{n+3}}{\gamma_n^{bulk} M_{pl}T_0^{n+2}}\right)^{n+1} \equiv M_{div}.
350: \end{equation}
351: It should be noted that $M_{div}$ is
352: typically much smaller than $M_{thresh}$. Therefore the actual threshold for rapid growth of
353: a black hole in the presence of a thermalized bulk is always given by $M_{thresh}$.
354:
355: We can also ask
356: how quickly the mass of the black hole grows. The temperature of the universe corresponding
357: to the time when the black hole mass diverges is
358: \begin{equation}
359: \label{eq:Tdiv}
360: T_{div}=T_0\left[1-\left(\frac{M_{div}}{M_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{(n+1)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{n+2}}.
361: \end{equation}
362: From an inspection of Equation~\ref{Mdiv} it is clear that for $M_0\gsim M_*$, $M_{div}\ll M_0$.
363: Thus the second term in Equation \ref{eq:Tdiv} is much smaller than one and
364: the black hole mass diverges almost immediately.
365:
366: Of course, the mass of the black hole does not
367: actually diverge. In fact, once its size reaches that of the extra dimension the black hole
368: begins behaving four-dimensionally and, as we will see below, the absorption
369: effectively shuts off, so the black hole remains at $M_L$ as claimed.
370:
371: We have seen that for both an empty and a thermalized bulk the evolution of a microscopic black
372: hole in the early universe can be characterized by a threshold initial mass above which the PBH
373: will rapidly grow and below which it will decay away. In each case any rapidly growing
374: black hole reaches a uniform maximum mass $M_{max}$ which is shown in Table~\ref{tab:Mmax}
375: for different values of $n$ for both the empty and thermalized bulk.
376: \begin{table}
377: \begin{center}
378: % \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|} \hline
379: % $n$ & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\
380: % \hline
381: % Empty & $9.5\times10^{50}$ & $1.9\times10^{35}$ & $1.1\times10^{30}$
382: % & $2.7\times10^{27}$ & $7.6\times10^{25}$ & $7.2\times10^{24}$ \\
383: % Thermalized & $2.1\times10^{51}$ & $1.4\times10^{46}$ & $3.9\times10^{43}$
384: % & $1.1\times10^{42}$ & $1.0\times10^{41}$ & $1.7\times10^{40}$ \\
385: % \hline
386: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccccc|} \hline
387: $n$ & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\
388: \hline
389: Empty & $1.9\times10^{35}$ & $1.1\times10^{30}$
390: & $2.7\times10^{27}$ & $7.6\times10^{25}$ & $7.2\times10^{24}$ \\
391: Thermalized & $1.4\times10^{46}$ & $3.9\times10^{43}$
392: & $1.1\times10^{42}$ & $1.0\times10^{41}$ & $1.7\times10^{40}$ \\
393: \hline
394: \end{tabular}
395: \end{center}
396: \caption {The maximum mass, in $\gev$, of a rapidly growing black hole for $M_*=1 \tev$. The two rows correspond to an
397: empty and thermalized bulk. For the empty bulk $T_0$ is taken to be $1$ TeV. For the
398: thermalized bulk the values are independent of temperature.}
399: \label{tab:Mmax}
400: \end{table}
401:
402: For four-dimensional black holes, Carr and Hawking showed \cite{Carr:1974nx} that one can neglect absorption.
403: It is useful to review their argument and see why it does not apply for black holes in ADD.
404: In four dimensions the change in the black hole mass due to
405: absorption is given by
406: \begin{equation}
407: \frac{dM}{dt} = \sigma_{4}(4\pi r_{s4}^2)T^4,
408: \end{equation}
409: where
410: \begin{equation}
411: r_{s4}=\frac{2M}{\mpl^2}.
412: \end{equation}
413: This has the solution
414: \begin{equation}
415: M(t\rightarrow\infty) = M_0\left[1-\left(\frac{720\sigma_4^2}{\pi g_*}\right)^{1/2}
416: \frac{T_0^2M_0}{M_{pl}^3}\right]^{-1},
417: \end{equation}
418: which for black holes formed with sizes smaller than the horizon, never
419: gets very much larger than $M_0$. This is due to the large $M_{pl}$ suppression
420: in the denominator. For
421: this reason Carr and Hawking rightfully claimed that in four dimensions the absorption of particles
422: from the surrounding plasma can be safely neglected. It is the introduction of the low
423: mass scale, $M_*$, in theories with large extra dimensions which drastically
424: alters the mass evolution of the PBHs.
425:
426: To complete this section we justify the thermodynamical treatment of black hole absorption. This is valid
427: so long as accretion takes place on a timescale much shorter than
428: the lifetime of the black hole. If this were not the case, the black hole could decay before a
429: single particle collides with it. For all $n>2$, we find that the lifetime of an $M_{thresh}$-sized black hole
430: is much larger than the mean time between collisions with plasma particles.
431:
432: \section{Black hole production}\label{sec:prod}
433: We showed in the previous section that a black hole formed in the early universe with mass
434: above $M_{thresh}$ will immediately grow to mass $M_{max}$, while one with mass less than
435: $M_{thresh}$ will decay away. Combining this fact with the rate per unit volume
436: for black hole production by particle collisions on the brane, we can easily evaluate the black hole mass
437: density produced in the early universe.
438: In this section we calculate this density and compare it to the critical density today
439: and to the radiation energy density during BBN to obtain bounds in the $T_I$--$M_*$ parameter space.
440: These bounds are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bound} and constitute the main
441: result of our paper.
442:
443: Define $\Gamma(t)$ to be the total rate per unit volume of black hole production.
444: Then the black hole mass density at time $t$ obeys the equation
445: \begin{equation}
446: \label{eqn:y}
447: \frac{d Y_{BH}(t)}{dt}=\frac{1}{s(t)}M_{max}(t)\Gamma(t),
448: \end{equation}
449: where $s$ is the entropy density of the universe, and
450: the black hole mass density $\rho_{BH}=sY_{BH}$.
451: For a thermalized bulk, $M_{max}$ is constant in time.
452:
453: Here we have made two simplifications. First, during production, we have taken
454: the black hole mass density to be a small fraction of the total energy density
455: of the universe. Our bounds require that, at the very most, the black hole mass
456: density $\rho_{BH}$ equals the radiation density $\rho_r$ at the time of big-bang nucleosynthesis
457: (BBN).
458: As the universe cools, $\rho_{BH}\propto T^3$ and $\rho_r\propto T^4$. Thus, during black hole
459: production, which occurs at $T\gsim 100~\gev\gg T_{BBN}$, the mass density in
460: black holes is indeed negligible. Second,
461: we ignore Hawking radiation during the production phase. This is a good approximation as
462: the lifetimes of the black holes considered are much longer than the duration of the
463: production phase.
464: %at all times much earlier than the lifetime of a black hole of size $M_{max}$.
465: %This will always encompass the production phase.
466:
467: In a particle collision, the cross section for producing a black hole is
468: \cite{Banks:1999gd,Giddings:2001bu, Dimopoulos:2001hw}
469: $\sigma(M)=f\pi r_s(M)^2$, where M is the invariant mass of the
470: two-particle system, $r_s(M)$ is given by Equation \ref{eqn:rs} and $f$ is an order-one
471: constant.
472: For now we take $f=1$.
473: If the brane fields are thermalized, the rate per unit volume $d\Gamma$ for creating
474: black holes in the mass range $[M,M+dM]$ by particle collisions on the brane is
475: \begin{equation}
476: \label{eq:bhr}
477: d\Gamma=dM g_*^2\int
478: \frac{d^3k_1d^3k_2}{(2\pi)^6}f(\vec{k_1})f(\vec{k_2})\sigma
479: (M)|\vec{v_1}-\vec{v_2}|
480: \delta\left(\sqrt{(k_1^\mu+k_2^\mu)^2}-M\right),
481: \end{equation}
482: where $f(\vec{k})$ is the thermal distribution function. Here we
483: make the approximation that all species present in the universe are
484: relativistic, and that for fermions and bosons alike we can use the
485: Boltzmann distribution $f(\vec{k})=e^{-\frac{k}{T}}$. At the temperatures
486: we are considering, $T\sim 100-1000~\gev$, this is valid.
487:
488: We can do all but one of the integrals analytically, and we are left with
489: \begin{equation}
490: \frac{d\Gamma}{dM}=\frac{g_*^2a_n^2}{16\pi^3}T\left(\frac{M}{M_*}\right)^\frac{4+2n}{1+n}
491: \int dk e^{-\frac{k}{T}}
492: \left\{Me^{-\frac{M^2}{4kT}}-\sqrt{\pi kT}\left[\mathrm{Erf}\left(\frac{M}{2\sqrt{kT}}\right)-1\right]\right\}.
493: \end{equation}
494: To obtain the total rate of black hole production at a given
495: temperature, we integrate over $k$ and $M$ numerically.
496: In order to take into account only the black holes that rapidly grow, and not those
497: that decay away, the lower bound of the $M$ integration is set to be $M_{thresh}$. One may worry
498: that if $M_{thresh}\lsim M_*$, quantum gravitational effects may invalidate our calculation. Fortunately,
499: the bounds we will set restrict us to regions of parameter space for which $M_{thresh}$ is always
500: significantly greater than $M_*$.
501:
502: The differential production rate $d\Gamma/dM$ and total production rate $\Gamma$ are plotted in
503: Figure~\ref{fig:gamma}.
504: \epsfysize=5.5cm
505: \begin{figure}[t]
506: \begin{center}
507: \leavevmode
508: \epsffile{gamma.ps}
509: \end{center}
510: \caption{(a) Differential production rate of microscopic black holes in the early
511: universe for $n=3$. From top to bottom, $T= 700,500,400,300,200~\gev$. (b) Total
512: production rate. From left to right, $n=3,4,5,6,7.$}\label{fig:gamma}
513: \end{figure}
514: We see that the early universe is characterized by a period of intense black hole production, which
515: falls off sharply with decreasing temperature. It is also clear from this figure
516: that the period of black hole production ends well before matter-radiation equality, as we
517: assumed in the previous section.
518:
519: We solve Equation~\ref{eqn:y} to obtain $\rho_{BH}$ as a function of time.
520: We now include the effects of Hawking radiation by taking $\rho_{BH}=0$ at times
521: later than the lifetime of the black holes produced. For a thermal bulk, this is
522: just the lifetime of a black hole of mass $M_L$. For an empty bulk, the vast majority
523: of black holes are produced at temperatures very close to the initial temperature of the
524: universe, $T_I$. In that case we
525: set $\rho_{BH}=0$ at times later than the lifetime of a black hole of mass $M_{max}(T_I)$.
526: We can now impose the two previously mentioned constraints. First, the black holes must
527: not overclose the universe today. Second, they must not form a significant fraction of the
528: energy density of the universe during big-bang nucleosynthesis. If either constraint were
529: not satisfied, the expansion
530: rate of the universe would be altered in a way that leads to measurable discrepancies
531: with observation. Quantitatively, we require
532: $$
533: \frac{\rho_{BH}}{\rho_c}\Big |_{today}<1
534: $$
535: and
536: $$
537: \frac{\rho_{BH}}{\rho_{r}}\Big |_{BBN}<1,
538: $$
539: where $\rho_c$ is the critical density. Many other types of constraints on the primordial black hole
540: abundance have been discussed. For example, the decay of black holes today could alter the diffuse gamma
541: ray spectrum in a measurable way \cite{Page:1976wx,Carr:1998fw,Halzen:1991uw}.
542: As we will see, however, the quantitative bounds on $T_I$ that we
543: derive are very insensitive to the nature of the observational constraint, so the two simple constraints
544: we use are sufficient.
545:
546: We use these conditions to bound the values of $T_I$ and $M_*$. In Figure~\ref{fig:bound} (a) and (b)
547: the region above the curves is ruled out for an empty and full bulk, respectively.
548: For an empty bulk the constraints are much weaker
549: due to the lower value of $M_{max}$. In fact, in this case, for all values of $n$ and $M_*$ considered,
550: no black holes survive until today. All bounds come from the BBN constraint, but for $n>5$ all
551: black holes decay before BBN and no bound can be obtained.
552:
553: The $M_*$ dependence of the black hole lifetime accounts for the sharp cutoff on the bound for $n=5$
554: with an
555: empty bulk, above which the black holes decay before BBN. It also accounts for the kinks in the bounds
556: for $n=5$, $6$, and $7$ with a thermalized bulk, above which the black holes decay before today and the
557: overclosure bound is replaced
558: by the BBN bound. These kinks are barely visible; the two bounds are quantitatively
559: almost identical. This is because the black hole production rate is so incredibly sensitive to $T_I$, as
560: can be seen in Figure~\ref{fig:gamma}(b). As a result, a huge difference in black hole mass density can be
561: acheived with a minute adjustment of $T_I$.
562: \epsfysize=13cm
563: \begin{figure}
564: \begin{center}
565: \leavevmode
566: \epsffile{BHbound.ps}
567: \end{center}
568: \caption{Bounds on $T_I$ and $M_*$ from BBN and overclosure of the universe for an empty bulk. The
569: dashed lines represent $T=M_*$ above which the semi-classical description fails.
570: The regions above the solid lines are ruled out. (a) For an empty bulk, from bottom to top, $n=3, 4, 5$.
571: (b) For a thermalized bulk, from bottom to top $n=3, 4, 5, 6, 7$. The inset is a magnification
572: of the $n=3$ curve showing the kink arising from a switch from the overclosure bound to the
573: BBN bound.}\label{fig:bound}
574: \end{figure}
575:
576: It is useful to compare these bounds to those obtained by Hannestad \cite{Hannestad:2003yd}
577: and Hall and Smith \cite{Hall:1999mk} from
578: gamma ray emission by the decay of KK gravitons. For natural values of $M_*$ and low
579: values of $n$, these bounds are much stronger than the PBH bounds. Because \cite{Hannestad:2003yd}
580: and \cite{Hall:1999mk} only consider $n=2,3$, we rederive their bounds for higher $n$ using
581: Equation (12) in \cite{Hall:1999mk} and comparing to the COMPTEL data at $E=4~\mev$ as discussed
582: in \cite{Hall:1999mk}.
583:
584: We find that the PBH bounds can be
585: stronger in cases where the KK gravitons produced in the early universe decay
586: before today and are not observed. This occurs for higher values of $M_*$ and $n$.
587: As can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:KK}, this results in a sharp cutoff of the KK bounds
588: at a certain value of $M_*$ which rapidly decreases for increasing $n$.
589: \epsfysize=8.5cm
590: \begin{figure}
591: \begin{center}
592: \leavevmode
593: \epsffile{KKdecaybound.ps}
594: \end{center}
595: \caption{Diffuse gamma ray bounds from KK graviton decay. From left to right, $n=7,6,5,4,3$. The
596: region to the left of the curves is excluded.}
597: \label{fig:KK}
598: \end{figure}
599:
600: A comparison of Figure \ref{fig:KK} to Figure \ref{fig:bound}(b) shows that, for the full bulk case,
601: for $n>5$ there are interesting regions of parameter space for which the PBH bounds dominate. We note
602: that a hot bulk in the very early universe may result in additional KK constraints, but a full analysis
603: is beyond the scope of this paper.
604: Comparing to Figure \ref{fig:bound}(a) shows that, for the empty bulk case, the KK bounds always dominate
605: due to the decay of the black holes. As we will see, however, if we allow for black hole remnants,
606: the cutoffs in the empty bulk PBH bounds go away. In this case, for $n>5$ and
607: $M_*$ above the KK cutoff these become the dominant constraints.
608:
609: \section{Additional Considerations}\label{sec:asmp}
610:
611: In this section, we consider some possible extensions of our simple analysis.
612: We first account for the fact that the black holes, which we took to be
613: Schwartzschild, are embedded in an expanding universe. We then
614: consider in more detail the uncertainties involved with realistic extradimensional
615: black holes at the classical-quantum
616: threshold. We show our conclusions to be robust and at most weakly dependent on the
617: above subtleties.
618: Finally, the consideration of black hole remnants leads to a
619: strengthening of our bounds.
620:
621: % \textcolor{green}{ We look at }
622:
623: \subsection{Black holes in an FRW background}\label{subsec:frw}
624: We have been somewhat simplistic in our analysis of black holes in the
625: early universe. In an expanding universe the usual Schwartzschild solution
626: must be replaced by one which, asymptotically, is not flat but FRW. Luckily,
627: as noted by Carr and Hawking \cite{Carr:1974nx}, these corrections are only important
628: for a black hole whose size approaches that of the horizon. Since we are only
629: considering temperatures lower than $M_*$ we have a lower bound on
630: the horizon size $R_h$ during the relevant epochs. We can compare
631: this bound to the maximum size the black holes attain, as derived in
632: Section~\ref{sec:evo}.
633:
634: With a thermalized bulk, the black holes reach the size of the extra
635: dimensions $L$. For an empty bulk, the maximal black hole size is smaller.
636: For $M_*=1~\tev$, $L/R_{h}(T=M_*)$ is shown in Table~\ref{tab:LoR}.
637: We see that for all $n>2$ the black holes
638: never approach the size of the horizon and we are thus well justified
639: in using the Schwartzschild solution. For $n=2$, the black holes can grow
640: larger than $R_h$.
641: In this case our
642: analysis breaks down and a more careful study must be performed. But, because of the
643: existing stringent bounds on extra dimensional theories with $n=2$,
644: we do not lose much by neglecting this case.
645:
646: \begin{table}[h!]
647: \begin{center}
648: \begin{tabular}{|c|cccccc|} \hline
649: $n$ & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\
650: \hline
651: $L/R_h$ & $17.15$ & $7.45\times10^{-5}$ & $1.55\times10^{-7}$
652: & $3.82\times10^{-9}$ & $3.23\times10^{-10}$ & $5.54\times10^{-11}$ \\
653: \hline
654: \end{tabular}
655: \end{center}
656: \caption {The ratio of the size of the extra dimensions to the horizon size,
657: for $T=M_*=1~\tev$.}
658: \label{tab:LoR}
659: \end{table}
660:
661: \subsection{Properties of extra dimensional black holes}\label{subsec:prop}
662: As was noted in the previous sections, the exact properties of extra
663: dimensional black holes of mass close to the fundamental Planck scale are
664: rather poorly understood. Specifically, there is no consensus regarding the
665: production cross section or the exact spectrum of Hawking radiation. So far,
666: we have used the canonical choice of $\sigma(M)=\pi r_s(M)^2$ and a purely
667: thermal spectrum. In doing so, we have neglected the effects of angular
668: momentum and the dissipation of energy through gravitational waves in
669: particle collisions. We have also ignored radiative gray-body factors.
670:
671: As previously mentioned, the black hole production cross section is given by
672: $$
673: \sigma(M)=f\pi r_s(M)^2.
674: $$
675: The factor $f$ depends on the center of mass energy, the orbital angular
676: momentum and the spin of the interacting particles (see \cite{Kanti:2004nr} and
677: references therein). Typical values for $f$
678: can reach as low as $\sim0.5$. In addition, the total energy
679: actually trapped behind the black hole event horizon is not necessarily $\sqrt{s}$,
680: as we have assumed. Studies have concluded that only approximately $40\%-90\%$
681: of the collision center of mass energy actually forms the black hole, with the
682: rest escaping in the form of gravitational radiation. Also, a black hole
683: created with a high initial angular momentum will undergo a rapid ``spin-down''
684: phase during which it will shed its angular momentum and a significant
685: fraction of its mass \cite{Ida:2006tf}. This effect could result in an even lower
686: initial mass of the Schwartzschild black hole.
687:
688: As we have seen, however, the
689: black hole mass density is exquisitely sensitive to the initial temperature.
690: An order one modification of the cross section will thus have a negligible
691: effect on the bounds on $T_I$. The percentage of energy converted to
692: black hole mass will affect the number of such black holes which are created
693: above the threshold for rapid growth, and thus the final PBH mass density. But,
694: once again, a tiny modification of the intial temperature would compensate
695: for this effect, leaving the final bounds essentially unchanged. The correction to the
696: spectrum of Hawking radiation due to gray-body factors, because it could modify
697: the black hole lifetime, could change the location of the kinks and cutoffs in
698: Figure~\ref{fig:bound}, but would not qualitatively alter our conclusions.
699:
700: \subsection{Black hole remnants}
701: Many authors have explored the possibility that black holes do not evaporate away completely but
702: leave behind a microscopic remnant. This remnant is typically of the fundamental mass, which
703: in large extra dimensions is $M_*$. Black hole remnants have been proposed in various
704: contexts. Adler, Chen and Santiago \cite{Adler:2001vs} argued that the quantum mechanical
705: uncertainty principle must
706: be generalized in the presence of a curved space-time, causing Hawking radiation to shut off once the
707: black hole reaches the fundamental scale. Rizzo \cite{Rizzo:2005fz} investigated the
708: thermodynamics of black
709: holes in the presence of higher curvature gravity and found that the specific heat
710: of these black holes can become positive. The black hole would then cool as it evaporates,
711: asymptoting to a finite size.
712:
713: We have incorporated the possibility of black hole remnants by extending the bounds of
714: integration of Equation \ref{eq:bhr}. Originally we integrated over mass values between
715: $M_{thresh}$ and $\infty$ while assuming that, below $M_{thresh}$, the black holes would
716: decay away. With remnants, we should
717: extend the region of integration down to the quantum gravity limit, taken to be several times
718: the fundamental scale. To each black hole created below
719: $M_{thresh}$ we assign a final mass $M_*$. The resulting bounds on $T_I$ are approximately
720: $1-2$ orders of magnitude lower than those displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:bound} and cover the entire
721: range in $M_*$ for all values of $n$ for both a full and empty bulk.
722: The bounds are sensitive to the value of the remnant mass. Lowering
723: this mass below $M_*$ can substantially
724: strengthen the bounds on $T_I$.
725:
726: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conc}
727: In this paper we have presented a new constraint on cosmological models in
728: theories of large extra dimensions, stemming from the production of rapidly
729: growing microscopic black holes in the very early universe. We found
730: that generic upper bounds can be placed
731: on the temperature of the universe in any post inflationary epoch. As an example
732: we analyzed two simple cases, that of a completely empty bulk and a bulk that is
733: fully thermalized with the standard model brane. We found that in both cases
734: significant regions of $T_I-M_*$ parameter space can be excluded. Notably, these
735: bounds are not sensitive to many of the details relating to black holes at the
736: classical-quantum
737: threshold. This eliminates one of the main sources of uncertainty which plague
738: typical studies of black holes in extra dimensions.
739:
740: When compared to existing bounds, we showed that the PBH constraints are stronger for high
741: values of $n$ and $M_*$.
742: Moreover, in the previously mentioned scenarios where the bulk is depopulated,
743: the graviton bounds are weakened even further.
744: On the other hand, at low values of these parameters, our bounds are
745: generally weaker.
746: This is because while the cross section for black hole production is large,
747: only sufficiently massive ones are long-lived. At low temperatures, these represent
748: a small fraction of the black holes produced. Even if one includes the possibility
749: of remnants, the black hole mass is bounded from below by the quantum gravity
750: threshold. For temperatures much lower than $M_*$ very few will be produced above this
751: limit.
752:
753: Although we focused on specific examples, it is important to note that the
754: phenomenon of primordial black hole production and subsequent growth is generic.
755: In any theory of extra dimensions where the fundamental Planck scale is low,
756: a large enough energy density will lead to this effect. Generalizations of our
757: simple scenario could include for example non-thermal brane particle distributions,
758: a range of bulk thermal states, and a non-static bulk radius. Rapidly growing
759: microscopic black holes in the early universe represent a conceptually new phenomenon which
760: should be considered in detail.
761:
762:
763:
764: \section{Acknowledgements}
765: The authors would like to thank Mustafa Amin, Pisin Chen, Savas Dimopoulos, JoAnne Hewett,
766: Andre Linde, Michael Peskin,
767: Tom Rizzo, and Jay Wacker for very helpful discussions.
768: This work is supported by the US Department of Energy, contract DE--AC02--76SF00515.
769:
770: %%%%% Bibliography
771: %%
772: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
773:
774: %%% Carr and Hawking %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
775: %\cite{Carr:1974nx}
776: \bibitem{Carr:1974nx}
777: B.~J.~Carr and S.~W.~Hawking,
778: %``Black holes in the early Universe,''
779: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 168}, 399 (1974).
780: %%CITATION = MNRAA,168,399;%%
781: %\cite{Hawking:1974sw}
782: \bibitem{Hawking:1974sw}
783: S.~W.~Hawking,
784: %``Particle Creation By Black Holes,''
785: Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43}, 199 (1975)
786: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 46}, 206 (1976)].
787: %%CITATION = CMPHA,43,199;%%
788: %%% PBH as dark matter
789: %\cite{Carr:1985tk}
790: \bibitem{Carr:1985tk}
791: B.~J.~Carr,
792: %``Black Holes, Pregalactic Stars, And The Dark Matter Problem,''
793: FERMILAB-CONF-85-086-A;
794: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=fermilab-conf-85-086-a}{SPIRES entry}
795: %{\it IN *SANTANDER 1984, PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVATIONAL AND THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF RELATIVISTIC
796: % ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY* 1-78 AND FERMILAB BATAVIA - FERMILAB-CONF-85-086 (85,REC.AUG.) 77p};
797: %\cite{Carr:1975qj}
798: \bibitem{Carr:1975qj}
799: B.~J.~Carr,
800: %``The Primordial Black Hole Mass Spectrum,''
801: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 201}, 1 (1975).
802: %%CITATION = ASJOA,201,1;%%
803: %%% end Carr and Hawking %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
804:
805: %%% planck-sized remnant
806: %\cite{Bowick:1988xh}
807: \bibitem{Bowick:1988xh}
808: M.~J.~Bowick, S.~B.~Giddings, J.~A.~Harvey, G.~T.~Horowitz and A.~Strominger,
809: %``Axionic Black Holes And A Bohm-Aharonov Effect For Strings,''
810: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 61}, 2823 (1988);
811: %%CITATION = PRLTA,61,2823;%%
812:
813: %\cite{Barrow:1992hq}
814: \bibitem{Barrow:1992hq}
815: J.~D.~Barrow, E.~J.~Copeland and A.~R.~Liddle,
816: %``The Cosmology of black hole relics,''
817: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 645 (1992).
818: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,645;%%
819:
820: %%% PBHs in extra dimensions
821: %\cite{Argyres:1998qn}
822: \bibitem{Argyres:1998qn}
823: P.~C.~Argyres, S.~Dimopoulos and J.~March-Russell,
824: %``Black holes and sub-millimeter dimensions,''
825: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441}, 96 (1998)
826: [arXiv:hep-th/9808138].
827: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808138;%%
828:
829: %\cite{Myers:1986un}
830: \bibitem{Myers:1986un}
831: R.~C.~Myers and M.~J.~Perry,
832: %``Black Holes In Higher Dimensional Space-Times,''
833: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 172}, 304 (1986).
834: %%CITATION = APNYA,172,304;%%
835:
836: %\cite{Byalko:1977cy}
837: %\bibitem{Byalko:1977cy}
838: % A.~V.~Byalko,
839: %``The Development Of Primordial Black Holes And A Possibility Of The Black
840: %Holes Dominant Era,''
841: % Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 59}, 1892 (1978);
842: %%CITATION = PTPKA,59,1892;%%
843:
844: %\cite{Guedens:2002sd}
845: \bibitem{Guedens:2002sd}
846: R.~Guedens, D.~Clancy and A.~R.~Liddle,
847: % ``Primordial black holes in braneworld cosmologies: Accretion after
848: %formation,''
849: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 083509 (2002)
850: [arXiv:astro-ph/0208299].
851: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208299;%%
852:
853: %\cite{Majumdar:2002mr}
854: \bibitem{Majumdar:2002mr}
855: A.~S.~Majumdar,
856: %``Domination of black hole accretion in brane cosmology,''
857: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 031303 (2003)
858: [arXiv:astro-ph/0208048].
859: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208048;%%
860:
861: %\cite{Tikhomirov:2005bt}
862: \bibitem{Tikhomirov:2005bt}
863: V.~V.~Tikhomirov and Y.~A.~Tsalkou,
864: % ``How particle collisions increase the rate of accretion from cosmological
865: %background onto primordial black holes in braneworld cosmology,''
866: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 121301 (2005)
867: [arXiv:astro-ph/0510212].
868: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0510212;%%
869:
870: %\cite{Sendouda:2003dc}
871: \bibitem{Sendouda:2003dc}
872: Y.~Sendouda, S.~Nagataki and K.~Sato,
873: % ``Constraints on the mass spectrum of primordial black holes and braneworld
874: %parameters from the high-energy diffuse photon background,''
875: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 103510 (2003)
876: [arXiv:astro-ph/0309170].
877: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0309170;%%
878:
879: %\cite{Sendouda:2004hz}
880: \bibitem{Sendouda:2004hz}
881: Y.~Sendouda, K.~Kohri, S.~Nagataki and K.~Sato,
882: % ``Sub-GeV galactic cosmic-ray antiprotons from PBHs in the Randall-Sundrum
883: %braneworld,''
884: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 063512 (2005)
885: [arXiv:astro-ph/0408369].
886: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0408369;%%
887:
888: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
889: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}
890: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
891: % ``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with sub-millimeter
892: %dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''
893: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999)
894: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807344].
895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%
896:
897: %\cite{Hannestad:2003yd}
898: \bibitem{Hannestad:2003yd}
899: S.~Hannestad and G.~G.~Raffelt,
900: %``Supernova and neutron-star limits on large extra dimensions reexamined,''
901: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 125008 (2003)
902: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69}, 029901 (2004)]
903: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304029].
904: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304029;%%
905:
906: %\cite{Hannestad:2001nq}
907: \bibitem{Hannestad:2001nq}
908: S.~Hannestad,
909: %``Strong constraint on large extra dimensions from cosmology,''
910: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 023515 (2001)
911: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102290].
912: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102290;%%
913:
914: %\cite{Hall:1999mk}
915: \bibitem{Hall:1999mk}
916: L.~J.~Hall and D.~R.~Smith,
917: %``Cosmological constraints on theories with large extra dimensions,''
918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 085008 (1999)
919: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904267].
920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904267;%%
921:
922: %\cite{Starkman:2000dy}
923: \bibitem{Starkman:2000dy}
924: G.~D.~Starkman, D.~Stojkovic and M.~Trodden,
925: %``Large extra dimensions and cosmological problems,''
926: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 103511 (2001)
927: [arXiv:hep-th/0012226].
928: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012226;%%
929:
930: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
931: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
932: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
933: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
934: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
935: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315].
936: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
937:
938: %\cite{Antoniadis:1998ig}
939: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1998ig}
940: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
941: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
942: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)
943: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].
944: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
945:
946: %\cite{Banks:1999gd}
947: \bibitem{Banks:1999gd}
948: T.~Banks and W.~Fischler,
949: %``A model for high energy scattering in quantum gravity,''
950: arXiv:hep-th/9906038.
951: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906038;%%
952:
953: %\cite{Giddings:2001bu}
954: \bibitem{Giddings:2001bu}
955: S.~B.~Giddings and S.~D.~Thomas,
956: % ``High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance
957: %physics,''
958: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 056010 (2002)
959: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106219].
960: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106219;%%
961:
962: %\cite{Dimopoulos:2001hw}
963: \bibitem{Dimopoulos:2001hw}
964: S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Landsberg,
965: %``Black holes at the LHC,''
966: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 161602 (2001)
967: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106295].
968: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106295;%%
969:
970: %\cite{Page:1976wx}
971: \bibitem{Page:1976wx}
972: D.~N.~Page and S.~W.~Hawking,
973: %``Gamma rays from primordial black holes,''
974: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 206}, 1 (1976).
975: %%CITATION = ASJOA,206,1;%%
976:
977: %\cite{Carr:1998fw}
978: \bibitem{Carr:1998fw}
979: B.~J.~Carr and J.~H.~MacGibbon,
980: %``Cosmic rays from primordial black holes and constraints on the early
981: %universe,''
982: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 307}, 141 (1998).
983: %%CITATION = PRPLC,307,141;%%
984:
985: %\cite{Halzen:1991uw}
986: \bibitem{Halzen:1991uw}
987: F.~Halzen, E.~Zas, J.~H.~MacGibbon and T.~C.~Weekes,
988: %``Gamma-Rays And Energetic Particles From Primordial Black Holes,''
989: Nature {\bf 353}, 807 (1991).
990: %%CITATION = NATUA,353,807;%%
991:
992: %\cite{Kanti:2004nr}
993: \bibitem{Kanti:2004nr}
994: P.~Kanti,
995: %``Black holes in theories with large extra dimensions: A review,''
996: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19}, 4899 (2004)
997: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402168].
998: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402168;%%
999:
1000: %\cite{Ida:2006tf}
1001: \bibitem{Ida:2006tf}
1002: D.~Ida, K.~y.~Oda and S.~C.~Park,
1003: %``Rotating black holes at future colliders. III: Determination of black hole
1004: %evolution,''
1005: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 124022 (2006)
1006: [arXiv:hep-th/0602188].
1007: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0602188;%%
1008:
1009: %\cite{Adler:2001vs}
1010: \bibitem{Adler:2001vs}
1011: R.~J.~Adler, P.~Chen and D.~I.~Santiago,
1012: %``The generalized uncertainty principle and black hole remnants,''
1013: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\ {\bf 33}, 2101 (2001)
1014: [arXiv:gr-qc/0106080].
1015: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0106080;%%
1016:
1017: %\cite{Rizzo:2005fz}
1018: \bibitem{Rizzo:2005fz}
1019: T.~G.~Rizzo,
1020: % ``Collider production of TeV scale black holes and higher-curvature
1021: %gravity,''
1022: JHEP {\bf 0506}, 079 (2005)
1023: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503163].
1024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503163;%%
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028: \end{thebibliography}
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032: \end{document}
1033:
1034:
1035: