1: % On the Resolution of the Time-Like Singularities in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m

2: % and Negative-Mass Schwarzschild

3: % Amit Giveon, Barak Kol, Amos Ori, Amit Sever

4: 

5: \documentclass{JHEP3}

6: \usepackage{epsfig}

7: %\usepackage{epsfig,amsmath}

8: %\documentclass{article}

9: 

10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

12: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\IR}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\IC}{\mathbb{C}}

15: \newcommand{\IN}{\mathbb{N}}

16: \newcommand{\IQ}{\mathbb{Q}}

17: \def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\hbox{Z\kern-.4em Z}\else{Z\kern-.4em Z}\fi}

18: \newcommand{\IS}{{\bf S}}

19: \newcommand{\SLtz}{SL(2,{\bf Z})}

20: \newcommand{\SLt}[1]{SL(2,#1)}

21: \newcommand{\pq}{$(p,q)$}

22: \newcommand{\Slash}{\hspace{-2.2mm} /}

23: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber \\}

24: \newcommand{\sfv}{${\bf S}^5~$}

25: \newcommand{\cpt}{${\bf CP}^2~$}

26: \def\half{{1 \over 2}} \def\quart{{1 \over 4}}

27: \def\tr{{\rm tr}}

28: \def\del{{\partial}}

29: \def\room{~\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{8mm}}

30: 

31: \newcommand{\h}[1]{{\hat #1}} \newcommand{\tl}[1]{{\tilde #1}}

32: \def\bw{\bar{w}}

33: \def\th{{\tilde h}}

34: \def\hh{{\hat h}}

35: \def\ba{{\bar 1}}

36: \def\bb{{\bar 2}}

37: \def\bc{{\bar 3}}

38: \def\bz{{\bar z}} \def\bh{{\bar h}}

39: \def\bx{{\bar x}}

40: \def\bi{{\bar i}}

41: \def\bj{{\bar j}} \def\bk{{\bar k}}

42: \def\bl{{\bar l}} \def\bm{{\bar m}}

43: \def\bl{{\bar n}} \def\bm{{\bar p}}

44: \def\bl{{\bar q}} \def\bm{{\bar r}}

45: \def\cm{{\cal M}} \def\cn{{\cal N}}

46: \def\cl{{\cal L}} \def\co{{\cal O}}

47: \def\tlr{\tilde{r}}

48: \def\cn{{\cal N}} \def\cM{{\cal M}} \def\Mc{{\cal M}_c}

49: \def\hl{\hat l}

50: 

51: %Greek

52: \def\al{\alpha} \def\bt{\beta}

53: \def\gm{\gamma} \def\dl{\delta} \def\eps{\epsilon}

54: \def\hal{{\hat \alpha}} \def\hbt{{\hat \beta}}

55: \def\hgm{{\hat \gamma}} \def\hdl{{\hat \delta}}

56: \def\trho{{\tilde \rho}} \def\hrho{{\hat \rho}}

57: \def\hmu{{\hat \mu}}

58: 

59: \newcommand{\sbsection}[1]{\vspace{.5cm} \noindent {\it #1}}

60: \def\room{~\rule[-2mm]{0mm}{8mm}}

61: \def\scri{{\cal I}}

62: \def\phiom{\phi_\omega}

63: \def\RN{Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m }

64: \def\Schw{Schwarzschild }

65: \def\KS{Kruskal-Szekeres }

66: 

67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

68: \def\({\left(}

69: \def\){\right)}

70: %\def\[{\left[}

71: %\def\]{\right]}

72: 

73: \def\br{\left[}

74: \def\kt{\right]}

75: 

76: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}

77: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}

78: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

79: \def\det{{\rm det}}

80: \def\tr{{\rm tr}}

81: \def\mod{{\rm mod}}

82: \def \sinh{{\rm sinh}}

83: \def \cosh{{\rm cosh}}

84: \def \tanh{{\rm tanh}}

85: \def \coth{{\rm coth}}

86: \def \sgn{{\rm sgn}}

87: \def\det{{\rm det}}

88: \def\exp{{\rm exp}}

89: \def\sh{{\rm sinh}}

90: \def\ch{{\rm cosh}}

91: \def \th{{\rm tanh}}

92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

94: %title page

95: \preprint{{\tt hep-th/0401209}}

96: \title{On the Resolution of the Time-Like Singularities in

97: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m and Negative-Mass Schwarzschild}

98: 

99: \author{Amit Giveon\footnotemark[1], Barak Kol\footnotemark[1],

100:  Amos Ori\footnotemark[2], Amit Sever\footnotemark[1] \\

101: 

102: \footnotemark[1]

103:  Racah Institute of Physics \\

104:  The Hebrew University \\

105:  Jerusalem 91904 \\

106:  Israel\\

107: {\tt giveon, barak\_kol, asever @phys.huji.ac.il}

108: \\

109: 

110: \footnotemark[2] Department of Physics\\

111:   Technion-Israel Institute of Technology\\

112:   Haifa 32000\\

113:   Israel \\

114:   \email{amos@physics.technion.ac.il} }

115: 

116: 

117: \abstract{Certain time-like singularities are shown to be resolved

118: already in classical General Relativity once one passes from

119: particle probes to scalar waves. The time evolution can be defined

120: uniquely and some general conditions for that are formulated. The

121: \RN singularity allows for communication through the singularity

122: and can be termed ``beam splitter'' since the transmission

123: probability of a suitably prepared high energy wave packet is

124: 25\%. The high frequency dependence of the cross section is

125: $\omega^{-4/3}$. However, smooth geometries arbitrarily close to

126: the singular one require a finite amount of negative energy

127: matter. The negative-mass \Schw has a qualitatively different

128: resolution interpreted to be fully reflecting. These 4d results

129: are similar to the 2d black hole and are generalized to an

130: arbitrary dimension $d>4$. }

131: 

132: %\keywords{}

133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

134: \begin{document}

135: 

136: 

137: \section{Introduction}

138: 

139: The importance of singularities in General Relativity and their

140: resolution is well appreciated. The most intriguing ones are

141: considered to be those inside black holes, and the Big-Bang-like

142: cosmological singularities. String theory offers some cases where

143: a time-like singularity gets resolved: the orbifold, the flop, and

144: the conifold. These are all singularities in compact factors of

145: spacetime, the last two occurring in Calabi-Yau manifolds, and

146: their resolution often involves adding light matter (``twisted

147: sectors,'' ``wrapped D-branes'') which lives on the singularity

148: (for a review, see \cite{Polchinski} and references therein).

149:  Recently, there was a renewed effort to include

150: time-dependence in string theory (for a review, see

151: \cite{GRS-review} and references therein). Ultimately, one would

152: like to understand space-like singularities such as Schwarzschild

153: and cosmological singularities, but it would be fair to say that

154: there were no breakthroughs yet.

155: 

156: The study described here was motivated by bold attempts to cross

157: the singularity in a stringy black-hole model. The 2d black hole

158: is a case where an algebraic coset construction requires one to

159: add to spacetime additional manifolds which are glued together

160: over the singularity (see figures

161: \ref{PenroseRN},\ref{PenroseSchw}). For the uncharged 2d black

162: hole it was found \cite{dvv} that waves sent from the

163: ``additional'' infinity are fully reflected, while a charged 2d

164: black hole does have a non-zero transmission amplitude across the

165: singularity and, moreover, wave functions are smooth there

166: \cite{GiveonRabinoviciSever}.

167: 

168: Here we show that there is nothing intrinsically stringy in those

169: calculations~\footnote{There are $\alpha'$ corrections in string

170: theory, which were computed in the 2d case. These give rise to

171: extra phases in scattering amplitudes which vanish in the

172: semi-classical limit.}. Actually this interesting phenomenon

173: happens once one considers the wave equation on this background,

174: namely, by passing from point-particle probes~\footnote{The usual

175: definition of a singular spacetime is ``geodesic-incompleteness,''

176: namely, incomplete time-evolution for particle probes.} to waves.

177: More precisely, even though the wave equation is singular, the

178: ordinary differential equation (ODE) obtained after separating

179: time, and whose solutions we denote by $\phiom$, allows for a

180: unique, smooth continuation through the singularity.

181: Interestingly, this property is not special to the 2d charged

182: black hole, but it generalizes to the 4d charged

183: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m (RN) black hole, as well as to $d>4$ RN

184: black-holes (moreover, for the 2d and 4d cases the relevant ODE is

185: actually completely regular). This observation strongly suggests

186: that the above classical RN spacetimes should be viewed as being

187: made of two parts which are naturally connected across the

188: singularity at $r=0$. The two parts are

189:  (i) $r>0$ which is a usual (positive-mass) RN black

190: hole, and

191:  (ii) $r<0$, the region beyond the singularity,

192: which is a negative-mass spacetime.

193: 

194: Another motivation for considering the negative-$r$ part of RN

195: comes from the realistic astrophysical black holes, which are

196: known to be rotating in general \cite{bardeen,thorne,central}. In

197: the analytically-extended Kerr geometry (describing a stationary

198: spinning black hole), the Boyer-Lindquist coordinate $r$ goes

199: smoothly from positive to negative values. The region $r<0$ is an

200: asymptotically-flat universe (distinct from the original

201: positive-$r$ external universe). There is a curvature singularity

202: at $r=0$, but this singularity is a ring rather than a

203: hypersurface. A timelike geodesic heading towards $r=0$ will

204: generically avoid the ring singularity, and smoothly pass

205: ``through the ring'' into the negative-$r$ asymptotic region.

206: Obviously, wave packets will also pass through the ring, though

207: with partial reflection. Spherically-symmetric charged black holes

208: were often considered as useful toy models for the more realistic

209: spinning black holes, due to the remarkable similarity in the

210: inner structure of the two black-hole types. From this perspective

211: we may regard the RN solution analyzed here as such a simplified

212: toy model for a spinning black hole.

213: 

214: Initially one would expect the time evolution of a wave to be

215: ill-defined in the presence of a singularity since some boundary

216: condition (b.c.) needs to be supplied there. Given the smooth and,

217: in particular, univalued nature of the eigen-functions $\phiom(r)$

218: there is a natural way to formulate a unique time evolution simply

219: by following the usual recipe: decompose any incoming wave packet

220: into $\phiom$ and then endow each component with an $\exp(i\,

221: \omega\, t)$ time dependence. Since the eigen-functions

222: $\phiom(r)$ are smooth at $r=0$, it is just natural in this

223: formulation to consider both sides of the singularity to be

224: connected and communicating.

225: 

226: For negative-mass \Schw the situation is different from the

227: charged case, though our approach still provides a unique time

228: evolution. In this case the $r=0$ singularity ``flips'' from being

229: time-like at $r<0$ to space-like at $r>0$, suggesting that gluing

230: these two pieces would make little physical sense. Analyzing the

231: wave equation suggests that indeed in the Schwarzschild case the

232: field in the $r<0$ region evolves without any connection to the

233: $r>0$ region. Unlike the RN case, here the eigen-functions

234: $\phiom(r)$ generically have a log singularity, hence they cannot

235: be extended across the singularity in a univalued fashion. Yet, a

236: single regular $\phi_{1\omega}(r)$ solution exists for each

237: $\omega$. In this case a natural choice of boundary condition

238: suggests itself -- the so-called ``regularity b.c.'' -- i.e. the

239: demand that $\phi_{1\omega}(r)$ be bounded at the singularity.

240: Since we have a single regular solution for each $\omega$, any

241: wave packet coming from infinity will have a unique decomposition

242: into these regular functions $\phi_{1\omega}(r)$, and hence a

243: unique time evolution. (This is to be contrasted with the RN case,

244: in which there are two regular solutions for each $\omega$, and

245: therefore, the time evolution depends on initial data from both

246: sides of the singularity.) This ``regularity b.c.'' can be

247: physically interpreted as a reflecting b.c. While normally one can

248: define reflecting b.c. either by Dirichlet or by Neumann b.c. (or

249: a mix) the ``regularity b.c.'' at Schwarzschild's $r=0$ do not

250: leave us such a choice~\footnote{It was found already in

251: \cite{IshibashiHosoya} by different methods that there exists a

252: unique time evolution for negative-mass Schwarzschild, which is

253: probably the same one we explicitly describe and physically

254: interpret here.}.

255: 

256: Thus we find {\it a natural way to define (scalar wave) physics in

257: the presence of certain  time-like singularities} (by ``defining

258: physics'' we mean a recipe that allows to predict the time

259: evolution in spacetime) simply by passing from particle probes to

260: waves (we call such singularities ``wave-regular''). We discuss

261: two mechanisms: for RN we continue the space-time across the

262: singularity allowing for cross-communication, while for

263: negative-mass \Schw the ``regularity b.c.'' are unique and define

264: complete reflection.

265: 

266: 

267: We would like to pause to make a few comments on this picture:

268: \begin{itemize}

269: 

270: \item We consider this to be an important observation in the

271: search for a resolution of black hole singularities, at least

272: those of the time-like type. Yet, for this observation to be more

273: than a mere curiosity it is required that several additional tests

274: be satisfied such as regularity of higher-spin waves and

275: regularity against various perturbations to the equations (some of

276: which we perform).

277: 

278: 

279: \item At the classical level there are issues of interpretation,

280: for instance, the existence of these spacetimes or others with the

281: relevant singularities, the observers living in them and

282: implications to Cosmic Censorship, which we discuss in section

283: \ref{discussion}.

284: 

285: \item At the level of quantum gravity additional issues arise,

286: including  the validity of the wave equation and Hawking radiation

287: whose discussion we defer to section \ref{discussion} as well.

288: Here we only want to stress that one should be cautious not to

289: jump to conclusions and ``legitimize'' spacetimes with such

290: singularities as possible solitons.

291: 

292: \end{itemize}

293: 

294: After reviewing the RN and \Schw backgrounds in section

295: \ref{ReviewRN}, we explain our main observation in section

296: \ref{smooth-section}. We formulate the wave evolution for

297: arbitrary wave-packets coming from infinity (i.e. from large

298: negative $r$). However, the issue of specifying initial conditions

299: on a spacelike hypersurface crossing the $r=0$ singularity becomes

300: non-trivial and is relegated to section \ref{conditions-section}.

301: 

302: Once the unique evolution of the field is formulated, we are in a

303: position to investigate scattering phenomena. In section

304: \ref{cross-section-section} we study the physical properties of

305: the RN singularity by computing the cross section for

306: transmission. Even though the ODE for $\phiom$ is regular, the

307: effective potential diverges as $V_{\rm eff} \sim -c/r^{*~2}$ in

308: the vicinity of the singularity, where $r^*=r^*(r)$ is the

309: canonical ``tortoise'' coordinate. Therefore, one would expect the

310: singularity to have an effect even on  incoming waves of very high

311: energy -- unlike a regular point in spacetime, which becomes

312: ``transparent'' in this limit. Indeed we show that the high-energy

313: transmission amplitude for fixed angular momentum $l$ approaches

314: 25\% rather than 100\%. In this respect the singularity behaves as

315: a beam-splitter. Summing over $l$ we find the high-energy

316: dependence of the total cross section to be $\propto

317: \omega^{-4/3}$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of the incoming

318: plane wave. This behavior stands between the $\omega^0$ dependence

319: of absorption for a black hole with well-defined area, and the

320: $\omega^{-2}$ dependence of scattering off an elementary particle

321: in field theory.

322: 

323: Generalizations of the backgrounds to higher dimensions and for

324: the 2d black hole are presented in section \ref{generalizations}.

325: We determine the transmission amplitude and total cross-section as

326: in the 4d case. The only significant difference is that while in

327: 4d (and 2d) RN the variable-separated wave equation is regular,

328: for $d>4$ it is singular-regular. Yet, all the solutions

329: $\phiom(r)$ are still univalued for a continuation through the

330: singularity. For Schwarzschild, on the other hand, there are no

331: significant changes in passing from $d=4$ (and $d=2$) to $d>4$.

332: Hence, we also present the results for $d=4$ Schwarzschild in

333: section 5.

334: 

335: Next we challenge our picture by adding various perturbations in

336: section \ref{perturbations-section}. So far we discussed only

337: probes which were minimally-coupled scalar fields. Here we preform

338: several perturbations: first we consider a field with both mass

339: and charge, then we add interactions, and finally we consider the

340: effect of back-reaction.

341: 

342: 

343: In section \ref{conditions-section} we discuss some of the

344: conditions for a general timelike singularity to be wave-regular,

345: including the necessary constraint on initial conditions specified

346: on a spacelike hypersurface crossing the singularity, the

347: uniqueness of decomposition of an incoming wave-packet, and the

348: univalued property of the eigen-functions $\phiom$. In section

349: \ref{discussion} we summarize and discuss the issues mentioned

350: above, and list some open questions. Some technical details are

351: given in the appendices.

352: 

353: 

354: Note that, in principle, this study could have been carried out a

355: long time ago and, indeed, it turns out that there were some

356: attempts in this direction. However, it seems that none took the

357: conceptual freedom to cross the singularity and that actually led

358: several authors to pronounce RN to be wave-singular. Wald

359: \cite{Wald1980} gave a general discussion on extending the

360: definition of the wave equation to include non globally-hyperbolic

361: spacetimes relying on the mathematical notion of the ``Friedrichs

362: extension.'' Horowitz and Marolf \cite{HorowitzMarolf} showed that

363: some dilatonic black holes are wave-regular, where they consider a

364: Schr\"{o}dinger-like equation rather than the wave equation and

365: demonstrate ``essentially self-adjointness'' of the associated

366: operator. Ishibashi and Hosoya \cite{IshibashiHosoya} were able to

367: claim wave-regularity for negative-mass \Schw by going back to the

368: wave equation together with changing the metric in function space

369: accordingly from the ordinary $L^2$-metric to the Sobolev metric,

370: but using the same criterion of ``essentially self-adjointness.''

371: However, they do not comment on the physical nature of this

372: resolution. Related work also appears in \cite{Peeters:1994jz}.

373: Finally, Jacobson \cite{Jacobson} observed in passing the

374: regularity of the time-separated wave equation near the RN

375: singularity while studying the semiclassical decay of

376: near-extremal black holes.

377: 

378: {\bf Note added at second version:} it is interesting to consider

379: smooth approximations to the singular geometries. We found that if

380: one smoothly approximates the RN singularity one is required to

381: add a finite amount of negative energy matter, which is what one

382: would expect due to the wormhole nature of the singularity region.

383: The details of the calculation are given in section \ref{ReviewRN}

384: in the part titled ``Negative-energy content of the smeared

385: singularity.'' The subsequent ``perspectives on the $r<0$ region''

386: part in section \ref{ReviewRN} as well as the discussion section

387: should be read with this additional fact in mind. We gratefully

388: acknowledge the valuable comments of G. Gibbons  and J. Katz on

389: this matter. See \cite{Lynden-BellKatz,Lynden-BellKatz2} for a

390: closely related case.

391: 

392: \section{Review of the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m and Schwarzschild backgrounds}

393: \label{ReviewRN}

394: 

395: \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent {\it Basic features of the

396: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m geometry}

397: 

398: The background we wish to consider is the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m

399: (RN) geometry \cite{Reissner,Nordstrom}. In Schwarzschild

400: coordinates $(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )$ the metric is

401: \begin{equation}

402: ds^{2}=-f\,dt^{2}+f^{-1}\,dr^{2}+r^{2}\,d\Omega ^{2},

403: \label{RNmetric}

404: \end{equation}

405: where

406: \[

407: f=1-{\frac{2\,M}{r}}+{\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{2}}}

408: \]

409: and $d\Omega ^{2}$ is the two-sphere metric,

410: \[

411: d\Omega ^{2}=d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta \,d\varphi ^{2}.

412: \]

413: The electromagnetic four-potential is given by \footnote{The minus

414: sign was entered in order to conform with the rest of our sign

415: conventions and to produce (\ref{Veff-geod}) correctly.}

416: \[

417: A=-{\frac{Q}{r}}\,dt ~.

418: \]

419: For $Q=0$ the metric reduces to the Schwarzschild metric

420: \cite{Schw}.

421: 

422: For the (under-extremal) non-extremal black-hole case, $M>|Q|>0$

423: $f$ has two positive roots, located at

424: \[

425: r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{M^{2}-Q^{2}}.

426: \]

427: Both $r=r_{+}$ and $r=r_{-}$ are null hypersurfaces, known as the

428: event horizon and the inner horizon, respectively (in

429: Schwarzschild there is only one such root, $r=r_{0}:=2\,M$, which

430: is the event horizon). Note that the roles of $r$ and $t$ as

431: space-like and time-like coordinates interchange at each root of

432: $f$.

433: 

434: The line element (\ref{RNmetric}) is singular at the horizons, but

435: this is merely a coordinate singularity which may be removed by

436: transforming to other coordinates (e.g. the Kruskal-Szekeres

437: coordinates discussed below). On the other hand, $r=0$ is a true

438: physical singularity (e.g. the Ricci scalar diverges in the RN

439: case), and we focus on this singularity in the present paper.

440: 

441: Usually one considers only the $r>0$ part of the RN geometry to be

442: physical, but {\it we will find it natural to consider the $r<0$

443: region as well}. Note a crucial difference in this regard between

444: the $r=0$ singularities in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m and in

445: Schwarzschild: in Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m $f$ has a second-order

446: pole at $r=0$,

447: \begin{equation}

448: f\cong {\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{2}},}  \label{fRN-lead}

449: \end{equation}

450: and the $t$ coordinate is time-like on both sides of $r=0$, while

451: in Schwarzschild $f$ has a first-order pole

452: \begin{equation}

453: f\cong -{\frac{2\,M}{r}}  \label{fSchw-lead}

454: \end{equation}

455: and the coordinates ``flip'' their space-like/time-like nature:

456: $t$ is space-like for small and positive $r$ and it is time-like

457: for negative $r$. For this reason (as well as for other reasons),

458: we will later find it natural to glue the positive-$r$ and

459: negative-$r$ patches of Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m over the

460: singularity, but not in the Schwarzschild case. The Penrose

461: diagram of the maximally extended Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m

462: spacetime, including the $r<0$ region, is given in figure

463: \ref{PenroseRN}. This is to be contrasted with figure

464: \ref{PenroseSchw} which provides the Penrose diagrams of the

465: regions $r>0$ and $r<0$ in the Schwarzschild case. These diagrams

466: -- and particularly the fact that the singularity is spacelike at

467: $r>0$ and timelike at $r<0$ -- indicate the difficulty of matching

468: the two regions at $r=0$.

469: 

470: 

471: \vspace{.5cm} \noindent {\it Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates}

472: 

473: 

474: Although the Schwarzschild coordinates are perfectly suitable for

475: describing the $r<0$ region and its matching to $r>0$, insight

476: into the ``completed Penrose diagram'' may be achieved by using

477: the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, as we now describe. (In a first

478: reading one may skip the text and only view the completed Penrose

479: diagrams).

480: 

481: The $(r,t)$ coordinates (or ``\Schw coordinates'') define several

482: metric patches, which are separated on the $r$ axis by $r=0,\,

483: r_-,\, r_+$ in \RN and $r=0,\, r_0$ in Schwarzschild. In order to

484: see how these patches, and especially the $r<0$ patch, are

485: connected one transforms to the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates

486: \cite{Kruskal,Szekeres}, and later performs a conformal

487: transformation to obtain the Penrose diagram (in appendix

488: \ref{KSapp} we review the procedure). Here again we will find a

489: qualitative difference between the \RN singularity and

490: Schwarzschild.

491: 

492: In \KS coordinates $(U,V)$, one uses a function $g(r)$ to

493: implicitly define $r$ through \be

494:  -U\, V = g(r)~. \ee

495: This function is defined by \be

496:  g(r) := \exp \(\pm 2\, \kappa\, r^*\)~, \ee

497: in terms of the ``tortoise'' coordinate $r^*$: \be

498:  dr^* := {dr \over f}~. \ee

499: $\kappa$ is the surface gravity of the relevant horizon and the

500: choice of sign is correlated with the choice of sign for $U$ and

501: $V$.

502: 

503: Let us look at the functions $g(r)$. For RN $g_\pm(r)$ are given

504: by (see figure \ref{gRNfigure}) \bea

505:  g_+(r) &=& \({r \over r_+}-1 \) \, \({r \over r_-}-1 \)^{-{\kappa_+ \over

506: \kappa_-}} \, \exp (2\, \kappa_+\, r) \non

507:  g_-(r) &=& \(1-{r \over r_-}\) \, \(1-{r \over r_+}\)^{-{\kappa_- \over

508: \kappa_+}} \, \exp

509:  (-2\, \kappa_-\, r) \eea

510: where $g_+$ covers the ``plus plane'' which includes the outer

511: horizon at $r_+: ~r_-<r<\infty$, and $g_-$ covers the ``minus

512: plane'' including the inner horizon at $r_-: ~-\infty<r<r_+$.

513: {}From the form of $g_-$ one realizes that in these coordinates

514: the $r<0$ region is naturally included and it lies at $(-U_-\,

515: V_-)

516: >1$, which is adjacent to the $0<r<r_-$ or $0 < -U_-\, V_- < 1$

517: region, and  as such we include it in the Penrose diagram (figure

518: \ref{PenroseRN}).

519: 

520: \begin{figure}

521: \centerline{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsfbox{gRN.eps}}

522: \medskip

523: \caption{The two functions $g_\pm(r)$ which determine $r$ in \KS

524: coordinates for \RN implicitly through $-U_\pm\, V_\pm = g_\pm

525: (r)$. $g_+$ is defined for the $r>r_-$, namely on the plus plane,

526: and $g_-$ is defined on $r<r_+$ namely on the minus plane. Note

527: that both functions are monotonic with range $(-\infty,+\infty)$

528: and hence there is always a unique solution for $r$. For $(-U_-\,

529: V_-)>1$ on the minus plane $r$ is negative. In drawing the figure

530: the values $r_-=.5, ~ r_+=1$ were used.}

531:  \label{gRNfigure}

532: \end{figure}

533: 

534: \begin{figure}

535: \centerline{\epsfxsize=90mm\epsfbox{PenroseRN.eps}}

536: \medskip

537: \caption{The complete Penrose diagram for the (under-extremal

538: $|Q|<|M|$) Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m background including the regions

539: with $r<0$ which are not drawn usually. These regions are glued to

540: ``the other side'' of the time-like singularity, which is seen as

541: naked from that side. The wavy lines denote a typical scattering

542: experiment off the singularity. Waves from $\scri ^-$ are sent to

543: the singularity. Some of them are reflected back to $\scri ^+$

544: while the remainder is transmitted to $r>0$.} \label{PenroseRN}

545: \end{figure}

546: 

547: For Schwarzschild on the other hand, we have \be

548:  g_{\rm schw}(r) = \({r \over r_0}-1 \)\, \exp(r/r_0). \ee

549: One notes that unlike the $g_\pm$ which were monotonic $g_{\rm

550: schw}(r)$ has a minimum at $g_{\rm schw}(r=0)=-1$ (see figure

551: \ref{gSchw-figure}), exactly because $f_{\rm schw}(r)$ changes

552: sign at $0$. Thus for $-U\, V<-1$ there is no solution for $r$

553: while in the region $-1<-U\, V<0$ there are two solutions one of

554: them with negative $r$. Hence, the $r<0$ region is naturally

555: included and becomes a second cover over the inside of the black

556: hole ($0<r<r_0$) which we incorporate into the Penrose diagram in

557: figure \ref{PenroseSchw}. This second cover differs from \RN where

558: the $r<0$ region was located side by side with the ``ordinary''

559: $r>0$ regions. This difference is in tune with our later

560: conclusion that for \RN one should glue the two regions over the

561: $r=0$ singularity while in \Schw they should be considered to be

562: disconnected.

563: 

564: \begin{figure}

565: \centerline{\epsfxsize=70mm\epsfbox{gSchw.eps}}

566: \medskip

567: \caption{The function $g_{\rm schw}(r)$ which determines $r$ in

568: \KS coordinates (for the \Schw black hole) implicitly through

569: $-U\, V = g_{\rm schw} (r)$. Note that while for $g_{\rm schw}>0$

570: there is a unique solution for $r$, for $-1<g_{\rm schw}<0$ there

571: are two solutions, one of them with negative $r$ which lead to a

572: double cover in \KS coordinates. Finally for $g_{\rm schw}<-1$

573: there are no solutions.}

574:  \label{gSchw-figure}

575: \end{figure}

576: 

577: 

578: \begin{figure}

579: \centerline{\epsfxsize=120mm\epsfbox{PenroseSchw.eps}}

580: \medskip

581: \caption{The complete Penrose diagram for a Schwarzschild black

582: hole including the negative-mass regions which appear as a double

583: cover of the inside of the black (or white) hole. The

584: negative-mass regions are shown separately on the side, rotated by

585: 90 degrees so that time flows in them upward as is conventional.

586: Here we will find no communication through the singularity.}

587: \label{PenroseSchw}

588: \end{figure}

589: 

590: \vspace{0.5cm}

591:  \noindent {\it Negative-energy content of the smeared singularity}

592: 

593: The electro-vacuum geometry constructed here has a curvature

594: singularity at $r=0$. One may consider modifying the metric

595: function in the very neighborhood of $r=0$, say at some $|r|\leq

596: r_{0}$, so as to make the geometry smooth. In this way one obtains

597: a wormhole smoothly connecting the positive-$r$ and the

598: negative-$r$ parts. However, any such smearing will imply the

599: presence of additional energy-momentum in the region $|r|\leq

600: r_{0} $, as would be determined by applying the Einstein operator

601: to the modified metric. The specific form of the additional

602: energy-momentum tensor will depend on the specific choice of

603: smearing. It is well known, however, that any wormhole of this

604: kind requires ``exotic'' matter fields, i.e. an energy-momentum

605: source which violates the weak energy condition. A simple way to

606: understand it is to consider a congruence of null rays propagating

607: inward radially. In this setting Raychaudhuri's equation tells us

608: that as long as the energy condition is satisfied ${d^2 \over

609: d\lambda^2} \log(A) \le 0$, where $A$ is the transverse area (of

610: the two-sphere) and $\lambda$ is an affine parameter along the

611: ray. Since $A$ (and $\log(A)$) is asymptotically decreasing in an

612: inward radial motion, but after going through the ``wormhole'' it

613: is again increasing, there must be an intermediate region where

614: the weak energy condition is violated.

615: 

616: We wish to evaluate the amount of negative energy required to

617: support this wormhole-shaped smeared geometry, particularly at the

618: limit $r_{0}\to 0$. To be more specific, we consider here a

619: thin-shell model \cite{Israel}. Namely, we directly match the

620: geometry at $r\geq r_{0}$ to that at $r\leq -r_{0}$, through a

621: thin shell located at $|r|=r_{0}$, for some $0<r_{0}\ll Q$. This

622: thin shell is a timelike hypersurface parameterized by the three

623: coordinates $(t,\theta ,\varphi )$. Note that the induced

624: three-geometry is continuous across this shell: $g_{\theta \theta

625: }$ and $g_{\varphi \varphi }$ only depend on $r^{2}$, and $g_{tt}$

626: (which originally has different values at the two sides) becomes

627: continuous after a trivial rescaling of the $t$ coordinate at e.g.

628: $r<-r_{0}$.

629: 

630: The shell's contribution to the energy-momentum tensor may be

631: expressed as \cite{Visser}

632: \begin{equation}

633: T^{\mu \nu }(x)=S^{\mu \nu }(x)\delta (\eta ) ~,

634: \end{equation}

635: where $S^{\mu \nu }$ is the shell's surface energy-momentum

636: distribution, and $\eta $ is the proper-length parameter along

637: radial lines of constant $t,\theta ,\varphi $, with $\eta =0$ at

638: the shell and $\eta >0$ at $r>r_{0}$. The surface distribution

639: $S^{\mu \nu }$ is determined from the jump in the extrinsic

640: curvature,

641: \begin{equation}

642: S_{j}^{i}=-\frac{1}{8\pi }\left( \left\langle K\right\rangle

643: _{j}^{i}-\delta _{j}^{i}\left\langle K\right\rangle

644: _{k}^{k}\right) .

645: \end{equation}

646: Hereafter $i,j,k$ run over the three coordinates $(t,\theta

647: ,\varphi )$, and

648: \begin{equation}

649: \left\langle K\right\rangle _{j}^{i}\equiv

650: K_{j}^{i(+)}-K_{j}^{i(-)},

651: \end{equation}

652: where $K_{j}^{i(\pm )}$ is the shell's extrinsic curvature with

653: respect to the geometries at $r>r_{0}$ and $r<-r_{0}$,

654: respectively. (We are using here General-Relativistic units,

655: $G=c=1$.) The extrinsic curvature may conveniently be expressed in

656: terms of Israel's ``natural coordinates'' \cite{Israel}, which we

657: take here to be the three hypersurface coordinates $t,\theta

658: ,\varphi$ and the above proper-length coordinate $\eta $:

659: \begin{equation}

660: K_{ij}^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left[ \frac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial

661: \eta } \right] _{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}\left[

662: g_{rr}^{-1/2}\frac{\partial g_{ij}}{

663: \partial r}\right] _{(\pm )}  ~, \label{extrinsic}

664: \end{equation}

665: with the derivatives (and $g_{rr}$) evaluated at the $(+)$ or

666: $(-)$ sides of the shell, respectively.

667: 

668: We are primarily interested here in the amount of (negative)

669: energy contributed by the shell, represented by $S_{t}^{t}$:

670: \begin{equation}

671: S_{t}^{t}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left( \left\langle K\right\rangle

672: _{\theta }^{\theta }+\left\langle K\right\rangle _{\varphi

673: }^{\varphi }\right) =\frac{ 1}{4\pi }\left\langle K\right\rangle

674: _{\theta }^{\theta } ~.

675: \end{equation}

676: A straightforward application of Eq. (\ref{extrinsic}) yields

677: \begin{equation}

678: K_{\theta }^{\theta (\pm )}=\left[

679: \frac{\sqrt{1-2M/r+Q^{2}/r^{2}}}{r} \right] _{r=\pm r_{0}} ~,

680: \end{equation}

681: hence

682: \begin{equation}

683: \left\langle K\right\rangle _{\theta }^{\theta }=\frac{\sqrt{

684: 1-2M/r_{0}+Q^{2}/r_{0}^{2}}+\sqrt{1+2M/r_{0}+Q^{2}/r_{0}^{2}}}{r_{0}}\,.

685: \end{equation}

686: 

687: Let $\rho $ denote the shell's energy density as measured by a

688: static observer:

689: \begin{equation}

690: \rho =-T_{t}^{t}=-\frac{1}{4\pi }\left\langle K\right\rangle

691: _{\theta }^{\theta }\delta (\eta )

692: \end{equation}

693: (recall that $T_{t}^{t}$ is invariant to a rescaling of $t$). The

694: total shell's energy is obtained by integrating over the 3-volume,

695: i.e. over $\eta $ and over the shell's area:

696: \begin{eqnarray*}

697: E_{shell} &=&4\pi r_{0}^{2}\int \rho d\eta =-r_{0}^{2}\left\langle

698: K\right\rangle _{\theta }^{\theta } \\

699: &=&-r_{0}\left( \sqrt{1-2M/r_{0}+Q^{2}/r_{0}^{2}}+\sqrt{

700: 1+2M/r_{0}+Q^{2}/r_{0}^{2}}\right) .

701: \end{eqnarray*}

702: 

703: Finally, we calculate $E_{shell}$ at the limit where $r_{0}$

704: shrinks to zero:

705: \begin{equation}

706: E_{shell}^{0} \equiv \lim_{r_0 \to 0} E_{shell}=-2Q.

707: \end{equation}

708: 

709: %\newpage

710: \vspace{0.5cm}

711:  \noindent {\it Perspectives on the $r<0$ region}

712: 

713: The metric (\ref{RNmetric}) is invariant under the transformation

714: $r\to -r,~M\to -M,$ and hence we shall often refer to the $r<0$

715: region as the ``negative mass'' region. To an observer in the

716: asymptotically-flat region at $r<0$ the central object will appear

717: as one of negative mass, namely, a gravitationally-repelling

718: object.\footnote{This is also the situation in the Kerr geometry:

719: in the asymptotically-flat region $r<0$ the central object is

720: gravitationally repelling.}

721: 

722: We alert the reader that negative masses have very unusual

723: features:

724: 

725: \begin{itemize}

726: \item  A negative mass produces anti-gravity, namely it repels all

727: masses.

728: 

729: \item  As a result of Newton's second law $F=m\, a$, the

730: acceleration of a negative mass is reversed to the force acting on

731: it.

732: 

733: \item  As an immediate result of the two properties above, if one

734: were to place two bodies initially at rest, one with a negative

735: mass and the other with a positive mass, both will accelerate in

736: the same direction going from the negative mass to the positive

737: one (furthermore, if the two masses are of the same magnitude,

738: they will uniformly accelerate forever).

739: 

740: \end{itemize}

741: 

742: 

743: Due to these unusual features (and possibly others), negative

744: masses are often excluded (however, see

745: \cite{negative-supergravity}). We shall not attempt here to

746: provide a conclusive answer to this question. Instead, we will

747: take a pragmatic approach of exploration by allowing negative-mass

748: spaces in the current context and being alert to the appearance of

749: a problem such as a resulting inconsistency. We will not find any

750: such inconsistency in this paper, and so we regard this question

751: as remaining open.

752: 

753: 

754: In the (under extremal) RN black-hole case, $M>|Q|>0$, one can

755: reach the $r=0$ singularity either from the negative-mass

756: asymptotic region (i.e. from large negative $r$), or from $r \to

757: r_{-}$, the inner horizon. Looking at the Penrose diagram of the

758: maximally extended spacetime, figure \ref{PenroseRN}, one may

759: consider reaching the inner horizon by jumping into the black hole

760: from the ordinary (positive-mass) asymptotic region. The inner

761: horizon of the pure RN geometry is a perfectly-regular

762: hypersurface. However, it is known already for some time that the

763: inner horizon is unstable to perturbation and should become

764: singular \cite{Penrose,PI} in ``realistic'' charged black holes.

765: For this reason it was often believed that the inner horizon

766: cannot be crossed. Recent investigations, however, indicated that

767: the singularity at the inner horizon is weak, that is, the tidal

768: forces are too weak to harm physical objects

769: \cite{weak-singularity,burko,spinning}. Therefore, there is no

770: obvious reason to exclude objects falling into the black hole and

771: arriving at $r=0$ through the inner horizon. For conceptual

772: simplicity, however, we shall primarily consider here observers

773: arriving at $r=0$ from the negative-$r$ asymptotically-flat

774: region, namely, from beyond the singularity.

775: 

776: In the case $|Q|>M$ (figure \ref{PenroseRN-ext}) there are no

777: horizons, but simply two asymptotically-flat regions, one with

778: positive mass and the other with negative mass (in this case there

779: is no reason to transform into Kruskal-Szekeres -like

780: coordinates). In both regions there is a naked singularity at

781: $r=0$, and we glue the two patches there.

782: 

783: \begin{figure}

784: \centerline{\epsfxsize=55mm\epsfbox{PenroseRN-ext.eps}}

785: \medskip

786: \caption{The complete Penrose diagram for an over-extremal

787: ($|M|<|Q|$) Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m black hole. It is composed of a

788: positive-mass RN glued over the singularity to a negative-mass RN.

789: There are no horizons and the singularity is naked on both sides.}

790: \label{PenroseRN-ext}

791: \end{figure}

792: 

793: \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent {\it Geodesics}

794: 

795: We end this section with a review of particle motion in this

796: background, and a derivation of the effective potential for

797: particles (or geodesics) which we later compare with the effective

798: potential for waves. The geodesic equation for a particle of mass

799: $m$ can be derived from the Hamiltonian system

800: \begin{equation}

801: {\cal H}={\frac{1 }{2}}\, g^{\mu\, \nu}\, p_\mu\, p_\nu =

802: -{\frac{1 }{2}} \, m^2 ~~,

803: \end{equation}

804: where the Hamiltonian is automatically with respect to a multiple

805: of the proper time $\tau$. For a particle of charge $q$ one

806: replaces $p \to p-q\, A$.

807: % sign as in Landau-Lifshitz QM (113.1)

808: 

809: Since ${\cal H}$ is independent of $t$ and $\,\phi $ we have the

810: constants of the motion $E:=-p_{t},\,l:=p_{\phi }$. The motion is

811: then described by

812: \begin{eqnarray}

813: 0 &=&\dot{r}^{2}+V_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm geodesic}}(r)~,  \nonumber \\

814: V_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm geodesic}}(r) &=&\left({\frac{l^{2}}{r^{2}}}\,

815: +m^{2}\right)\,f(r)-\left(E-{\frac{q\,Q}{r}}\right)^{2}~.

