SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PHYSICS

Xavier Calmet Bernard Carr

Elizabeth Winstanley

Quantum Black
Holes
SpringerBriefs in Physics

Series editors
Egor Babaev, Massachusetts, USA
Malcolm Bremer, Bristol, UK
Xavier Calmet, Brighton, UK
Francesca Di Lodovico, London, UK
Maarten Hoogerland, Auckland, New Zealand
Eric Le Ru, Wellington, New Zealand
Hans-Joachim Lewerenz, Pasadena CA, USA
James Overduin, Towson, USA
Vesselin Petkov, Montreal, Canada
Charles H.-T. Wang, Aberdeen, UK
Andrew Whitaker, Belfast, UK

For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/8902
Xavier Calmet Bernard Carr

Elizabeth Winstanley

Quantum Black Holes

123
Xavier Calmet Elizabeth Winstanley
Department of Physics and Astronomy School of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Sussex University of Sheffield
Brighton Sheffield
UK UK

Bernard Carr
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Queen Mary University of London
London
UK

ISSN 2191-5423 ISSN 2191-5431 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-642-38938-2 ISBN 978-3-642-38939-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9
Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2013943713

 The Author(s) 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
the Copyright Law of the Publishers location, in its current version, and permission for use must
always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the
Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

This Springer Brief emerged from meetings of Working Group 1 (WG1) of the
European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action MP0905 Black
Holes in a Violent Universe which started in 2010. WG1 (chaired by X.C.) is
devoted to the study of quantum effects in black hole physics. The term quantum
black holes (in the title of both the Working Group and this book) refers to black
holes for which quantum effects are physically significant. This is a very broad
field, ranging from primordial black holes to ones which have mass close to the
Planck scale (defined below). Quantum black holes are fascinating objects as they
offer a connection between general relativity and quantum mechanics. The most
celebrated quantum effect associated with black holes is Hawking radiation.
Another important challenge is to understand when black holes form and in par-
ticular when the collision of two particles at very high energy will form a black
hole. These are some of the raison dtres of our Working Group.
Quantum effects are significant for primordial black holes, which could play a
very important cosmological role and even be a source of dark matter. Further-
more, one of most important developments in particle physics of the last 20 years
has been the realisation that the Planck scale at which quantum gravitational
effects become important could be much lower than the traditional value of 1019
GeV. Indeed, if there are more than four dimensions in nature, it could potentially
be within reach of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This idea has trig-
gered significant research which has furthered our understanding of quantum black
holes. While so far there is no hint of black holes at the LHC, the data have set
some of the tightest limits to date on the Planck scale. Furthermore, the possibility
of creating Planckian quantum black holes at colliders was a motivation
for ground-breaking theoretical studies of black hole production and decay
mechanisms.
In WG1 we have been fortunate to bring together experts in the field of
quantum black holes. It was thus the perfect opportunity to review the state of the
art of the field. This book is the result of interactions among the members of this
working group. Our aim is to have a general introduction to the topic, describing in
some detail the theoretical advances that have taken place since the 1970s while
being less rigorous in the more speculative parts. In particular, for low-scale

v
vi Preface

quantum gravity black holes, we have not described the current experimental
limits in detail as these are evolving constantly as the LHC data grow. Note that
we define quantum black holes as the ones for which quantum effects are
important, although the term is sometimes used more restrictively, to refer to holes
for which quantum gravitational effects are important.
We hope that this book will be useful to researchers, advanced undergraduate and
graduate students. We assume some familiarity with general relativity, quantum
theory and particle physics at the undergraduate level. Throughout this book we use
the space-time signature (-, ? ,, ?). At various points in this book, we will use
relativistic units in which both Newtons gravitational constant G and the speed of
light c are equal to unity, as well as electromagnetic Gaussian units in which the
Coulomb force constant (4pe0)-1 = 1. In our discussion of black hole thermody-
namics we will also set the reduced Plancks constant h and the Boltzmann constant
kB equal to one. Using the constants G, h and c, we can construct a fundamental
p p
length-scale LP hG=c3  1:6  1035 m, mass-scale MP hc=G  2:2 
p
108 kg  1:2  1019 GeV=c2 and time-scale tP hG=c5  5:4  1044 s.
These are known as the Planck scales and quantities are given in these units when we
use relativistic units. When we discuss spacetimes with more than four dimensions,
we denote the number of spacetime dimensions by d = n ? 4, with n being the
number of extra dimensions. We use the notation M to denote the mass of the
Sun ( 2  1030 kg), which is a useful mass-scale for astrophysical objects.
Although we had to identify a subset of authors from WG1 to collaborate on
this book, we wish to thank all the members of this Working Group. This book
would not have been possible without the support of the COST action MP0905.
In particular we would like to thank Silke Britzen, the chair of our action, the
members of the core group (Antxon Alberdi, Andreas Eckart, Robert Ferdman,
Karl-Heinz Mack, Iossif Papadakis, Eduardo Ros, Anthony Rushton, Merja
Tornikoski and Ulrike Wyputta in addition to X.C.) and all the members of this
action for fascinating meetings and conferences.
We also thank Victor Ambrus, Steven Giddings, Matt Hewitt, Stephen Hsu and
Carl Kent for helpful comments on early drafts of this work. Chapter 4 incorpo-
rates some material from a recent paper by Bernard Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti
Sendouda and Junichi Yokoyama. [Physical Review D 81, 104019 (2010)]. B.C.
thanks his collaborators for an enjoyable collaboration and the American Physical
Society for authorization to reproduce this material.
The work of X.C. was supported by the STFC grant ST/J000477/1. The work of
B.C. was supported by a JSPS/Royal Society bilateral grant and he acknowledges
hospitality received from the Research Centre for the Early Universe (RESCEU) in
Tokyo University. The work of E.W. was supported by the Lancaster-Manchester-
Sheffield Consortium for Fundamental Physics under STFC grant ST/J000418/1.
X.C. is very grateful to his wife Veerle, children Pierre and Aude and parents
Jacques and Hlne for their love and support. B.C. expresses appreciation to his
Preface vii

wife Mari, whom he sometimes neglected as a result of his work on this book, for
her love and understanding. E.W. thanks her parents, Richard Jackson and friends
for their continuous support and encouragement.

Brighton, London and Sheffield Xavier Calmet

April 2013 Bernard Carr
Elizabeth Winstanley
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 1
1.1 Classical versus Quantum Black Holes. . . . . . . . ........... 1
1.2 How, When and Where Black Holes Form . . . . . ........... 4
1.3 Black Holes as the Link Between Macrophysics
and Microphysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 6
1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 9

2 Black Holes in General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 Four-dimensional Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Schwarzschild Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Reissner-Nordstrm Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.3 Kerr Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Higher-dimensional Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.1 Spherically Symmetric Higher-dimensional
Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.2 Higher-dimensional Rotating Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Brane Black Holes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.1 Brane Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2 Neutral Brane Black Holes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Black Hole Mechanics and Thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.2 Black Hole Mechanics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5.3 Black Hole Entropy and Thermodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Hawking Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Black Hole Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 Black Hole Thermodynamics Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

ix
x Contents

3.2.3 Hawking Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2.4 Validity of the Semi-classical Approximation. . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Stages of Evolution of a Microscopic Black Hole . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4.1 Teukolsky Formalism on the Brane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4.2 Bulk Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4.3 Greybody Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.4.4 Emission of Particles, Energy
and Angular Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
3.5 Emission of Neutral, Massless Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
3.5.1 Emission from Four-dimensional Black Holes . . . . . . .. 42
3.5.2 Brane Emission from Higher-dimensional
Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5.3 Bulk Emission from Higher-dimensional Black Holes . . . 46
3.6 More General Hawking Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4 Primordial Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Formation, Consequences and Abundance of PBHs . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2.1 How PBHs Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2.2 What PBHs Do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2.3 Mass and Density Fraction of PBHs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3 PBHs as a Probe of Inhomogeneities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3.1 Simplistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3.2 Refinements of Simplistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.3 PBHs and Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.4 Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.4.1 Lifetime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.4.2 Particle Spectra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.4.3 Photosphere Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.5 Constraints on PBHs from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis . . . . . . . . 68
4.5.1 Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.5.2 Revised Constraints on b0 M Imposed by BBN . . . . . . . 69
4.6 Constraints on PBHs from Extragalactic Photon Background . . . 70
4.6.1 Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.6.2 Expected EGB from PBHs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.6.3 Limits on b0 M Imposed by Observed EGB . . . . . . . . . 72
4.7 Other Constraints on Evaporating Black Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.7.1 Galactic Gamma-Rays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.7.2 Galactic Antiprotons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.7.3 PBH Explosions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.7.4 CMB Anisotropy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Contents xi

4.7.5 Planck Mass Relics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions . . . . . . . 83

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . 83
5.2 Classical Black Holes . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . 85
5.3 Semi-classical Black Holes . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . 90
5.4 Planckian Quantum Black Holes . . .............. . . . . . . . 91
5.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . 92
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . 92

6 Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6.1 Models of Low Scale Quantum Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.2 Microscopic Black Holes at Colliders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.3 Microscopic Black Holes in Cosmic Ray Experiments . . . . . . . . 98
6.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Chapter 1
Introduction

Abstract We discuss the fundamental distinction between quantum and classical

black holes. We outline the wide range of ways in which black holes may form,
indicating their possible location and formation epochs. Finally, we emphasize the
crucial role of black holes in linking microphysics and macrophysics.

1.1 Classical versus Quantum Black Holes

Einsteins general theory of relativity predicts that, if matter is sufficiently com-

pressed, its gravity becomes so strong that it forms a region of space called a black
hole from which nothing can escape. The boundary of this region is the black holes
event horizon: objects can fall in but none can come out. In the simplest case, where
space has no hidden dimensions, the size of a black hole is directly proportional to
its mass. Thus the density to which matter must be squeezed scales as the inverse
square of the mass. The Sun would need to be compressed to a radius of 3 km to
become a black hole, corresponding to a density of about 1019 kg m3 . This is above
nuclear density and about the highest density that can be created through gravita-
tional collapse in the present Universe. A body lighter than the Sun resists collapse
because it gets stabilized by repulsive quantum forces between subatomic particles.
The Sun itself is not expected to evolve to a black hole but there is a mass range
above about 10 M in which stars are likely to do so. There should be a billion
stellar black holes even in the disc of the our own galaxy, although only the ones
in binary systems are readily detectable. Larger Intermediate Mass Black Holes
(IMBHs) may derive from stars bigger than 100 M . These are radiation-dominated
and undergo an instability during oxygen-burning which leads to complete collapse.
The first stars to form in the Universe may have been in this mass range and their
remnants may be associated with gamma-ray bursts. IMBHs may also form in the
nuclei of globular clusters from the coalescence of smaller black holes. Even larger
Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs), with masses in the range 106 to 109 M , are

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 1

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_1, The Author(s) 2014
2 1 Introduction

thought to exist in galactic nuclei, although their origin remains uncertain. Our own
galaxy harbours a 4 106 M black hole and quasars, which represent an earlier
evolutionary phase of galaxies, are thought to be powered by 108 M black holes.
All these black holes might be described as macroscopic since they are larger
than a kilometre in radius. Their signatures might be regarded as astrophysical and
they are classical in the sense that quantum effects can be neglected. Although they
are not the main focus of this book, we discuss their mathematical and physical
characteristics in more detail in Chap. 2.
In the early 1970s it was realized that there are also mechanisms for generating
black holes in the early universe. These are termed Primordial Black Holes (PBHs)
and could be much smaller than stellar black holes. This is because the density of the
Universe was much higher at early epochs, reaching nuclear density just 1 ms after
the Big Bang and rising indefinitely at still earlier times. PBHs forming sufficiently
late can still be regarded as macroscopic. Indeed, those forming just 1 s after the
Big Bang would have a mass of 105 M , which is in the SMBH range. Those smaller
than 1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon) might be regarded as microscopic, in the
sense that they are smaller than a micron, but could have interesting astrophysical
consequences. For example, they could collide with the Earth or have detectable
lensing and dynamical effects or even provide the dark matter.
Black holes lighter than 1012 kg (about the mass of a mountain) would be smaller
than a proton and their consequences would be dramatically different. This is because
in 1974 Hawking discovered that black holes do not just swallow particles but also
emit them. He found that a black hole radiates thermally with a temperature inversely
proportional to its mass. For a solar-mass black hole, the temperature is around
106 K, which is negligible. But for a black hole of mass 1012 kg, it is 1012 K, which
is hot enough to emit both massless particles, such as photons, and light ones, such as
electrons and positrons. More details on Hawking radiation can be found in Chap. 3.
Because the emission carries off energy, the mass of the black hole decreases, so
it is unstable. As it shrinks, it gets steadily hotter, emitting increasingly energetic
particles and shrinking ever faster. When it gets down to a mass of about 106 kg,
the evaporation becomes explosive, the energy of a million megaton nuclear bomb
being released in the last second. The time for a black hole to evaporate completely
is proportional to the cube of its initial mass. For a solar-mass hole, this is an unob-
servably long 1064 yr. For a 1012 kg black hole, it is 1010 yrabout the present age
of the universe. Thus PBHs with this mass would be completing their evaporation
today and smaller ones would have evaporated at an earlier cosmological epoch. We
will therefore classify PBHs smaller than 1012 kg as quantum black holes since
these are the ones for which quantum effects are important. Their influence is more
particle-physical than astrophysical and their consequences will be discussed in detail
in Chap. 4.
Hawkings work was a tremendous conceptual advance because it unified three
previously disparate areas of physics: general relativity, quantum theory and ther-
modynamics. However, it was only a first step toward a full quantum theory of
gravity. This is because Hawkings analysisand indeed all laws of classical
physicsmust break down when the density reaches the Planck value of about
1.1 Classical versus Quantum Black Holes 3

1097 kg m3 1076 GeV4 since gravity then becomes so strong that quantum-
mechanical fluctuations in space-time metric become important. An evaporating
black hole reaches this density when it gets down to the Planck scale (i.e. a size of
1035 m and a mass of 108 kg). We describe this as a Planckian quantum black
hole. It is smaller in size but much more massive than an elementary particle. One
might expect this to be the smallest possible black hole because space cannot be
treated as a continuum below the Planck length. Note that PBHs might form pro-
lifically at the Planck epoch from quantum fluctuations in the metric, although they
would evaporate on the same timescale.
A theory of quantum gravity would be required to understand the formation and
evaporation Planckian quantum black holes. This might even allow stable Planck-
mass relics. However, recently it has been realized that another factor may come into
play as a black hole shrinks towards the Planck scale: the existence of extra dimen-
sions. The unification of all the forces which operate in the universe could require the
existence of extra internal dimensions beyond the four dimensions of spacetime.
This approach was pioneered in the 1920s by Kaluza and Klein, who showed that a
fifth dimension can provide a unified description of gravity and electromagnetism,
providing it is wrapped up very small. Subsequently it was discovered that there
are other subatomic interactions and these can be explained by invoking yet more
wrapped-up dimensions. For example, superstring theory suggest there are six and
M-theory (which unifies the different versions of superstring theory) suggests there
are seven.
The extra dimensions are usually assumed to be compactified on the Planck scale,
in which case their effects are unimportant for black holes heavier than the Planck
mass. However, they are much larger than the Planck length in some models and
this has that striking consequence that gravity, which should propagate in these
extra dimensions, should grow much stronger at short distances than implied by the
Newtonian inverse-square law. In other models, there are different configurations of
extra dimensions, known as warped compactifications, but these have the same
gravity-magnifying effect.
This enhanced growth of the strength of gravity means that the standard estimate
of the Planck energy (and hence the minimum mass of a black hole) could be too high.
This has the dramatic implication that black holes could be made in accelerators, such
as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN and the Tevatron at Fermilab. These
machines accelerate subatomic particles, such as protons, to velocities very close to
the speed of light, so that they have enormous kinetic energies. At the LHC, a proton
will reach an energy of roughly 7 TeV, which is equivalent to a mass of 1025 kg.
When two such particles collide at close range, their energy is concentrated into a tiny
region of space, so one might wonder whether the colliding particles occasionally
get close enough to form a black hole.
Unless there are large extra dimensions, the likelihood of this is very small because
a mass of 1025 kg is much less than the Planck mass of 108 kg. One can understand
this in simple quantum mechanical terms. The uncertainty principle implies that the
accelerated particles are smeared out over a distance that decreases with increasing
energy and is about 1019 m at LHC energies. So this is the smallest region into which
4 1 Introduction

the protons energy can be packed and it corresponds to a density of 1030 kg m3 .

But this is well below the Planck density required to create a Planckian quantum
black hole. Indeed, in the standard picture a proton would need to be accelerated to
the Planck energy of 1019 GeV to form a black hole, which is a factor of 1015 beyond
the reach of the LHC. However, if there are large extra dimensions, we have seen
that the Planck scale is lowered and the energy required to create black holes could
lie within the LHC range after all, with the holes produced being comparable in size
to elementary particles. They would also evaporate shortly after formation, lighting
up the particle detectors like Christmas trees.
Although there is still no experimental evidence for this, it opens up the exciting
prospect of probing the quantum gravity scale using black holes. In so doing, one
could obtain clues on how space-time is woven together and whether it has unseen
higher dimensions. A proper understanding of this process requires a careful study
of the production of black holes in the collisions of particles, which we present in
Chap. 5, while the application to accelerator holes is covered in Chap. 6.
A full theory of quantum gravity will also be required to resolve a profound para-
dox opened up by Hawkings discovery and one that aims at the heart of why general
relativity and quantum mechanics are so hard to reconcile. According to relativity
theory, information about what falls into a black hole is forever lost. If the black hole
evaporates, however, it invites the question of what happens to the information con-
tained within. Hawking suggested that black holes completely evaporate, destroying
the information and contradicting the tenets of quantum mechanics. Various reso-
lutions have been proposed, including the possibility that evaporating black holes
leave behind stable remnants, which preserve the original information. We do not
discuss this problem in depth in the present work.

1.2 How, When and Where Black Holes Form

In order to supplement the above discussion, we now outline some of the mechanisms
for black hole formation in more detail. The important points are summarized in
Fig. 1.1. We also discuss the epoch at which the various kinds of black hole might
form and their likely location.
MO remnants. The most plausible mechanism for black hole formation invokes
the collapse of stars which have completed their nuclear burning. However, this only
happens for stars massive enough to be classified as Massive Objects (MOs). Stars
smaller than 4 M evolve into white dwarfs because the collapse of their remnants
can be halted by electron degeneracy pressure, while stars in the mass range 48 M
may explode due to degenerate carbon ignition (Arnett 1969). Stars larger than 8 M
but smaller than about 102 M probably burn stably until they form an iron/nickel
core, at which point no more energy can be released by nuclear reactions and so the
core collapses (Woosley and Weaver 1986). If the collapse can be halted by neutron
degeneracy pressure, a neutron star will form and a reflected hydrodynamic shock
may then eject the envelope of the star, giving rise to a type II supernova. If the core
1.2 How, When and Where Black Holes Form 5

Fig. 1.1 Summary of various black hole formation mechanisms and their possible locations. D M
dark matter; GC globalar cluster; U L X ultra-luminous X-ray source; G R B gamma-ray burst

is too large, however, it necessarily collapses to a black hole. Above 40 M the core
collapses directly but for 2540 M collapse is delayed and occurs due to fallback
of ejected material (MacFadyen et al. 2001). Stellar holes must certainly pervade the
discs of spiral galaxies.
VMO remnants. Stars larger than 102 M are radiation-dominated and therefore
unstable to nuclear-energised pulsations during their hydrogen and helium burning
phases. However, the pulsations are expected to be dissipated as a result of shock for-
mation and this could quench the mass loss enough for these Very Massive Objects
(VMOs) to survive for their main-sequence time (which is just a few million years).
However, VMOs encounter a serious instability when they commence oxygen-core
burning because the temperature attained in this phase is high enough to generate
electronpositron pairs (Fowler and Hoyle 1964). This instability has the conse-
quence that sufficiently large cores collapse to IMBHs. Both analytical (Bond et al.
1984) and numerical (Woosley et al. 1982) calculations indicate that this happens for
VMOs of mass above about 200 M . Various arguments suggest that there may have
been a first generation of pregalatic stars in the VMO mass range, in which case they
could also be spread throughout intergalactic space and might be associated with
gamma-ray bursts. At one stage it was even proposed that pregalactic IMBHs could
provide the dark matter, but this seems unlikely since the precursors would generate
too much background light (Carr et al. 1984). IMBHs might explain ultra-luminous
X-ray sources and those without VMO precursors, formed through the coalescence
or accretion of smaller black holes, might reside in the nuclei of globular clusters.
SMO remnants. Stars in the mass range above 105 M are unstable to general
relativistic instabilities. Such Supermassive Objects (SMOs) may collapse directly
6 1 Introduction

to black holes without any nuclear burning at all (Fowler 1966). The evidence for
supermassive black holes (SMBHs) is now compelling and it is clear that most
large galaxies host one (Kormendy and Richstone 1995). Although their formation
mechanism is not as well understood as it is for stellar black holes, they could
plausibly derive from relaxation processes at the centres of dense star clusters or
from the coalescence of smaller holes or from accretion onto a single hole of more
modest mass. SMBHs in galactic nuclei could only have a tiny cosmological density.
It has also been suggested that there could be an intergalactic population with a
much larger density which contributes to the dark matter. However, there are strong
dynamical, lensing and accretion constraints on such a population (Mack et al. 2007).
Note that the formation of SMBHs does not involve the extreme compression which
arises in stellar collapse: an object of 109 M would only have the density of water
on falling inside its event horizon.
PBHs. The formation of black holes smaller than a solar mass would require
extremely high compression but we have seen that such conditions may have arisen
naturally in the first few moments of the Big Bang (Hawking 1971). As discussed
in Chap. 4, such PBHs could have formed either from primordial inhomogeneities
or from some sort of cosmological phase transition. Since they are expected to have
a size of order the particle horizon at their formation epoch, they could span an
enormous mass range: from 105 g for those forming at the Planck time to 105 M
for those forming at 1 s. They could even be a population in the IMBH mass range,
in which case they might contribute to the dark matter and produce an interesting
gravitational wave background without generating too much background light (Saito
and Yokohama 2009). If evaporating black holes leave stable Planck mass relics, these
could also contribute to the dark matter (MacGibbon 1987).

1.3 Black Holes as the Link Between Macrophysics

and Microphysics

The crucial role of black holes in linking macrophysics and astrophysics is summa-
rized in Fig. 1.2. This shows the Cosmic Uroborus (the snake eating its own tail),
with the various scales of structure in the universe indicated along the side. It can
be regarded as a sort of clock in which the scale changes by a factor of 10 for
each minutefrom the Planck scale (1035 m) at the top left to the scale of the
observable Universe (1025 m) at the top right. In between are the plethora of fun-
damental particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules and cells (in the micro domain on the
left), mountains, planets, stars and galaxies (in the macro domain on the right), and
humans (at the bottom). The head meets the tail at the Big Bang because at the largest
cosmological distances, one is peering back to an epoch when the Universe was very
small, so the very large meets the very small there. There might also be extra spatial
dimensions at the top of the Uroborus, reflecting the higher dimensionality of the
early universe.
1.3 Black Holes as the Link Between Macrophysics and Microphysics 7

Fig. 1.2 The Cosmic Uroboros: black holes as a link between macro and micro physics. QSO
Quasi-Stellar Object; MW Milky Way; IMBH Intermediate Mass Black Hole and LHC Large
Hadron Collider. Central picture from Abrams and Primack 2011

The various types of black holes discussed above are indicated in Fig. 1.2 and
labelled by their mass, this being proportional to their size if there are three spatial
dimensions. On the right are the well established astrophysical black holes: the
remnants of ordinary or very massive stars, supermassive black holes such as reside
at the centre of the Milky Way or power quasars, and in some sense the Universe
itself. On the leftand possibly extending somewhat to the rightare the more
speculative primordial black holes, which could span the range from Planck relics
to black holes evaporating at the present epoch to the sort of lunar-mass black holes
which might provide the dark matter. If the extra spatial dimensions at the top of the
Uroborus are large rather than just having the Planck scale, we have seen that the
quantum gravity scale might be reduced to the LHC scale, in which case black holes
might be produced in accelerators (1012 g). These are not themselves primordial but
this would have important implications for PBH formation.
Since our primary focus in this book is quantum black holes (i.e. those smaller
than the mass 1015 g for which quantum effects are important), it is interesting to clar-
ify the link between quantum theory, black holes and quantum gravity more precisely.
This involves two key ideas. (1) Quantum mechanics implies that the uncertainty in
the position and momentum of a particle must satisfy x > /p. Since the momen-
tum of a particle of mass M is bounded by Mc, an immediate implication is that one
cannot localize a particle of mass M on a scale less /(Mc). An important role is
therefore played by the Compton wavelength, RC = /(Mc). In the (M, R) diagram
of Fig. 1.3, the region corresponding to R < RC might be regarded as the quantum
domain in the sense that the classical description breaks down there and quan-
tum field theory applies. (2) General relativity implies that a spherically symmetric
8 1 Introduction

Fig. 1.3 The division of the (M, R) diagram into the classical, quantum, relativistic and quantum
gravity domains. The boundaries are specified by the Planck density, the Compton wavelength and
the Schwarzschild radius

object of mass M forms a black hole if it is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius,
R S = 2G M/c2 . The region R < R S might be regarded as the relativistic domain
in the sense that there is no stable classical configuration in this part of Fig. 1.3. The
properties of such classical black holes will be discussed in detail in Chap. 2.
The Compton and Schwarzschild boundaries intersect at around the Planck scales,
 
RP = G/c3 1033 cm, MP = c/G 105 g 1019 GeV ,

and they divide the (M, R) diagram in Fig. 1.3 into three regimes (quantum, relativis-
tic, classical). The vertical line M = M P marks the division between elementary
particles (M < M P ) and black holes (M > M P ), because one usually requires
a black hole to be larger than its own Compton wavelength. The horizontal line
R = R P is significant because quantum fluctuations in the metric should become
important below this. Quantum gravity effects should also be important whenever
the density exceeds the Planck density, corresponding to the sorts of curvature sin-
gularities associated with the big bang or the centres of black holes. This implies
R < (M/M P )1/3 R P , which is well above the R = R P line in Fig. 1.3 for M M P .
So one might regard the combination of this line and the R = R P line as specifying
the boundary of the quantum gravity domain, as indicated by the shaded region
in Fig. 1.3. If there are extra spatial dimensions, the black hole boundary in Fig. 1.3
becomes shallower when M falls below some critical value, so the intersect with the
Compton line moves up and to the left. This is why the Planck scales themselves
change in this model.
1.4 Conclusions 9

1.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have seen that black holes form a crucial link between
macrophysics and microphysics. Of particular relevance for this book are the black
holes for which quantum effects are important and so we will focus on the ones
which may form either in the early Universe or in high-energy particle collisions. At
the time of writing there is no definite evidence for either of these and it is possible
that there never will be. Primordial black holes may not have formed and nature
may exclude the production of accelerator black holes. Nonetheless their study is
important because they open a unique window onto aspects of fundamental physics.

References

Abrams, N.E., Primack, J.R.: The New Universe and the Human Future, Yale University Press
(2011)
Arnett, W.D.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 5, 180212 (1969)
Bond, J.R., Arnett, W.D., Carr, B.J.: Astrophys. J. 280, 825847 (1984)
Carr, B.J., Bond, J.R., Arnett, W.D.: Astrophys. J. 277, 445469 (1984)
Fowler, W., Hoyle, F.: Astrophys. J. Suppl. 9, 201320 (1964)
Fowler, W.: Astrophys. J. 144, 180200 (1966)
Hawking, S.W.: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 7578 (1971)
Hawking, S.W.: Nature 248, 3031 (1974)
Kormendy, J., Richstone, D.: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 33, 581624 (1995)
MacGibbon, J.: Nature 329, 308309 (1987)
MacFadyen, A.I., Woosley, S.E., Heger, A.: Astrophys. J. 550, 410425 (2001)
Mack, K.J., Ostriker, J.P., Ricotti, M.: Astrophys. J. 665, 12771287 (2007)
Saito, R., Yokohama, J.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 161101 (2009)
Woosley, S.E., Weaver, T.A.: In: Rees, M.J., Stoneham, R.J. (eds.) Supernovae: A Survey of Current
Research, p. 79. Reidel, Dordrecht (1982)
Woosley, S.E., Weaver, T.A.: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 24, 205253 (1986)
Chapter 2
Black Holes in General Relativity

Abstract As a prelude to our study of quantum black holes, in this chapter we

briefly review some of the key features of black holes in general relativity. We focus
on specific examples of black hole metrics in four and higher space-time dimensions,
which will be needed later in the book. The chapter closes with the laws of black
hole mechanics, which raise a curious analogy with the laws of thermodynamics.

2.1 Introduction

Before we can discuss the quantum physics of black holes, we first need to describe
their classical behaviour, that is, as objects in Einsteins theory of general relativity.
General relativity describes the force of gravity as the curvature of the fabric of
space-time. This curvature is caused by matter (or energy, the two being equivalent in
relativity due to Einsteins famous equation E = mc2 ) and is governed by Einsteins
equations of general relativity:

G = 8 T , (2.1)

where the Einstein tensor G describes the space-time curvature and the stress-
energy tensor T the matter or energy. The curvature of space-time in turn affects
the paths of particles, which is particularly relevant for black holes.
In this chapter we provide a brief overview of some of the features of black holes
in general relativity, focusing on those aspects needed for later chapters. Further
details of black holes in general relativity can be found in the many excellent books
available, see for example the classics (Hawking and Ellis 1975; Misner et al. 1973;
Wald 1984), modern textbooks (Carroll 2003; Hartle 2002; Hobson et al. 2006) and
works specifically on black holes (Frolov and Novikov 1998; Frolov and Zelnikov
2011; Raine and Thomas 2005; Townsend 1997). We begin with descriptions of
black holes in four space-time dimensions before discussing some examples of

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 11

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_2, The Author(s) 2014
12 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

higher-dimensional black holes. The chapter closes by considering four laws of black
hole mechanics, which reveal an intriguing similarity to the laws of thermodynamics.

2.2 Four-dimensional Black Holes

We begin by briefly reviewing black hole solutions of four-dimensional general

relativity. Standard theorems (see, for example, Hawking and Ellis (1975)) govern
the properties of four-dimensional black hole solutions of general relativity in either
a vacuum or coupled to an electromagnetic field. In particular, such black holes are
either static and spherically symmetric, or rotating and axisymmetric.

2.2.1 Schwarzschild Black Hole

The very first example of a black hole metric (although the nature of the metric
as describing a black hole was not understood for several decades) was found by
Schwarzschild not long after the publication of Einsteins theory of general relativity
(Schwarzschild 1916). The Schwarzschild metric is given by:
   1
2M 2M
ds = 1
2
dt + 1
2
dr 2 + r 2 d22 , (2.2)
r r

where
d22 = d 2 + sin2 d 2 (2.3)

is the metric on the 2-sphere. Here (r, , ) are the usual spherical polar co-ordinates.
In (2.2), the constant M > 0 is the mass of the black hole. The metric (2.2) is a
solution of Einsteins Equations (2.1) in the absence of matter, so that the stress-
energy tensor T = 0. The metric (2.2) is static and spherically symmetric. As r
, the metric (2.2) approaches the flat-space Minkowski metric, and, accordingly,
the Schwarzschild black hole is asymptotically flat.
From (2.2), it can be seen that the Schwarzschild metric becomes singular when
r = r H = 2M and when r = 0. The apparent singularity at r = 2M is a co-ordinate
singularity which can be removed by changing to an alternative co-ordinate system.
However there is a curvature singularity at r = 0 which cannot be removed by a
change of co-ordinates.
The curvature of space-time represented by the metric (2.2) modifies the paths
of particles. Since, in relativity, particles cannot travel faster than light, we consider
the directions of light rays. If a flash of light is emitted from a point in flat space,
the light rays will travel outwards from that point in all directions equally. The light
rays form what is known as the light cone at that point. Since a particle cannot travel
2.2 Four-dimensional Black Holes 13

Fig. 2.1 Light cones in the Schwarzschild geometry. The co-ordinate r is the horizontal axis, and
t is the vertical axis. The cones at each point are the directions of light rays emanating from that
point. A possible particle path at each point is shown in grey. Particle paths must lie inside the light
cone at each point because particles cannot travel faster than light

faster than light, its path must lie inside the light cone at each point. On the right
of Fig. 2.1, far from the black hole, space-time is flat and the light-cones are at 45
degrees to the vertical. As we move from right to left in the diagram, it can be seen
that the light cones tilt over due to the curvature of the space-time. At each point in
Fig. 2.1, we have shown in grey a possible particle path, which must lie inside the
light-cone. Inside r = 2M we see that the light cones have tilted over sufficiently
that particle paths must be directed towards the left, that is, towards the black hole,
and it is not possible for a particle or light ray to move to the right away from the
black hole. The surface r = 2M is the event horizon, which forms the boundary of
the black hole. The length rs = 2M is known as the Schwarzschild radius of the
black hole.
In order to show the complete space-time structure, a Penrose diagram is useful.
To draw the Penrose diagram, a conformal transformation is made which brings
infinity (r ) into a finite region. The details of the construction can be found
in standard books on the subject, such as Carroll (2003), Hawking and Ellis (1975),
Raine and Thomas (2005). The Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild space-time is
shown in Fig. 2.2. In a Penrose diagram, light rays travel at 45 to the horizontal,
and time-like particle paths must have a slope of more than 45 to the horizontal.
There are a number of important features of the Penrose diagram in Fig. 2.2. Firstly,
the curvature singularity at r = 0 has become two space-like surfaces, depicted as
the two horizontal lines at the top and bottom of the diagram. Secondly, the surfaces
r = 2M are lines at 45 which pass through the centre of the diagram. Thirdly, in the
Penrose diagram, the complex nature of infinity can be clearly seen. Infinity (r )
consists of various points and surfaces: the points i are future/past time-like infinity
(through which particle paths ultimately pass); the points i 0 are space-like infinity;
and the surfaces I are future/past null infinity (through which light rays ultimately
pass).
The nature of the surface at r = 2M is evident from the Penrose diagram. Since
the surface at r = 2M is at 45 , any light ray or particle which enters into region 2
on the diagram must hit the singularity at r = 0 and cannot escape out to region 1.
Region 1 is the exterior of the black hole and is the region of interest to external
observers. Region 2 is the interior of the black hole. Region 3 is a time-reverse of a
black hole, known as a white hole, which we do not consider further. Region 4 is a
copy of region 1, with another asymptotic region. For black holes formed by matter
14 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

Fig. 2.2 Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild space-time. Time is on the vertical axis, increasing
from the bottom to the top of the diagram. Each point on the diagram corresponds to a 2-sphere.
The curvature singularity r = 0 takes the form of the two horizontal lines at the top and bottom of
the diagram. The event horizon r = 2M corresponds to the two lines at 45 passing through the
centre of the diagram. The points and lines denoted i , i 0 and I form infinity

collapsing under gravity, regions 3 and 4 are unphysical (see Fig. 3.1 in Chap. 3). For
the remainder of this book, we are interested in region 1 of all black hole space-times,
which is the region outside the event horizon.

2.2.2 Reissner-Nordstrm Black Hole

In the previous subsection we studied the metric of a static, spherically symmetric

black hole in a vacuum. It is possible to couple a black hole to an electromagnetic field,
which modifies the space-time geometry. The stress-energy tensor corresponding to
an electromagnetic field with field strength tensor F is, in Gaussian units,
 
1 1
EM
T = F F g F F . (2.4)
4 4

Consider an electric field where the only non-zero component of the field
strength is
Q
Fr t = 2 , (2.5)
r
where Q is the electric charge. In this case the solution of Einsteins equations
representing a static, spherically symmetric black hole takes the Reissner-Nordstrm
form (Nordstrm 1918; Reissner 1916)
   1
2M Q2 2M Q2
ds = 1
2
+ 2 dt + 1
2
+ 2 dr 2 + r 2 d22 . (2.6)
r r r r
2.2 Four-dimensional Black Holes 15

Comparing (2.2) and (2.6), it can be seen that the metric components gtt and grr are
modified by the additional Q 2 /r 2 term. The constant M > 0 is once again the mass
of the black hole. There is a curvature singularity at r = 0.
For M > |Q|, there are now two values of r for which the metric component gtt
vanishes:  
r H = M + M 2 Q2, r = M M 2 Q 2 . (2.7)

The larger of these two roots, r H , is the location of the event horizon of the black hole.
The smaller root, r , is a new type of horizon, known as either an inner horizon or
a Cauchy horizon. If M = |Q|, the inner and event horizons merge and an extremal
black hole results. For M < |Q|, there is no event horizon and we have a naked
singularity at r = 0. Penrose diagrams for all these cases can be found in Hawking
and Ellis (1975). We will only consider non-extremal black holes for the remainder
of this book.

2.2.3 Kerr Black Hole

The two black hole metrics which we have considered thus far have both been
static and spherically symmetric. The Kerr(-Newman) solution represents a black
hole which is rotating. The metric takes the following form, in spheroidal polar
co-ordinates (r, , ):

 2 sin2  2  2
ds 2 = dt a sin2 d + dr 2 + d 2 + r + a 2 d a dt ,

(2.8)
where
= r 2 2Mr + a 2 + Q 2 , = r 2 + a 2 cos2 . (2.9)

The constant M > 0 is the mass of the black hole. The black hole is rotating, and
has angular momentum J = a M, where a > 0 is a constant. The angle [0, ]
corresponds to latitude: = 0 is the rotation axis of the black hole and = /2
is the equatorial plane. The metric (2.8) does not depend on time t or the azimuthal
(longitude) angle [0, 2 ]. The metric is stationary; it is not static because
gt = 0.
The Kerr metric (Kerr 1963) is obtained by setting the charge Q = 0, and when
Q = 0 we have the Kerr-Newman metric (Newman et al. 1965; Newman and Janis
1965). The Kerr metric is a solution of Einsteins equations (2.1) in a vacuum with
T = 0. The Kerr-Newman metric is a solution of Einsteins equations with an
electromagnetic field, so the stress-energy tensor T has the form (2.4). The elec-
tromagnetic field is most compactly written in terms of an electromagnetic potential
A , which has non-zero components
16 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

Qr Qar
At = , A = sin2 . (2.10)

The components of the field strength F can be computed from the electromagnetic
potential
F = A A . (2.11)

As well as an electric part At (as in the Reissner-Nordstrm solution), the electro-

magnetic potential also has a non-zero magnetic part A , due to the rotation of the
black hole.
The metric (2.8) has a curvature singularity when = 0, that is, r = 0 and
= /2. This is known as the ring singularity and its structure is explored in
more detail in Hawking and Ellis (1975), ONeill (1992). The metric component
grr becomes singular when = 0. The values of r at which this happens are, for
M 2 > a2 + Q2,
 
rH = M + M 2 a2 Q2, r = M M 2 a2 Q2. (2.12)

As with the Reissner-Nordstrm metric, the surface r = r H is the event horizon

of the black hole and r = r corresponds to the inner (or Cauchy) horizon. When
M 2 = a 2 + Q 2 , the event and inner horizons merge and the black hole is extremal.
For M 2 < a 2 + Q 2 , there is no event horizon and a naked singularity results.
The event horizon rotates with an angular speed
a
H = 2 + a2
. (2.13)
rH

The metric component gtt vanishes on a surface r = r S , where


rS = M + M 2 a 2 cos2 Q 2 , (2.14)

which lies outside the event horizon r = r H (see Fig. 2.3). This surface is known as
the stationary limit surface . The region between the event horizon and the stationary
limit surface is known as the ergosphere. Within the ergosphere, it is not possible for

Fig. 2.3 Diagram showing the location of the stationary limit surface and ergosphere for a Kerr
black hole. The stationary limit surface lies outside the event horizon of the black hole except on
the axis of rotation, where the stationary limit surface touches the event horizon at its north and
south poles
2.2 Four-dimensional Black Holes 17

a particle to remain at fixed (r, , ). Instead, a massive particle must rotate in the
same direction as the event horizon of the black hole. However, since the ergosphere
lies outside the event horizon of the black hole, it is still possible for a particle inside
the ergosphere to escape from the black hole out to infinity.
The rotation of the black hole described by the Kerr metric and the existence of an
ergosphere have many important physical implications. An example is the Penrose
process (Penrose and Floyd 1971), whereby the rotational energy of the black hole
can be extracted. Suppose a particle inside the ergosphere splits into two particles.
One of these particles, particle A, escapes to infinity, while the other, particle B, falls
down the event horizon and enters the black hole. Imagine that particle B, which
falls down the event horizon, has negative energy and angular momentum. Particle
B having negative energy means that the energy required to move the particle from
its location inside the ergosphere to infinity is greater than the rest-mass energy of
the particle. Particle B having negative angular momentum simply means that it is
rotating in the opposite direction to the black hole. If particle B has negative energy
and angular momentum, particle A, which escapes to infinity, will have greater energy
than the original particle. Since particle B enters the event horizon, the energy of the
black hole and the angular momentum of the black hole will decrease. The rotational
energy of the black hole has effectively been extracted and given to particle A.
Astrophysical black holes are expected to be rapidly rotating, and hence described
by the Kerr metric (see, for example, Wiltshire et al. (2009) for more on Kerr black
holes in astrophysics). We will also see in Chap. 5 that black holes formed by particle
collisions will in general be rapidly rotating.

2.3 Higher-dimensional Black Holes

In Sect. 2.2 we have outlined some of the features of four-dimensional black holes in
general relativity. Black holes in more than four space-time dimensions are complex
objects in general, as many of the standard theorems governing the properties of four-
dimensional black holes do not generalize to higher dimensions. In this section we
will discuss the higher-dimensional generalizations of the four-dimensional Schwarz-
schild, Reissner-Nordstrm and Kerr black holes. For more information on the state-
of-the-art in research on higher dimensional black holes, including such exotic objects
as black rings and black Saturns, see the reviews by Emparan and Reall (2008) and
Horowitz (2012). In this section we take the number of space-time dimensions to be
d = n + 4, so that n represents the number of extra dimensions.

2.3.1 Spherically Symmetric Higher-dimensional Black Holes

The four-dimensional Schwarzschild metric (2.2) has a simple generalization to

higher dimensions (Tangherlini 1963):
18 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

 r n+1
 r n+1
1
H H
ds = 1
2
dt + 1
2
dr 2 + r 2 dn+2
2
, (2.15)
r r

where dn+2 2 is the metric on the (n + 2)-sphere. The Schwarzschild-Tangherlini

black hole shares many properties with the Schwarzschid black hole. There is an
event horizon at r = r H and a curvature singularity at r = 0. The metric (2.15) is
static, spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat. The mass M of the black hole
is related to the event horizon radius r H by (Myers and Perry 1986)

1 n+1
M= (n + 2) r H An+2 , (2.16)
16

where An+2 is the area of a unit (n + 2)-sphere:

n+3
2 2
An+2 =  n+3  (2.17)
2

and (x) is the -function. The Reissner-Nordstrm metric (2.6) also has a straight-
forward generalization to higher dimensions (Myers and Perry 1986) but we shall
not consider that black hole further.

2.3.2 Higher-dimensional Rotating Black Holes

The generalizations of the neutral Kerr metric (2.8) to higher dimensions are known as
Myers-Perry black holes (Myers and Perry 1986). The metrics are rather complicated,
because a black hole in (n + 4) space-time dimensions has Nr independent axes of
rotation, where Nr = k + 1 if n = 2k is even, and Nr = k + 2 if n = 2k + 1 is
odd. Therefore a four-dimensional Kerr black hole (n = 0) has one possible axis of
rotation (given by = 0 in the Kerr metric (2.8)) but a seven-dimensional black hole
has three perpendicular axes of rotation. The metric in the general case can be found
in Myers and Perry (1986).
In this book we are interested in black holes formed by a collision of two particles
which are moving in a four-dimensional subspace of the higher-dimensional space-
time (see Chap. 5). In this situation, if the particles do not collide exactly head-on, the
system consisting of the two particles will have non-zero angular momentum about
an axis of rotation in the four-dimensional subspace. Therefore, by conservation
of angular momentum, the resulting black hole will also have non-zero angular
momentum about a single axis, which is in the four-dimensional subspace in which
the particles collide. Such black holes are known as singly rotating black holes and
in this case the general Myers-Perry metric simplifies.
The metric for a singly-rotating Myers-Perry black hole takes the form (Myers
and Perry 1986)
2.3 Higher-dimensional Black Holes 19

  2 2a sin2
ds 2 = 1 dt dt d + dr 2 + d 2
r n1 r n1
 
a sin
2 2
+ r 2 + a2 + sin2 d 2 + r 2 cos2 dn2 , (2.18)
r n1

where
= r 2 + a2 , = r 2 + a 2 cos2 , (2.19)
r n1

and dn2 is the metric on the n-sphere. The mass M and angular momentum J of
the black hole are given by:

1 2
M= (n + 2) An+2 , J= a M, (2.20)
16 n+2

so that the parameter > 0 governs the mass of the black hole and the parameter
a > 0 its angular momentum.
The metric component grr diverges at the event horizon, r = r H , where = 0.
For n > 0, the function has only one positive real root and therefore the black hole
has only an event horizon and no inner horizon. For n = 1, the event horizon exists
only if a 2 < , otherwise there is a naked singularity. For n > 1, the event horizon
exists for all values of a, so that there is no upper bound on the angular momentum
of the black hole.
Higher-dimensional generalizations of the Kerr-Newman metric in closed form
have to date eluded researchers. For general relativity with an electromagnetic field,
solutions are known only numerically. Analytic solutions are known for higher-
dimensional rotating black holes in low-energy models arising from string theory, but
these have additional matter fields. See Allahverdizadeh et al. (2011) for a summary
of what is known about higher-dimensional charged rotating black holes.

2.4 Brane Black Holes

We now turn to a particular class of higher-dimensional black holes, arising in brane

worlds. Firstly we give a very brief summary of the key features of brane worlds
before discussing a simple model of the geometry of brane black holes.

2.4.1 Brane Worlds

Brane worlds are a particular class of higher-dimensional theory. There are two
main realizations of the brane world idea: the ADD model (Antoniadis et al. 1998;
Arkani-Hamed et al. 1998, 1999) in which the extra dimensions are flat, and the
20 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

Fig. 2.4 Sketch of a brane world model. The particles and forces of standard model physics (that is,
the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) are constrained to the brane, only gravity
may propagate in the bulk

Randall-Sundrum model (Mannheim 2005; Randall and Sundrum 1999, Randall and
Sundrum 1999) in which the extra dimensions are warped (have curvature). These
models were proposed as a solution to the hierarchy problem, which can be roughly
stated as: why is the force of gravity so much weaker than the other fundamental
forces? In brane world models the force of gravity is diluted because it probes the
extra dimensions. Quantum gravity in brane world models is discussed in more detail
in Chap. 6, here we focus on the nature of classical black holes in these models.
In this section we shall consider only black holes in ADD brane worlds where
the extra dimensions have a flat geometry. Matter fields are constrained to be on a
four-dimensional subspace (termed the brane) of a higher-dimensional space-time
(called the bulk). Only gravitational degrees of freedom may propagate in the bulk
(see Fig. 2.4 for a sketch).

2.4.2 Neutral Brane Black Holes

In the ADD brane world model, the brane can be thought of simply as a slice
through the higher-dimensional bulk space-time. We shall model the brane itself as
having no structure or tension. Now suppose that there is a higher-dimensional black
hole in the bulk, as sketched in Fig. 2.5. Since gravity can propagate in the bulk, the
higher-dimensional black hole is a solution of Einsteins equations (2.1) in the bulk
with T = 0 on the right-hand-side (since there is no matter in the bulk, only gravity).
The fact that the extra dimensions in the bulk are flat in the ADD model means that the
black hole must be asymptotically flat. Assuming that the black hole is much smaller
than the size of the extra dimensions, the metric of the higher-dimensional black hole
is therefore described by the Myers-Perry metric (see Sect. 2.3.2). If we are interested
in higher-dimensional black holes formed by collisions of particles on the brane, the
black hole will have a single non-zero component of angular momentum, which will
be parallel to the axis of rotation of the black hole in the brane. Therefore the appro-
priate metric to consider is the singly-rotating Myers-Perry black hole metric (2.18).
2.4 Brane Black Holes 21

Fig. 2.5 Sketch of a higher-dimensional black hole in an ADD brane world with flat extra dimen-
sions. On taking a slice through the higher-dimensional black hole, the geometry on the brane - a
brane black hole - is revealed

To find the metric describing the black hole on the brane, we simply take a slice
through the Myers-Perry metric (2.18), by fixing the values of the co-ordinates
describing the extra dimensions. The dn2 term in the metric (2.18) corresponds
to the extra dimensions and disappears when taking this slice, to give the metric of
the brane black hole as:
  2 2a sin2
ds 2 = 1 dt dt d + dr 2 + d 2
r n1 r n1
 2 sin2 
a
+ r 2 + a2 + sin2 d 2 . (2.21)
r n1

If the higher-dimensional black hole is not rotating, then its metric will have the
Schwarzschild-Tangherlini form (2.15). Taking a slice through the metric (2.15)
gives:
 r n+1
 r n+1
1
H H
ds = 1
2
dt + 1
2
dr 2 + r 2 d22 . (2.22)
r r

It is worth commenting that the metrics (2.212.22) are not solutions of the vacuum
Einstein equations (2.1) in four space-time dimensions. Instead, if one calculates the
Einstein tensor G for the metrics (2.212.22), there is a non-zero stress-energy
tensor T0 on the right-hand-side of the Einstein equations (2.1) (Sampaio 2009).

This represents an effective fluid seen by an observer on the brane due to the fact
that the black hole is actually a higher-dimensional object, but the observer cannot
directly probe the extra dimensions.
We use the metrics (2.212.22) as simple models for the geometry of brane black
holes, particularly in Chap. 3.

2.5 Black Hole Mechanics and Thermodynamics

So far in this chapter we have studied stationary black hole solutions of Einsteins
equations. We have not considered black holes as dynamical objects, changing in
time. In Chap. 3 we will be interested in evolving black holes. In this section we
22 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

outline four laws of black hole mechanics, which govern aspects of how black holes
evolve in time. We will then discover a surprising connection with thermodynamics.

2.5.1 Definitions

Before we can state the four laws of black hole mechanics, a few definitions are
needed. Since the defining characteristic of a black hole is that it has an event horizon,
the laws of black hole mechanics are essentially laws about the properties of event
horizons. We now define two key quantities which can be ascribed to an event horizon.
The first key quantity is the area A H of an event horizon. This is simply the area
of the surface which forms the black hole event horizon. For a four-dimensional Kerr
black hole with metric (2.8) the area of the event horizon is
 
A H = 4 r H
2
+ a2 , (2.23)

which reduces to
A H = 4r H
2
(2.24)

if the black hole is non-rotating (so that a = 0).

The next quantity we require is a measure of the acceleration due to gravity at the
event horizon of the black hole, known as the surface gravity and denoted . We are
used to the concept of the Newtonian acceleration due to gravity at the surface of a star
or planet. In order to consistently define the corresponding quantity in relativity, we
have to specify the observer (or frame) in which the acceleration is measured. It would
be natural to define the surface gravity as the acceleration of a freely-falling object,
instantaneously at rest, near the surface of the body, as measured by an observer at
rest near the surface of the body. For a black hole this quantity is divergent at the
event horizon, due to the fact that an observer at rest near the event horizon will have
a divergent acceleration themselves. However, the acceleration at the event horizon
as seen by an observer at infinity is finite, and this will be taken to be the definition of
the surface gravity of a black hole. We note that this definition reduces to the usual
Newtonian definition in the limit of small velocities and accelerations.
This definition can be used to find the surface gravity of the black holes we
have considered earlier in this chapter: see, for example, the treatment in Raine and
Thomas (2005). For a four-dimensional Kerr black hole with metric (2.8) the surface
gravity is
rH M
= . (2.25)
2Mr H

For a four-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole with r H = 2M, this reduces to

1
= . (2.26)
4M
2.5 Black Hole Mechanics and Thermodynamics 23

The surface gravity of the higher-dimensional Myers-Perry black holes discussed in

Sect. 2.3.2 will also be needed in Chap. 3, and is given by (Myers and Perry 1986):
2 + (n 1) a 2
(n + 1) r H
=  2  , (2.27)
2r H r H + a2

which reduces to (2.25) when n = 0.

Finally in this section, we define the electrostatic potential H at the event hori-
zon. For a non-rotating black hole, H is simply equal to At , the time component
of the electromagnetic potential. For a rotating black hole,
H = At H A , (2.28)

where H is the angular speed of the event horizon. For a Kerr black hole or charged
rotating brane black hole, both of which have the electromagnetic potential (2.10),
the electrostatic potential on the horizon is
Qr H
H = , (2.29)
2
rH + a2

Q
which reduces to H = rH when the black hole is non-rotating.

2.5.2 Black Hole Mechanics

With the quantities defined in the previous subsection, we are now in a position to
state the laws of black hole mechanics. For simplicity, we restrict attention to four-
dimensional black hole solutions of Einsteins equations either in a vacuum or with
an electromagnetic field. The four laws of black hole mechanics (Bardeen et al. 1973)
are

Zeroth law The surface gravity of the event horizon of a stationary black hole is
constant over the event horizon.
First law Any two neighbouring stationary, axisymmetric, black hole solutions are
related by

M = A H + H J + H Q. (2.30)
8

Second law The area A H of the event horizon of a black hole is a non-decreasing
function of time. If two or more black holes coalesce, the area of the final event
horizon is greater than the sum of the areas of the initial event horizons.
Third law It is not possible to form a black hole with a vanishing surface gravity
in a finite number of operations.

It is clear from (2.252.26) that the zeroth law holds for Schwarzschild and Kerr
black holes. The zeroth law has been proved in Bardeen et al. (1973) for a class of
matter fields which includes electromagnetism (alternative proofs can be found in
24 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

DeWitt and DeWitt (1973)). The first law is proved in Bardeen et al. (1973), again for
a range of matter fields which includes electromagnetism. The second law is known
as the area theorem and was proved by Hawking (1972), with some assumptions on
the matter fields which are satisfied by electromagnetism. The status of the third law
is rather different; it is a postulate and there is currently no mathematical proof, and,
equally, no contradiction is known.
Classical processes involving black holes must satisfy the first and second laws
of black hole mechanics. For example, in the Penrose process (see Sect. 2.2.3) the
event horizon area A H does not decreasesee for example the discussion in Raine
and Thomas (2005).

2.5.3 Black Hole Entropy and Thermodynamics

The naming and formulation of the laws of black hole mechanics in the previous
subsection is rather suggestive of the laws of thermodynamics. In this subsection we
explore this analogy further, although it is only in Chap. 3 that the comparison will
come to fruition.
Firstly, we observe that classical black holes in general relativity must have an
entropy. To see why, suppose that black holes did not have an entropy. In this case
it would be possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics (that the entropy
of the universe cannot decrease) by throwing some entropic matter into a black
hole. Therefore black holes must have an entropy and the generalized second law of
thermodynamics holds, which states that the total entropy of the universe does not
decrease, where the total entropy of the universe is the entropy outside black hole
event horizons plus the entropy of all the black holes in the universe.
The second law of black hole mechanics suggests that a quantity proportional to
the area of the event horizon of a black hole plays the role of black hole entropy
(Bardeen et al. 1973; Bekenstein 1973). Let us therefore, in general relativity, set the
black hole entropy SBH to be
SBH = K A H , (2.31)

where K is a constant, independent of the nature of the black hole under consider-
ation.
With this in mind, we now turn to the first law of black hole mechanics (2.30). In
relativity mass M and energy E are equivalent (we are using units in which c = 1).
The second and third terms on the right-hand-side of (2.30) represent the work done
in either increasing the angular momentum of the black hole by an amount J or
increasing the charge of the black hole by an amount Q. Therefore, the first law of
black hole mechanics (2.30) takes the form of the first law of thermodynamics:

E = T S + W (2.32)
2.5 Black Hole Mechanics and Thermodynamics 25

where T is temperature, S is entropy and W is work. If the black hole has an entropy
S B H given by (2.31), then it appears that the quantity

TBH = (2.33)
8 K
plays the role of temperature in the first law.
For the moment, let us take the approach that TBH is a quantity which is analogous
to temperature as far as the laws of black hole mechanics are concerned. The zeroth
and third laws of black hole mechanics then immediately have the form of the first
and third laws of thermodynamics respectively. The zeroth law implies that a station-
ary black hole is an equilibrium configuration with constant TBH (corresponding to
thermal equilibrium). The third law implies that a zero temperature configuration
with TBH = 0 cannot be reached in a finite number of steps.

2.6 Conclusions

In this chapter we have briefly reviewed the metrics describing four and higher-
dimensional black holes in general relativity. We have considered static, spherically
symmetric black holes and axisymmetric, rotating black holes. In four-dimensional
classical general relativity, black holes are very simple objects, with Kerr-Newman
black holes described by their mass, angular momentum and charge. This means that
nearly all the information about what has disappeared down the event horizon is lost.
The chapter closed with a brief discussion of the laws of black hole mechanics,
which have some similarities with the laws of thermodynamics. This analogy is rather
intriguing, but, in general relativity, it is only a metaphor. The temperature of a black
hole in general relativity is zero because the black hole, by definition, absorbs matter
but emits nothing. We leave the tantalizing question of whether this analogy can be
realized as something deeper to Chap. 3.

References

Allahverdizadeh, M., Kunz, J., Navarro-Lerida, F.: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 314, 012109 (2011)
Antoniadis, I., Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G.R.: Phys. Lett. B 436, 257263 (1998)
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G.R.: Phys. Lett. B 429, 263272 (1998)
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G.R.: Phys. Rev. D 59, 086004 (1999)
Bardeen, J.M., Carter, B., Hawking, S.W.: Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161170 (1973)
Bekenstein, J.D.: Phys. Rev. D 7, 23332346 (1973)
Carroll, S.M.: Space-Time and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Addison Wesley,
San Francisco (2003)
DeWitt, C., DeWitt, B.S. (eds.): Black Holes. Taylor and Francis, New York (1973)
Emparan, R., Reall, H.S.: Living Rev. Rel. 11, 6 (2008)
26 2 Black Holes in General Relativity

Frolov, V.P., Novikov, I.D.: Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments. Springer,
Berlin (1998)
Frolov, V.P., Zelnikov, A.: Introduction to Black Hole Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2011)
Hartle, J.B.: Gravity: An Introduction to Einsteins General Relativity. Addison Wesley, San Fran-
cisco (2002)
Hawking, S.W., Ellis, G.F.R.: The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (1975)
Hawking, S.W.: Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 152166 (1972)
Hobson, M.P., Efstathiou, G.P., Lasenby, A.N.: General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)
Horowitz, G.T (ed.), Black Holes in Higher Dimensions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(2012)
Kerr, R.P.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237238 (1963)
Mannheim, P.D.: Brane-Localized Gravity. World Scientific, Singapore (2005)
Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., Wheeler, J.A.: Gravitation. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco (1973)
Myers, R.C., Perry, M.J.: Ann. Phys. 172, 304347 (1986)
Newman, E.T., Couch, R., Chinnapared, K., Exton, A., Prakash, A., Torrence, R.: J. Math. Phys. 6,
918919 (1965)
Newman, E.T., Janis, A.I.: J. Math. Phys. 6, 915917 (1965)
Nordstrm, G.: Verhandl. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap. Afdel. Natuurk. 26, 12011208 (1918)
ONeill, B.: The Geometry of Kerr Black Holes. A. K. Peters, Wellesley (1992)
Penrose, R., Floyd, R.M.: Nature 229, 177179 (1971)
Raine, D.J., Thomas, E.: Black Holes: An Introduction. Imperial College Press, London (2005)
Randall, L., Sundrum, R.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 33703373 (1999)
Randall, L., Sundrum, R.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 46904693 (1999)
Reissner, H.: Annalen der Physik 50, 106120 (1916)
Sampaio, M.O.P.: JHEP 0910, 008 (2009)
Schwarzschild, K.: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.), pp. 189196 (1916).
Tangherlini, F.R.: Nuovo Cim. 27, 636651 (1963)
Townsend, P.K.: Black holes, lecture notes from the University of Cambridge. http://arxiv.org/abs/
gr-qc/9707012 (1997)
Wald, R.M.: General Relativity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)
Wiltshire, D.L., Visser, M., Scott, S.M (eds.): The Kerr Space-Time: Rotating Black Holes in
General Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Chapter 3
Hawking Radiation and Black
Hole Evaporation

Abstract This chapter is devoted to the most important property of black holes when
quantum effects are included, Hawking radiation. Black holes emit quantum radiation
with an almost perfect black body spectrum, and therefore ultimately evaporate.
We outline the computation and properties of Hawking radiation from both four-
dimensional and higher-dimensional black holes.

3.1 Introduction

Classical black holes as described by general relativity (see Chap. 2) are, as the name
implies, black. In other words, light and particles can enter the region inside the event
horizon but may not escape from inside the event horizon to outside. In quantum
mechanics particles are able to propagate into classically forbidden regions. In this
chapter we investigate whether quantum particles can escape from a black hole. We
treat the black hole space-time as fixed and classical, described by one of the metrics
from Chap. 2, and we study a quantum field propagating on this geometry. This is
known as the semi-classical approximation to quantum gravity, or, alternatively, as
quantum field theory in curved space-time. Standard monographs on this subject are:
Birrell and Davies (1984); Fulling (1989); Mukhanov and Winitzki (2007); Parker
and Toms (2009); Wald (1994). The validity of this approximation will be discussed
in Sect. 3.2.4.

3.2 Hawking Radiation

Consider a black hole formed by gravitational collapse (see Chap. 4 and 5 for the
processes by which black holes may be formed). The details of the collapse process
are not important. The Penrose diagram for the space-time is shown in Fig. 3.1

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 27

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_3, The Author(s) 2014
28 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

Fig. 3.1 Penrose diagram

for a black hole formed by
gravitational collapse. The
collapsing matter is denoted
by the shaded region, and
the singularity by the double
line at r = 0 at the top of
the diagram. The line r = 0
on the left-hand-side of the
diagram is the centre of the
collapsing body. The event
horizon is denoted H + ; future
null infinity by I + and past
null infinity by I

(compare the Penrose diagram for Schwarzschild space-time in Fig. 2.2). Consider a
quantum field on this background geometry. The state of the quantum field is chosen
to be the state which is empty of particles in the distant past, before the gravita-
tional collapse has started (this is near past null infinity I in Fig. 3.1). Since the
space-time is dynamical, this state does not remain empty of particles for all times.
Hawking (1975) (see also Jacobson (2003) for an alternative derivation) found that,
at late times, far from the black hole (near future null infinity I + in Fig. 3.1), a static
observer sees an outgoing flux of quantum particles even though initially there are
no particles. Effectively, the changing gravitational field due to the formation of the
black hole has created quantum particles.
Hawking radiation may be understood heuristically by considering the creation
by quantum vacuum fluctuations of a particle-antiparticle pair near the event horizon
of the black hole. One of the pair falls down the event horizon; the other escapes to
infinity. The particle at infinity must have positive energy as seen by an observer at
infinity, so the particle which falls down the horizon must have negative energy as
seen by an observer far from the black hole. The observer at infinity therefore sees
quantum emission from the black hole. Moreover, this quantum emission seen by an
observer far from the black hole has a very special form: that of an (almost) perfect
black body.

3.2.1 Black Hole Temperature

Hawkings remarkable result is that black holes have a temperature, known as the
Hawking temperature. The Hawking temperature for a stationary black hole is
(Hawking 1975)
3.2 Hawking Radiation 29

TB H = , (3.1)
2
where is the surface gravity of the black hole, introduced in Sect. 2.5.1. Using the
expressions for the surface gravities (2.252.27) of the black holes studied in Chap. 2,
the Hawking temperature for all those black holes can be compactly written as

2 + (n 1) a 2
(n + 1) r H
TB H =  2  , (3.2)
4r H r H + a2

where r H is the radius of the event horizon of the black hole, a is the angular
momentum parameter and n is the number of extra dimensions.
For a Schwarzschild black hole (2.2) the Hawking temperature of the black hole
is inversely proportional to its mass M:

1
TBH = . (3.3)
8 M
This implies that a black hole has a negative specific heat: as it emits Hawking radi-
ation, the black hole loses mass/energy, and its temperature increases. The radiation
process therefore proceeds at an ever-increasing rate, until the black hole evaporates
away completely, leading to black hole explosions (Hawking 1974).

3.2.2 Black Hole Thermodynamics Revisited

In Sect. 2.5.2 we outlined the four laws of black hole mechanics and discovered an
intriguing analogy between them and the laws of thermodynamics. As part of this
analogy, a quantity /8 K (2.33) was seen to play the same role in the laws of black
hole mechanics as played by temperature in the laws of thermodynamics. However,
in general relativity, because black holes only absorb and do not emit radiation, this
analogy is only a metaphor. In the semi-classical approximation to quantum gravity,
we have seen that black holes do in fact have a temperature, which makes the above
analogy physical. In particular, comparing (2.33) and (3.1), we see that the unknown
constant K is fixed to be equal to K = 1/4. We therefore find that the entropy of
the black hole is
1
SB H = A H . (3.4)
4
The laws of black hole mechanics now become the laws of black hole thermo-
dynamics. However, the second law of black hole mechanics does not hold when
quantum effects are taken into consideration: a black hole loses mass in Hawk-
ing radiation and so its event horizon area shrinks. Accordingly, the entropy of the
black hole (3.4) also decreases as Hawking radiation is emitted. The generalized sec-
ond law of thermodynamics does hold in this situation: the entropy of the universe
30 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

exterior to the event horizon plus the black hole entropy does not decrease, due to
the entropy of the Hawking radiation.
Understanding the underlying physics of black hole thermodynamics, including
accounting for the microscopic degrees of freedom which result in the entropy (3.4)
is the subject of much current research, see for example Page (2005); Wald (2001).

3.2.3 Hawking Fluxes

Our focus in this chapter is the Hawking radiation itself, in particular the fluxes of
particles, energy and angular momentum which the black hole emits. These fluxes
are important because the emitted particles can be observed, for example, from
a black hole created in particle collisions in an accelerator (see Chap. 6). In this
scenario the black hole itself cannot be observed, and its properties must be inferred
from the measured Hawking emission. In particular, a detailed understanding of the
Hawking fluxes is needed for accurate simulations of black hole events at accelerators
(Dai et al. 2008; Frost et al. 2009). We will study the Hawking fluxes in detail in
Sects. 3.4 and 3.5, so here we restrict ourselves to a few introductory remarks.
Consider the power spectrum (that is, the energy emitted per unit time) for Hawk-
ing emission of a single particle species of spin s from a non-rotating black hole in
4 + n space-time dimensions. This is given by (Kanti 2004)

dE 1
= ns () d n+3 k, (3.5)
dt (2 )n+3 e TB H 1

where the energy of the emitted degree of freedom and k its momentum. In the
Planck factor, a +-sign is used for bosons and a -sign for fermions. Restricting
attention to massless fields for which = |k|, the integral in (3.5) reduces to an
integral simply over :

dE 1 s n+2
= n () (n+1)   d. (3.6)
dt 2 e TB H 1 2n 2 (n + 1) n+1
2

The quantity ns is the absorption cross-section. For a perfect black body, it is a

constant corresponding to the area of the body. We will see in Sect. 3.4.3 that a black
hole is not a perfect black body and so ns will depend on the quantum numbers of
the particle, its spin, and the number of extra dimensions.
3.2 Hawking Radiation 31

3.2.4 Validity of the Semi-classical Approximation

The derivation of the Hawking radiation (Hawking 1975) assumes that the space-
time depicted in Fig. 3.1 is classical (that is, described by general relativity). The
quantum thermal radiation does, however, have energy, and therefore will affect the
space-time geometry. This back-reaction is governed by the semi-classical Einstein
equations
G = 8 T , (3.7)

where on the right-hand-side we have the expectation value of the quantum stress-
energy tensor operator. The back-reaction of the quantum field can be incorporated
in a simple way by assuming that the Hawking radiation is a continuous process and
that the black hole retains the Schwarzschild form (2.2) as it evolves. If, in a small
interval of time t, the black hole emits energy in Hawking radiation, then its
mass decreases by . This is a reasonable approximation if M, so that the
energy of each emitted quantum of radiation is much smaller than the mass of the
black hole.

3.3 Stages of Evolution of a Microscopic Black Hole

We now consider a microscopic black hole formed by the high-energy collision of

particles (see Chaps. 5 for details of this process), either in a particle accelerator
or in cosmic rays. When initially formed, the black hole will be rapidly spinning
and highly asymmetric. If, as in a particle accelerator, the black hole forms from
colliding particles which have electromagnetic and colour charges, the black hole
will initially also have electromagnetic and colour charges, which are known as gauge
field hair. The subsequent evolution of the black hole is a continuous process, but
it is helpful to model the evolution as involving four distinct stages (Giddings and
Thomas 2002)see Fig. 3.2 for sketches of the different stages:
Balding phase During this phase the black hole sheds its gauge field hair by the
emission of particles with gauge field charges, and loses its asymmetries by the
emission of gravitational radiation. Usually this phase is regarded as part of the
formation process of the black hole.
Spin-down phase At the end of the balding phase, the black hole is still rapidly
rotating, but it is axisymmetric. The metric of the black hole is described by the
higher-dimensional Myers-Perry metric (2.18). During this phase, the black hole
emits Hawking radiation and loses its angular momentum. The black hole also
shrinks in size and mass.
Schwarzschild phase At the end of the spin-down phase, the black hole has lost all its
angular momentum. The space-time is now spherically symmetric, and described
by the higher-dimensional Schwarzschild-Tangherlini metric (2.15). The black
hole continues to emit Hawking radiation and thereby lose mass.
32 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3.2 Sketch of the four stages of evolution of a microscopic black hole: (a) balding phase,
(b) spin-down phase, (c) Schwarzschild phase and (d) Planck phase. In (a), the curly arrows denote
gauge field hair attached to the black hole and the dashed arrows denote the emission of gravitational
radiation. In (b) and (c) the arrows indicate Hawking radiation from the black hole. In (d) the arrows
and question marks indicate that the behaviour in this phase is not fully understood

Planck phase The Hawking radiation in the spin-down and Schwarzschild phases is
treated semi-classically. As discussed in Sect. 3.2.4, this approximation is only
valid when the emitted quanta have energy much smaller than the mass of the
black hole. Towards the end of the life of the black hole, the black hole will be so
light that each emitted quantum will have energy which is a significant fraction of
the energy of the black hole and the semi-classical approximation will no longer be
valid. In this phase the details of the (as yet unknown) theory of quantum gravity
become important and each particle emitted in Hawking radiation will have a
dramatic effect on the black hole. The physics of this phase of the evolution of the
black hole is therefore poorly understood at present. See Sect. 5.4 for discussion
of planckian quantum black holes.

For the remainder of this Chapter, we study in more detail the spin-down and Schwarz-
schild phases of the evolution, where the semi-classical approximation is valid. We
will discuss the nature of the Hawking radiation in these two phases.
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation 33

3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation

The Hawking radiation emitted by a semi-classical black hole is not precisely thermal.
This is because there is an effective gravitational potential surrounding the black hole,
through which each quantum particle must pass if it is to travel out to infinity, far
from the black hole. This gravitational potential is felt by classical waves as well,
and part of a wave outgoing from the event horizon will be reflected back down the
event horizon by the gravitational potential, while part is transmitted to infinity.
In order to account for this gravitational scattering, the behaviour of classical
waves for each type of quantum field must be studied in detail. We are interested
in the emission of scalars (spin s = 0), fermions (s = 21 ), gauge bosons (including
photons, s = 1) and gravitons (quanta of the gravitational field, s = 2).
In this section we outline the formalism used to study these scattering processes,
and write down some of the key equations. Fuller treatments can be found in the
literature: Chandrasekhar (1998) for classical fields on four-dimensional black holes
and Kanti (2004) for fields on the brane. In brane world models (see Sect. 2.4.1),
standard model particles (scalars, fermions and gauge bosons) are restricted to the
brane, whereas gravitational degrees of freedom (gravitons and possibly scalars) can
propagate in the higher-dimensional bulk. Our summary is split into two sections:
firstly we discuss the formalism for fields of spin-0, 21 and 1 on the brane, and
secondly fields of spin-0 and 2 in the bulk. We will then describe the impact of the
scattering processes described above on the Hawking fluxes introduced in Sect. 3.2.3.
Since there a number of different quantum fields and different scenarios to consider,
finding a consistent notation is a challenge. We will index many quantities by . The
exact nature of the index will depend on the particular field under consideration,
and will be given in the relevant subsection.

3.4.1 Teukolsky Formalism on the Brane

In brane-world models, particles of spin s = 0, 21 , 1 are restricted to move on a four-

dimensional brane black hole geometry. In this subsection we outline the formalism
for these fields on the brane black hole metric (2.21). The equations in this subsection
also apply to four-dimensional Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, on setting the
number of extra dimensions n = 0.
For four-dimensional Kerr black holes (n = 0, see Sect. 2.2.3), Teukolsky (1972,
1973) has developed a unified formalism for describing perturbations of spin s = 0, 21 ,
1 and 2 (see also Chandrasekhar (1998) for a comprehensive treatment). The approach
involves applying the Newman-Penrose formalism to write the perturbation equa-
tions for each spin as a single master equation for a variable s = s (t, r, , ) which
represents the spin-field perturbation, depending on the space-time co-ordinates
(t, r, , ). Teukolskys formalism readily extends to peturbations of spin s = 0,
s = 21 and s = 1 on a brane slice of a higher-dimensional, rotating Myers-Perry
34 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

black hole (2.21). The details of the derivation of the master equation in this case can
be found in Kanti (2004). The precise definitions of the variable s depend on the
particular quantum field being considered: the forms can be found in Kanti (2004).
Due to remarkable symmetry properties of the four-dimensional metric (2.8, 2.22)
the Teukolsky master equation turns out to be separable. Writing

s = eit eim R (r )S ( ), (3.8)

the following radial and angular equations are obtained (Casals et al. 2007; Kanti
2004):
   
d d R
0 = s s+1 + 1 K m 2
is K m + 4isr
dr dr
 

+ ss,|s| 2 a 2 2 + 2ma R (r ), (3.9)

  
1 d d S 2ms cot m 2
0= sin + + a 2 2 cos2 2as cos
sin d d sin sin2

+ s s 2 cot 2 + S ( ), (3.10)

where 
K m = r 2 + a 2 am. (3.11)

Here, is the energy of the particular wave mode and m is the azimuthal quantum
number. We define an index = s, s + 1, . . ., which labels the angular momentum
quantum numbers which index the separation constants . In this case the index
on the radial and angular functions and the separation constants is = {s, , , m},
and so depends on the spin of the field s as well the quantum numbers. The function
appearing in the radial equation (3.9) comes from the metric (2.9, 2.19).
The angular equation (3.10) is the same as for a four-dimensional Kerr black hole.
The angular functions S ( ) are spin-weighted spheroidal functions. The eigenvalues
are complicated functions of a which have to be found numerically by solving
(3.10) subject to the boundary conditions of regularity on the axis of rotation of the
black hole, where = 0, . For a = 0, their values are known:

= ( + 1) s (s + 1) , (3.12)

and the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics reduce to spin-weighted spherical har-

monics.
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation 35

3.4.2 Bulk Fields

In brane world models, gravity is the only force which propagates into the
higher-dimensional bulk. In this subsection we outline what is known about gravi-
tational perturbations of higher-dimensional rotating Myers-Perry black holes (see
Sect. 2.3.2). We also consider scalar field emission in the bulk.
On the full 4 + n-dimensional Myers-Perry metric (2.18), the scalar (s = 0) wave
equation can easily be derived and is separable. The scalar field 0 is written as

0 = eit eim R (r )S ( )Y jn (3.13)

where, as above, (t, r, , ) are the co-ordinates on the brane and Y jn is a hyper-
spherical harmonic depending on the higher-dimensional bulk co-ordinates and
indexed by an integer j. The following radial and angular equations are then obtained
(Casals et al. 2008):
  
1 d d R
0= rn + 1 K m 2
a 2 r 2 j ( j + n 1)
r n dr dr

a 2 2 + 2ma R (r ), (3.14)
  
1 d d S m 2 j ( j + n 1)
0= sin cosn + 2 a 2 cos2
sin cos d
n d sin
2 cos2
+ ] S ( ), (3.15)

which can be seen to reduce to the brane s = 0 radial (3.9) and angular (3.10)
equations when the number of extra dimensions n = 0. In this case the index =
{, , m, j, n}.
The formalism for bulk gravitational perturbations (spin s = 2) does not readily
generalize from Teukolskys work. For a spherically symmetric higher-dimensional
black hole with metric (2.15), the master equations have been derived by Kodama
and Ishibashi (2003). A general gravitational perturbation is decomposed into a
symmetric traceless tensor, a vector and a scalar part. For each type of gravitational
perturbation, the master equation is separable, writing the relevant field quantity in a
form similar to (3.13). The angular functions of each type of gravitational perturbation
are spin-weighted spherical harmonics, and the radial functions satisfy the following
equation (Ishibashi and Kodama 2003)
  r n+1  d   r n+1  d R  

H H
0= 1 1 + 2 V R (r ), (3.16)
r dr r dr

where the form of the potential V depends on the type of gravitational perturbation.
In this case the index = {B, , , n} where B {S, V, T } indicates whether we are
considering a scalar (S), vector (V ) or tensor (T ) type of gravitational perturbation.
The potential V has the form (Ishibashi and Kodama 2003)
36 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

  
 r n+1  n (n + 2) k n+1
1 H 2 rH
VT /V,,,n = 2 1 ( + n + 1) + (n + 2) n+1
r r 4 4 r
(3.17)
for tensor-like (T , k = 1) and vector-like (V , k = 3) perturbations. For scalar-like
(S) graviton perturbations, the potential is more complicated (Ishibashi and Kodama
2003): 
1  r n+1  q x 3 + px 2 + wx + z
H
V S,,,n = 2 1 (3.18)
r r 4 [2u + (n + 2)(n + 3)x]2

where
n+1
rH
x= , u = ( + n + 1) n 2, (3.19)
r n+1
and

q = (n + 2)4 (n + 3)2 ,
 

p = (n + 2) (n + 3) 4u 2n 2 + 5n + 6 + n (n + 2) (n + 3) (n 2) ,
w = 12u (n + 2) [u (n 2) + n (n + 2) (n + 3)] ,
z = 16u 3 + 4u 2 (n + 2) (n + 4) . (3.20)

The radial equation (3.16) has the form of a standard Schrdinger equation. In this
case the gravitational potential barrier surrounding the black hole can be clearly seen
in the equation.
For rotating higher-dimensional black holes, the general gravitational perturba-
tions are proving elusivethe only ones known for a singly-rotating black hole,
whose metric is given in Chap. 2 are those for tensor-type perturbations (Kodama
2008, 2009). In this case, the radial and angular equations for the tensor-type graviton
modes are identical to (3.143.15) for the scalar field modes - the only difference is
that 0 for scalars and 2 for gravitons (Kodama 2009).

3.4.3 Greybody Factors

In order to compute the Hawking emission of particles, energy and angular momen-
tum, the radial equations described in Sects. 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 above need to be solved
numerically for each type of quantum field. The ultimate goal is to find the greybody
factor (also known as the absorption probability or transmission coefficient), which is
the proportion of a wave propagating outwards from the event horizon which passes
through the gravitational potential and reaches infinity.
The greybody factor T is the ratio of the flux in the out-going wave at infinity
F and the flux in the out-going wave near the event horizon FH :
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation 37

F
T = . (3.21)
FH

The greybody factor depends on the appropriate quantities indexing each type of
field. The method for computing the flux varies depending on the nature of the field
considered (the details can be found in Chandrasekhar (1998); Kanti (2004)) and the
results are summarized below. In each case the greybody factor is constructed from
an appropriate solution of the relevant radial equation (3.9, 3.14, 3.16).
We consider first scalar fields (both on the brane and in the bulk) and graviton
fields. For scalar fields, there is just one radial function R , satisfying either (3.9)
on the brane or (3.14) in the bulk. For graviton fields, each type of perturbation for
which the master equation is currently known is described by a single radial function
R , satisfying either (3.16) for all types of graviton emission from a non-rotating
black hole, or (3.14) for tensor-type graviton emission from a singly-rotating black
hole. In these two cases, we consider a wave solution of the relevant radial equation
having the following leading-order behaviour:

(r r H )i /4 TB H + C R, (r r H )i /4 TB H r rH
R (3.22)
C T,r y eir r ,

where C R, and C T, are complex constants,

= m H (3.23)

with H is the angular velocity of the black hole event horizon, and


1 for brane emission of scalars,

1+ n
for bulk emission of scalars, and tensor-type graviton emission
y= 2

from rotating black holes,

0 for graviton emission from non-rotating black holes.
(3.24)
Near the event horizon, the energy of the wave is rather than (the energy at
infinity) due to the rotation of the black hole. If the black hole is non-rotating, then
H = 0 and = .
The radial function (3.22) represents a wave propagating outwards from the event
horizon, part of which (the part containing the constant C R, ) is reflected by the
gravitational potential back down the event horizon, and part (the part containing the
constant C T, ) is transmitted out to infinity.
For a radial function R of the form (3.22) the greybody factor is simply
 2
T = 1 C R,  . (3.25)

For scalar and graviton perturbations, from the properties of the radial equations (3.9,
3.14, 3.16) it can be shown that
38 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

Fig. 3.3 Typical greybody factors for a spin-1 field, as a function of the wave energy . We consider
a rotating brane black hole with metric (2.21) and n = 1. Four different values of the angular speed
of the event horizon are considered, with a = a/r H . The results are shown for the field mode with
=m=1

 2  2
1 C R,  = C T,  , (3.26)

where is given by (3.23). If the black hole is non-rotating, = and the

right-hand-side of (3.26) reduces to |C T, |2 . When the black hole is rotating, for
modes with / < 0, Eq. (3.26) implies that |C R, |2 > 1 and T < 0. This is
the phenomenon of super-radiance (Chandrasekhar 1998), whereby a wave incident
on a rotating black hole can be reflected back to infinity with an amplitude greater
than it had initially. Similarly, a wave propagating outwards from the event horizon
can be reflected back down the event horizon with an amplitude greater than it had
initially (see Fig. 3.3). Super-radiance is the wave analogue of the Penrose process
(see Sect. 2.2.3).
For fermion (spin- 21 ) and gauge boson (spin-1) fields, the calculation of the grey-
body factor is more involved. In these cases there are two radial functions, corre-
sponding to s = + |s| and s = |s|. The radial function R satisfies (3.9) and has
the asymptotic forms (Casals et al. 2007; Kanti 2004)

Bin s (r r H )i /4 TB H + Bout (r r H )i /4 TB H
r rH
R
Cin r s,1 2s eir + Cout r s,1 eir r ,
(3.27)
where Bin/out and Cin/out are complex constants. From (3.27) we see that the two
radial functions have different asymptotic forms: for s = + |s|, the dominant mode
is incoming (containing the constants B/Cin ) while for s = |s| the dominant mode
is outgoing (containing the constants B/Cout ). To compute the greybody factor, we
consider solutions of the radial equation of the form
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation 39

s=+|s| C R, s (r r H )i /4 TB H r rH
R
0 r ,

s=|s| (r r H )i /4 TB H r rH
R (3.28)
C T,r s,1 eir r ,

for complex constants C R, and C T, . The greybody factor T is then given by

(3.25). For gauge bosons (|s| = 1), the relation (3.26) holds and we have super-
radiance as for the scalar and graviton fields. However, for fermion fields (|s| = 21 ),
the relation equivalent to (3.26) takes the form
 2  2
1 C R,  = C T,  . (3.29)
 2
Therefore, for fermions it is always the case that C R,  < 1 and T > 0. There is
no super-radiance for fermion fields (Chandrasekhar 1998).
As an example, in Fig. 3.3 we show some greybody factors for a spin-1 field as a
function of the wave energy , for a rotating black hole. For low-energy waves, as
0, the greybody factor tends to zero as the out-going wave is entirely reflected
back down the event horizon. For high-energy waves, as , all the wave is
trasmitted through the potential barrier to infinity. When the black hole is rotating
(a = 0 in Fig. 3.3), it can be seen that there is a range of values of for which
the greybody factor is negative. This range of values of corresponds to < 0
(3.23) and therefore, from (3.253.26), the greybody factor is negative and we have
super-radiance.

3.4.4 Emission of Particles, Energy and Angular Momentum

Once the greybody factors have been calculated, the fluxes of particles, energy and
angular momentum emitted by a black hole in Hawking radiation can be computed.
Consider the expression for the power spectrum from a non-rotating black hole (3.6).
The absorption cross-section ns is given in terms of the greybody factors as (Kanti
2004)
(n+1)  
2n 2 (n + 1) n+1 
n () =
s 2
T , (3.30)
n+2
modes

where the sum is taken over all field modes with energy as measured from infinity.
Substituting (3.30) into (3.6), it can be seen that the power spectrum has a simple
form in terms of the greybody factors.
Similar expressions can be derived for the spectra of emitted particles and angular
momentum. For the particle spectrum, there is no in the numerator of the fraction
containing the Planck factor in (3.6), while for the angular momentum spectrum the
factor of in the numerator of the fraction containing the Planck factor is replaced
40 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

by m, the azimuthal quantum number of the field mode (3.8, 3.13). We can also
extend the formula (3.6) to rotating black holes. Since Hawking radiation emanates
from the horizon of a black hole, the thermal factor depends on the energy (3.23)
of a field mode near the horizon, which is different from its energy at infinity, , if
the black hole is rotating.
To summarize, the differential fluxes per unit time and unit energy of particles N ,
energy E and angular momentum J for the emission of particles of spin s can be
written in the following simple forms:

d2 N 1   1
= N T ,
/TB H 1
(3.31)
dt d 2 e
j =s m=

d2 E 1  
= /T
N T , (3.32)
dt d 2 e B H 1
j =s m=

d2 J 1   m
= N T .
/TB H 1
(3.33)
dt d 2 e
j =s m=

The plus sign in the thermal Planck factors in the denominators of the fractions is
applicable for fermionic fields and the minus sign for bosonic fields. The mode sums
are taken over all values of the azimuthal quantum number m (3.8, 3.13) and the
angular momentum quantum number . The additional sum over j, which indexes
the hyperspherical harmonics in the bulk, is absent for fields on four-dimensional
black holes. It is present only for scalar fields in the bulk and tensor-like gravi-
ton emission from a rotating black hole. For graviton emission from a non-rotating
higher-dimensional black hole, the additional dimensions are taken into account in
the angular momentum quantum number of the field mode.
In (3.313.33), as well as the greybody factor T , the fluxes also contain a degen-
eracy factor N which counts the multiplicity of modes having the quantum numbers
{m} (for all fields) and j for bulk fields. As previously, the exact form of the label
on the degeneracy factor depends on the nature of the field under consideration.
For reference, we now list the degeneracy factors for the different types of field. None
of the degeneracy factors depend on the mode energy , although this is included in
the label for consistency with previous notation.
Brane fields. For fields of spin- 21 and spin-1, there are field modes with two
polarizations, so to take this into account we set the degeneracy factors equal to

1 for s = 0,
N = 2 for s = 21 , (3.34)

2 for s = 1,

where the above hold for any values of , and m.

Bulk scalar fields: For bulk scalar fields, the degeneracy factor depends on the
index j which labels the hyperspherical harmonics (3.13) and counts the multiplicity
3.4 Computation of Hawking Radiation 41

of modes in the bulk (Casals et al. 2008):

(2 j + n 1) ( j + n 2)!
N = . (3.35)
j! (n 1)!

Note that the degeneracy factor is the same for all , and m.
Bulk graviton fields: For bulk graviton fields, the number of degrees of freedom
increases significantly as the number of space-time dimensions increases. For grav-
itational perturbations of spherically symmetric black holes, the degeneracy factors
N depend on the type of gravitational perturbation (scalar, vector or tensor-like)
and count the number of modes with the same angular momentum quantum number
. Their values are (Creek et al. 2006):

(2 + n + 1) ( + n)!
N S,,,n = ,
(2 + 1) ! (n + 1)!
( + n + 1) (2 + n + 1) ( + n 1)!
NV,,,n = ,
(2 + 1) ( + 1)!n!
n (n + 3) ( + n + 2) ( 1) (2 + n + 1) ( + n 1)!
NT,,,n = . (3.36)
2 (2 + 1) ( + 1)! (n + 1)!

For tensor-type gravitational perturbations of rotating black holes, the degeneracy

factor is (Kanti et al. 2009)

(n + 1) (n 2) (n + j) ( j 1) (n + 2 j 1) (n + j 3)!
N = . (3.37)
2 ( j + 1)! (n 1)!

As with bulk scalar fields, the degeneracy factor depends on the index j which
labels the hyperspherical harmonics in the bulk but does not depend on the quantum
numbers or m.

3.5 Emission of Neutral, Massless Particles

We now describe the physical properties of the fluxes of particles, energy and angular
momentum (3.313.33) due to Hawking radiation. In this section we focus on the
emission of neutral, massless particles, and we will briefly discuss more general emis-
sion in the following section. We begin with the emission from a four-dimensional
black hole, which was studied in depth by (Page 1976, 1977). Over the past ten
years, Hawking radiation from higher-dimensional black holes has been studied in
depth and there is a very large literature on this subject. Relevant review articles
include those by Casanova and Spallucci (2006); Kanti (2004, 2009, 2012); Lands-
berg (2004); Winstanley (2007).
42 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

Fig. 3.4 Energy flux (3.32) for the emission of scalar particles from a four-dimensional Schwarz-
schild black hole. The solid line denotes the flux (3.32) including the greybody factors and the
dashed lines denote the pure black body spectrum for a black body having the same temperature as
2
27r H
the black hole and a constant absorption cross-section 00 = 4

3.5.1 Emission from Four-dimensional Black Holes

To illustrate the typical form of the spectrum of Hawking radiation, in Fig. 3.4 we
show the energy flux (3.32) for scalar emission from a four-dimensional Schwarz-
schild black hole (see Sect. 2.2.1), for which the Hawking temperature is given by
(3.3). We plot both the exact Hawking flux, computed using the greybody factors, and
a pure black body spectrum at the same temperature. The importance of including
the greybody factors can be seen in the low-energy emission. At high energies, since
the greybody factors approach unity (see Fig. 3.3), the pure black body spectrum
becomes a better approximation. The power spectra (energy fluxes) for the emis-
sion of other particles (fermions, gauge bosons and gravitons) from a Schwarzschild
black hole have very similar shapes (Page 1976). As the spin of the field increases,
the height of the peak of emission decreases and the peak occurs at higher energies
(Page 1976). The particle fluxes also have a similar shape. Since a Schwarzschild
black hole is non-rotating, no angular momentum flux is emitted in the Hawking
radiation.
If we consider the energy flux (3.32) from a rotating Kerr black hole (see
Sect. 2.2.3), the shape of the spectrum is very different from that for a non-rotating
black holesee Fig. 3.5. The power spectrum has a number of peaks, which are due
to particular modes becoming dominant at different energies . The spectra for fields
of other spin have similar features, although the magnitude of the largest peak varies
according to the spin, as does the rate at which the energy flux dies off for large .
The temperature of a four-dimensional Kerr black hole is given by (3.2) with n = 0,
that is
3.5 Emission of Neutral, Massless Particles 43

Fig. 3.5 Energy flux (3.32) for the emission of scalar particles from a four-dimensional Kerr black
hole. The rotation parameter is a = 0.5rh

2 a2
rH
TB H =  2 , (3.38)
4r H r H + a2

so that the temperature depends on the angular momentum parameter a as well as

the mass of the black hole. For fixed radius of the event horizon r H , the temperature
(3.38) is a maximum when a = a/r H = 0 (that is, the black hole is not rotating)
and decreases as a increases, until the temperature vanishes when a = 1 and the
black hole is extremal. This variation in temperature affects the relative emissions of
different types of particle. This has been studied in detail by Page (1976).
The fluxes of particles and angular momenta have similar shapes, as do the spectra
for particles with non-zero spin. In Page (1976), the emission of massless fermions,
gauge bosons (that is, photons) and gravitons from a Kerr black hole is studied
in detail. The black hole sheds mass and angular momentum, but sheds angular
momentum more quickly than mass. For example, a black hole starting off with very
close to the maximal rotation a = M, emitting four species of massless fermion,
one species of photon and one species of graviton will lose half its mass in 71 % of
its lifetime but half its angular momentum in only 6.7 % of its lifetime. Page (1976)
finds that the black hole loses angular momentum so quickly that, if it is emitting
the combination of species outlined above, it will emit more than 50 % of its energy
when it is so slowly rotating that its power is within 1 % of the Schwarzschild value
Page (1976), page 3267.
This means that, for four-dimensional black holes, the spin-down phase (see
Sect. 3.3) of the evolution of a black hole is very rapid, and the Schwarzschild phase
is dominant.
44 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

3.5.2 Brane Emission from Higher-dimensional Black Holes

In brane-world models (see Sect. 2.4.1), particles of spin 0, 21 and 1 are expected to be
emitted in Hawking radiation on the brane. The literature studying brane emission
is now rather vast, and we cannot give a full list of references in a short book.
Comprehensive lists of references can be found in the reviews by Casanova and
Spallucci (2006); Kanti (2004, 2009, 2012); Landsberg (2004); Winstanley (2007).
In this section we briefly outline a few of the key features.
The Schwarzschild phase (see Sect. 3.3), when the black hole is spherically sym-
metric, is the easiest to analyze. In this phase of the evolution, the brane black hole
is described by the metric (2.22), and the Hawking temperature is (3.2)

n+1
TBH = . (3.39)
4r H

As expected, the temperature of the black hole decreases as its size increases, but
another key feature of the temperature (3.39) is that it increases as the number of extra
dimensions n increases. This has important consequences for the Hawking radiation.
For each value of n, the power spectrum for each type of field has a very similar
shape to that for scalar fields from a Schwarzschild (n = 0) black hole (see Fig. 3.4
and Harris and Kanti (2003)). As n increases and the temperature increases, the
emitted energy in each type of field increases as expected. The comparative emission
in scalars (spin-0), fermions (spin- 21 ) and gauge bosons (photons, spin-1) for different
n is shown in Tables 3.13.2. In Table 3.1, the total energy emission for each species
for each value of n is divided by the emission for that species in the n = 0 case, to
see how the emission changes as n increases. It can be seen that, as the temperature
increases, the total energy emission for each species increases rapidly, particularly

Table 3.1 Ratios of total energy emission on the brane from a non-rotating black hole, compared
with the emission in the n = 0 case for each species
n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7
Scalars 1.0 8.94 36.0 99.8 222 429 749 1220
Fermions 1.0 14.2 59.5 162 352 664 1140 1830
Photons 1.0 27.1 144 441 1020 2000 3530 5740
Data taken from Harris and Kanti (2003)

Table 3.2 Ratios of total energy emission on the brane from a non-rotating black hole, compared
with the scalar field emission for each value of n
n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7
Scalars 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Fermions 0.55 0.87 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.82
Photons 0.23 0.69 0.91 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.07
Data taken from Harris and Kanti (2003)
3.5 Emission of Neutral, Massless Particles 45

Fig. 3.6 Energy flux (3.32) for spin- 21 particles as a function of , for emission on the brane of
a higher-dimensional black hole. The number of extra dimensions is fixed to be n = 1, and the
angular momentum parameter a = a/r H varies. Data taken from Casals et al. (2007)

for spin-1 particles. In Table 3.2, the total energy emission for each species for each
value of n is divided by the scalar emission for that value of n, to see how the ratios of
the different types of particle emitted change as n changes. The proportion of photon
emission increases rapidly as n increases, and the proportion of fermion emission
also increases, but not as rapidly. For larger values of n, the photon energy emission
is roughly the same as the scalar energy emission and the fermion energy emission is
a little smaller. These data are for a single species, so in practice the fermion emission
will be rather larger due to the number of light fermions.
For a rotating neutral brane black hole, the metric is (2.2) and the temperature
given by (3.2). The physics is now more complicated because the angular momentum
of the black hole can vary as well as n. The effect of varying a can be seen in Fig. 3.6,
which shows the power spectrum for fermion emission from a black hole with n = 1,
and different values of a. When the black hole is non-rotating a = 0, the spectrum
has the Planck shape seen for scalar field emission in Fig. 3.4. As a increases, we
see peaks in the spectrum (compare Fig. 3.5) as distinct modes become dominant at
different values of the mode energy . These peaks become more prominent as a
increases. It can also be seen from Fig. 3.6 that the total energy emitted increases
rapidly as a increases.
As the number of extra dimensions n increases, the temperature (3.2) increases,
with increased emission at every energy as n increases. For rotating brane black
holes, it is found that typically the scalar and fermion fluxes (for one species) are
roughly the same order of magnitude, while the photon flux is typically 10 times that
for the scalars and fermions.
46 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

3.5.3 Bulk Emission from Higher-dimensional Black Holes

In brane world models, only gravitational degrees of freedom propagate in the bulk,
so we only need to consider the bulk Hawking emission of gravitons, and possibly
scalars. Since there are many more types of particle which live on the brane than in
the bulk, it is anticipated that the majority of Hawking radiation will be on the brane
(Emparan et al. 2000). However, the number of gravitational degrees of freedom
increases rapidly as the number of extra dimensions increases (see the degeneracy
factors (3.363.37)) and so a detailed computation of the Hawking emission is neces-
sary. Since the full graviton perturbation equations for a rotating higher-dimensional
black hole are presently unknown, the complete picture is currently only available
for non-rotating black holes.
For non-rotating, Schwarzschild-like black holes, graviton emission has been
considered by a number of authors (Cardoso et al. 2006; Cornell et al. 2006; Creek et
al. 2006; Park 2006). Some sample data is contained in Table 3.3, where the energy
emitted in bulk gravitons from a non-rotating black hole is compared with the energy
emitted on the brane in the form of scalar fields. It can be seen that the energy
emitted in bulk gravitons is negligible for small numbers of extra dimensions but
rapidly increases as the number of extra dimensions increases, due to the additional
gravitational degrees of freedom.
To see whether black holes do indeed radiate mainly on the brane (Emparan et
al. 2000), we need to take into account the number of particle species of different
spin. Table 3.4 shows the percentage of energy emitted by different types of particles,
assuming that the particle species correspond to the standard model of particle physics
with three families (Cardoso et al. 2006). Even with seven extra dimensions, it can

Table 3.3 Comparison of the energy emitted in bulk gravitons and the energy emitted in scalar
fields on the brane, for a non-rotating black hole
n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7
Scalars 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Gravitons 0.02 0.2 0.6 0.91 1.9 2.5 5.1 7.6
Data taken from Cardoso et al. (2006)

Table 3.4 Percentages of energy emission from a non-rotating black hole into particles of spin-0,
1
2 , 1 and 2, assuming the standard model of particle physics with three families and one Higgs field
on the brane and only graviton emission in the bulk
n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4 n=5 n=6 n=7
Scalars 6.8 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 2.9
Fermions 83.8 78.7 75.0 72.3 69.9 68.1 61.6 53.4
Gauge bosons 9.3 16.7 20.0 21.7 22.3 22.2 20.7 18.6
Gravitons 0.1 0.6 1.3 2.4 4.2 7.7 14.4 25.1
Data taken from (Cardoso et al. 2006)
3.5 Emission of Neutral, Massless Particles 47

be seen that most of the emission is indeed on the brane. This is due to the large
number of fermion degrees of freedom in the standard model.
The question of how this scenario changes when the black hole is rotating cannot
be fully answered at present. However, the study of scalar field emission in the bulk
(Casals et al. 2008) and tensor-type graviton emission (Doukas et al. 2009; Kanti
et al. 2009) has provided some partial answers. Considering just a single degree of
freedom, a scalar field, it is found in Casals et al. (2008) that increasing the angular
momentum of the black hole decreases the proportion of radiation emitted in the
bulk compared with on the brane (due to the rotation of the black hole in the brane).
Turning to graviton emission, numerical calculations (Doukas et al. 2009; Kanti et
al. 2009) reveal that the emission in tensor-type gravitons increases dramatically as
n increases, as might be expected due to the rapid increase in the number of degrees
of freedom (3.37). For small n, the emission in gravitons is negligible compared with
the emission on the brane, but it will dominate for large n. Tensor-type gravitational
degrees of freedom dominate for large n (see the degeneracy factors (3.36)) so one
might hope that the unknown contributions from scalar- and vector-type graviton
modes do not make a huge difference.

3.6 More General Hawking Emission

The previous section considered the emission of massless, uncharged particles from a
neutral black hole. In this short review we do not have room for detailed discussion of
generalizations to different black hole geometries or brane-world scenarios. Instead
we briefly mention the effects of mass and charge.
The emission of massive particles, as might be expected, is suppressed compared
to the emission of massless particles because of the additional energy required to
emit a more massive particle (Kanti 2012). There is also a cut-off, in that particles
having an energy lower than the rest-mass cannot be emitted.
Charge effects are more complex. In the four-dimensional case, the Hawking
radiation of charged fermions from a Reissner-Nordstrm black hole with metric
(2.6) was studied in detail by Page (1977). The emission, on the brane, of both
neutral and charged particles from a rotating charged brane black hole has been
studied more recently by Sampaio (2009, 2010). The addition of charge to the black
hole increases its temperature, which enhances the emission of neutral particles.
For charged particles, the differential charge flux per unit time and unit energy is
(Sampaio 2009, 2010) (note that this is for brane emission so there is no sum over
the index j)

d2 Q 1   q
= /T
N T (3.40)
dt d 2
=s m=
e BH 1

where N is the brane degeneracy factor (3.34),

48 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

= m H q H (3.41)

and H is the electrostatic potential (2.29). The energy in the Planck factor in the
fluxes of particles, energy and angular momentum (3.313.33) also changes from
(3.23) to (3.41) due to the charge of the emitted particles. The thermal factor in
(3.40) favours the emission of particles having charge of the same sign as that of the
black hole, so that the black hole seeks to lose its charge through Hawking radiation,
in much the same way as it loses its angular momentum during the spin-down
phase of evolution. There is also a charge super-radiance effect for bosonic fields
Sampaio 2009, 2010, where the greybody factor T becomes negative for modes
where < 0, analogous to the super-radiance effect for rotating black holes, as
shown in Fig. 3.3.

3.7 Conclusions

In this chapter we have examined the Hawking radiation of quantum particles from
both four-dimensional and higher-dimensional black holes, including the brane black
holes described in Sect. 2.4. We have presented all the equations currently available
for the computation of Hawking radiation from both rotating and non-rotating black
holes. The complete set of equations governing graviton emission from rotating
higher-dimensional black holes are presently elusive.
The evolution of an evaporating microscopic black hole is of particular interest.
In four space-time dimensions, a rotating black hole sheds its angular momentum
very quickly (Page 1976) and the spin-down phase (see Sect. 3.3) is very short
compared to the Schwarzschild phase where the rotation of the black hole can
safely be ignored. In higher dimensions, the black hole sheds its angular momentum
quickly, but the spin-down phase is more important, with the black hole still having
a non-negligible rotation parameter a when it has lost half its mass. It has been
estimated that more than 7080 % of a brane black holes mass can be radiated away
during the spin-down phase (Ida et al. 2006).
The study of Hawking radiation proceeds in the semi-classical approximation
to quantum gravity, where the black hole geometry is regarded as classical and the
quantum field a perturbation of this geometry. This approximation is only valid when
the energy of a particle emitted in Hawking radiation is small compared to the mass of
the black hole. Towards the end of the lifetime of the black hole, this approximation
breaks down because the mass of the black hole is very small. In the absence of a full
theory of quantum gravity, the evolution of the black hole during its final Planck
phase remains mysterious.
Hawkings result predicts that a black hole will evaporate away completely, leav-
ing just the (almost precisely thermal) radiation. This raises a fundamental difficulty,
known as the information loss paradox. We saw in Chap. 2 that a classical black
hole destroys virtually all the information about objects which fall down the event
horizon. This is not a problem in classical physics. However, in quantum mechanics
3.7 Conclusions 49

one of the key precepts is unitarity, namely that information is conserved and not
destroyed. If we view the formation and subsequent evaporation of a black hole as a
quantum-mechanical process, then nearly all of the information in the initial quan-
tum state (corresponding to the matter which collapses to form the black hole) is
lost as the final state is thermal radiation. This paradox illustrates the fundamental
incompatibility of classical general relativity and quantum mechanics, which is one
of the reasons why a complete theory of quantum gravity is proving so hard to find.
See Hossenfelder and Smolin (2010) for a fuller discussion of the information loss
paradox and a survey of attempts at a resolution.

References

Birrell, N.D., Davies, P.C.W.: Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge University Press (1984)
Cardoso, V., Cavaglia M., Gualtieri L.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 071301 (2006) [Erratum-ibid. 96, 219902
(2006)].
Cardoso, V., Cavaglia, M., Gualtieri, L.: JHEP 0602, 021 (2006)
Casals, M., Dolan, S.R., Kanti, P., Winstanley, E.: JHEP 0703, 019 (2007)
Casals, M., Dolan, S.R., Kanti, P., Winstanley, E.: JHEP 0806, 071 (2008)
Casanova, A., Spallucci, E.: Class. Quant. Grav. 23, R45R62 (2006)
Chandrasekhar, S.: The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press (1998)
Cornell, A.S., Naylor, W., Sasaki, M.: JHEP 0602, 012 (2006)
Creek, S., Efthimiou, O., Kanti, P., Tamvakis, K.: Phys. Lett. B 635, 3949 (2006)
Dai, D.-C., Starkman, G., Stojkovic, D., Issever, C., Rizvi, E., Tseng, J.: Phys. Rev. D 77, 076007
(2008)
Doukas, J., Cho, H.T., Cornell, A.S., Naylor, W.: Phys. Rev. D 80, 045021 (2009)
Emparan, R., Horowitz, G.T., Myers, R.C.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 499502 (2000)
Frost, J.A., Gaunt, J.R., Sampaio, M.O.P., Casals, M., Dolan, S.R., Parker, M.A., Webber, B.R.:
JHEP 0910, 014 (2009)
Fulling, S. A.: Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time, Cambridge University
Press (1989)
Giddings, S.B., Thomas, S.D.: Phys. Rev. D 65, 056010 (2002)
Harris, C.M., Kanti, P.: JHEP 0310, 014 (2003)
Hawking, S.W.: Nature 248, 3031 (1974)
Hawking, S.W.: Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199220 (1975)
Hossenfelder, S., Smolin, L.: Phys. Rev. D 81, 064009 (2010)
Ida D., Oda K.-y., Park S. C.: Phys. Rev. D 73, 124022 (2006)
Ishibashi, A., Kodama, H.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 901919 (2003)
Jacobson, T.: gr-qc/0308048 (2003)
Kanti, P.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 48994951 (2004)
Kanti, P.: Lect. Notes Phys. 769, 387423 (2009)
Kanti, P., Kodama, H., Konoplya, R.A., Pappas, N., Zhidenko, A.: Phys. Rev. D 80, 084016 (2009)
Kanti, P.: Rom. J. Phys. 57, 879893 (2012)
Kodama, H., Ishibashi, A.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 701722 (2003)
Kodama, H.: Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 172, 1120 (2008)
Kodama, H.: Lect. Notes Phys. 769, 427470 (2009)
Landsberg, G.L.: Eur. Phys. J. C 33, S927S931 (2004)
Mukhanov, V., Winitzki, S.: Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity, Cambridge University
Press (2007)
Page, D.N.: Phys. Rev. D 13, 198206 (1976)
50 3 Hawking Radiation and Black Hole Evaporation

Page, D.N.: Phys. Rev. D 14, 32603273 (1976)

Page, D.N.: Phys. Rev. D 16, 24022411 (1977)
Page, D.N.: New J. Phys. 7, 203 (2005)
Park, D.K.: Phys. Lett. B 638, 246 (2006)
Parker, L., Toms, D.: Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time: Quantized Fields and Gravity,
Cambridge University Press (2009)
Sampaio, M.O.P.: JHEP 0910, 008 (2009)
Sampaio, M.O.P.: JHEP 1002, 042 (2010)
Teukolsky, S.A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 11141118 (1972)
Teukolsky, S.A.: Astrophys. J. 185, 635647 (1973)
Wald, R.M.: Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics,
University of Chicago Press (1994)
Wald, R.M.: Living Rev. Rel. 4, 6 (2001)
Winstanley, E., arXiv:0708.2656 [hep-th] (2007)
Chapter 4
Primordial Black Holes

Abstract Primordial black holes are the most plausible realization of quantum black
holes. Although there is no definite evidence for their existence, they could provide a
unique probe of the early Universe, high-energy physics, extra dimensions and even
quantum gravity. In particular, the many limits on the fraction of the Universe going
into evaporating ones in the mass range 109 1017 g provide important constraints on
models of the early Universe. The strongest limits in this range are associated with
their effects on big bang nucleosynthesis and the extragalactic photon background.
There would also be a strong constraint at lower masses if evaporating black holes
leave stable relics and this would have important implications for models of quantum
gravity.

4.1 Introduction

Black holes with a wide range of masses could have formed in the early Universe as a
result of the great compression associated with the big bang (Zeldovich and Novikov
1967; Hawking 1971; Carr and Hawking 1974). A comparison of the cosmological
density at a time t after the big bang with the density associated with a black hole of
mass M suggests that such primordial black holes (PBHs) would have a mass of
order  
c3 t t
M 1015 g. (4.1)
G 1023 s

This roughly corresponds to the particle horizon mass in a non-inflationary model.

PBHs could thus span an enormous mass range: those formed at the Planck time
(1043 s) would have the Planck mass (105 g), whereas those formed at 1 s would
be as large as 105 M , comparable to the mass of the holes thought to reside in
galactic nuclei. By contrast, black holes forming at the present epoch could never be
smaller than about 1 M .

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 51

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_4, The Author(s) 2014
52 4 Primordial Black Holes

The realization that PBHs might be small prompted Hawking to study their
quantum properties. This led to his famous discovery (Hawking 1974, 1975) that
black holes radiate thermally with a temperature
 1
 c3 M
TBH = 107 K, (4.2)
8 G M kB M

so they evaporate completely on a timescale

 3
G2 M 3 M
(M) 1064 yr. (4.3)
 c4 M

Only PBHs smaller than M 1015 g would have evaporated by the present epoch,
so Eq. (4.1) implies that this effect could be important only for ones which formed
before 1023 s. Since PBHs with a mass of around 1015 g would be producing photons
with energy of order 100 MeV at the present epoch, the observational limit on the -
ray background intensity at 100 MeV immediately implied that their density could
not exceed about 108 times the critical density (Page and Hawking 1976). This
suggested that there was little chance of detecting their final explosive phase at the
present epoch, at least in the Standard Model of particle physics. It also meant that
PBHs with an extended mass function could provide the dark matter only if the
fraction of their mass around 1015 g were tiny. Nevertheless, it was soon realized that
the -ray background limit does not preclude PBHs having important cosmological
effects (Carr 1976).
The plan of this chapter is as follows. Section 4.2 briefly describes the formation
mechanisms for PBHs and their possible cosmological consequences. Section 4.3 dis-
cusses in more detail their production from inhomogeneities and inflation.
Section 4.4 reviews black hole evaporation and the effects of quark-gluon emis-
sion. Section 4.5 discusses the constraints on the fraction of the early Universe going
into PBHs from cosmological nucleosynthesis effects, while Sect. 4.6 discusses the
ones associated with the photon background. Section 4.7 compares these constraints
with other ones in the mass range 109 1017 g and considers ways in which one might
obtain more positive evidence for PBHs. The discussion is based in part on the recent
paper by Carr et al. (2010), henceforth referred to as CKSY. Our focus will be pri-
marily on evaporating PBHs since these are the only ones which are regarded as
quantum.

4.2 Formation, Consequences and Abundance of PBHs

4.2.1 How PBHs Form

The high density of the early Universe is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for PBH formation. Most PBH formation scenarios depend on the development of
4.2 Formation, Consequences and Abundance of PBHs 53

inhomogeneities of some kind. Overdense regions could then stop expanding and
recollapse (Carr 1975). One possibility is that these inhomogeneities were primordial,
in the sense that they were fed into the initial conditions of the Universe. But they
may also have arisen spontaneously in an initially smooth Universefor example,
through quantum effects during an inflationary epoch. In either case, the fluctuations
would need to be large in order to ensure collapse against the pressure. We discuss
these scenarios in more detail in Sect. 4.3. Another possibility is that some sort of
phase transition may have enhanced PBH formation or triggered it even if there were
no prior inhomogeneities. We now discuss these more exotic scenarios briefly.
Soft equation of state. Whatever the source of the inhomogeneities, PBH forma-
tion would be enhanced if some phase transitions led to a sudden reduction in the
pressurefor example, at the QCD era (Jedamzik and Niemeyer 1999)or if the
early Universe went through a dustlike phase at early times as a result of either being
dominated by non-relativistic particles for a period (Khlopov and Polnarev 1980) or
undergoing slow reheating after inflation (Khlopov et al. 1985). In such cases, the
effect of pressure in stopping collapse is unimportant and the probability of PBH
formation just depends upon the fraction of regions which are sufficiently spherical
to undergo collapse. For a given spectrum of primordial fluctuations, this means
that there may just be a narrow mass rangeassociated with the period of the soft
equation of statein which the PBHs form.
Collapse of cosmic loops. In the cosmic string scenario, one expects some strings
to self-intersect and form cosmic loops. A typical loop will be larger than its Schwarz-
schild radius by the factor (G)1 , where is the string mass per unit length. Obser-
vations imply that G must be less than of order 106 . However, as discussed by
many authors (Polnarev and Zemboricz 1988; Hawking 1989; Garriga and Sakel-
lariadou 1993; Caldwell and Casper 1996; MacGibbon et al. 1998), there is still a
small probability that a cosmic loop will get into a configuration in which every
dimension lies within its Schwarzschild radius. This probability depends upon both
and the string correlation scale. Note that the holes form with equal probability
at every epoch, so they should have an extended mass spectrum. Black holes might
also form through the collapse of string necklaces (Matsuda 2006; Lake et al. 2009).
Bubble collisions. Bubbles of broken symmetry might arise at any spontaneously
broken symmetry epoch and various people have suggested that PBHs could form
as a result of bubble collisions (Kodama et al. 1981; Crawford and Schramm 1982;
Hawking et al. 1982; Moss 1994). However, this happens only if the bubble formation
rate per Hubble volume is finely tuned: if it is much larger than the Hubble rate, the
entire Universe undergoes the phase transition immediately and there is not time to
form black holes; if it is much less than the Hubble rate, the bubbles are very rare
and never collide. The holes should have a mass of order the horizon mass at the
phase transition, so PBHs forming at the GUT epoch would have a mass of 103 g,
those forming at the electroweak unification epoch would have a mass of 1028 g, and
those forming at the QCD phase transition would have mass of around 1M . The
production of PBHs from bubble collisons at the end of 1st order inflation has also
been studied (Khlopov et al. 2000).
54 4 Primordial Black Holes

Collapse of domain walls. The collapse of sufficiently large closed domain

walls produced at a 2nd order phase transition in the vacuum state of a scalar
field, such as might be associated with inflation, could lead to PBH formation
(Rubin et al. 2001; Dokuchaev et al. 2004). These PBHs would have a small mass
for a thermal phase transition with the usual equilibrium conditions. However, but
they could be much larger if one invoked a non-equlibrium scenario. Indeed, they
could then span a wide range of masses, with a fractal structure of smaller PBHs
clustered around larger ones (Khlopov et al. 2005).
In most of these scenarios, the PBH mass spectrum is expected to be narrow
and centred around the mass given by Eq. (4.1) with t corresponding to the time at
which the PBH scale reenters the horizon in the inflationary model or to the time
of the relevant cosmological phase transition otherwise. However, PBHs may be
smaller than the horizon size at formation in some circumstances. For example, PBH
formation is an interesting application of critical phenomena and this suggests that
their spectrum could extend well below the horizon mass (Yokoyama 1998; Green
and Liddle 1999). This would also apply for PBHs formed during a dustlike phase
(Polnarev and Khlopov 1985). Note that a PBH could not be much larger than the
value given by Eq. (4.1) at formation else it would be a separate closed universe
rather than part of our Universe (Harada and Carr 2005).

4.2.2 What PBHs Do

PBHs with M > 1015 g. These would still survive today and might be detectable
by their gravitational effects. Indeed such PBHs would be obvious dark matter can-
didates. Since they formed at a time when the Universe was radiation-dominated,
they should be classified as non-baryonic and so could avoid the constraints on the
baryonic density associated with cosmological nucleosynthesis. They would also be
dynamically cold at the present epoch and so would be classified as Cold Dark Mat-
ter (CDM). In many respects, they would be like (non-baryonic) WIMPs but they
would be much more massive and so could also have the sort of dynamical, lens-
ing and gravitational-wave signatures associated with (baryonic) MACHOs. At one
stage there seemed to be evidence for MACHOs with M 0.5 M from microlens-
ing observations and PBHs formed at the quark-hadron phase transition seemed one
possible explanation for this (Jedamzik 1997). The data no longer support this but
there are no constraints excluding PBHs in the sublunar range 1020 g < M < 1026 g
(Blais et al. 2003) or intermediate mass range 102 M < M < 104 M (Saito and
Yokoyama 2009) from having an appreciable density. Large PBHs might also influ-
ence the development of large-scale structure (Meszaros 1975; Carr 1977; Freese et
al. 1983; Afshordi et al. 2003), seed the supermassive black holes thought to reside in
galactic nuclei (Carr and Rees 1984; Bean and Maguiejo 2002; Duchting 2004), gen-
erate background gravitational waves (Bond and Carr 1986; Nakamura et al. 1997;
Ioka et al. 1999; Inoue and Tanaka 2003) or produce X-rays through accretion and
thereby affect the thermal history of the Universe (Ricotti et al. 2008).
4.2 Formation, Consequences and Abundance of PBHs 55

PBHs with M 1015 g. As already noted, these would be evaporating today and,
since they are dynamically cold, one would expect some of them to have clustered
within the Galactic halo. Besides contributing to the cosmological -ray background,
such PBHs could contribute to the Galactic -ray background (Wright 1996; Lehoucq
et al. 2009) and the antiprotons or positrons in cosmic rays (Kiraly et al. 1981). They
might also generate gamma-ray bursts (Cline and Hong 1992), radio bursts (Rees
1977) or the annihilation-line radiation coming from centre of the Galaxy (Okele
and Rees 1980). The energy distribution of the particles emitted could also give
significant information about the high-energy physics involved in the final explosive
phase of black hole evaporation (Halzen et al. 1991).
PBHs with M < 1015 g. These would have completely evaporated by now but
many processes in the early Universe could have been modified by them. For example,
PBH evaporations occurring in the first second of the big bang could generate the
entropy of the Universe (Zeldovich and Starobinski 1976), change the details of
baryogenesis (Dolgov et al. 2000; Bugaev 2003) or cosmological nucleosynthesis and
provide a source of neutrinos (Bugaev and Konishchev 2002) or gravitinos (Khlopov
et al. 2006) or other hypothetical particles (Lemoine 2003). If the evaporations left
stable Planck-mass relics, these might also contribute to the dark matter (MacGibbon
1987; Barrow et al. 1992; Carr et al. 1994; Green and Liddle 1997; Chen and Adler
2003; Barrau et al. 2003; Alexander and Meszaros 2007). PBHs evaporating at later
times could also have important astrophysical effects, such as helping to reionize the
Universe (He and Fang 2002).
Even if PBHs had none of these effects, it is still important to study them because
each one is associated with an interesting upper limit on the fraction of the mass of
the Universe which can have gone into PBHs on some mass-scale M. This fraction is
epoch-dependent but its value at the formation epoch of the PBHs, denoted by (M),
is of great cosmological interest. The limits associated with big bang nucleosynthesis
(BBN) and the extragalactic gamma-ray background (EGB) turn out to be the dom-
inant ones over the mass range 109 1017 g and both of these have been reassessed
recently in the light of observational and theoretical developments (Carr et al. 2010).
On the observational front, there are new data on the light element abundances and
the -ray background density. On the theoretical front, QCD theory suggests that
hadrons from evaporating PBHs are produced not from direct emission but from the
fragmentation of quark and gluon jets (MacGibbon 1991).

4.2.3 Mass and Density Fraction of PBHs

In the following discussion, we assume that the standard CDM model applies,
with the age of the Universe being t0 = 13.7 Gyr and the Hubble parameter being
H0 100h with h = 0.72. We also put c =  = k B = 1 for the rest of this chapter.
The Friedmann equation implies that the density and temperature T during the
radiation era are given by
56 4 Primordial Black Holes

8 G 4 3 G
H2 = = g T 4 , (4.4)
3 45
where g counts the number of relativistic degrees of freedom. This can be integrated
to give
 g 1/2  T 2

t 0.738 s, (4.5)
10.75 1 MeV

where g and T are normalised to their values at the start of the BBN epoch. Since we
are only considering PBHs which form during the radiation era (the ones generated
before inflation being diluted to negligible density), the initial PBH mass M is related
to the particle horizon mass MPH by
 
4 t
M = MPH = H 3 2.03 105 M . (4.6)
3 1s

Here is a numerical factor which depends on the details of gravitational collapse

and whose likely value is discussed later.
Throughout this chapter we assume that the PBHs all have the same mass M . This
simplifies the analysis considerably and suffices providing we only require limits
on the PBH abundance at particular values of M . The current density parameter
associated with PBHs which form at a redshift z or time t is related to by
 1/2  1/2
t M
PBH = R (1 + z) 10 6
10
18
, (4.7)
s 1015 g

where R 104 is the density parameter of the microwave background and we

have used Eq. (4.1). The (1 + z) factor arises because the radiation density scales as
(1 + z)4 , whereas the PBH density scales as (1 + z)3 . A more precise form of this
equation is
  2  g 1/4  M 1/2
(M) h i
PBH 1/2
, (4.8)
1.15 108 0.72 106.75 M

where gi is the value of g at the epoch of PBH formation. This is normalised to its
value at around 105 s since g does not increase much before that in the Standard
Model and that is the period in which most PBHs are likely to form. Note that the
relationship between and PBH must be modified if the Universe ever deviates
from the standard radiation-dominated behaviourfor example, if there is a dust-
like stage for some extended early period or a second inflationary phase or if there
are extra dimensions (Sendouda 2005) or if the gravitational constant varies (Barrow
1992; Barrow and Carr 1996; Harada et al. 2002).
Any limit on PBH places a constraint on (M). For non-evaporating PBHs with
M > 1015 g, one constraint comes from requiring that PBH be less than the CDM
density, CDM = 0.11h2 , which implies
4.2 Formation, Consequences and Abundance of PBHs 57

  2   1/2
18 1/2 CDM h gi 1/4 M
(M) < 2.04 10 .
0.25 0.72 106.75 1015 g
(4.9)
1/4
Since always appears in combination with 1/2 gi , it is convenient to define a
new parameter
 g 1/4
i
(M) 1/2 (M) , (4.10)
106.75
where gi can be specified very precisely but is rather uncertain. Most of the
constraints discussed in this chapter will be expressed in terms of rather than .
Much stronger constraints are associated with PBHs smaller than 1015 g since they
would have evaporated by now. For example, the -ray limit implies (1015 g) 
1026 and this is the strongest constraint on over all mass ranges. Other ones
are associated with the generation of entropy and modifications to the cosmological
production of light elements. There are also constraints below 106 g based on the
(uncertain) assumption that evaporating PBHs leave stable Planck mass relics, an
issue which is discussed later.
The constraints on (M) were first brought together by Novikov et al. (1979).
An updated version of the constraints was later provided by Carr et al. (1994) and
is shown in Fig. 4.1. Subsequently, this diagram has frequently been revised as the
relevant effects have been studied in greater detail. One recent version comes from
Josan et al. (2008) but the most comprehensive version is probably that of CKSY,
which is presented later. The important qualitative point is that the value of (M)
must be tiny over almost every mass range, even if the PBH density is large today, so
any cosmological model which would entail an appreciable fraction of the Universe
going into PBHs is immediately excluded.
Although we have assumed a monochromatic mass spectrum, there are some
circumstances in which the spectrum would be extended and this means that the

Fig. 4.1 Constraints on (M), from Carr et al. (1994)

58 4 Primordial Black Holes

constraint on one mass-scale would also imply a constraint on neighbouring scales.

For example, the monochromatic assumption fails badly if PBHs form through criti-
cal collapse and this modifies the form of the (M) constraint. Another point is that
if the PBHs with M M have a spread of masses M M , one would expect
evaporation to lead to a residual spectrum with n PBH M 3 for M < M . This is
discussed in more detail by CKSY.

4.3 PBHs as a Probe of Inhomogeneities

One of the most important reasons for studying PBHs is that it enables one to place
limits on the spectrum of inhomogeneities in the early Universe. This is because, if the
PBHs form directly from density perturbations, the fraction of regions undergoing
collapse at any epoch is determined by the root-mean-square amplitude of the
fluctuations entering the horizon at that epoch and the equation of state p = (0 <
< 1). One usually expects a radiation equation of state ( = 1/3) in the early
universe but it may have deviated from this in some periods. As we will see, this in
turn places constraints on inflationary scenarios, since all of these generate density
fluctuations whose spectrum is determined by the form of the inflaton potential.

4.3.1 Simplistic Analysis

Early calculations assumed that the overdense region which evolves to a PBH is
spherically symmetric and part of a closed Friedmann model. In order to collapse
against the pressure, such a region must be larger than the Jeans length at maximum

expansion and this is just times the particle horizon size. On the other hand, it
cannot be much larger than the horizon size and still be part of our Universe (Carr
and Hawking 1974).
This has two important implications. First, PBHs forming at time t after the Big
Bang should have of order the horizon mass, given by Eq. (4.1). Second, for a region
destined to collapse to a PBH, one requires the fractional overdensity at the horizon
epoch to exceed . Providing the density fluctuations have a Gaussian distribution
and are spherically symmetric, one infers that the fraction of regions of mass M
which collapse is (Carr 1975)
 
2
(M) (M) exp , (4.11)
2(M)2

where (M) is the rms amplitude of the fluctuations when the horizon mass is M. The
PBHs can have an extended mass spectrum only if the fluctuations are scale-invariant
(i.e. with independent of M). In this case, the PBH mass distribution is given by
4.3 PBHs as a Probe of Inhomogeneities 59

dn/d M = ( 2)(M/M ) M2 PBH crit , (4.12)

where PBH is the total PBH density parameter and the exponent is determined
by the equation of state:  
1 + 3
= + 1. (4.13)
1+

= 5/2 if one has a radiation equation of state. This means that the density of PBHs
larger than M falls off as M 1/2 , so most of the PBH density is contained in the
smallest ones with mass M .
Many scenarios for the cosmological density fluctuations predict that is at least
approximately scale-invariant but the sensitive dependence of on means that
even tiny deviations from scale-invariance can be important. If (M) decreases with
increasing M, then the spectrum falls off exponentially and most of the PBH density
is contained in the smallest ones. If (M) increases with increasing M, the spectrum
rises exponentially and PBHs could only form at large scales. However, the CMB
anisotropies would then be larger than observed, so this is unlikely.
The constraints on (M) in Fig. 4.1 can be converted into constraints on (M)
using Eq. (4.11) and these are shown in Fig. 4.2. Also shown is the (non-PBH) con-
straint associated with the spectral distortions in the CMB induced by the dissipation
of intermediate scale density perturbations. This shows that one needs the fluctua-
tion amplitude to decrease with increasing scale in order to produce PBHs and lines
corresponding to various slopes in the (M) relationship are also shown in Fig. 4.2.

Fig. 4.2 Constraints on (M), from Carr et al. (1994)

60 4 Primordial Black Holes

4.3.2 Refinements of Simplistic Analysis

The simple criterion for PBH formation given above needs to be tested with
detailed numerical calculations. The first hydrodynamical studies of PBH formation
(Nadezhin et al. 1978) roughly confirmed the > criterion for PBH formation,
although the PBHs were found to be somewhat smaller than the horizon. Later sev-
eral groups carried out more detailed hydrodynamical calculations (Niemeyer and
Jedamzik 1999; Shibata and Sasaki 1999) and these refined the > criterion,
suggesting that one needs > 0.7 for = 1/3 rather than > 0.3 and affecting the
estimate for (M) given by Eq. (4.11).
A particularly interesting development has been the application of critical phe-
nomena to PBH formation. Studies of the collapse of various types of spherically
symmetric matter fields have shown that there is always a critical solution which
separates those configurations which form a black hole from those which disperse
to an asymptotically flat state (Choptuik 1993). The configurations are described by
some index p and, as the critical index pc is approached, the black hole mass is found
to scale as ( p pc ) for some exponent . This effect was first discovered for scalar
fields but subsequently demonstrated for more general fluids with p = .
In all these studies the spacetime was assumed to be asymptotically flat. However,
Niemeyer and Jedamzik (1998) applied the same idea to study black hole formation
in asymptotically Friedmann models and found similar results. For a variety of initial
density perturbation profiles, they found that the relationship between the PBH mass
and the horizon-scale density perturbation has the form

M = K M H ( c ) , (4.14)

where M H is the horizon mass and the constants are in the range 0.34 < < 0.37,
2.4 < K < 11.9 and 0.67 < c < 0.71 for the various configurations. More recently,
Musco et al. (2005) have found that the critical overdensity lies in the lower range
0.43 < c < 0.47 if one only allows growing modes at decoupling (which is more
plausible if the fluctuations derive from inflation). They also find that the exponent
is modified if there is a cosmological constant. Since M 0 as c , the
existence of critical phenomena suggests that PBHs may be much smaller than the
particle horizon at formation and this also modifies the mass spectrum (Yokoyama
1998; Green and Liddle 1999).
It should be stressed that the description of fluctuations beyond the horizon is
somewhat problematic and it is clearer to use a gauge-invariant description which
involves the total energy or metric perturbation (Shibata and Sasaki 1999). Also the
derivation of the mass spectrum given by Eq. (4.12) is based on Press-Schechter
theory and it is more satisfactory to use peaks theory. Both these points have been
considered by Green et al. (2004). They find that the critical value for the density
contrast is around 0.3 for = 1/3, which is close to the value originally advocated
30 years ago!
4.3 PBHs as a Probe of Inhomogeneities 61

Another refinement of the simplistic analysis which underlies Eq. (4.11) concerns
the assumption that the fluctuations have a Gaussian distribution. So long as the
fluctuations are small, as certainly applies on a galactic scale, this assumption is
reasonable. However, for PBH formation one requires the fluctuations to be large
and the coupling of different Fourier modes may then destroy the Gaussianity. An
analysis of the fluctuations generated during inflationary (Bullock and Primack 1997;
Ivanov 1998; Hidalgo 2007; Byrnes et al. 2012) suggests that (M) can be very
different from the form indicated by Eq. (4.11) but it still depends very sensitively
on .

4.3.3 PBHs and Inflation

Inflation has two important consequences for PBHs (Carr and Lidsey 1993). On the
one hand, any PBHs formed before the end of inflation will be diluted to a negligible
density. Inflation thus imposes a lower limit on the PBH mass spectrum:

M > Mmin = M P (TR /TP )2 , (4.15)

where TR is the reheat temperature and TP 1019 GeV is the Planck temperature.
The CMB quadrupole measurement implies TR 1016 GeV, so Mmin certainly
exceeds 1 g. On the other hand, inflation will itself generate fluctuations and these
may produce PBHs after reheating. If the inflaton potential is V (), then the horizon-
scale fluctuations for a mass-scale M are

V 3/2
(M) , (4.16)
M P3 V
H

where a prime denotes d/d and the right-hand side is evaluated for the value of
when the mass-scale M falls within the horizon. In the chaotic inflationary scenario,
one makes the slow-roll and friction-dominated assumptions:

(M P V /V )2 1, M P2 V /V 1. (4.17)

The exponent n characterizes the power spectrum of the fluctuations, |k |2 k n ,

and is given by
n = 1 3 + 2 1. (4.18)

This is close to but slightly below 1. Since scales as M (1n)/4 , this means that the
fluctuations are slightly increasing with scale, corresponding to a red spectrum. The
normalization required to explain galaxy formation ( 105 ) would then preclude
the formation of PBHs on a smaller scale. If PBH formation is to occur, one needs
the fluctuations to decrease with increasing mass (n > 1), corresponding to a blue
62 4 Primordial Black Holes

Fig. 4.3 Constraints on spectral index n in terms of reheat time t1

spectrum, and from Eq. (4.18) this is only possible if the scalar field is accelerating
sufficiently fast that V V /V 2 > 3/2. This condition is certainly satisfied in some
scenarios (Gilbert 1995) and, if it is, Eq. (4.11) implies that the PBH density will
be dominated by the ones forming immediately after reheating. This is because the
volume dilution of the PBHs forming shortly before the end of inflation will dominate
the enhancement associated with Eq. (4.11). However, it should be stressed that the
validity of Eq. (4.16) at the very end of inflation is questionable since the usual
assumptions may fail then (Lyth et al. 2006).
Since each value of n corresponds to a straight line in Fig. 4.3, any particular
value for the reheat time t1 corresponds to an upper limit on n. This limit is indicated
in Fig. 4.3, which is taken from Carr et al. (1994) but incorporates a correction
from Green and Liddle (1997). At the time this was the strongest limit on n available.
Nowadays there are stronger constraints from the CMB anisotropies and these imply
n < 1 on large scales. Hence PBHs could form only if n is scale-dependent and
exceeds 1 below some scale. In this case, Fig. 4.3 is inapplicable but can be adapted
if n is constant below this scale.
It should be stressed that not all inflationary scenarios predict that the spectral
index should be constant. In some scenarios, the fluctuations have a running index,
so that the amplitude will not increase on smaller scales according to a simple power
law. In others, the potential is flattened over some range and Eq. (4.16) then implies
that there is a spike in the spectrum. Indeed, many people have invoked some form
of designer inflation, in which the power spectrum of the fluctuationsand hence
PBH productionpeaks on some scale (Hodges and Blumenthal 1990; Yokoyama
1997, 1998, 1999). For example, one can fine-tune the position of the spike so that
it corresponds to the mass-scale associated with the microlensing events observed
towards the Large Magellanic Cloud (Ivanov et al. 1994). Besides the chaotic sce-
nario, there are numerous variants of inflation (supernatural, supersymmetric, hybrid,
4.3 PBHs as a Probe of Inhomogeneities 63

multiple, oscillating, ghost, running mass, saddle, hilltop etc.) and PBH formation
has been studied in all of these models. Full references can be found in CKSY. So
even if PBHs never actually formed, studying them places important constraints on
the many types of inflationary scenarios.
Note that in the standard scenario inflation ends by the decay of the inflaton
into radiation. However, in the preheating scenario it ends more rapidly because
of resonant coupling between the inflaton and another scalar field. This generates
extra fluctuations, which are not of the form indicated by Eq. (4.16) but might also
produce PBHs (Green and Malik 2001; Suyama et al. 2005). Such fluctuations peak
on a scale associated with reheating. This is usually very small but several scenarios
involve a secondary inflationary phase which boosts this scale into the macroscopic
domain (Saito and Yokoyama 2009). There are also other scenarios for generating
perturbations at the end of inflation (Bernardeau et al. 2004), in which the probability
of PBH formation is again be unrelated to Eq. (4.16).

4.4 Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes

4.4.1 Lifetime

As discussed in Chap. 3, a black hole with mass M M10 1010 g emits thermal
radiation with temperature

1 1
TBH = 1.06 M10 TeV. (4.19)
8 G M
This assumes that the hole has no charge or angular momentum, which is reasonable
since charge and angular momentum will be lost through quantum emission on a
shorter timescale than the mass. We have seen that the emission is not exactly black-
body but depends upon the spin and charge of the emitted particle, the average
energy for neutrinos, electrons and photons being 4.22 TBH , 4.18 TBH and 5.71 TBH ,
respectively.
The mass loss rate of an evaporating black hole can be expressed as

dM10 2 1
= 5.34 105 f (M) M10 s . (4.20)
dt

Here f (M) is a measure of the number of emitted particle species, normalised to

unity for a black hole with M  1017 g, this emitting only particles which are
(effectively) massless: photons, three generations of neutrinos and antineutrinos,
and gravitons. The contribution of each relativistic degree of freedom to f (M) is
(MacGibbon 1991)
64 4 Primordial Black Holes

f s=0 = 0.267, f s=1 = 0.060, f s=3/2 = 0.020, f s=2 = 0.007,

(4.21)
f s=1/2 = 0.147 (neutral), f s=1/2 = 0.142 (charge e).

Holes in the mass range 1015 g < M < 1017 g emit electrons but not muons, while
those in the range 1014 g < M < 1015 g also emit muons, which subsequently decay
into electrons and neutrinos. The latter range is relevant for the PBHs which are
completing their evaporation at the present epoch.
Once M falls to around 1014 g, a black hole can also begin to emit hadrons.
However, hadrons are composite particles made up of quarks held together by gluons.
For temperatures exceeding the QCD confinement scale, QCD = 250300 MeV,
one would expect these fundamental particles to be emitted rather than composite
particles. Only pions would be light enough to be emitted below QCD . Above this
temperature, the particles radiated can be regarded as asymptotically free, leading to
the emission of quarks and gluons. Since there are 12 quark degrees of freedom per
flavour and 16 gluon degrees of freedom, one would expect the emission rate (i.e.,
the value of f ) to increase suddenly once the QCD temperature is reached. If one
includes just u, d and s quarks and gluons, Eq. (4.21) implies that their contribution
to f is 3 12 0.14 + 16 0.06 6, compared to the pre-QCD value of about
2. Thus the value of f roughly quadruples, although there will be a further increase
in f at somewhat higher temperatures due to the emission of the heavier quarks.
After their emission, quarks and gluons fragment into further quarks and gluons
until they cluster into the observable hadrons when they have travelled a distance
1QCD 10
13 cm. This is much larger than the size of the hole, so gravitational

effects can be neglected.

If we sum up the contributions from all the particles in the Standard Model up to
1 TeV, corresponding to M10 1, this gives f (M) = 15.35. Integrating the mass
loss rate over time gives a lifetime
 1
f (M)
407 3
M10 s. (4.22)
15.35

The mass of a PBH evaporating at time after the big bang is then
 1/3  
f (M) 1/3
M 1.35 10 9
g. (4.23)
15.35 1s

The critical mass for which equals the age of the Universe is denoted by M . For
the currently favoured age of 13.7 Gyr, one finds
 1/3
f
M 1.02 10 15
g 5.1 1014 g, (4.24)
15.35

where the last step assumes f = 1.9, the value associated with the temperature
TBH (M ) = 21 MeV. At this temperature muons and some pions are emitted, so the
4.4 Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes 65

value of f accounts for this. Although QCD effects are initially small for PBHs
with M = M , only contributing a few percent, it should be noted that they become
important once M falls to

Mq 0.4M 2 1014 g, (4.25)

since the peak energy becomes comparable to QCD then. This means that an
appreciable fraction of the time-integrated emission from the PBHs evaporating at
the present epoch goes into quark and gluon jet products.
It should be stressed that the above analysis is not exact because the value of
f (M) in Eq. (4.23) should really be the weighted average of f (M) over the lifetime
of the black hole. The more precise calculation of MacGibbon (1991) gives the
slightly smaller value M = 5.00 1014 g. However, the weighted average is well
approximated by f (M) unless one is close to a particle mass threshold. For example,
since the lifetime of a black hole of mass 0.4 M is roughly 0.25 (0.4)3 = 0.016
that of an M black hole, one expects the value of M to be overestimated by a few
percent. This explains the small difference from MacGibbons calculation.

4.4.2 Particle Spectra

Particles injected from PBHs have two components: the primary component, which
is the direct Hawking emission, and the secondary component, which comes from
the decay of gauge bosons and the hadrons produced by fragmentation of primary
quarks and gluons. For example, the photon spectrum can be written as

pri
d N d N d Nsec
(E , M) = (E , M) + (E , M), (4.26)
dE dE dE

with similar expressions for other particles. In order to treat QCD fragmentation,
CKSY use the PYTHIA code, a Monte Carlo event generator constructed to fit
hadron fragmentation for centre-of-mass energies s  200 GeV. Similar results
are obtained by HERWIG, the code used by MacGibbon and Webber (1990).
The spectrum of secondary photons is peaked around E m 0 /2 68 MeV,
because it is dominated by the 2 -decay of soft neutral pions which are practically
at rest. The peak flux can be expressed as

d Nsec
pri
E d Ni
(E = m 0 /2) 2 Bi 0 (E, E 0 ) (E i E), (4.27)
dE m 0 dE i
i=q,g

where Bq,g 0 (E jet , E 0 ) is the fraction of the jet energy E jet going into neutral
pions of energy E 0 . This is of order 0.1 and fairly independent of jet energy. If
we assume that most of the primary particles have the average energy E 4.4 TBH ,
66 4 Primordial Black Holes

Fig. 4.4 Instantaneous emission rate of photons for four typical black hole temperatures, from
CKSY. For each temperature, the curve with the peak to the right (left) represents the primary
(secondary) component and the thick curve denotes their sum

the last factor becomes d Ni /dE i 1.6 103 . Thus the energy dependence of
pri

Eq. (4.27) comes entirely from the factor E and is proportional to the Hawking
temperature. The emission rates of primary and secondary photons for four typical
temperatures are shown in Fig. 4.4.
It should be noted that the time-integrated ratio of the secondary flux to the
primary flux drops rapidly once M goes above M . This is because a black hole
with M = M will emit quarks efficiently once its mass gets down to the value Mq
given by Eq. (4.25) and this corresponds to an appreciable fraction of its original
mass. On the other hand, a PBH with somewhat larger initial mass, M = (1+) M ,
will today have a mass

m M(t0 ) (3 )1/3 M ( 1) . (4.28)

Here we have assumed f (M) f , which should be a good approximation for m >
Mq since the value of f only changes slowly above the QCD threshold. However, m
falls below Mq for < 0.02 and if we assume that f jumps discontinuously from f
to f at this mass, then Eq. (4.28) must be reduced by a factor 1/3 . The fact that
this happens only for < 0.02 means that the fraction of the black hole mass going
into secondaries falls off sharply above M . The ratio of the secondary to primary
peak energies and the ratio of the time-integrated fluxes are shown in Fig. 4.5.
4.4 Evaporation of Primordial Black Holes 67

Fig. 4.5 Ratios of secondary to primary peak energies (solid) and fluxes (dashed), from CKSY

4.4.3 Photosphere Effects

There has been some dispute in the literature about the interactions between emit-
ted particles around an evaporating black hole. The usual assumption that there is
no interaction between emitted particles has been refuted by Heckler (1997), who
claims that QED interactions could produce an optically thick photosphere once
the black hole temperature exceeds TBH = 45 GeV. He has proposed that a similar
effect may operate at an even lower temperature, TBH 200 MeV, due to QCD
effects (Heckler 1997). Variants of these models and their astrophysical implications
have been studied by various authors (Cline et al. 1999; Kapusta 2001; Daghigh
and Kapusta 2006). However, MacGibbon et al. (2008) have identified a number of
physical and geometrical effects which invalidate these claims. First, the particles
must be causally connected in order to interact and this means that the standard cross-
sections are reduced (viz. the particles are created at a finite time and do not go back
to the infinite past). Second, because of the LandauPomeranchukMigdal effect,
a scattered particle requires a minimum distance to complete each bremsstrahlung
interaction, with the consequence that there is unlikely to be more than one complete
bremsstrahlung interaction per particle near the black hole.
MacGibbon et al. conclude that the emitted particles do not interact sufficiently
to form a QED photosphere and that the conditions for QCD photosphere formation
could only be temporarily satisfied (if at all) when the black hole temperature is
of order QCD . Even in this case, the strong damping of the Hawking production
of QCD particles around this threshold may suffice to suppress it. In any case, no
QCD photosphere persists once the black hole temperature climbs above QCD .
They also consider the suggestion that plasma interactions between emitted particles
could form a photosphere (Belyanin 1996) but conclude that this too is implausible.
In what follows, we therefore assume that no photosphere forms.
68 4 Primordial Black Holes

4.5 Constraints on PBHs from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

4.5.1 Historical Overview

PBHs with M 1010 g and TBH 1 TeV have a lifetime 103 s and
therefore evaporate at the epoch of cosmological nucleosynthesis. The effect of these
evaporations on BBN has been a subject of long-standing interest. We start with a
brief review of early work and then discuss a recent reassessment of these constraints.
All the limits will be expressed in terms of the parameter (M) defined by Eq. (4.10).

Injection of high-energy neutrinos and antineutrinos (Vainer and Naselskii 1978).

This changes the epoch at which the weak interactions freeze out and thereby the
neutron-to-proton ratio at the onset of BBN. This increases the 4 He production, so
demanding that the primordial abundance satisfy Y p < 0.33, the most conservative
constraint available at the time, gave a limit

(M) < 3 (1018 1015 ) M10

1/2
(M = 109 3 1011 g). (4.29)

Entropy generation (Miyama and Sato 1978). Since PBHs with M = 109 1013 g
evaporated during or after BBN, the baryon-to-entropy ratio at nucleosynthesis
would be increased, resulting in overproduction of 4 He and underproduction of D.
Demanding that the primordial mass fractions of these elements satisfy Y p < 0.29
and D p > 1 105 led to a limit

5/2
(M) < 1015 M10 (M = 109 1013 g) . (4.30)

Emission of high-energy nucleons and antinucleons (Zeldovich et al. 1977). The

change in the primordial 4 He and D abundances due to capture of free neutrons by
protons and spallation of 4 He gave the upper limits:

18 M 1/2 (M = 109 1010 g),
6 10 10
1/2
(M) < 6 1022 M10 (M = 1010 1011 g), (4.31)

1/2
3 1021 M10 (M = 1011 1013 g).

Emission of photons (Lindley 1980). The dissociation of deuterons produced in

nucleosynthesis by photons from evaporating PBHs with M > 1010 g led to the
constraint
(M) < 3 1020 M10 (M > 1010 g).
1/2
(4.32)

This is comparable to the limit from the extra production of deuterons discussed
above.
The strongest of the above limits are shown in Fig. 4.1. Observational data on both
the light element abundances and the neutron lifetime have changed since these early
4.5 Constraints on PBHs from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis 69

papers. Much more significant, however, have been developments in our understand-
ing of the fragmentation of quark and gluon jets into hadrons. Most of the hadrons
created decay almost instantaneously compared to the timescale of nucleosynthesis,
but long-lived ones (such as pions, kaons, and nucleons) remain long enough in the
ambient medium to leave an observable signature on BBN. These effects were first
discussed by Kohri and Yokoyama (1999) for the relatively low mass PBHs evaporat-
ing in the early stages of BBN but the analysis has now been extended to incorporate
the effects of heavier PBHs, evaporating after BBN, the hadrons and high energy
photons from these PBHs further dissociating synthesised light elements.

4.5.2 Revised Constraints on  (M) Imposed by BBN

High energy particles emitted by PBHs modify the standard BBN scenario in three
different ways: (1) high energy mesons and antinucleons induce extra interconversion
between background protons and neutrons even after the weak interaction has frozen
out in the background Universe; (2) high energy hadrons dissociate light elements
synthesised in BBN, thereby reducing 4 He and increasing D, T, 3 He, 6 Li and 7 Li;
(3) high energy photons generated in the cascade further dissociate 4 He to increase
the abundance of lighter elements even more.
The PBH constraints depend on three parameters: the initial baryon-to-photon
ratio i , the PBH initial mass M or (equivalently) its lifetime , and the initial PBH
number density normalised to the entropy density, YPBH n PBH /s. From Eq. (4.7)
this is related to the initial mass fraction by
 1/2
= 5.4 1021 YPBH . (4.33)
1s

The parameters , and YPBH all depend on M but we suppose a monochromatic

mass function in what follows. The initial baryon-to-photon ratio is set to the present
one, = (6.225 0.170) 1010 , after allowing for entropy production from PBH
evaporations and photon heating due to e+ e annihilations.
Figure 4.6 summarises the results of these calculations. PBHs with lifetime
smaller than 102 s are free from BBN constraints because they evaporate well
before weak freeze-out and leave no trace. PBHs with M = 109 1010 g and lifetime
= 102 102 s are constrained by the extra interconversion between protons and
neutrons due to emitted mesons and antinucleons, which increases the n/ p freeze-
out ratio as well as the final 4 He abundance. For = 102 107 s, corresponding to
M = 1010 1012 g, hadrodissociation processes become important and the debris
deuterons and non-thermally produced 6 Li put strong constraints on (M). Finally,
for = 107 1012 s, corresponding to M = 1012 1013 g, energetic neutrons decay
before inducing hadrodissociation. Instead, photodissociation processes are oper-
ative and the most stringent constraint comes from overproduction of 3 He or D.
However, even these effects become insignificant after 1012 s.
70 4 Primordial Black Holes

Fig. 4.6 Upper bounds on (M) from BBN, with broken line giving earlier limit, from CKSY

For comparison, we show the much weaker constraint imposed by the entropy
production from evaporating PBHs (Miyama and Sato 1978). The factor in Fig. 4.6
is the ratio of the entropy density after and before PBH evaporations. We also show as
a broken line the limits obtained earlier by Kohri and Yokoyama (1999). The helium
limit is weaker because the helium abundance is now known to be smaller, while
the deuterium limit is stronger because hadrodissociation of helium produces more
deuterium.

4.6 Constraints on PBHs from Extragalactic Photon Background

4.6.1 Historical Overview

One of the earliest works that applied the theory of black hole evaporation to astro-
physics was carried out by Page and Hawking (1976). They used the diffuse EGB
observations to constrain the mean cosmological number density of PBHs which are
completing their evaporation at the present epoch to be less than 104 pc3 . This cor-
responds to an upper limit on PBH of around 108 . The limit was subsequently
refined by MacGibbon and Carr (1991), who considered how it is modified by
including quark and gluon emission and inferred PBH (7.6 2.6) 109 h2 .
Later they used EGRET observations to derive a slightly stronger limit PBH
4.6 Constraints on PBHs from Extragalactic Photon Background 71

(5.1 1.3) 109 h2 (Carr and MacGibbon, 1998). Using the modern value of h
gives PBH (9.8 2.5) 109 and this corresponds to (M ) < 6 1026 from
Eq. (4.8). They also inferred from the form of the -ray spectrum that PBHs could
not provide the dominant contribution to the background.

4.6.2 Expected EGB from PBHs

The photon emission has a primary and secondary component and these are calculated
according to the prescription of Sect. 4.4.2. The relative magnitude of these two
components is sensitive to the PBH mass and this affects the associated (M) limit.
In order to determine the present background spectrum of particles generated by
PBH evaporations, we must integrate over the lifetime of the black holes, allowing
for the fact that particles generated in earlier cosmological epochs will be redshifted
in energy by now.
If the PBHs all have the same initial mass M, and if we approximate the number
of emitted photons in the energy bin E E by N (E ) E (d N /dE ),
then the emission rate per volume at cosmological time t is

dn d N
(E , t) n PBH (t) E (M(t), E ), (4.34)
dt dE

where the t-dependence of M just reflects the evaporation. Since the photon energy
and density are redshifted by factors (1+z)1 and (1+z)3 , respectively, the present
number density of photons with energy E 0 is
 min(t0 , ) d N z
n 0 (E 0 ) = n PBH0 E 0 dt (1 + z) (M(t), (1 + z) E 0 ),
tmin dE
(4.35)
where tmin corresponds to the earliest time at which the photons freely propagate and
n PBH0 is the current PBH number density for M > M or the number density PBHs
would have had now had they not evaporated for M < M . The photon flux is

1
I n 0. (4.36)
4
The calculated present-day fluxes of primary and secondary photons are shown in
Fig. 4.7, where the number density n PBH0 for each M has the maximum value con-
sistent with the observations.
Note that the highest energy photons are associated with PBHs of mass M .
Photons from PBHs with M > M are at lower energies because they are cooler,
while photons from PBHs with M < M are at lower energies because (although
initially hotter) they are redshifted. The spectral shape depends on the mass M and
can be easily understood. Holes with M > M have a rather sharp peak which is
72 4 Primordial Black Holes

well approximated by the instantaneous black-body emission of the primary photons,

while holes with M M have an E 2 0 fall-off for E 0  TBH /(1 + z( )) due to
the final phases of evaporation (MacGibbon 1991).

4.6.3 Limits on  (M) Imposed by Observed EGB

The relevant observations come from HEAO 1 and other balloon observations in the
3500 keV range, COMPTEL in the 0.830 MeV range, EGRET in the 30200 MeV
range and Fermi LAT in the 200 MeV102 GeV range. All the observations are
shown in Fig. 4.7. The origin of the diffuse X-ray and -ray backgrounds is thought
to be primarily distant astrophysical sources, such as blazars, and in principle one
should remove these contributions before calculating the PBH constraints. This is
the strategy adopted by Barrau et al. (2003), who thereby obtain a limit PBH
3.3 109 . CKSY do not attempt such a subtraction, so their constraints on (M)
may be overly conservative.
In order to analyse the spectra of photons emitted from PBHs, different treatments
are needed for PBHs with initial masses below and above M . We saw in Sect. 4.4.2
that PBHs with M > M can never emit secondary photons at the present epoch,
whereas those with M M will do so once M falls below Mq 2 1014 g. One
can use simple analytical arguments to derive the form of the primary and secondary
(1+)
peak fluxes. The observed X-ray and -ray spectra correspond to I obs E 0
where lies between 0.1 and 0.4. For M < M , the limit is determined by the
secondary flux and one can write the upper bound on as

Fig. 4.7 Fluxes corresponding to the upper limit on the PBH abundance for various values of M,
from CSKY. All PBHs produce primary photons but M  M ones also produce secondary photons
and this gives a stronger constraint on
4.6 Constraints on PBHs from Extragalactic Photon Background 73

10-12
10-14
10-16
10-18
10-20

10-22
10-24
Total
10-26 Primary
Secondary
10-28
13 14 15 16 17 18
log10 (M/g)

Fig. 4.8 Upper bounds on (M) from the extragalactic photon background, from CSKY, with no
other contributors to the background having been subtracted

 5/22
M
(M)  3 1027 (M < M ). (4.37)
M

For M > M , secondary photons are not emitted and one obtains a limit
 7/2+
26 M
(M)  4 10 (M > M ). (4.38)
M

These M-dependences explain qualitatively the slopes in Fig. 4.8. The limit bottoms
out at 3 1027 and, from Eq. (4.8), the associated limit on the density parameter
is PBH (M ) 5 1010 .
Finally, we determine the mass range over which the -ray constraint applies.
Since photons emitted at sufficiently early times cannot propagate freely, there is a
minimum mass Mmin below which the above constraint is inapplicable. The dominant
interactions between -rays and the background Universe in the relevant energy range
are pair-production off hydrogen and helium nuclei. For the opacity appropriate
for a 75 % hydrogen and 25 % helium mix, the redshift below which there is free
propagation is given by (MacGibbon and Carr 1991)
 2/3  2/3
h b
1 + z max 1100 , (4.39)
0.72 0.05

with the nucleon density parameter b being normalised to the modern value. The
condition (Mmin ) = t (z max ) then gives
 1/3  1/3
t (z max ) f (Mmin )
Mmin = M 3 1013 g . (4.40)
t0 f
74 4 Primordial Black Holes

The limit is therefore extended down to this mass in Fig. 4.8. It goes above the density
constraint PBH (M) < 0.25 for M > 7 1016 g.

4.7 Other Constraints on Evaporating Black Holes

The combined BBN and EGB constraints on (M) are shown by the solid line
in Fig. 4.9. CKSY discuss various other constraints in the evaporating mass range,
these being indicated by the other lines. However, the BBN and EGB limits are the
most stringent ones over almost the entire mass range 109 1017 g. In this section we
will discuss some other consequences of evaporating PBHs which could potentially
provide positive evidence for them.

4.7.1 Galactic Gamma-Rays

If PBHs of mass M are clustered inside our own Galactic halo, as expected, then there
should also be a Galactic -ray background and, since this would be anisotropic, it
should be separable from the extragalactic background. Some time ago it was claimed
that such a background had been detected by EGRET between 30 MeV and 120 GeV
and that this could be attributed to PBHs (Wright 1996). A more recent analysis of
EGRET data between 70 MeV and 150 GeV, assuming a variety of distributions
for the PBHs, gives a limit PBH (M ) 2.6 109 or (M ) < 1.4 1026

10 -16 PBH
LSP relics

10 -18 CMB
Yp
-distortion
-20
10 y-distortion SK neutrino
D/H
10 -22 BBN

3 EG antiprotons
10 -24 6 7
Li/ Li He/D Photon background

10 -26 Galactic -rays

10 -28 CMB anisotropy

21cm
-30
10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
log10(M/g)

Fig. 4.9 Combined BBN and EGB limits (solid), compared to other constraints on evaporating
PBHs from LSP relics and CMB distortions (short-dashed), extragalactic antiprotons and neutrinos
(dotted), the Galactic -ray background (long-dashed), CMB anisotropies (dash-dotted), the poten-
tial limit from 21 cm observations (broken) and the density limit from the smallest unevaporated
black holes (dashed). From CKSY
4.7 Other Constraints on Evaporating Black Holes 75

(Lehoucq et al. 2009). This is a factor of 5 above the EGB constraint obtained in
Sect. 4.6 and corresponds to an explosion rate R 0.06 pc3 yr 1 . CKSY have
analysed this constraint in more detail. Whereas the strongest constraint on (M)
from the extragalactic background comes from the time-integrated contribution of
the M black holes, which peaks at 120 MeV, the Galactic background is dominated
by PBHs which are initially slightly larger than this, since the ones with exactly
the mass M no longer exist. Equation (4.28) implies that the emission from PBHs
with initial mass (1 + ) M currently peaks at an energy E 100 (3 )1/3 MeV,
which is in the range 70 MeV150 GeV for 0.7 > > 0.08. So these black holes
correspond to the nPBH M3 population.

4.7.2 Galactic Antiprotons

Since the ratio of antiprotons to protons in cosmic rays is less than 104 over the
energy range 100 MeV10 GeV, whereas PBHs should produce them in equal num-
bers, PBHs could only contribute appreciably to the antiprotons (Carr 1976). It is
usually assumed that the observed antiprotons are secondary particles, produced by
spallation of the interstellar medium by primary cosmic rays. However, the spec-
trum of secondary antiprotons should show a steep cut-off at kinetic energies below
2 GeV, whereas the spectrum of PBH antiprotons should continue down to 0.2 GeV.
Also any primary antiproton fraction should tend to 0.5 at low energies. Both these
features provide a distinctive signature of any PBH contribution.
The black hole temperature must be much larger than TBH (M ) to generate
antiprotons, so the local cosmic ray flux from PBHs should be dominated by the
ones just entering their explosive phase at the present epoch. Such PBHs should
be clustered inside our halo, so any charged particles emitted will have their flux
enhanced relative to the extragalactic spectra by a factor which depends upon the
halo concentration factor and the time for which particles are trapped inside the
halo by the Galactic magnetic field. This time is rather uncertain and also energy-
dependent. At 100 MeV one expects roughly 104 for protons or antiprotons.
MacGibbon and Carr (1991) originally calculated the PBH density required to
explain the interstellar antiproton flux at 1 GeV and found a value somewhat larger
than the density associated with the EGB limit. Later Maki et al. (1996) tried to
fit the antiproton flux measured by the BESS balloon experiment below 0.5 GeV
by using Monte Carlo simulations of cosmic ray propagation. They found that the
local PBH-produced antiproton flux is mainly due to PBHs exploding within a few
kpc and inferred a limit on the local PBH explosion rate of R < 0.017 pc3 yr 1 .
An attempt to fit more recent data leads to (M ) 5 1028 (Barrau et al.
2003). This is well below the EGB limit, which suggests that the PBHs required to
explain the EGB would overproduce antiprotons. However, these results all depend
upon the PBH distribution and a different clustering assumption would lead to a
different constraint. The value of is also very uncertain, so this limit is not shown
76 4 Primordial Black Holes

in Fig. 4.9. However, the figure does show the (firmer but weaker) limit associated
with extragalactic antiprotons.

4.7.3 PBH Explosions

The EGB limit implies that the PBH explosion rate R could be at most 106 pc3 yr 1
if the PBHs are uniformly distributed or 10 pc3 yr 1 if they are clustered inside the
Galactic halo (Porter and Weekes 1979). The latter figure might be compared to the
Galactic -ray limit of 0.06 pc3 yr 1 (Lehoucq et al. 2009) and the antiproton limit
of 0.02 pc3 yr 1 (Maki et al. 1996). We now compare these limits to the direct
observational constraints on the explosion rate.
In the Standard Model of particle physics, where the number of elementary particle
species never exceeds around 100, it has been appreciated for a long time that the
chances of detecting the final explosive phase of PBH evaporations are poor (Semikoz
1994). However, the physics of the QCD phase transition is still uncertain and the
prospects of detecting explosions would be improved in less conventional particle
physics models. For example, in a Hagedorn-type picture, where the number of
particle species exponentiates at the quark-hadron temperature, the upper limit on R
is reduced to 0.05 pc3 yr 1 which is comparable to the antiproton limit.
Even without the Hagedorn effect, something dramatic may occur at the QCD
temperature since the number of species being emitted increases dramatically. For
this reason, Cline and colleagues (e.g. Cline and Hong 1992) have long argued that the
formation of a fireball at the QCD temperature could explain some of the short period
-ray bursts (i.e. those with duration less than 100 ms). They claim that the BATSE
data contains 42 candidates of this kind and the fact that their distribution matches the
spiral arms suggests that they are Galactic. They also identify a class of short-period
hard-spectrum KONUS bursts and eight Swift candidates with exploding PBHs.
Overall they claim that the BATSE, KONUS and Swift data correspond to a 4.5
effect and that several events exhibit the time structure expected of PBH evaporations
(Cline and Otwinowski 2009).
We have seen that MacGibbon et al. have contested the claim that evaporating
black holes form QCD photospheres but they accept that a photosphere might form
for a short period around the QCD temperature, so perhaps the best strategy is to
accept that our understanding of such effects is incomplete and focus on the empirical
aspects of the -ray burst observations.
At much higher energies, several groups have looked for 1100 TeV photons
from PBH explosions using cosmic ray detectors. However, the constraints are again
strongly dependent on the theoretical model (Petkov et al. 2008). In the Standard
Model the upper limits on the explosion rate are 5108 pc3 yr 1 from the CYGNUS
array, 8 106 pc3 yr 1 from the Tibet array, 1 106 pc3 yr 1 from the Whipple
Cerenkov telescope, and 8 108 pc3 yr 1 from the Andyrchy array. Full references
can be found in CKSY. These limits are far weaker than the ones associated with the
4.7 Other Constraints on Evaporating Black Holes 77

EGB at 100 MeV and they would be even weaker in the QED photosphere model
since there are then fewer TeV particles.

4.7.4 CMB Anisotropy

Photons emitted from PBHs sufficiently early will be completely thermalised and
merely contribute to the photon-to-baryon ratio. The requirement that this does not
exceed the observed ratio of around 109 leads to a limit
 1  1
M 5 M
(M) < 10 9
10 (M < 109 g), (4.41)
MP 109 g

so only PBHs below 104 g could generate all of the CMB. This limit is shown in
Fig. 4.1. Photons from PBHs in the range 1011 g < M < 1013 g, although partially
thermalised, will produce noticeable distortions in the CMB spectrum.Those emitted
after the freeze-out of double-Compton scattering (t  7 106 s), corresponding to
M > 1011 g, induce a -distortion, while those emitted after the freeze-out of the
single-Compton scattering (t  3 109 s), corresponding to M > 1012 g, induce a
y-distortion. The precise form of these constraints (Tashiro and Sugiyama 2008) are
shown in Fig. 4.9 but they are weaker than the BBN constraint.
Another constraint on PBHs evaporating after the time of recombination is asso-
ciated with the damping of small-scale CMB anisotropies. CKSY obtain the limit
 1  3.1
30 fH M
(M) < 3 10 (2.5 1013 g  M  2.4 1014 g),
0.1 1013 g
(4.42)
where f H 0.1 is the fraction of emission in electrons and positrons. Here the
lower mass limit corresponds to black holes evaporating at recombination and the
upper one to those evaporating at a redshift 6, after which the ionisation ensures the
opacity is too low for the emitted electrons and positrons to heat the matter much.
Equation (4.42) is stronger than all the other available limits in this mass range. Also
shown in Fig. 4.9 is the potential limit from 21 cm observations (Mack and Wesley
2008).

4.7.5 Planck Mass Relics

If PBH evaporations leave stable Planck-mass relics, these might also contribute to
the dark matter. This was first pointed out by MacGibbon (1987) and has subsequently
been explored in the context of inflationary scenarios by numerous authors (Barrow
et al. 1992; Carr et al. 1994; Green and Liddle 1997; Chen and Adler 2003; Barrau et
al. 2003; Alexander and Meszaros 2007). If the relics have a mass MP and reheating
78 4 Primordial Black Holes

occurs at a temperature TR , then the requirement that they have less than the density
CDM 0.25 implies (Carr et al. 1994)
 
M 3/2
(M) < 2 1028 1 (4.43)
MP

for the mass range

 2
TR M
< < 1011 2/5 . (4.44)
TP MP

This constraint is shown in Fig. 4.1. The lower mass limit arises because PBHs
generated before reheating are diluted exponentially. The upper mass limit arises
because PBHs larger than this dominate the total density before they evaporate,
in which case the final cosmological photon-to-baryon ratio is determined by the
baryon asymmetry associated with their emission. Indeed, in an extended inflationary
scenario, evaporating PBHs may naturally generate the dark matter, the entropy and
the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. This triple coincidence applies providing
inflation ends at t 1023 s, so that the PBHs have an initial mass M 106 g, and
this just corresponds to the upper limit indicated in Eq. (4.44). Note that Eq. (4.43)
applies even if there is no inflationary period and it then extends all the way down
to the Planck mass.

4.8 Conclusions
Although none of the effects discussed in this chapter provides positive evidence
for PBHs, Fig. 4.9 illustrates that even the non-detection of PBHs allows
one to infer important constraints on the early Universe. In particular, the limits
on (M) can be used to constrain all the PBH formation mechanisms described in
Sect. 4.2.1. Thus, for example, they constrain models involving inflation, a dustlike
phase and the collapse of cosmic strings or domain walls. They also restrict the
form of the primordial inhomogeneities (whatever their source) and their possible
non-Gaussianity. Finally, we note that they constrain less conventional models, such
as those involving a variable gravitational constant or extra dimensions. In the latter
context, it should be stressed that the existence of large extra dimensions would have
important implications for PBH formation, even though the accelerator black holes
associated with TeV quantum gravity are not themselves primordial. However, we
do not discuss this further here.

References

Abrams, N.E., Primack, J.R.: The New Universe and the Human Future (Yale University Press
2011)
References 79

Afshordi, N., McDonald, P., Spergel, D.N.: Ap. J. Lett. 594, L71L74 (2003)
Alexander, S., Meszaros, P.: hep-th/0703070 (2007)
Barrau, A., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 398, 403410 (2003)
Barrau, A., Blais, D., Boudoul, G., Polarski, D.: Phys. Lett. B 551, 218225 (2003)
Barrow, J.D., Copeland, E.J., Liddle, A.R.: Phys. Rev. D 46, 645657 (1992)
Barrow, J.D.: Phys. Rev. D 46, 32273230 (1992)
Barrow, J.D., Carr, B.J.: Phys. Rev. D 54, 39203931 (1996)
Bean, R., Maguiejo, J.: Phys. Rev. D 66, 063505 (2002)
Belyanin, A.A., et al.: MNRAS 283(1996), 626 (1996)
Bernardeau, F., Kofman, L., Uzan, J.P.: Phys. Rev. D 70, 083004 (2004)
Blais, D., Bringmann, T., Kiefer, C., Polarski, D.: Phys. Rev. D 67, 024024 (2003)
Bond, J.R., Carr, B.J.: MNRAS 207, 585609 (1986)
Bugaev, E.V., Konishchev, K.V.: Phys. Rev. D 66, 084004 (2002)
Bugaev, E.: Phys. Atom. Nuc. 66, 476480 (2003)
Bullock, J.S., Primack, J.R.: Phys. Rev. D 55, 74237439 (1997)
Byrnes, C.T., Copeland. E.J., Green, A.M.: Phys. Rev. D 86, 043512 (2012)
Caldwell, R., Casper, P.: Phys. Rev. D 53, 30023010 (1996)
Carr, B.J., Hawking, S.W.: MNRAS 168, 399415 (1974)
Carr, B.J.: Ap. J. 201, 119 (1975)
Carr, B.J.: Ap. J. 206, 825 (1976)
Carr, B.J.: Astron. Astr. 56, 377383 (1977)
Carr, B., Rees, M.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 206, 801818 (1984)
Carr, B.J., Lidsey, J.E.: Phys. Rev. D 48, 543553 (1993)
Carr, B.J., Gilbert, J.H., Lidsey, J.E.: Phys. Rev. D 50, 48534867 (1994)
Carr, B.J., MacGibbon, J.H.: Phys. Rep. 307, 141154 (1998)
Carr, B.J., Kohri, K., Sendouda, Y., Yokoyama, J.: Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010)
Chen, P., Adler, R.J.: Nucl. Phys. B 124, 103106 (2003)
Choptuik, M.W.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 912 (1993)
Cline, D., Otwinowski, S.: arXiv:0908.1352 (2009)
Cline, D.B., Hong, W.: Ap. J. Lett. 401, L57L60 (1992)
Cline, J., Mostoslavsky, M., Servant, G.: Phys. Rev. D 59, 063009 (1999)
Crawford, M., Schramm, D.N.: Nature 298, 538540 (1982)
Daghigh, R., Kapusta, J.: Phys. Rev. D 73, 124024 (2006)
Dokuchaev, V.I., Eroshenko, Y.N., Rubin, S.G.: astro-ph/0412418 (2004)
Dolgov, A.D., Naselsky, P.D., Novikov, I.D.: Grav. Cos. 11, 99104 (2000)
Duchting, N.: Phys. Rev. D 70, 064015 (2004)
Freese, K., Price, R., Schramm, D.N.: Astrophys. J. 275, 405412 (1983)
Garriga, J., Sakellariadou, M.: Phys. Rev. D 48, 25022515 (1993)
Gilbert, J.: Phys. Rev. D 52, 54865497 (1995)
Green, A.M., Liddle, A.R.: Phys. Rev. D 56, 61666174 (1997)
Green, A.M., Liddle, A.R.: Phys. Rev. D 60, 063509 (1999)
Green, A.M., Malik, K.A.: Phys. Rev. D 64, 021301 (2001)
Green, A.M., Liddle, A.R., Malik, K.A., Sasaki, M.: Phys. Rev. D 70, 041502 (2004)
Halzen, F., Zas, E., MacGibbon, J., Weekes, T.C.: Nature 298, 538815 (1991)
Harada, T., Carr, B.J., Goymer, C.A.: Phys. Rev. D 66, 104023 (2002)
Harada, T., Carr, B.J.: Phys. Rev. D 71, 104009 (2005)
Hawking, S.W.: MNRAS 152, 7578 (1971)
Hawking, S.W.: Nature 248, 3031 (1974)
Hawking, S.W.: Comm. Math. Phys. 43, 199220 (1975)
Hawking, S.W., Moss, I., Stewart, J.: Phys. Rev. D 26, 26812693 (1982)
Hawking, S.W.: Phys. Lett. B 231, 237239 (1989)
He, P., Fang, L.Z.: Ap. J. Lett. 568, L1L4 (2002)
Heckler, A.: Phys. Rev. D 55, 480488 (1997)
80 4 Primordial Black Holes

Heckler, A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 34303433 (1997)

Hidalgo, J.C.: arXiv:0708.3875 (2007)
Hodges, H.M., Blumenthal, G.R.: Phys. Rev. D 42, 33293333 (1990)
Inoue, K.T., Tanaka, T.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 021101 (2003)
Ioka, K., Tanaka, T., Nakamura, T., et al.: Phys. Rev. D 60, 083512 (1999)
Ivanov, P., Naselsky, P., Novikov, I.: Phys. Rev. D 50, 71737178 (1994)
Ivanov, P.: Phys. Rev. D 57, 7145 (1998)
Jedamzik, K.: Phys. Rev. D 55, 58715875 (1997)
Jedamzik, K., Niemeyer, J.: Phys. Rev. D 59, 124014 (1999)
Josan, A., Green, A., Malik, K.: Phys. Rev. D 79, 103520 (2008)
Kapusta, J.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 16701673 (2001)
Khlopov, M., Barrau, A., Grain, J.: Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 18751882 (2006)
Kiraly, P., et al.: Nature 293, 120122 (1981)
Kodama, H., Sato, K., Sasaki, M., Maeda, K.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 2052 (1981)
Kohri, K., Yokoyama, J.: Phys. Rev. D 61, 023501 (1999)
Lake, M., Thomas, S., Ward, J.: J. High Energy Phys. 12, 033 (2009)
Lehoucq, R., Casse, M., Casandjan, J., Grenier, I.: Astron. Astrophys. 502, 3743 (2009)
Lemoine, M.: Phys. Rev. D 68, 103503 (2003)
Lindley, D.: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 193, 593601 (1980)
Lyth, D.H., Malik, K., Sasaki, M., Zaballa, I.: JCAP 0601, 011 (2006)
MacGibbon, J.H.: Nature 329, 308309 (1987)
MacGibbon, J.H., Webber, B.R.: Phys. Rev. D 41, 30523079 (1990)
MacGibbon, J.H., Carr, B.J.: Ap. J. 371, 447469 (1991)
MacGibbon, J.H.: Phys. Rev. D 44, 376392 (1991)
MacGibbon, J.H., Brandenberger, R.H., Wichoski, U.F.: Phys. Rev. D 57, 21582165 (1998)
MacGibbon, J.H., Carr, B.J., Page, D.N.: Phys. Rev. D 78, 07092380 (2008)
Mack, K., Wesley, DH.: arXiv:0805.1531 (2008)
Maki, K., Mitsui, T., Orito, S.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3474 (1996)
Matsuda, T.: JEHP 0604, 017 (2006)
Meszaros, P.: Astron. Astrophys. 38, 513 (1975)
Miyama, S., Sato, K.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 59, 1012 (1978)
Moss, I.G.: Phys. Rev. D 50, 676681 (1994)
Musco, I., Miller, J.C., Rezzolla, L.: Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 14051424 (2005)
Nadezhin, D.K., Novikov, I.D., Polnarev, A.G.: Sov. Astron. 22, 129138 (1978)
Nakamura, T., Sasaki, M., Tanaka, T., Thorne, K.: Ap. J. Lett. 487, L139L142 (1997)
Niemeyer, J., Jedamzik, K.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 54815484 (1998)
Niemeyer, J., Jedamzik, K.: Phys. Rev. D 59, 124013 (1999)
Novikov, I.D., Polnarev, A.G., Starobinsky, A.A., Zeldovich, Y.B.: Astron. Astrophys. 80, 104109
(1979)
Okele, P., Rees, M.: Astron. Astrophys. 81, 263264 (1980)
Page, D.N., Hawking, S.W.: Ap. J. 206, 17 (1976)
Petkov, V., Bugaev, E., Klimai, P., Smirnov, D.: JETP Lett. 87, 13 (2008)
Polnarev, A.G., Khlopov, M.: Sov. Phys. Usp. 28, 213232 (1985)
Polnarev, A.G., Zemboricz, R.: Phys. Rev. D 43, 11061109 (1988)
Porter, N.A., Weekes, T.C.: Nature 277, 199 (1979)
Rees, M.: Nature 266, 333334 (1977)
Ricotti, M., Ostriker, J., Mack, K.: Astrophys. J. 880, 829845 (2008)
Rubin, S.G., Yu, M.K., Sakharov, A.S.: Grav. Cos. 6, 5158 (2001)
Saito, R., Yokoyama, J.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 161101 (2009)
Semikoz, D.V.: Ap. J. 436, 254256 (1994)
Sendouda, Y., Kohri, K., Nagataki, S., Sato, K.: Phys. Rev. D 71, 063512 (2005)
Shibata, M., Sasaki, M.: Phys. Rev. D 60, 084002 (1999)
Suyama, T., Tanaka, T., Bassett, B., Kudoh, H.: Phys. Rev. D 71, 063507 (2005)
References 81

Tashiro, H., Sugiyama, N.: Phys. Rev. D 78, 023004 (2008)

Vainer, B., Naselskii, P.: Sov. Astron. 22, 138140 (1978)
Vainer, B., Dryzhakova, O., Naselskii, P.: Sov. Astron. Lett. 4, 185187 (1978)
Wright, E.L.: Ap. J. 459, 487490 (1996)
Yokoyama, J.: Astron. Astrophys. 318, 673679 (1997)
Yokoyama, J.: Phys. Rev. D 58, 107502 (1998)
Yokoyama, J.: Phys. Rev. D 58, 083510 (1998)
Yokoyama, J.: Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 136, 338352 (1999)
Yu, K.M., Polnarev, A.G.: Phys. Lett. B 97, 383387 (1980)
Yu, M.K., Malomed, B., Zeldovich, Y.B.: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 215, 153156 (1985)
Yu, K.M., Konoplich, R.V., Rubin, S.G., Sakharov, A.S.: Grav. Cos. 6, 153156 (2000)
Yu, K.M., Rubin, S.G., Sakharov, A.S.: J. Astropart. Phys. 23, 265277 (2005)
Zeldovich, Y.B.: Sov. Astron. A. J. 10, 602603 (1967)
Zeldovich, Y.B., Starobinski, A.: Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett. 24, 571573 (1976)
Zeldovich, Y.B., Starobinski, A., Khlopov, M., Chechetkin, V.: Sov. Astron. Lett. 3, 110112 (1977)
Chapter 5
Black Hole Formation in High Energy
Particle Collisions

Abstract In this chapter we describe how black holes form in the high energy
collision of two particles. The challenge lies in establishing that a closed trapped
surface forms during that collision. Remarkably, it is possible to construct such a
surface analytically for a 3 + 1 dimensional space-time. This construction can be
extended into the semi-classical regime.

5.1 Introduction

Assessing whether a region of space-time will evolve into a black hole is in general
a challenging task. However, if the matter distribution has enough symmetries, this
task can be easy. For example, it is straightforward to solve explicitly Einsteins
equations for the gravitational field outside a spherically symmetrical object, such
as a star or a planet. The solution is the famous Schwarzschild solution (2.2). It is
easy to check whether an object is a black hole: one just needs to know whether its
radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius rs (see Sect. 2.2.1).
This exercise is more difficult in situations with fewer symmetries. A very asym-
metrical case is that of two particles in a head-on collision. Determining whether
a black hole will form in such a collision is important for models with low-scale
quantum gravity, which we shall discuss in Chap. 6.
Motivated by the condition for a spherically symmetrical object to be a black hole
if its radius is smaller that its Schwarzschild radius, Thorne proposed a criterion,
the hoop conjecture, for a region of space-time to evolve into a black hole Thorne
(1972). The hoop conjecture states that a region of space-time which is imploding
will form a black hole if a circular hoop of circumference C = 2rs can be placed
around the object and rotated. To motivate this conjecture, which has subsequently
been probed by numerous numerical studies, Thorne studied the effect of gravity on
objects of different shapes and concluded that they need to be compressed in all three
spatial directions before gravity leads to the formation of a black hole.

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 83

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_5, The Author(s) 2014
84 5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions

The hoop conjecture is the basis for the geometrical cross-section formula for
black hole production in the collision of two particles at very high energy

= rs2 . (5.1)

the2 Schwarzschild radius is related to the centre of mass energy s
In this case
by rs = 2G s/c , i.e. one assumes that all the energy of the colliding particles is
absorbed by the black hole. The mass of the black hole formed is determined by the
centre of mass energy.
Determining whether two particles in a high energy collision will form a black
hole is difficult. We shall now introduce a condition for the formation of a black hole,
which has been used in Penrose (unpublished), DEath and Payne (1992), Eardley and
Giddings (2002). To establish gravitational collapse, one needs to prove the existence
of a closed trapped surface defined as follows. Imagine that at some instant, a sphere
S emits a flash of light, see Fig. 5.1. At a later time, the light from a particular point P
forms a sphere F around P. We construct the ingoing and outgoing wavefronts from
the envelopes S1 and S2 of the light from all the points of S. If the areas of both S1 and
S2 are less than that of S, then S is a closed trapped surface. Clearly something very
strange has happened to the space-time. When a closed trapped surface is formed, the
Hawking-Penrose theorem Hawking and Penrose (1970) implies that there is a singu-
larity in the future evolution of Einsteins equations. The Hawking-Penrose theorem

Fig. 5.1 A closed trapped surface: at some instant, a sphere S emits a flash of light. At a later time,
the light from a point P forms a sphere F around P, and the envelopes S1 and S2 form the ingoing
and outgoing wavefronts respectively. If the areas of both S1 and S2 are less than that of S, then S
is a closed trapped surface
5.1 Introduction 85

assumes that the energy momentum tensor satisfies the weak energy condition. The
weak energy condition states that for every future pointing time-like vector field X,
the matter density observed by the corresponding observers is always non-negative:
= Tab X a X b 0.
Furthermore one needs to assume that there are no naked singularities. One expects
physical laws to break down at space-time singularities, so physics might lose its
predictive power there. Penrose (1969, 2002) cosmic censorship conjecture says
that singularities cannot be observed by an outside observer. In other words, all
naked singularities are hidden from an observer at infinity by an event horizon and
singularities in the evolution of Einsteins equations imply black hole formation. The
Hawking-Penrose theorem together with the cosmic censorship conjecture leads to
the conclusion that if a closed trapped surface is formed, then a black hole is formed
as well.
We shall now review the current state of the art in our understanding of the
formation of black holes in the collision of two particles at very high energy. We
shall distinguish three cases: classical black holes with mass much larger than the
Planck scale, semi-classical black holes with masses a few times larger than the
Planck scale and quantum black holes with masses close or equal to the Planck
scale.

5.2 Classical Black Holes

We now sketch the derivation of a closed trapped surface given by Eardley and Gid-
dings (2002), using their notation. The construction involves studying the collision
of two particles. Each particle is modeled by the Aichelburg-Sexl metric Aichelburg
and Sexl (1971), which is obtained by considering the Schwarzschild solution in the
limit of largeboost and small
mass, with fixed total energy. Each particle carries an
energy = s/2 where s is the centre of mass energy. In d-dimensions, the result
for a particle moving in the +z direction is the metric

ds 2 = d u d v + d x i2 + ()(u)d u 2, (5.2)

where depends only on the transverse radius = x i xi and takes the form

8G ln(), d = 4,
= 16 G (5.3)
d3 (d4) d4
, d > 4,

where d2 is the volume of the unit (d 2)-sphere. Note that satisfies Poissons
equation
2 = 16 G d2 (x i ) (5.4)
86 5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions

in the transverse dimensions, where is the (d 2)-dimensional flat-space derivative

in the (x i ).
The Aichelburg-Sexl metric is manifestly flat except in the null plane u = 0 of
the shockwave. Eardley and Giddings then consider an identical shockwave traveling
along v = 0 in the z direction. Remarkably, by causality, these shockwaves will
not be able to influence each other until the shockwaves collide. This means that one
can superpose two solutions of the form (5.2) to give the exact geometry outside the
future light cone of the collision of the shockwaves. Furthermore, there is thus no
need to speculate on any details of quantum gravity. The construction however only
applies to classical black holes with masses much larger than the Planck scale.
It is useful to introduce a new coordinate system defined by

u = u,
u (u)((x))2
v = v + (x) (u) + ,
4
u
x i = x i + i (x) (u), (5.5)
2
where is the Heaviside step function. In this coordinates geodesics and their
tangents are continuous across the shockwave at u = 0 and the metric of the combined
shockwaves becomes
 
(1) (1) (2) (2)
ds2 = du dv + Hik H jk + Hik H jk i j d x i d x j (5.6)

where

(1) 1
Hi j = i j + i j (x x1 ) u (u) (5.7)
2
(2) 1
Hi j = i j + i j (x x2 ) v (v) (5.8)
2
with given by Eq. (5.3),

x1 = (+b/2, 0, . . . , 0), x2 = (b/2, 0, . . . , 0), (5.9)

and x (x i ) is in the transverse flat (d 2)-space.

For the case of d = 4 and zero impact parameter (b = 0), the trapped surface is
in the union of the two shockwaves. It consists of two flat disks with radii c at

t = 4G ln c , z = 4G ln c . (5.10)

Matching their normals across the boundary, which lies in the collision surface
u = v = 0, one finds c = 4G = rh . If one repeats this construction for d > 4 and
b = 0, one obtains
5.2 Classical Black Holes 87

 1/(d3)
8 G
c = . (5.11)
d3

Remarkably, this construction can be generalized to the case of a non-zero impact

parameter. In the case d = 4, Eardley and Giddings were able to construct a closed
trapped surface analytically while in the case d > 4 one has to rely on numerical
solutions Eardley and Giddings (2002), Yoshino and Nambu (2003), Yoshino and
Rychkov (2005). The heart of the problem is finding a closed trapped surface S lying
in the union of the hypersurfaces describing the incoming shockwaves. These null
hypersurfaces are defined by v 0 = u and u 0 = v and intersect in the (d 2)-
dimensional surface u = 0 = v. This latter surface intersects the closed trapped
surface S in a closed (d 3)-dimensional surface C . The challenge therefore is
determining C .
In the first incoming null surface v 0 = u, we define S by

v = 1 (x) with 1 > 0 inside C and 1 = 0 on C . (5.12)

For S to be a closed trapped surface, we require neighbouring light rays normal

to S to move towards each other, which, in technical language, means that the outer
null normals have zero convergence. For v < 0 this happens as long as

2 (1 1 ) = 0 inside C . (5.13)

Similarly, in the second incoming null surface u 0 = v, defining S by

u = 2 (x) with 2 > 0 inside C and 2 = 0 on C , (5.14)

the outer null normals have zero convergence for u < 0 providing

2 (2 2 ) = 0 inside C . (5.15)

The final condition is that the outer null normal to S must be continuous across
u = 0 = v. A necessary and sufficient condition for this continuity is that

1 2 = 4 on C ; (5.16)

since 1 and 2 vanish on C , i is normal to C .

Note that (5.4, 5.13) imply that satisfies Poissons equation with sources at
x . One can define the rescaled functions

d3
g(x, x ; C ) = (5.17)
16 G

satisfying
88 5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions

x2 g(x, x ; C ) = d3 d2 (x x ), (5.18)
g(x, x ; C ) = 0 for x on C . (5.19)

Therefore the g(x, x ; C ) are Dirichlet Greens functions for sources at x1 , x2

with boundary C . The above construction has mapped the problem of finding the
trapped surface onto an equivalent simple mathematical problem, which is given as
follows. Let x1 and x2 be two points in (d 2)-dimensional Euclidean space, and
let B > 0 be a constant. If g(x, x ; C ) are the Dirichlet Greens functions satisfying
(5.18, 5.19), then the problem is to find a closed (d 3)-surface C enclosing the
points x1 and x2 and having the following property:

x g(x, x1 ; C ) x g(x, x2 ; C ) = B 2 (5.20)

for all points x on C .

In four dimensions, one has

1
1 = 8Gg(x, x1 ; C ), 2 = 8Gg(x, x2 ; C ) and B= .
4G

Using the following definitions

   
2G(1 a 2 ) 1 + a2
x1 = ln , 0 = x2 ,
a 1 a2
 
4G(1 a 2 ) 1 + a2
b(a) = ln , (5.21)
a 1 a2

where the parameter a is such that 0 a < 1, Eardley and Giddings construct a
closed trapped surface S for any value of the impact parameter b(a). The area of
S is found to be
 
(1 a 2 )2 1 + a2
Area(S ) = 16(G)2 ln . (5.22)
a2 1 a2

An apparent horizon is defined as the outermost trapped surface in space-time,

and always lies inside the event horizon of a black hole. Since we have a closed
trapped surface S , either S is itself the apparent horizon or there is a apparent
horizon outside S . Therefore, Area(S ) gives a lower bound gives a lower bound on
the area of the apparent horizon because S is convex and the 2-metric is Euclidean.
As the apparent horizon area is less than or equal to the Schwarzschild horizon area
4rs2 , there is a lower bound on the mass of the final black hole:
  
1 a2 1 + a2
Mfinal bh > 2 ln . (5.23)
2a 1 a2
5.2 Classical Black Holes 89

Furthermore, the fraction of total energy 2 = s emitted as gravitational radi-
ation is bounded from above,
  
E grav rad 1 a2 1 + a2
<1 ln . (5.24)
2 2a 1 a2

As a matter of fact, E grav rad may be significantly smaller because the final black
hole is expected to be rotating, unless the impact parameter b is zero, and thus a
substantial proportion of its energy should be in the form of rotational energy.
The function b(a), for a given , reaches a maximum value of

bmax 3.219G (5.25)

at
amax 0.6153. (5.26)

This is the largest value of the impact parameter for which one can show, by
this method, that a black hole is produced in the collision of two particles. The
corresponding lower limit on the cross-section is

bmax
2
32.552(G)2 . (5.27)

The production cross-section for black holes in the collision of two particles
predicted by the hoop conjecture is = rs2 . The lower limit obtained by Eardley
and Giddings is about 65 % of this estimate. Thus not all of the energy of the colliding
particles is transferred to the black hole. Some will be radiated away (see Sect. 3.3)
and is not available for gravitational collapse. Using (5.23), Eardley and Giddings
a lower bound on the final black hole mass ranging from 0.71 s for b = 0 to
find
0.45 s for b = bmax .
Thus far we have been dealing with the classical production of black holes. One
may worry that when trying to extend this construction at the quantum mechanical
level, the production could be suppressed exponentially, as is the case for tunneling
processes which are only allowed quantum mechanically and not classically. How-
ever, it is important to realize that the construction due to Eardley and Giddings is
purely classical. This implies that there is no Euclidean suppression in the formation
of black holes in the collisions of two particles at the quantum level. The reason is
that there are classical trajectories with two particle initial conditions which evolve
into black holes. The process is not classically forbidden, as demonstrated by Eard-
ley and Giddings. There is thus no tunneling factor. One might also worry that since
black holes produce a thermal spectrum of particles during their evaporation in the
form of Hawking radiation (see Chap. 3) rather than a few highly energetic particles,
the time-reversal of the production process, and hence the production process itself,
by CPT (i.e. time reversal invariance) must have very low probability. However,
the time-reversed classical solutions exhibit a very energetic wave of gravitational
90 5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions

radiation colliding with the time-reversed black hole to produce the two particle state.
This is the energy which escapes the black hole in the formation process. The process
is not thermal. It involves very special initial and final conditions. These two points
have been emphasized in Hsu (2003). Note that the particles are assumed to be point-
like in Eardley and Giddings construction. This construction can be extended to the
case of finite size particles Giddings and Rychkov (2004), Kohlprath and Veneziano
(2002).
This beautiful construction is purely classical and most remarkably it does not
require any assumption on the nature of quantum gravity. It holds,
as we have empha-
sized already, in the limit where the centre of mass energy s is much larger than
the Planck scale and the black hole mass. Despite its elegance, this construction is of
limited practical importance for realistic collisions where the centre of mass energy
would certainly not be much above the Planck scale. Fortunately, a path integral for-
mulation of the construction has been proposed by Hsu (2003). This work extends
the validity of Eardley and Giddings result into the semi-classical regime.

5.3 Semi-classical Black Holes

Semi-classical black holes are black holes with masses somewhat larger than the
Planck scale. In general relativity, the Planck mass M P is approximately 2 108
kg. The precise factor is dependent on the model of gravity and is actually poorly
known. An educated guess is that the semi-classical regime starts at black hole masses
five to twenty times larger than the Planck scale.
We shall now describe the extension of the construction of Eardley and Giddings
into the semi-classical regime. Although the initial colliding particles are dressed
by strong gravitational fields, from a quantum field theoretical point of view, the
initial state will be described by a two-particle state. A semi-classical black hole
is a thermal object and thus expected to decay via Hawking radiation (see Chap. 3)
to a large number of particles. We thus need to describe amplitudes involving two
particles with high momenta in the initial states going to many particles with low
momenta in the final state via a black hole A = p1 p2 |semi classical BH| i pi .
In Hsu (2003), Hsu proposed using an effective action Gould et al. (1995) designed
to treat such processes. While general

covariance does not permit a unique time slic-

ing, the gravitational action Sg = d 4 x g R is still well-defined. The difficulty in
defining a path integral is specifying over which field configurations one should sum.
One is interested in describing semi-classical black holes. How does one include them
in the path integral? Hsu emphasizes that the notion of an S-matrix is appropriate
if one considers asymptotically flat space-times in the far past and future, on top of
additional excitations. Black holes are assumed to be excitations, i.e. particle states,
and the Hilbert space must thus be extended to include quantum states representing
black holes. One can define semi-classical black hole states pragmatically as those
with a strong overlap with the trajectories corresponding to classical black holes. In
a classical black hole solution, excess energy is radiated away, see Chap. 3, in the
5.3 Semi-classical Black Holes 91

form of Hawking radiation by late times and the exterior metric can be classified by
a limited number of quantum numbers such as mass, charge and angular momentum.
This is a consequence of the famous no hair theorem Misner et al. (1973). A minimal
formulation thus involves a Hilbert space of black holes classified by their exterior
metric at future null infinity (I + , see for example Fig. 2.2).
For the semi-classical approximation to be useful, one needs to show that there are
no large quantum corrections. In general relativity there is no small dimensionless
parameter. However, expanding about a background configuration yields interactions
which are suppressed by the background curvature in Planck units. Classical solutions
describing the ordinary gravitational collapse of many soft particles, for example the
collapse of a large star or dust ball, can produce black holes without regions of
large curvature. Hsus formalism applies directly to such solutions, resulting in a
semi-classical amplitude without large quantum corrections.
In the construction of Eardley and Giddings, regions of large curvature can arise
quite early in the evolution even if the black hole produced is large,
M p . If one
takes the size of the colliding particles to be of order the Planck length, one finds
curvatures at the shock front of order 2 . In this case, quantum corrections might
be large. Because gravity is non-renormalizable, one has to consider all possible
generally covariant higher dimension operators in the Lagrangian, such as higher
powers of the curvature. In large curvature backgrounds these terms may not be
negligible, so the size of quantum corrections will in principle depend on unknown
details of quantum gravity. Thus, this construction cannot be applied to black holes
with mass close to the Planck scale. However, for the parameter range relevant to
models with low scale quantum gravity to be described in Chap. 6, the semi-classical
approximation is expected to be a good one. As explained by Hsu, this supposes that
quantum gravitational effects are not sensitive to the size of the objects colliding.

5.4 Planckian Quantum Black Holes

Planckian quantum black holes are black holes with masses very close to the Planck
scale. They are thus non-thermal objects. These black holes are the most quantum
objects in quantum gravity and very little is known about their creation and decay
properties. They could either be stable objects, in which case they are called remnants
also called relics, or very short lived and decay immediately after having been created.
If they decay, their decomposition is not expected to be described accurately by
Hawking radiation as they are non-thermal objects. They are expected to decay to
only a few particles. Their production cross-section is usually extrapolated from
the semi-classical one. Symmetries have been used to constrain the possible decay
products Calmet et al. (2008). Furthermore, while semi-classical black holes are
expected to have a continuous mass spectrum, quantum black holes could have either
a continuous or discrete mass spectrum Calmet et al. (2012). Planckian quantum black
hole physics is the topic of on-going research.
92 5 Black Hole Formation in High Energy Particle Collisions

Let us finish by emphasizing that evaporating astrophysical black holes may con-
ceivably leave stable Planck mass relics, in which case these relics could provide
another solution to the dark matter problem Carr (1994).

5.5 Conclusions

In this chapter, we discussed the current state of the art in the formation of small black
holes in the collisions of two high energetic particles. We emphasized that progress
has gone well beyond the hoop conjecture. A mathematical proof of gravitational
collapse in such processes is known. Finally we explained that it is important to
differentiate between classical, semi-classical and quantum black hole production
mechanics. While in the first two cases, we can predict with confidence when a black
hole will form, the latter case is still work in progress.

References

Aichelburg, P.C., Sexl, R.U.: Gen. Rel. Grav. 2, 303312 (1971)

Calmet, X., Fragkakis, D., Gausmann, N.: Non-thermal small black holes. In: Bauer, A.J., Eiffel,
D.G. (eds.) Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, pp. 165170. Nova Science
Publishers, New York (2012)
Calmet, X., Gong, W., Hsu, S.D.H.: Phys. Lett. B 668, 2023 (2008)
Carr, B.J.: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 32, 531590 (1994)
DEath, P.D., Payne, P.N.: Phys. Rev. D 46, 658674 (1992)
DEath, P.D., Payne, P.N.: Phys. Rev. D 46, 675693 (1992)
DEath, P.D., Payne, P.N.: Phys. Rev. D 46, 694701 (1992)
Eardley, D.M., Giddings, S.B.: Phys. Rev. D 66, 044011 (2002)
Giddings, S.B., Rychkov, V.S.: Phys. Rev. D 70, 104026 (2004)
Gould, T.M., Hsu, S.D.H., Poppitz, E.R.: Nucl. Phys. B 437, 83106 (1995)
Hawking, S.W., Penrose, R.: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529548 (1970)
Hsu, S.D.H.: Phys. Lett. B 555, 9298 (2003)
Kohlprath, E., Veneziano, G.: JHEP 0206, 057 (2002)
Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., Wheeler, J.A.: Gravitation. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco (1973)
Penrose, R., Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1, 252276 (1969)
Penrose, R.: Gen. Rel. Grav. 34, 11411165 (2002)
Thorne, K.S.: Nonspherical gravitational collapse: a short review. In: J.R. Klauder (ed.), Magic
Without Magic, pp. 231258. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco (1972)
Yoshino, H., Rychkov, V.S.: Phys. Rev. D 71, 104028 (2005) [Erratum-ibid. D 77, 089905 (2008)]
Yoshino, H., Nambu, Y.: Phys. Rev. D 67, 024009 (2003)
Chapter 6
Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity

Abstract In this chapter we describe models with low scale quantum gravity. While
clearly speculative, these models have been very useful in demonstrating that we
do not know from first principles the energy scale at which quantum gravitational
effects become large. We emphasize that it is thus important to search for quantum
gravitational effects, including the formation of small black holes in experiments
such as the Large Hadron Collider and cosmic ray experiments.

6.1 Models of Low Scale Quantum Gravity

One of the most exciting developments in theoretical physics in the last 15 years has
been the realization that we know very poorly the energy scale at which quantum
gravitational interactions become important. The Planck scale is the energy scale
above which the quantum fluctuations of space-time cannot be neglected. Tradition-
ally, this energy scale was thought to be around 1019 GeV. This assumption was based
on the construction
of a number having the dimensions of mass, i.e. the Planck mass
M p = c/G = 1.2209 1019 GeV/c2 where G is Newtons constant, c is the
speed of light and  the reduced Planck constant. We will make a distinction between
the Planck mass with units of GeV/c2 and the Planck scale which is an energy with
units of GeV.
Until recently, it was assumed that the Planck scale might never be probed experi-
mentally. However, Arkani-Hamed et al. (1998); Antoniadis et al. (1998) have shown
by studying a class of models with more than four dimensions that the Planck scale
could be much lower than naively expected and potentially around a few 103 GeV
depending on the number of extra dimensions. Their work is remarkable in demon-
strating that we do not know at what scale quantum gravitational effects become
large. Their models motivate a search for quantum gravitational effects using Earth-
based experiments such as colliders or cosmic ray detectors. Most remarkably, some

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 93

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_6, The Author(s) 2014
94 6 Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity

of these models are compatible with all current observations in particle physics and
in cosmology.
These models posit that we live in more than four dimensions. This, as such, is not
revolutionary as string theorists have been pushing this idea for decades. However, in
string theory, the extra dimensions are typically curled up and very tiny. The proposal
of Arkani-Hamed et al. is shocking because the volume of the extra dimensions has
to be comparatively large. The size of the extra dimensions could be in the millimeter
range. Starting from a higher dimensional action of the form
  

S= d 4 x d d4 x g Md2 R + (6.1)

one finds that the effective 3 + 1 effective Planck scale M P is given by

M 2p = Md2 Vd4 (6.2)

where Vd4 is the volume of the extra dimensions. By taking Vd4 large, M p can
be made of order 1019 GeV while M TeV. Clearly this comes at the cost of some
strong dynamical assumptions about the geometry of space-time: why are some
dimensions larger than others?
There are different realizations of this idea. We first describe the brane world
model proposed by Arkani-Hamed et al. (1998); Antoniadis et al. (1998), in which
model particles of the standard model are confined to a three dimensional surface,
called the brane, whereas gravity can propagate everywhere both on the brane and
in the extra-dimensional volume called the bulk. The number of extra dimensions
is not fixed from first principles, but can only be constrained by experiments. There
are bounds coming from astrophysics, searches for modifications of Newtons 1/r
potential on Earth and collider experiments. With the Large Hadron Collider at CERN
accumulating data at an impressive pace, these bounds are evolving quickly and we
refer the reader to The Review of Particle Physics Beringer (2012), which is regularly
updated, for up-to-date limits on the parameters of these models. A Planck scale of 1
TeV is excluded for one extra dimension by the non-observation of modifications of
Newtonian gravity within the solar system. It is possible to set bounds on the Planck
scale in models with two and three extra dimensions using neutron stars, supernovae
physics and cosmological observations. The most stringent ones come from neutron
star physics, which would be affected quite dramatically by the presence of Kaluza-
Klein excitations of the graviton predicted by these models. One finds M P > 1700
TeV and M P > 76 TeV for n = 2 and 3 extra-dimensions respectively Beringer
(2012). For n 4, colliders are setting limits on the Planck scale which should be
larger than a few TeV.
In the version proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS) Randall and Sundrum
(1999); Gogberashvili (2002), a five-dimensional space-time is considered with two
branes. In the simplest version of Randall and Sundrums model, the standard model
particles are confined to the so-called infra-red brane while gravity propagates in the
6.1 Models of Low Scale Quantum Gravity 95

bulk as well. For this model, the bounds on the Planck scale are typically in the TeV
region.
One of the main difficulties of models with large extra dimensions is proton decay.
In the Randall and Sundrum model, it was proposed that leptons and quarks could
propagate in the bulk in order to suppress proton decay operators Huber (2003).
However, this leads to tighter bounds on the parameters of the model due to the
non-observations of certain rare or forbidden decays of particles of the standard
model.
More recently, it has been shown that the Planck scale could also be lower than
naively expected, even if there are only four space-time dimension, if there is a
large hidden sector of particles which interact only gravitationally with the standard
model Calmet et al. (2008). This construction is based on the fact that Newtons
constant and hence the Planck mass are scale-dependent quantities, like any other
coupling constant of a quantum field theory. The actual scale at which quantum
gravitational effects are large is given by

M( ) , (6.3)

where M() is the running Planck mass as a function of the energy scale . This
condition implies that quantum fluctuations in space-time geometry at length scales
1
will be unsuppressed. The contributions of spin 0, spin 1/2 and spin 1 particles
to the running of M() can easily be calculated using the heat-kernel method. This
regularization procedure ensures that the symmetries of the theory are preserved
by the regulator. One finds Vassilevich (1995); Larsen and Wilczek (1996); Kabat
(1995); Calmet et al. (2008)

2
M()2 = M(0)2 N (6.4)
12

where M(0) is the Planck mass measured in low energy experiment. In this equation
N = N0 + N1/2 4N1 , where the parameters N0 , N1/2 and N1 are the number of
scalar fields, Weyl fermions and gauge bosons in the theory respectively. This result
relies only on quantum field theory in curved space-time and does not require any
assumption about quantum gravity.
There are thus several models with can lead to a Planck scale which is lower than
naively expected using dimensional analysis.

6.2 Microscopic Black Holes at Colliders

If the scale of quantum gravity is truly as low as a few TeV, colliders such as the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could produce microscopic black holes Dimopoulos
and Landsberg (2001); Banks and Fischler (1999); Giddings and Thomas (2002);
Feng and Shapere (2002); Anchordoqui et al. (2004, 2002, 2003); Meade and Randall
96 6 Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity

(2008); Calmet et al. (2008). At the LHC, the centre-of-mass energy of the collision
between the colliding protons will eventually increase up to 14 TeV. In the first few
years, collisions took place at 7 and 8 TeV. Clearly this will allow us to probe a
Planck mass in the few TeV region. The most massive black hole which could be
produced at the LHC would at most have a mass of 14 TeV and likely less since, as
we shall see, not all of the energy of the protons is available for gravitational collapse.
This implies that the ratio between the black hole mass and the Planck mass will be
at most around 14 in the most optimistic case, i.e. a Planck scale of 1 TeV. These
black holes are thus at best semi-classical and therefore very different from their
astrophysical counterparts. The production mechanism for microscopic black holes
in the collision of two particles has been discussed in Chap. 5.
It is important to realize that for black hole production, as for the production
of any other particle at a proton collider, what matters are collisions between the
constituents, the so-called partons, of the protons namely the quarks, anti-quarks and
gluons. The partons carry the fraction of the energy of the proton available to form a
black hole or to produce any other particle. Furthermore, Eardley and Giddings (2002)
have found that only part of the energy of the partons is available for gravitational
collapse (see Chap. 5). The fraction of energy carried by two colliding partons is
parametrized by v and u/v. The parton distribution function f i (v, Q) describes the
probability of finding a parton of type i with energy squared sv, where s is the centre-
of-mass energy squared, in the colliding proton. The energy scale Q corresponds to
the momentum transfer and in black hole production processes is often associated
with the Planck scale. The production cross-section for a semi-classical black hole
at a protonproton collider is then given by
 1  1  1 dv
pp
(s, xmin , n, M D ) = 2zdz (xmin M D )2
du
0 u v
y(z)2 s

F(n)rs2 (us, n, M D ) f i (v, Q) f j (u/v, Q) (6.5)
i, j

where M D is the n-dimensional reduced Planck mass, z = b/bmax , xmin =

M B H,min /M D , n is the number of extra dimensions, and F(n) and y(z) are the
factors introduced by Eardley and Giddings (2002) and by Yoshino and Nambu
Yoshino and Nambu (2003); Yoshino and Rychkov (2005) to parameterize the fact
that not all of the energy of the partons is available for gravitational collapse. The
(n + 4)-dimensional Schwarzschild radius is given by
1
rs (us, n, M D ) = k(n)M D [ us/M D ]1/(1+n) (6.6)

where  1/(1+n)
n n3 ((3 + n)/2)
k(n) = 2 , (6.7)
2+n
6.2 Microscopic Black Holes at Colliders 97

Furthermore, MBH,min is defined as the minimal value of black hole mass for which
the semi-classical extrapolation can be trusted. Note that the sum is over all the
partons considered in the reaction. The reduced Planck mass M D is equal to M
multiplied by a numerical factor which depends on the number of dimensions. The
parameter M D is bounded by phenomenological studies.
As emphasized in Chap. 5, the closed trapped surface construction is only valid
in the limit where the mass of the black holes and hence the centre-of-mass energy
is much larger than the scale of quantum gravity. The black hole formed in that
limit is a semi-classical one. The decay of semi-classical black holes, which are
thermal objects, is expected to be well described by Hawking radiation. They are
thus expected to decay to many particles (see Chap. 3 for a detailed discussion). It
is, however, now well understood Anchordoqui et al. (2004); Meade and Randall
(2008); Calmet et al. (2008) that it is very unlikely that the LHC will see semi-
classical black holes as the centre of mass energy is not high enough to produce
them. This is because only a fraction of the energy of the partons is available for
black hole formation Yoshino and Nambu (2003); Yoshino and Rychkov (2005) and
the parton distribution functions fall off very fast as energy increases. The ratio of the
lightest semi-classical black hole mass to the Planck mass is estimated to be about 5
in ADD, while it could easily be 20 for RS Meade and Randall (2008).
Besides semi-classical black holes, one expects that there are the Planckian quan-
tum black holes introduced in Chap. 5. The energy at the LHC might be high enough
to produce these holes if the Planck scale is low enough Calmet et al. (2008). From
that perspective the LHC is setting the tightest limits to that on the energy scale at
which quantum gravitational effects become important. These Planckian quantum
black holes are defined as the quantum analogues of ordinary black holes as their
mass and Schwarzschild radius approach the quantum gravity scale. They are non-
thermal objects: their space-time is not semi-classical and they do not necessarily
have a well-defined temperature. In many respects they are perhaps more analogous
to strongly coupled resonances or bound states than to large black holes. Planckian
quantum black holes presumably decay only to a few particles, each with Compton
wavelength of order the size of the Planckian quantum black hole (QBH). It seems
unlikely that they would decay to a much larger number of longer wavelength modes.
The cross-section for the production of Planckian quantum black holes is usually
extrapolated from the semi-classical one. They are not expected to have high angular
momentum. Indeed, the incoming partons are effectively objects which are extended
in space-time, so their typical size is fixed by M P1 , i.e. the size of the fluctuations of
space-time due to quantum gravity, which is also the interaction range of the semi-
classical formation process in the limit of a Planckian quantum black hole. Thus, the
impact parameter and hence the angular momentum of the QBH are expected to be
1
small at impact parameter M D the classical angular momentum would be order
one at most. A classical black hole of this size with large angular momentum would
have to spin at faster than the speed of light. Thus, the spin down process (see Chap. 3)
before the final explosion discussed in the context of semi-classical black holes does
not take place here. Quantum black holes could decay immediately to a small number
of final states or they could form remnants (stable objects). Furthermore, unlike their
98 6 Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity

semi-classical counterparts, Planckian quantum black holes could have quantized

masses Calmet et al. (2012).
If quantum black holes decay, symmetries are useful to predict their decomposition
modes. One needs to decide which symmetries are preserved by quantum gravity.
Typically one assumes that gauge symmetries are preserved, while Lorentz invariance
and global symmetries might be broken by quantum gravitational effects. Thus, one
expects that quantum black holes can be classified according to representations of
SU(3)c and that they will carry an electric charge. The formation of a Planckian
q
quantum black hole QBHc (i.e. in the c-representation of SU(3)c and with charge q)
in the collision of two partons pi , p j has been considered in Calmet et al. (2008).
A proton consists of the following partons: quarks, anti-quarks and gluons. Quarks
are in the 3-representation of SU(3)c , while anti-quarks and gluons are in the 3-
and 8-representations respectively. Since SU(3)c is preserved, black holes in the
following representations can be produced in the collision of two protons: 3 3 =
8 + 1, 3 3 = 6 + 3, 3 8 = 3 + 6 + 15 and 8 8 = 1 S + 8 S + 8 A + 10 + 10 A + 27 S .
Thus most of the time the black holes which are created carry a SU(3)c charge and
come in different representations of SU(3)c . This classification allows one to make
predictions for the decomposition of quantum black holes.
Several event generators have been especially designed to study the production
of black holes at colliders Dai et al. (2008); Cavaglia et al. (2007); Dimopoulos and
Landsberg (2001); Harris et al. (2003); Gingrich (2010). From the non-observation
of microscopic black holes at the Large Hadron Collider, limits on the Planck scale
in the few TeV regions have been derived. This is a very rapidly evolving field and
the interested reader should read the latest ATLAS and CMS papers on the topic for
up to date limits.

6.3 Microscopic Black Holes in Cosmic Ray Experiments

Microscopic black holes could also be produced in the scattering of highly energetic
cosmic rays with nuclei in the Earths atmosphere or crust. Cosmic rays with energies
of 2 1011 GeV have been observed. Although the flux of the most energetic rays
is small, new energetic particles can be produced when they collide with nuclei
in the Earths atmosphere. The centre-of-mass energy available to produce these
new objects can reach some 600 TeV. In other words, one can hope to probe new
physics beyond the standard model up to energies much higher than those generated
at colliders.
However, the problem is to identify the new particles with detectors on Earth. In
the case of microscopic black holes, two ideas have been proposed. One relies on the
existence of very energetic Earth-skimming neutrinos. Within the standard model
of particle physics, one expects that neutrinos can be converted to charged leptons
when hitting a nucleus within the Earths crust. If the collision happens relatively
close to the surface, the charged lepton can escape the Earth and be detected. If there
were a new strong interaction for neutrinos at a few TeV such as the formation of a
6.3 Microscopic Black Holes in Cosmic Ray Experiments 99

small black hole, one would expect to see fewer of these Earth-skimming neutrino
events Feng and Shapere (2002); Feng et al. (2002); Calmet and Feliciangeli (2008).
In the case of Planckian quantum black holes, it has been shown Calmet et al. (2012)
that the standard model background is much smaller than the expected signal. Also
studying how two showers generated by the particles emitted by the quantum black
hole overlap, partly resulting in oval shaped imprints, could be used to search for
quantum black hole creation in the upper atmosphere.
The composition of cosmic rays is not well understood. In particular, we do not
know with certainty at this point of what the most energetic components are made.
They could consist of heavy nuclei and protons, as it is currently thought, but also of
neutrinos. The cross-section for the production of a small black hole in a nuclei-nuclei
collision has been given above in Eq. (6.5). In the case of neutrino-nuclei collisions
one has:
 1  1 
(E , xmin , M R ) = 2zdz (xmin M R )2
d x F(n)rs2 ( s, M R ) f i (x, Q)
0 i
y(z)2 smax

(6.8)
where M R = M P / 8 is the reduced Planck mass, xmin = M Bmin H /M R is the ratio
of the minimal black hole mass which can be created to the reduced Planck mass,
F(n) is the Eardley-Giddings correction which describes the fact that not all of the
energy of the partons is available for black hole formation, y(z) is the inelasticity
function calculated in Yoshino and Nambu (2003); Yoshino and Rychkov (2005),
s = 2xm N E where m N is the nuclei mass, E is the neutrino energy and f i (x, Q)
are the parton distribution functions. The black holes produced in the reaction N
BH can be charged under U(1), SU(3) but they could in principle also be neutral
under these two gauge symmetries.
The number of black holes expected to be observable by a cosmic-ray experiment
is given by
  1  1
d
N (M R ) =N A T d E 2z dz (xmin M R )2
dx A(y E )F(4)rs2 ( s, M R )
0 d E
y(z)2 smax

f i (x, Q) (6.9)
i

where ddE is the flux of cosmic neutrinos, N A is the Avogadro number, T is the
running time of the experiment and A(y E ) is the acceptance of the experiment under
consideration. Typically, the bounds obtained from current cosmic ray experiments
are of the same order of magnitude as those obtained from collider experiments
despite a higher centre-of-mass energy. There reasons are large uncertainties in the
composition of the most energetic cosmic ray and of their fluxes.
100 6 Black Holes and Low Scale Quantum Gravity

6.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we discussed models with low scale quantum gravity. Such models
suppose that either we live in more than four dimensions or that there is a large hidden
sector of particles that only interact gravitationally with the standard model. We then
discussed how colliders and cosmic ray experiments can hunt for small black holes.
Remarkably the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is setting some of the strongest
limits on the Planck scale.

References

Anchordoqui, L.A., Feng, J.L., Goldberg, H., Shapere, A.D.: Phys. Rev. D 65, 124027 (2002)
Anchordoqui, L.A., Feng, J.L., Goldberg, H., Shapere, A.D.: Phys. Rev. D 68, 104025 (2003)
Anchordoqui, L.A., Feng, J.L., Goldberg, H., Shapere, A.D.: Phys. Lett. B 594, 363367 (2004)
Antoniadis, I., Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G.R.: Phys. Lett. B 436, 257263 (1998)
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., Dvali, G.R.: Phys. Lett. B 429, 263272 (1998)
Banks, T., Fischler, W.: hep-th/9906038 (1999)
Beringer J. et al., [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012), see also
their website: http://pdg.lbl.gov/ for up-to-date information
Calmet, X., Fragkakis, D., Gausmann, N.: Non-thermal small black holes. In Bauer, A.J., Eiffel,
D.G. (eds.) Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, pp. 165170. Nova Science
Publishers, New York, 2012
Calmet, X., Gong, W., Hsu, S.D.H.: Phys. Lett. B 668, 2023 (2008)
Calmet, X., Feliciangeli, M.: Phys. Rev. D 78, 067702 (2008)
Calmet, X., Hsu, S.D.H., Reeb, D.: Phys. Rev. D 77(125015), 1 (2008)
Calmet, X., Caramete, L.I., Micu, O.: JHEP 1211, 104 (2012)
Cavaglia, M., Godang, R., Cremaldi, L., Summers, D.: Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 506517
(2007)
Dai, D.C., Starkman, G., Stojkovic, D., Issever, C., Rizvi, E., Tseng, J.: Phys. Rev. D 77, 076007
(2008)
Dimopoulos, S., Landsberg, G.: Proceeding International Workshop on Future of Particle Physics
(Snowmass) (Preprint SNOWMASS-2001-P321)
Dimopoulos, S., Landsberg, G.L.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 (2001)
Eardley, D.M., Giddings, S.B.: Phys. Rev. D 66, 044011 (2002)
Feng, J.L., Shapere, A.D.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 021303 (2002)
Feng, J.L., Fisher, P., Wilczek, F., Yu, T.M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 161102 (2002)
Giddings, S.B., Thomas, S.D.: Phys. Rev. D 65(5), 056010 (2002)
Gingrich, D.M.: Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 19171924 (2010)
Gogberashvili, M.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 16351638 (2002)
Harris, C.M., Richardson, P., Webber, B.R.: JHEP 0308, 033 (2003)
Huber, S.J.: Nucl. Phys. B 666, 269288 (2003)
Kabat, D.N.: Nucl. Phys. B 453, 281302 (1995)
Larsen, F., Wilczek, F.: Nucl. Phys. B 458, 249266 (1996)
Meade, P., Randall, L.: JHEP 0805, 003 (2008)
Randall, L., Sundrum, R.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 33703373 (1999)
Vassilevich, D.V.: Phys. Rev. D 52, 9991010 (1995)
Yoshino, H., Rychkov, V. S.: Phys. Rev. D 71, 104028 (2005) [Erratum-ibid. D 77, 089905 (2008)]
Yoshino, H., Nambu, Y.: Phys. Rev. D 67, 024009 (2003)
Chapter 7
Conclusions

Although black holes provide a unique probe of gravity in its most extreme regime,
they are not just a laboratory for exploring classical general relativity. Their quantum
effects are also important and in this book we have presented a brief state-of-the-art
overview of our current understanding of these effects. In the absence of a final theory
of quantum gravity, we have seen that understanding the quantum properties of black
holes provides a glimpse of the elusive laws of fundamental physics underpinning
the Universe.
Our story has involved a combination of mathematical and physical discourse
and touched upon both theoretical and observational developments. We began with a
presentation of the well-known properties of classical black holes in general relativity,
stressing the links between black hole mechanics and thermodynamics. We focussed
mainly on the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions but also described their higher-
dimensional counterparts.
We then encountered the simplest and best understood type of black hole quan-
tum effect: particle creation. This depends on the use of quantum field theory in the
curved space-time background of the black hole solution, the prediction of Hawking
radiation being the most important result of this approach. For later applications,
we described the emission in some detail (including grey-body factors) and we also
touched briefly on the information loss paradox, though without discussing its pos-
sible resolutions.
The only astrophysical realization of these effects involves primordial black holes,
so this was our next topic. Quantum effects play a double role in this context since
both the formation and evaporation of such black holes are a consequence of quantum
fluctuations. Depending on their mass, which determines their lifetime, primordial
black holes could have a huge variety of cosmological effects and this makes them
a unique probe of the early universe. Even if they never formed, the upper limit on
the fraction of the universe going into them as a function of mass provides important
constraints on models such as inflation. More positively, black holes evaporating at
the present epoch might explain certain anomalies associated with cosmic rays and
dark matter.

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics, 101

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9_7, The Author(s) 2014
102 7 Conclusions

We then returned to more formal considerations and discussed how black holes
can form in the collision of two particles. The Eardley and Giddings construction
elegantly demonstrates that even for non-zero impact parameter, classical black holes
do form in the ultra-energetic collision of particles. This construction can be extended
into the semi-classical regime using a path integral formulation.
Finally, moving into more speculative domains, we considered the formation and
decay of Planckian quantum black holes. Since quantum gravitational effects should
be important here, these are in a sense the most quantum black holes of all. We
described how modifications of general relativity could lead to quantum gravitational
effects at a few TeV, leading to the production of microscopic black holes by the LHC
or cosmic rays. At the time of writing, there is still no sign of physics beyond the
standard model of particle physics. However, the LHC is setting the tightest limits
to date on the Planck scale. These are evolving constantly, so we refer the reader to
the literature for the most up-to-date developments.
Black holes have been intensively researched for over 50 years and there have
been many astounding discoveries, both theoretical and observational. Nevertheless,
there is much about black hole physics which is still poorly understood. In this brief
book, we have tried to present a flavour of some current research on the quantum
properties of black holes. We hope that we have conveyed a sense of where the field
currently stands, and what the outstanding open problems are, although there is much
that we have had to leave out due to the restrictions of space. With the LHC running at
higher energies, more detailed cosmological data and new theoretical developments,
we anticipate exciting years ahead for black hole physics.
April 2013
Index

A G
Absorption cross-section, 30, 39, 42 Galactic antiprotons, 7476
Area theorem, 24 Galactic c-ray background, 55, 74
Asymptotically flat space-time, 90 Gamma-ray bursts, 1, 5, 55, 76
Galactic c-rays, 55, 74, 76
Gauge field hair, 31, 32
B Generalized second law of thermodynamics,
Back reaction, 31 24, 29
Balding phase, 31, 32 Greybody factor, 3640, 42, 48
Big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), 51, 55, 56,
6870, 74
Black hole entropy, 24, 30 H
Black hole mechanics, 11, 2125, 29, 101 Hawking radiation, 2, 2733, 3942, 44,
Black hole production cross-section, 89, 91, 4648, 8991, 97, 101
96, 97, 99 Hawking radiation fluxes, 30
Black hole specific heat, 29 Hawking temperature, 28, 29, 42, 44, 66
Black hole temperature, 28, 66, 67, 75 Hoop conjecture, 83, 84, 89, 92
Black hole thermodynamics, 29, 30
Brane, 1921, 23, 33, 35, 37, 40, 4447, 94
Brane worlds, 1921, 33, 35, 44, 46, 47, 94 I
Bulk, 20, 33, 35, 37, 40, 41, 46, 47, 94, 95 Information loss paradox, 48, 49, 101

C K
Cauchy or inner horizon, 15, 16, 19 Kerr black holes, 17, 23, 33
Closed trapped surface, 8385, 87, 88, 97
CMB anisotropy, 77
Curvature singularity, 1216, 18 L
Large-scale structure, 54
Light cone, 12, 13, 86
E Low scale quantum gravity, 83, 91, 93, 100
Ergosphere, 16, 17
Event horizon, 1, 6, 1319, 2224, 2729, 33,
3639, 43, 48, 85, 88 M
Event horizon area, 24, 29 Macroscopic black holes, 2
Extragalactic gamma-ray background (EGB), Mass and density fraction of PBHs, 55
55, 7072, 7477 Massive compact halo object (MACHO), 54
Extremal black hole, 15, 16, 43 Microlensing, 54, 62

X. Calmet et al., Quantum Black Holes, SpringerBriefs in Physics 103

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38939-9,  The Author(s) 2014
104 Index

Microscopic black holes, 2, 31, 32, 48, 95, 96, Q

98, 102 Quantum black holes, 13, 7, 11, 51, 85, 91,
Microscopic black holes at colliders, 95 9799, 102
Microscopic black holes in cosmic ray Quantum field theory in curved space-time, 27,
experiments, 98 95
Models of low scale quantum gravity, 93
Myers-Perry black holes, 18, 23, 35
R
Reissner-Nordstrm black
N hole, 14, 47
Naked singularity, 15, 16, 19

S
P Schwarzschild black hole, 12, 22,
PBH explosions, 76 29, 42
PBHs and inflation, 61 Schwarzschild phase, 31, 32, 43, 44, 48
Penrose diagram, 1315, 27, 28 Schwarzschild radius, 8, 13, 53, 83, 84,
Penrose process, 17, 24, 38 96, 97
Photosphere effects, 67 Schwarzschild-Tangherlini black hole, 18
Planck mass, 3, 6, 51, 55, 57, 77, 90, 92, 93, Semi-classical black holes, 85, 90,
9597, 99 91, 97
Planck mass relics, 6, 55, 57, 77, 92 Semi-classical quantum gravity, 27, 29, 48
Planck phase, 32, 48 Singly rotating black holes, 18
Planck scale, 3, 4, 68, 85, 86, 90, 91, 9398, Spin-down phase, 31, 32, 43, 48
102 Stationary limit surface, 16
Power spectrum, 30, 39, 42, 44, 45, 61, 62 Super-radiance, 38, 39, 48
Primordial black holes, 2, 7, 9, 51, 63, 101 Surface gravity, 22, 23, 29