Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On overspinning of black holes in higher dimensions

On overspinning of black holes in higher dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4, ∗ 5, † Sanjar Shaymatov and Naresh Dadhich Institute for Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Zheijiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China Ulugh Beg Astronomical Institute, Astronomicheskaya 33, Tashkent 100052, Uzbekistan National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers, Kori Niyoziy 39, Tashkent 100000, Uzbekistan Inter University Centre for Astronomy & Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Pune 411007, India It turns out that repulsive e ect due to rotation of a rotating black hole dominates over attraction due to mass for large r in dimensions > 5. This gives rise to a remarkable result that black hole in these higher dimensions in contrast to lower dimensional ones cannot be overspun even under linear test particle accretion. Further if a black hole in dimension > 4 has one of its rotation parameters zero, it has only one horizon and hence it can never be overspun. Thus rotating black holes in six and higher dimensions, and those with one rotation parameter switched o , would always obey the weak cosmic censorship conjecture (WCCC). PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 04.20.Dw I. INTRODUCTION singularity [see, e.g. 7{16]]? However the question still remains open and braying for answer. The mute ques- tion in general relativity is, does collapse end up in black The discovery of gravitational waves as that of two hole or naked singularity? In the latter case it is very stellar black hole mergers [1, 2] through LIGO-VIRGO important and exciting that the seat of in nitely large detection has opened a qualitatively new stage to the curvature would be exposed to physical enquiry. black hole astrophysics. Gravitational wave is expected to be a very powerful tool in revealing black hole's hid- Converting a black hole into a naked singularity by den properties that have remained unknown so far. After overcharging/spinning through test particles of appropri- gravitational wave, very recently, the rst image of the ate charge and rotation parameters impinging on black supermassive black hole in the center of M87 galaxy was hole has a long history. In a gedanken experiment [17], it obtained under Collaboration of the Event Horizon Tele- was envisaged that an extremal black hole is bombarded scope (EHT) [3, 4]. Testing the rotational nature of M87 with test particles of suitable parameters so as to over- galaxy from the circularity and size of its rst image has charge/spun it into a naked singularity. It was shown also been very recently addressed [5]. This rst image of that extremal black hole horizon can never be destroyed black hole candidate also opens new prospect to probe and CCC holds good. It was to expose singularity to ex- black hole candidates more vigorously and de nitively. ternal observer, this would have been violation of CCC in However, there are yet many unexplored aspects of black the weak form | WCCC. Much later it was shown [18] hole. One, and perhaps the most important, among them that a non-extremal black hole cannot be converted into is the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture (CCC) proposed by an extremal one by test particle accretion. This was Penrose [6] in 1969 which still remains an open and chal- all done for test particles impinging on via geodesics or lenging question. Its validity strongly supports the pres- Lorentz force trajectories. This however kept a ques- ence of black holes with an event horizon, thereby con- tion open, though extremality may not be attainable yet cealing central singularity from observers outside. Even however it may be possible to be jumped over in a dis- so it is still unproven, yet testing the CCC with vari- continuous process | going over without pasing through ous tools and physical processes allowing transition from extremal state, from non-extremal to over-extremal state black hole to naked singularity have remained an active in a discontinuous discrete process . area of research. To test CCC a gedanken experiment The question is, is a transition from near-extremality is proposed to destroy black hole horizon by impinging to over-extremality achievable for a black hole in a discon- test particles of appropriate parameters onto black hole tinuous non-adiabatic process? This led to a new stage and see whether cover of horizon is broken exposing the for probing the issue afresh. This experiment was rst singularity. This has been one of the favourite topics considered [19], and it turned out that overcharging of with relativists for over three decades now. Is the end black hole was indeed possible. It was later extended to state of gravitational collapse always black hole or naked overspinning of a rotating black hole [20]. Note that over- charging/spinning was initiated for a linear order particle accretion in which all higher order e ects were not taken into account. This led to a spurt of activity as evidenced Electronic address: sanjar@astrin.uz Electronic address: nkd@iucaa.in in [see, e.g. 19{34] exploring various situations and sce- arXiv:2004.09242v2 [gr-qc] 5 Jan 2021 2 narios for overcharging/spinning of black hole . black hole as it has all the expected and desired features for a charged rotating black hole in ve dimension. What Later the above experiment was addressed by taking emerges here is that the ultimate result depends on which into account self-force and backreaction e ects, and then parameter, charge or rotation, is dominant. It is demon- it turned out that impinging particles won't be able to strated that black hole with single rotation cannot be reach the horizon, thereby over-extremality could not be over-extremalized when rotation is dominant over charge attained [35{40]. Inclusion of backreaction e ects was while the opposite is the result when charge dominates also considered for a regular black hole [28]. These ex- over rotation [70]. tensive works verify weak cosmic censorship conjecture when self-force and backreaction e ects are taken into As dimension increases, number of rotations a black account. hole can have, also increases and it is given by n = [(D 1)=2]; i.e. n = 1; 2 for D = 3; 4 and D = 5; 6 In recent years much attention has been devoted to de- respectively. Also we know that gravitational potential struction of event horizon of black holes in various con- D3 due to mass goes as 1=r which becomes sharper and text and framework, for example massive complex scalar sharper for increasing D while that due to rotation goes test elds around a black hole [see, e.g. 41{46], rotating as 1=r and higher orders. In D  5, attractive contribu- anti-de Sitter black holes [47{49], BTZ black holes and tion due to mass would be able to dominate over the lead- elds [24, 50], magnetized black holes [51, 52], black hole with charged scalar eld [53], and black hole in 4D EGB ing order repulsive rotation contribution . That means ve dimension is the threshold dimension where attrac- gravity [54]. Further WCCC has also been veri ed by tive component would be dominant everywhere outside considering black hole dynamics [55, 56]. Also has been horizon. In D  6, it is the repulsive component due to studied the phenomenon of spin precession for rotating rotation that would be dominant for large r asymptoti- black hole with a view to distinguish between black hole cally. It however turns out that for large values of rota- and naked singularity [57]. Not only that if a naked sin- tion parameters, horizon occurs at r= < 1, and therefore gularity can be formed as a result of collapse, could it attractive term would again dominate over repulsive one be converted into a black hole, has also been recently closer to horizon. addressed [58]. Much of the previous analyses involved linear order ac- This interplay between attraction and repulsion gives cretion, very recently Wald and Sorce [59, 60] have pro- rise to a distinctive dynamics for higher dimensional, posed a new gadanken experiment which includes second D  6, rotating black holes. Very recently it had been order particle accretion process. Then it turns out that explicitly shown [71] that six dimensional rotating black black hole can never be over-extremalized and thereby hole cannot be overspun for linear order accretion pro- WCCC is always obeyed. This has put to rest all lin- cess. This is in contrast to what is generally true that ear order violations of WCCC, and further it has opened at linear order it is always possible to overspin a black a new vista for study of non-linear accretion in various hole. The main purpose of this work is to show that conditions and situations. Thus WCCC though may be is indeed true for in all dimensions > 6 as well. That is, in all dimensions greater than ve a rotating black violated at linear order, it would always be restored at non-linear order, see for example [52, 61{66]. hole having n = [(D 1)=2] rotations cannot be over- spun even under linear order accretion. Also note that A recent analysis shows that ve dimensional rotat- even when overspinning is allowed at linear order, it is ing black hole has a remarkable feature that it could be always overturned at non-linear order. Hence when it is overspun under linear accretion when it has two rotations not admitted at linear order, there is no question of it be- but not when it has only one rotation [67]. Overcharg- ing overturned at non-linear order. Further a black hole ing of a higher dimensional charged black hole has been having more than one rotation parameters and if one of studied [68]. This led to an interesting question - could which is zero, black hole has only one horizon and hence black hole be over-extremalized when it has both charge the question of overspinning does not arise. This is what and spin. There however exists no exact solution for an we had rst noticed for a ve dimensional black hole with analogue of Kerr-Newman charged rotating black hole single rotation [67]. in ve or higher dimensions. The only way to address this question is to consider the minimally gauged super- Thus in all dimensions greater than ve, a rotating gravity charged rotating black hole [69] exact solution in black hole would therefore always obey WCCC even for ve dimensions. It is indeed closest to the Kerr-Newman linear accretion. The paper is organised as follows: In Sec. II we brie y discuss general metric for higher dimensional rotating black hole in D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 dimensions, which is In particular in Refs. [25] and [26], overspinning of higher dimen- sional extremal black hole was considered by throwing in test par- ticle geodesics in accordance with Ref. [17] and it was shown that it was not possible to create a naked singularity violating WCCC. In 2 2 2 2 the former various rotating geometries were investigated and they In D = 5 the leading order term would be ( a b )=r 2 2 all accorded to WCCC while the latter had studied Myers-Perry where  > a + b is required for existence of horizon. Here ; a; b black hole in dimensions D < 10. respectively refer to mass and two rotations of the black hole. 3 followed by the analysis leading to the discussion of over- III. OVERSPINNING OF BLACK HOLES spinning of black holes with n 1 and n rotations in Sec. III. We end with a discussion in Sec. IV. It turns out that black hole with (n 1) rotations be- have characteristically di erently from that with maxi- mum allowed n = [(D 1)=2] rotations in a given dimen- II. BLACK HOLES IN HIGHER DIMENSIONS sion D. We shall consider these two cases separately. The line element of the higher dimensional rotating A. (n 1) rotations Myers-Perry black hole [72] is in odd d = 2n+1 dimension given by It turns out that when one of rotations is switched 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 o (i.e. (n 1) instead of n rotations), black hole has ds = dt + (r + a ) d +  d i i i i only one horizon irrespective of dimension being odd D = r F 2 2 2n + 1 or even D = 2n + 2. This is because the horizon + dt + a  d + dr ; (1) i i equation,  = 0, Eq. (9), has only one positive root and rest all complex conjugates for both odd and even where D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 dimensions. Since there occurs only one horizon, thereby there is no extremality condition =  r ; (2) de ned and hence the question of overspinning doesn't arise. However to illustrate it with a speci c example, and the metric in even D = 2n + 2 takes the form let us consider seven dimensional black hole with two instead of maximum allowed three rotations. The horizon 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ds = dt + r d + (r + a ) d +  d i i i i equation,  = 0 takes the form r F 2 2 + dt + a  d + dr ; (3) 2 2 2 2 i i (r + a ):::(r + a ) F  n 5D r = 0 ; (8) 2(n1) with which will be of the form 2n 2n2 3D+2n 2 2 2 =  r: (4) r + f (a )r + ::: r + a a :::a = 0 ; (9) 1 i 1 2 n 2 2 2 with f (a ) = a + a + ::: + a . For D = 7 it solves to Further we have 1 i 1 2 n give 2 2 i i q 2 2 F = 1 ; 2 a + b 1 2 2 2 2 r + a r =  (a + b ) 4 ; (10) 2 2 2 2 2 2 = (r + a ):::(r + a ) : (5) 1 i where we have denoted the two rotations by a; b. This clearly shows that there is only one positive real root, Here n = [(D 1)=2] is the maximum number of rotation and thus there exists only one horizon . This will be the parameters in dimension D, and  and a are respectively case in all higher dimensional D > 4 black holes with mass and rotation parameters. Note that  are direction 2 2 2 (n 1) rotations. cosines satisfying  = 1 and  + = 1 for D = i i The necessary condition for overspinning of a black 2n + 1; 2n + 2, respectively. hole is existence of two horizons so that extremality Black hole horizon is given by  = 0 and which in odd condition is de ned to do further analysis. Since and even dimensions will respectively read as follows: there exists only one horizon, the question of further 2 2 2 2 2 investigation does not arise. That is, a black hole with (r + a ):::(r + a ) r = 0 ; (6) 1 i one rotation less than the maximum allowed in a given dimension can never be overspun. Let us couch this and general result as a theorem: 2 2 2 2 (r + a ):::(r + a ) r = 0 : (7) 1 i Theorem I: A black hole in a given dimension having one of its rotations zero (i.e. (n 1) rotations) can never Looking at the above polynomial equations in the two be overspun and hence would always obey WCCC. cases, it is clear that in the former D = 2n + 1, it has two positive, two negative and rest all complex conjugate roots, while for the latter D = 2n + 2, there occur only two positive and rest all complex conjugate roots. This result that there exists no extremal solution for horizon when Thus black hole would always have two horizons and one or more rotations being zero has also been noticed in Ref. [26] hence it could be overspun, whether that really happens while considering Myers-Perry black hole in D < 10. Here we have or not is what we investigate in the following. given a direct and simple proof for any dimension D. 4 0.15 0.20 a = b = c = 0.3 a = b = 0.1 a = b = 0.3 0.6 a = b = c = 0.5 0.15 a = b = 0.3 0.10 a = b = 0.5 a = b = c = 0.6204 a = b = 0.5 0.10 a = b = 0.6873 0.4 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.2 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 0.0 -0.10 -0.10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r/M r/M r/M FIG. 1: From left to right: Potential (r) for D = 5; 6; 7 is plotted against r=M . In all panels, vertical dashed line indicates the horizon for near extremal values of rotation parameters for which plot is shown by dot-dashed lines. B. n-rotations potential for black holes with n rotations, 2 2 2 2 (r + a ):::(r + a ) As we have shown earlier that for the maximum al- (r)  1 = 1 :(11) 2 2n D3 r r r lowed n rotations in a given dimension D, the horizon equation  = 0 always has two positive roots irrespec- For a clearer understanding, let's write the above equa- tive of D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 indicating existence of two tion explicitly for D = 5; 6; 7 as follows: horizons for black hole. It thus satis es the necessary condition for overspinning. However it has been shown 2 2 2 2 by explicit calculation in [71] that six dimensional black  a + b a b (r) = + + ; (12) 5D hole with two rotations cannot be overspun under lin- 2 2 4 r r r 2 2 2 2 ear test particle accretion. Could this be the case in all a + b a b (r) = + + ; (13) higher dimensions as well? However we also know that 6D 3 2 4 r r r a ve dimensional black hole with two rotations can be 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a + b + c a b + b c + a c overspun under linear accretion. That is, there occurs a (r) = + + 7D 4 2 4 r r r transition from overspinning to no overspinning as we go 2 2 2 a b c from ve to six dimension. This is what we attempt to + : (14) understand in the following. What is the critical change that occurs while going Figs. 1 and 2 respectively show plots of (r) and its from ve to six dimension? We know that gravity be- derivative from left to right for D = 5; 6; 7. This celarly comes sharper with dimension as gravitational potential D3 shows that overall acceleration is attractive all through due to mass goes as 1=r . Further there is also contri- for D = 5 while it is repulsive for D = 6; 7 for large bution to potential from rotation which is though repul- r=M . This would be the same in all higher dimensions sive, opposite in character to that due to mass. Gravita- 6. It however turns attractive closer to horizon which tional potential in the leading order could be written as is because horizon occurs for r=M < 1 where attractive (r) = =r 1, which for the familiar four dimensional D3 2 2 2 component, 1=r rides over repulsive 1=r as well as rotating Kerr black hole is (r) = M=r+a =r . Clearly relative dominance of mass over rotation parameters. as D increases, the rst term will become sharper with In [71] it has been shown by explicit calculation that D 3 while the second term remains unchanged. Note that increase in D will entail increase in rotation param- six dimensional black hole with two rotations cannot be overspun under linear accretion. As we have seen eters which would, apart from contribution to the second term, further contribute higher order terms with positive above that in all higher dimensions > 6 gravitational dynamics would be similar to that in D = 6, hence sign. All contributions due to rotations are repulsive, and what happens in six dimensions should hold true in all the leading 1=r term will for large r=M > 1 dominate D3 higher dimensions as well. That is, black holes having over attractive 1=r for D > 5. In D = 5, the leading 2 2 the maximum number of allowed rotations in all D  6 order term is ( a )=r which would remain attrac- cannot similarly be overspun. tive for  > a . This is the critical change that comes about when we go beyond ve dimensions. In D > 5, attractive component would decay faster than repulsive We could thus state: Theorem II: Black hole in dimen- 1=r and hence at in nity resultant force would be re- sion > 5 can never be overspun under linear accretion pulsive. This is in contrast to usual asymptotically at and would thereby always obey WCCC . spacetimes and this transition occurs at D = 6; i.e D = 5 If a black hole cannot be overspun under linear accre- is the threshold beyond which overall gravitational force tion, it would continue to do so for non-linear perturba- is repulsive at large r. tions because the latter always favours no overspinning By recalling Eq. (9) we write e ective gravitational and thereby WCCC. Φ 5 0.2 0.5 0.15 a = b = 0.3 a = b = 0.1 a = b = c = 0.3 0.4 0.10 a = b = 0.5 a = b = 0.3 a = b = c = 0.5 0.1 a = b = 0.5 a = b = 0.6873 0.3 0.05 a = b = c = 0.6204 0.2 0.00 0.0 -0.05 0.1 -0.10 0.0 -0.1 -0.15 -0.1 -0.20 -0.2 -0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r/M r/M r/M FIG. 2: From left to right: @(r)=@r for D = 5; 6; 7 is plotted against r=M . In all panels, vertical dashed line indicates the horizon for near extremal values of rotation parameters for which plot is shown by dot-dashed lines. IV. DISCUSSION rameters in a given dimension is n = [(D 1)=2]. It turns out that if black hole has (n 1) rotations instead of n, it admits only one horizon and hence it can never be over- The interplay between attraction due to mass and re- spun (Theorem I ). It would thus always obey WCCC. pulsion due to rotation parameters of black hole gives These are the two main results of the paper which have rise to an interesting setting with richer dynamics. In been couched as the two theorems. In conclusion, we D  5, the former dominates while the latter does for state that a rotating black hole in dimensions greater D > 5 for large r. This is because potential due to mass D3 than or equal to six, or else one of its rotation parameters goes as 1=r whereas that due to rotation in the lead- is switched o , always obeys the weak cosmic censorship ing order as 1=r . The latter would dominate over the conjecture. former in D > 5 for large r=M > 1. Thus ve dimension It should be noted that a black hole with one hori- is the upper threshold for overall gravity being attractive asymptotically. zon is altogether a di erent creature than the one with two. This is because its spacetime has radically di erent A rotating black hole in dimension greater than or equal to six, e ective gravitational acceleration is repul- causal structure. The singularity at the center is space- like in contrast the one with two horizons would have sive at large r=M > 1, however it turns attractive closer to horizon. This is due to the fact that horizon occurs null or timelike singularity. The causal structure of the former is Schwarzschild-like while that of the latter is at r=M < 1 where attractive component picks up as well as relative dominance of mass over rotation parameters. Kerr-like. Theorem I thus indicates a very important physical property that distinguishes black holes having Thus gravitational dynamics is characteristically di er- ent for rotating black hole in dimensions < 6 and in  6. (n 1) and n rotations. In the former case, attractive component is dominant For Theorem II, the key role is played by the critical all through while for the latter attraction is dominant property of transition of overall force from attractive to only very close to horizon while repulsion dominates all repulsive slightly away from horizon. This occurs at D = through asymptotically. It is therefore natural to expect 6; i.e. it is attractive for D < 6 and repulsive when black hole to behave di erently in the two dimensional D  6. For D = 6, WCCC has been proven by explicit range. calculations [71]. Since all higher dimensions > 6 share By an explicit calculation [71] it has been shown that this critical property, hence WCCC holds good for in all six dimensional black hole cannot be overspun even un- dimensions greater than six as well. This may not be as der linear accretion. Since gravitational dynamics has solid a proof as that of an explicit calculation, yet it has the same character in all dimensions greater than six, strong physical arguments and motivation. It is therefore hence whatever is true for six dimension should be true not simply a speculation and guess work. for in all dimensions greater than six. That means since Finally we end up with an interesting and intriguing six dimensional rotating black hole cannot be overspun, question, this analysis raises. Since overall gravity for so would be the case for all higher dimensional black a six and higher dimensional rotating black hole is holes. No rotating black hole in dimensions greater than repulsive for large r, how could such a black hole be or equal to six could be overspun (Theorem II ). They formed by gravitational collapse of a cloud? would all therefore obey WCCC. For overspinning of a black hole the necessary condi- tion is existence of two horizons so that extremality con- dition is de ned. Then further analysis could ensue to Acknowledgments examine whether overspinning is admitted or not. If a black hole admits only one horizon, then the question of S.S. acknowledges the support of the Uzbekistan Min- its overspinning does not arise. istry for Innovative Development Projects No. VA-FA- In higher dimensions, black hole can have more than F-2-008. and No. MRB-AN-2019-29. one rotation parameters, and maximum number of pa- ∂Φ/∂r ∂Φ/∂r ∂Φ/∂r 6 [1] B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scienti c arXiv:1304.6592 [gr-qc] . Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), [29] S. Jana, R. Shaikh, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 98, arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc] . 124039 (2018), arXiv:1808.09656 [gr-qc] . [2] B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scienti c [30] Y. Song, M. Zhang, D.-C. Zou, C.-Y. Sun, and Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), R.-H. Yue, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, 694 (2018), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1705.01676 [gr-qc] . [3] K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collab- [31] K. Du zta s, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 045008 (2018), oration), Astrophys. J. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 arXiv:1710.06610 [gr-qc] . [astro-ph.GA] . [32] K. Duzta   s and M. Jamil, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950248 [4] K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collab- (2019), arXiv:1812.06966 [gr-qc] . oration), Astrophys. J. 875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [33] K. Duzta   s, M. Jamil, S. Shaymatov, and B. Ahme- [astro-ph.GA] . dov, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 175005 (2020), [5] C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. arXiv:1808.04711 [gr-qc] . Rev. D 100, 044057 (2019), arXiv:1904.12983 [gr-qc] . [34] S.-J. Yang, J. Chen, J.-J. Wan, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. [6] R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 1, 252 (1969). Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064048 (2020), arXiv:2001.03106 [7] D. Christodoulou, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 470, 147 (1986). [gr-qc] . [8] P. S. Joshi, International Series of Monographs on [35] E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. Physics, Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press) Lett. 105, 261102 (2010), arXiv:1008.5159 [gr-qc] . (1993). [36] P. Zimmerman, I. Vega, E. Poisson, and R. Haas, Phys. [9] P. S. Joshi, The Story of Collapsing Stars: Black Holes, Rev. D 87, 041501 (2013), arXiv:1211.3889 [gr-qc] . Naked Singularities, and the Cosmic Play of Quantum [37] J. V. Rocha and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 Gravity: (Oxford University Press) (2015). (2011), arXiv:1102.4352 [gr-qc] . [10] P. S. Joshi, Pramana 55, 529 (2000), gr-qc/0006101 . [38] S. Isoyama, N. Sago, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 84, [11] R. Goswami, P. S. Joshi, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124024 (2011), arXiv:1108.6207 [gr-qc] . 96, 031302 (2006), gr-qc/0506129 . [39] M. Colleoni and L. Barack, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104024 [12] T. Harada, H. Iguchi, and K. Nakao, Progress of Theo- (2015), arXiv:1501.07330 [gr-qc] . retical Physics 107, 449 (2002), gr-qc/0204008 . [40] M. Colleoni, L. Barack, A. G. Shah, and M. van [13] Z. Stuchl k and J. Schee, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, de Meent, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084044 (2015), 065002 (2012). arXiv:1508.04031 [gr-qc] . [14] R. S. S. Vieira, J. Schee, W. Klu zniak, Z. Stuchl k, [41] I. Semiz, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 43, 833 (2011), gr- and M. Abramowicz, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024035 (2014), qc/0508011 . arXiv:1311.5820 [gr-qc] . [42] G. Z. T oth, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 2019 (2012), [15] Z. Stuchl k and J. Schee, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, arXiv:1112.2382 [gr-qc] . 195013 (2014), arXiv:1402.2891 [astro-ph.HE] . [43] K. Duzta   s and I. Semiz, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064043 (2013), [16] B. Giacomazzo, L. Rezzolla, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. arXiv:1307.1481 [gr-qc] . Rev. D 84, 024022 (2011), arXiv:1105.0122 [gr-qc] . [44] K. Duzta   s, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 46, 1709 (2014), [17] R. Wald, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 82, 548 (1974). arXiv:1312.7361 [gr-qc] . [18] N. Dadhich and K. Narayan, Phys. Lett. A 231, 335 [45] I. Semiz and K. Duzta   s, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104021 (2015), (1997). arXiv:1507.03744 [gr-qc] . [19] V. E. Hubeny, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064013 (1999), gr- [46] S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, arXiv e- qc/9808043 . prints (2020), arXiv:2006.01390 [gr-qc] . [20] T. Jacobson and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, [47] B. Gwak and B.-H. Lee, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 141101 (2009), arXiv:0907.4146 [gr-qc] . 015 (2016), arXiv:1509.06691 [gr-qc] . [21] A. Saa and R. Santarelli, Phys. Rev. D 84, 027501 (2011), [48] J. Nat ario, L. Queimada, and R. Vicente, Class. Quan- arXiv:1105.3950 [gr-qc] . tum Grav. 33, 175002 (2016), arXiv:1601.06809 [gr-qc] [22] G. E. A. Matsas and A. R. R. da Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 181301 (2007), arXiv:0706.3198 [gr-qc] . [49] J. Nat ario and R. Vicente, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 52, 5 [23] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, F. Pretorius, and (2020), arXiv:1908.09854 [gr-qc] . U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 239001 (2009), [50] K. Duzta   s, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124031 (2016), arXiv:0911.2243 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1701.07241 [gr-qc] . [24] S. Shaymatov, M. Patil, B. Ahmedov, and P. S. Joshi, [51] H. M. Siahaan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064028 (2016), Phys. Rev. D 91, 064025 (2015), arXiv:1409.3018 [gr-qc] arXiv:1512.01654 [gr-qc] . [52] S. Shaymatov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 49, 1960020 [25] M. Bouhmadi-L opez, V. Cardoso, A. Nerozzi, and J. V. (2019). Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084051 (2010), arXiv:1003.4295 [53] B. Gwak, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 058 (2020), [gr-qc] . arXiv:1910.13329 [gr-qc] . [26] J. Doukas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064046 (2011), [54] S.-J. Yang, J.-J. Wan, J. Chen, J. Yang, and Y.-Q. arXiv:1009.6118 [hep-th] . Wang, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2004.07934 [gr-qc] [27] J. V. Rocha and R. Santarelli, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064065 (2014), arXiv:1402.4840 [gr-qc] . [55] A. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024030 [28] Z. Li and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124022 (2013), (2019), arXiv:1905.00394 [gr-qc] . 7 [56] B. C. J.M. Bardeen and S. Hawking, Commun. Math. [65] Y.-L. He and J. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124060 (2019), Phys. 31, 161 (1973). arXiv:1912.05217 [hep-th] . [57] C. Chakraborty, P. Kocherlakota, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. [66] J. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B 804, 135365 (2020). Rev. D 95, 044006 (2017), arXiv:1605.00600 [gr-qc] . [67] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. [58] K. Hioki and T. Harada, arXiv e-prints (2019), J. C 79, 585 (2019), arXiv:1809.10457 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1909.07852 [gr-qc] . [68] K. S. Revelar and I. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064010 [59] J. Sorce and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104014 (2017), (2017), arXiv:1706.07190 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1707.05862 [gr-qc] . [69] Z.-W. Chong, M. Cveti c, H. Lu,  and C. N. Pope, Phys. [60] R. M. Wald, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1843003 (2018). Rev. Lett. 95, 161301 (2005), hep-th/0506029 . [61] J. An, J. Shan, H. Zhang, and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [70] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, 97, 104007 (2018), arXiv:1711.04310 [hep-th] . Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 481 (2020), arXiv:1908.01195 [gr-qc] [62] B. Gwak, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 81 (2018), . arXiv:1807.10630 [gr-qc] . [71] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. [63] B. Ge, Y. Mo, S. Zhao, and J. Zheng, Phys. Lett. B 783, D 101, 044028 (2020), arXiv:1908.07799 [gr-qc] . 440 (2018), arXiv:1712.07342 [hep-th] . [72] R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 172, [64] B. Ning, B. Chen, and F.-L. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 100, 304 (1986). 044043 (2019), arXiv:1902.00949 [gr-qc] . http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology arXiv (Cornell University)

On overspinning of black holes in higher dimensions

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/on-overspinning-of-black-holes-in-higher-dimensions-QgaHl48cQ9

References (60)

ISSN
2212-6864
eISSN
ARCH-3332
DOI
10.1016/j.dark.2020.100758
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

1, 2, 3, 4, ∗ 5, † Sanjar Shaymatov and Naresh Dadhich Institute for Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Zheijiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China Ulugh Beg Astronomical Institute, Astronomicheskaya 33, Tashkent 100052, Uzbekistan National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers, Kori Niyoziy 39, Tashkent 100000, Uzbekistan Inter University Centre for Astronomy & Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Pune 411007, India It turns out that repulsive e ect due to rotation of a rotating black hole dominates over attraction due to mass for large r in dimensions > 5. This gives rise to a remarkable result that black hole in these higher dimensions in contrast to lower dimensional ones cannot be overspun even under linear test particle accretion. Further if a black hole in dimension > 4 has one of its rotation parameters zero, it has only one horizon and hence it can never be overspun. Thus rotating black holes in six and higher dimensions, and those with one rotation parameter switched o , would always obey the weak cosmic censorship conjecture (WCCC). PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 04.20.Dw I. INTRODUCTION singularity [see, e.g. 7{16]]? However the question still remains open and braying for answer. The mute ques- tion in general relativity is, does collapse end up in black The discovery of gravitational waves as that of two hole or naked singularity? In the latter case it is very stellar black hole mergers [1, 2] through LIGO-VIRGO important and exciting that the seat of in nitely large detection has opened a qualitatively new stage to the curvature would be exposed to physical enquiry. black hole astrophysics. Gravitational wave is expected to be a very powerful tool in revealing black hole's hid- Converting a black hole into a naked singularity by den properties that have remained unknown so far. After overcharging/spinning through test particles of appropri- gravitational wave, very recently, the rst image of the ate charge and rotation parameters impinging on black supermassive black hole in the center of M87 galaxy was hole has a long history. In a gedanken experiment [17], it obtained under Collaboration of the Event Horizon Tele- was envisaged that an extremal black hole is bombarded scope (EHT) [3, 4]. Testing the rotational nature of M87 with test particles of suitable parameters so as to over- galaxy from the circularity and size of its rst image has charge/spun it into a naked singularity. It was shown also been very recently addressed [5]. This rst image of that extremal black hole horizon can never be destroyed black hole candidate also opens new prospect to probe and CCC holds good. It was to expose singularity to ex- black hole candidates more vigorously and de nitively. ternal observer, this would have been violation of CCC in However, there are yet many unexplored aspects of black the weak form | WCCC. Much later it was shown [18] hole. One, and perhaps the most important, among them that a non-extremal black hole cannot be converted into is the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture (CCC) proposed by an extremal one by test particle accretion. This was Penrose [6] in 1969 which still remains an open and chal- all done for test particles impinging on via geodesics or lenging question. Its validity strongly supports the pres- Lorentz force trajectories. This however kept a ques- ence of black holes with an event horizon, thereby con- tion open, though extremality may not be attainable yet cealing central singularity from observers outside. Even however it may be possible to be jumped over in a dis- so it is still unproven, yet testing the CCC with vari- continuous process | going over without pasing through ous tools and physical processes allowing transition from extremal state, from non-extremal to over-extremal state black hole to naked singularity have remained an active in a discontinuous discrete process . area of research. To test CCC a gedanken experiment The question is, is a transition from near-extremality is proposed to destroy black hole horizon by impinging to over-extremality achievable for a black hole in a discon- test particles of appropriate parameters onto black hole tinuous non-adiabatic process? This led to a new stage and see whether cover of horizon is broken exposing the for probing the issue afresh. This experiment was rst singularity. This has been one of the favourite topics considered [19], and it turned out that overcharging of with relativists for over three decades now. Is the end black hole was indeed possible. It was later extended to state of gravitational collapse always black hole or naked overspinning of a rotating black hole [20]. Note that over- charging/spinning was initiated for a linear order particle accretion in which all higher order e ects were not taken into account. This led to a spurt of activity as evidenced Electronic address: sanjar@astrin.uz Electronic address: nkd@iucaa.in in [see, e.g. 19{34] exploring various situations and sce- arXiv:2004.09242v2 [gr-qc] 5 Jan 2021 2 narios for overcharging/spinning of black hole . black hole as it has all the expected and desired features for a charged rotating black hole in ve dimension. What Later the above experiment was addressed by taking emerges here is that the ultimate result depends on which into account self-force and backreaction e ects, and then parameter, charge or rotation, is dominant. It is demon- it turned out that impinging particles won't be able to strated that black hole with single rotation cannot be reach the horizon, thereby over-extremality could not be over-extremalized when rotation is dominant over charge attained [35{40]. Inclusion of backreaction e ects was while the opposite is the result when charge dominates also considered for a regular black hole [28]. These ex- over rotation [70]. tensive works verify weak cosmic censorship conjecture when self-force and backreaction e ects are taken into As dimension increases, number of rotations a black account. hole can have, also increases and it is given by n = [(D 1)=2]; i.e. n = 1; 2 for D = 3; 4 and D = 5; 6 In recent years much attention has been devoted to de- respectively. Also we know that gravitational potential struction of event horizon of black holes in various con- D3 due to mass goes as 1=r which becomes sharper and text and framework, for example massive complex scalar sharper for increasing D while that due to rotation goes test elds around a black hole [see, e.g. 41{46], rotating as 1=r and higher orders. In D  5, attractive contribu- anti-de Sitter black holes [47{49], BTZ black holes and tion due to mass would be able to dominate over the lead- elds [24, 50], magnetized black holes [51, 52], black hole with charged scalar eld [53], and black hole in 4D EGB ing order repulsive rotation contribution . That means ve dimension is the threshold dimension where attrac- gravity [54]. Further WCCC has also been veri ed by tive component would be dominant everywhere outside considering black hole dynamics [55, 56]. Also has been horizon. In D  6, it is the repulsive component due to studied the phenomenon of spin precession for rotating rotation that would be dominant for large r asymptoti- black hole with a view to distinguish between black hole cally. It however turns out that for large values of rota- and naked singularity [57]. Not only that if a naked sin- tion parameters, horizon occurs at r= < 1, and therefore gularity can be formed as a result of collapse, could it attractive term would again dominate over repulsive one be converted into a black hole, has also been recently closer to horizon. addressed [58]. Much of the previous analyses involved linear order ac- This interplay between attraction and repulsion gives cretion, very recently Wald and Sorce [59, 60] have pro- rise to a distinctive dynamics for higher dimensional, posed a new gadanken experiment which includes second D  6, rotating black holes. Very recently it had been order particle accretion process. Then it turns out that explicitly shown [71] that six dimensional rotating black black hole can never be over-extremalized and thereby hole cannot be overspun for linear order accretion pro- WCCC is always obeyed. This has put to rest all lin- cess. This is in contrast to what is generally true that ear order violations of WCCC, and further it has opened at linear order it is always possible to overspin a black a new vista for study of non-linear accretion in various hole. The main purpose of this work is to show that conditions and situations. Thus WCCC though may be is indeed true for in all dimensions > 6 as well. That is, in all dimensions greater than ve a rotating black violated at linear order, it would always be restored at non-linear order, see for example [52, 61{66]. hole having n = [(D 1)=2] rotations cannot be over- spun even under linear order accretion. Also note that A recent analysis shows that ve dimensional rotat- even when overspinning is allowed at linear order, it is ing black hole has a remarkable feature that it could be always overturned at non-linear order. Hence when it is overspun under linear accretion when it has two rotations not admitted at linear order, there is no question of it be- but not when it has only one rotation [67]. Overcharg- ing overturned at non-linear order. Further a black hole ing of a higher dimensional charged black hole has been having more than one rotation parameters and if one of studied [68]. This led to an interesting question - could which is zero, black hole has only one horizon and hence black hole be over-extremalized when it has both charge the question of overspinning does not arise. This is what and spin. There however exists no exact solution for an we had rst noticed for a ve dimensional black hole with analogue of Kerr-Newman charged rotating black hole single rotation [67]. in ve or higher dimensions. The only way to address this question is to consider the minimally gauged super- Thus in all dimensions greater than ve, a rotating gravity charged rotating black hole [69] exact solution in black hole would therefore always obey WCCC even for ve dimensions. It is indeed closest to the Kerr-Newman linear accretion. The paper is organised as follows: In Sec. II we brie y discuss general metric for higher dimensional rotating black hole in D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 dimensions, which is In particular in Refs. [25] and [26], overspinning of higher dimen- sional extremal black hole was considered by throwing in test par- ticle geodesics in accordance with Ref. [17] and it was shown that it was not possible to create a naked singularity violating WCCC. In 2 2 2 2 the former various rotating geometries were investigated and they In D = 5 the leading order term would be ( a b )=r 2 2 all accorded to WCCC while the latter had studied Myers-Perry where  > a + b is required for existence of horizon. Here ; a; b black hole in dimensions D < 10. respectively refer to mass and two rotations of the black hole. 3 followed by the analysis leading to the discussion of over- III. OVERSPINNING OF BLACK HOLES spinning of black holes with n 1 and n rotations in Sec. III. We end with a discussion in Sec. IV. It turns out that black hole with (n 1) rotations be- have characteristically di erently from that with maxi- mum allowed n = [(D 1)=2] rotations in a given dimen- II. BLACK HOLES IN HIGHER DIMENSIONS sion D. We shall consider these two cases separately. The line element of the higher dimensional rotating A. (n 1) rotations Myers-Perry black hole [72] is in odd d = 2n+1 dimension given by It turns out that when one of rotations is switched 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 o (i.e. (n 1) instead of n rotations), black hole has ds = dt + (r + a ) d +  d i i i i only one horizon irrespective of dimension being odd D = r F 2 2 2n + 1 or even D = 2n + 2. This is because the horizon + dt + a  d + dr ; (1) i i equation,  = 0, Eq. (9), has only one positive root and rest all complex conjugates for both odd and even where D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 dimensions. Since there occurs only one horizon, thereby there is no extremality condition =  r ; (2) de ned and hence the question of overspinning doesn't arise. However to illustrate it with a speci c example, and the metric in even D = 2n + 2 takes the form let us consider seven dimensional black hole with two instead of maximum allowed three rotations. The horizon 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ds = dt + r d + (r + a ) d +  d i i i i equation,  = 0 takes the form r F 2 2 + dt + a  d + dr ; (3) 2 2 2 2 i i (r + a ):::(r + a ) F  n 5D r = 0 ; (8) 2(n1) with which will be of the form 2n 2n2 3D+2n 2 2 2 =  r: (4) r + f (a )r + ::: r + a a :::a = 0 ; (9) 1 i 1 2 n 2 2 2 with f (a ) = a + a + ::: + a . For D = 7 it solves to Further we have 1 i 1 2 n give 2 2 i i q 2 2 F = 1 ; 2 a + b 1 2 2 2 2 r + a r =  (a + b ) 4 ; (10) 2 2 2 2 2 2 = (r + a ):::(r + a ) : (5) 1 i where we have denoted the two rotations by a; b. This clearly shows that there is only one positive real root, Here n = [(D 1)=2] is the maximum number of rotation and thus there exists only one horizon . This will be the parameters in dimension D, and  and a are respectively case in all higher dimensional D > 4 black holes with mass and rotation parameters. Note that  are direction 2 2 2 (n 1) rotations. cosines satisfying  = 1 and  + = 1 for D = i i The necessary condition for overspinning of a black 2n + 1; 2n + 2, respectively. hole is existence of two horizons so that extremality Black hole horizon is given by  = 0 and which in odd condition is de ned to do further analysis. Since and even dimensions will respectively read as follows: there exists only one horizon, the question of further 2 2 2 2 2 investigation does not arise. That is, a black hole with (r + a ):::(r + a ) r = 0 ; (6) 1 i one rotation less than the maximum allowed in a given dimension can never be overspun. Let us couch this and general result as a theorem: 2 2 2 2 (r + a ):::(r + a ) r = 0 : (7) 1 i Theorem I: A black hole in a given dimension having one of its rotations zero (i.e. (n 1) rotations) can never Looking at the above polynomial equations in the two be overspun and hence would always obey WCCC. cases, it is clear that in the former D = 2n + 1, it has two positive, two negative and rest all complex conjugate roots, while for the latter D = 2n + 2, there occur only two positive and rest all complex conjugate roots. This result that there exists no extremal solution for horizon when Thus black hole would always have two horizons and one or more rotations being zero has also been noticed in Ref. [26] hence it could be overspun, whether that really happens while considering Myers-Perry black hole in D < 10. Here we have or not is what we investigate in the following. given a direct and simple proof for any dimension D. 4 0.15 0.20 a = b = c = 0.3 a = b = 0.1 a = b = 0.3 0.6 a = b = c = 0.5 0.15 a = b = 0.3 0.10 a = b = 0.5 a = b = c = 0.6204 a = b = 0.5 0.10 a = b = 0.6873 0.4 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.2 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 0.0 -0.10 -0.10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r/M r/M r/M FIG. 1: From left to right: Potential (r) for D = 5; 6; 7 is plotted against r=M . In all panels, vertical dashed line indicates the horizon for near extremal values of rotation parameters for which plot is shown by dot-dashed lines. B. n-rotations potential for black holes with n rotations, 2 2 2 2 (r + a ):::(r + a ) As we have shown earlier that for the maximum al- (r)  1 = 1 :(11) 2 2n D3 r r r lowed n rotations in a given dimension D, the horizon equation  = 0 always has two positive roots irrespec- For a clearer understanding, let's write the above equa- tive of D = 2n + 1; 2n + 2 indicating existence of two tion explicitly for D = 5; 6; 7 as follows: horizons for black hole. It thus satis es the necessary condition for overspinning. However it has been shown 2 2 2 2 by explicit calculation in [71] that six dimensional black  a + b a b (r) = + + ; (12) 5D hole with two rotations cannot be overspun under lin- 2 2 4 r r r 2 2 2 2 ear test particle accretion. Could this be the case in all a + b a b (r) = + + ; (13) higher dimensions as well? However we also know that 6D 3 2 4 r r r a ve dimensional black hole with two rotations can be 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a + b + c a b + b c + a c overspun under linear accretion. That is, there occurs a (r) = + + 7D 4 2 4 r r r transition from overspinning to no overspinning as we go 2 2 2 a b c from ve to six dimension. This is what we attempt to + : (14) understand in the following. What is the critical change that occurs while going Figs. 1 and 2 respectively show plots of (r) and its from ve to six dimension? We know that gravity be- derivative from left to right for D = 5; 6; 7. This celarly comes sharper with dimension as gravitational potential D3 shows that overall acceleration is attractive all through due to mass goes as 1=r . Further there is also contri- for D = 5 while it is repulsive for D = 6; 7 for large bution to potential from rotation which is though repul- r=M . This would be the same in all higher dimensions sive, opposite in character to that due to mass. Gravita- 6. It however turns attractive closer to horizon which tional potential in the leading order could be written as is because horizon occurs for r=M < 1 where attractive (r) = =r 1, which for the familiar four dimensional D3 2 2 2 component, 1=r rides over repulsive 1=r as well as rotating Kerr black hole is (r) = M=r+a =r . Clearly relative dominance of mass over rotation parameters. as D increases, the rst term will become sharper with In [71] it has been shown by explicit calculation that D 3 while the second term remains unchanged. Note that increase in D will entail increase in rotation param- six dimensional black hole with two rotations cannot be overspun under linear accretion. As we have seen eters which would, apart from contribution to the second term, further contribute higher order terms with positive above that in all higher dimensions > 6 gravitational dynamics would be similar to that in D = 6, hence sign. All contributions due to rotations are repulsive, and what happens in six dimensions should hold true in all the leading 1=r term will for large r=M > 1 dominate D3 higher dimensions as well. That is, black holes having over attractive 1=r for D > 5. In D = 5, the leading 2 2 the maximum number of allowed rotations in all D  6 order term is ( a )=r which would remain attrac- cannot similarly be overspun. tive for  > a . This is the critical change that comes about when we go beyond ve dimensions. In D > 5, attractive component would decay faster than repulsive We could thus state: Theorem II: Black hole in dimen- 1=r and hence at in nity resultant force would be re- sion > 5 can never be overspun under linear accretion pulsive. This is in contrast to usual asymptotically at and would thereby always obey WCCC . spacetimes and this transition occurs at D = 6; i.e D = 5 If a black hole cannot be overspun under linear accre- is the threshold beyond which overall gravitational force tion, it would continue to do so for non-linear perturba- is repulsive at large r. tions because the latter always favours no overspinning By recalling Eq. (9) we write e ective gravitational and thereby WCCC. Φ 5 0.2 0.5 0.15 a = b = 0.3 a = b = 0.1 a = b = c = 0.3 0.4 0.10 a = b = 0.5 a = b = 0.3 a = b = c = 0.5 0.1 a = b = 0.5 a = b = 0.6873 0.3 0.05 a = b = c = 0.6204 0.2 0.00 0.0 -0.05 0.1 -0.10 0.0 -0.1 -0.15 -0.1 -0.20 -0.2 -0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r/M r/M r/M FIG. 2: From left to right: @(r)=@r for D = 5; 6; 7 is plotted against r=M . In all panels, vertical dashed line indicates the horizon for near extremal values of rotation parameters for which plot is shown by dot-dashed lines. IV. DISCUSSION rameters in a given dimension is n = [(D 1)=2]. It turns out that if black hole has (n 1) rotations instead of n, it admits only one horizon and hence it can never be over- The interplay between attraction due to mass and re- spun (Theorem I ). It would thus always obey WCCC. pulsion due to rotation parameters of black hole gives These are the two main results of the paper which have rise to an interesting setting with richer dynamics. In been couched as the two theorems. In conclusion, we D  5, the former dominates while the latter does for state that a rotating black hole in dimensions greater D > 5 for large r. This is because potential due to mass D3 than or equal to six, or else one of its rotation parameters goes as 1=r whereas that due to rotation in the lead- is switched o , always obeys the weak cosmic censorship ing order as 1=r . The latter would dominate over the conjecture. former in D > 5 for large r=M > 1. Thus ve dimension It should be noted that a black hole with one hori- is the upper threshold for overall gravity being attractive asymptotically. zon is altogether a di erent creature than the one with two. This is because its spacetime has radically di erent A rotating black hole in dimension greater than or equal to six, e ective gravitational acceleration is repul- causal structure. The singularity at the center is space- like in contrast the one with two horizons would have sive at large r=M > 1, however it turns attractive closer to horizon. This is due to the fact that horizon occurs null or timelike singularity. The causal structure of the former is Schwarzschild-like while that of the latter is at r=M < 1 where attractive component picks up as well as relative dominance of mass over rotation parameters. Kerr-like. Theorem I thus indicates a very important physical property that distinguishes black holes having Thus gravitational dynamics is characteristically di er- ent for rotating black hole in dimensions < 6 and in  6. (n 1) and n rotations. In the former case, attractive component is dominant For Theorem II, the key role is played by the critical all through while for the latter attraction is dominant property of transition of overall force from attractive to only very close to horizon while repulsion dominates all repulsive slightly away from horizon. This occurs at D = through asymptotically. It is therefore natural to expect 6; i.e. it is attractive for D < 6 and repulsive when black hole to behave di erently in the two dimensional D  6. For D = 6, WCCC has been proven by explicit range. calculations [71]. Since all higher dimensions > 6 share By an explicit calculation [71] it has been shown that this critical property, hence WCCC holds good for in all six dimensional black hole cannot be overspun even un- dimensions greater than six as well. This may not be as der linear accretion. Since gravitational dynamics has solid a proof as that of an explicit calculation, yet it has the same character in all dimensions greater than six, strong physical arguments and motivation. It is therefore hence whatever is true for six dimension should be true not simply a speculation and guess work. for in all dimensions greater than six. That means since Finally we end up with an interesting and intriguing six dimensional rotating black hole cannot be overspun, question, this analysis raises. Since overall gravity for so would be the case for all higher dimensional black a six and higher dimensional rotating black hole is holes. No rotating black hole in dimensions greater than repulsive for large r, how could such a black hole be or equal to six could be overspun (Theorem II ). They formed by gravitational collapse of a cloud? would all therefore obey WCCC. For overspinning of a black hole the necessary condi- tion is existence of two horizons so that extremality con- dition is de ned. Then further analysis could ensue to Acknowledgments examine whether overspinning is admitted or not. If a black hole admits only one horizon, then the question of S.S. acknowledges the support of the Uzbekistan Min- its overspinning does not arise. istry for Innovative Development Projects No. VA-FA- In higher dimensions, black hole can have more than F-2-008. and No. MRB-AN-2019-29. one rotation parameters, and maximum number of pa- ∂Φ/∂r ∂Φ/∂r ∂Φ/∂r 6 [1] B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scienti c arXiv:1304.6592 [gr-qc] . Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), [29] S. Jana, R. Shaikh, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 98, arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc] . 124039 (2018), arXiv:1808.09656 [gr-qc] . [2] B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scienti c [30] Y. Song, M. Zhang, D.-C. Zou, C.-Y. Sun, and Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), R.-H. Yue, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, 694 (2018), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1705.01676 [gr-qc] . [3] K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collab- [31] K. Du zta s, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 045008 (2018), oration), Astrophys. J. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 arXiv:1710.06610 [gr-qc] . [astro-ph.GA] . [32] K. Duzta   s and M. Jamil, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950248 [4] K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collab- (2019), arXiv:1812.06966 [gr-qc] . oration), Astrophys. J. 875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [33] K. Duzta   s, M. Jamil, S. Shaymatov, and B. Ahme- [astro-ph.GA] . dov, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 175005 (2020), [5] C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. arXiv:1808.04711 [gr-qc] . Rev. D 100, 044057 (2019), arXiv:1904.12983 [gr-qc] . [34] S.-J. Yang, J. Chen, J.-J. Wan, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. [6] R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 1, 252 (1969). Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064048 (2020), arXiv:2001.03106 [7] D. Christodoulou, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 470, 147 (1986). [gr-qc] . [8] P. S. Joshi, International Series of Monographs on [35] E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. Physics, Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press) Lett. 105, 261102 (2010), arXiv:1008.5159 [gr-qc] . (1993). [36] P. Zimmerman, I. Vega, E. Poisson, and R. Haas, Phys. [9] P. S. Joshi, The Story of Collapsing Stars: Black Holes, Rev. D 87, 041501 (2013), arXiv:1211.3889 [gr-qc] . Naked Singularities, and the Cosmic Play of Quantum [37] J. V. Rocha and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 Gravity: (Oxford University Press) (2015). (2011), arXiv:1102.4352 [gr-qc] . [10] P. S. Joshi, Pramana 55, 529 (2000), gr-qc/0006101 . [38] S. Isoyama, N. Sago, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 84, [11] R. Goswami, P. S. Joshi, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124024 (2011), arXiv:1108.6207 [gr-qc] . 96, 031302 (2006), gr-qc/0506129 . [39] M. Colleoni and L. Barack, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104024 [12] T. Harada, H. Iguchi, and K. Nakao, Progress of Theo- (2015), arXiv:1501.07330 [gr-qc] . retical Physics 107, 449 (2002), gr-qc/0204008 . [40] M. Colleoni, L. Barack, A. G. Shah, and M. van [13] Z. Stuchl k and J. Schee, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, de Meent, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084044 (2015), 065002 (2012). arXiv:1508.04031 [gr-qc] . [14] R. S. S. Vieira, J. Schee, W. Klu zniak, Z. Stuchl k, [41] I. Semiz, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 43, 833 (2011), gr- and M. Abramowicz, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024035 (2014), qc/0508011 . arXiv:1311.5820 [gr-qc] . [42] G. Z. T oth, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 2019 (2012), [15] Z. Stuchl k and J. Schee, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, arXiv:1112.2382 [gr-qc] . 195013 (2014), arXiv:1402.2891 [astro-ph.HE] . [43] K. Duzta   s and I. Semiz, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064043 (2013), [16] B. Giacomazzo, L. Rezzolla, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. arXiv:1307.1481 [gr-qc] . Rev. D 84, 024022 (2011), arXiv:1105.0122 [gr-qc] . [44] K. Duzta   s, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 46, 1709 (2014), [17] R. Wald, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 82, 548 (1974). arXiv:1312.7361 [gr-qc] . [18] N. Dadhich and K. Narayan, Phys. Lett. A 231, 335 [45] I. Semiz and K. Duzta   s, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104021 (2015), (1997). arXiv:1507.03744 [gr-qc] . [19] V. E. Hubeny, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064013 (1999), gr- [46] S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, arXiv e- qc/9808043 . prints (2020), arXiv:2006.01390 [gr-qc] . [20] T. Jacobson and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, [47] B. Gwak and B.-H. Lee, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 141101 (2009), arXiv:0907.4146 [gr-qc] . 015 (2016), arXiv:1509.06691 [gr-qc] . [21] A. Saa and R. Santarelli, Phys. Rev. D 84, 027501 (2011), [48] J. Nat ario, L. Queimada, and R. Vicente, Class. Quan- arXiv:1105.3950 [gr-qc] . tum Grav. 33, 175002 (2016), arXiv:1601.06809 [gr-qc] [22] G. E. A. Matsas and A. R. R. da Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 181301 (2007), arXiv:0706.3198 [gr-qc] . [49] J. Nat ario and R. Vicente, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 52, 5 [23] E. Berti, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, F. Pretorius, and (2020), arXiv:1908.09854 [gr-qc] . U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 239001 (2009), [50] K. Duzta   s, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124031 (2016), arXiv:0911.2243 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1701.07241 [gr-qc] . [24] S. Shaymatov, M. Patil, B. Ahmedov, and P. S. Joshi, [51] H. M. Siahaan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064028 (2016), Phys. Rev. D 91, 064025 (2015), arXiv:1409.3018 [gr-qc] arXiv:1512.01654 [gr-qc] . [52] S. Shaymatov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 49, 1960020 [25] M. Bouhmadi-L opez, V. Cardoso, A. Nerozzi, and J. V. (2019). Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084051 (2010), arXiv:1003.4295 [53] B. Gwak, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 058 (2020), [gr-qc] . arXiv:1910.13329 [gr-qc] . [26] J. Doukas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064046 (2011), [54] S.-J. Yang, J.-J. Wan, J. Chen, J. Yang, and Y.-Q. arXiv:1009.6118 [hep-th] . Wang, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2004.07934 [gr-qc] [27] J. V. Rocha and R. Santarelli, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064065 (2014), arXiv:1402.4840 [gr-qc] . [55] A. K. Mishra and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024030 [28] Z. Li and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124022 (2013), (2019), arXiv:1905.00394 [gr-qc] . 7 [56] B. C. J.M. Bardeen and S. Hawking, Commun. Math. [65] Y.-L. He and J. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124060 (2019), Phys. 31, 161 (1973). arXiv:1912.05217 [hep-th] . [57] C. Chakraborty, P. Kocherlakota, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. [66] J. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B 804, 135365 (2020). Rev. D 95, 044006 (2017), arXiv:1605.00600 [gr-qc] . [67] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. [58] K. Hioki and T. Harada, arXiv e-prints (2019), J. C 79, 585 (2019), arXiv:1809.10457 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1909.07852 [gr-qc] . [68] K. S. Revelar and I. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064010 [59] J. Sorce and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104014 (2017), (2017), arXiv:1706.07190 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1707.05862 [gr-qc] . [69] Z.-W. Chong, M. Cveti c, H. Lu,  and C. N. Pope, Phys. [60] R. M. Wald, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1843003 (2018). Rev. Lett. 95, 161301 (2005), hep-th/0506029 . [61] J. An, J. Shan, H. Zhang, and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [70] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, 97, 104007 (2018), arXiv:1711.04310 [hep-th] . Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 481 (2020), arXiv:1908.01195 [gr-qc] [62] B. Gwak, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 81 (2018), . arXiv:1807.10630 [gr-qc] . [71] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. [63] B. Ge, Y. Mo, S. Zhao, and J. Zheng, Phys. Lett. B 783, D 101, 044028 (2020), arXiv:1908.07799 [gr-qc] . 440 (2018), arXiv:1712.07342 [hep-th] . [72] R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 172, [64] B. Ning, B. Chen, and F.-L. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 100, 304 (1986). 044043 (2019), arXiv:1902.00949 [gr-qc] .

Journal

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Apr 20, 2020

There are no references for this article.