816: \label{Veff-geod}

817: \end{eqnarray}

818: In particular, around $r\simeq 0$, $V_{{\rm eff}}\sim

819: {\frac{l^{2}Q^{2}}{r^{4}}}$ for $l>0$ [and $V_{{\rm eff}}\sim

820: (m^{2}-q^{2}){\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{2}}}$ for $l=0$]. Note that the

821: effective potential given here does not have the ordinary units of

822: potential, but it has the advantage of being general and valid

823: both for massive and massless particles. In order to get the

824: physical potential in a Newtonian approximation one needs to

825: rescale $V_{{\rm eff}}$ by an appropriate power of $m$.

826: 

827: 

828: 

829: \section{Waves are smooth}

830: \label{smooth-section}

831: 

832: \subsection{Set-up}

833: 

834: A spacetime is usually defined to be singular when it is not

835: geodesically complete, namely with respect to point-particle

836: probes. Yet, all the fundamental interactions are formulated for

837: field theories, where particles are derived concepts constructed

838: from appropriate wave packets. Moreover, the mashing of Quantum

839: Mechanics and Special Relativity requires the quantum theory of

840: fields. Thus it is natural to probe spacetimes with waves rather

841: than point-particles.

842: 

843: Here we will confine ourselves, as a first step, to scalar fields.

844: Initially we will further assume a minimally-coupled free field

845: with no mass or charge, and later these assumptions will be

846: relaxed and shown not to affect the results.

847: 

848: When should we consider a spacetime to be wave-regular? A central

849: objective of physics is to provide predictions for the results of

850: experiments, or a well-defined time evolution, and it is exactly

851: this predictability which is at risk in the presence of a

852: singularity. We would therefore consider a spacetime to be

853: wave-regular if the time evolution is unique for any physically

854: acceptable initial conditions (to be discussed below). Technically

855: the issue is whether one can supply boundary conditions at the

856: singularity such that the time evolution is regular and whether

857: these are unique.

858: 

859: In ``normal'' (i.e. non-singular) situations there are two

860: different set-ups for initial conditions: (i) the Cauchy

861: formulation, in which the field and its time derivative are

862: specified on a spacelike hypersurface; and (ii) the characteristic

863: formulation, in which the field is specified on two null

864: hypersurfaces. This second formulation has a special, widely used

865: variant (iia) in which the null hypersurfaces are taken to be at

866: the null past boundaries of the region of spacetime under

867: consideration -- e.g. past null infinity (for an

868: asymptotically-flat region), and a past horizon (for an

869: asymptotically-flat region outside a black hole).

870: 

871: In our problem -- formulating the time evolution of the field at

872: the two sides of the $r=0$ singularity -- the Cauchy formulation

873: (i) has a potential problem, because any spacelike initial

874: hypersurface must cross the $r=0$ singularity. It is a priori

875: unclear what are exactly the ``physically-acceptable initial

876: conditions'' near $r=0$. On the other hand, the characteristic

877: formulation (iia) is free of this potential problem. The two null

878: hypersurfaces which naturally suggest themselves for this

879: formulation are past null infinity ($\scri^-$) of the negative-$r$

880: universe, and the inner horizon $r_{-}$. These two hypersurfaces

881: nowhere intersect the singularity, or even get close to it.

882: 

883: We shall therefore base our analysis of time evolution on this

884: characteristic formulation. That is, we probe the spacetime by

885: wave-packets prepared and sent in from the asymptotic regions far

886: away from the singularity. Indeed, it is physically reasonable to

887: characterize the singularity by its response to any possible

888: scattering experiment. Motivated by these considerations, we shall

889: define a spacetime (or a region of spacetime) to be {\it

890: wave-regular} if the time evolution is unique for generic initial

891: conditions specified at the relevant past null boundaries of this

892: (region of) spacetime.

893: 

894: While the characteristic formulation (ii) avoids the issue of

895: putting constraints on initial conditions near the singularity,

896: which is indeed non-trivial in hindsight, it does require a global

897: point of view, whereas our resolution is essentially local. This

898: local property is better understood in the Cauchy formulation (i)

899: and hence we will briefly review both formulations in this

900: section. Actually one could define also a hybrid of these methods

901: which keeps both locality and some isolation from the singularity:

902: namely, a formulation (ia) in which the field and its derivatives

903: are supplied on a spacelike hypersurface but are required to

904: vanish in a neighborhood of the singularity.~\footnote{This

905: variant is slightly more restrictive than just a re-formulation of

906: the initial-value setup, as it demands that the field strictly

907: vanishes at some open neighborhood. Nevertheless it is still

908: sufficiently general to allow for physically-meaningful scattering

909: experiments.}

910: 

911: In what follows we shall show that both the $-\infty < r < r_-$

912: piece of the RN spacetime and negative-mass \Schw are indeed

913: wave-regular. We shall define first the time evolution in a

914: straightforward manner in the Cauchy formulation, and then after

915: defining a canonical form for the radial equation and the

916: effective potential we shall state the characteristic formulation.

917: A treatment of the interesting subtleties in the Cauchy

918: formulation will be deferred to section \ref{conditions-section}.

919: 

920: \subsection{Separation of variables}

921: 

922: Let us proceed by writing down the wave equation for a minimally

923: coupled massless scalar field $\phi $ in the RN (or Schwarzschild)

924: background (\ref {RNmetric}). After separating the angular

925: variables \be

926:  \phi(r,t,\Omega) = \phi_l(r,t)\, Y_{lm}(\Omega)~, \ee

927:  where $\Omega$ denotes the angular variables~\footnote{The notation

928: $\Omega$ for the angular variables is convenient for the

929: generalization to higher dimensions where there are more angular

930: variables and there is no need to explicitly define them.}

931:  $(\theta,\, \varphi)$, one has

932: \begin{equation}

933: 0=\Box \phi =\left[ -f^{-1}\,{\partial

934: }_{tt}+{\frac{1}{r^{2}}}\,{\partial }_{r}\,f\,r^{2}\,{\partial

935: }_{r}-{\frac{l\,(l+1)}{r^{2}}}\right] \,\phi _{l}~.

936: \label{waveeq1}

937: \end{equation}

938: The wave equation (\ref{waveeq1}) is singular at $r=0$: after

939: multiplying the equation by $f$ to extract ${\partial }_{tt}$, the

940: part containing e.g. the second-order $r$ derivative becomes

941: $f^{2}\,{\partial }_{rr}$, and $f^{2}$ diverges as $r^{-4}$. This

942: is not surprising since we know that $r=0$ is a curvature

943: singularity.

944: 

945: Still, we may attempt a straight-forward separation of the time

946: variable,

947: \begin{equation}

948: \phi _{l}(r,t)=\phi _{\omega l}(r)\,{\rm exp}(i\,\omega \,t)~,

949: \label{basicseparation}

950: \end{equation}

951: getting \bea

952:  0 &=& \Box_{\omega l}\, \phi_{\omega l} \non

953:  \Box_{\omega l} &:=& f^{-1}\, \omega^2+

954:  {\frac{1}{r^{2}}}\,{\partial }_{r}\,f\,r^{2}\,{\partial }_{r}-

955:  {\frac{l\,(l+1)}{r^{2}}}~. \eea

956: It will be convenient to normalize $\Box_{\omega l}$ in two

957: different ways: if we want to have a unit coefficient for

958: ${\partial }_{rr}$ then we work with $f^{-1}\, \Box_{\omega l}$

959: while $f\, \Box_{\omega l}$ achieves a unit coefficient for

960: $\omega^2$. Indeed, writing down $f^{-1}\, \Box_{\omega l}$

961: explicitly, we have \bea

962:  0 &=& f^{-1}\, \Box_{\omega l}\, \phi_{\omega l} =\non

963:  &=& \left[ {\frac{1}{f\,r^{2}}}\, \partial_{r}\,f\, r^2\, \partial

964: _r-{\frac{l\,(l+1)}{f\,r^2}} + f^{-2}\, \omega ^{2}\right]

965: \,\phi_{\omega l} ~~, \label{separation-of-var} \eea and at this

966: point we need to discuss the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m case and the

967: Schwarzschild case separately.

968: 

969: \vspace{.5cm} \noindent {\it Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m }

970: 

971: Since $f_{RN}\,r^{2}\cong Q^{2}$ is regular at $r=0$, the

972: variable-separated equation (\ref{separation-of-var}) is

973: surprisingly completely regular. This observation is at the heart

974: of our proposed resolution. To leading order it is given by

975: \begin{equation}

976: 0=\left[ (1+\dots )\,{\partial }_{rr}+O(r^{0})\,{\partial

977: }_{r}-(1+\dots )\,{\frac{l\,(l+1)}{Q^{2}}}+(1+\dots

978: )\,{\frac{r^{4}}{Q^{4}}}\,\omega ^{2}\right] \phi _{\omega}~,

979: \label{rnreg}

980: \end{equation}

981: where ellipses always denote corrections which are higher order in

982: $r$, and from now we will often write $\phiom$ instead of

983: $\phi_{\omega l}$ suppressing the index $l$ for clarity. Note that

984: the equation is not only non-singular but also analytic (namely,

985: $\phi _{\omega ,rr}$ is an analytic function of $\phi _{\omega

986: },\phi _{\omega ,r}$ and $r$) at $r=0$, for any $l$ and $\omega $.

987: 

988: Since all the solutions for this equation are smooth at $r=0$, a

989: natural way to define the time evolution suggests itself: given an

990: initial wave packet (which propagates from either $\scri^-$ and/or

991:  the inner horizon) decompose it into radial eigen-functions $\phi

992: _{\omega }(r)\,$. Since the eigen-functions $\phi _{\omega }(r)$

993: are smooth at $r=0$, the time evolution defined above will be

994: smooth there. Consequently, parts of the wave packet will cross

995: this point. It is therefore essential to include both sides of the

996: $r=0$ singularity in our analysis.

997: 

998: In equations: given initial conditions $\phi_i(r):=\phi(r,t=0)$

999: and $\dot{\phi}_i(r):=\dot{\phi}(r,t=0)$ (we chose here the

1000: initial hypersurface $t=0$ without loss of generality), one

1001: determines the decomposition $\phi_+(k),\, \phi_-(k)$ that

1002: satisfies \bea

1003:  \phi_i(r) &=& \int \( \phi_+(k) + \phi_-(k)\, \)\, \phi_k(r)\, dk \non

1004:  \dot{\phi}_i(r) &=& \int i \omega\, \( \phi_+(k) - \phi_-(k)\, \)\,

1005: \phi_k(r)\, dk

1006:  \eea

1007: where here $\omega:=|k|$, and $\phi_{k}$ denotes two independent solutions

1008: (one for positive $k$ and one for negative $k$)

1009: of the wave equation $\Box_{\omega l}=0$ (with $\omega=|k|$).

1010:  \footnote{$\phi_{k}$

1011: are usually chosen such that $\phi_k \simeq \exp (i\, k\,

1012: r^*\,)/r$ at large $r^*$ (large negative $r$).}

1013:  Now the time evolution is defined naturally to be \footnote{This amounts to

1014:  taking the radial function $\phi _{\omega l}(r)$

1015:  of Eq. (\ref{basicseparation}) to be

1016:  $\phi_+(k=+\omega)+\phi_+(k=-\omega)$ for $\omega>0$ and

1017:  $\phi_-(k=+\omega)+\phi_-(k=-\omega)$ for $\omega<0$.}

1018:  \be

1019:  \phi(r,t) = \int \( \phi_+(k)\,  \exp(+i\, \omega\, t)

1020:  + \phi_-(k)\,  \exp(-i\, \omega\, t)\, \) \phi_k(r)\, dk ~~.\ee

1021: 

1022: In the characteristic formulation the decomposition into modes may

1023: be done by Fourier-decomposing the waves coming from $\scri^-$ or

1024: from the inner horizon in ${\rm exp}(i\,\omega \,v)$ or ${\rm

1025: exp}(i\,\omega \,u)$, respectively, where $u$ and $v$ are the two

1026: Eddington-like null coordinates, and associating a certain radial

1027: function $\phi _{\omega }(r)$ with each Fourier component. This

1028: will be described in more detail in subsection

1029: \ref{char-subsection}.

1030: 

1031: 

1032: At first it may look as if the singular partial differential

1033: equation (\ref {waveeq1}) has turned completely regular. Later we

1034: will see, however, that some imprint of the singularity remains.

1035: This is expressed both in the unusual large-$\omega$ limit of the

1036: transmission amplitude through $r=0$ (see section

1037: \ref{cross-section-section}) and in the constraints for Cauchy

1038: initial conditions at $r \sim 0$ (see section

1039: \ref{conditions-section}).

1040: 

1041: \vspace{.5cm} \noindent {\it Schwarzschild }

1042: 

1043: Using the leading behavior of $f_{{\rm Schw}}$ at $r=0$

1044:  (\ref{fSchw-lead}), the variable-separated equation

1045: (\ref{separation-of-var}) is given to leading order by

1046: \begin{equation}

1047: 0=\left[ (1+\dots )\,{\partial }_{rr}+{\frac{(1+\dots

1048: )}{r}}\,{\partial } _{r}+(1+\dots

1049: )\,{\frac{l\,(l+1)\,}{2\,M\,r}}+(1+\dots

1050: )\,{\frac{r^{2}}{4\,M^{2}}}\,\omega ^{2}\right] \phi _{\omega } ~.

1051: \label{Schw-var-sep}

1052: \end{equation}

1053: One notices that this equation is not regular anymore, but rather

1054: the $\partial_r$ and the $l(l+1)$ terms are singular. Actually it

1055: falls into the so called ``regular-singular'' category of mild

1056: singularities (see appendix \ref{reg-sing-app} for a rudimentary

1057: review).

1058: 

1059: Looking at Eq. (\ref{Schw-var-sep}) one realizes that the

1060: characteristic exponents (defined by the attempted leading-order

1061: solution $\phi _\omega \cong r^{\rho }$) are $\rho

1062: _{1}=\rho_{2}=0$, and thus the two independent solutions behave as

1063: $\phi _{1 \omega}\sim r^{0},~\phi _{2 \omega}\sim \log (r)$ at

1064: $r\sim 0$. So unlike Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m one of the solutions

1065: is singular, and moreover does not have a single-valued

1066: continuation to negative $r$, and there is no sense in gluing

1067: together positive $r$ to negative $r$. It is perhaps fortunate

1068: that this is the case, since gluing the two sides would require

1069: dealing with the ``flip'' in the nature of $(r,t)$ from space-like

1070: to time-like (and an arbitrary choice of the direction of the

1071: arrow of time). Still we find it remarkable that one of the

1072: solutions does turn out to be regular. This half-regularity allows

1073: a natural definition of the time evolution, as we shortly

1074: describe, where this time there is no transmission through $r=0$.

1075: 

1076: The situation here is analogous to the relation between a free

1077: field $\phi $ on the infinite line $-\infty <r<+\infty $ to a free

1078: field on the semi-infinite line $0<r<+\infty $, which could be

1079: e.g. the radial coordinate in some higher dimension, with

1080: Dirichlet or Neumann boundary condition at $r=0$. For the infinite

1081: line there are two $\phi_{\omega }$ solutions for each $\omega$,

1082: which allow a decomposition of wave packets arriving

1083: simultaneously from both $-\infty$ and $+\infty$. On the other

1084: hand, for the semi-infinite line the boundary condition selects a

1085: single $\phi _{\omega }$ solution for each $\omega $. This still

1086: allows for a decomposition of a wave packet, which this time can

1087: arrive only from $+ \infty $. The situation for

1088: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m is similar to the infinite line, while

1089: negative-mass Schwarzschild is similar to the semi-infinite line

1090: (we consider the $r<0$ side of the Schwarzschild singularity since

1091: there $t$ is time-like and one can consider scattering

1092: experiments).

1093: 

1094: Thus we naturally define the time evolution for negative-mass

1095: Schwarzschild by decomposing the initial conditions (defined only

1096: at $r=-\infty $) into the regular eigen-functions $\phi _{1

1097: \omega}$ alone and then proceeding as usual to define the time

1098: evolution. Since $\phi _{1 \omega}$ is smooth at $r=0$, the time

1099: evolution will be smooth there too. As it turns out it was found

1100: already in \cite{IshibashiHosoya} by somewhat formal arguments

1101: that there exists a unique time evolution for negative-mass

1102: Schwarzschild, which is probably the same as the one we just

1103: explicitly described. For RN on the other hand we differ as we get

1104: wave-regularity after considering both sides of the singularity,

1105: while they do not.

1106: 

1107: \sbsection{Perspectives on the boundary conditions for \Schw}

1108: 

1109: In the \Schw case we simply impose the boundary condition that the

1110: scalar field be regular at $r=0$.

1111: This does not conform with either the Dirichlet or Neumann b.c.;

1112: namely, neither $\phi$ nor its radial derivative vanishes at $r=0$.

1113: In fact, the Dirichlet or Neumann b.c. are both inconsistent with

1114: the asymptotic behavior near the singularity (due to the presence of a

1115: divergent mode).

1116: 

1117: Yet, there is a physically appealing procedure

1118: to obtain our regularity b.c.

1119: from the Dirichlet or Neumann b.c. (or a mixture).

1120: We can cutoff space at some $r_1<0$ close to the

1121: singularity, and then take the limit $r_1 \to 0$. Since all modes are

1122: well-behaved at $r=r_1$,

1123: we are free to impose either Dirichlet or Neumann b.c. there.

1124: Let us denote as before the

1125: solution regular at $r=0$ by $\phi_{1 \omega}$, and some other independent and

1126: necessarily singular solution by $\phi_{2 \omega}$. We are looking

1127: for a linear combination of the two, $\phiom = a\, \phi_{1 \omega}

1128: + b\, \phi_{2 \omega}$, that will satisfy the boundary conditions at

1129: $r_1$. If we impose Dirichlet we need \be

1130:  0=\phiom(r_1) = a\, \phi_{1 \omega}(r_1) +b\,

1131:  \phi_{2 \omega}(r_1) ~. \ee

1132:  As we take $r_1 \to 0$ $\phi_{1 \omega}$

1133:  remains finite while $\phi_{2 \omega}$

1134: diverges with a log singularity, and hence we must take $b=0$,

1135: namely the ``regular solution b.c.''

1136: 

1137: If we choose Neumann conditions instead, we note that again while

1138: $\phi_{1 \omega}'$ remains finite $\phi_{2 \omega}'$ diverges with

1139: a $1/r$ singularity and hence we are again forced to take $b=0$.

1140: Altogether we find that in both cases as $r_1 \to 0$ we are left

1141: with a unique b.c., namely our ``regular b.c.''

1142: 

1143: \subsection{Normal form of the radial equation}

1144: 

1145: \label{normal-form-subsection}

1146: 

1147: Transforming to a new radial coordinate (the so called ``tortoise

1148: coordinate'') $r^*(r)$ defined by

1149: \begin{equation}

1150: dr^{*}={\frac{dr}{f(r)},} \label{def-rstar}

1151: \end{equation}

1152: and to a new field variable

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \phi ^{*}:= r\phi  \label{defn-g}

1155: \end{equation}

1156: (and correspondingly $\phi _{\omega }^{*}:= r\phi _{\omega }$),

1157: the wave equation (\ref{waveeq1}) and the radial equation

1158: (\ref{separation-of-var}) take the standard forms

1159: \begin{equation}

1160: f^{-1}\, \left[ {\partial }_{tt}-{\partial }_{r*r*}+V_{{\rm

1161: eff}}(r^*)\right] \phi^*=0 \label{normal-full}

1162: \end{equation}

1163: and

1164: \begin{equation}

1165: \left[ -{\partial }_{r*r*}+V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)-\omega ^{2}\right]

1166: \phi _{\omega }^{*}=0.  \label{normal-radial}

1167: \end{equation}

1168: Here the effective potential $V_{{\rm eff}}$ is given by $V_{{\rm

1169: eff}}^{\rm geodesic}$, the effective potential for particles,

1170: with the substitutions $l^2 \to l(l+1)$ and $E \to 0$,

1171: \footnote{in principle $E$ is to be now replaced by $\omega$, but

1172: the latter already appears explicitly in Eq.

1173: (\ref{normal-radial}). Recall also that we assume at this stage a

1174: neutral massless scalar field, hence $m=q=0$.} plus an extra term

1175: $\Delta V_{{\rm eff}}$:

1176: \begin{equation}

1177: V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)=\Delta V_{{\rm eff}}+f\,{\frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}},}

1178: \label{Veff}

1179: \end{equation}

1180: where

1181: \begin{equation}

1182: \Delta V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)={\frac{f}{r}}\,{\partial }_{r}\,f ~.

1183: \label{DeltaVeff}

1184: \end{equation}

1185: 

1186: We find it instructive to explore the leading terms in the radial

1187: equation at $r=0$, when this equation is expressed in terms of

1188: $r^*$ rather than $r$.

1189: 

1190: We start by looking at the Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m case. To leading

1191: order near $r\sim 0$

1192: \begin{equation}

1193: r^*\cong {\frac{r^{3}}{3\,Q^{2}},}  \label{r*-r-at-0}

1194: \end{equation}

1195: and hence \be V_{{\rm eff}}\cong -2{\frac{Q^{4}}{r^{6}}}\cong

1196: -{\frac{2}{9\,r^{*~2}}~.} \label{two-ninths}\ee

1197:  Thus even though the wave equation in the form (\ref{separation-of-var})

1198: is smooth, the effective potential in the normal form is unbounded

1199: from below; hence we will study later (in section

1200: \ref{cross-section-section}) its response to high-frequency waves,

1201: where all features of the potential other than its leading term

1202: $\propto r^{*~-2}$ are irrelevant.

1203:  Note that such potentials of the type $V=-c/r^{*~2}$ are special (see for instance \cite{LL35}).

1204: Considering a larger

1205:  class of potentials $V=-c/r^{*~\alpha}$ with $c,\alpha>0$, then $\alpha=2$ is a

1206: critical value describing a conformal quantum mechanics

1207:  \footnote{if we replace $\omega^2 \to \omega$ in (3.14).},

1208:  namely $c$ is dimensionless. For $0<\alpha<2$ the spectrum is bounded from

1209: below even though the  classical potential is not, while for

1210: $\alpha>2$ the spectrum is not bounded from below. For the

1211: critical value $\alpha=2$ there is a critical value for $c$,

1212: $c=1/4$. For $c<1/4$ the potential is still mild enough to have a

1213: spectrum bounded from below (actually at zero),

1214:  while for $c>1/4$ it is not. So the numerical coefficient $c=2/9$ in (\ref{two-ninths}) is

1215: important. We will see later (in section \ref{generalizations})

1216: that $c$ varies over our examples (it depends on the number of

1217: dimensions, but always $c<1/4$ in the charged case), and that it

1218: determines the high-energy transmission properties of the

1219: singularity.

1220: 

1221: At $r^{*}=0$ the radial equation (\ref{normal-radial}) has a

1222: regular singularity, and we may look for the characteristic

1223: exponents $\rho $ defined by $~\phi _{\omega }^{*}\cong r^{*~\rho

1224: }$. These satisfy the characteristic equation

1225: \[

1226: \rho \,(\rho -1)+{\frac{2}{9}=0,}

1227: \]

1228: leading to the two roots

1229: \begin{equation}

1230: \rho _{1,2}={\frac{1}{3}},\,{\frac{2}{3},}

1231: \end{equation}

1232: which are independent of $\omega $. Translating back from $r^{*}$

1233: to $r$ using the transformation (\ref{defn-g},\ref{r*-r-at-0}) we

1234: get the exponents $r^{0}\,$and $r^{1},$ exactly as expected for a

1235: smooth second-order equation.

1236: 

1237: For Schwarzschild one may repeat the calculations based on the

1238: leading behavior of $f_{{\rm Schw}}$ (\ref{fSchw-lead}) and find

1239: \be

1240:  r^{*}\cong -{\frac{r^{2}}{4M},} \ee leading to \be

1241:  V_{{\rm eff}}\cong -4{\frac{M^{2}}{r^{4}}}\cong -{\frac{1}{4\,r^{*~2}}.}

1242: \ee

1243:  Thus we have here the critical value $c=1/4$ (independent of the

1244: spacetime dimension, see section \ref{generalizations}).

1245: 

1246: Attempting $\phi _{\omega }^{*}\cong r^{*~\rho }$ one obtains the

1247: characteristic equation

1248: \[

1249: \rho \,(\rho -1)+{\frac{1}{4}=0,}

1250: \]

1251: which yields \be \rho _{1}=\rho _{2}={\frac{1}{2}.} \ee The

1252: equality of the two exponents implies the presence of a log term

1253: in one of these solutions. Again translating back the

1254: characteristic exponents to the $r$ coordinate we get the

1255: $r^{0},\,\log (r)$ behavior which was derived above from Eq. (\ref

1256: {Schw-var-sep}).

1257: 

1258: \subsection{Characteristic formulation}

1259: \label{char-subsection}

1260: 

1261: Having defined the ``tortoise'' coordinate $r^*$ (\ref{def-rstar})

1262: and the effective potential (\ref{Veff}) we can now return to

1263: spell out in detail the definition of time evolution in the

1264: characteristic formulation.

1265: 

1266: The coordinate $r^*$ approaches $-\infty $ as $r\to -\infty $ and

1267: $+\infty $ as $r\to r_{-}$. Notice that the effective potential

1268: decays as $r^{-2}\simeq $ $r^{*~-2}$ at large negative $r$, and as

1269: $f\propto r-r_{-}$ (which is exponentially small in $r^*$) at the

1270: inner horizon.

1271: Therefore, in each of these asymptotic boundaries the radial

1272: function is a superposition of the two asymptotic solutions

1273: \begin{equation}

1274: \phi^{*}_\omega \cong {\rm exp}(+ i\, \omega \,r^*) \, \mbox{  and  } \,

1275: \phi^{*}_\omega \cong {\rm exp}(- i\, \omega \,r^*)~.

1276: \label{gen-asymptotic}

1277: \end{equation}

1278: Defining the Eddington-like coordinates

1279: \[

1280: v:= t-r^*\,,\qquad u:= t+r^*,

1281: \]

1282: the above two asymptotic solutions at both edges $r^*\to \pm \infty $

1283: read, for a particular $\omega $ component of $\phi^*$,

1284: \[

1285: \phi^* \cong {\rm exp}(i\,\omega u)\,\, \mbox{  and  } \,\,\phi^*

1286: \cong {\rm exp}(i\,\omega v)~,

1287: \]

1288: respectively. The non-decomposed field at both asymptotic edges

1289: takes the form

1290: \[

1291: \phi^*(r^*\to \pm \infty )\cong f_{\pm }(v)+g_{\pm }(u),

1292: \]

1293: where $f_{\pm }(v)$ and $g_{\pm }(u)$ are arbitrary functions (the

1294: ``$\pm $'' stands for the two asymptotic regions $r^*\to \pm

1295: \infty $, i.e. to the inner horizon and to large negative $r$). In

1296: the characteristic initial-value formulation one needs to specify

1297: the ingoing component $f_{-}(v)$ at $\scri^-$ and the component

1298: $g_{+}(u)$ coming from the inner horizon. These two functions

1299: should uniquely determine the time evolution in the relevant piece

1300: of spacetime. This evolution is defined as follows. First,

1301: Fourier-decompose these two initial functions:

1302: \begin{eqnarray*}

1303: f_{-}(v) &=&\int f_{v}(\omega _{v})\,{\rm exp}(i\,\omega

1304: \,_{v}v)d\omega

1305: _{v}, \\

1306: g_{+}(u) &=&\int g_{u}(\omega _{u})\,{\rm exp}(i\,\omega

1307: \,_{u}u)d\omega _{u}.

1308: \end{eqnarray*}

1309: Next, we define a set of basis solutions $\phi _{(\omega

1310: _{v},0)}^{*}(r^{*},t)$ and $\phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}(r^{*},t)$

1311: (for each $\omega _{v}$ and $\omega_{u}$) as follows: $\phi

1312: _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}$ is the solution evolving from the

1313: characteristic initial conditions

1314: \[

1315: f_{-}(v)={\rm exp}(i\,\omega \,_{v}v)\,,\qquad g_{+}(u)=0.

1316: \]

1317: Similarly, $\phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}$ is the solution evolving

1318: from the characteristic initial conditions

1319: \[

1320: f_{-}(v)={\rm 0}\,,\qquad g_{+}(u)={\rm exp}(i\,\omega \,_{u}u).

1321: \]

1322: The two functions $\phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}$ and $\phi

1323: _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}$ are constructed from the radial functions

1324: $\phi _{\omega }^{*}(r^*)$ (with $\omega=\omega_v$ and

1325: $\omega=\omega_u$, respectively); see appendix \ref{char-appendix}

1326: for details.

1327: 

1328: 

1329: Once $\phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}$ and $\phi _{(0,\omega

1330: _{u})}^{*}$ are defined, the time evolution of the field $\phi^*$

1331: emerging from the characteristic initial data $f_{-}(v)$ and

1332: $g_{+}(u)$ is simply given by

1333: \begin{eqnarray*}

1334: \phi^*(r^*,t) &=&\int f_{v}(\omega _{v})\,\phi _{(\omega

1335: _{v},0)}^{*}(r^*,t)d\omega _{v} \\

1336: &&+\int g_{u}(\omega _{u})\,\phi _{(0,\omega

1337: _{u})}^{*}(r^*,t)d\omega _{u}.

1338: \end{eqnarray*}

1339: We conclude that the unique extension of the radial functions

1340: $\phi _{\omega }^{*}(r^*)$ across the $r=0$ singularity naturally

1341: leads to a unique time

1342: evolution for any set of characteristic initial functions $f_{-}(v)$ and

1343: $g_{+}(u)$.

1344: 

1345: 

1346: \section{Transmission cross section in \RN}

1347: 

1348: \label{cross-section-section}

1349: 

1350: 

1351: Having demonstrated a resolution of the $r=0$ singularity we turn

1352: in this section to examine its nature through scattering. Here we

1353: shall only consider the charged (Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m) case.

1354: Full reflection from the negative-mass Schwarzschild singularity

1355: will be considered together with the $d>4$ cases at the end of

1356: subsection \ref{highd}. We focus here on the transmission of

1357: high-frequency incoming waves through the $r=0$ singularity (from

1358: now on we will use ``high-energy'' to mean ``high-frequency'' by a

1359: slight abuse of language originating from the quantum theory).

1360: 

1361:  We first study the effective potential $V_{{\rm

1362: eff}}$, and especially its asymptotic form at small $r$. Then we

1363: compute the transmission and reflection coefficients for fixed $l$

1364: in the high-energy limit. Finally we combine that result with the

1365: high-$l$ limit, where the partial cross section vanishes. We sum

1366: over $l$ and obtain the $\omega $ dependence of the (high-energy)

1367: total cross section for transmission.

1368: 

1369: \subsection{General features of the effective potential}

1370: 

1371: Consider first the qualitative behavior of the effective potential

1372: $V_{{\rm eff}}$. For concreteness we shall consider here a wave

1373: propagating from past null infinity of the negative-$r$ universe

1374: towards $r=0$. At large $|r|$, we have the usual centrifugal

1375: barrier

1376: \begin{equation}

1377: V_{{\rm eff}}\cong \frac{l(l+1)}{r^{2}}\qquad \qquad (|r|\gg M).

1378: \label{Vlarger}

1379: \end{equation}

1380: At small $|r|$, the potential takes the asymptotic form

1381: \begin{equation}

1382: V_{{\rm eff}}\cong

1383: l(l+1)\frac{Q^{2}}{r^{4}}-2\frac{Q^{4}}{r^{6}}\qquad \qquad

1384: (|r|\ll Q).  \label{Vsmallr}

1385: \end{equation}

1386: Here we only keep the leading order in $r/Q$. We do keep, however,

1387: the term $ \propto r^{-4}$ in the right-hand side because it is

1388: proportional to $l(l+1)$. This term will become important for

1389: partial waves of sufficiently large $l$, which are involved in the

1390: calculation of the total high-energy transmission cross-section

1391: (see below).

1392: 

1393: The contribution of any particular $l$ to the total high-energy

1394: cross-section is suppressed by the kinematic factor $k^{-2}$ in

1395: Eq. (\ref {total-cross-section}) below (while it will turn out

1396: that $\sigma \gg k^{-2}$). Therefore, at high energy the total

1397: cross section is dominated by partial waves with $l\gg 1$, which

1398: we shall assume hereafter. Such waves of relatively small or

1399: moderate energy will be reflected already at the large-$|r|$

1400: centrifugal barrier (\ref{Vlarger}). Only waves with sufficiently

1401: high energy, $\omega >l/Q,$ will penetrate into the central region

1402: $|r|\ll Q$. The scattering features of these high-energy waves

1403: will be dominated by the small-$|r|$ potential (\ref{Vsmallr}).

1404: This potential has a peak value (hereafter we often replace

1405: $l(l+1)$ by $l^{2}$, which is justified because $l\gg 1$)

1406: $$

1407: V_{\max }\cong \frac{l^{6}}{27Q^{2}},

1408: $$

1409: located at

1410: $$

1411: |r|\cong r_{peak}:= \sqrt{3}Q/l\,.

1412: $$

1413: It acts as a repulsive barrier ($\propto r^{-4}$) at $Q\gg

1414: |r|>r_{peak}$, and as a potential well ($\propto -r^{-6}$) at

1415: $|r|<r_{peak}$.

1416: 

1417: The above discussion immediately suggests that partial waves with

1418: $\omega \ll \omega _{peak}$, where

1419: \begin{equation}

1420: \omega _{peak}:= \sqrt{V_{\max }}\cong \frac{l^{3}}{\sqrt{27}Q}\,,

1421: \label{wpeak}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: will be fully reflected by the potential barrier at

1424: $|r|>r_{peak}$. However, partial waves with $\omega \gg \omega

1425: _{peak}$ will predominantly feel the potential well $\propto

1426: -r^{-6}$ at $|r|<r_{peak}$. These waves will be partially

1427: transmitted, as we analyze in the next subsection.

1428: 

1429: For later convenience we transform the small-$|r|$ potential from

1430: $r$ to $r^*$, using $r^{3}\cong 3\,Q^{2}\, r^*$:

1431: \begin{equation}

1432: V_{{\rm eff}}\cong

1433: \frac{l^{2}}{Q^{2/3}(3r^*)^{4/3}}-{\frac{2}{9\,r^{*~2}}} \qquad

1434: \qquad (r\ll Q).  \label{Vsmallr*}

1435: \end{equation}

1436: The peak is located at

1437: $$

1438: |r^*|\cong r^*_{peak}:= \sqrt{3}Q/l^{3}\,.

1439: $$

1440: Although we are primarily considering here a wave coming from the

1441: negative-$r$ past null infinity, the case of a wave propagating

1442: from $r_{-}$ towards $r=0$ may be treated in exactly the same

1443: manner. Note that the small-$|r|$ potential (\ref{Vsmallr}) or

1444: (\ref{Vsmallr*}) is even in $r$ or $r^*$, respectively.

1445: Consequently the high-energy transmission amplitude for partial

1446: waves is the same for both cases. (Obviously the transmission

1447: probability is exactly the same, even for finite $\omega $.)

1448: 

1449: \subsection{Amplitudes at high energy and fixed $l$}

1450: 

1451: \label{trasnmission-reflection}It is instructive to look at the

1452: scattering in the high-energy limit. Normally, the potential is

1453: bounded, hence the transmission amplitude approaches $1$ and the

1454: reflection vanishes at this limit. However, here we have an

1455: unbounded (attractive) potential near $r=r^{*}=0$, which leads to

1456: partial reflection even at the high-energy limit.

1457: 

1458: For fixed $l$ and high energy, $\omega \gg \omega _{peak}$, the

1459: potential is dominated by

1460: $$

1461: V_{{\rm eff}}\cong -{\frac{2}{9\,r^{*~2}}\equiv }V_{{\rm

1462: eff,sing}}\,.

1463: $$

1464: We therefore need to solve the scattering problem

1465: \begin{equation}

1466: 0=[-{\partial }_{r*r*}+V_{{\rm eff,sing}}(r^*)-\omega ^{2}]\phi

1467: ^{*}. \label{V-singular}

1468: \end{equation}

1469: Passing to the dimensionless variable

1470:  \footnote{The negative sign

1471: in the definition of $x$ was introduced in order for the incoming

1472: wave to propagate from large positive $x$ values (null infinity)

1473: towards smaller $x$ values.}

1474: \begin{equation}

1475: x=-r^{*}\,\omega ,  \label{xr*}

1476: \end{equation}

1477: the equation is transformed into

1478: \begin{equation}

1479: 0=[-{\partial }_{xx}-{\frac{2}{9\,x^{2}}}-1]\,\phi ^{*}.

1480: \end{equation}

1481: Its general solution is

1482: \begin{equation}

1483: \phi ^{*}=c_{1}\,\phi _{1}^{*}+c_{2}\,\phi _{2}^{*}\,,

1484: \label{high-energy-soln}

1485: \end{equation}

1486: with

1487: \begin{eqnarray}

1488: \phi _{1}^{*} &=&\sqrt{x}\,J_{1/6}(x),  \nonumber \\

1489: \phi _{2}^{*} &=&\sqrt{x}\,J_{-1/6}(x)  \label{positivex}

1490: \end{eqnarray}

1491: (for $x>0$), where $J_{n}$ are Bessel functions of order $n$ (see

1492: appendix \ref{BesselApp}). The coefficients $c_{1}\,,c_{2}$ will

1493: be determined below.

1494: 

1495: In order to extend the solution (\ref{high-energy-soln}) across

1496: $x=0$, we first express it in terms of $r$. Recall that at small

1497: $r$,

1498: $$

1499: r^*\cong {\frac{r^{3}}{3\,Q^{2}},}

1500: $$

1501: and, furthermore, $r^*(r)$ is analytic at $r=0$. From the local

1502: behavior of the Bessel functions $J_{n}(\lambda )$ near $\lambda

1503: =0$ (see appendix \ref{BesselApp}), and that of $r^*$ near $r=0$,

1504: it follows that $\phi _{1}^{*} $ and $\phi _{2}^{*}$ take the form

1505: \begin{eqnarray}

1506: \phi _{1}^{*} &=&r^{2}\,A_{1/6}^{J}(r^{6}),  \nonumber \\

1507: \phi _{2}^{*} &=&rA_{-1/6}^{J}(r^{6}),  \label{fir}

1508: \end{eqnarray}

1509: where $A_{\pm 1/6}^{J}(\lambda )$ are some real functions (for

1510: real $\lambda $), analytic at $\lambda =0$. Obviously both $\phi

1511: _{1}^{*}(r)$ and $\phi _{2}^{*}(r)$ have a unique real analytic

1512: extension through $r=0$.\footnote{Recall that $\phi _{1}^{*}(r)$

1513: and $\phi _{2}^{*}(r)$ must extend to $r>0$ as real and analytic

1514: functions, because the radial equation (\ref {separation-of-var})

1515: is real and analytic (and $\phi _{1}^{*},\phi _{2}^{*}$ are real

1516: at $r<0$).} The form of Eq. (\ref{fir}) ensures that $\phi

1517: _{1}^{*}$ extends as an even function, and $\phi _{2}^{*}$ as an

1518: odd one. Hence for negative $x$ we get

1519: \begin{eqnarray}

1520: \phi _{1}^{*}(x) &=&\sqrt{|x|}\,J_{1/6}(|x|),  \nonumber \\

1521: \phi _{2}^{*}(x) &=&-\sqrt{|x|}\,J_{-1/6}(|x|).  \label{negativex}

1522: \end{eqnarray}

1523: In order to get the coefficients $c_{1}\,,c_{2}$  --  and the

1524: transmission and reflection coefficients  --  we impose the

1525: large-$r^{*}$ boundary conditions. Since we are considering here a

1526: wave propagating from (say) past null infinity (large negative

1527: $r^*$), we assume that no waves are entering from the inner

1528: horizon $(r^{*}\to +\infty )$. This corresponds to pure asymptotic

1529: behavior $\propto {\rm exp}(-i\,\omega \,r^{*})={\rm exp}(i\,x)$

1530: at $x\to -\infty $. Thus, in terms of $x$ the asymptotic behavior

1531: at the boundaries is

1532: \begin{equation}

1533: \begin{array}{cclcc}

1534: \phi ^{*} & \cong  & {\rm exp}(i\,x)+R(\omega )\,{\rm exp}(-ix) &

1535: \mbox{  at

1536: } & x\to +\infty \,,\nonumber \\

1537: \phi ^{*} & \cong  & T(\omega )\,{\rm exp}(ix) & \mbox{  at  } &

1538: x\to - \infty \,.

1539: \end{array}

1540: \label{boundary}

1541: \end{equation}

1542: Note that since $\omega$ got scaled out of the equation

1543: $T(\omega),\, R(\omega)$ are actually independent of $\omega$.

1544: 

1545: The asymptotic form of the Bessel functions for large (positive)

1546: argument is given in Eq. (\ref{BesselAsymp}). For $n=1/6$ it reads

1547: $$

1548: {\rm exp}(\pm i|x|)\cong \sqrt{\pi \,|x|/2}\,{\rm exp}(\pm i\pi

1549: /3)\left[ (1 \pm i\sqrt{3})J_{1/6}(|x|)\mp 2iJ_{-1/6}(|x|)\right]

1550: .

1551: $$

1552: Applying it first to the inner-horizon boundary ($x\to -\infty $),

1553: along with Eq. (\ref{negativex}), one finds

1554: \begin{eqnarray*}

1555: c_{1} &=&\sqrt{\pi /2}\,{\rm exp}(-i\pi /3)(1-i\sqrt{3})T(\omega ), \\

1556: c_{2} &=&-i\sqrt{2\pi }\,{\rm exp}(-i\pi /3)T(\omega ).

1557: \end{eqnarray*}

1558: Similarly, when applied to the null-infinity boundary ($x\to

1559: +\infty $), along with Eq. (\ref{positivex}), it yields

1560: 

1561: \begin{eqnarray*}

1562: c_{1} &=&\sqrt{\pi \,/2}\left[ {\rm exp}(i\pi

1563: /3)(1+i\sqrt{3})+{\rm exp}(-i \pi /3)(1-i\sqrt{3})R(\omega )\right] , \\

1564: c_{2} &=&-i\sqrt{2\pi }\left[ {\rm exp}(i\pi /3)-{\rm exp}(-i\pi

1565: /3)R(\omega )\right] .

1566: \end{eqnarray*}

1567: Combining the two expressions for $c_{1}\,,c_{2}$ and solving for

1568: $R$ and $T$, one obtains \be

1569:  R=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}i\, , \qquad T=\frac{1}{2} \,.

1570:  \ee

1571: 

1572: We conclude that for any $l$, at the high-energy limit a fraction

1573: $|R|^{2}=3/4$ of the influx is reflected and a fraction

1574: $|T|^{2}=1/4$ is transmitted to the other side of the $r=0$

1575: singularity. As was mentioned above, this applies to both waves

1576: coming from past null infinity (of the negative-$r$ universe

1577: beyond the singularity) and waves coming from the inner horizon

1578: towards the $r=0$ singularity.

1579: 

1580: \subsection{Summing over $l$}

1581: 

1582: \label{summing-l}

1583: 

1584: 

1585: The total cross section for transmission is given by a sum over

1586: all partial waves $l$:

1587: \begin{equation}

1588: \sigma ={\frac{\pi }{k^{2}}}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty

1589: }(2\,l+1)\,|T_{l}|^{2}, \label{total-cross-section}

1590: \end{equation}

1591: where $k$ is the momentum of the incoming plane wave ($k=\omega $

1592: for a massless field, which we assume from now on in this

1593: subsection). We shall consider here the cross section at the

1594: high-energy limit. As mentioned above, at this limit the total

1595: cross section is dominated by the contribution from modes $l\gg

1596: 1$, because each particular $l$ is suppressed by the factor

1597: $\omega ^{-2}$, while it will turn out that $\sigma \gg \omega

1598: ^{-2}$.

1599:  The result of the previous subsection, $|T_{l}|^{2}\cong 1/4$,

1600: holds for $l$ values that are not too large. However, for any

1601: fixed and large $\omega $ there is some large enough $l$ where the

1602: transmission practically vanishes. For instance, for classical

1603: flat-space scattering off a rigid target of length scale $L$

1604: (``rigid'' means here $\omega $-independent $L$), if the impact

1605: parameter $b$ is much larger than $L $ then the absorption

1606: vanishes. Since $b=l/p$ (and $p=\omega $ in our massless case) we

1607: see that for $l>L\omega $ the absorption vanishes. We will now

1608: show that in our case the suppression of transmission already

1609: happens for $l>(Q\omega \,)^{1/3}$.

1610: 

1611: A rough estimate of the total large-$\omega$ cross section can be

1612: easily done based on the qualitative features of $V_{{\rm eff}}$

1613: at small $r$. For $\omega \gg \omega _{peak}$, where $\omega

1614: _{peak}$ is defined in (\ref{wpeak}), the above high-energy result

1615: $|T_{l}|^{2}\cong 1/4 $ holds. For $\omega $ significantly smaller

1616: than $\omega _{peak}$ the incoming wave will encounter the

1617: potential barrier \be

1618:  V_{{\rm eff}}\cong \frac{l^{2}}{Q^{2/3}(3r^*)^{4/3}}

1619:  \label{Vbarrier}

1620:   \ee and will be tunnelling suppressed there. [In fact, an

1621: effective tunnelling suppression requires that $\omega \Delta$ is

1622: greater than $1$, where $\Delta $ is the tunnelling length scale

1623: in the barrier in terms of $r^*$, i.e. from (\ref{Vbarrier})

1624: $\Delta \sim (\omega ^{3}Q/l^{3})^{-1/2}$. But this is

1625: automatically satisfied because $\omega \Delta \sim (\omega

1626: Q/l^{3})^{-1/2}$ is roughly $(\omega _{peak}/\omega )^{1/2}$,

1627: which is $\gg 1$ in the present discussion.] Thus, for a rough

1628: estimate of the large-$\omega $ cross section we may substitute

1629: $|T_{l}|^{2}\cong 1/4$ for $l\ll l_{c}$ and negligible

1630: $|T_{l}|^{2}$ for $l\gg l_{c}$, where \be

1631:  l_{c}:= \sqrt{3}(Q\omega )^{1/3} \ee

1632: can be read off the expression for $\omega_{peak}$ (\ref{wpeak}).

1633: 

1634: Equation (\ref{total-cross-section}) then yields the total cross

1635: section:

1636: \begin{equation}

1637: \sigma \sim \frac{l_{c}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}}\sim

1638: {\frac{Q^{2/3}}{\omega ^{4/3}}.}  \label{cross-section1}

1639: \end{equation}

1640: The total cross section may also be obtained from $l_c$ by a simple argument:

1641: the critical maximal impact parameter for

1642: transmission is $b_{\rm max} = l_c/ \omega$, and hence the total size

1643: (cross-section) of the target for transmission is

1644: \begin{equation}

1645: \sigma \sim b_{\rm max}^2 = \frac{l_{c}^{2}}{\omega ^{2}}\sim

1646: {\frac{Q^{2/3}}{\omega ^{4/3}}. }  \label{cross-section2}

1647: \end{equation}

1648: 

1649: In the above estimate we have not taken into account the

1650: contribution coming from the range $l\sim l_{c}$. A more rigorous

1651: derivation of the cross section

1652: (\ref{cross-section1},\ref{cross-section2}), which properly treats

1653: this range as well, may be done by analyzing the rescaling

1654: properties of the small-$r$ scattering problem, i.e.

1655: \begin{equation}

1656: \lbrack -{\partial }_{r^{*}\,r^{*}}+V_{{\rm {eff}}}-\omega

1657: ^{2}]\phi =0

1658: \end{equation}

1659: with the potential (\ref{Vsmallr*}). Transforming to a new

1660: dimensionless variable

1661: \begin{equation}

1662: x:=-{\frac{l^{3}}{\,Q}r^{*},}

1663: \end{equation}

1664: the equation becomes

1665: $$

1666: \lbrack -{\partial }_{x\,x}+\hat{V}(x)-\Omega ^{2}]\phi =0,

1667: $$

1668: where

1669: $$

1670: \hat{V}(x)=-{\frac{2}{9\,x^{2}}}+{\frac{1}{(3x)^{4/3}}}

1671: $$

1672: and

1673: $$

1674: \Omega :={\frac{Q}{l^{3}}\omega .}

1675: $$

1676: The boundary conditions at large $|x|$ are, in accordance with Eq.

1677: (\ref{boundary}),

1678: \begin{equation}

1679: \begin{array}{cclcc}

1680: \phi ^{*} & \cong  & {\rm exp}(i \Omega x)+R(\Omega )\,{\rm exp}(-i \Omega x)

1681: & \mbox{  at } & x\to +\infty \,,\nonumber \\

1682: \phi ^{*} & \cong  & T(\Omega )\,{\rm exp}(i \Omega x)

1683: & \mbox{  at  } & x\to -\infty \,.

1684: \end{array}

1685: \label{boundary1}

1686: \end{equation}

1687: Hence in this limit of large $\omega $ and large $l$ the

1688: transmission amplitude depends only on $\Omega$, i.e.

1689: \begin{equation}

1690: T=T({\frac{\omega \,Q}{l^{3}}}).

1691: \end{equation}

1692: The cross section is

1693: $$

1694: \sigma ={\frac{\pi }{\omega ^{2}}}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty

1695: }(2\,l+1)\,|T_{l}|^{2} \cong {\frac{2\pi }{\omega ^{2}}}\int

1696: \,l\,\,|T({\frac{\omega \,Q}{l^{3}}} )|^{2}dl,

1697: $$

1698: where we used $l\gg 1$ to replace $2\,l+1$ by $2\,l$ and the sum

1699: by an integral. Finally, transforming from $l$ to

1700: $\hat{l}:=l/(\omega \,Q)^{1/3}$ we find

1701: \begin{equation}

1702: \sigma \cong c{\frac{Q^{2/3}}{\omega ^{4/3}},}

1703: \end{equation}

1704: where

1705: $$

1706: c=2\pi \int \,\hat{l}\,\,|T(\hat{l}^{-3})|^{2}d\hat{l},

1707: $$

1708: in agreement with the above estimate (\ref{cross-section1}).

1709: 

1710: 

1711: Having found the total cross section for transmission, one may

1712: inquire about the total cross section for scattering. At large

1713: distances this is just like a Coulomb problem with a length scale

1714: $\,M$. Due to the infinite range of the gravitational force, we

1715: expect the cross section for scattering to be infinite

1716: for a massive field.

1717: However, for a massless field the scattering potential decays

1718: (after subtracting the standard centrifugal piece

1719: $l(l+1)/r^{*~2}$) as $\ln (r^*/M)/r^{*~3}$. This is a short-range

1720: potential, hence we expect a finite scattering cross-section in

1721: the massless case.

1722: 

1723: The peculiar $\omega$ dependence of the transmission cross section

1724: (\ref{cross-section1}) through the singularity can be compared

1725: with two other systems. For black holes with non-zero area the

1726: large $\omega$ absorption cross section through the event horizon

1727: tends to the geodesic cross section, and hence $\sigma \sim

1728: \omega^0$. For elementary particles, on the other hand, the

1729: high-energy scattering cross section $\sigma_{\rm scat} \sim

1730: \omega^{-2}$ which is the kinematical factor which multiplies the

1731: dimensionless scattering amplitude. So we see that this system

1732: lies between the two examples above.

1733: 

1734: Another interpretation issue is whether the partial

1735: transmission/partial scattering behavior at large $\omega$ should

1736: be interpreted as a beam splitter for single particles. The

1737: question is whether a wave packet can be made small enough so that

1738: it fits into a target of size $\sim \omega^{-2/3}$ -- otherwise it

1739: will not be fully split. Imagine that we set a ``lens'' (one which

1740: affects $\phi$ waves) at a distance $f \sim \omega^{0} \gg Q$ from

1741: the black hole. We know that the spot size at focus can be made as

1742: small as $\lambda\, f/D$, where $\lambda=2\, \pi/\omega$ is the

1743: wavelength and $D$ is the aperture size, and we here imagine that

1744: space is flat and we need to hit a target with the same cross

1745: section as the $r=0$ singularity. From $\lambda\, f/D \ll

1746: \omega^{-2/3}$ we find that we need $D \ge \omega^{-1/3}$. So such

1747: focusing can be readily achieved, even with a small size lens.

1748: This suggest that the singularity may indeed act as a beam

1749: splitter. Note, however, that in the above analysis we only

1750: considered incoming {\it plane waves} (or pure partial waves with

1751: well-defined $l$ values). In order to verify the beam-splitter

1752: behavior one needs to explicitly analyze the transmission

1753: amplitude in the geometrical configuration considered above (i.e.

1754: a narrow beem focused on a small region near $r=0$). This

1755: calculation is beyond the scope of the present paper.

1756: 

1757: \section{Generalizing the backgrounds}

1758: \label{generalizations}

1759: 

1760: \subsection{Higher dimensions}

1761: \label{highd}

1762: 

1763: 

1764: The background RN metric and gauge field in $d \ge 4$ dimensions

1765: are \cite{MyersPerry} \bea

1766:  ds^2 &=& -f\, dt^2 + f^{-1}\, dr^2 + r^2\, d\Omega_{d-2}^{~2} \non

1767:  A &=& -{Q \over r^{d-3}}\, dt \non

1768:  f &=& 1-{r_+^{d-3}+r_-^{d-3} \over r^{d-3}} + {(r_+\, r_-)^{d-3} \over

1769: r^{2\,(d-3)}}

1770:   \label{RNmetric2}

1771:  \eea

1772:  The mass and charge are \bea

1773:  M &=& {(d-2)\, \Omega_{d-2} \over 16\, \pi}( r_+^{d-3} + r_-^{d-3} ) \non

1774:  Q &=& {\rm const}\,\sqrt{r_+ \, r_-}^{~d-3} \eea

1775: where $\Omega_{d-2}$ is the area of the $d-2$ sphere, and we do

1776: not fix the constant in front of the charge which depends on the

1777: normalization chosen for the vector field. In order to get

1778: $d$-dimensional Schwarzschild one sets $r_-=0, ~ r_+=r_0$.

1779: 

1780: After separation of the time variable ($\del_{tt} \rightarrow

1781: -\omega^2$) the scalar wave equation becomes \be

1782:   \br  {1 \over f\, r^{d-2}}\, \del_r\, f\, r^{d-2}\, \del_r -

1783:  {l\, (l+d-3) \over f\, r^2} + f^{-2}\, \omega^2 \kt \,

1784:  \phiom =0 ~.

1785:  \label{SeparatedWaveEqd} \ee

1786: 

1787: Considering the charged case first, and comparing with the 4d case

1788: (\ref{rnreg}) one notes a change: the equation

1789: (\ref{SeparatedWaveEqd}) is not regular anymore at $r=0$ (since

1790: $f\, r^{d-2}$ is has a pole).

1791:  Actually it is regular-singular with leading behavior \be

1792:   \br -\del_{rr} + {d-4 \over r}\, \( 1+O \( r^{d-3} \) \)

1793:   \del_r + l\, (l+d-3)\, O \( r^{2(d-4)}\) + \omega^2\, O \( r^{4(d-3)} \) \kt\, \phiom =0~.

1794:   \label{reg-sing-dg4} \ee

1795: The two solutions of the characteristic equation are $r^0,\,

1796: r^{d-3}$. Since the difference of the exponents is integral it is

1797: possible {\it a priori} that the $r^0$ solution has a $\log$ piece

1798: of the following form $\phiom=r^0 + \dots+ \log(r)\, r^{d-3} +

1799: \dots $, however it is seen not to be the case by explicitly

1800: Taylor expanding $\phiom$ in the differential equation

1801: (\ref{reg-sing-dg4}).

1802: 

1803: For Schwarzschild, on the other hand, one finds the same leading

1804: behavior as in 4d \be

1805:  \br \del_{rr} + {1 \over r}\,  \del_r + \dots \kt \phiom=0 \ee

1806: and thus the leading behavior of the two independent solutions is

1807: still $r^0,\, \log(r)$.

1808: 

1809: As in subsection \ref{normal-form-subsection} we may find the

1810: normal form of the radial equation (\ref{SeparatedWaveEqd}). The

1811: $r^*$ coordinate is defined by \be

1812:  dr^* = {dr \over f} ~~,\ee

1813:  the field is redefined by \be

1814:  \phi^* := r^{(d-2)/2}\phi~, \ee

1815: and the resulting effective potential is

1816:  \bea V_{\rm eff} &=& \Delta V_{\rm eff} + f\, {l\, (l+d-3) \over r^2} \non

1817:    \Delta V_{\rm eff} &=& {d-2 \over 2}\, {f \over r^{(d-2)/2}} \del_r

1818: (r^{(d-4)/2}\, f)

1819:   \label{Veffd} \eea

1820: where we use the same notations as in subsection \ref{normal-form-subsection}.

1821: 

1822: We start by looking at the charged case. The leading behavior near

1823: the singularity (at $r=0$) is \bea

1824:  r^* &\cong& {r^{2\, d-5} \over (2 \, d -5)\, (r_+\, r_-)^{(d-3)}}  \non

1825:  V_{\rm eff} &\cong& -{(d-2)\, (3d-8) \over 4\, (2d-5)^2}\, {1

1826: \over r^{*~2} }   \label{Veff-sing-RN} \eea

1827:  Given an effective potential $V_{\rm eff} \simeq -c/r^{*~2}$ the order

1828: $n$ of the Bessel functions which appear in the high $\omega$

1829: solution is given by (see appendix \ref{BesselApp}) \be

1830:  n^2 = {1\ \over 4} - c ~~.\ee

1831: Hence, the second equation in (\ref{Veff-sing-RN}) determines \be

1832:  |n|_{\rm RN}={1 \over 4} \, {d-3 \over  d-5/2} \ee

1833:  generalizing the 4d result $|n|=1/6$ (\ref{positivex}).

1834: 

1835: We note in passing that for the 2d black hole we will show

1836: in the next subsection

1837: that $V_{\rm eff} \simeq -3/(16 r^{*~2})$ and hence one can define

1838: an ``effective'' or ``equivalent'' RN dimension to be $d_{\rm

1839: eff}= \infty$ or $11/4$, and $|n|_{2d}=1/4$.

1840: 

1841: The transmission and reflection coefficients for high $\omega$

1842:  and fixed $l$ follow from the asymptotics of the Bessel functions as in

1843: subsection \ref{trasnmission-reflection}:

1844:  \bea |R| &=&  |\cos (n\, \pi)| \non

1845:      |T| &=&    |\sin (n\, \pi)| \label{rrtt} \eea

1846: The $\omega$ dependence of the total cross section for

1847: transmission can be derived along the lines of subsection

1848: \ref{summing-l}. The leading terms in the potential (\ref{Veffd})

1849: at $r \sim 0$ are \be

1850:  V_{\rm eff} \simeq l^2\, {(r_+\, r_-)^{d-3} \over r^{2\, d-4}}-

1851:  {d-2 \over 2}\, ({3 \over 2}\, d -4)\, {(r_+\, r_-)^{2(d-3)} \over r^{4\,

1852:  d-10}} ~ .\ee

1853:  For fixed $l$ the potential has a maximum at \be

1854:  r_{peak} \simeq {1 \over \sqrt[d-3]{l}} ~.\ee

1855:  Equating $V(r_{peak})$ with $\omega^2$ we get the transition value

1856:  for $l$: \be

1857:  l_c \sim \omega^{d-3 \over 2\, d -5}~. \ee

1858: % r_{\mbox{max}} \sim {1 \over \omega^{2\, d-5}} \\

1859: Finally, we evaluate the total transmission cross section by

1860: employing qualitative classical-mechanics considerations.

1861: Classically the cross section is obtained by estimating the

1862: maximal value of impact parameter $b$ for which a significant

1863: transmission (or scattering, in the more general context) still

1864: occurs. Using $b=l/\omega$ we get $b_{\rm max} \sim l_c/\omega$.

1865: Since in $d$ dimensions the cross section scales as $b_{\rm

1866: max}^{d-2}$, we find \be

1867:  \sigma \sim b_{\rm max}^{d-2} \sim \left( {l_c \over \omega}

1868:  \right)^{d-2} \sim \omega^{-{(d-2)^2 \over 2\, d-5}}~. \ee

1869: 

1870: 

1871: For \Schw black holes the leading behavior near the singularity

1872: (at $r=0$) is \bea

1873:  r^* &\cong& -{r^{d-2} \over (d -2)\, r_0^{d-3}}  \non

1874: V_{\rm eff} &\cong& -{1 \over 4\, r^{*~2} }

1875:     \label{Veff-sing-Schw} ~.\eea

1876: Thus independently of dimension one has $c=1/4$ and hence total

1877: reflection: \bea

1878:  n &=& 0 \non

1879:  T &=& 0 ~~.\eea

1880: 

1881: \subsection{The 2d black hole}

1882: \label{tdss}

1883: 

1884: Black holes in two dimensions are apparently outside the pattern

1885: of the $d\geq 4$ black holes discussed in the previous sections

1886: (although as we shall recall \cite{GiveonRabinoviciSever} they

1887: turn out to share similar features). Such solutions require, for

1888: instance, the presence of a dilaton. In this subsection we shall

1889: consider two dimensional dilaton gravity with an Abelian gauge

1890: field which is inspired by string theory. The action

1891: is~\footnote{This can be obtained, for instance, as (part of) a

1892: low-energy effective action of an heterotic string in two

1893: dimensions (for a review, see \cite{Polchinski}).}

1894:  \be

1895:    S=\int d^2 x\sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}\left(

1896:    R+4g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu\Phi\del_\nu\Phi-{1\over 4} F^2-\lambda\right)~,

1897:  \ee

1898: where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the (string frame) metric, $\mu,\nu=0,1$,

1899: $\Phi$ is the dilaton, $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the field strength of an

1900: Abelian gauge field $A_{\mu}$, and $\lambda$ is the cosmological

1901: constant. In this two dimensional theory, the charged black hole

1902: solution is given by \cite{nappiyost}

1903:  \bea

1904:     ds^2 &\propto & f^{-1}\, d\rho^2 -f\, dt^2 \non

1905:     A &\propto& -{Q\over r}\, dt \non

1906:     \Phi(\rho) &=& \Phi_0- \half \rho~, \label{twodsol}

1907:  \eea

1908: where $\Phi_0$ is a constant and

1909:  \be

1910:     f(r)=1-{2M\over r}+{Q^2\over r^2}\ ,\qquad r=e^\rho~.

1911:     \label{twodf}

1912:  \ee

1913: Note that here $ds^2\propto f^{-1}\, {dr^2\over r^2} -f\, dt^2$,

1914: which is different from the generic $d\geq 4$ cases in eq.

1915: (\ref{RNmetric2}). Nevertheless, the geometry of this 2d

1916: black-hole is similar to a two dimensional slice of the

1917: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solution, whose complete Penrose diagram is

1918: given in figure \ref{PenroseRN}. In the 4d case every point in

1919: figure \ref{PenroseRN} is actually a two sphere, while in the 2d

1920: case there is a non-trivial dilaton instead.

1921: 

1922: 

1923: An uncharged scalar field is minimally coupled to the background

1924: above as follows: \be

1925:    S=\int d^2 x\sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}\left(

1926:    R+4g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu\Phi\del_\nu\Phi-{1\over 4} F^2-\lambda -

1927:    g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \psi\del_\nu \psi-m^2\psi^2\right)~,

1928:  \ee

1929: where in this section

1930: $\psi$ denotes the scalar field to distinguish it

1931: from the dilaton $\Phi$. The wave equation of $\psi$ is:

1932:  \be

1933:     \Box_\Phi\psi={e^{2\Phi}\over\sqrt{-g}}\, \del_\mu\,

1934:     \sqrt{-g}\, e^{-2\Phi}\, g^{\mu\nu}\,

1935:     \del_\nu\psi=\(\del_rr^2f\del_r-f^{-1}\del_{tt}\)\psi=

1936:     m^2\psi~, \label{laplace}

1937:  \ee

1938: where we used $g_{rr}=1/(f\, r^2)$ and $\sqrt{-g}=e^{2(\Phi -\Phi_0)}=1/r$.

1939: Hence, in the two dimensional case the dilaton $\Phi$ plays again

1940: the role of the 4d spherical coordinates, now in the wave

1941: equation.

1942: 

1943: As in the $d\geq 4$ cases, we separate variables

1944:  \be

1945:     \psi(r,t)=\psi_\omega(r)e^{i\omega t}~.

1946:  \ee

1947: The equation for $\psi_\omega$ is:

1948:  \be

1949:     \(     \del_rr^2f\del_r+\omega^2f^{-1}-m^2\)\psi_\omega = 0~.

1950:     \label{eqpsi}

1951:  \ee

1952: Again, we define a coordinate $r^*$,

1953:  \be

1954:     dr^*={dr\over rf(r)}~,

1955:  \ee

1956: and a new field variable

1957:  \be

1958:     \psi^{*}:= \sqrt{r}\psi~,

1959:  \ee

1960: such that eq. (\ref{eqpsi}) turns into:

1961:  \be

1962:     \left[-\del_{r^*r^*}+V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)-\omega^2\right]\psi^{*}_\omega=0~.

1963:  \label{turnsin}

1964:  \ee

1965: The effective potential is now

1966:  \be

1967:     V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)=\Delta V_{{\rm eff}}+fm^2~,

1968:  \ee

1969: where

1970:  \be

1971:     \Delta V_{{\rm eff}}=\half\sqrt{r}f\del_r(\sqrt{r}f)~.

1972:  \ee

1973: Next we inspect the behavior of the wave equation (\ref{eqpsi})

1974: near the singularity of the 2d RN-like black hole. When $Q\neq 0$:

1975:  \bea

1976:     &{1\over Q^2}\(\del_r r^2f\del_r+\omega^2f^{-1}-m^2\)\psi_\omega=

1977:     \non &\left[(1+...)\del_{rr} +O(r^0)\del_r-{m^2\over Q^2}+

1978:     (1+...){r^2\over Q^4}w^2\right]\psi_\omega = 0~,

1979:  \eea

1980: where ``$...$'' stand for higher orders in $r$. As in the 4d case

1981: (\ref{rnreg}), this equation is regular at $r=0$ for every

1982: $\omega$. Moreover, near $r\sim 0$ we have

1983:  \be

1984:     r^*\cong{r^2\over 2Q^2}

1985:  \ee

1986: and hence

1987:  \be

1988:     V_{{\rm eff}}(r^*)\cong -{3\over 16\, r^{*~2}}\label{veff}~.

1989:  \ee

1990: On the other hand, for $Q=0$ -- the Schwarzschild-like 2d black

1991: hole -- the equation for $\psi_\omega$ is:

1992:  \bea

1993:     &-{1\over 2Mr}\(\del_rr^2f\del_r+\omega^2f^{-1}-m^2\)\psi_\omega=

1994:     \non &\left[(1+...)\del_{rr} +{(1+...)\over r}\del_r+{m^2\over 2Mr}+

1995:     (1+...){\omega^2\over 4M^2}\right]\psi_\omega = 0~.

1996:  \eea

1997: Again, as in the 4d case (\ref{Schw-var-sep}), it is not regular

1998: at the singularity, but instead it is regular-singular. In the

1999: uncharged case, to leading order near $r\sim 0$ we have

2000:  \be

2001:     r^*\cong -{r\over 2M}

2002:  \ee

2003: and hence

2004:  \be

2005:     V_{\rm eff}(r^*) \cong -{1 \over 4\, r^{*~2}}~.\label{veffunch}

2006:  \ee

2007: As discussed in previous sections, the solutions to high frequency

2008: scattering wave equations (\ref{turnsin}) are given in terms of

2009: Bessel functions, which depend on the effective potential. In the

2010: charged case we read the order of the relevant Bessel function

2011: from (\ref{veff}) and appendix \ref{BesselApp}: \be |n|={1 \over

2012: 4}~, \ee and hence at high energies we find (\ref{rrtt}):

2013:  \be

2014:     |T| = |R| = {1 \over \sqrt{2}}~. \label{rt}

2015:  \ee

2016: On the other hand, for the uncharged case, from (\ref{veffunch})

2017: and (\ref{rrtt}) we read:

2018:  \bea

2019:     n &=& 0 \non

2020:     |R| = 1&,& \quad T = 0~. \label{rtunch}

2021:  \eea

2022: To summarize, we see that the features of the 2d black holes

2023: discussed in this subsection are very similar to the 4d case.

2024: 

2025: 

2026: The 2d background (\ref{twodsol}) is also an exact Conformal Field

2027: Theory (CFT) background in string theory; in

2028: \cite{GiveonRabinoviciSever} it was obtained from a family of

2029: ${SL(2,\IR)\times U(1)\over U(1)}$ quotient CFT sigma models by a

2030: Kaluza-Klein reduction\footnote{In the bosonic case it is a

2031: semi-classical approximation, while in the superconformal

2032: extension this background is claimed to be exact \cite{bars}.}. In

2033: string theory one is forced to include the regions beyond the

2034: singularity \cite{giveon} (this is argued, for instance, by using

2035: T-duality; for a review, see \cite{gpr}). The structure of the

2036: parent $SL(2,\IR)$ group allows one \cite{GiveonRabinoviciSever}

2037: to find the exact solutions to the wave

2038: equation\footnote{Scattering waves are determined from vertex

2039: operators in the $SL(2,\IR)$ CFT. Those are given by matrix

2040: elements in a unitary representation of the group. Equivalently,

2041: these are solutions to the Laplace equation (\ref{laplace}), which

2042: in this case is a solvable hypergeometric equation.}. In

2043: particular, it gives the exact reflection coefficient

2044:  \be

2045:     |R(\omega)|^2={\ch\({r_-\omega \over r_+-r_-}\)\ch(\omega)

2046: \over\ch\({r_+\omega \over r_+-r_-}\)}~,

2047:  \ee

2048: where $\omega$ is proportional to the energy of a massless

2049: particle scattered from the region beyond the black hole

2050: singularity, and $r_{\pm}$ are the locations of the event and

2051: Cauchy horizons:

2052:  \be

2053:    r_\pm=M\pm\sqrt{M^2-Q^2}~.

2054:  \ee

2055: Indeed, for the charged case $|R|^2 \longrightarrow \half$ in the

2056: limit $\omega\rightarrow\infty$, and for the uncharged case

2057: $|R|^2=1$ for every energy. These results are in agreement with

2058: (\ref{rt}) and (\ref{rtunch}), respectively.

2059: 

2060: \section{Adding perturbations}

2061:  \label{perturbations-section}

2062: 

2063: 

2064: Until now we assumed that $\phi$ was a scalar field with no mass,

2065: no charge, no back-reaction and no other interactions beyond

2066: minimal coupling to gravity. Now we will check whether our result

2067: that the time evolution is well-defined is disrupted  by any of

2068: these perturbations. To our surprise we do not encounter any

2069: problem.

2070: 

2071: 

2072: \subsection{Mass and charge}

2073: 

2074: 

2075: Adding a mass $m$ and charge $q$ for the field $\phi$ is

2076: completely captured by the form of the geodesic potential

2077: (\ref{Veff-geod}), namely one has \bea

2078:  V_{\rm eff}^{\rm wave} &=& \tilde{V}_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic} + \Delta

2079: V_{\rm eff} \non

2080:  \tilde{V}_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic} &=&

2081: \left({\frac{l\,(l+d-3)}{r^{2}}}\,+m^{2}\right)\,f(r)

2082:   -\left(E-{\frac{q\,Q}{r^{d-3}}}\right)^{2} \non

2083:  \Delta V_{\rm eff} &=& {d-2 \over 2}\, {f \over r^{(d-2)/2}} \del_r

2084: (r^{(d-4)/2}\, f)

2085:  \eea

2086:  where $\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic}$ is simply

2087:  $V_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic}$ from (\ref{Veff-geod}) with the

2088:  substitutions

2089:  $l^2 \to l(l+d-3)$

2090: and $E \to \omega$,

2091: and $\Delta V_{\rm eff}$ is the same as in the zero-mass

2092: zero-charge case (\ref{DeltaVeff},\ref{Veffd}).

2093: 

2094: Our analysis relied on the leading terms near $r \sim 0$, which we

2095: will now find to dominate over the added perturbations. For $Q

2096: \neq 0$ these are $1/r^{4 d -10}$ from $\Delta V_{\rm eff}$ and

2097: $l^2/r^{2d-4}$ from $\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic}$. Since

2098: both $m$ and $q$ contribute at order $1/r^{2d-6}$, they are

2099: irrelevant near the singularity (for $d \ge 4$). Moreover, one can

2100: confirm that the form of the subleading terms still conform with

2101: (\ref{reg-sing-dg4}) and hence there are no log pieces in the

2102: solutions.

2103: 

2104: Note however that since for $q \neq 0$ one cannot solve for

2105: $\omega^2$ in the wave equation and view it as eigen-values of

2106: some operator, any operator approach and considerations of

2107: self-adjointness (see section \ref{conditions-section}) would need

2108: to be changed.

2109: 

2110: Finally, for $Q=0$ we might as well take $q=0$ and the leading

2111: terms are $1/r^{2 d -4}$ from $\Delta V_{\rm eff}$ and

2112: $l^2/r^{d-1}$ from $\tilde{V}_{\rm eff}^{\rm geodesic}$, while $m$

2113: contributes at $1/r^{d-3}$ and is again irrelevant.

2114: 

2115: \subsection{Interactions}

2116: 

2117: We may add non-quadratic terms to the action, namely adding terms

2118: non-linear in $\phi$ to the wave equation. Much of our previous

2119: analysis, especially the separation of variables relied on

2120: linearity, hence we should reconsider it, starting from the

2121: non-linear wave equation \be

2122:  0=\Box \phi - g\, U(\phi) ~, \ee

2123:  where $g$ is a coupling constant and $U(\phi)$ is a non-linear

2124: potential term. One can attempt to solve this equation by

2125: perturbation theory with $g$ being the small parameter, namely one

2126: expands \be

2127:  \phi = \sum_j g^j\, \phi^{(j)} ~.\ee

2128: We start at zeroth order with a solution $\phi^{(0)}$ to the

2129: linearized equation \be

2130:  \Box \phi^{(0)}=0 \ee

2131: and consider whether the first correction is regular at $r=0$. The

2132: first correction satisfies \be

2133:  \Box \phi^{(1)} = g\, U(\phi^{(0)}) ~. \label{interactions-first-order} \ee

2134:  In order to solve this equation we separate the angular and time

2135:  variables \be

2136:  f^{-1}\, \Box_{\omega l}\phi^{(1)}_{\omega l} = g\, f^{-1}\, \left[

2137: U(\phi^{(0)})

2138:  \right]_{\omega l} ~. \ee

2139:  Since $\phi^{(0)}$ is regular by assumption, so are the

2140: components  $\left[ U(\phi^{(0)})

2141:  \right]_{\omega l}$. This is a non-homogeneous ordinary (second order)

2142: differential equation. A solution in the vicinity of the

2143: singularity may be obtained by Taylor expanding the equation (see

2144: also section \ref{conditions-section}). The homogeneous solutions

2145: are the smooth $\phi^{(0)}_{\omega l}$,

2146:  while the non-homogenous term added to (\ref{SeparatedWaveEqd}) is

2147: $O\(f^{-1}(r)\)$ and hence it is subleading and does not change

2148: our ability to obtain a (univalued) solution. This will happen at

2149: higher orders in $g$ as well.

2150: 

2151: 

2152: \subsection{Back-reaction for RN in $d \ge 4$}

2153: 

2154: So far we worked in the linear approximation where one neglects

2155: the back-reaction of the scalar field on the background geometry.

2156: Let us check whether including the back-reaction disrupts our

2157: result, namely whether we can find any obstruction for the

2158: solutions to the linear equation from being extended to solutions

2159: for the full non-linear system of background plus scalar field.

2160: Our analysis will be limited to lowest order back-reaction, and we

2161: shall not cover all cases, but the indications are that these

2162: solutions do survive back-reaction.

2163: 

2164: Let us define a small parameter $\eps$ such that $\phi$ is first

2165: order in $\eps$. Then at second order the background may change --

2166: the metric due to a $T_{\mu\nu}$ source, and the electromagnetic

2167: (EM) field due to the charge associated with $\phi$. For

2168: simplicity we may consider $\phi$ to be neutral. Since the metric

2169: is singular to start with, we cannot use the straight-forward

2170: criterion that the background remains regular after back-reaction.

2171: A conservative view would be to continue and look at third order

2172: whether the changes in $\phi$ as a result of the changes in the

2173: background make it singular. Another approach is to require that

2174: the singularity in the metric does not become worse after

2175: back-reaction. The latter has the advantage that one can stop at

2176: second order.

2177: 

2178: Moreover, for a charged black hole we can even save us the work of

2179: computing the second order by the following observation. Let us

2180: compare the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field with that of

2181: the EM field, namely the background source.

2182: The action for gravity + EM + an uncharged scalar field is

2183:  \be

2184:    S=\int d^d x\sqrt{-g} \left(

2185:    R-{1\over 4}F^2- g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \phi\del_\nu

2186:    \phi-m^2\phi^2 \right)~,

2187:  \ee

2188: where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric, $F$ the field strength and

2189: $\phi$ an uncharged scalar field of mass $m$. The stress tensors

2190: of the gauge and scalar fields are

2191:  \bea

2192:    T_{\mu\nu}^{(F)}&=&\half F_{\mu\rho}F_{\nu\sigma}g^{\rho\sigma}-{1\over

2193:    8}g_{\mu\nu}F^2 \non

2194:    T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi)}&=&\del_\mu\phi\del_\nu\phi- \half

2195:    g_{\mu\nu}\left[(\del\phi)^2+m^2\phi^2\right] \label{stresst}

2196:  \eea

2197: We start by comparing the scalar quantities \bea

2198:  (\del \phi)^2 &=& \del_r \phi\, \del_r \phi\ g^{rr} \sim  {1 \over

2199: r^{2(d-3)}} \non

2200:  (F^2)  &=& F_{rt}\, F_{rt}\, g^{rr}\, g^{tt} \sim {1 \over

2201:  r^{2(d-2)}} \eea

2202:  where we use the background (\ref{RNmetric2}) and the property that

2203: $\phi,\, \del_r\phi$ are regular at the singularity. We see that

2204: close to the singularity the scalar field seems to add a

2205: negligible source on top of the one from the EM field.

2206: 

2207: We now proceed to compare all components

2208:  \be \begin{array}{ll}

2209:  T_{rr}^{(F)} \sim  {1\over r^2}    \qquad     &    T_{rr}^{(\phi)} \sim 1 \\

2210:  T_{tt}^{(F)} \sim  {1\over r^{2(2d-5)}} \qquad &    T_{tt}^{(\phi)} \sim

2211: {1\over r^{4(d-3)}} \\

2212:  T_{rt}^{(F)}=0                          \qquad  &    T_{rt}^{(\phi)} \sim 1 \\

2213:  T_{\theta \theta}^{(F)} \sim  {1\over r^{2(d-3)}} \qquad &    T_{\theta

2214: \theta}^{(\phi)} \sim {1\over r^{2(d-4)}} \\

2215: \end{array}

2216:  \ee

2217: We see that indeed for the $rr,~tt$ and $\theta \theta$ components

2218: $T_{\mu \nu}^{(\phi)} \sim r^2 \, T_{\mu \nu}^{(F)}$ is

2219: negligible, while $T_{rt}^{(\phi)}$ is regular. Altogether we

2220: consider this to be strong evidence that back-reaction is weak and

2221: does not change the smoothness of the solutions.

2222: 

2223: For a charged field $\phi$ the simple argument above does not seem

2224: to work. In principle one should determine the back-reaction to

2225: the metric and gauge field and whether they are more or less

2226: singular than the original background. A preliminary analysis

2227: turned out to be involved, and so we did not reach any conclusions

2228: for this case. For similar reasons we do not discuss the

2229: back-reaction to the negative-mass \Schw either.

2230: 

2231: 

2232: \subsection{Back-reaction for the 2d black-hole}

2233: In two dimensions, the action for an uncharged scalar field

2234: coupled to the metric and dilaton is (see subsection \ref{tdss}):

2235:  \be

2236:    S=\int d^2 x\sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}\(

2237:    R+4g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu\Phi\del_\nu\Phi-{1\over 4} F^2-\lambda -

2238:    g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \psi\del_\nu \psi-m^2\psi^2\right)~,

2239:  \ee

2240: where $g_{\mu\nu}$ is the string frame metric, $\Phi$ the dilaton,

2241: $F$ is the field strength of an Abelian gauge field $A$, $\psi$ is

2242: the scalar field (to distinguish it from the dilaton) and

2243: $\lambda$ is the cosmological constant.

2244: 

2245: 

2246: Using the background (\ref{twodsol}) and the property that

2247: $\psi,\, \del_r\psi$ are regular at the singularity, we find the

2248: following behavior of the scalar stress tensor (\ref{stresst})

2249: near the singularity

2250:  \bea

2251:     e^{2\Phi}T_{rr}^{(\psi)}&\sim&1 \non

2252:     e^{2\Phi}T_{tt}^{(\psi)}&\sim&{1\over r^2} \non

2253:     e^{2\Phi}T_{rt}^{(\psi)}&\sim&1

2254:  \eea

2255: The dilaton stress tensor is

2256:  \be

2257:    e^{2\Phi}T_{\mu\nu}^{(\Phi)}=4\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu\Phi

2258:    -4g_{\mu\nu}\left(\nabla^2\Phi-(\partial\Phi)^2-{1\over 4}\lambda\right)

2259:  \ee

2260: and has the following leading behavior near the singularity

2261:  \bea

2262:     e^{2\Phi}T_{rr}^{(\Phi)}&\sim&{1\over r^2} \non

2263:     e^{2\Phi}T_{tt}^{(\Phi)}&\sim&{1\over r^4} \non

2264:     e^{2\Phi}T_{rt}^{(\Phi)}&=0

2265:  \eea

2266: Again, there is no strong back-reaction to the metric, since

2267: component-wise each component of $T_{\mu\nu}^{(\psi)}$ is either

2268: subleading to $T_{\mu\nu}^{(\Phi)}$ or regular.

2269: 

2270: To check the back-reaction to the dilaton, we define

2271:  \be

2272:     \chi=e^{-\Phi} ~~,

2273:  \ee

2274: in terms of which the action becomes

2275:  \be

2276:    S=\int d^2 x\sqrt{-g}\br4g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu\chi\del_\nu\chi+\chi^2

2277: \(R-{1\over 4} F^2-\lambda -

2278:    g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \psi\del_\nu \psi-m^2\psi^2\)\kt~.

2279:  \ee

2280: The equation of motion for $\chi$ is

2281:  \be

2282:     4\Box\chi-\(R-{1\over 4} F^2-\lambda -

2283:     g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \psi\del_\nu \psi-m^2\psi^2\)\chi=0~,

2284:     \label{eom}

2285:  \ee

2286: where $\Box$ is the Laplacian without the dilaton. In principle,

2287: we should expand the solution to (\ref{eom}) to second order in

2288: the perturbation and compare the correction to its initial

2289: value~\footnote{At zero order we have $\chi=\chi_0\sqrt{r}$

2290: (\ref{twodsol}, \ref{twodf}). The second solution to (\ref{eom})

2291: is subleading near $r=0$, so turning it on at higher orders would

2292: not change the result.}. However, just like for the metric, we

2293: recognize that the new source for $\chi$, ~($g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu

2294: \psi\del_\nu \psi-m^2\psi^2$), is negligible at the singularity

2295: relative to the background sources ($R-{1\over 4} F^2$).

2296: Therefore, we do not expect a strong back-reaction for the dilaton

2297: either. Summarizing, we find indications for a weak back-reaction

2298: near the singularity of the 2d charged black-hole.

2299: 

2300: 

2301: 

2302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2303: 

2304: \section{General conditions for resolution of a singularity}

2305: \label{conditions-section}

2306: 

2307: \subsection{Uniqueness of decomposition and natural boundary conditions}

2308: 

2309: In order for the ``singularity smoothing'' procedure which we

2310: defined in section \ref{smooth-section}  to make sense we need the

2311: existence and uniqueness of decomposition of any initial condition

2312: into a linear combination of eigen-functions $\phiom$. We know

2313: that Hermitian operators have this property, namely their

2314: eigen-functions form a basis of function space. Thus we are

2315: interested in representing the radial equation $\Box_{\omega l}\,

2316: \phiom=0$ through an operator and studying its Hermiticity, and so

2317: we define the operator $L$ by

2318:  \bea

2319:  f\, \Box_{\omega l} &=& \omega^2 - L[\del_r,r] \non

2320:  L &:=& -{f \over r^2}\, \del_r\, f\, r^2\, \del_r +

2321:  {f\, l\, (l+1) \over r^2}  \label{defL} \eea

2322: and we specialize back to 4d for definiteness. We note that $L$ is

2323: not regular at $r=0$ even for RN but only due to an overall factor

2324: of $f^2$ relative to the regular radial equation $f^{-1}\,

2325: \Box_{\omega l}$ (\ref{separation-of-var}). One may wonder whether

2326: the decomposition property would nevertheless hold for $L$. This

2327: will be answered in the negative as we shall show that the

2328: functions $\phiom$ do not span all possible functions.

2329: 

2330: Since the differential equation (\ref{separation-of-var}) is

2331: smooth at $r=0$ one can Taylor expand the equation and solutions

2332: \be \phi_\omega(r) = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\, \phi_\omega^{(j)}\, r^j

2333: \label{Taylor-phi} ~.\ee

2334:  Substituting this in  the differential equation transforms it into a

2335: recurrence equation for the Taylor coefficients

2336: $\phi_\omega^{(j)}$.

2337: 

2338: For RN one notes that the coefficient of $\omega^2$ is $f^{-2}$

2339: which is $O(r^4)$ and hence the recurrence equation is

2340: $\omega$-independent up to order $O(r^3)$ (inclusive) where

2341: $\phi_\omega^{(5)}$ is determined. Among the first 6 Taylor

2342: coefficients $\phi_\omega^{(0)}, \dots, \phi_\omega^{(5)}$ the

2343: first two may be considered to be initial conditions for the

2344: recurrence equation and the other four may be considered to be a

2345: function of them. In other words we find 4 $\omega$-independent

2346: linear relations among $\phi_\omega^{(0)}, \dots,

2347: \phi_\omega^{(5)}$. Owing to the $\omega$-independence of these

2348: relations they continue to hold for any function which can be

2349: expressed as a linear combination \be

2350:  \phi_i= \int\, d\omega\, \, \( \phi_+(\omega) + \phi_-(\omega) \)\,

2351:  \phi_{\omega}(r)~,

2352: \label{linear-combination} \ee

2353:  where $\phi_\pm(\omega)$ are arbitrary coefficients.

2354: This means that there are 4 conditions on the first 6 coefficients

2355: of any function in span($\phiom$).

2356: 

2357: For \Schw the phenomenon is similar but the details are different.

2358: We have $f^{-2}= O(r^2)$ and hence the recurrence relation is free

2359: up to (and including) the 4th coefficient $\phi_\omega^{(3)}$.

2360: Since we consider only the regular solutions then the recurrence

2361: relation requires a single initial condition $\phiom^{(0)}$  while

2362: $\phi_\omega^{(1)}, \dots, \phi_\omega^{(3)}$ may be considered to

2363: be an $\omega$-independent function of it, and hence there are

2364: necessarily 3 conditions on the first 4 Taylor coefficients of any

2365: function in span($\phiom$).

2366: 

2367: We see that ${\rm span}(\phiom)$ does not contain all functions,

2368: but rather there are constraints on the initial conditions at

2369: $r=0$. This is why we required the time-evolution to be

2370: well-defined only for wave packets prepared far away, but

2371: otherwise arbitrary. We expect that once the domain of $L$ is

2372: correctly defined it will be Hermitian and uniqueness of

2373: decomposition will hold and consequently the uniqueness of time

2374: evolution. The mathematical term that we expect to hold is that

2375: $L$ is ``essentially self-adjoint'' namely that it has a unique

2376: Hermitian (i.e. self-adjoint) extension (see \cite{ReedSimon} for

2377: a text book and \cite{HorowitzMarolf,IshibashiHosoya}).

2378: 

2379: 

2380: \sbsection{Initial conditions at r=0}

2381: 

2382: Let us find some necessary boundary conditions at $r=0$ in

2383: response to the ``non-span'' property just discussed.

2384: Since $L$ defined in (\ref{defL}) is singular  at $r=0$

2385: $\del_{tt}$ may be ill-defined (which reflects the singular nature

2386: of the wave equation (\ref{waveeq1})). Since $\phi$ is finite at

2387: $r=0$ we need $\del_{tt} \phi$ to be finite as well

2388:  \footnote{In the rest of this subsection ``finite'' should be

2389:  understood to mean ``finite at $r=0$.''}

2390: and thus we clearly need \be

2391:  L\,  \phi = {\rm finite}

2392:   \label{cond1} \ee

2393: where $\phi$ can be either of the initial conditions $\phi_i,\,

2394: \dot{\phi}_i$.

2395: 

2396: For RN from the leading behavior for $f_{\rm RN}$

2397: (\ref{fRN-lead}), we get that for a regular and generic $\phi$ the

2398: Laurent expansion of $L \phi$ starts at degree $(-4)$, and thus

2399: eq. (\ref{cond1}) represents 4 conditions (for

2400: degrees $-4 \le {\rm deg} \le -1$). Moreover, if we Taylor expand

2401: $\phi=\sum_{j=0}^\infty \phi^{(j)} \, r^j$ then at order ${\rm

2402: deg}$ the largest $j$ for which $\phi^{(j)}$ appears in the

2403: equation is $j={\rm deg}+6$, and so we have 4 (linear,

2404: homogeneous) conditions for the 6 coefficients $\phi^{(0)}, \dots,

2405: \phi^{(5)}$. These are actually the conditions found in the

2406: paragraph around eq. (\ref{Taylor-phi}), which limit our choice of

2407: initial conditions in the vicinity of $r=0$.

2408: 

2409: Similarly, for \Schw (\ref{cond1}) represents 3 conditions (for

2410: degrees $-3 \le {\rm deg} \le -1$) among the first 4 Taylor

2411: coefficients which agree with the findings in the paragraph after

2412: eq. (\ref{Taylor-phi}).

2413: 

2414: However, there are additional requirements: the constraint

2415: (\ref{cond1}) must be compatible with the time evolution according

2416: to the wave equation \be

2417:  L \phi = -\del_{tt} \phi \label{waveeq2} \ee

2418:  namely we must require

2419:  \be \del_{tt} [ L\, \phi] = {\rm finite}

2420:  \ee

2421:  By the wave equation (\ref{waveeq2}) this is equivalent to \be

2422:  L^2\,  \phi = {\rm finite}

2423:   \label{cond2} \ee

2424: This gives 4 additional conditions (in addition those of

2425: (\ref{cond1})) involving the first 12 Taylor coefficients for RN

2426: and 3 additional conditions for the first 8 Taylor coefficients

2427: for Schwarzschild.

2428: 

2429: \hspace{0.5cm}

2430: 

2431: Now we may readily generalize, and find \\

2432: {\bf Necessary boundary condition}:   \be L^n\, \phi= {\rm finite}

2433:  ~~ \forall n \ge 1 \label{bc} \ee

2434:  (at $r=0$).

2435: 

2436: \hspace{0.5cm}

2437: 

2438: This condition holds both for RN and Schwarzschild and is

2439: explicitly compatible with time evolution. Note that it can also

2440: be interpreted as $\del_{tt}^n\, \phi={\rm finite} ~~ \forall n

2441: \ge 1 $.  It is plausible to us that this condition is not only

2442: necessary but also sufficient for a unique time evolution as well

2443: since showing that $\phi$ has finite time derivatives of any order

2444: at the initial moment of time comes close to providing a

2445: well-defined time evolution, but we shall not attempt to pursue

2446: this point.

2447: 

2448: As we already mentioned, the boundary conditions (\ref{bc}) are

2449: automatically satisfied for characteristic b.c. (at past null

2450: infinity) and more generally b.c. which vanish at a neighborhood

2451: of $r=0$.

2452: 

2453: Another perspective is to consider a numerical computer

2454: implementation of this time evolution. One may either have no grid

2455: points at $r=0$ in which case the time evolution is well-defined,

2456: or put a grid point at $r=0$ and find its time increment as a

2457: limit of the time increments of neighboring points. The

2458: singularity will tend to ``expand'' numerical errors, but those

2459: should be possible to tame by decreasing the grid spacing. It

2460: would be interesting to analyze this further and/or to perform

2461: the implementation and determine the behavior at $r=0$.

2462: 

2463: 

2464: \subsection{General conditions for wave-regularity}

2465: 

2466: Having shown that \RN is wave-regular allowing for transmission

2467: across the singularity, we would like to abstract the general

2468: conditions on a spacetime to have such a resolution.

2469: 

2470: The crucial property of the RN singularity is that the two

2471: solutions $\phiom$ have a unique continuation across $r=0$, while

2472: {\it a priori} there could have been multi-valued functions such

2473: as the log's which appear in the Schwarzschild case. Hence a wave

2474: packet constructed from the $\phiom$ has a prospect of crossing

2475: the singularity in a well-defined manner. This is true not only in

2476: 4d RN where the time-separated ODE is regular but also for $d>4$

2477: RN where the ODE becomes regular-singular rather than smooth, but

2478: nevertheless the two characteristic exponents are integral and

2479: there are no $\log$ pieces so that the functions $\phiom$ are

2480: univalued in the vicinity of the singularity. The condition on the

2481: characteristic exponents can be generalized to allow for a

2482: reparameterization of coordinate  $r \to \tilde{r}\sim r^{c_1}$

2483: and a linear redefinition of the field $\phi \to r^{c_2} \,

2484: \phiom$ for some constants $c_1,\, c_2$. In general $\phiom$ can

2485: be series expanded as $\phiom = \tilde{r}^\rho\,

2486: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\, \phi^{(k)}\, \tilde{r}^{k\, \Delta}$ where

2487: $\rho=\rho_{1,2}$ is one of the two characteristic exponents and

2488: $\Delta$ is the ``series step-size'' ($\Delta=1$ when the

2489: functions in the differential equation are meromorphic) and

2490: $\phi^{(k)}$ are some constants. The quantity

2491: $(\rho_1-\rho_2)/\Delta$ is invariant under the double

2492: transformation above, and hence there exists a transformation such

2493: that all three $\rho_1,\, \rho_2$ and $\Delta$ are integral and

2494: the function is univalued exactly if the ratio above is rational.

2495: 

2496: \hspace{0.5cm}

2497: 

2498: We summarize the above by  \\

2499:  {\bf Necessary general condition}:

2500: the ``eigen-functions'' $\phiom$ should be univalued in the

2501: vicinity of the singularity. This is equivalent to: \begin{itemize}

2502:  \item The equation for $\phiom$ is either regular or regular-singular. If it

2503: is regular-singular we also require the next items:

2504:  \item The difference of

2505: characteristic exponents is commensurate with the ``series

2506: step-size'' (defined in the previous paragraph) \be

2507:  {\rho_2 - \rho_1 \over \Delta} \in \IQ~. \ee

2508: \item There are no $\log$ pieces in the solutions.

2509: \end{itemize}

2510: 

2511: \hspace{0.5cm}

2512: 

2513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2514: \section{Summary and discussion}

2515: \label{discussion}

2516: 

2517: In this paper we saw that physical predictability can be restored

2518: in the neighborhood of the charged (RN) black-hole singularity as

2519: well as negative mass Schwarzschild, once one considers waves

2520: rather than particles. For RN this is done by gluing two

2521: spacetimes over the time-like singularity, thereby adding another

2522: asymptotic region. An observer at infinity in the additional

2523: region views a spacetime with a negative mass. Several

2524: alternatives exist for the total Penrose diagram depending on the

2525: relative size of $M^2$ and $Q^2$. This singularity appears to have

2526: the physical nature of a beam splitter.

2527: 

2528: For negative-mass Schwarzschild there is a natural ``regularity''

2529: boundary condition at the singularity cutting off spacetime there,

2530: and thus it can be physically interpreted as a perfectly

2531: reflecting mirror.

2532: 

2533: We subjected this picture to several tests by adding perturbations

2534: in section \ref{perturbations-section}. Considering a field with

2535: both mass and charge we found that such terms are subleading at

2536: the neighborhood of the singularity. Considering added

2537: interactions the field equation becomes non-linear and we were

2538: satisfied in confirming that there is no obstruction (such as

2539: creating a divergence) in extending the linear solutions to next

2540: order. Similarly we then considered the effect of non-linearities

2541: from back-reaction, and found that in some cases a simple argument

2542: protects the regularity of $\phi$ at the next order. Altogether

2543: the results were surprisingly resilient to perturbations.

2544: 

2545: It would be interesting to perform some additional tests and generalizations:

2546: 

2547: \begin{itemize}

2548: \item  Study fields with other spin.

2549: Of particular interest are the electromagnetic and gravitational

2550: fields, and also the Dirac $s=1/2$ field. A preliminary

2551: investigation of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields in

2552: d=4 indicates that their polar modes behave just as scalar fields,

2553: i.e. 75\% reflection and 25\% transmission for high energy at

2554: fixed $l$. The axial modes appear to be more subtle, however.

2555: 

2556: \item  Study other backgrounds such as extreme RN and rotating black-holes.

2557: \end{itemize}

2558: 

2559: Rotating black-holes deserve a special discussion here. They may

2560: be linked to our work in two different ways. First, the motivation

2561: to the present analysis partly emerges from the desire to explore

2562: the physical phenomena that may take place deep inside realistic

2563: rotating black holes. From this point of view the spherical

2564: charged black hole serves as a toy model for the more complicated,

2565: non-spherical, spinning black hole. In the second link we can

2566: employ the spinning black holes to test the singularity-resolution

2567: approach developed here. In the Kerr-Newman solution the $r=0$

2568: singularity forms a ring rather than a hypersurface. Once the

2569: field is decomposed into spheroidal-harmonic modes, the field

2570: equation for each mode is perfectly regular at $r=0$, hence there

2571: is no doubt about the proper continuation. Now, when the spin

2572: parameter $a$ is taken to vanish, the ring's radius shrinks to

2573: zero, and the spacetime becomes RN. One may therefore {\it define}

2574: the RN extension of the field beyond the $r=0$ singularity to be

2575: the limit $a \to 0$ of the corresponding field in the Kerr-Newman

2576: case. The obvious question is, therefore: does this procedure

2577: yield exactly the same extension as that constructed above? At

2578: least for a scalar field in 4d RN the answer is found to be

2579: positive. It still remains to check whether this is also the case

2580: in the $Q=0$ case. Namely, in the uncharged Kerr case, when $a \to

2581: 0$ and the spacetime becomes Schwarzschild, does one recover the

2582: full-reflection b.c. advocated above? This still needs to be

2583: verified.

2584: 

2585: 

2586: We would like to mention several other issues at the classical level:

2587: 

2588: \begin{itemize}

2589: \item  In all of our examples one of the spacetimes has a negative mass

2590: and a globally-naked singularity. Such physical objects raise

2591: problematic issues, and we name only a few: anti-gravity,

2592: acceleration reversed to force, and also inconsistency of their

2593: construction with the Cosmic Censorship conjecture (see

2594: ``Perspectives on $r<0$'' in section \ref{ReviewRN}).

2595: 

2596: It would be interesting to determine whether Nature allows the

2597: actual construction of any spacetime with a {\it wave-regular

2598: timelike singularity}. The mechanism that immediately suggests

2599: itself would be to reconsider a gravitational collapse of a

2600: charged spherical shell (in the positive-mass universe), leading

2601: to a RN black-hole geometry (outside the collapsing object).

2602: However, the instability of the inner horizon raises some doubts

2603: about whether the RN-like $r=0$ singularity will indeed form in

2604: this process.

2605: 

2606: \item  Implications for {\it Cosmic Censorship}. At the very least it

2607: shakes its rationale since given ``reasonable'' initial conditions

2608: Cosmic Censorship is supposed to ``protect us'' from loss of

2609: predictability, namely of losing unique time evolution, by

2610: forbidding naked singularities, but here we see that such

2611: singularities may not mean the loss of predictability after all.

2612: 

2613: \item  Since for RN we advocate a picture where there are two spacetimes

2614: which are consistently glued at the singularity

2615: --- and since a macroscopic measuring device cannot cross the singularity

2616: (at best it will bounce back, but it may also be destroyed by

2617: tidal forces, or be ``beam-splitted,'' in the worse case) one may

2618: take {\it two different points of view} on the physics

2619: corresponding to either of the two observers on the two sides of

2620: the singularity. Namely, the story of the resolution of each

2621: singularity will be told in two different versions corresponding

2622: to the two observers (this applies to both types of RN spacetime,

2623: namely $|Q|<|M|$ and $|Q|>|M|$ -- see figures

2624: \ref{PenroseRN},\ref{PenroseRN-ext}).

2625: 

2626: \end{itemize}

2627: 

2628: Going beyond classical GR there are open questions as to the quantum gravity

2629: consistency and properties:

2630: 

2631: \begin{itemize}

2632: \item We must note that our wave equation is outside its {\it domain of

2633: validity} near the singularity due to the presence of high

2634: curvature. However, a preliminary analysis shows that quantum

2635: corrections do not produce essential singularities in the

2636: equations and start altering the field only at a Planck (proper)

2637: distance from the singularity.

2638: 

2639: \item  Semi-classical quantization and Hawking evaporation (under study).

2640: 

2641: \item  As one passes to the quantum theory one may

2642: suspect that the pathologies associated with negative-mass spaces

2643: to only grow worse. Therefore, we need to be very cautious in

2644: discussing possible implications for {\it  ``legitimizing''

2645: spacetimes} with such singularities as possible solitons, namely

2646: which spacetimes should be considered to contribute to the path

2647: integral as admissible saddle points. Here we took an open-minded

2648: approach of exploration and we hope that the various interesting

2649: issues which get raised will be studied further.

2650: \end{itemize}

2651: 

2652: \vspace{0.5cm} \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}

2653: 

2654: We would like to thank O. Aharony, J. Bekenstein, M. Berkooz, G.

2655: Gibbons, J. Katz, D. Kazhdan,  N. Itzhaki, D. Kutasov, M. Rozali

2656: and R.M. Wald for discussions. This work is supported in part by

2657: the Israeli Science Foundation. AG is supported in part by the

2658: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities -- Centers of Excellence

2659: Program, the German-Israel Bi-National Science Foundation, and the

2660: European RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00122. BK is supported in part

2661: by the Israeli Science Foundation and by the Binational Science

2662: Foundation BSF-2002160. AS is supported in part by the Horowitz

2663: Foundation.

2664: 

2665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2666: \appendix

2667: 

2668: \section{\KS coordinates}

2669: \label{KSapp}

2670: 

2671: For completeness, we recall here the derivation of the metrics in

2672: the \KS coordinates and the definition of the functions $g(r)$

2673: which are mentioned in the text and are used to implicitly define

2674: $r$ in these coordinates.

2675: 

2676: First one defines the ``tortoise'' coordinate $r^*$ by \be

2677:  dr^* := {dr \over f} ~. \ee

2678: $r^*$ diverges on horizons but is finite at $r=0$. Then one passes

2679: to light-cone coordinates \bea

2680:  v &:=& t+r^* \non

2681:  u &:=& t-r^*  \eea

2682: and finally in the neighborhood of a horizon with surface gravity

2683: $\kappa$ (for \RN we have $\kappa_\pm = (r_+-r_-)/(2\, r_\pm^2)$

2684: while for \Schw $\kappa=1/(2\, r_0)$)

2685:  the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates are given by \bea

2686:  V &:=& \pm \exp (\pm \kappa\, v)  \non

2687:  U &:=& \pm \exp (\pm \kappa\, u)  \label{defUV} \eea

2688: and the sign inside the exponent is chosen such that the horizon

2689: is located at $UV=0$, namely it is X-shaped.

2690: 

2691: In these coordinates the metric is given by \be

2692:  ds^2 = -{f \over \kappa^2\, g}\, dU\, dV + r^2\, d\Omega^2 ~, \ee

2693:  where the function $g(r)$ is defined by \be

2694:  g(r) := \exp (\pm 2\, \kappa\, r^* ) \ee

2695:  and the sign is chosen to be the same as that for $V$ in (\ref{defUV}).

2696: $r$ is not

2697: a coordinate anymore, but rather it is implicitly defined in terms

2698: of the $U,\, V$ coordinates by \be

2699:  -U\, V = g(r) ~. \ee

2700: Note that by construction $g(r)$ has a zero at the horizon and

2701: thus the horizon is explicitly smooth in these coordinates since

2702: in the prefactor of $dU\, dV$ the zero in $f$ gets cancelled

2703: against the zero in $g$.

2704: 

2705: In \RN there are two horizons at $r_\pm$, and accordingly two

2706: Kruskal-Szekeres-like planes for $(U_\pm,\, V_\pm)$, and two

2707: functions $g_\pm (r)$. The ``upper plus'' quadrant ($U_+,V_+>0$)

2708: is glued to the ``lower minus'' quadrant ($U_-,V_-<0$) according

2709: to \bea

2710:  V_+^{1/\kappa_+} &=& (-V_- )^{1/\kappa_-} \non

2711:  U_+^{1/\kappa_+} &=& (-U_- )^{1/\kappa_-}  \eea

2712: and similarly one may continue and glue the upper minus quadrant

2713: to another copy of the plus plane, creating the maximal analytic

2714: extension of \RN which consists of an infinite chain of

2715: alternating plus and minus planes. $g_\pm(r)$ are given by (see

2716: figure \ref{gRNfigure}) \bea

2717:  g_+(r) &=& \({r \over r_+}-1 \) \, \({r \over r_-}-1 \)^{-{\kappa_+ \over

2718: \kappa_-}} \, \exp (2\, \kappa_+\, r) \non

2719:  g_-(r) &=& \(1-{r \over r_-}\) \, \(1-{r \over r_+}\)^{-{\kappa_- \over

2720: \kappa_+}} \, \exp

2721:  (-2\, \kappa_-\, r) \eea

2722: While for Schwarzschild we have (see figure \ref{gSchw-figure})

2723: \be

2724:  g_{\rm schw}(r) = \({r \over r_0}-1 \)\, \exp(r/r_0) ~. \ee

2725: Finally, in order to get the Penrose diagram (see figures

2726: \ref{PenroseRN},\ref{PenroseSchw},\ref{PenroseRN-ext}) one

2727: customarily takes the conformal transformation \bea

2728:  U_P = {\rm tg}^{-1} (U) \non

2729:  V_P = {\rm tg}^{-1} (V) \eea

2730: although any other transformation which maps the real line to an

2731: interval is admissible.

2732: 

2733: 

2734: \section{Regular singularities of ordinary differential equations}

2735: \label{reg-sing-app}

2736: 

2737: Let us briefly recall the definitions.

2738: A linear second order differential equation \be

2739:  [a(r)\, \del_{rr} + b(r)\, \del_r + c(r)]\, \phi=0 \ee

2740: is regular-singular at a point $r_0$, which we will assume without

2741: loss of generality to be $r_0=0$, if after normalization such

2742:  that $a(0)=1$ there are singularities at $r=0$ in $b(r)$ or

2743: $c(r)$ of limited type: $b(r)$ may have at most a first order

2744: pole, and $c(r)$ at most a second order pole. This guarantees that

2745: the solutions will have at most poles or branch cuts at $r=0$ but

2746: not an essential singularity. More specifically the two solutions

2747: have the leading behavior \be

2748:  \phi_{1,2} \sim r^{\rho_{1,2}} ~, \ee

2749:  where $\rho_{1,2}$ are called the characteristic exponents, and they are

2750: the solutions to the quadratic equation \be

2751:  a(r_0) \rho\, (\rho-1) + b(r_0)\, r  \rho + c(r_0)\, r^2  =0 \ee

2752:  gotten from substituting the leading

2753: behavior above into the equation. When $\rho_1=\rho_2=\rho$ the

2754: leading behavior is $\phi_1=r^\rho, ~ \phi_2=r^\rho \, \log(r)$.

2755: Finally, one can expand the solutions into a series $\phi = r^\rho

2756: \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\, \phi^{(j)}\, r^j$ where $\phi^{(j)}$ are

2757: some constants, except that in the case when $\rho_2-\rho_1$ is a

2758: positive integer $\phi_1$ may contain also a piece proportional to

2759: $\log(r)\, \phi_2$ and thus contains a log.

2760: 

2761: \section{Basis functions for the characteristic formulation}

2762: \label{char-appendix}

2763: 

2764: Here we define the basis functions $\phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*},\,

2765: \phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}$ for the characteristic formulation

2766: (see subsection \ref{char-subsection}). Since the radial equation

2767: is a second-order ODE, the radial functions $\phi _{\omega

2768: }^{*}(r^*)$ for a given $\omega $ form a two-parameter family.

2769: Owing to the asymptotic behavior of the radial functions, Eq.

2770: (\ref{gen-asymptotic}), we may choose two basis functions $\phi

2771: _{\omega (1,0)}^{*}(r^*)$ and $\phi _{\omega (0,1)}^{*}(r^*)$,

2772: defined as follows: $\phi _{\omega (1,0)}^{*}(r^*)$ is the radial

2773: function which at $r^*\to +\infty $ (the inner horizon) has the

2774: asymptotic form

2775: \[

2776: \phi _{\omega (1,0)}^{*}\cong T(\omega ){\rm exp}(-i\,\omega

2777: \,r^*)

2778: \]

2779: and at $r^*\to -\infty $ (the negative-$r$ asymptotically-flat

2780: region) has the asymptotic form

2781: \[

2782: \phi _{\omega (1,0)}^{*}\cong {\rm exp}(-i\,\omega \,r^*)+R(\omega

2783: ){\rm exp} (+i\,\omega \,r^*),

2784: \]

2785: where $T(\omega )$ and $R(\omega )$ are two unconstrained

2786: coefficients (these coefficients turn out to be the transmission

2787: and reflection coefficient; see section

2788: \ref{cross-section-section}). Similarly, $\phi_{\omega

2789: (0,1)}^{*}(r^*)$ is the radial function which at $r^* \to -\infty

2790: $ has the asymptotic form

2791: \[

2792: \phi _{\omega (0,1)}^{*}\cong T^{\prime }(\omega ){\rm

2793: exp}(+i\,\omega \,r^*)

2794: \]

2795: and at $r^*\to +\infty $ has the asymptotic form

2796: \[

2797: \phi _{\omega (0,1)}^{*}\cong {\rm exp}(+i\,\omega

2798: \,r^*)+R^{\prime }(\omega ) {\rm exp}(-i\,\omega \,r^*),

2799: \]

2800: where again $T^{\prime }(\omega )$ and $R^{\prime }(\omega )$ are

2801: two unconstrained coefficients. Now, the two desired solutions

2802: $\phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}$ and $\phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}$

2803: are simply given by

2804: \begin{eqnarray*}

2805: \phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}(r^*,t) &=&\phi _{\omega

2806: _{v}(1,0)}^{*}(r^*){\rm exp}(i\,\omega _{v}\,t)\,,\, \\

2807: \phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}(r^*,t) &=&\phi _{\omega

2808: _{u}(0,1)}^{*}(r^*){\rm exp}(i\,\omega _{u}\,t).

2809: \end{eqnarray*}

2810: As one can easily verify, these two solutions take the asymptotic

2811: forms

2812: \[

2813: \phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}\cong T(\omega _{v}){\rm exp}(i\,\omega

2814: _{v}\,v)\qquad \qquad (r^*\to +\infty ),

2815: \]

2816: \[

2817: \phi _{(\omega _{v},0)}^{*}\cong {\rm exp}(i\,\omega

2818: _{v}\,v)+R(\omega ){\rm exp}(i\,\omega _{v}\,u)\qquad \qquad

2819: (r^*\to -\infty ),

2820: \]

2821: and

2822: \[

2823: \phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}\cong T^{\prime }(\omega _{u}){\rm

2824: exp}(i\,\omega _{u}\,u)\qquad \qquad (r^*\to -\infty ),

2825: \]

2826: \[

2827: \phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}\cong {\rm exp}(i\,\omega

2828: _{u}\,u)+R^{\prime }(\omega ){\rm exp}(i\,\omega _{u}\,v)\qquad

2829: \qquad (r^*\to +\infty ),

2830: \]

2831: in agreement with the above definitions of $\phi _{(\omega

2832: _{v},0)}^{*}$ and $\phi _{(0,\omega _{u})}^{*}$.

2833: 

2834: 

2835: \section{Bessel functions}

2836: \label{BesselApp}

2837: 

2838: Let us assemble a few useful properties of the Bessel functions. A

2839: Bessel function of order $n$ satisfies the equation

2840: $[\del_{xx}+(1/x)\, \del_x + 1-n^2/x^2 ]\,J_n\, =0$. It will be

2841: more convenient for us to use the equivalent definition \be

2842:   \br \del{xx} + \(1- {n^2-1/4 \over x^2} \)  \kt \, \sqrt{x} J_n(x)

2843:  =0 ~. \ee

2844: For small $x$ \be J_n(x) = x^n\, A^{J}_n(x^2) ~,

2845: \label{BesselSing} \ee

2846:  where $A^{J}_n(x^2)$ are certain functions of $x^2$ analytic at $x^2=0$.

2847: The asymptotic behavior is better described by \be

2848:  Y_n=(J_n\, \cos (n\, \pi) - J_{-n})/\sin(n\, \pi) \ee

2849:  and one has \be

2850:  J_n \pm i\, Y_n \simeq \sqrt{2/(\pi\, x)}~ \exp \left[ \pm i(x-n\,

2851:  \pi/2-\pi/4) \right]

2852:  \label{BesselAsymp}\ee

2853:  as $x \to +\infty$.

2854: 

2855: 

2856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2857: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2858: 

2859: \bibitem{Polchinski}

2860: J.~Polchinski, ``String Theory. Vol. 2: Superstring Theory And

2861: Beyond,'' ``String Theory. Vol. 1: An Introduction To The Bosonic

2862: String.''

2863: 

2864: \bibitem{GRS-review}

2865: A.~Giveon, E.~Rabinovici and A.~Sever, ``Strings in singular

2866: time-dependent backgrounds,'' Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 51}, 805

2867: (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0305137].

2868: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305137;%%

2869: 

2870: \bibitem{dvv}

2871: R.~Dijkgraaf, H.~Verlinde and E.~Verlinde, ``String propagation in

2872: a black hole geometry,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 371} (1992) 269.

2873: 

2874: \bibitem{GiveonRabinoviciSever}

2875: A.~Giveon, E.~Rabinovici and A.~Sever, ``Beyond the singularity of

2876: the 2-D charged black hole,'' JHEP {\bf 0307}, 055 (2003)

2877: [arXiv:hep-th/0305140].

2878: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0305140;%%

2879: 

2880: \bibitem{bardeen}  J. M. Bardeen, Nature {\bf 226} 64 (1970).

2881: 

2882: \bibitem{thorne}  K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. {\bf 191} 507 (1974).

2883: 

2884: \bibitem{central}  For a recent observation see R. Genzel, R. Schoedel, T.

2885: Ott, A. Eckart, T. Alexander, F. Lacombe, D. Rouan, B. Aschenbach,

2886: Nature {\bf 425}, 934 (2003).

2887: 

2888: \bibitem{IshibashiHosoya}

2889: A.~Ishibashi and A.~Hosoya, ``Who's afraid of naked singularities?

2890: Probing timelike singularities  with finite energy waves,'' Phys.\

2891: Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 104028 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9907009].

2892: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9907009;%%

2893: 

2894: \bibitem{Wald1980}

2895: R.~M.~Wald, ``Dynamics in nonglobally hyperbolic, static

2896: space-times,'' J.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 21}, 2802 (1980).

2897: %%CITATION = JMAPA,21,2802;%%

2898: 

2899: \bibitem{HorowitzMarolf}

2900: G.~T.~Horowitz and D.~Marolf, ``Quantum probes of space-time

2901: singularities,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 5670 (1995)

2902: [arXiv:gr-qc/9504028].

2903: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9504028;%%

2904: 

2905: %\cite{Peeters:1994jz}

2906: \bibitem{Peeters:1994jz}

2907: K.~Peeters, C.~Schweigert and J.~W.~van Holten, ``Extended

2908: geometry of black holes,'' Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 12}, 173

2909: (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9407006].

2910: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9407006;%%

2911: 

2912: \bibitem{Jacobson}

2913: T.~Jacobson, ``Semiclassical decay of near-extremal black holes,''

2914: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 4890 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9705017].

2915: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9705017;%%

2916: 

2917: \bibitem{Lynden-BellKatz}

2918:  D.~Lynden-Bell and J.~Katz,

2919:  ``Geometric extension through Schwarzschild r = 0,''

2920: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ (1990) { \bf 247}, 651.

2921: 

2922: \bibitem{Lynden-BellKatz2}

2923:  D.~Lynden-Bell, J.~Katz and C. Hellaby,

2924:  ``Correction to geometric extension through Schwarzschild r = 0,''

2925:   Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ (1993)

2926: {\bf 262}, 325.

2927: 

2928: \bibitem{Reissner} H.~Reissner, ``\"{U}ber die Eigengravitation

2929: des elektrischen Felds nach den Einsteinschen Theorie,'' Ann.\

2930: Phys.\, {bf 50}, 106-120 (1916).

2931: 

2932: \bibitem{Nordstrom} G.~Nordstr\"{o}m, ``On the energy of the

2933: gravitational field in Einstein's theory,'' Proc.\ Kon.\ Ned.\

2934: Akad.\ Wet.\, {\bf 20}, 1238-1245 (1918).

2935: 

2936: \bibitem{Schw} K.~Schwarzschild, ``Uber das

2937: Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen

2938: Theorie,'' Sitzber.\ Deut.\ Akad.\ Wiss.\ Berlin, Kl.\

2939: Math.\--Phys.\ Tech.\, 189-196 (1916). \\

2940: English translation: Gen.\ Relativ.\ Gravit.\ {\bf 35}, 951 (2003)

2941: [physics/9905030].

2942: 

2943: \bibitem{Kruskal}

2944: M.~D.~Kruskal, ``Maximal Extension Of Schwarzschild Metric,''

2945: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 119}, 1743 (1960).

2946: %%CITATION = PHRVA,119,1743;%%

2947: 

2948: \bibitem{Szekeres} G.~Szekeres, ``On the singularities of a

2949: Riemannian manifold,'' Publ.\ Mat.\ Debrecen\, {\bf 7}, 285-301,

2950: (1960).

2951: 

2952: \bibitem{Israel}

2953: W.~Israel, ``Singular Hypersurfaces And Thin Shells In General

2954: Relativity,'' Nuovo Cim.\ B {\bf 44S10}, 1 (1966) [Erratum-ibid.\

2955: B {\bf 48}, 463 (1967\ NUCIA,B44,1.1966)].

2956: %%CITATION = NUCIA,B44S10,1;%%

2957: 

2958: \bibitem{Visser}

2959: M.~Visser, ``Traversable Wormholes From Surgically Modified \\

2960: Schwarzschild Space-Times,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 328}, 203

2961: (1989).

2962: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B328,203;%%

2963: 

2964: \bibitem{negative-supergravity}  T. Hertog, G. T. Horowitz, and K. Maeda,

2965: ``Negative Energy in String Theory and Cosmic Censorship

2966: Violation'', hep-th/0310054.

2967: 

2968: \bibitem{Penrose}  R. Penrose, in Battelle Rencontres, 1967 lectures in

2969: mathematics and physics , edited by C. M. DeWitt and J. A. Wheeler

2970: (Benjamin, New York, 1968), P. 222 .

2971: 

2972: \bibitem{PI}  E.~Poisson and W.~Israel,

2973: ``Internal Structure Of Black Holes,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41},

2974: 1796 (1990)

2975: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1796;%%

2976: and references therein.

2977: 

2978: \bibitem{weak-singularity}  A. Ori, ``Inner structure of a

2979: charged black hole: An exact mass-inflation solution,''

2980: Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 , 789 (1991).

2981: 

2982: \bibitem{burko}

2983: L.~M.~Burko, ``Structure of the black hole's Cauchy horizon

2984: singularity,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 4958 (1997)

2985: [arXiv:gr-qc/9710112].

2986: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9710112;%%

2987: 

2988: \bibitem{spinning}  This is also the situation in the more realistic,

2989: spinning black-hole case: see e.g.

2990: A. Ori, ``Structure of the singularity inside a

2991: realistic rotating black hole,'' Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 ,

2992: 2117 (1992); A.~Ori,

2993:  ``Evolution Of Linear Gravitational And Electromagnetic

2994:  Perturbations Inside A

2995: Kerr Black Hole,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 024001 (2000).

2996: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D61,024001;%%

2997: 

2998: \bibitem{LL35}

2999: L.~D.~Landau and E.~M.~lifshitz, ``Quantum mechanics,'' {\it

3000: Pergamon} (1977), \S35.

3001: 

3002: \bibitem{MyersPerry}

3003: R.~C.~Myers and M.~J.~Perry, ``Black holes in higher dimensional

3004: space-times,'' Annals Phys.\  {\bf 172}, 304 (1986).

3005: %%CITATION = APNYA,172,304;%%

3006: 

3007: 

3008: \bibitem{nappiyost}

3009: M.~D.~McGuigan, C.~R.~Nappi and S.~A.~Yost, ``Charged black holes

3010: in two-dimensional string theory,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 375}, 421

3011: (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9111038].

3012: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9111038;%%

3013: 

3014: \bibitem{bars}

3015: I.~Bars and K.~Sfetsos, ``Conformally exact metric and dilaton in

3016: string theory on curved space-time,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}

3017: (1992) 4510 [arXiv:hep-th/9206006].

3018: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9206006;%%

3019: 

3020: \bibitem{giveon}

3021: A.~Giveon, ``Target space duality and stringy black holes,'' Mod.\

3022: Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6}, 2843 (1991).

3023: 

3024: \bibitem{gpr}

3025: A.~Giveon, M.~Porrati and E.~Rabinovici, ``Target space duality in

3026: string theory,'' Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 244}, 77 (1994)

3027: [arXiv:hep-th/9401139].

3028: 

3029: 

3030: \bibitem{ReedSimon}

3031:  M.~Reed and B.~Simon,

3032:  ``Methods of modern mathematical physics, v2: Fourier analysis

3033:  and self-adjointness'', {\it Academic Press} (1975).

3034: 

3035: \end{thebibliography}

3036: 

3037: \end{document}

3038: