- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Mechanics of universal horizons

Per Berglund*, Jishnu Bhattacharyya†, and David Mattingly‡

  • Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

  • *per.berglund@unh.edu
  • †jishnu.b@unh.edu
  • ‡dyo7@unh.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 85, 124019 – Published 11 June, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124019

Abstract

Modified gravity models such as Hořava-Lifshitz gravity or Einstein-æther theory violate local Lorentz invariance and therefore destroy the notion of a universal light cone. Despite this, in the infrared limit both models above possess static, spherically symmetric solutions with “universal horizons”—hypersurfaces that are causal boundaries between an interior region and asymptotic spatial infinity. In other words, there still exist black hole solutions. We construct a Smarr formula (the relationship between the total energy of the spacetime and the area of the horizon) for such a horizon in Einstein-æther theory. We further show that a slightly modified first law of black hole mechanics still holds with the relevant area now a cross-section of the universal horizon. We construct new analytic solutions for certain Einstein-æther Lagrangians and illustrate how our results work in these exact cases. Our results suggest that holography may be extended to these theories despite the very different causal structure as long as the universal horizon remains the unique causal boundary when matter fields are added.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (42)

  1. J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973).
  2. S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975); 46, 206(E) (1976).
  3. J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973).
  4. G. ’t Hooft, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026.
  5. L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 36, 6377 (1995).
  6. J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998); Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999).
  7. S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998).
  8. E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), http://inspirehep.net/record/467400.
  9. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995).
  10. E. P. Verlinde, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2011) 029.
  11. T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. 406, 49 (2005).
  12. T. Jacobson, G. Kang, and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6587 (1994).
  13. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001).
  14. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 63, 041502 (2001).
  15. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 70, 024003 (2004).
  16. T. Jacobson, in CPT and Lorentz Symmetry: Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting, Bloomington, USA, 8 – 11 August 2007, edited by V. A. Kostelecký (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008), p. 92.
  17. T. Jacobson, Proc. Sci., QG-PH (2007) 020.
  18. D. Garfinkle and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 191102 (2011).
  19. C. Eling, T. Jacobson, and D. Mattingly, in R. P. WoodardDeserfest: A Celebration of the Life and Works of Stanley Deser, Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, 3 – 5 April 2004, edited by J. T. Liu, M. J. Duff, K. S. Stelle, and (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006).
  20. D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Relativity 8, 5 (2005), http://inspirehep.net/record/677183 .
  21. C. Eling and T. Jacobson, Classical Quantum Gravity 23, 5643 (2006).
  22. E. Barausse, T. Jacobson, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D 83, 124043 (2011).
  23. S. L. Dubovsky and S. M. Sibiryakov, Phys. Lett. B 638, 509 (2006).
  24. C. Eling, B. Z. Foster, T. Jacobson, and A. C. Wall, Phys. Rev. D 75, 101502 (2007).
  25. T. Jacobson and A. C. Wall, Found. Phys. 40, 1076 (2010).
  26. S. M. Carroll and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123525 (2004).
  27. J. W. Elliott, G. D. Moore, and H. Stoica, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2005) 066.
  28. P. Hořava, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009).
  29. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 81, 101502 (2010); 82, 129901(E) (2010).
  30. T. Jacobson and R. Parentani, Classical Quantum Gravity 25, 195009 (2008).
  31. T. Jacobson, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 245011 (2011).
  32. C. Eling, Phys. Rev. D 73, 084026 (2006); 80, 129905 (2009).
  33. B. Z. Foster, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024005 (2006).
  34. See any standard discussion on the derivation of the laws of black hole mechanics via the scaling argument, e.g., P. K. Townsend, arXiv:gr-qc/9707012.
  35. R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 48, R3427 (1993).
  36. B. Z. Foster, Phys. Rev. D 72, 044017 (2005).
  37. V. A. Kostelecky and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011).
  38. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1731 (1991).
  39. D. Blas and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124043 (2011).
  40. W. G. Unruh and R. Schutzhold, Phys. Rev. D 71, 024028 (2005).
  41. C. Barcelo, L. J. Garay, and G. Jannes, Phys. Rev. D 79, 024016 (2009).
  42. A. Shomer, arXiv:0709.3555.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 85, 124019– Published 11 June, 2012
  • Received 14 March 2012
Article part of CHORUS

© 2012 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation