text:
# Global versus Nuclear Starbursts

## 1. Observations : where are starbursts located ?

It is a widely observed fact that starbursts are concentrated in nuclei, and in particular the strongest ones (ULIRGs). But there can be exceptions, such as:

* the Antennae, Arp 299, where star formation is more intense in overlap regions between the two galaxies,
* in bright spiral arms (like M51, etc..)
* the Cartwheel and other collisional ring galaxies: the starburst occurs in the ring, sometimes in the nucleus, or toward the second developing ring,
* in nuclear resonant rings of barred galaxies; this ring might shrink with time and the starburst drifts towards the center, as seems to be the case in M82 : a fossil region M82B NE (de Grijs et al 2001), has been studied 1kpc from the central nuclear starburst.

M82 is a good opportunity to study the evolution of starburst location: in the M82B fossil region (see figure 1), stars formed 100 Myr ago, with a comparable amplitude than the present starburst in the center. De Grijs et al. (2001) find there an important (113) number of evolved super star clusters (SSC). Their detailed age study conclude that the starburst begun 2 Gyr ago, with a peak 600 Myr ago, and stopped about 30Myr from now. This episode could coincide to a previous passage/interaction of the companion M81. The evolution of the SSCs is compatible with them being progenitors of globular clusters.

This evolution of the starburst location could correspond to ring concentration and ring evolution. Indeed, in barred galaxies star formation is frequently in nuclear rings (cf Buta et al 2000, NGC 1326; Maoz et al 2001, NGC 1512, NGC 5248), and in particular bright knots in the rings.

Sometimes star formation can occur even farther from the center: in tidal dwarfs (e.g. Duc et al. 2000), shells, garlands, large HII complexes in the outer regions, as in M101 or NGC 628 (Lelièvre & Roy 2000). Or the nucleus does not concentrate the star formation activity, which is more randomly distributed, as in dwarf irregulars. A recently studied example is NGC 4214 (Beck et al. 2000; MacKenty et al. 2000), where interferometric CO observations (Walter et al 2001) reveal that the star formation is not always coinciding with the gaseous concentrations. If one CO complex is indeed the site of a starburst, a comparable one, at the same distance from the center, is completely quiecent.

An interesting question is to estimate the relative importance of starburst, and more quiescent or “steady-state” star formation in the global rate of star formation of the Universe. If a starburst is defined as having a rate larger than 50 M/yr, an estimation from NICMOS images in the Hubble Deep Field conclude that both processus appear similar in importance (Thompson 2000).

## 2. Dynamical mechanisms

Since the fuel for star formation is the interstellar gas, it is straightforward to assume that the star formation rate should be proportional to some power of the volumic gas density in galaxies, as done by Schmidt (1959). Following this assumption, Schmidt derived that this power should be around n=2111Schmidt compared the scale-height of the galactic plane in gas and young stars to derive this power, and found a high value because the molecular hydrogen distribution was not known at that time in the solar neighborhood. However, this local hypothesis has revealed very difficult to confirm, although there is of course some correlations between global gas density and star formation rate in a Galaxy. The difficulty is certainly related to the time delays and time-scales for star formation processes and subsequent feedback, and also to the fact that the gas can be stabilised by dynamical mechanisms, instead of forming stars.

### 2.1. Global statistical studies

So far, only global quantities have been correlated with success, when the gas surface density is averaged out over the whole galaxy, and the same for the star formation rate. The star formation tracer can vary, from the H$`\alpha `$ flux for normal galaxies, to the Far Infrared luminosity L(FIR) for starbursts, which are highly obscured (Kennicutt 1998).

While the starbursts explore a wider range and dynamics of parameters, the relation between the global gas surface density and star formation rate (SFR) is the same for extreme and normal galaxies: it is possible to derive a “global” Schmidt law, with a power n=1.4 (Kennicutt 1998).

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}^{1.4}$$

(cf figure 2). Another formulation works as well

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}/t_{dyn}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular frequency in the galaxy, which is inversely proportional to the dynamical time-scale $`t_{dyn}`$.

Several justifications can be found a posteriori: if the star formation is locally due to the gravitational instability of the gas, this occurs on a free-fall time-scale, and the star-formation rate is:

$$d\rho _{}/dt=\rho _{SFR}\rho _{gas}/\tau _{ff}\rho _{gas}^{1.5}$$

very close to the power n=1.4; but the correlation is not observed locally. Globally, this applies also, if the star formation is due to the global gravitational instability of the gas disk, that occurs in a dynamical time-scale:

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}/dt=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}/t_{dyn}$$

which accounts for the second formulation. Alternatively, star formation could be triggered in marginally stable clouds, by the crossing of spiral arms, and the frequency of arm crossing is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ (Wyse & Silk 1989), or roughly to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ far from corotation (where the clouds never cross the arms).

This second formulation might also explain the Tully Fisher relation (Silk, 1997; Tan 2000), since if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$$L_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}R^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}v_{circ}R$$

with $`v_{circ}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }R`$ from the virial, and provided that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ is verified over the main spiral classes (Roberts & Haynes 1994), it can be deduced that $`L_bv_{circ}^3`$.

The numerical values found for the global Schmidt law correspond to an SFR of 10% of gas per orbit transformed into stars, at the outer edge typically for normal galaxies. The much higher SFR in starbursts could be only a consequence of their much higher surface density: indeed $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}`$ is observed to be 100 to 10 000 higher, and the star formation efficiencies (SFE) about 6-40 times higher. This higher efficiency can also be attributed to smaller dynamical time-scales, since starbursts usually happen in nuclear regions.

A starburst is obtained as soon as dynamical mechanisms have brought gas to the center; this can occur through gravity torques on dynamical time-scales. The gas infall must be sufficiently rapid to overcome the feedback processes, that will blow the gas out. These processes, such as supernovae explosions and violent stellar winds, occur on time-scales of 107 yr, the life-time of O-B stars. The latter is unchanged at any galactic radius, being intrinsic to stellar physics. Only in nuclei dynamical torques can bring the gas faster than these feedback mechanisms.

The global statistical studies appear to be slightly different for extreme starbursts (Taniguchi & Ohyama 1998). The exponent of the global Schmidt law is more near n=1, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{SFR}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}`$ (cf also Young et al 1986). As for radial distribution, there is no correlation between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{FIR}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}`$. It is the total gas amount of a galaxy that governs the infrared luminosity L(FIR).

### 2.2. Parameters governing the SFR

The difficulty is that there are many physical parameters determining the SFR and SFE in galaxy disks. Along the Hubble sequence, the star formation rate increases towards late-type, wich could be due to dynamical instability increasing with decreasing bulge-to-disk ratio. The SFE has been found to decrease with size (Young 1999). However, this could be due to a metallicity effect, since SFE is computed from the infrared to H2 ratio, SFE= L(FIR)/M(H2), itself derived from L(FIR)/L(CO), and L(CO) could lead to an underestimation of H2 in low-mass under-abundant galaxies.

The SFR also depends on environment, since galaxy interactions are one of the most widely recognized trigger of starbursts. Gravity torques are also essential for radial gas flows, and thus the bar phase or chronology might play a role, as well as the gas content.

The most essential physical parameters are :

* Gravitational instability, the main trigger of star formation; this might explain the existence of a threshold of gas density for star formation, the critical surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ (Quirk 1972, Kennicutt 1989);
* Cloud-cloud collisions, a process also proportional to a power of local volumic density, $`\rho ^2`$, that could imply a local Schmidt law. It is possible to account for observations of SFR and SFE, by considering only collisions (Scoville 2000, Tan 2000);
* Tidal forces; interaction and mergers are the main trigger of starbursts (e.g. Kennicutt et al. 1987, Sanders & Mirabel 1996). Also, after the interaction, the binary black hole thus formed can trigger a starburst by its dynamical perturbations (Taniguchi & Wada 1996);
* Gas density (Schmidt 1959, Kennicutt 1998), and radial gas flows due to gravity torques (bars);
* Supernovae/winds can also drive star formation (Wada & Norman, 1999, 2001); clouds marginally stable could be driven into gravitational instability by an excess of pressure, a blast wave (Koo & McKee 92, Heckman et al 96, Taniguchi et al 98). Star formation can be contagious, since it propagates local instabilities.

Since all these phenomena play a role in the star formation, a global Schmidt law, averaged over the whole galaxy, is not sufficient to disentangle the relative importance of each process. In particular, local studies reveal that the gas density alone is not a sufficient parameter to predict SFR and SFE (cf gas concentrations without starbursts, Jogee & Kenney 2000).

It is tempting to test the stability of gaseous disks, with the Toomre criterium Q (and its equivalent formulation as a critical gas density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$), in order to explain the occurence of star formation in special regions or galaxies. However in a dynamical time, gravitational instabilities are able to heat a disk until the stability criterium is verified in almost all disks, and external parameters are not included in the criterium.

### 2.3. Why are Q and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ actually not very useful to predict star formation trigger and starburst activity?

The main problem is that the criterium for gravitational instabilities is often undissociated from the criterium of star formation. But in reality, if gravitational instabilities are necessary for star formation, they are not sufficient. There are still some other parameters that are essential, controlling the onset of star formation in a gas medium that has formed self-gravitating structures, and those parameters are still to be sorted out and quantified to build a criterium for star formation:

1) Self-regulation

Gravitational instabilities are so important that disks are self-regulated to have the Toomre Q parameter of the order of 1. Indeed, as soon as Q falls below 1 because of gas dissipation, the disk becomes gravitationnally unstable: these instabilities have for immediate effect to increase the velocity dispersion, and heat the disk so that Q $``$ O(1) again (e.g. Lin & Pringle 1987). But this self-gravitating process occurs even in the absence of star formation, so that Q $``$ O(1) in any disk and cannot help to predict star formation.

For instance, in the outer parts of spiral disks, where it is obvious that there is no star formation at all, the HI gas is observed to be gravitationally unstable and form structures at all scales: there are spiral arms, giant clumps, and a mass spectrum of clouds (structures down to the smallest structure possible to see with the present 21cm beams). It is therefore likely that Q is also there of the order of 1, and the disk self-regulated. This occurs also inside some irregular galaxies, possessing a lot of gas, without star forming activity like N2915 (Bureau et al 1999). The gas has developped gravitational instabilities, spiral arms, etc..

2) Multi-phase gas and multi-components stability

Let us emphasize that Q and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ characterizing the stability of disks, should be computed taking into account all components, gas and stars, and in case of several gas components, the total multi-phase medium. This is not possible analytically, since the different components have not the same velocity dispersion, but an empirical criterium has been proposed as:

$$\frac{1}{Q}=\frac{1}{Q_{gas}}+\frac{1}{Q_{star}}$$

(Jog 1992). Therefore, each component has a weight $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/\sigma `$ in the stability. When there is a large surface density of gas, the Qgas term dominates, and it is justified to compute Q and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ taking gas only into consideration. But as soon as the gas surface density is depleted for some reason (for instance inside circum-nuclear rings), or the gas is heated ($`\sigma _{gas}`$ increases), then the Qstar term has to be taken into account, ensuring that the total Q is always of the order of 1, over the whole disk (e.g. Bottema 1993). As for the gas velocity dispersion, when there exist non-axisymmetric features, like spiral arms, bars, etc.. the corresponding streaming motions have to be included in $`\sigma _{gas}`$ (which does not reduce to the local sound speed velocity of the order of 10km/s), since it is precisely these streaming motions that are the consequences of disk heating by spiral waves and gravitational instabilities.

3) Spatial averaging scale

A problem in estimating Q and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ is also the scale at which they are averaged, and the results can change completely according to the spatial resolution of the observations. We know that the interstellar medium is fractal and possess structures at all scales, from 100 pc to $``$ 10 AU. The gas surface density increases towards small scales, by about 1-2 orders of magnitude; the critical surface density might be reached or not, according to the spatial scale of averaging (Klessen 1997; Wada & Norman 1999, 2001; Semelin & Combes 2000; Huber & Pfenniger 2001).

4) Uncertainty on the H2 gas density

The biggest uncertainty in computing the gas surface density is the CO to N(H2) conversion ratio. This ratio can vary within a factor 2 or 10, according to metallicity, CO excitation, temperature, density, etc.. (Rubio et al 1993, Taylor et al 1998, Combes 2000), and since Q $``$ O(1) in galaxy disks anyway, it is quite impossible to ascertain that Q is larger or smaller than 1 if such systematic uncertainties are attributed to the gas density. Due to the latter, it is likely that systematics will find $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}<\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ for non-star forming regions, where the CO is not excited (or the metallicity not enough), and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}>\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ for starbursts (12C is a primary element, and the abundance of CO is enhanced in starbursts).

5) Intermittency

Star formation can be inhibited or triggered by other phenomena, such as supernovae, stellar winds, external or internal wave triggers and this does not enter the Q and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ estimations. In a nuclear disk, simulations by Wada & Norman (2001), the density undergoes phases of episodic and recurrent star formation (of the order of $``$ 10 Myr periodicity), and the estimation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ are the same for periods with and without star formation. Here is introduced a hidden parameter, which is the past history of star formation. A galactic disk region might be quiescent, only in between two star formation phases for instance.

In conclusion, gravitational instabilities ensure that all spiral disks have Q $``$ O(1) at all radii: the gas component is structured in clouds that are marginally stable. Only transiently the disk can be brought out of equilibrium. Only a sudden trigger is necessary to start a starburst, and these are difficult to recognize. This could be a sudden radial gas flow due to a bar, or the tidal action of a companion, that strengthens or creates a bar, that will bring gas to the nucleus, when the dynamical time-scale is short.

To have a starburst, gas must be gathered in a very short time-scale, smaller than $``$ 107 yr, shorter than the onset of feedback from the first OB stars formed, through supernovae explosions and stellar winds, before the starburst can blow the gas out. In nuclei, the dynamical time-scale is shorter, while the feedback time-scale is constant all over the disk (being intrinsic to the life-time of OB stars). That might explain why starbursts are always more conspicuous in nuclei.

The original Schmidt law is a local one, and involves the volumic density $`\rho `$. At this stage, one should consider that the surface density in inner and outer parts of the galaxies have not the same weight for gravitational instabilities, because of the flaring of gas and star densities towards the outer parts.

### 2.4. Influence of bars

It was found, with IRAS fluxes as a tracer of star formation, that barred galaxies were more frequently starbursting (Hawarden et al. 1986), and had also more radio-continuum central emission, attributed to star formation (Puxley et al. 1988). From a statistical sample of more than 200 starbursts and normal galaxies, Arsenault (1989) found a much larger frequency of barred and ringed types among the starbursts, suggesting that active formation of stars in the nuclei of spirals is linked to the perturbation of bars and gravity torques.

But such a correlation is not without any controversy: Pompea & Rieke (1990) do not find that strong bars appear an absolute requirement for high infrared luminosity in isolated galaxies. Markarian starbursting galaxies are less barred than a sample of normal galaxies (Coziol et al. 2000).

At least the molecular gas appears much more concentrated in barred galaxies (Sakamoto et al 1999), which is expected form gravity torques. This gas concentration should trigger nuclear starbursts, according to the Schmidt law.

As for nuclear activity itself, the correlation between the presence of bars and AGN activity is presently unclear, as described already in this conference. Peletier et al (1999) and Knapen et al (2000) have shown that Seyferts have more bars than normal galaxies (results at 2.5$`\sigma `$). Seyferts have curiously a lower fraction of strong bars (Shlosman et al 2000), perhaps pointing toward the destruction of bars by massive black holes. Besides, Seyferts have more outer rings, by a factor 3 or 4 (Hunt & Malkan 1999). Since the outer rings are the vestiges of the action of bars, this supports the scenario of bar destruction by central gas accretion and massive black holes.

An interesting feature recently discovered in stellar kinematics of star-forming galaxies with an active nucleus, is the drop in velocity dispersion in the central kpc. This was found thanks to ISAAC on the VLT (Emsellem et al 2000, and this conference). This drop is unexpected, especially since the dispersion should increase towards the massive black hole. But the phenomenon can be transient, and due to kinematically cold stars just formed from the gas in the nuclear disk fueled by the bar torques.

As for numerical simulations, starbursts are easily reproduced, in particular triggered by galaxy interactions and mergers. The star-formation is due to radial gas flows, driven by the bars formed in the interaction (e.g. Mihos & Hernquist 1994, 96; Bekki 1999). The bar is thus central to the starburst. The presence of a bulge, which has a stabilising influence on disks against bar formation, is determinant in the occurence of the starburst. In galaxies with a large bulge-to-disk ratio, the intense starburst has to wait the merging, and the final gas infall, while galaxies without large bulges undergo repetitive starbursts.

Other dynamical perturbations, like lopsidedness and $`m=1`$ waves are also triggering starbursts: in this case, star formation is mainly in the disk, and not boosted in the nucleus (Rudnick et al 2000).

## 3. Large Gas Complexes and Stellar Clusters

Due to the large gas surface density in nuclear starbursts, the critical length for self-gravity in the disk center (the scale with the largest growth rate) is also very large:

$$\lambda _{crit}=4\pi ^2G\mathrm{\Sigma }/\kappa ^2$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gas}`$, since the gas is dominating there. The corresponding self-gravitating mass is $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$. Figure 3 gives orders of magnitude for these values, typical sizes and masses 200 pc, 109 M.

These super complexes will collapse, and may form super star clusters, if another factor is tuned, the time-scale before feedback effects come into play, and regulate the star formation. The collapse of gas must be sudden enough (in $`<`$10 Myr), so that OB stars and SN cannot limit the process. This means that the free-fall time is short enough, and therefore that the volumic density is larger than 2 M/pc3. This is indeed verified for the typical masses and sizes determined above, but not for usual giant molecular clouds.

Another point of view to see the formation of these large complexes, is to introduce the velocity dispersion (Elmegreen et al. 1993). In interacting and merging galaxies, one characteristic is that the tidal perturbations have increased velocity dispersion above that of a quiescent disk, and the corresponding pressure stabilises locally the gas up to a larger Jeans length. The complexes that form are then bigger.

The largest growth rate for instabilities in the disk occurs at the scale $`\lambda _{crit}`$ considered above, which is also equal to the Jeans length:

$$\lambda =\sigma ^2/G\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

since the Toomre parameter Q $`\frac{\sigma \kappa }{\pi G\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ 1. In fact, the kinetic pressure stabilises all scales below Jeans length, and the galactic rotation stabilises all scales above $`\lambda _{crit}`$, the equality between the two ensuring the disk stability. If the disk is slightly out of equilibrium, it is those common scales that are unstable more quickly.

With this second formulation, the mass of the complexes are proportional to $`\sigma ^4/\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and grow at a rate $`\tau _{ff}=\sigma /\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ showing the large importance of velocity dispersion.

Super Star Clusters (SSC) are young star clusters of extraordinary luminosity and compactness. They are one of the dominant modes of star formation in starbursts, and they are thought to be a formation mechanism for globular clusters. A major breakthrough from HST has been to show that globular clusters form still at the present time, through starbursts (e.g. Schweizer 2001). The question has been raised of the SSC contribution to the total luminosity: it appears only moderate in ULIRGs (Surace et al 1998). In Arp 220 for example (Shioya et al 2001), there are three conspicuous nuclear SSC (galactic radius $`<`$0.5kpc), which correspond to about 0.2 Ltot (they are heavily obscured $`>`$ 10 mag). The disk SSC (0.5 $`<`$ radius $`<`$ 2.5 kpc), of lower luminosity, represent a negligible contribution. SSC also form in starbursting dwarfs, with properties quite similar to larger interacting/merging galaxies (e.g Telles 2001). In these systems, they could represent a significant part of the luminosity. Their formation is thought to be triggered by the high pressure experienced by the gas complexes in a starburst environment.

## 4. Feedback, regulation, propagation

The study of stellar populations, through multiband photometry and spectroscopy, together with HII regions and molecular gas distribution, and assisted by starburst evolutionary models, leads to the determination of the age and history of the star formation in a galaxy disk. It is possible to constrain the IMF, often found to be biased towards high-masses in starbursts, and to follow the propagation of the starburst radially.

In some cases, the star formation propagates inside out, a good example being the ring of NGC 1614 (Alonso-Herrero et al 2001): here a nuclear starburst is identified within 45pc, surrounded by a ring of HII regions of 600 pc in diameter, tracing a younger burst. These HII regions, about 10 times the intensity of 30 Doradus, lie inside a ring of molecular gas, as if the star formation wave was propagating radially outwards.

In the LINER galaxy NGC 5005, Sakamoto et al (2000) identify a stream of molecular gas, linking the inner ring of the bar to the nuclear disk, likely to correspond to the ILR. This stream represents a high rate of bar-driven inflow and they suggest that a major fueling event is in progress in this galaxy. The gas flow could then be episodic rather than continuous. Recurrent starbursts are then expected.

In other cases, the star formation appears to propagate outside in: older star formation in a disk/ring of 200pc in diameter surrounds a younger nuclear starburst in NGC 6764 (Schinnerer et al 2000): two starbursts with decay times of 3 Myr occurred 3-5 Myr and 15 to 50 Myr ago. However, a constant star formation scenario over 1 Gyr (at a rate of 0.3 M/yr) could also explain the data.

The ringed barred galaxy NGC 4314 also supports the outside in scenario: a ring of dense molecular gas is observed inside the radio-continuum ring (Combes et al 1992; Benedict et al 1996; Kenney et al 1998). The gas ring, inside the nuclear hot spots, evolves slowly, reducing its radius due to friction exerted by the background stars on the giant molecular clouds.

This shrinking ring of star formation is expected from the dynamical evolution of the gaseous nuclear ring. Alternatively, feedback processes from violent star formation, such as supernovae, bipolar gas outflows, etc… are expected to compress the surrounding gas outwards, and to trigger star formation inside out.

## 5. Starbursts as a function of redshift

### 5.1. More efficient star formation at high z

It is now widely recognized that starbursts were more frequent in the past, and galaxy imaging at high redshift with the Hubble Space Telescope has revealed considerable evolution. Although there are still many systematic biases in high-z studies, it appears that galaxies were more numerous, and in particular more perturbed and irregular. The Hubble classification is difficult to pursue at high z. Galaxies are knotty, have less organised structures, and much less bars (van den Bergh et al 2001). Their irregular appearance can be attributed to interactions, since there are more pairs and more mergers at high redshift (Lefevre et al 2000).

The higher star formation rate at high z is easy to explain :

* More gas at high redshift
* Higher interaction and merging rates
* Dynamical time shorter (to accrete gas)

In the frame of the hierarchical scenario, where large galaxies today have been formed by succesive mergers of smaller entities, the first haloes to form at high redshift have very small masses. But they are also denser, because they virialise from a much denser universe, due to expansion. The volumic density is going as $`(1+z)^3`$, and the dynamical time-scale inside these haloes is going as $`\tau _{dyn}(1+z)^{3/2}`$. Therefore, in addition to the larger fraction of mergers at $`z=2`$, the efficiency for a given merger to form stars is even higher. The feedback mechanism, related to the life-time of OB stars, has no reason to vary with redshift, and the time-scale to accrete gas is shorter at high $`z`$.

Also, it is easy to predict, since galaxies accumulate mass in their bulge through secular evolution and galaxy interaction/merger, that galaxies in the past were more unstable, having a smaller bulge-to-disk ratio. Bar instability is then more violent, with more gas accretion, and bars are destroyed also more quickly. The fact that bars are transient might explain the observed lower bar frequency, although the present observations are still preliminary.

### 5.2. Relation between starburst and AGN

Starbursts and AGN compete for gas fuel. They relie on the same dynamical mechanisms to be feeded and active. The main consequence of radial gas flow due to bars and gravity torques is not only a nuclear starburst and an AGN, but also the bulge growth, and a massive black hole growth. However, the amount of gas required to grow the BH over Gyrs is small, ensuring that both can occur simultaneously, which is reflected in the observed correlation between the final masses: MBH = 0.1-0.2% Mbulge (Magorrian et al 1998, Ferrarese & Merritt 2000). The relation between starbursts and AGN is not only circumstancial, but there are effective regulation from one to the other and reciprocally. For instance, the central BH mass can modify the central dynamics, so as to favor gas accretion, or instead to destroy a bar, and stop accretion and star formation. Nuclear starbursts produce outflows (such as M82, N253) that regulate the BH grow, while the compact stellar clusters formed can provide fuel to the BH through stellar mass loss (e.g. Norman & Scoville 1988).

Although there is a massive black hole in almost every galaxy today, most of them are quiescent. According to quasars counts and luminosity as a function of redshift (e.g. Boyle et al 1991), QSOs were more numerous and more powerful in the past. This means that those black holes that were active were more massive, while at low redshift, only more modest black holes are entering their activity cycle (Haehnelt & Rees 1993).

We can deduce that the AGN-starburst connection at high redshift was a little different than today: composite objects were more dominated by their AGN, due to their greater black hole mass.

Another point comes from their lower bulge mass: the inner Lindblad resonance was less frequent, and in this case the gas can be accreted all the way down to the nucleus, since it is not stalled at ILR. Of course, the time-scale of gas accretion is longer when there is no resonance, but this might be compensated by the shorter dynamical time-scale. It is then likely that a black hole was easier to feed at high $`z`$. Besides, the accretion being easier, the regulating mechanism was operating faster, then destroying the bar after a shorter time-scale. All these phenomena have to be tackled in details, to determine their actual effect on evolution.

## 6. Conclusions

The detailed processes leading to star formation at large scales in a galaxy disk or in the nucleus are still not well known. Many physical mechanisms can explain observations: gravitational instabilities, cloud-cloud collisions, density-wave and radial flows, propagating star-formation, galaxy interactions…

Empirical laws like the ”global” Schmidt law do not help in disentangling the role of all these physical phenomena. Moreover, a ”local” Schmidt law is still an unconfirmed paradigm, since there is no tight correlation between local gas density and SFR density.

The main factor towards giant starbursts is the quick flow of gas in a concentrated region in a short enough time-scale ($`<`$10 Myr), to beat the stellar feedback processes. This can only be provided by gravity torques in gaseous disks (due for instance to galaxy interactions, that trigger bars, etc…)

This mechanism might be preponderant only at late Hubble times, when galaxies are massive, with stabilising bulges. At earlier times (z$`>`$ 1), galaxies are less evolved and less concentrated; they are not stabilised against gravitational instabilities; those can be violent, triggering spontaneous bursts, with a chaotic appearance, accounting for the irregular and knotty images observed at high redshift.

Starbursts and AGN are often observed in symbiosis in galaxies, they are not only fed by the same mechanisms, but sometimes regulate each other. The observations at high redshift help to get insight in the time evolution of both, leading to parallel growth of bulges and supermassive black holes. Dark haloes forming earlier are denser, explaining why supermassive black holes forming earlier are more massive (Haehnelt & Kauffmann 2000).

Evolutionary cosmological models (N-body simulations + semi-analytical experiments) succeed to some extent to reproduce observations: they use a local Schmidt law for star formation

$$d\rho _{}/dt=c_{}\rho _{gas}/max(t_{cool},t_{dyn})$$

and introduce schematically the stellar feedback, by yielding energy at each star formation to increase the bulk motion of the gas. Simulations retrieve rather well the slope of the Tully-Fischer relation, which appears to be not very sensitive to SF prescriptions (e.g. Steinmetz & Navarro 2000). But there is a big problem to retrieve the zero point: at a given rotational velocity, model galaxies are 2 magnitude dimmer than observed galaxies. The problem is now well identified, the dark matter is too much concentrated in the models, and there is not enough baryons in the central regions of a galaxy disk. This has also been remarked in fitting rotation curves and in particular of dwarf irregulars, that are dominated by dark matter. This is independent of cosmological parameters (CDM, or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM), although the efficiency to transform baryons into stars is much higher in CDM ($``$ 100%) than in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM ($``$ 40%) (Navarro & Steinmetz 2000).

#### Acknowledgments.

I am very grateful to Johan Knappen and collaborators for the organisation of such a pleasant and fruitful conference, to their sponsors and the CNRS for their financial help.

## References

Alonso-Herrero A., Engelbracht C.W., Rieke M.J., Rieke G.H., Quillen A.C.: 2001, ApJ 546, 952

Arsenault, R.: 1989, A&A 217, 66

Beck S., Turner J., Kovo O.: 2000, AJ 120, 244

Bekki K.: 1999, ApJ 510, L15

Benedict, F. G., Smith, B. J., Kenney, J. D. P.: 1996, AJ 111, 1861

Bottema, R.: 1993, A&A 275, 16

Boyle B.J., Jones L.R., Shanks T. et al.: 1991, in “The Space Density of Quasars”, ASP Vol 21, p. 191

Bureau, M., Freeman, K. C., Pfitzner, D. W., Meurer, G. R.: 1999, AJ 118, 2158

Buta R., Treuthardt P., Byrd G., Crocker D.: 2000, AJ 120, 1289

Combes, F., Gerin, M., Nakai, N., Kawabe, R., Shaw, M. A.: 1992, A&A 259, L27

Combes F.: 2000, in “Molecular Hydrogen in Space”, eds. F. Combes & G. Pineau des Forêts, Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 275

Coziol, R., Consid re, S., Davoust, E., Contini, T.: 2000, A&A 356, 102

de Grijs R., O’Connell R., Gallagher J.: 2001, AJ 121, 768

Duc, P.-A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., Pichardo, B., Weilbacher, P., Mirabel, I. F.: 2000, AJ 120, 1238

Elmegreen B., Kaufman M., Thomasson M.: 1993, ApJ 412, 90

Emsellem E., Greusard, D., Combes F., Friedli D., Leon S., Pécontal E., Wozniak H.: 2001, A&A 368, 52

Ferrarese L., Merritt D.: 2000, ApJ 539, L9

Haehnelt M.G., Kauffmann G: 2000, MNRAS 318, L35

Haehnelt M.G., Rees M.J.: 1993, MNRAS 263, 168

Hawarden, T. G., Mountain, C. M., Leggett S.K., Puxley, P. J.: 1986, MNRAS 221, P41

Heckman, T. M., Dahlem, M., Eales, S. A., Fabbiano, G., Weaver, K.: 1996, ApJ 457, 616

Huber D., Pfenniger D.: 2001, A&A preprint (astro-ph/0105501)

Hunt L.K., Malkan M.A.: 1999 ApJ 516, 660

Jog, C.: 1992, ApJ 390, 378

Jogee S. & Kenney J.D.P.: 2000, in “Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present”, eds F. Combes, G. Mamon, V. Charmandaris, ASP Conf, Vol. 197, p. 193

Kenney, J. D. P., Benedict, G. F., Friedli, D.: 1998, BAAS, 193, 53.03

Kennicutt, R. C., Roettiger, K. A., Keel, W. C., van der Hulst, J. M., Hummel, E.: 1987, AJ 93, 1011

Kennicutt R.C.: 1989, ApJ 344, 685

Kennicutt R.C.: 1998, ApJ 498, 541

Klessen R.: 1997, MNRAS 292, 11

Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., Peletier R.F.: 2000, ApJ 529, 93

Koo B-C, McKee C.F.: 1992, ApJ 388, 93 & 103

Lefevre O., Abraham, R., Lilly, S. J., et al.: 2000, MNRAS 311, 565

Lelièvre M., Roy J-R.: 2000, AJ 120, 1306

Lin D.N.C., Pringle J.E.: 1987, MNRAS 225, 607

MacKenty J.W., Maiz-Apellaniz J., Pickens C., Norman C., Walborn N.: 2000 AJ 120, 3007

Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al.: 1998, AJ 115, 2285

Maoz D., Barth A., Ho L.C., Sternberg A., Filipenko A.: 2000, BAAS, 197, 78.02

Mihos J. C., Hernquist L.: 1994, ApJ 437, 611

Mihos, J.C., Hernquist, L.:1996, ApJ, 464, 641

Navarro J., Steinmetz M.: 2000, ApJ 538, 477

Norman C., Scoville N.Z.: 1988, ApJ 332, 124

Peletier, R. F., Knapen, J. H., Shlosman, I., et al.: 1999, ApJS 125, 363

Pompea S., Rieke G.: 1990, ApJ 356, 416

Puxley, P. J., Hawarden, T. G., Mountain, C. M.:1988, MNRAS 231, 465

Quirk W.J.: 1972, ApJ 176, L9

Roberts M., Haynes M.: 1994, ARAA 32, 115

Rubio M., Lequeux J., Boulanger F.: 1993, A&A 271, 9

Rudnick G., Rix H-W., Kennicutt R.: 2000, ApJ 538, 569

Sakamoto, K., Okumura, S. K., Ishizuki, S., Scoville, N. Z.: 1999, ApJ 525, 691

Sakamoto, K., Baker, A.J., Scoville, N. Z.: 2000, ApJ 533, 149

Sanders D., Mirabel F.: 1996, ARAA 34, 749

Schinnerer E., Eckart A., Boller T.: 2000, ApJ 545, 205

Schmidt, M.: 1959, ApJ 129, 243

Schweizer F.: 2001, in “Extragalactic Star Clusters”, eds. E. Grebel, D. Geisler, D. Minniti, IAU 207 (astro-ph/0106345)

Scoville N.Z.: 2000, in “Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present”, eds F. Combes, G. Mamon, V. Charmandaris, ASP Conf, Vol. 197, p. 301

Semelin B., Combes F.: 2000, A&A 360, 1096

Shioya Y., Taniguchi Y., Trentham N.: 2001, MNRAS 321, 11

Shlosman, I., Peletier, R. F., Knapen, J. H. : 2000, ApJ 535, L83

Silk J.: 1997, ApJ 481, 703

Steinmetz M. & Navarro J.: 2000, in “Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present”, eds F. Combes, G. Mamon, V. Charmandaris, ASP Conf, Vol. 197, p. 165

Surace, J. A., Sanders, D. B., Vacca, W, D., Veilleux, S., Mazzarella, J. M.: 1998, ApJ 492, 116

Tan J.: 2000, ApJ 536, 173

Taniguchi Y., Wada K.: 1996, ApJ 469, 581

Taniguchi Y., Ohyama Y.: 1998, ApJ 509, L89

Taniguchi Y., Trentham N., Shioya Y.: 1998, ApJ 504, L79

Taylor C.L., Kobulnicky H.A., Skillman E.D.: 1998, AJ 116, 2746

Telles E.: 2001, in “Extragalactic Star Clusters”, eds. E. Grebel, D. Geisler, D. Minniti, IAU 207 (astro-ph/0106341)

Thompson R.: 2000, BAAS, 197, 117.03

van den Bergh S., Cohen J., Crabbe C.: 2001, ApJ, preprint (astro-ph/0104458)

Wada K., Norman C.: 1999, ApJ 516, L13

Wada K., Norman C.: 2001, ApJ 547, 172

Walter F., Taylor C., Hüttemeister S., Scoville N., McIntyre V.: 2001, AJ 121, 727

Wyse R., Silk J.: 1989, ApJ 339, 700

Young J.S., Kenney, J. D., Tacconi, L., Claussen, M. J., Huang, Y.-L., Tacconi-Garman, L., Xie, S., Schloerb, F. P.: 1986, ApJ 311, L17

Young J.S.: 1999, ApJ 514, L87


format: text

text:
# 1 TeV Scale Gravity and Black Holes

## 1 TeV Scale Gravity and Black Holes

One scenario for realizing TeV scale gravity is a brane-world in which the Standard Model matter and gauge degrees of freedom reside on a 3-brane within a flat compact space of volume $`V_{D4}`$ . Gravity propagates in both the compact and non-compact dimensions. The Einstein action

$$S_E=\frac{1}{8\pi G}d^Dx\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{2}$$
(1.1)
implies the relation between the four-dimensional and $`D`$-dimensional Newton’s constants:

$$G_N=\frac{G_D}{V_{D4}}.$$
(1.2)
The reduced fundamental Planck scale in this case is generally related to the $`D`$ dimensional Newton’s constant in the phenomenology literature111Here we use the conventions of , which differs from the conventions for the Planck mass $`M_D`$ in the first reference of  as $`M_p=2^{1/(D2)}M_D`$. as

$$M_p^{D2}=\frac{(2\pi )^{D4}}{4\pi G_D}.$$
(1.3)
The fundamental Planck scale can in principle be experimentally accessible in high energy collisions if $`V_{D4}`$ is large in fundamental units. For example, $`M_p`$ TeV for $`D=10`$ with $`V_6\mathrm{fm}^6`$ . Although the total volume of the compact space must be large in fundamental units, the radii of some of the extra dimensions, $`R_c`$, can in principle be not much larger than the fundamental scale. We refer to this as the “flat scenario.”

Another scenario for realizing TeV scale gravity arises from properties of warped extra-dimensional geometries pointed out in . Examples of string theory solutions that generate a hierarchy this way were recently exhibited in . A warped geometry is described by a metric of the form

$$ds^2=e^{2A(y)}dx_4^2+g_{mn}(y)dy^mdy^n.$$
(1.4)
Here $`dx_4^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ is the standard four-dimensional Minkowski line element, and the coordinates $`y`$ parameterize the extra dimensions of spacetime, with metric $`g_{mn}`$. The function $`e^A`$ is the warp factor, and leads to scales for four-dimensional physics that depend on location within the extra dimensions. Gravity propagates in both the compact and non-compact directions. As we see from the action (1.1), in this case the four-dimensional Newton’s constant is related to the the $`D`$ dimensional one by

$$G_N^1=G_D^1d^{D4}y\sqrt{g}e^{2A}.$$
(1.5)
The Standard Model confined to a brane at $`y=y_0`$ within such a geometry will have a Lagrangian of the form

$$S_{SM}=d^4xe^{4A(y_0)}(e^{2A(y_0)}\eta _{\mu \nu },\psi _i,m_i)$$
(1.6)
in which the metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ appears accompanied by factors of $`e^{2A(y_0)}`$. Here $`\psi _i`$ denote the matter fields, and $`m_i`$ are mass parameters which naturally take values of order the conventional Planck scale $`M_p`$. By rescaling the kinetic terms in (1.6) to canonical forms, the measured four-dimensional masses all take values of order $`e^{A(y_0)}M_p`$; alternatively one may use the redundancy under $`AA+\lambda `$ and $`xe^\lambda `$ in the metric (1.4) to choose units in which the masses are $`𝒪(M_p)`$. If the warp factor $`e^A`$ is small in the vicinity of the Standard Model brane, particle masses can take TeV values (or, in the rescaled units, the extra dimensions are large as in the flat scenario), thereby giving rise to a large hierarchy between the TeV and conventional Planck scales. Conversely, high energy scattering processes on the brane at apparent energy scales of order TeV actually probe energies approaching the fundamental Planck scale $`M_p`$, and can probe strong gravitational effects including black hole formation . We will refer to this as the “warped scenario.”

In either scenario the Planck scale threshold for strong gravity effects can be in the TeV range, and collider physics at such energies may reveal a wealth of fascinating and new physics. If this is the case, description of physics in this regime requires a quantum theory of gravity, such as string theory, which would predict many new effects. However, a generic effect in any theory of quantum gravity is the formation of black holes. While a quantitative understanding black holes with masses of order the Planck scale is quite difficult, for masses well above this scale black holes exhibit many features well described by semi-classical physics. And, as discussed below, it is possible that black holes not too much heavier than the fundamental Planck scale may be produced at future colliders.

In order to discuss black hole production and evaporation in the laboratory we therefore consider black holes with masses $`M>(\mathrm{few})M_p`$ where features of the semi-classical analysis are expected to begin to be valid. Several simplifying assumptions are appropriate. To begin with, the brane on which the Standard Model lives will have a gravitational field which should be accounted for in solving Einstein’s equations. While some features of such solutions were discussed in , we will assume that the only effect of the brane field is to bind the black hole to the brane, and that otherwise the black hole may be treated as an isolated black hole in the extra dimensions; this is the “probe brane approximation.” Secondly, initially we assume that the black hole can be treated as a solution in $`D`$ flat space-time dimensions. This assumption will be valid in the large-dimensions scenario at distance small compared with any radii, $`rR_c`$, and in the warped scenario at distances small as compared to the curvature scale of the geometry associated with the extra dimensions, which we also denote as $`R_c`$. Finally, string theory has a number of other fields such as the dilaton; we will assume that these are fixed and do not play an important role in the relevant black hole solutions. We will also argue that gauge charges don’t have a big effect on the black hole solutions, but will see that spin of the black holes is important. For an earlier discussion of some properties of black holes in these approximations, see .

Black holes relevant to experimental investigation in the laboratory are therefore neutral but spinning solutions of the $`D`$ dimensional Einstein action (1.1). These are the higher-dimensional Kerr solutions discussed in . While we will not rewrite such solutions explicitly, let us recall some of their salient features. In general these have $`[(D1)/2]`$ angular momentum parameters $`J_i`$, but as argued below only a single angular momentum parameter $`J`$ parameterizing the four-dimensional spin is relevant. The horizon radius is given by

$$r_h^{D5}\left(r_h^2+\frac{(D2)^2J^2}{4M^2}\right)=\frac{16\pi G_DM}{(D2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}}\stackrel{J0}{}r_h=\left[\frac{4(2\pi )^{D4}M}{(D2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}M_p^{D2}}\right]^{1/(D3)},$$
(1.7)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}=\frac{2\pi ^{(D1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D1}{2})}$$

is the area of a unit $`D2`$ sphere. Note that the horizon size grows with mass like a power that depends on the space-time dimension, $`r_hM^{1/(D3)}`$. For later convience it is useful to introduce a dimensionless rotation parameter,

$$a_{}=\frac{(D2)J}{2Mr_h}.$$
(1.8)
According to Hawking such black holes are unstable semi-classically , and decay into an approximately thermal spectrum of particles, with a temperature given by

$$T_H=\frac{D3+(D5)a_{}^2}{4\pi r_h(1+a_{}^2)}\stackrel{J0}{}\frac{D3}{4\pi r_h}.$$
(1.9)
Correspondingly, the black holes have entropy

$$S_{bh}=\frac{M}{(D2)T_H}\left(D3\frac{2a_{}^2}{1+a_{}^2}\right)\stackrel{J0}{}\frac{r_h^{D2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}}{4G_D}.$$
(1.10)
For a horizon radius $`r_hR_c`$ the higher dimensional Kerr solutions are no longer a valid description. First consider the flat scenario. For horizon sizes larger than some radii, $`r_h>R_c`$, the relevant solution is instead a lower dimensional black hole solution extended uniformly over the extra dimensions with small radii. The mass dependence of the horizon size for black holes larger than these radii would be that for the lower dimensional space-time. A somewhat similar phenomenon is expected in the warped case. A heuristic argument for the form of the black hole solutions in this case follows from the linearized approximation. There we expect the metric to be of the form

$$ds^2\left(1\frac{16\pi G_DM}{(D2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}r^{D3}}+V(\rho )\right)dt^2+\mathrm{}$$
(1.11)
where $`\rho `$ is the distance transverse to the brane and $`V(\rho )`$ is an effective gravitational potential associated with the warping and curvature in the extra dimensions. $`V(\rho )`$ grows with increasing $`\rho `$ and by definition becomes important for $`\rho R_c`$. The effective potential slows the growth of the horizon into the extra dimensions (determined by the vanishing of (1.11)) for increasing black hole mass. We expect this to be qualitatively similar to the inability of the horizon to grow transversely past $`R_c`$ in the large-dimensions case. The horizon can, however, grow in the flat four-dimensional directions with increasing mass. This implies a crossover of the mass dependence of the horizon size from that for flat $`D`$ dimensional space-time given above for $`r_h<R_c`$ to a modified functional dependence on M for $`r>R_c`$, with a corresponding modification of the temperature and entropy formulas (1.9), (1.10). Note that, in either scenario, there may be multiple thresholds where these formulas change, caused either by the existence of different radii for the extra dimensions, or by different curvature scales encountered in warped compactifications.

If the fundamental Planck scale is of order a TeV, center of mass energies not too much larger than the fundamental Planck scale will be available for producing black holes. It is therefore important to address the applicability of the description of a generic massive state as a semi-classical black hole in this mass range. For masses of order the fundamental Planck scale there is no control over quantum gravity effects which are likely to invalidate the semi-classical and statistical thermodynamic pictures. A precise criterion for the quantum corrections to be small is hard to formulate and would ideally be studied in the context of a quantum theory for gravity. One measure of the quantum corrections to a semi-classical black hole is the change in Hawking temperature per particle emission. A necessary condition for the quantum back-reaction on the black hole geometry to be small, and for a quasi-static classical description of the metric to be good, is that this quantity is small compared with the Hawking temperature

$$T_H\left|\frac{T_H}{M}\right|T_H.$$
(1.12)
A second criterion based on the statistical thermodynamic interpretation of a black hole is that the fluctuations in a micro-canonical description be small. Since the number of degrees of freedom in an ensemble describing a black hole is roughly the entropy, small statistical fluctuations require $`1/\sqrt{S_{bh}}1`$. These criteria are related, since from (1.7), (1.9), and (1.10)

$$\frac{M}{T_H}=(2D)S_{bh}.$$
(1.13)
The first criteria is then equivalent to $`S_{bh}1`$, while the second more stringent statistical one is $`\sqrt{S_{bh}}1`$. Numerically for $`D=10`$ the entropy is $`S4\left(M/M_p\right)^{8/7}`$. With a fundamental Planck scale of $`M_p1`$ TeV the entropy of a 5 TeV mass black hole is $`S_{bh}(5M_p)27`$, while for a 10 TeV mass black hole $`S_{bh}(10M_p)59`$. Since a specific numerical criterion on the mass at which the black hole description becomes valid is subjective, we consider both masses given above for the cross section estimates below. For a smaller number of space-time dimensions the growth of the entropy with mass is more rapid, implying a slightly lower mass for which the black hole description should be valid.

Another necessary requirement for the validity of a description of black hole production and decay is that the lifetime determined by the Hawking evaporation process be sufficiently larger than the mass, $`\tau M1`$. In this case a black hole is a well defined resonance, and may be thought of as an intermediate state in the $`s`$-channel. The parametric dependences and numerical estimates for black hole lifetimes are presented in section 3. Numerically, for $`D=10`$ and $`M_p=1`$ TeV the lifetime of a 5 TeV mass black hole is estimated very roughly to be $`\tau (5M_p)10M^1`$, while for a 10 TeV mass black hole $`\tau (10M_p)12M^1`$.

In a weakly coupled string theory another requirement for the validity of a semi-classical black hole description comes from possible stringy corrections to the classical geometry. Black holes with horizon size less than the string length would receive large corrections. Conversely, a generic string state larger than the string scale is a semi-classical black hole . In typical models where the string and Planck scales are not widely separated the above conditions on the validity of a black hole description of a generic massive state produced in a high energy collision are not significantly modified. For example, in $`D=10`$, the string and Planck scales are related by $`L_{\mathrm{string}}1/(g^{1/4}M_p)`$, with $`g`$ the string coupling. In cases where the Planck scale is significantly higher than the string scale, there is an intermediate regime where excited string states would be produced; for some discussion of the phenomenology of such a scenario see .

## 2 Black Hole Production and Balding

Particle scattering at super-Planckian energies is dominated in the $`s`$-channel by black hole production. In this limit the eikonal approximation for the initial state becomes valid and is described by a metric which contains a pair of Aichelburg-Sexl shock waves  with impact parameter $`b`$. A classical picture of black hole formation in this metric should capture the essential features of the scattering process in the high energy limit. For an impact parameter $`b<r_h`$, where $`r_h`$ is the Schwarzschild radius associated with the center of mass energy $`\sqrt{s}`$, the incident relativistic particles pass within the event horizon. Formation of the event horizon should occur before the particles come in causal contact and be a classical process. Once inside the event horizon, no matter how violent and non-linear the subsequent collision, formation of an excited black hole state results. The process of scattering two particles, $`i`$ and $`j`$, confined on a 3-brane, to form a $`D`$-dimensional black hole as shown in Fig. 1 may then be modeled by a scattering amplitude described by an absorptive black disk with area $`\pi r_h^2`$. This gives a cross section

$$\sigma _{ijbh}(s)=F(s)\pi r_h^2=F(s)\pi \left(\frac{4(2\pi )^{D4}\sqrt{s}}{(D2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{D2}M_p^{D2}}\right)^{2/(D3)}$$
(2.1)
where $`F(s)`$ is a dimensionless order one form factor coefficient, and where a black hole is by definition any matter or energy trapped behind the event horizon formed by the collision. Even though the process of black hole formation is a highly non-linear, non-perturbative process, formation of the event horizon ensures that the black disk approximation gives the correct magnitude and parametric dependence of the amplitude in the high energy limit. The precise mass of the black hole formed in a collision depends on the the amount of energy and matter which becomes trapped behind the event horizon. In the high energy limit this in turn depends on the impact parameter $`b`$. So a range of black hole masses will result for a given center of mass energy

$$F(s)=𝑑M\frac{dF(s,M)}{dM}.$$
(2.2)
However, since the cross section is dominated geometrically by large impact parameters, $`b<r_h`$, the average black hole mass should be of order of the $`ij`$ center of mass energy, $`M<\sqrt{s}`$. The precise order one coefficient $`F(s)`$ appearing in the cross section (2.1), as well as the distribution $`dF(s,M)/dM`$, could be calculated in the high energy limit numerically within classical general relativity by evolving the colliding Aichelburg-Sexel shock waves and integrating over a range of impact parameters.

The cross section for black hole production (2.1) has a number of interesting and important features. Since it is a classical non-perturbative gravitational phenomenon, it contains no small numbers or coupling constants. As such, black hole production would not appear at any order in perturbation theory. Most strikingly, the cross section grows with the center of mass energy like a power which depends on the dimensionality of space-time. This is connected with the rapid growth of the density of black hole states at large mass. It may also be understood as a manifestation of the infrared–ultraviolet connection within gravitational theories – super-Planckian energies correspond to large rather than short distances. A power law growth of the cross section with energy does not result from any known perturbative local physics, and is one of the most characteristic feature of black hole formation. Additionally, in the high energy limit in which the classical picture of formation is valid, a black hole can be formed for any incident center of mass energy. The black hole may therefore be thought of as a intermediate resonance with effectively a continuum of states representing the large number of black hole states. In this language the intermediate black hole state produced in a given collision should not be thought of as a single massive degree of freedom, but rather as a state with a number of degrees of freedom (given by the entropy) in approximate statistical thermodynamic equilibrium. For black hole masses close to the fundamental Planck scale a full quantum treatment is necessary to address analogous non-perturbative scattering processes. However, for center of mass energies for which semi-classical black holes are well defined objects a semi-classical description of the event horizon should be applicable and the geometric cross section (2.1) should therefore provide a reliable estimate. As discussed in the previous section, this may be achieved for masses not far above the fundamental Planck scale.

The non-perturbative process of black hole formation in high energy collisions also has an effect on the amplitudes for other processes. Hard perturbative processes at center of mass energies well above the fundamental Planck scale should be highly suppressed. This may be understood from the statistical thermodynamic properties of semi-classical black holes . The amplitude for a massive black hole with a significant entropy to decay to a state with a few very energetic particles is Boltzmann suppressed. And since a generic state at energies far above the fundamental Planck scale is well approximated by a black hole, the high energy amplitude for $`2`$ few scattering is Boltzmann suppressed compared with the Hawking emission final state resulting from an intermediate black hole. This suppression may also be understood geometrically. In the high energy limit an event horizon forms before the particles come in causal contact. Any hard processes taking place at short distances are therefore cloaked behind a horizon and can not lead to final state hard quanta which escape the scattering center. This feature also has the effect of suppressing initial state radiation in the high energy limit.

The only colliders envisioned which can reach energies well above the TeV scale, and therefore potentially produce black holes, are hadron colliders. In order to obtain the $`ppbh`$ cross section, the parton cross section (2.1) must be convoluted with the parton distribution functions (as long as the cross section is smaller than the geometric area of the proton). An intermediate resonance produced in a parton collision must carry the gauge and spin quantum numbers of the initial parton pair. In the high energy limit, black hole states exist with gauge and spin quantum numbers corresponding to any possible combination of quark or gluon partons within the protons. The $`ppbh`$ cross section therefore includes a sum over all possible parton pairings

$`\sigma _{ppbh}(\tau _m,s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}{\displaystyle _{\tau _m}^1}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _\tau ^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}f_i(x)f_j(\tau /x)\sigma _{ijbh}(\tau s)`$ (2.3)
$``$ $`h(\sqrt{\tau _m})\sigma _{ijbh}(s)`$
where here $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the collider center of mass energy, $`x`$ is the parton momentum fraction, $`\tau =x_ix_j`$ is the parton–parton center of mass energy squared fraction, $`\sqrt{\tau _ms}`$ is the minimum center of mass energy for which the parton cross section into black holes is applicable, and the black hole mass is assumed to be $`M\sqrt{\tau s}`$. The sum over parton distributions $`f_i(x)`$ includes a factor of two for $`ij`$. The sum over all initial parton pairings represents another enhancement of the high energy black hole cross section compared with standard perturbative processes. This is in addition to the lack of small couplings and growth with energy.

