1: \documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex}
2: %\documentclass[11pt,twoside,onecolumn]{article}
3: %\usepackage[]{latexsym}
4: %\usepackage{epsfig}
5: %
6: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin} {0.0 cm}
7: %\setlength{\evensidemargin} {0.0 cm}
8: \setlength{\topmargin} {0.5 cm}
9: %\setlength{\textwidth} {16.5cm}
10: %\setlength{\textheight} {22.0cm}
11: %
12: %
13: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\mbox{$\langle\, #1 \mid$}}
16: \newcommand{\bbra}[1]{\mbox{$\left\langle\, #1 \right\mid$}}
17: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\mbox{$\mid #1\,\rangle$}}
18: \newcommand{\bket}[1]{\mbox{$\left\mid #1\,\right\rangle$}}
19: \newcommand{\pro}[2]{\mbox{$\langle\, #1 \mid #2\,\rangle$}}
20: \newcommand{\expec}[1]{\mbox{$\langle\, #1\,\rangle$}}
21: \newcommand{\expecl}[1]{\mbox{$\left\langle\,
22: \strut\displaystyle{#1}\,\right\rangle$}}
23: \newcommand{\real}{\mbox{{\rm I\hspace{-2truemm} R}}}
24: \renewcommand{\natural}{\mbox{{\rm I\hspace{-2truemm} N}}}
25: \newcommand{\re}{\real{\rm e}}
26: \renewcommand{\a}{\hat a}
27: \newcommand{\ac}{\hat a^{\dagger}}
28: \renewcommand{\b}{\hat b}
29: \newcommand{\bc}{\hat b^\dagger}
30: %
31: %
32: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
33: %\def\theequation{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
34:
35: %
36: \draft
37: \begin{document}
38: \wideabs{
39: %
40: \title{Can black holes and naked singularities be detected in
41: accelerators?}
42: %
43: %
44: \author{Roberto Casadio$^{i,a}$
45: and
46: Benjamin Harms$^{ii,b}$}
47: %
48: \address{~}
49: %
50: \address{$^{i}\,$Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di
51: Bologna and I.N.F.N., Sezione di Bologna,\\
52: via Irnerio 46, 40126 Bologna, Italy}
53: %
54: \address{$^{ii}\,$Department of Physics and Astronomy,
55: The University of Alabama,\\
56: Box 870324, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0324, USA}
57: %
58: %
59: %
60: %\baselineskip 4.0ex
61: %\begin{titlepage}
62: %\pagestyle{empty}
63: %
64: %\begin{document}
65: \maketitle
66: %
67: \begin{abstract}
68: We study the conditions for the existence of black holes that can
69: be produced in colliders at TeV-scale if the space-time is higher
70: dimensional. On employing the microcanonical picture, we find that
71: their life-times strongly depend on the details of the model. If
72: the extra dimensions are compact (ADD model), microcanonical
73: deviations from thermality are in general significant near the
74: fundamental TeV mass and tiny black holes decay more slowly than
75: predicted by the canonical expression, but still fast enough to
76: disappear almost instantaneously. However, with one warped extra
77: dimension (RS model), microcanonical corrections are much larger
78: and tiny black holes appear to be (meta)stable. Further, if the
79: total charge is not zero, we argue that naked singularities do not
80: occur provided the electromagnetic field is strictly confined on
81: an infinitely thin brane. However, they might be produced in
82: colliders if the effective thickness of the brane is of the order
83: of the fundamental length scale ($\sim\,$TeV$^{-1}$).
84: \end{abstract}
85: %\end{titlepage}
86: \pacs{PACS: 04.70.Dy, 04.50.+h, 14.80.-j}
87: }
88: %
89: %\mbox{}
90: %\newpage
91: %
92: %\pagestyle{plain}
93: %
94: %\raggedbottom
95: %\setcounter{page}{1}
96: %
97: %
98: \section{Introduction}
99: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
100: %
101: The current interest in the possibility that there exist large extra
102: dimensions \cite{arkani,RS} is based on the attractive features that
103: the hierarchy problem is by-passed by identifying the ultraviolet
104: cutoff with the electroweak energy scale $m_{ew}$ (without
105: ancillary assumptions to achieve radiative stability) and that, since
106: the fundamental scale of the theory is $m_{ew}$, predictions
107: drawn from the theory such as deviations from the $1/r^2$ law of
108: Newtonian gravity can be experimentally tested in the near future.
109: In the extra-dimensions scenarios all of the interactions, gravity
110: (which propagates in the whole ``bulk'' space-time) as well
111: gauge interactions (which are confined on the four-dimensional brane),
112: become unified at the electroweak scale.
113: This means that if the model is viable, particle accelerators such as
114: the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the Very LHC (VLHC)
115: and the Next Linear Collider (NLC) will be able to uncover the
116: features of quantum gravity as well as the mechanism of electroweak
117: symmetry breaking.