The momentum scale squared, $`Q^2`$, at which a parton distribution function is evaluated is determined by the inverse length scale associated with the scattering process. For perturbative hard scattering in a local field theory this momentum scale is given by the momentum transfer, which in the $`s`$-channel is the parton–parton center of mass energy $`Q^2s`$. For the non-perturbative process of $`s`$-channel black hole formation in a theory of gravity, however, the relevant length scale is the Schwarzschild radius rather than the black hole mass, $`Q^2r_h^2`$. This is a consequence of the infrared–ultraviolet properties of black hole formation – scattering at super-Planckian energies corresponds to large distances.

The LHC with a center of mass energy of 14 TeV offers the first opportunity for black hole production if $`M_p`$ TeV. Because of the rapid decrease of the parton distributions at large $`x`$, the LHC production cross section falls rapidly with black hole mass for any space-time dimension $`D`$ even though the intrinsic parton–parton cross section grows with energy. For production of black holes more massive than 5 TeV at the LHC, with $`M_p=1`$ TeV and $`D=10`$, using the CTEQ5 structure functions , the integrated cross section function is $`h(0.36)0.02`$, corresponding to a cross section of $`2.4\times 10^5`$ fb.222We thank Tom Rizzo for cross section estimates. This is a very large cross section by new physics standards and is only a factor of a few smaller than that for $`ppt\overline{t}`$. With a luminosity of 30 fb-1yr-1 such a cross section would correspond to a black hole production rate of 1 Hz, and would qualify the LHC as a black hole factory. For production of black holes more massive than 10 TeV at the LHC, with $`M_p=1`$ TeV and $`D=10`$, the integrated cross section function is $`h(0.71)5\times 10^7`$, corresponding to a cross section of roughly 10 fb. Even at these large masses this corresponds to a production rate of 3 day-1. Black hole production cross sections at the LHC for $`D=8,10`$ with $`M_p=1`$ TeV and assuming a form factor coefficient $`F(s)=1`$ are summarized in Table I.2

With TeV scale gravity, black hole production would become the dominant process at hadron colliders beyond the LHC. For example, with $`M_p=1`$ TeV and $`D=10`$, the Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) with 100 TeV center of mass energy and 100 fb-1yr-1 luminosity would produce black holes of average mass roughly 10 TeV at a rate of order kHz, and would produce black holes heavier than 50 TeV at a rate of roughly 0.5 Hz.

The rate of growth of the black hole cross section with center of mass energy depends on the black hole density of states as a function of mass. In a flat background of large uniform volume, and for black holes smaller than the transverse size of the extra dimensions, it depends on the space-time dimensionality as indicated in (2.1). In principle, the radii of some of the extra dimensions could be comparable to the fundamental Planck scale, $`R_c>M_p^1`$. In this case the cross section dependence on center of mass energy would increase as a function of energy as the threshold for producing black holes of size $`r_hR_c`$ was crossed. Alternately, the radius of curvature for a warped background can also be comparable to or larger than the Planck scale, $`R_c>M_p^1`$ (see e.g. ). This would also increase the energy dependence of the cross section. These dependences illustrate that massive black holes probe features of the extra dimensions on scales larger than the Planck scale – another manifestation of the infrared–ultraviolet connection in gravitational theories.

Black holes which are formed in high energy collisions have non-vanishing angular momentum which is determined by the impact parameter. Since the impact parameter is only non-vanishing in directions along the brane, the angular momentum lies within the brane directions. For a given parton-parton center of mass energy a range of angular momenta will result for the range of the impact parameters which lead to a black hole. The order one form factor coefficient of the cross section (2.1) therefore in general depends on both the mass and angular momentum of the black hole formed in a collision

$$F(s)=𝑑M𝑑J\frac{d^2F(s,M,J)}{dMdJ}$$
(2.4)
Since the production cross section is dominated geometrically by impact parameters $`b<r_h`$, the black holes will typically be formed with large angular momentum components in the brane directions, $`JMr_h`$. The direction of the spin axis within the Standard Model brane is perpendicular to the collision axis in the high energy limit. In the high energy limit, the distribution of both masses and angular momenta could be calculated numerically within general relativity as described above, and are presumably correlated through the initial impact parameter.

Before any radiation of excess energy, the black hole state will also carry gauge quantum numbers of the initial state parton pair. In addition, since formation is a violent process the initial horizon is likely to be very asymmetric. The excited black hole state then carries additional hair corresponding to multipole moments for the distribution of gauge charges and energy–momentum within the asymmetric configuration.

An excited black hole state produced in a collision will shed the hair associated with the multipole moments during an initial transient balding phase. In the large mass limit this occurs through classical gauge radiation to gauge fields on the brane, and through gravitational radiation. The frequency of this radiation, or equivalently the energy of emitted quanta, is determined by the frequency of oscillation of the multipole moments. Both the frequency of multipole oscillation and the balding time scale are characterized by the Schwarzschild radius, $`\omega 1/r_h`$ and $`\tau _b>r_h`$. The rate of energy loss for gauge and gravitational radiation in the balding phase can be estimated parametrically. Power emitted in gauge radiation should be dominated by the dipole mode, $`d_igr_h`$, where $`g`$ is a gauge coupling constant. Ignoring any prefactors the parametric dependence of such dipole power loss is

$$P_{\mathrm{gauge}}\frac{\alpha }{r_h^2},$$
(2.5)
where $`\alpha `$ is a fine structure constant. Power emitted in gravitational radiation should be dominated by the energy-momentum quadrupole moment, $`Q_{ij}Mr_h^2`$. Again ignoring any prefactors the parametric dependence of such quadrapole power loss is

$$P_{\mathrm{gravity}}\frac{G_DM^2}{r_h^{D2}}.$$
(2.6)
The ratio of gauge to gravitation radiation in the balding phase is then parametrically

$$\frac{P_{\mathrm{gauge}}}{P_{\mathrm{gravity}}}\frac{\alpha }{(r_hM_p)^{D2}}$$
(2.7)
suggesting that gravitational radiation dominates. It is intuitively apparent that with order one gauge charges, gauge radiation is insignificant in the large mass limit.

In four dimensions the total mass loss by classical gravitational radiation in the balding phase for an excited black hole produced by collision of neutral relativistic particles is estimated to be 16% . This result should be indicative of the total energy lost by an excited black hole during the balding phase also in the higher dimensional case since first, gravitational radiation is expected to dominate, and second because the energy-momentum multipole moments generated during the process of formation take values within the Standard Model brane. For production of large mass excited black holes by collision of relativistic charged particles in the high energy limit, numerical work at the classical level could significantly improve these rough estimates. For black hole masses near the fundamental Planck scale these estimates may receive potentially important quantum corrections.

The gauge charges inherited by the black hole from the initial state partons should discharge through the emission of a small number of quanta via the Schwinger process . This should take place either during the balding phase, or near the beginning of the evaporation phases discussed below.

So at the end of the transient balding phase, an excited black hole produced in a high energy collision has lost most of its hair and is characterized essentially by the mass and angular momentum, and is therefore described by a spinning Kerr solution.

## 3 Black Hole Spin-Down and Evaporation

After the balding phase, the black hole will decay more slowly via the semi-classical Hawking evaporation process. It emits modes both along the brane and into the extra dimensions, as illustrated in Fig. 2. If the Standard Model is comprised solely of brane modes, the bulk modes will be gravitational and thus invisible. Furthermore, as argued in , radiation along the brane is the dominant mechanism for mass loss. This follows from the observation that Hawking evaporation takes place predominantly in the $`S`$-wave. The emissivity to a given brane or bulk mode is then roughly comparable, and the large number of Standard Model brane modes then dominate the evaporation process. Our discussion therefore neglects the bulk modes. We also assume that the only relevant modes on the brane are those of the Standard Model, although the discussion easily generalizes. (Note in particular that in four dimensions for a large number of scalar modes, there is no Schwarzschild phase discussed below; $`J/M^2`$ asymptotes to a fixed value.)

For black holes with temperatures down to of order 100 GeV, all Standard Model particles may be treated as essentially massless; for temperatures smaller than this phase space suppression for the heavy gauge bosons and top quark must be included. For a massless particle the emission rate per unit energy $`E`$ and time is

$$\frac{dN_{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }}{dEdt}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma _{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }}{\mathrm{exp}\left\{(Em\mathrm{\Omega })/T_H\right\}1}$$
(3.1)
where here $`i`$ denotes species, $`\mathrm{},m`$ angular quantum numbers, $`\lambda `$ polarization, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{r_h}\frac{a_{}}{1+a_{}^2}\frac{1}{r_h}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}$$
(3.2)
is the surface angular frequency of the black hole, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ the dimensionless frequency. The $`\gamma `$ are gray-body (tunneling) factors which modify the spectrum of emitted particles from that of a perfect thermal black body. Estimates for grey body factors in the four dimensional case are given in . The grey body factors for Hawking emission into brane modes in the higher dimensional case will differ quantitatively from the purely four dimensional case, but should have the same qualitative features. For $`Er_h1`$ they vanish as $`E^{2\mathrm{}+1}`$, whereas for $`Er_h1`$ geometric optics predicts the $`J=0`$ values $`\gamma \theta (Kr_hE\mathrm{})`$, with $`\theta `$ the step function and $`K`$ a constant, and the $`J0`$ values $`\gamma e^\zeta \mathrm{}`$ with $`\zeta =𝒪(1)`$.

The evaporative time evolution of $`M`$ and $`J`$ for the black hole follows by summing (3.1) over modes to which the black hole can evaporate. The relevant equations are most easily studied in dimensionless variables; in particular, define $`x=Er_h`$ and $`T=T_{}/r_h`$. The evolution equations then become

$$Mr_h^2\frac{d\mathrm{ln}M}{dt}=f;\frac{Jr_h}{a_{}}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}J}{dt}=g$$
(3.3)
with

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}f\\ g\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{i,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{\gamma _{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }(x,a_{})}{\mathrm{exp}\left\{(xm\mathrm{\Omega }_{})/T_{}\right\}1}\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ m/a_{}\end{array}\right).$$
(3.4)
Dimension dependence enters these equations both through the grey body factors and the dependence of the Schwarzschild radius on mass and angular momentum.

The parametric dependence of the black hole lifetime on mass follows directly from (3.3)

$$\tau =\frac{C}{M_p}\left(\frac{M}{M_p}\right)^{(D1)/(D3)}$$
(3.5)
where $`C`$ is a numerical constant obtained by integrating (3.3), and which depends on the dimensionality $`D`$, and initial angular momentum $`J`$. This parametric dependence may also be derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann law associated with Hawking emission. Equations (3.3) have been solved numerically in the four dimensional case by Page. The half life for spin-down is computed from

$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}J}{d\mathrm{ln}M}=\frac{D2}{2}\frac{g}{f}.$$
(3.6)
In the four dimensional case this half-life is $`7\%`$ of the black hole lifetime. In the present case $`f`$ and $`g`$ differ from Page’s in the dimension dependence of the grey body factors and in the number of species considered, but the results should be similar. During spin-down the angular momentum is shed in quanta with typically $`\mathrm{}=m1`$ and energy $`E1/r_h`$. In the four dimensional case this phase accounts for about $`25\%`$ of the mass loss. The remaining mass is lost in a Schwarzschild phase characterized by the decay of the $`J0`$ black hole. In the four dimensional case, the constant $`C`$ is numerically found to be

$$C^1\left(40n_0+19n_{1/2}+7.9n_1+0.90n_2\right)\times 10^3$$
(3.7)
where $`n_s`$ denotes the total number of polarization degrees of freedom for spin $`s`$. For the Standard Model, this gives $`C0.5`$ in four dimensions. If the dimension dependence of the grey body factors is ignored, this may be used to crudely estimate the constant $`C`$ in the higher dimension case by taking account of the dimension dependence of the Schwarzschild radius on mass. In $`D=10`$ this gives roughly $`C6.5`$.

The energy spectrum of particles emitted in the Hawking process is derived by integrating (3.1) over the lifetime of the spin-down and Schwarzschild phases up to a cutoff time $`\tau _P`$ where the Planck phase discussed below begins. This gives

$$\frac{dN_{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }}{dE}=_0^{\tau \tau _p}\frac{dt}{2\pi }\frac{\gamma _{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }(r_h(t)E,a_{}(t))}{\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left[r_h(t)Em\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(t)\right]/T_{}(t)\right\}1}.$$
(3.8)
In particular, consider the Schwarzschild phase. For $`E1/r_hT_H`$, the scaling of the grey body factors discussed above gives $`_{l,m}\gamma (r_hE)^2`$. This results in  in a spectrum which falls like $`E^{1D}`$ at high energies, and is power suppressed  at low energies

$$\frac{dN}{dE}\{\begin{array}{cccc}E^{1D}\hfill & & :& \hfill E>T_H\\ E^\eta \hfill & & :& \hfill E<T_H\end{array}$$
(3.9)
where $`\eta `$ is a positive power, and $`T_H`$ is the Hawking temperature of the initial black hole. The dominant radiation is at energies $`1/r_hT_H`$ determined by the initial black-hole mass. The total number of particles emitted is characteristic of the entropy (1.10) of the initial black hole $`NS_{bh}`$. The evaporation phases may therefore be thought of as literally the evaporate escape of the degrees of freedom which make up the black hole state produced in the collision. Numerical estimates for $`T_H`$ and $`S_{bh}`$ in $`D=10`$ are presented in the next section. Numerical study of the evaporation equations is required to improve all the rough estimates presented above.

The relative emissivities for various types of particles depend on the grey body factors. In four dimension these ratios may be extracted from the relative coefficients given in (3.7). Summing over four-dimensional transverse degrees of freedom, the relative emissivity for massless spin 0, spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$, spin 1, and spin 2 particles in the four dimensional case is 42%:40%:16%:2%. These ratios should be indicative of those in higher dimensions. Numerical calculation of grey body factors, $`\gamma _{i,E,\mathrm{},m,\lambda }`$, in the higher dimensional case should be pursued in order to improve these estimates.

Note that for black holes with $`r_h>R_c`$, the above expressions and estimates for the lifetime, decay spectra, etc. must be modified to account for the effective change in dimensionality discussed in section 1.

A discussion of the end point of Hawking evaporation requires a full theory of quantum gravity. The semi-classical description breaks down when the Hawking temperature reaches the fundamental scale $`T_HM_p`$. At this point the black hole reaches a final Planck phase of decay. We expect the black hole in this phase to decay to several quanta with energies of order the Planck or string scale.

Finally, in the case of primordial black holes in four dimensions with the standard Planck scale, there are controversial claims that a photosphere forms around an evaporating black hole, and thermally degrades the Hawking spectra . However, in the higher dimensional case with TeV Planck scale, the much smaller total entropy of a given mass black hole implies that the outgoing Hawking radiation is sufficiently dilute so as not to thermalize. This may also be understood from the much shorter lifetime in the higher-dimensional case which implies that the outgoing radiation is emitted in a relatively thin shell of thickness order the lifetime $`\tau `$, which is too thin to thermalize.

## 4 Experimental Signatures

The potentially large production cross section at hadron colliders presents the possibility of studying black hole formation and decay in some detail. The various stages of decay described above give rise to distinctive distributions of decay products in both type, energy spectrum, multiplicity, and angular distribution. For definiteness we consider the signatures which could be observed at the LHC associated with parameters of $`M_p1`$ TeV and $`D=10`$. The signatures for other space-time dimensions are qualitatively similar, and modifications for $`M_p>1`$ TeV are mentioned briefly below.

At the LHC, because of the rapidly falling parton structure functions a typical black hole of any given mass is produced without a large boost in the laboratory frame, $`\gamma \beta <1`$. This implies that the decay products are also not highly boosted in the laboratory frame. So the angular and energy distributions described below are largely preserved in the laboratory frame for a typical event, although there are exceptional events with sizeable boost factor for lower mass black holes.

The first stage of decay for an excited black hole produced in a high energy collision is the balding phase. As discussed in section 2 the energy lost in the process of shedding multipole hair is a small but non-negligible fraction of the excited black hole mass, perhaps 15%. In the large mass limit, gravitational radiation is expected to dominate the energy loss in this phase. For black hole masses not too far above the fundamental Planck scale some fraction of the energy may be emitted in gauge quanta. The energy of the quanta emitted in this phase is determined by the multipole frequencies which are characterized by the Schwarzschild radius, $`E1/r_h`$. This energy scale coincides with that of the Hawking temperature at the end of the balding phase. As discussed below, the Hawking temperature of a 10 TeV black hole for $`D=10`$ is roughly 150 GeV, and slightly less for a smaller number of space-time dimensions. In this case the balding phase could give rise to probably at most only a few gauge quanta, predominantly gluons, with energies of the order of 100-200 GeV. Distinguishing any visible quanta emitted during the balding phase from those emitted during the evaporation phase discussed below would seem to be difficult.

The highest multiplicity of particles from black hole decay comes from the spin-down and Schwarzschild Hawking evaporation phases. The characteristic energy scale for these particles is the initial Hawking temperature of the black hole after the balding phase. Numerically, the Hawking temperature for $`D=10`$ is

$$T_H0.2M_p(M_p/M)^{1/7}.$$
(4.1)
The distribution of energies extends up to roughly the fundamental Planck scale with a spectrum $`dN/dEE^{1D}`$. The total number of particles emitted by evaporation in this phase is roughly the entropy of the initial black hole after the balding phase. Numerically, the entropy for $`D=10`$ is

$$S=\frac{7M}{8T_H}4(M/M_P)^{8/7},$$
(4.2)
so a large number of relatively hard primary partons arise from the evaporation phase. For example, for a 10 TeV mass black hole, of order 50 quanta with a typical energy of order 150-200 GeV result from the evaporation phase. As described below, almost all of these emitted particles appear as visible energy. For smaller space-time dimension the Hawking temperature is slightly lower for a given black hole mass. In this case a slightly higher multiplicity of somewhat lower energy quanta would be released in the evaporation phases.

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the evaporation phase, aside from the high multiplicity, is the distribution in type of particle emitted. Because of the large fraction of Standard Model states which are strongly interacting, most of the emitted particles are strongly interacting. As described in section 3, the relative emissivities depend on the intrinsic spin of the emitted particle through the grey body factors. Using the relative emissivities quoted in section 3, the Standard Model fractions of quarks and gluons, leptons, massive gauge bosons, neutrinos and gravitons, Higgs boson, and photons emitted from a non-rotating black hole in four dimensions, ignoring particle masses, is 72%:11%:8%:6%:2%:1%. Accounting for decay of top quarks, massive gauge bosons, and the Higgs boson, the ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity (primary $`e`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\tau `$) in the evaporation process in this case is roughly 5:1, while the ratio of hadronic to photonic activity is roughly 100:1. Taking account of heavy quark and tau semi-leptonic decays would decrease these ratios slightly. The specific ratios in the higher dimensional case with Hawking evaporation along the Standard Model brane requires integration of the evaporation equations given in section 3 including appropriate grey body factors and black hole angular momentum. However, the four dimensional values are expected to be indicative of those for the higher dimensional case. The fraction of energy which is visible resulting from the evaporation phases is therefore expected to be in the 85–90% range.

Additional states to which the black hole could evaporate, such as supersymmetric partners, would of course modify the specific ratios of final state partons. However, such states which decay to visible particles are sure to be identified at the LHC, and so the total amount of Hawking radiation which appears as visible energy, as well as the ratios of hadronic to leptonic and hadronic to photonic activity will be calculable parameters in the large black hole mass limit.

Another feature of the evaporation phase is the angular distribution of emitted particles. As described in section 2, a typical black hole is produced with a large angular momentum. The spin-down process of Hawking evaporation emits quanta predominantly in the $`\mathrm{}=m1`$ modes. The angular dependence of the particles emitted during the evaporation phase is then roughly

$$\frac{dN}{d\phi }N_0+2N_1\mathrm{sin}^2\phi $$
(4.3)
where $`N_0`$ and $`N_1`$ are the number of particles radiated in the Schwarzschild and spin-down evaporation processes respectively where the subscript refers to the $`\mathrm{}`$ value, $`N_0+N_1N`$, and $`\phi `$ is the angle with respect to the spin axis in the rest frame. In four dimensions the spin down phase accounts for about 25% of the evaporative mass loss, and is expected to be similar in the higher dimensional case with Hawking radiation on the brane. It might therefore be possible in large multiplicity events to discern the magnitude of initial black hole spin and direction of the spin axis from the angular distribution of emitted particles. The distribution of both the magnitudes and spin axis directions measured from a large number of events would provide information about the non-perturbative process of black hole formation which determines the initial spin. For example, deviations of the spin axis from a direction perpendicular to the collision axis in the rest frame may occur for black hole masses not too far above the fundamental Planck scale.

The endpoint of the black hole evaporation is the Planck phase in which the black hole completely decays. Without a fundamental theory of gravity it is hard to quantify this phase. But any visible partons emitted in this phase would have energies characteristic of the Planck or perhaps string scales. The identity and distributions of the highest energy final state partons within a black hole event would provide information about the Planck phase and end point of Hawking evaporation.

Because of the large cross section, large total visible energy, and large multiplicity of final state partons, black hole production gives rise to very spectacular events at a hadron collider. For a 10 TeV black hole with $`D=10`$, on the order of 50 visible final state primary partons result, each with typical energy in the 100-200 GeV range from the balding and evaporative decay phases, with a few hard visible partons up to energies of order the fundamental Planck scale from the end of the evaporation phase and Planck decay phase. Since most of the black hole decay products result from the evaporation phase, the ratio of the total hadronic to leptonic activity is expected to be roughly 5:1. In addition, most of these particles are emitted in $`\mathrm{},m<1`$ modes leading to a fairly spherical distribution of primary final state partons in the black hole rest frame. Since a typical black hole is produced with only a moderate boost factor, this results in events with a high degree of sphericity. For a completely spherical event corresponding to a spinless black hole at rest in the lab frame, the transverse energy is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ of the total energy. The moderate boost and high sphericity imply that the total visible transverse energy of a typical black hole event is between $`\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ of the total deposited visible energy.

Another feature of the large multiplicity in a black hole event is that any missing energy either from primary emission by the black hole of gravitons, neutrinos, or other non-interacting particle such as a (quasi)-stable neutralino, or from neutrinos in subsequent cascade decays tends to average out within a given event. However, there can be exceptional events in which the missing energy fluctuates upward, from for example, emission of two charged or strongly interacting particles recoiling against a hard graviton in the Planck decay phase.

Since the transverse energy is an invariant it provides a very good measure of the black hole mass. This is true on a statisical basis if the initial black hole spins are averaged, and is also true for a given large multiplicity event if the relative multiplicities $`N_0`$, $`N_1`$ discussed above can be extracted. As discussed above, most of the energy emitted in the evaporation phases is visible. So depending on the spin, the black hole mass should therefore by very roughly of order twice the visible transverse energy – this ratio could be reliably calculated by numerical simulation of cascade decays of the primary partons to determine the precise fraction of energy which is visible.

Special purpose triggers are not required to accept black hole events because of the large total transverse hadronic energy and non-negligible leptonic fraction. Even without a dedicated search, such events would appear in any number of new physics analysis which utilize hadronic or leptonic activity. In fact, if the fundamental Planck scale is a TeV, because of the relatively large cross section, it is likely that black hole production and decay would represent a significant background in many new physics searches.

The most striking features of black hole decay are both the large multiplicity and total transverse energy of the decay products. At a hadron collider an obvious cut to select black hole events is therefore large total transverse hadronic energy of at least a few times the fundamental Planck scale, and (very) large multiplicity of relatively hard jets. A requirement of relatively hard leptonic activity could also be applied. The requirement of a large multiplicity of final state partons significantly reduces the background from perturbative processes which typically only have a few hard final state partons from cascade decays of the primaries. In addition, black hole events have the feature that the multiplicity and average final state primary parton energy in any event is correlated with the black hole mass (as indicated by the event total transverse visible energy) in a manner determined by the Hawking evaporation process. Specifically, the multiplicity is higher and average energy per primary final state parton lower for higher mass events. This is another manifestation of the infrared–ultraviolet connection of gravity – higher energy events have lower energy per particle. A growing parton–parton cross section for events satisfying these cuts, along with a roughly 5:1 ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity would represent a smoking gun for black hole production and decay.

A calorimetric measurement of the number of identified black hole events as well as the average multiplicity and final state parton energy as a function of total event energy would give a measure of the black hole production cross section. This in turn is sensitive the dimensionality and geometry of the extra dimensions.

A measurement of the distribution of multiplicities and spectra of primary final state partons energies as a function of black hole mass, as indicated by event transverse visible energy, over a large number of events would allow a quantitative test of the Hawking evaporation process. Even though black holes produced in high energy collisions Hawking radiate mainly to Standard Model particles on the brane, a precise measurement of the decay spectrum would be sensitive to the number of extra dimensions through the effect on the evaporation evolution equations.

The final signal of black hole production is the suppression of hard scattering processes at energies at which black hole production becomes important. As described in section 2, perturbative hard scattering processes are Boltzmann suppressed at energies well above the fundamental Planck scale by the statistical thermodynamic properties of black holes, or equivalently because such hard processes are hidden behind the event horizon formed during collision. Such a suppression would be apparent in, for example, the Drell-Yan or two jet cross sections at very high energies.

In summary, the spectacular experimental signatures associated with black hole production and decay at a hadron collider include

* Very large total cross section with production rates at the LHC approaching up to of order 1 Hz possible.
* Parton level cross section grows with energy at a rate determined by the dimensionality and geometry of the extra dimensions.
* Large total deposited energy up to a sizeable fraction of the beam energy, with visible transverse energy typically of order $`\frac{1}{3}`$ the total energy.
* Large multiplicity events, with up to many dozens of relatively hard jets and leptons.
* Average energy per primary final state parton decreases with total event transverse energy as indicated by the relation between initial Hawking temperature and black hole mass.
* Ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity of roughly 5:1 from the Hawking evaporation phase.
* High sphericity events due to large multiplicity and moderate black hole boost factor in laboratory frame.
* The angular distribution within a given event is characteristic of the initial black hole spin.
* Some events contain a few hard visible quanta with energy up to order the fundamental Planck scale from the Planck decay phase.
* Suppression of hard perturbative scattering processes at energies for which black hole production becomes important.

A search for all of these features together should be essentially free of background from any perturbative physics or instrumental sources. An observation of these signatures would represent compelling evidence for black hole production and decay and TeV scale gravity. It is likely that a detailed study of the potentially large number of such events could provide information about both the process of production of black holes in high energy collisions, as well as the Planck decay phase and end point of Hawking evaporation.

The use of black hole signatures at the LHC to set a specific lower limit on the fundamental Planck scale would require additional work. This includes a detailed study of potential backgrounds. Just as important would be a theoretical estimate of the energy at which the black hole description of intermediate states in both production and decay becomes reliable, which is not available at this time. However, the LHC center of mass beam energy is fixed at 14 TeV. And the applicability of the description of high energy scattering through black hole states is likely limited to energies more than at least a few times the fundamental Planck scale. So if the fundamental Planck scale is larger than a few TeV it seems unlikely that the non-perturbative effect of black hole production and decay is a relevant description of gravitational effects at the LHC – perturbative gravitational effects would likely be more relevant. There is therefore a window of opportunity for $`M_p<`$ few TeV in which the LHC would be a black hole factory, with very dramatic signatures. The window is limited mainly by the center of mass beam energy, and the rapidly falling parton distributions. The window would of course be much larger for the VLHC.

## 5 Conclusions

The signatures outlined above – in particular very high multiplicity events with a large fraction of the beam energy converted into transverse energy with a growing cross section – should serve as clear signals for formation and Hawking evaporation of black holes at colliders. The observability of black hole production and decay is, of course, critically dependent on the magnitude of the fundamental Planck scale $`M_p`$. But once this threshold is crossed, the production rate is large and rapidly rising. Note that for $`D=10`$ the present bound of about $`M_p>800`$ GeV  from missing energy signatures due to perturbative graviton emission will not be significantly improved by the Tevatron Run II since this process is energy rather than rate limited by the rapidly growing density of perturbative graviton states. We therefore arrive at the surprising conclusion that if the fundamental Planck scale is of the order of a TeV the LHC will be a black hole factory, and that this possibility cannot obviously be excluded before LHC begins operation. It is also amusing to note that, if the Planck scale is indeed of order of a TeV, formation of black holes through binary collisions could be observed at LHC by the end of the decade, quite possibly before being observed astrophysically by LIGO.

Perhaps one of the most stunning features of such a scenario is that, because of the infrared–ultraviolet properties of gravity, black hole production seems to represent the end of experimental investigation of short-distance physics by relativistic high-energy collisions. Through the formation of event horizons, black hole formation in high center of mass energy scattering effectively cloaks hard processes. At high center of mass energies the non-perturbative production of black holes dominates all perturbative processes. And as we have argued, at high energies black hole production is increasingly a long-distance, semi-classical process. However, there can be interesting features in high energy scattering experiments as the thresholds $`R_c`$ for sizes or curvature scales of the extra-dimensions are reached and passed. This would provide information about the structure of the extra dimensions that is complimentary to that found by studying the the perturbative graviton Kaluza-Klein spectrum at lower center of mass energies. Note also that the growing cross sections for black hole production would simplify design requirements for future colliders which typically anticipate a hard scattering cross section which falls like the square of the center of mass energy.

Collider study of black hole creation would certainly be an astounding pursuit, although it may be that the most conceptually profound physics would be unraveled at energies in the vicinity of the Planck scale. Here one would hope to reveal the microphysics of quantum gravity and possible breakdown of spacetime structure.

Note Added

While this work was in progress, we learned that some aspects of black hole production were also under consideration by another group; that work has appeared subsequent to our paper’s appearance on the e-print archive as .

### Acknowledgements

We wish to thank T. Banks, L. Bildsten, D. Coyne, J. Hartle, G. Horowitz, S. Hughes, J. Kapusta, J. MacGibbon, R. Myers, D. Page, A. Seiden, L. Susskind, and especially G. Horowitz for valuable discussions, and T. Rizzo for discussions and for providing cross sections based on the CTEQ5 struction functions. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants PHY99-07949, and PHY98-70115, by the DOE under contract DE-FG-03-91ER40618, and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

## Appendix A Comparison of Conventions

In this paper we normalize $`M_p`$ in a convention useful in quoting experimental bounds. In these conventions, the $`D`$-dimensional Newton constant and the Planck mass are related by

$$M_p^{D2}=\frac{(2\pi )^{D4}}{4\pi G_D}.$$
(A.1)
At least two other conventions exist. For example, bounds quoted in the Linear Collider physics resource book are quoted for $`M_D`$ in the convention of the first reference of :

$$M_D^{D2}=\frac{(2\pi )^{D4}}{8\pi G_D}.$$
(A.2)
Thus

$$M_p=2^{\frac{1}{D2}}M_D,$$
(A.3)
a small relative correction.

The paper by Dimopoulos and Landsberg  uses somewhat different conventions,

$$M_{DL}^{D2}=\frac{1}{G_D}.$$
(A.4)
Therefore the relation between the Planck masses in our two normalizations is

$$M_p^{D2}=2^{D6}\pi ^{D5}M_{DL}^{D2}.$$
(A.5)
In $`D=6`$ the difference is not great, $`M_p=1.3M_{DL}`$, but in $`D=10`$ the difference results in a substantial factor: $`M_p=2.9M_{DL}`$.