118: \par
119: The large-extra-dimension scenario also has significant implications
120: for processes involving strong gravitational fields, such as the
121: formation and decay of black holes.
122: Since the fundamental scale of quantum gravity is now pulled down to
123: order $m_{ew}$, black holes can be produced with mass of a few
124: TeV which behave semiclassically \cite{banks,katz}.
125: Since this energy scale will be available in the forthcoming
126: generation of colliders, they might then become black hole factories
127: \cite{thomas,dimopoulos}.
128: Black holes in $4+d$ extra dimensions have been studied in both compact
129: \cite{argyres,bc1,bc2} and infinitely extended \cite{chamblin} extra
130: dimensions (see also \cite{emparan} and references therein).
131: The basic feature of black hole production is that its cross section
132: is essentially the horizon area of the forming black hole and grows
133: with the center of mass energy of the colliding particles as a
134: power which depends on the number of extra dimensions \cite{banks}.
135: Although the high non-linearity of the describing equations and the
136: lack of a theory of quantum gravity hinder a fully satisfactory
137: description of this process, there are good reasons to believe in
138: the qualitative picture outlined above
139: \cite{banks,katz,thomas,dimopoulos}.
140: \par
141: Once the black hole has formed (and after a possible transient, or
142: ``balding'' stage \cite{thomas}), Hawking radiation \cite{hawking}
143: is expected to set off.
144: The phenomenon of black hole evaporation has been described within
145: the context of the microcanonical ensemble in four space-time
146: dimensions \cite{r1,mfd} and in the context of compact extra
147: dimensions \cite{arkani} in Refs.~\cite{bc1,bc2}.
148: Our starting point is the idea that black holes are (excitations of)
149: extended objects ($p$-branes), a gas of which satisfies the bootstrap
150: condition.
151: This yields a picture in which a black hole and the emitted particles
152: are of the same nature and an improved law of black hole decay which is
153: consistent with unitarity (energy conservation).
154: \par
155: The use of the microcanonical picture will lead us to the conclusion
156: that the evaporation process in the presence of extra dimensions
157: strongly depends on the details of the model.
158: In particular, if the extra dimensions are compact (ADD scenario
159: of Ref.~\cite{arkani}) the luminosity of tiny black holes is in poor
160: qualitative agreement with that predicted by the canonical picture
161: since the occupation number density departs from thermality for
162: masses slightly above the TeV-scale.
163: On applying the formalism of Ref.~\cite{bc2} to the cases of
164: interest, we shall then argue that a black hole produced in a
165: collider would be relatively longer-lived with respect
166: to estimates in the existing literature \cite{thomas,dimopoulos}.
167: However, the typical life-time is short enough that black holes
168: can be considered to decay (at least down to the fundamental mass
169: scale) instantaneously.
170: On the other hand, if there is one warped extra dimension
171: (RS scenario of Ref.~\cite{RS}), the microcanonical luminosity
172: differs significantly from the canonical expression, and
173: the evaporation process might be frozen below the scale at which
174: corrections to Newton's law become effective.
175: \par
176: It is also important to note that such tiny singularities in four
177: dimensions, besides being beyond the realm of classical general
178: relativity, would be black holes only provided their electric
179: charge is zero, otherwise they are naked singularities. In the
180: following Section we shall consider such cases. We know of no
181: conclusive argument which completely rules out their existence.
182: \par
183: We shall use units with $c=1$, $\hbar=m_p\,l_p$
184: ($l_p$ is the four-dimensional Planck length) and
185: $G_N=l_p/m_p$ denotes the four-dimensional Newton constant.
186: %
187: %
188: %
189: %
190: \section{Naked singularities}
191: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
192: \label{nak}
193: %
194: %
195: %
196: The four-dimensional argument about naked singularities mentioned
197: at the end of the Introduction easily generalizes to higher
198: dimensions.
199: In fact, one observes that charged (spherically symmetric) black
200: holes must satisfy the inequality \cite{myers}
201: \be
202: Q^2\,{m_p^2\over M^2}<{(2+d)\,(1+d)\over 2}
203: \ ,
204: \label{naked}
205: \ee
206: where $Q$ is the charge in dimensionless units.
207: The condition in Eq.~(\ref{naked}) is obviously violated in the
208: ADD scenario, where the effect of the brane on the space-time
209: geometry is essentially neglected, since an object with mass
210: of order a few TeV and charge equal to (fractions of) the
211: electron charge has $Q\,(m_p/M)\sim 10^8$.
212: \par
213: A possible way to circumvent the bound (\ref{naked}) is by
214: requiring that the electromagnetic field of a point-like charge be
215: confined to the brane, thereby, spoiling the full
216: $(3+d)$-dimensional spherical symmetry \cite{landsberg}.
217: The system would thus appear spherically symmetric only from the
218: four-dimensional point of view.
219: The only known metric on the brane which might represent such a
220: case was found in Ref.~\cite{maartens} in the context of the RS
221: scenario~\footnote{Its extension into the bulk is still under study
222: (see, e.g., Ref~\cite{shiromizu} for a numerical analysis).}.
223: Such a solution has the Reissner-Nordstr\"om form
224: \be
225: -g_{tt}={1\over g_{rr}}=
226: 1-2\,{M\,l_p\over m_p\,r} +Q^2\,{l_p^2\over r^2}
227: -q\,{m_p^2\,l_p^2\over m_{(5)}^2\,r^2}
228: \ ,
229: \ee
230: and the (outer) horizon radius is given by
231: \be
232: R_H=l_p\,{M\over m_p}\,
233: \left[1+\sqrt{1-Q^2\,{m_p^2\over M^2}
234: +{q\,m_p^4\over M^2\,m_{(5)}^2}}\right]
235: \ ,
236: \label{RH_RS}
237: \ee
238: where $m_{(5)}\sim m_{ew}$ is the fundamental mass scale and
239: $q$ represents a (dimensionless) tidal charge.
240: The latter can be estimated on dimensional grounds as
241: \cite{maartens,bc2}
242: \be
243: q\sim\left({m_p\over m_{ew}}\right)^\alpha\,{M\over m_{ew}}
244: \ ,
245: \ee
246: and for $\alpha>-4$ the tidal term $\sim 1/r^2$ dominates over the
247: four-dimensional potential $\sim 1/r$ (as one would expect for
248: tiny black holes).
249: The condition (\ref{naked}) is therefore replaced by
250: \be
251: Q^2\,{m_p^2\over M^2}<
252: 1+\left({m_p\over m_{ew}}\right)^{3+\alpha}\,{m_p\over M}
253: \ ,
254: \label{naked1}
255: \ee
256: which can be fairly large for $\alpha>-4$ and $M\sim m_{ew}$,
257: in contrast to the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{naked}).
258: \par
259: Which of the two conditions (\ref{naked}) and
260: (\ref{naked1}) is relevant remains an open question,
261: since one might in fact argue that the brane cannot be
262: infinitely thin (see, e.g., \cite{cgv} and Refs. therein).
263: Gauge fields would then extend along the extra dimension(s),
264: roughly to a width of the order of $m_{ew}^{-1}$, and
265: this likely yields a bound somewhere in between the expressions
266: given in Eq.~(\ref{naked}) and Eq.~(\ref{naked1}) for a
267: singularity with $R_H\sim m_{ew}^{-1}$.
268: There is thus no compelling reason to discard the possibility
269: that the collision of charged particles produces a naked
270: singularity, an event which would probably be indistinguishable
271: from ordinary particle production, with the naked singularity
272: (possibly) behaving as an intermediate, highly unstable state.
273: The phenomenology of naked singularities is probably rather
274: different from that of black holes, as they are generally expected
275: to explode in a very sudden event instead of evaporating via the
276: Hawking process (at least in an early stage; see, e.g.,
277: \cite{harada} and Refs.~therein).
278: \par
279: We should however add that the present literature does not
280: reliably cover the case of such tiny naked singularities
281: and their actual phenomenology is an open question.
282: A naked singularity is basically a failure in the
283: causality structure of space-time mathematically admitted
284: by the field equations of general relativity.
285: Most studies have thus focused on their realization as the
286: (classical) end-point of the gravitational collapse of compact
287: objects (such as dust clouds) and on their stability by
288: employing quantum field theory on the resulting background.
289: However, one might need more than semiclassical tools
290: to investigate both the formation by collison of particles
291: and the subsequent time evolution \cite{harada}.
292: In particular, to our knowledge, no estimate of the life-time
293: of a naked singularity of the sort of interest here is yet
294: available.
295: \par
296: To summarize, the following two cases might occur in a proton-proton
297: collider such as the LHC,
298: \be
299: p^++p^+\ \rightarrow\
300: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
301: {\rm B.\,H.}+X^{++}
302: \\
303: \\
304: {\rm N.\,S.\ \ or\ \ B.\,H.}+Y^{0,+}
305: \ ,
306: \end{array}
307: \right.
308: \ee
309: where $X^{++}$ denotes a set of particles whose total charge
310: is twice the proton charge and $Y^{0,+}$ a set of particles with
311: vanishing total charge or with one net positive charge.
312: %
313: %
314: %
315: %
316: \section{Black holes}
317: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
318: %
319: %
320: %
321: In a four-dimensional space-time, a black hole might emerge from
322: the collision of two particles only if its center of mass energy
323: exceeds the Planck mass $m_p$. In fact, $m_p$ is the minimum mass
324: for which the Compton wavelength $l_M=l_p\,(m_p/M)$ of a
325: point-like particle of mass $M$ equals its gravitational radius
326: $R_H=2\,G_N\,M$. For energies below $m_p$ the very (classical)
327: concept of a black hole would lose its meaning. However, since the
328: fundamental mass scale is shifted down to $m_{ew}$ in the models
329: under consideration, black holes with $M\ll m_p$ can now exist as
330: classical objects provided
331: \be
332: l_p\,{m_p\over M}\ll R_H\ll L
333: \ ,
334: \label{class}
335: \ee
336: where $L$ is the scale at which corrections to
337: the Newtonian potential become effective. The left hand inequality
338: ensures that the black hole behaves semiclassically, and one does
339: not need a full-fledged theory of quantum gravity, while the right
340: hand inequality guarantees that the black hole is small enough
341: that its gravitational field can depart from the Newtonian
342: behavior without contradicting present experiments. In this
343: Section we check that black holes with $m_{ew}<M<10\,m_{ew}$ are
344: allowed and then study their evaporation process. We shall have
345: nothing new to report about the cross section for their
346: production.
347: \par
348: The luminosity of a black hole in $D$ space-time dimensions is
349: given by
350: \be
351: {\mathcal L}_{(D)}(M)=
352: {\cal A}_{(D)}\,\int_0^{\infty}\sum_{s=1}^S\,
353: n_{(D)}\,(\omega)\,\Gamma_{(D)}^{(s)}(\omega)\,\omega^{D-1}\,
354: d\omega
355: \label{dMdt}
356: \ee
357: where ${\mathcal A}_{(D)}$ is the horizon
358: area in $D$ space-time dimensions, $\Gamma_{(D)}^{(s)}$ the
359: corresponding grey-body factor and $S$ the number of species of
360: particles that can be emitted.
361: For the sake of simplicity, we shall approximate
362: $\sum_s\,\Gamma^{(s)}_{(D)}$ as a constant (see
363: Section~II.C in \cite{bc2} and below).
364: The distribution $n_{D}$ is the microcanonical number density
365: \cite{r1,mfd}
366: \be
367: n_{(D)}(\omega)=C\sum_{l=1}^{[[M/\omega]]}
368: \exp\left[S_{(D)}^E(M-l\,\omega)-S_{(D)}^E(M)\right]
369: \label{n}
370: \ee
371: where $[[X]]$ denotes the integer part of $X$ and $C=C(\omega)$
372: encodes deviations from the area law \cite{r1} (in the following
373: we shall also assume $C$ is a constant in the range of interesting
374: values of $M$).
375: The basic quantity in Eq.~(\ref{n}) is the Euclidean black hole
376: action, which usually takes the form
377: \be
378: S_{(D)}^E\sim{{\mathcal A}_{(D)}\over l_{(D)}^2} =\left({M\over
379: m_{eff}}\right)^\beta
380: \ ,
381: \label{action}
382: \ee
383: where $m_{eff}$ and $\beta$ are model-dependent quantities and
384: $l_{(D)}$ ($m_{(D)}$) is the fundamental length (mass) in $D$
385: space-time dimensions related to the fundamental Newton constant
386: by
387: \be
388: G_{(D)}={l_{(D)}^{D-3}\over m_{(D)}}
389: \ .
390: \ee
391: We recall that for $\beta=\beta_d\equiv(2+d)/(1+d)$ and in the limit
392: $M/m_{eff}\to\infty$, $n_{(4+d)}(\omega)$ mimics the canonical
393: ensemble (Planckian) number density in $4+d$ space-time dimensions
394: and the luminosity becomes
395: \be
396: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}^H\sim{\mathcal A}_{(4+d)}\,
397: (T^H_{(4+d)})^{4+d} \sim{1\over R_H^2}
398: \ ,
399: \label{L_H}
400: \ee
401: where $T^H_{(4+d)}$ is the Hawking temperature in $4+d$
402: dimensions.
403: \par
404: On using Eqs.~(\ref{n}) and (\ref{action}) one can show that
405: the luminosity is in general given by
406: \be
407: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}=K\,
408: m^\beta\,e^{-m^\beta}\,\int_0^m
409: e^{x^\beta}\,\left(m-x\right)^{3+d}\,dx
410: \ ,
411: \label{dMdteff}
412: \ee
413: where $m\equiv M/m_{eff}$ and $K$ is a coefficient which
414: contains all the dimensionful parameters but does not
415: depend on $M$.
416: The above integral can be performed exactly for the
417: models under consideration.
418: \par
419: We shall now analyze the ADD and RS scenarios separately.
420: %
421: %
422: %
423: \subsection{ADD scenario}
424: %
425: If the space-time is higher dimensional and the extra dimensions
426: are compact and of size $L$, the relation between the mass of a
427: spherically symmetric black hole and its horizon radius is changed
428: to \cite{myers}
429: \be
430: R_H\simeq l_{(4+d)}\,
431: \left({2\,M\over m_{(4+d)}}\right)^{1\over 1+d}
432: \ ,
433: \label{R_H<}
434: \ee
435: where
436: \be
437: G_{(4+d)}\simeq L^d\,G_N
438: \ ,
439: \ee
440: is the fundamental gravitational constant in $4+d$ dimensions.
441: Eq.~(\ref{R_H<}) holds true for black holes of size $R_H\ll L$,
442: or, equivalently, of mass
443: \be
444: M\ll M_c\equiv m_p\,{L\over l_p}
445: \ .
446: \ee
447: Since $L$ is related to $d$ and the fundamental mass scale
448: $m_{(4+d)}\sim m_{ew}\sim 1\,$TeV by \cite{arkani}
449: \be
450: {L\over l_p}\sim
451: \left[{m_{ew}\over m_{(4+d)}}\right]^{1+{2\over d}}\,
452: 10^{{31\over d}+16}
453: \equiv
454: \gamma^{1+{2\over d}}\, 10^{{31\over d}+16}
455: \ ,
456: \label{tev}
457: \ee
458: Eq.~(\ref{class}) translates into
459: \be
460: 10^{-{31+16\,d\over 2+d}}\,\gamma\,m_p
461: \sim 10^{-16}\,\gamma\,m_p
462: \ll M\ll M_c
463: \ ,
464: \ee
465: %
466: %
467: \begin{figure}
468: \centering
469: \raisebox{4cm}{${\mathcal L}_{(10)}$}
470: \epsfxsize=2.9in
471: \epsfbox{L_add.eps}
472: \hspace{-0.2in}
473: \raisebox{0.5cm}
474: {\hspace{6cm} ${m\over m_{ew}}$}
475: %
476: \caption{Microcanonical luminosity (solid line) for a small
477: black hole with $d=6$ extra dimensions compared to the
478: corresponding canonical luminosity (dashed line).
479: Vertical units are chosen such that
480: ${\mathcal L}^H_{(10)}(m_{ew})=1$.}
481: \label{L_add}
482: \end{figure}
483: %
484: %
485: %
486: \par\noindent
487: where we also used the fact that $d=1$ is ruled out by present
488: measurement of $G_N$ \cite{arkani} and relatively high values
489: of $d$ (i.e., $d\sim 6$) seem to be favored
490: (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{bounds}).
491: For $\gamma\sim 1$ (i.e., $m_{(4+d)}$ of order
492: $m_{ew}\sim 1\,$TeV),
493: the left hand side above is of order $m_{ew}$ as well.
494: \par
495: The Euclidean action is of the form in Eq.~(\ref{action}) with
496: $m_{eff}=m_{(4+d)}\sim m_{ew}$ and $\beta_d=(d+2)/(d+1)$.
497: The occupation number density for the Hawking particles in the
498: microcanonical ensemble is thus given by
499: \be
500: n_{(4+d)}(\omega)\sim\sum_{l=1}^{[[M/\omega]]}\,
501: e^{\left({M-l\,\omega\over m_{ew}}\right)^{d+2\over d+1}
502: -\left({M\over m_{ew}}\right)^{d+2\over d+1}}
503: \ .
504: \label{n_add}
505: \ee
506: We then notice that the above expression differs from the
507: four-dimensional one for which $m_{eff}=m_p\gg m_{ew}$ and
508: $\beta=2>\beta_d$.
509: In four dimensions one knows that microcanonical corrections
510: to the luminosity become effective only for $M\sim m_p$,
511: therefore, for black holes with $M\gg m_{ew}$ the luminosity
512: (\ref{dMdt}) should reduce to the canonical result given
513: in Eq.~(\ref{L_H})
514: \cite{emparan,bc1,bc2}~\footnote{This was also shown to be a
515: good approximation of the luminosity as seen by an observer
516: on the brane, since most of the emission occurs into particles
517: confined on the brane \cite{emparan,bc1}.}.
518: In order to eliminate the factor $K$ from Eq.~(\ref{dMdteff}),
519: one can therefore equate the microcanonical luminosity to the
520: canonical expression at a given reference mass
521: $M_0\sim M_c\gg m_{ew}$ and then normalize the microcanonical
522: luminosity according to
523: \be
524: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}(M)&\simeq&
525: {{\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}^H(M_0)
526: \over
527: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}(M_0)}\,
528: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}(M)
529: \ .
530: \label{L_norm}
531: \ee
532: The black hole luminosity thus obtained differs significantly
533: from the canonical one for $M\sim m_{ew}$, as can be clearly
534: seen from the plot for $d=6$ in Fig.~\ref{L_add}.
535: For smaller values of $d$ the picture remains qualitatively the
536: same, except that the peak in the microcanonical luminosity
537: shifts to lower values of $M$ and this affects the
538: ratio
539: \be
540: {\mathcal R}_{(4+d)}(m_{ew})\equiv
541: {{\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}(m_{ew})\over
542: {\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}^H(m_{ew})}
543: \ .
544: \label{rat}
545: \ee
546: Although the integral in Eq.~(\ref{dMdteff}) can be performed
547: exactly, its expression is very complicated and we omit it.
548: Instead, in Table~\ref{t1} we show the relevant quantities for
549: $d=2,\ldots,6$ (upper bounds for the grey-body factors are
550: estimated as in Ref.~\cite{bc2} for $s$-wave modes only, since
551: one expects significantly smaller values for non-zero angular
552: momentum modes \cite{page}).
553: \par
554: In all cases, the microcanonical luminosity becomes smaller
555: for $M\sim m_{ew}$ than it would be according to the
556: canonical luminosity, which makes the life-time of the
557: black hole somewhat longer than in the canonical
558: picture.
559: In particular, for $d=6$ one finds
560: \be
561: \left.{dM\over dt}\right|_{M\sim m_{ew}}
562: \simeq -10^{-10}\,{\mathcal L}_{(10)}^H
563: \sim -10^{17}\,{{\rm TeV}\over {\rm s}}
564: \ .
565: \ee
566: In the range $6\,$TeV$<M<10\,$TeV the luminosity
567: is actually larger than the canonical expression
568: (see Fig.~\ref{L_add}).
569: A black hole would therefore evaporate very quickly
570: \cite{dimopoulos} down to $\sim 6\,m_{ew}$.
571: Then, its life-time is dominated by the time it would
572: take to emit the remaining $\Delta M\sim 5\,$TeV,
573: before it reaches $1\,m_{ew}$, which is approximately
574: \be
575: T\sim \left({dM\over dt}\right)^{-1}\,\Delta M
576: \sim 10^{-17}\,{\rm s}
577: \ .
578: \label{T}
579: \ee
580: \par
581: The above relatively long time does take into account
582: the dependence of the grey-body factor $\Gamma_{(4+d)}^{(s)}$
583: on $d$ but not the actual number $S$ of particle species into
584: which the black hole can decay.
585: The latter would increase the luminosity by a factor
586: $S\sim 10\to 100$ \cite{dimopoulos}, but this is already taken
587: care of by the normalizing procedure defined by Eq.~(\ref{L_norm}).
588: One might actually guess that the number $S$ in the microcanonical
589: picture is smaller than in the canonical framework, since
590: the ``effective'' canonical temperature of tiny black holes is much
591: smaller than the corresponding $T^H_{(4+d)}$.
592: Hence we conclude that the value given in Eq.~(\ref{T}) is a
593: fairly good estimate of the order of magnitude of the true
594: life-time.
595: It is of course quite small with respect to the sensitivity
596: of present detectors, which is on the order of hundreds of
597: picoseconds.
598: \par
599: In the above analysis we have only considered masses for a
600: black hole larger than the fundamental $m_{ew}\sim 1\,$TeV
601: scale.
602: One can assume that, once the fundamental scale has been reached,
603: a black hole continues to evaporate.
604: However, it is also possible that the radiation simply switches
605: off at that point (as the microcanonical luminosity suggests)
606: and the small black hole escapes as a stable remnant.
607: If heavy ($\sim 10\,$TeV) black holes are produced, they will
608: be moving slowly and will quite likely decay (at least down to
609: about $1\,$TeV) in the detector producing a ``sudden burst''
610: of light particles (electrons, positrons, neutrinos and
611: $\gamma$-rays) at the collision point.
612: However the cross section for the production of such heavy
613: black holes is very small \cite{dimopoulos}.
614: If a neutral black hole is produced with a mass
615: $\sim m_{ew}$ and is stable, its detection will
616: depend upon the ability of the detectors to measure the missing
617: transverse momentum or the missing mass accurately enough
618: to prove the existence of a massive neutral particle.
619: If instead it is charged and stable, it should not be
620: difficult to track its path.
621: Limits to the existence of stable remnants should also come,
622: e.g., from estimates of the allowed density of primordial
623: black holes \cite{carr}.
624: %
625: %
626: %
627: \subsection{RS scenario}
628: %
629: In order to study this case, we shall again make use of the
630: solution given in Ref.~\cite{maartens} (although new metrics were
631: given in Ref.~\cite{cfm}).
632: From Eq.~(\ref{RH_RS}) with $\tilde Q=0$ and $\alpha>-4$ one
633: obtains
634: \be
635: R_H\simeq
636: l_p\,\left({m_p\over m_{(5)}}\right)^{1+{\alpha\over 2}}\,
637: \sqrt{M\over m_{(5)}}
638: \ ,
639: \ee
640: since the tidal term $q$ dominates for both $M$ and
641: $m_{(5)}\ll m_p$, and one must still have Eq.~(\ref{class}).
642: With one warped extra dimension \cite{RS}, the
643: length $L$ is just bounded by requiring that Newton's law not be
644: violated in the tested regions, since corrections to the $1/r$
645: behavior are of order $(L/r)^2$.
646: This roughly constrains $l_p<L<10^{-3}\,$cm.
647: Hence the allowed masses are, according to
648: Eq.~(\ref{class}),
649: \be
650: \left({m_{(5)}\over m_{p}}\right)^{{\alpha\over 3}}
651: \ll {M\over m_{(5)}}
652: \ll\left({L\over l_p}\right)^{2}\,
653: \left({m_{(5)}\over m_p}\right)^{2+\alpha}
654: \ .
655: \ee
656: In particular one notices that black holes with
657: $M\sim m_{(5)}\sim m_{ew}$ could exist only if
658: the following two conditions are simultaneously satisfied
659: \be
660: \alpha\ge 0
661: \ \ \ \ {\rm and}
662: \ \ \ \ {L\over l_p}\gg
663: \left({m_p\over m_{ew}}\right)^{3+\alpha\over 3}
664: \ .
665: \label{exist}
666: \ee
667: \par
668: The luminosity is now given by the four-dimensional expression
669: (\ref{dMdteff}) with $D=4$, $\beta=1$ and
670: \be
671: m_{eff}=\left({m_{ew}\over m_p}\right)^{2+\alpha}\,m_{ew}
672: \ .
673: \ee
674: The result is simple enough to display, namely
675: \be
676: {\mathcal L}_{(4)}&=&K\,m\,e^{-m}\,\left(e^m-{1\over 6}\,m^3
677: -{1\over 2}\,m^2-m-1\right)
678: \nonumber \\
679: &\simeq&K\,m
680: \ ,
681: \ee
682: where the last expression follows from $m=M/m_{eff}\ll 1$ since
683: $m_{eff}\ll m_{ew}$ for $\alpha\ge 0$.
684: We again eliminate $K$ by normalizing the luminosity to the
685: (four-dimensional) canonical expression
686: ${\mathcal L}_{(4)}^H(M_0)$, where now $M_0\sim M_c=m_p\,(L/l_p)$
687: is the mass above which corrections to Newton's law are negligible.
688: For the limiting case $\alpha=0$, on taking into account the second
689: condition in Eq.~(\ref{exist}) one obtains
690: \be
691: {\mathcal L}_{(4)}<
692: 10^{-9}\,{M\over m_{ew}}\,{{\rm TeV}\over{\rm s}}
693: \ ,
694: \ee
695: which yields an exponential decay with typical life-time
696: $T>10^9\,$s.
697: \par
698: The above result is certainly striking, since it means
699: that microscopic black holes are (meta)stable objects and would be
700: detected just as missing energy (if neutral) or stable heavy
701: particles (if charged).
702: Hence, either they escape from the detector and carry away
703: a large amount of energy or in rare instances they give rise to
704: an isotropic (almost steady) vanishingly faint flux of particles
705: (a ``star'') inside the detector.
706: Black holes with life-times this long would have had an effect on
707: the evolution of the early universe.
708: The allowed density of primordial black holes \cite{carr} might
709: thus be able to provide some evidence as to the validity of the
710: RS scenario.
711: %
712: %
713: \section{Conclusions}
714: %\setcounter{equation}{0}
715: %
716: %
717: %
718: We have analyzed the conditions for the existence of naked
719: singularities and black holes with masses that can be reached in
720: accelerators such as the LHC. We have shown that the typical
721: life-times of tiny black holes depend strongly on the model
722: employed, since they decay almost instantaneously in ADD and are
723: (quasi)stable in RS. As we argued in Section~\ref{nak} for the
724: existence of naked singularities, it is likely that the results in
725: RS apply only to a brane-world of zero thickness. For a brane of
726: width of order TeV$^{-1}$, the correct life-times would probably be in
727: between those predicted in ADD (where the brane is
728: totally neglected) and those in RS. We think this shows that the
729: phenomenology of such objects is not completely settled,
730: mainly due to the persistent lack of a sensible solution
731: representing a black hole in a space-time with extra dimensions in
732: which our brane-world would be embedded.
733: %
734: \begin{table}
735: \centering
736: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
737: \hline
738: $d$
739: & ${\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}^H$
740: & $\Gamma_{(4+d)}$
741: & ${\mathcal R}_{(4+d)}$
742: & ${\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}$
743: \\
744: \hline
745: $2$
746: & $10^{28}$ & $10^{-1}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{25}$
747: \\
748: \hline
749: $3$
750: & $10^{28}$ & $10^{-1}$ & $10^{-4}$ & $10^{23}$
751: \\
752: \hline
753: $4$
754: & $10^{28}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-5}$ & $10^{21}$
755: \\
756: \hline
757: $5$
758: & $10^{28}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-6}$ & $10^{20}$
759: \\
760: \hline
761: $6$
762: & $10^{27}$ & $10^{-3}$ & $10^{-7}$ & $10^{17}$
763: \\
764: \hline
765: \end{tabular}
766: \caption{
767: Relevant quantities for the ADD scenario.
768: ${\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}^H$ is the canonical luminosity in
769: TeV$/$s;
770: $\Gamma_{(4+d)}$ is an upper bound for the grey-body factor;
771: ${\mathcal R}_{(4+d)}$ is the ratio defined in Eq.~(\ref{rat})
772: and ${\mathcal L}_{(4+d)}$ the microcanonical luminosity
773: in TeV$/$s.
774: All quantities are evaluated for $M\sim m_{ew}\sim 1\,$TeV.}
775: \label{t1}
776: \end{table}
777: %
778: %
779: %
780: %
781: \acknowledgments
782: %
783: We wish to acknowledge useful discussions with J.~Busenitz,
784: L.~Clavelli and G.~Landsberg.
785: This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
786: under Grant no.~DE-FG02-96ER40967.
787: %
788: %
789: %
790: %
791: \begin{references}
792: %\begin{thebibliography}{99}
793: %
794: \bibitem[a]{e-mail}E-mail: casadio@bo.infn.it
795: %
796: \bibitem[b]{e-mail}E-mail: bharms@bama.ua.edu
797: %
798: \bibitem{arkani}
799: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Dvali, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 429},
800: 263 (1998); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 0806004 (1999);
801: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Dvali,
802: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 436}, 257 (1998).
803: %
804: \bibitem{RS}
805: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999).
806: %
807: \bibitem{banks}
808: T.~Banks and W.~Fishler, {\em A model for high energy scattering in
809: quantum gravity}, hep-th/9906038.
810: %
811: \bibitem{katz}
812: S.B.~Giddings and E.~Katz, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 42},
813: 3082 (2001).
814: %
815: \bibitem{thomas}
816: S.B.~Giddings and S.~Thomas, {\em High energy colliders as black
817: hole factories: the end of short distance physics}, hep-ph/0106219.
818: %
819: \bibitem{dimopoulos}
820: S.~Dimopoulos and G.~Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001)
821: 161602.
822: %
823: \bibitem{argyres}
824: P.C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett.
825: {\bf B 441}, 96 (1998).
826: %
827: \bibitem{bc1}
828: R.~Casadio and B.~Harms, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 487} (2000) 209.
829: %
830: \bibitem{bc2}
831: R.~Casadio and B.~Harms, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 024016.
832: %
833: \bibitem{chamblin}
834: A. Chamblin, S. Hawking and H.S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61},
835: 0605007 (2000).
836: %
837: \bibitem{emparan}
838: R. Emparan, G.T. Horowitz and R.C. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett.
839: {\bf 85} (2000) 499.
840: %
841: \bibitem{hawking}
842: S.W. Hawking, Nature {\bf 248}, 30 (1974);
843: Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 43}, 199 (1975).
844: %
845: \bibitem{r1}
846: B. Harms and Y. Leblanc, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 2334 (1992);
847: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 2438 (1993);
848: Ann. Phys. {\bf 244}, 262 (1995);
849: Ann. Phys. {\bf 244}, 272 (1995);
850: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 27}, 557 (1994);
851: Ann. Phys. {\bf 242}, 265 (1995);
852: P.H. Cox, B. Harms and Y. Leblanc, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 26},
853: 321 (1994).
854: %
855: \bibitem{mfd}
856: R. Casadio, B. Harms and Y. Leblanc, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}
857: 1309 (1998);
858: R. Casadio and B. Harms, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 044014 (1998);
859: Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A17}, 1089 (1999).
860: %
861: \bibitem{myers}
862: R.C. Myers and M.J. Perry, Ann. Phys. {\bf 172}, 304 (1986).
863: %
864: \bibitem{landsberg}
865: G.~Landsberg, private communication.
866: %
867: \bibitem{maartens}
868: N. Dahdhich, R. Maartens, P. Papadopoulos and V. Rezania,
869: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 487}, 1 (2000).
870: %
871: \bibitem{shiromizu}
872: A.~Chamblin, H.S.~Reall, H.~Shinkai and T.~Shiromizu,
873: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, (2001) 064015.
874: %
875: \bibitem{cgv}
876: R.~Casadio, A.~Gruppuso and G.~Venturi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 495},
877: 378 (2000).
878: %
879: \bibitem{harada}
880: H. Iguchi and T. Harada, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 18} (2000) 3681.
881: %
882: \bibitem{bounds}
883: S. Cullen, M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 268 (1999);
884: V. Barger, T. Han, C. Kao and R.J. Zhang, Phys. Lett, {\bf B 461},
885: 34 (1999);
886: M. Fairbairn, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 508} (2001) 335.
887: %
888: \bibitem{page}
889: D. Page, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 13}, 198 (1976);
890: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 2401 (1977).
891: %
892: \bibitem{carr}
893: B.J. Carr, {\em Primordial black holes as a probe of the early
894: universe and a varying gravitational constant},
895: lectures given at International School of Astrophysics `Daniel Chalonge'
896: $8^{\rm th}$ Course, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 6-17 Dec 2000,
897: astro-ph/0102390
898: %
899: \bibitem{cfm}
900: R.~Casadio, A.~Fabbri and L.~Mazzacurati, {\em New black
901: holes in the brane-world?}, hep-th/0111072.
902: %
903: %
904: %\end{thebibliography}
905: \end{references}
906: %
907: %
908: \end{document}
909: