text:
# Thermodynamic and gravitational instability on hyperbolic spaces

## I Introduction

In parallel with the development of AdS conformal field theory (CFT) correspondence Maldacena97a ; Witten98 ), black holes in AdS space are known to play an important role in dual field theory Witten98a . It has also been learned that the Einstein equations when supplemented by a negative cosmological constant admit black holes as exact vacuum solutions, whose event horizons are hypersurfaces $``$ with zero, positive or negative constant curvature ($`k=0,+1`$, or $`1`$). This $``$ may be related to the $`^{}`$ on which the dual field theory is defined by a rescaling of the metric.

Anti–de Sitter black holes with nonspherical event horizons have been constructed in four and higher dimensions Vanzo ; Birmingham98a ; Mann96a . Earlier work on closely related AdS thermodynamics can be found in Lemos95a . The analysis in Birmingham98a  is well motivated from the AdS/CFT correspondence. Reference Emparan99b  discusses AdS/CFT duals of $`k=1`$ topological black holes in the spirit of a holographic counterterm method developed in Vijay99a ; Emparan99a . Here we study the thermodynamic and gravitational stability of a class of Gauss-Bonnet (GB) black holes in AdS space, which also have the feature that the horizon (hypersurface) $``$ is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional Einstein space with constant curvature ($`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},+1`$).

There is the issue of the positivity of the total energy when AdS black holes have non-spherical horizons. Usually, the positive energy theorems show a stability of spacetimes which become asymptotically either locally flat or anti–de Sitter. The known theorems do not extend to the Horowitz-Myers soliton Horowitz98a , whose AdS asymptotic is a toroidal space with a zero constant curvature. The AdS soliton is a nonsupersymmetric background but in the AdS/CFT context it is conjectured to be a ground state for planar black holes; see also Ref. Galloway01a .

Another interesting issue with hyperbolic AdS black hole spacetimes is the choice of a background. In a gravitational theory, it is necessary to make a Euclideanized action finite by assigning classically stable lowest energy configurations to AdS black hole spacetimes with a curvature $`k=0,\pm 1`$ of the horizons. For $`k=+1`$, the background is simply a global AdS space, which is the solution at finite temperature Hawking83a ; Witten98a . But, for $`k=1`$, the ground state may be different from a solution that is locally isometric to a pure (global) AdS space Vanzo ; Birmingham98a .

Hyperbolic AdS black holes are known to exhibit some new and interesting features, such as an increase in the entropy that is not accompanied by an increment in the energy Emparan99b ; Emparan99a . They are also relevant to studying CFTs with less than maximal (or no) supersymmetry Emparan98a ; Klemm99a . In supergravity theories, maximally symmetric hyperbolic spaces naturally arise as the near-horizon region of certain $`p`$-branes Kehagias00a  and black hole geometries Horowitz91a . Thus the choice of a ground state for the hyperbolic AdS black holes as well as their thermodynamic and gravitational (or dynamical) stability are the important issues.

For a spherically symmetric solution (i.e., $`k=+1`$), for instant, the AdS Schwarzschild solution, the hypersurface $``$ is usually a round sphere, while, for hyperbolic AdS black holes, $``$ is either a hyperbolic space $`H^{n1}`$ or its quotient $`H^{n1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore, for $`k=1`$, one reasonably assigns the zero temperature (and zero energy) extremal state as a background; see, for example, Refs. Vanzo ; Birmingham98a . In this paper, we further show, with or without a Gauss-Bonnet term, that the extremal states are local minima of the energy for hyperbolic AdS black holes.

In Ref. Gibbons02a , Gibbon and Hartnoll studied a classical instability of spacetimes of dimensions $`D>4`$ against metric perturbation, by considering generalized black hole metrics in Einstein gravity. In this paper, we generalize those results by including a Gauss-Bonnet term. We find that the black hole spacetime whose AdS asymptotic is a hypersurface of negative constant curvature could be unstable under metric perturbations if the background is a zero mass topological black hole. We show that, with or without a Gauss-Bonnet term, the extremal states are local minima of the energy for $`k=1`$ AdS spacetimes against linear perturbations. We further argue that the extremal background, defined with a negative extremal mass, can be gravitationally (or dynamically) stable if the ground state metric receives higher curvature corrections, like a GB term, with small couplings.

The layout of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we give black hole solutions in AdS space, compute extremal parameters, and define different reference backgrounds in Einstein gravity modified with a Gauss-Bonnet term. In Sec. III we compute Euclideanized actions applicable to the curvature $`k=0,\pm 1`$ of the event horizons. In Sec. IV we relate the free energy and specific heat curves and discuss the thermal phase transitions. In Sec. V we turn to stability analysis of the background metrics (vacuum solutions) in Einstein gravity under metric perturbations, by setting up a Sturm-Liouville problem. We extend this analysis in Sec. VI for the background metrics in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory. Section VII contains discussion and conclusion.

## II Black holes in AdS Space

Our starting point is the Lagrangian of gravity including a Gauss-Bonnet term

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}{\displaystyle d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}`$
$`+\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(R_{abcd}R^{abcd}4R_{cd}R^{cd}+R^2\right)}.`$
Usually, the action is supplemented with surface terms (or a Hawking-Gibbons type boundary action), which can be found, for example, in Ref. Myers87 , but they have no role in the AdS black hole calculations Hawking83a ; Witten98a .

The black hole solutions for the action (II) were first given by Boulware and Deser Deser85a , which were studied by Myers and Simon Myers88a , within the context of Lovelock gravity, by regularizing the classical action; see Wiltshire  for a discussion of charged Gauss-Bonnet black holes. There has been considerable interest in generalizing those solutions with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and $`k1`$ Cai01a ; Nojiri01c ; IPN02a ; IPN02b , and also within the context of dimensionally extended Lovelock gravity Cai98a .

### II.1 Gauss-Bonnet black holes in AdS space

The Einstein field equations modified by a Gauss-Bonnet term take the following form

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}=16\pi G_{n+1}\alpha ^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}_{GB}g_{ab}2H_{ab}\right],$$
(2)
where $`H_{ab}RR_{ab}2R_{acbd}R^{cd}+R_{acde}R_b^{cde}2R_{ac}R_b^c`$ and $`_{GB}=R^24R_{ab}R^{ab}+R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$. For $`\alpha ^{}>0`$, we have the well known Gauss-Bonnet black hole solution

$$ds^2=f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k,n1}^2,$$
(3)
with

$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\pm \frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{n(n1)}+\frac{4\alpha \mu }{r^n}},$$
(4)
where $`\alpha =16\pi G_{n+1}(n2)(n3)\alpha ^{}`$, and $`\mu `$ is an integration constant. The metric of an $`(n1)`$-dimensional space $``$, whose Ricci scalar equals $`(n1)(n2)k`$, is denoted as $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k,n1}^2`$; the latter is the unit metric on $`S^{n1}`$, $`IR^{n1}`$, or $`H^{n1}`$, respectively, for $`k=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, or $`1`$.

When $`\alpha =0`$, the cosmological constant is fixed as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/2\mathrm{}^2`$, while, for $`\alpha >0`$, there is a rescaling, namely, $`\mathrm{}^2l^2=\mathrm{}^2/\left(1\alpha /\mathrm{}^2\right)`$. For generality, henceforth, we use a common scale $`l^2`$, unless otherwise stated, but the convention that $`l^2\mathrm{}^2`$ in the limit $`\alpha 0`$ is to be understood. The dimension of $`\alpha `$ is $`(\text{length})^2`$.

### II.2 Extremal Gauss-Bonnet black holes

For $`\alpha >0`$, the periodicity of the Euclidean time is

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi r_+l^2\left(r_+^2+2\alpha k\right)}{nr_+^4+k(n2)r_+^2l^2+(n4)\alpha k^2l^2}.$$
(5)
When $`k=1`$, $`\beta `$ starts from zero at the smallest radius $`r_+=\sqrt{2\alpha }`$, except for the coupling $`4\alpha =l^2`$. The spacetime region can be singular with no black hole interpretation if $`4\alpha >l^2`$ or/and $`r_+<\sqrt{2\alpha }`$, and so one should be interested only in the regions $`4\alpha l^2`$ and $`r_+^2>2\alpha `$. The saturation limit $`4\alpha =l^2`$ may be taken only if one also approaches the critical limit $`r_+^2=2\alpha `$.

The parameter $`\mu `$ in Eq. (4) may be expressed in terms of the horizon radius $`r_+`$, namely,

$$\mu =r_+^{n2}\left(k+\frac{r_+^2}{l^2}+\frac{\alpha k^2}{r_+^2}\right)\frac{16\pi G_{n+1}M}{(n1)V_{n1}},$$
(6)
where $`M`$ is the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of a black hole, and $`V_{n1}`$ is the volume of $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k,n1}^2`$. In the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, the $`k=1`$ extremal parameters are

$`\mu _{extr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r_{extr}^{n2}}{n4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\sqrt{\left({\displaystyle \frac{n2}{n}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4(n4)\alpha }{nl^2}}}\right),`$ (7)
$`r_{extr}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n2}{2n}}\right)l^2\left(1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4n(n4)}{(n2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{l^2}}}\right).`$ (8)
For $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, $`\mu _{extr}=0`$ for any $`n`$. It is somewhat of a misnomer to call the $`\mu _{extr}=0`$ state an extremal state, because extremal black holes are defined to have zero temperature, which requires $`\alpha <l^2/4`$. Moreover, the solution with $`\mu _{extr}=0`$ saturates the bound $`r_+^22\alpha =l^2/2`$, so the proper extremal black holes are those that satisfy $`\alpha <l^2/4`$ and have zero Hawking temperature.

### II.3 Choice of backgrounds

For $`\alpha ^{}=0`$, the harmonic function $`f(r)`$ is defined by

$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{\mu }{r^{n2}}.$$
(9)
For $`k=0`$, a zero mass ground state is still legitimate and is an acceptable background Vanzo ; Birmingham98a . However, within the AdS/CFT context, Horowitz and Myers Horowitz98a  have proposed an AdS soliton as a candidate ground state for planar black holes. The AdS soliton metric, for example, in five dimensions, has the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^4}{r^4}}\right)d\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^4}{r^4}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (10)
$`+r^2\left(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(d\theta ^i\right)^2\right),`$
where $`r_0`$ is a constant related to the AdS soliton mass. We are interested here in the $`k=1`$ case. When $`\alpha =0`$, $`k=1`$, and $`n=4`$, the extremal mass parameter is $`\mu _{extr}=l^2/4`$, and so the extremal metric has the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2r^2}}\right)^2dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2r^2}}\right)^2dr^2`$ (11)
$`+r^2dH_{3,k=1}^2.`$
For this to be a candidate ground state, the spacetime region should be restricted to $`rr_e=l/\sqrt{2}`$.

Next, consider the AdS black hole solution with $`\alpha ^{}>0`$:

$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\sqrt{1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}+\frac{4\alpha \mu }{r^n}}.$$
(12)
For $`k=+1`$, $`\mu =0`$ itself defines a reference background, and it is obvious that the constraint $`\alpha l^2/4`$ must hold. Interestingly, a gravitational action defined with $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, in some cases Chamseddine89a , is equivalent to the Einstein gravity. In fact, the graviton propagators in AdSn+1 spacetime, when $`n4`$, do not receive any corrections from the massive (Kaluza-Klein) modes when $`k=0`$ and $`\alpha =l^2/4`$ (see, for example, Ref. IPN02e ), and so this background may be stable under linear perturbations.

However, when $`k=1`$, stability of the background requires $`\alpha <l^2/4`$. That is, as in Einstein gravity Birmingham98a ; Emparan99a , the extremal mass $`\mu _{extr}`$ takes only a negative value. In particular, when $`\alpha =l^2/4`$ and $`n=4`$, the Ricci scalar and Kretschmann scalar $`K(=R_{abcd}R^{abcd})`$ read

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{40}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12\sqrt{\mu l^2}}{r^2l^2}},`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{160}{l^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{48\mu }{r^4l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{96\sqrt{\mu l^2}}{r^2l^4}}.`$ (13)
The metric spacetime is only asymptotically AdS when $`\mu 0`$, and $`\mu <0`$ is not allowed in this case. Next, consider, for example, the coupling $`\alpha =l^2/12`$. When $`r`$ is large, the curvature scalars approximate to

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{40}{l^2}}\left(3\sqrt{6}\right){\displaystyle \frac{10(15\pm 4\sqrt{6})\mu }{r^4}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^6}}\right),`$
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{480(52\sqrt{6})}{l^4}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^8}}\right),`$ (14)
in satisfying $`\mu >\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}r^4/l^2`$, $`r^2>l^2/2\sqrt{3}`$. $`K`$ diverges when $`\mu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}r^4/l^2`$, so $`\mu _{extr}`$ should be greater than this value. The extremal solution is obtained after replacing $`\mu `$ in Eq. (12) by $`\mu _{extr}`$. This is a physically motivated choice of background for topological black holes Vanzo ; Birmingham98a .

## III Background subtraction and thermodynamic quantities

For a solution of the equations of motion, the classical action (II) becomes

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+1}}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{2}{n3}R+\frac{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n3}\right).$$
(15)
The Gauss-Bonnet term is a topological for $`n=3`$, and so we must concern ourselves here with spacetimes for which $`n4`$. The action (15) diverges for a classical solution when integrated from zero to infinity. To make the action (or energy) finite, there should be a regularized setting – a cutoff in the radial integration and subtraction of a suitably chosen background. For $`k=+1`$, the background is simply an AdS space with $`\mu =0`$, while, for $`k=1`$, the subtraction of a non zero mass extremal background appears more physical Birmingham98a ; IPN02b .

For a pure anti–de Sitter space ($`X_1`$) any value of the periodicity $`\beta ^{}`$ is possible, while the black hole spacetime ($`X_2`$) has a fixed periodicity $`\beta `$. One may thus adjust $`\beta ^{}`$ such that the geometry of the hypersurface at $`r=R\mathrm{}`$ is the same for AdS space and AdS-Schwarzschild space if $`k=+1`$ Witten98a , and for the extremal solution and hyperbolic AdS black hole spacetime if $`k=1`$ Birmingham98a . The surface terms have no role in the large $`r`$ limit because the black hole corrections to the AdS metric or extremal state vanish too rapidly at $`r=R\mathrm{}`$ Hawking83a ; Witten98a . Thus, as in Refs. Witten98a ; Birmingham98a , we may fix $`\beta ^{}`$ by demanding

$$\beta ^{}\sqrt{k\frac{\mu _{extr}}{r^2}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}\beta \sqrt{k\frac{\mu }{r^2}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}.$$
(16)
In doing this, we find the (Euclidean) action difference $`\widehat{I}=I(X_2)I(X_1)`$ to be

$`\widehat{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n4}(n1)\beta }{16\pi G_{n+1}(n3)}}[2kr_+^2\mu r_+^{4n}+{\displaystyle \frac{4r_+^4}{l^2}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi r_+^3}{(n1)\beta }}]\beta M_{extr}\delta _{k,1},`$
where $`M_{extr}=(n1)V_{n1}\mu _{extr}/16\pi G_{n+1}`$. \[This can be easily written, using Eq. (6), in the form reported earlier in Ref. IPN02b ; cf., Eq. (10)\]. The free energy of a black hole is given by $`F=\widehat{I}/\beta `$, namely,

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}r_+^{n4}}{16\pi G_{n+1}(n3)}}\left[\left(kr_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\alpha k^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{l^2}}\right]`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n1}}{2(n3)G_{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}M_{extr}\delta _{k,1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n2}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}[(k{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{n3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k^2}{r_+^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{n3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha k\left(2r_+^2+kl^2\right)}{l^2\left(r_+^2+2\alpha k\right)}}]M_{extr}\delta _{k,1}.`$
This is modified from the result in Ref. IPN02a  only by the last term, which is non zero when $`k=1`$ and $`\alpha l^2/4`$. But, since $`M_{extr}`$ is $`r_+`$ or $`\beta `$ independent, the black hole entropy turned out to be the same as was given in IPN02a :

$$𝒮=\beta ^2\frac{F}{\beta }=\frac{V_{n1}r_+^{n3}}{4G_{n+1}}\left(r_+^2+\frac{2(n1)\alpha k}{(n3)}\right).$$
(19)
(See also Ref. Cai01a  for an alternative derivation.) The entropy flow is given by

$`d𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}r_+^{n4}}{4G_{n+1}}}\left(r_+^2+2\alpha k\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_{n1}}{16\pi G_{n+1}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{nr_+^{n1}}{l^2}}+(n2)kr_+^{n3}`$
$`+(n4)\alpha k^2r_+^{n5}].`$
In the second line above, we have used Eq. (5). Using the thermodynamic relation $`d𝒮=\beta dE`$, and after integrating with respect to $`r_+`$, we arrive at

$$E=M+E_0.$$
(21)
One reads $`M`$ from Eq. (6), and $`E_0`$ is an integration constant. The energy $`E`$, obtained directly using the Euclideanized action, after a lengthy but straightforward calculation, takes a remarkably simple form

$$E=\frac{\widehat{I}}{\beta }=MM_{extr}\delta _{k,1}.$$
(22)
Comparing Eqs. (21) and (22), we easily identify that $`E_0=M_{extr}\delta _{k,1}0`$. For $`k=+1`$, the thermodynamic energy is given by the black hole mass $`M`$ and the AdS solution with $`\mu =0`$ is the one with lowest action and energy. This is usually not the case for $`k=1`$, rather, $`E=M_{extr}>0`$ when $`\mu =0`$, $`E=0`$ when $`\mu =\mu _{extr}`$, and $`E>0`$ otherwise. Importantly, the total energy is a positive, concave function of the black hole’s temperature for all values of $`k(=0,\pm 1)`$ when $`M_{extr}<0`$.

### III.1 Extremal state as the ground state

As we mentioned in the Introduction, the hyperbolic AdS5 black holes present some special features, such as that the total (thermodynamic) energy

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3V_3r_+^2}{16\pi G}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r_+^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3l^2V_3}{64\pi G}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{l^2}}\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3V_3}{16\pi G}}\left(r_+^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^4}{l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{4}}\right)0`$
is independent of the coupling $`\alpha `$. This result may have some new and interesting consequences in the field theory dual, if the latter can exist with a GB term. We can perhaps use the relation

$$\frac{\alpha ^{}}{l^2}=\left(2g_{YM}^2N\right)^{1/2}$$

(in units $`16\pi G_5=1`$, $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha /2`$). Then a small $`\alpha ^{}`$ corresponds to the strong coupling limit (i.e., $`g_{YM}^2N`$ is large.) The black hole entropy is given by

$$𝒮=|\beta |\left(EF\right).$$

For $`k=0`$ or $`+1`$, we find $`\text{lim}_\beta \mathrm{}\beta F=0`$. This is usually not the case for a hyperbolic AdS5 black hole, since the free energy and the entropy both depend on the coupling $`\alpha `$ but the energy $`E`$ (or energy density $`E/V_3`$) does not. So, in particular, for a small (or vanishing) coupling $`\alpha ^{}`$, we find $`\text{lim}_\beta \mathrm{}\beta F=\text{finite}`$. This result obviously extends to the related discussions made in Ref. Emparan99b ; more generally, the variation of free energy (and entropy) when going from strong to weak coupling limits.

The total energy of hyperbolic black holes depends on the coupling $`\alpha `$ when $`n>4`$, and it has a local minimum at the extremal horizon position, which is seen also from the plots in Figs. 1 and 2. Even for the coupling $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, the total energy, for example, when $`n=6`$,

$$E=\frac{5V_5}{16\pi G_7}\left(r_+^4+\frac{r_+^6}{l^2}+\frac{r_+^2l^2}{4}\right)$$
(24)
is vanishing at the extremal horizon $`r_+=l/\sqrt{2}`$. But, since $`E`$ is negative in the range $`0<r_+<l/\sqrt{2}`$, a massless extremal state can violate the positive energy theorem, but a negative mass extremal state with $`\alpha <l^2/4`$ always respects the energy condition $`E0`$.

### III.2 Thermodynamic instability for $`k=1`$

Here we adopt a Euclidean path integral formulation along with a consideration that the (extremal) entropy and specific heat are non-negative at the background. One also notes that the black hole entropy is always positive for the $`k=\{0,1\}`$ family. However, for $`k=1`$, the inequality $`r_+^22\alpha `$, which must hold in order to have a black hole interpretation, does not guarantee that the (extremal) entropy and specific heat are always positive, rather one must satisfy $`r_+^22(n1)\alpha /(n3)`$. There is indeed an upper bound in the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ which ensures a thermodynamical stability; e.g., when $`n+1=7`$, the positivity of extremal entropy requires $`r_+^2>10\alpha /3`$ and hence $`\alpha /l^2<17/100`$. In particular, when one approaches the $`\mu _{extr}=0`$ limit at $`4\alpha =l^2`$, so $`M_{extr}=0`$, the specific heat could be negative, which mimics thermodynamic instability of the solution.

In the canonical ensemble, which should be the case here as we are considering uncharged black holes, the second derivative of the Euclidean action $`\widehat{I}(=\beta E𝒮)`$ along the path parameterized by $`x`$ is

$$\left(\frac{^2\widehat{I}}{^2x}\right)_T=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\left(\frac{d\beta }{dx}\right)^2\frac{dE}{dT},$$
(25)
where $`x=x(T)`$ is the parameter that labels the path in the Euclidean path integral formulation. Thus, as discussed in Reall01a , the black hole is not the local minimum of the action when the specific heat $`dE/dT`$ is negative.

## IV Specific heat and free energy curves and thermal phase transition

In Einstein gravity ($`\alpha ^{}=0`$), small spherical black holes have negative specific heat but large size black holes have positive specific heat Gregory93a . There exists a discontinuity of the specific heat as a function of temperature at $`r_+=l/\sqrt{2}`$, and so small and large black holes are somewhat disjoint objects. However, this is not essentially the case when $`\alpha ^{}`$ is nontrivial, and specially, in the spherical AdS5 case, the small black holes also have positive specific heat IPN02a  (see also the discussion in Ref. Cai01a ).

Here we study the AdS5 and AdS7 black holes, which are of some particular interest in string or M theory as they may provide duals for CFTs describing the world-volume theory for $`N`$ parallel $`D3`$\- or $`M5`$-branes.

### IV.1 Specific heat for hyperbolic black holes

In the AdS5 case, the specific heat curve has a single branch for $`\alpha =l^2/4`$ and two branches for $`\alpha <l^2/4`$. The first cusp on the left, which will almost coincide with the $`r_+`$ axis for $`\alpha l^2`$, has negative specific heat, so is unstable. Moreover, the entropy formula

$$𝒮=\frac{V_{3,k=1}r_+^3}{4G_5}\left(1\frac{6\alpha }{r_+^2}\right)$$
(26)
shows that the extremal entropy is non-negative only if $`\alpha l^2/12`$. It is then relevant to ask what would happen in the limit $`l^2/4>\alpha >l^2/12`$. As a specific example, for $`\alpha =l^2/8`$, the period $`\beta =\pi l^2\left(4r_+^2l^2\right)/[2r_+\left(2r_+^2l^2\right)]`$ is negative only in the range $`0.5<r_+<0.707`$. But when $`\alpha =l^2/8`$, the entropy in Eq. (26) becomes negative in the range $`l^2/2<r_+^2<3l^2/4`$, although $`\beta `$ is positive there. Thus, hyperbolic AdS5 black holes are thermodynamically stable only if $`\alpha l^2/12`$, i.e., when $`𝒮_{extr}0`$ (see Fig. 3).

The free energy of a black hole is background dependent, while the Hawking temperature is not. But the formulas $`C=dE/dT`$ and $`C=dM/dT`$ give the same answer since $`M_{extr}`$ is $`r_+`$ or $`T`$ independent. In the AdS5 case, the specific heat can be negative for a small $`r_+`$, specially, if $`\alpha >l^2/12`$. This particular feature is, although not totally new, different from the $`k=+1`$ case. For $`k=+1`$, a thermodynamic instability may arise due to a finite size effect, viz., a black hole of size $`r_+l/\sqrt{2}`$ is unstable, $`r_+>l`$ is stable, and $`l>r_+>l/\sqrt{2}`$ is only locally preferred but globally unstable. However, for $`k=1`$, instability may arise from the both a large coupling effect ($`\alpha l^2`$) and a small size effect ($`r_+<l`$).

For the AdS7 case, the extremal entropy is zero when $`\alpha =17l^2/100`$, for which the Euclidean period is

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi r_+l^2(50r_+^217l^2)}{(10r_+^2l^2)(30r_+^217l^2)}.$$
(27)
This is negative when $`0<r_+<0.3162`$ and $`0.5831<r_+<0.7528`$. The free energy is also negative in the latter range. That is, the first and third cusps in the bottom plot of Fig. 4 should be mirror reflected. There is no black hole interpretation for the first cusp. For $`\alpha =l^2/4`$, there are only two cusps, because in this case two unstable branches (the second and third cusps that appear for $`\alpha <l^2/4`$) merge to a single cusp, which has negative specific heat. We easily see that the thermodynamic stability of hyperbolic black holes in $`n=6`$ requires $`\alpha /l^217/100`$. As a result, the specific heat and extremal entropy are positive at the background.

Moreover, for $`k=1`$, the entropy of a black hole may appear to be negative, typically in the strong coupling limit $`\alpha l^2`$; see, for example, Nojiri02a . But this parameter space must be excluded as an unphysical region because such a state is not stable classically nor do the supergravity approximations allow one to take $`\alpha `$ in the same order as $`l^2`$. As a result, for $`\alpha l^2`$, the hyperbolic black hole is still stable and has positive entropy.

### IV.2 Free energy for hyperbolic black holes

In Ref. Klemm99a , it was argued that the stringy corrections of order $`\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}R^4`$ do not give to rise a thermal phase transition for flat and hyperbolic horizons, as a function of temperature. But using an AdS soliton as the thermal background of AdS black holes with Ricci flat horizons, a phase transition that is dependent not only on the Hawking temperature but also on the black hole area was found in Surya01a . This may imply that for the flat space $`IR^{n1}`$ compactified down to a torus, and possibly also for the quotient of hyperbolic space $`H^{n1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the choice of ground state is crucial to see a possible phase transition. Here we want to use the obtained thermodynamic quantities to determine a thermal phase structure in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity.

In the limit $`0<r_+^22(n1)\alpha /(n3)`$, the behavior of extremal entropy is somewhat exotic, and so the second law of thermodynamics may not hold. In addition, for a hyperbolic AdS5 black hole, the free energy scales with the coupling $`\alpha `$, but the energy (or energy density) does not (Fig. 5 and Eq. (23)). The total energy $`E`$ is vanishing at the extremal horizon, where $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$, but the free energy can be positive, zero, or negative there depending upon the coupling $`\alpha `$. As a result, the entropy is non zero at the extremal state, in particular, for a zero or small coupling $`\alpha `$. This result is consistent with the earlier observations made in Emparan99a ; Emparan99b  with $`\alpha ^{}=0`$; a common thread in these results is that $`\text{lim}_\beta \mathrm{}\beta F=`$ finite. The meaning of a non zero extremal entropy may be traced back to the observation of “precursor” states first made in Susskind99a , when studying a short distance behavior of AdS$`/`$CFT duality.

The first plot in Fig. 6 corresponds to the $`\mu _{extr}=0`$ state with $`\alpha =l^2/4`$. In the lower two plots, the extremal state is shown by an asymptotic on the right, and the critical state, which is absent in AdS5 (cf. Fig. 5), is shown by another asymptotic on the left. The middle vertical line, where the free energy diverges and $`\beta =0`$, corresponds to the horizon at $`r_+^2=2\alpha `$. For $`\alpha <l^2/4`$, the singularity at $`r_+=\sqrt{2\alpha }`$, where $`\beta =0`$, is hidden inside the extremal horizon, so is harmless.

When $`n=4`$ and $`0.25l^2>\alpha >0.1305l^2`$, the free energy appears to be positive in a certain range $`r_2>r_+>r_{extr}`$, where the Hawking-Page temperature is finite, but, for a small coupling $`\alpha l^2`$, the free energy takes only the negative value for positive $`\beta `$. It takes a maximum value at the extremal state if $`𝒮_{extr}=0`$ (for example, at $`\alpha =l^2/12`$ when $`n=4`$). There is no thermal AdS phase for the coupling $`\alpha <0.1305l^2`$, and hence no phase transition appears to occur in this case.

### IV.3 Free energy for spherical black holes

The spherical Gauss-Bonnet black holes were studied in Cai01a ; IPN02a  in some detail, so we will be brief here. For this case, since $`E=M`$, the free energy is vanishing when

$$\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=r_+^2\left[\frac{4\sqrt{n(n3)}(n3)}{6(n1)}\right].$$
(28)
This separates two other $`F=0`$ trajectories Cai01a :

$`\alpha _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{9r_+^4}{l^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(15n)r_+^2}{(n1)l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)(7n25)}{4(n1)^2}}}`$ (29)
$`+r_+^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3r_+^2}{2l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n7)}{4(n1)}}\right).`$
Obviously, $`n4`$ is needed to ensure that $`\alpha >0`$. For example, when $`n=4`$, we find $`r_+^2=18\alpha /7>2\alpha `$. The $`\alpha _{}`$ branch of the solutions gives a stable AdS solution when $`\alpha l^2`$, while the $`\alpha _+`$ branch may be unstable.

As in the $`\alpha =0`$ case, a spherical Gauss-Bonnet black hole presents an interesting thermal feature, namely, the Hawking-Page phase transition at finite temperature. In the AdS5 case, as $`\alpha `$ is decreased, the free energy lowers toward zero at low temperature. For $`\alpha l^2`$, in the small $`r_+`$ region, $`F`$ nearly approaches zero but it never touches the $`F=0`$ axis, e.g., when $`\alpha /l^2=3\times 10^7`$, $`F4\times 10^6`$. That is, the free energy curve crosses the $`F=0`$ axis only once, namely, when $`r_+l`$, which corresponds to the Hawking-Page phase transition point.

For $`\alpha /l^20.0278`$, the free energy is a monotonically decreasing function of $`r_+`$ and the second branch (peak) on the right disappears. Using the relation $`\alpha ^{}/l^2=1/\sqrt{2g^2N}`$, we see that the Hawking-Page transition disappears at sufficiently small ’t Hooft coupling $`g^2N`$.

As for the charged AdS black holes Chamblin99a , the inverse temperature and free energy curves in Fig. 7 remind us of the behavior of a van der Waals gas in the Clapeyron $`(V,P)`$ phase, where the point of inflection in $`\beta (r)`$ signals a critical point. This behavior may be seen for spherical AdS black holes that receive stringy corrections of the form $`\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}R^4`$ Klemm99a  or $`R_{abcd}R^{abcd}`$ IPN02c .

One also notes that, in all dimensions $`n>4`$, the behavior of a Hawking-Page transition is qualitatively similar for small and large couplings, except that the free energy becomes more positive as $`\alpha `$ is decreased. But still, as in the AdS5 case, a low temperature phase corresponds to a thermal AdS space with $`F0`$ and a high temperature phase corresponds to an AdS black hole with $`F<0`$.

## V Stability analysis: metric perturbations

The stability of background metrics under gravitational perturbations can normally be checked from an analysis of whether bound states with a negative eigenstate exist. If the corresponding Schrödinger equations allow a state with $`E<0`$ and/or there are growing (quasi) normal modes at the event horizon, and/or the potential is negative and unbounded from below, then the spacetime metrics can be unstable.

### V.1 Linearized field equations

Consider a linear perturbation of the metric

$$\overline{g}_{ab}g_{ab}=\overline{g}_{ab}+h_{ab},g^{ab}=\overline{g}^{ab}h^{ab}$$

with $`|h_b^a|1.`$ For $`\alpha ^{}=0`$, the linearized equations are

$$\delta R_{ab}=nch_{ab},$$
(30)
where $`c`$ has the dimension of $`\mathrm{}^2`$. For $`\alpha ^{}>0`$ and $`k=+1`$, as evaluated in the Appendix, the perturbations $`\delta g_{ab}(=h_{ab})`$ must satisfy

$`\left(12C\alpha \right)\delta R_{ab}=nC\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(3n^23n+2)C\alpha }{n(n3)}}\right)h_{ab}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2C\alpha }{n3}}\overline{g}_{ab}\left[\overline{}^c\overline{}^dh_{cd}\overline{}^2h+C(n+1)h\right].`$
(31)
with

$$C=\frac{1}{2\alpha }\left(1\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{n(n1)}}\right)\frac{1}{2\alpha }\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}}\right).$$
(32)
For transverse trace-free (de Donder) perturbations, $`h_c^c=\overline{}^ah_{ab}=0`$, we obtain

$`2\delta R_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_Lh\right)_{ab}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2nC}{12C\alpha }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{C\alpha (3n^23n+2)}{n(n3)}}\right]h_{ab}.`$
If the base $``$ is hyperbolic, then it is not a priori sufficient to prove stability for the tensor modes only. In this case, the scalar and vector modes can also be unstable but we will not consider such modes here.

We wish to study the stability of the background metrics under the conditions

$$h_{0a}=h_{1a}=0.$$
(34)
With these constraints, along with a requirement that the base $``$ is itself an Einstein space $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}(h)=(n2)k\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$, the transverse trace-free property of $`h_{ab}`$ is characterized by $`h_{ij}`$, where $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$ run from $`2`$ to $`n(D1)`$,

$$2\delta R_{ij}=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_Lh\right)_{ij}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}nAh_{ij},$$
(35)
with

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_Lh\right)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Lh_{ij}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^2}}\right)h_{ij}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{rf^{}+(n5)f}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}h_{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dt^2}}h_{ij},`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{12C\alpha }}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{C\alpha (3n^23n+2)}{n(n3)}}\right],`$ (36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Lh_{ij}`$ is the Lichnerowicz operator acting on $``$. We look for unstable tensor modes of the form

$$h_{ij}(x)=r^2\varphi (r)e^{\omega t}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}(\stackrel{~}{x}),$$
(37)
where $`(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ are coordinates on $``$. It is convenient to assume that

$$\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L\stackrel{~}{h}\right)_{ij}=\lambda \stackrel{~}{h}_{ij},$$
(38)
where $`\lambda `$ is the eigenvalue of the Lichnerowicz operator. Equation (35) then takes the form of a Sturm-Liouville type problem Gibbons02a

$`f{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(fr^{n1}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi (r)}{dr}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2f}{r^2}}\left((n2)f{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}+rf^{}nAr^2\right)\varphi (r)`$
$`=\omega ^2\varphi (r)r^{n1}.`$ (39)
In terms of Regge-Wheeler type coordinates $`drfdr_{}`$ and $`\varphi (r)\mathrm{\Phi }r^{(n1)/2}`$, this takes the form

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{dr_{}^2}V\left(r(r_{})\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega ^2\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(40)
where

$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda f}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left[(n2)(n10)1\right]f^2}{4r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(n5)ff^{}}{2r}}`$ (41)
$`+2nAf.`$
A requirement of finite energy is equivalent to the normalization condition that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2𝑑r_{}=f(r)^1\mathrm{\Phi }^2𝑑r`$ is finite. Usually, the stability of a potential depends on the eigenvalues of the Lichnerowicz operator, ensuring that the potential is positive and bounded from below.

### V.2 Stability of massless state in general relativity

The Schwarzschild black hole is stable in four dimensions Vishves70a . It is also learnt that a spherically symmetric AdS4 black hole is stable against small electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations Cardoso01a . The issue of instability of tensor modes, however, arises only for $`n+1>4`$ since there are no tensor harmonics on $`S^2`$ or $`H^2`$.

For a vanishing cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$), so that $`A=0`$, the spacetime metric is flat if the base is a sphere, and if the base is not a sphere then the full spacetime is a cone which is singular at the origin. Thus, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we must take $`k=1`$, so that $`f(r)1`$ asymptotically and $`r=r_{}`$. Then the asymptotic potential is

$$V_{\mathrm{}}(r)=\frac{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)1}{4r^2}=\frac{(2\nu 1)(2\nu +1)}{4r^2}.$$
(42)
This potential is non-negative only if

$`\lambda `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+(n2)(10n)}{4}},`$
$`or\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(n2)(n10)+4\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (43)
where $`V_{\mathrm{}}(r)=0`$ if equality holds. Stability of a potential requires that there are no bound negative energy states or no growing modes with $`\omega >0`$ at the horizon, if the latter exists. A requirement that $`\lambda >0`$ indeed constraints the spacetime dimensions $`D=(n+1)`$ to $`n10`$. The asymptotic solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ that decays as $`r`$ goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_1\sqrt{r}J_\nu \left(\sqrt{\omega ^2}r\right)+C_2\sqrt{r}Y_\nu \left(\sqrt{\omega ^2}r\right)`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left[\sqrt{r}K_\nu (\omega r)\right].`$
For small $`r`$ and a real positive $`\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ behaves as $`r^{\nu +1/2}`$. This solution is divergent but normalizable if $`1>\nu >1/2`$, and divergent and non-normalizable if $`\nu 1`$. For $`n10`$, an imaginary $`\nu `$ does not exist with a positive potential, while, for $`n>10`$, the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ may take a negative value, so $`\nu >1`$, but this solution is always non-normalizable.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, the potential (42) is modified to

$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)1}{4r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4l^2}}\right)`$
$`\times \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)`$
$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{4(\lambda n+1)+(n3)(n5)}{4x}}`$ (45)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4}}\left)\right(1+x),`$
where $`xr^2/l^2`$. This is always positive and bounded from below in satisfying Eq. (V.2). The Schrödinger equation may be expressed as a hypergeometric equation

$`x(x+1)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{(x+1)(3x+1)}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{4}}\times ({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)1}{4x}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2l^2}{(x+1)}})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0,`$ (46)
with no singularities in the range $`0<x<\mathrm{}`$. To simplify (V.2) one can make the following substitutions:

$`2\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)},\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{i\omega l}{2}},`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu (n2)}{4}},b=\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{2\nu +(n+2)}{4}},`$ (47)
$`c=\nu +1.`$
Under the decomposition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=x^{(1+2\nu )/4}(1+x)^\sigma \phi (x)`$, two independent solutions of Eq. (V.2) are found to be

$$\phi (x)=\{\begin{array}{c}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x),\hfill \\ x^{1c}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ac+1,bc+1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c;x),\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x)`$ is the hypergeometric function, and the parameter $`c0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ for the first solution, and $`c2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$ for the second solution. A general solution of Eq. (V.2) is given by a linear combination of

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^{(1\pm 2\nu )/4}(1+x)^{i\omega l/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu (n2)}{4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega l}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu +(n+2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega l}{2}};\pm \nu +1;x).`$
A stability check may be needed in both limits $`x0`$ and $`x\mathrm{}`$. This is the case studied by Gibbons and Hartnoll Gibbons02a  in some detail. For consideration of the $`\alpha >0`$ case in the next section, we briefly discuss first some important features of the solution with $`\alpha ^{}=0`$.

To study the asymptotic behavior, one uses the following relation of the hypergeometric functions Askey

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x)`$ $`=`$ $`h_1(x)^a{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,ac+1;ab+1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}})`$
$`+`$ $`h_2(x)^b{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b,bc+1;ba+1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}),`$
where

$$h_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ba)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)},h_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(ab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)}.$$
(51)
As $`x\mathrm{}`$, the asymptotic solution is given by

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x)=h_1(x)^a\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{a(ac+1)}{ab+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+\mathrm{}\right)`$
$`+h_2(x)^b\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{b(bc+1)}{ba+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (52)
The boundedness requires that as $`r\mathrm{}`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ must go as $`𝒪\left(r^{(n1)/2}\right)`$ or a lower power of $`r`$. A solution that has this behavior is given by a linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ such that the term $`(x)^b`$ of the two solutions cancels. Hence,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^{(n+1)/4+i\omega l/2}\left(1+x\right)^{i\omega l/2}`$ (53)
$`\times `$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2\nu +n+2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega l}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu +n+2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega l}{2}};`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}).`$
To evaluate the behavior as $`r0`$, one can apply Eq. (LABEL:infinite) to Eq. (53), replacing $`1/x`$ by $`x`$ for $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$. The leading behavior of the solution as $`x0`$ is given by $`𝒪\left(x^{(n+1+2\nu n2)/4}\right)𝒪\left(r^{(12\nu )/2}\right)`$. The range of convergence for $`c>a+b`$ is $`|x|<1`$ and $`x=1`$, which implies that $`0>i\omega l`$. That is, a situation that the hypergeometric series terminates for some special (positive) values of $`\omega `$ simply does not arise in the above case. As a result, the massless configurations where $``$ has constant positive ($`k=+1`$) curvature are stable under tensor perturbations.

### V.3 Instability of massless topological black holes

A dynamical instability of topological black holes in Einstein gravity, under tensor perturbations, was studied in Ref. Gibbons02a . So we will be brief in our analysis of this particular case, but we shall review some results reported earlier as a quantitative difference arises. For $`\alpha =0`$, and $`k=1`$, $`\mu =0`$, the metric solution is

$$f(r)=1+\frac{r^2}{l^2}.$$
(54)
The gravitational potential then takes the form

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{4(n1+\lambda )(n3)(n5)}{4x}}`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4}}\left)\right(x1),`$
where $`xr^2/l^2`$. One may easily check that this potential is positive for all values of $`x`$ only if

$$\lambda =53n\stackrel{~}{\lambda }.$$
(56)
This is a special situation. Since the Lichnerowicz spectrum is bounded below by $`\lambda _{min}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(n1)`$, the spacetime dimension $`n+1=4`$ is on the borderline for which $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda _{min}`$. For $`n+15`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is smaller than $`\lambda _{min}`$, and the potential can be negative and unbounded. More precisely, as the plots in Fig. 9 show, the potential is negative but bounded from below when

$$\lambda <\lambda _{crit}=\frac{(n2)(n10)1}{4},$$
(57)
and unbounded when $`\lambda \lambda _{crit}`$; the latter might signal instability of a massless topological black hole.

To gather more information, we need to solve the full differential equation. The Schrödinger equation, under the potential (55), may be expressed as

$`x(x1)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +1(n2)(n10)}{4x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2l^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x1}})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0.`$
(58)
Let us make the following substitutions:

$`2\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{4(2\lambda )+(n2)(n10)},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\omega l}{2}},`$
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }+(n+2)}{4}},b=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }(n2)}{4}},`$ (59)
$`c=\stackrel{~}{\nu }+1,`$
and decompose the harmonic function as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=x^{(3+2\stackrel{~}{\nu })/4}(x1)^{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}\phi (x)`$. Then two independent solutions of Eq. (V.3) are easily written as

$$\phi (x)=\{\begin{array}{c}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x),\hfill \\ x^{1c}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ac+1,bc+1;2c;x).\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
The general solution of Eq. (V.3) is given by a linear combination of the following two solutions:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (x)=x^{(3\pm 2\stackrel{~}{\nu })/4}(x1)^{\omega l/2}\times `$
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }+(n+2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega l}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{\nu }(n2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega l}{2}};`$
$`\pm \stackrel{~}{\nu }+1;x).`$ (61)
The boundedness requires that as $`r\mathrm{}`$ the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ must go as $`𝒪\left(r^{(n1)/2}\right)`$ or a lower power of $`r`$. The solution that has this behavior is given by a linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$ such that the term $`(x)^b`$ of two solutions cancel, and hence the asymptotic behavior goes like $`𝒪\left(x^{(3\pm 2\stackrel{~}{\nu }2\stackrel{~}{\nu }n2)/4}\right)𝒪\left(r^{(n1)/2}\right)`$. The solution that is well behaved as $`r\mathrm{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^{(2\omega ln+1)/4}(x1)^{\omega l/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }+n+2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega l}{2}},`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }+n+2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega l}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{2}};{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}).`$
We can find a new solution of the hypergeometric equation by using the relation

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;x)`$ $`=`$ $`k_1{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;a+b+1c;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}x)`$ (63)
$`+k_2(1x)^{cab}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(cb,ca;`$
$`1+cab;1x),`$
where

$$k_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)},k_2=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(c+a+b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}.$$
(64)
For a generic solution with $`k_1,k_20`$, the dominant term as $`x1`$ is $`𝒪\left((x1)^{\omega l/2}\right)`$. This solution is not square integrable at $`x=1`$. In the special case, with $`k_1=0`$, which is accomplished by choosing $`c=a`$ or $`c=b`$, one finds a solution with better behavior at $`x=1`$. In this case, the leading term as $`x1`$ is

$$(x1)^{\omega l/2}\left(\frac{x1}{x}\right)^{\omega l}=𝒪\left((x1)^{\omega l/2}\right).$$
(65)
This solution is normalizable and bounded at the horizon for $`\omega >0`$. However, the condition that either $`(ca)`$ or $`(cb)`$ is zero would be that

$$\omega =\left(\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\nu }(n+2)}{2l}\right)>0.$$
(66)
This holds if $`2\stackrel{~}{\nu }>n+2`$ or equivalently, $`\lambda _{min}<(64n)`$ \[cf., Eq. (V.3)\], which is not allowed since the Lichnerowicz spectrum is bounded below by $`\lambda _{min}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(n1)`$. In the following range of the eigenvalues, which are allowed in the theory such that $`2\stackrel{~}{\nu }>1`$:

$$\frac{(n2)(n10)1}{4}\lambda <\frac{(n2)(n10)+8}{4},$$
(67)
we still have $`\lambda >\lambda _{min}`$, the gravitational potential is always unbounded from below. In Gibbons02a  a massless $`k=1`$ background was expected to be classically gravitationally stable if the $`\lambda >\lambda _{crit}`$. Whether this interpretation is correct is not clear a priori since one would not expect to have a classically stable background if the potential is negative and unbounded from below.

In Aros02a , by taking the massless $`k=1`$ black hole itself as a ground state, an analytic result for the quasinormal modes of a scalar perturbation was presented for $`n3`$. Here we emphasize that a metric background with $`k=1`$ and $`\mu =0`$ may be unstable under tensor perturbations. Let us give some specific examples. Instability of the $`\mu =0`$, $`k=1`$ spacetime may arise when

$`n=4:{\displaystyle \frac{13}{4}}\lambda <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},`$
$`n=6:{\displaystyle \frac{17}{4}}\lambda <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},`$
$`n=9:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\lambda <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}.`$
In these ranges, the gravitational potential is negative and unbounded from below. Although a negative potential does not necessarily imply instability of a background, an unbounded potential certainly signals instability of the background metric with $`\mu =0`$ and $`k=1`$.

### V.4 Stability of negative mass extremal state

When $`\alpha ^{}=0`$, the extremal solution is given by

$$f(r)=1+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+B\left(\frac{l}{r}\right)^{n2},B=2\sqrt{\frac{(n2)^{n2}}{n^n}}.$$
(68)
The gravitational potential therefore reads

$`V(r)`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{4(n1+\lambda )(n3)(n5)}{4r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n+1)}{4l^2}}`$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B(n1)^2l^{n2}}{4r^n}}\left]\right[1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}+B\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{r}}\right)^{n2}].`$
The spacetime one is allowed to take is $`r>r_{extr}=l\sqrt{(n2)/n}`$.

For $`n=4`$, the metric function (68) takes the form

$$f(x)=\frac{(2x1)^2}{4x},$$
(70)
where $`xr^2/l^2`$ is a dimensionless scale. As there is no cosmological horizon for an extremal solution, the perturbation extends to $`x\mathrm{}`$. The potential

$$V(x)=\frac{1}{l^2}\left(\frac{4(3+\lambda )+1}{4x}+\frac{15}{4}\frac{9}{16x^2}\right)\left(\frac{(2x1)^2}{4x}\right)$$
(71)
vanishes at the extremal horizon $`2x=1`$, but it is everywhere positive outside the extremal horizon. Under this potential, the Schrödinger equation takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2x1)^2}{8x^2}}[2x(2x1)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(x)+(4x^21)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x({\displaystyle \frac{4(3+\lambda )+1}{4x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16x^2}})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)]`$
$`\omega ^2l^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0.`$ (72)
The condition of boundedness is automatic, because it simply requires that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ is bounded at $`2x=1`$, where $`f(x)=0`$. The finite energy condition will be that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ goes to zero on the extremal horizon, because the zero of $`f(x)`$ is simple. We can get some insights into the stability of the solutions also by inspecting the plots for the gravitational potential.

The hypergeometric equation (V.4) can be solved exactly only for the $`\omega =0`$ modes:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(2x1)^{\gamma /4}x^{3/4}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;1;2x)`$ (73)
$`+c_2(2x1)^{\gamma /4}x^{3/4}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;1,2x)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{(2x1)^{1+\gamma /2}}{x\left[{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;1;2x)\right]^2}}dx,`$
where

$$\gamma =\sqrt{2\lambda +32},a=\frac{6\gamma }{4},b=\frac{(2+\gamma )}{4}.$$
(74)
This solution converges at $`2x=1`$ for any eigenvalue $`\lambda >\lambda _{crit}`$, and also in the range (67), and it is also normalizable there. The situation is similar in the $`n>4`$ case. Now for the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ in the range given by Eq. (67), where one might expect instability to arise for a massless background, the potential is bounded and positive. Therefore, in the spacetime region $`rr_{extr}`$, the potential is always positive, tending to zero at the extremal state. This means that the extremal ground state may be stable under tensor perturbation.

For $`n=6`$, the metric function (68) takes the form

$$f(x)=\frac{(3x+1)(3x2)^2}{27x^2},$$
(75)
and the corresponding potential is

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +17}{4x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{27x^2}}\right)`$ (76)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{(3x+1)(3x2)^2}{27x^2}}\right).`$
This does not cover the small $`x`$ region; for example, when $`\lambda =13/4`$, the potential is not bounded from below when $`x<0.27`$. That is, the spacetime region $`r<r_e`$ may have an internal infinity, where the potential is not well behaved, and the reference spacetime is incomplete in Einstein gravity, especially for the $`k=1`$ case. This is clearly seen from the plots of gravitational potential $`V(r)`$ vs horizon position in Fig. 10. This problem may be resolved once the background metric and hence the potential receives higher derivative curvature corrections.

## VI Gauss-Bonnet black holes and Gravitational Stability

In this section, we study the stability of metric backgrounds with a non trivial GB coupling. With $`\mu =0`$, the AdS vacuum solution is given by

$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}}\right)k+Cr^2.$$
(77)
In this case, for any $`k`$, the spacetime metric has constant curvature. However, for $`k=1`$, we take the negative mass extremal state as a ground state, which reads in five spacetime dimensions as

$$f(r)=1+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\left[1\sqrt{\left(1\frac{4\alpha }{l^2}\right)\left(1\frac{\alpha l^2}{r^4}\right)}\right].$$
(78)
The metric spacetime is only asymptotically locally AdS, which can be easily seen by allowing a particular coupling. The requirement that $`4\alpha <l^2`$ is complementary to the condition $`r^2l^2/2`$.

### VI.1 Stability of a massless Gauss-Bonnet black hole

As shown in the previous section, for $`\alpha =0`$, the AdS black holes with $`\mu =0`$ and $`k=+1`$ are stable under tensor perturbations. Here we extend this analysis for a non trivial GB coupling. The background metric function, with $`\alpha >0`$ and $`k=+1`$, is

$$f(r)=1+Cr^2,\frac{1}{C}\frac{2\alpha }{1\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{n(n1)}}}>0.$$
(79)
Let us introduce a dimensionless scale $`x=Cr^2`$; then the corresponding Schrödinger equation may be expressed as a hypergeometric equation

$`x(x+1)^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{(x+1)(3x+1)}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)1}{4x}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n^28n1+d}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{(x+1)C}})\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=0,`$ (80)
where

$`d={\displaystyle \frac{8nC}{(12C\alpha )}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{1\left(12C\alpha \right)}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{C\alpha (3n^23n+2)}{n(n3)}}\right].`$
We shall choose the minus sign of the $``$ in Eq. (79) or in Eq. (VI.1), because only this branch gives a stable solution in all dimensions (Fig. 11). Another reason for choosing the negative sign is that, for this branch, in the limit $`\alpha 0`$, the black hole solutions reduce to that of Einstein gravity.

The hypergeometric equation (VI.1) may be solved exactly, and two independent solutions are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^{(1\pm 2\nu )/4}(1+x)^{i\omega /2\sqrt{C}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu 2\beta +2}{4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{2\sqrt{C}}},{\displaystyle \frac{\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \pm 2\beta +2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{2\sqrt{C}}};\pm \nu +1;x),`$
where $`\nu =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4\lambda +(n2)(n10)}`$ and $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{n^28n+d}`$. To determine the conditions for stability, with real $`\nu `$ and $`\beta `$, we need to satisfy

$$\lambda \lambda _{crit}=\frac{1+(n2)(10n)}{4},d8nn^2+1.$$
(83)
The first constraint is the same as in the $`\alpha =0`$ case, where $`d=8n`$, so $`2\beta =n`$. We may derive a more useful constraint for $`C\alpha `$ from the condition $`d(8nn^2+1)`$, so $`2\beta 1`$, which implies that

$$C\alpha \frac{(n3)(n1)}{2(n^2+11)}.$$
(84)
Using Eq. (79), along with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/(2l^2)`$, we find

$$\frac{\alpha }{l^2}\frac{(n3)(n1)(n^2+4n+19)}{4(n^2+11)^2}.$$
(85)
For $`n+1=5`$, one finds $`\alpha /l^217/324`$. The bound $`\alpha /l^2<17/324`$ required here to keep the potential non-negative at the linearized level already puts a stronger bound to $`\alpha /l^2`$ than needed for thermodynamic (or dynamical) stability, namely, $`\alpha /l^21/12`$.

By the same argument as for the pure AdS case with $`\alpha =0`$, the solution that is well behaved as $`x\mathrm{}`$ is given by the linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm `$, which reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^{(2\beta +1)/4+i\omega /2\sqrt{C}}\left(1+x\right)^{i\omega /2\sqrt{C}}`$ (86)
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{2\beta +2\nu +2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{2\sqrt{C}}},{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta 2\nu +2}{4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{2\sqrt{C}}};\beta +1;{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}).`$
In the $`\alpha =0`$ case, the leading behavior as $`r\mathrm{}`$ goes as $`𝒪\left(r^{(n+1)/2}\right)`$, while as $`r0`$ it goes as $`𝒪\left(r^{12\nu )/2}\right)`$. Both these solutions converge, and are normalizable only if $`2\nu <1`$, that is, if $`4\lambda <1+(n2)(10n)`$. However, in this limit, there may be a continuum of negative energy bound states due to a negative (or unbounded) potential. Fortunately, these solutions do not satisfy the usual boundedness condition

$$\varphi ^2\frac{r^{n1}}{f(r)}𝑑r=1,$$
(87)
because $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }r^{(n1)/2}r^n`$ diverges at the origin. Thus, for the $`k=+1`$ case, a zero mass background is stable under tensor perturbations Gibbons02a , and this is true also for the $`\alpha >0`$ solution, in satisfying Eq. (85). In the latter case, the leading behavior of the solution as $`x0`$ is given by $`𝒪\left(x^{(2\beta +1+2\nu 2\beta 2)/4}\right)𝒪\left(r^{(12\nu )/2}\right)`$. However, for the positive root in Eq. (79), the gravitational potential is unbounded when $`n7`$ and is unstable as in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case Deser85a .

### VI.2 Potential for extremal background

For $`\alpha >0`$, the $`\mu _{extr}<0`$, $`k=1`$ (extremal) background does not have constant curvature. The perturbation equations would involve terms like $`a(l^6/r^8)`$ and higher powers of $`(l/r)`$, with some constant $`a`$, namely, $`a1`$ when $`\alpha l^2`$. This complicates the process for finding an exact solution to the Schrödinger equation. But, in the limit $`\alpha l^2`$, as well as $`r^2>2\alpha `$, we may get some approximate ideas about the stability of an extremal background by inspecting the gravitational potential.

For $`k=1`$, the gravitational potential, when $`\alpha /l^2`$ or/and $`r^2>2\alpha `$, may be given by

$`V(r)`$ $``$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda +13}{4r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{17}{8\alpha }}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(l^24\alpha )r^4}{(r^4\alpha l^2)l^2}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{17}{8\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{13l^4}{8(l^2\alpha )r^4}})+{\displaystyle \frac{4(2l^219\alpha )}{l^2(l^22\alpha )}}]f(r),`$
where one reads $`f(r)`$ from Eq. (78). For a small coupling $`\alpha l^2`$, the gravitational potential (VI.2) can be bounded from below for all eigenvalues satisfying $`\lambda >\lambda _{crit}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}/4`$. The coupling $`\alpha /l^2`$ is an equally important parameter for the dynamical stability of the background. As the plots in Fig. 12 show, when $`\alpha /l^21/18`$ holds, the potential is bounded from below and is positive for large $`r`$, but it can be negative and unbounded for $`\alpha /l^2>1/18`$. It is quite interesting that the above constraint for $`\alpha /l^2`$, which we actually derived for $`k=+1`$, is also effective in the $`k=1`$ case.

It is possible that the form of the gravitational potential would be modified at small scales, namely, $`r^2<l^2/2`$, due to terms like $`l^6/r^8`$, and also due to additional higher derivative curvature corrections, like $`R^4`$ terms. However, any corrections to the potential coming from them would contribute only in the order of $`1/r^8`$, so they will not destabilize the potential for large $`r`$, as well as for small $`r`$, but in the limit $`\alpha l^2`$ and $`r^2>2\alpha `$.

For $`k=1`$, the base manifold has negative curvature, so a negative potential does not imply instability of the background, if it can be bounded from below. We can be a little more precise here. The Breitenloher-Freedman bound $`\lambda >n^2/4`$, which may be required for the positivity of energy (or unitarity) in AdSn+1 spacetime, is $`\lambda >\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}`$, when $`n+1=5`$. In our case, we must satisfy $`\lambda >\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}/4`$, such that the potential is bounded from below and positive for large $`r`$, which gives a stronger bound for the stability of an extremal background than the Breitenloher-Freedman bound.

A bounded and positive potential implies that there are no unstable modes. For a small but non zero GB coupling, hyperbolic black holes whose ground state is the extremal metric with a negative mass may be stable under tensor perturbations. What we have shown here is that the extremal black holes are also local minima of the energy under small metric perturbations.

## VII Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented three important ideas together: (i) the choice of a ground state for AdS black hole spacetimes with flat, spherical, and hyperbolic horizons, (ii) the thermodynamic stability of hyperbolic AdS black holes, and (iii) the gravitational (or dynamical) stability of AdS black hole spacetime of dimension $`D>4`$ under linear (metric) perturbations.

Having clarified which backgrounds should be used for AdS black hole spacetimes with flat, spherical, or hyperbolic horizons, we computed the Gauss-Bonnet curvature corrections to the AdS black hole thermodynamics, using the standard regularization method of Refs. Hawking83a ; Witten98a , which follow by the subtraction of divergences from a reference state to which the black hole solution is asymptotically matched. The extremal black holes are found to be local minima of the energy for anti–de Sitter black hole spacetimes with hyperbolic event horizons.

AdS5 hyperbolic black holes present some interesting features, such as that the free energy and the entropy are dependent on the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $`\alpha `$ but the total energy is not. This equally explores the possibility that the entropy and free energy of hyperbolic AdS black holes scale with the coupling of $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections when going from strong to weak coupling limits, as in Emparan99b ; Klemm99a .

We have shown that, for thermodynamic stability of hyperbolic black holes, the specific heat and the extremal entropy have to be positive on the background. By considering free energy curves, the corresponding thermal phase diagrams are obtained for $`n=4`$ and $`n=6`$ in the limits of small and large Gauss-Bonnet couplings. Our results appear to suggest that the GB type corrections to the black hole thermodynamics do not give rise to a Hawking-Page transition as a function of temperature for flat and hyperbolic event horizons.

We have shown that a stable branch of small spherical black holes will occur when the coupling $`\alpha `$ is small. More specifically, in the AdS5 case, a first order thermal phase transition may be observed for a small GB coupling, namely, $`\alpha <0.0278l^2`$. In addition, the Hawking-Page transition temperature decreases when the coupling of $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections is increased. This behavior is seen in all spacetime dimensions $`D5`$.

We have also explored the gravitational (or dynamical) stability of higher dimensional AdS black hole spacetimes, with and without a Gauss-Bonnet term, against metric perturbations. Our result suggests that a base manifold $``$ with a negative constant curvature can be unstable under tensor perturbations if the background is a massless topological black hole. For solutions of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory, one may have potentials which are positive and bounded from below, when the coupling constant $`\alpha ^{}`$ is small, that is, $`\alpha l^2`$.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Danny Birmingham, Rong-Gen Cai, Chiang-Mei Chen, Roberto Emparan, Sean Hartnoll, Pei-Ming Ho, Miao Li, Shin’ichi Nojiri, Sergi Odintsov, Sumati Surya and John Wang for numerous helpful conversations and insightful comments. I would also like to acknowledge the warm hospitality of the CERN theory group where a part of the work was done. This work was partially supported by the NSC and the center for Theoretical Physics at NTU, Taiwan.

## Appendix: Linearized Curvature Terms for $`R^2`$ Gravity

Under a linear perturbation

$$\overline{g}_{ab}g_{ab}=\overline{g}_{ab}+h_{ab},g^{ab}=\overline{g}^{ab}h^{ab},$$
(A1)
with $`|h_b^a|<<1`$, the curvatures transform as IPN01d

$`R_{abc}^d`$ $``$ $`R_{abc}^d\overline{}_{[a}\overline{}_{|c|}h_{b]}^d+\overline{}_{[a}\overline{}^dh_{b]c},`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\overline{R}_{abe}^dh_c^e\overline{R}_{abc}^eh_e^d\right),`$
$`R_{ab}`$ $``$ $`R_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)h_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{}_a\overline{}_bh+\overline{}_{(a}\overline{}^ch_{b)c},`$
$`R`$ $``$ $`R\overline{R}_{ab}h^{ab}\overline{}^2h+\overline{}_a\overline{}_bh^{ab},`$ (A2)
where $`h=h_p^p`$. The Lichnerowicz operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ acting on a symmetric second rank tensor $`h_{ab}`$ reads as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_Lh\right)_{ab}=\overline{}^c\overline{}_ch_{ab}2\overline{R}_{acbd}h^{cd}+2\overline{R}_{(a}^ch_{b)c}.$$
(A3)
Diffeomorphism under $`h_{ab}h_{ab}+\overline{}_a\xi _b+\overline{}_b\xi _a`$ implies a gauge invariance of the linearized theory. One of the physical gauges is the transverse (or harmonic) gauge

$$\overline{}^a\widehat{h}_{ab}\overline{}^a\left(h_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}h_c^c\right)=0.$$
(A4)
The Lichnerowicz operator is then compatible with the transverse trace-free condition $`h_c^c=\overline{}^ah_{ab}=0`$. This gauge does not eliminate all of the gauge freedom, but does simplify the perturbation equations

$$\delta R_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_L\right)_{ab}.$$
(A5)
### 1. Background solutions

The Einstein field equations modified by a Gauss-Bonnet term and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are

$$R_{ab}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n1}g_{ab}=16\pi G_{n+1}\alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1}{n1}Hg_{ab}2H_{ab}\right)$$
(A6)
where $`H_{ab}=RR_{ab}2R_{acbd}R^{cd}+R_{acde}R_b^{cde}2R_{ac}R_b^c`$ and $`H=H_a^a`$. For $`\alpha ^{}>0`$, the metric solution is

$$f(r)=k+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\left(1\sqrt{1+\frac{8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }}{n(n1)}+\frac{4\alpha \mu }{r^n}}\right),$$
(A7)
where $`\alpha =16\pi G(n2)(n3)\alpha ^{}`$. For $`k=+1`$, the background (AdS vacuum) is given by the setting $`\mu =0`$. Then Eq. (A7) takes the form

$$f(r)=1+Cr^2,C\frac{1\sqrt{1+8\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }/n(n1)}}{2\alpha },$$
(A8)
where $`C`$ has the dimension $`(\text{length})^2`$. This corresponds to a maximally symmetric space, namely,

$$R_{abcd}=C\left(g_{ac}g_{bd}g_{ad}g_{bd}\right).$$
(A9)
Then the cosmological constant is fixed as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{n(n1)C}{2}\left(1\alpha C\right).$$
(A10)
Finally, for a spherically symmetric solution, one has

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2\alpha }}\left[1\sqrt{14\alpha C(1\alpha C)}\right]`$ (A11)
$`=`$ $`1+Cr^2,1+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\alpha }}Cr^2.`$
By replacing $`C`$ with $`1/\mathrm{}^2`$, we find $`f(r)=1+r^2/\mathrm{}^2`$. Thus, for a spherically symmetric solution, the AdS vacuum of the Einstein theory is also the vacuum of the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory, although the black hole solutions (which are given by $`\mu 0`$) with $`\alpha >0`$ are very different from the solutions with $`\alpha =0`$.

### 2. Linearized equations

In the background of Eq. (A9), the variations of the curvature terms are given by

$`\delta \left(RR_{ab}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`n(n+1)C\delta R_{ab}nC\delta R,`$
$`\delta \left(R_{acde}R_b^{cde}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}C\delta R_{ab}+2C^2\left(h_{ab}\overline{g}_{ab}h\right),`$
$`\delta \left(R_a^cR_{bc}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}nC\delta R_{ab}n^2C^2h_{ab},`$
$`\delta \left(R_{acbd}R^{cd}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{nC^2}{2}}\left((n+3)h_{ab}\overline{g}_{ab}h\right)`$ (A12)
$`(n1)C\delta R_{ab}\overline{g}_{ab}C\delta R,`$
and

$`\delta \left(g_{ab}\left(R^24R_{ab}R^{ab}+R_{abcd}R^{abcd}\right)\right)`$
$`=n(n2)(n1)(n+1)C^2h_{ab}`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(n1)(n2)C\delta R.`$ (A13)
Therefore, the field equations (A6) reduce to the form

$`\left(12C\alpha \right)\delta R_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`nC(1C\alpha )h_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{2(n^2+1)\alpha }{n3}}C^2h_{ab}`$ (A14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha C}{n3}}\left(\delta R+C\overline{g}_{ab}h\right).`$
For an extremal metric background, however, Eq. (A14) may be used only for large $`r`$. For a small coupling $`\alpha /\mathrm{}^2`$, under the rescaling $`l^2\mathrm{}^2/(1\alpha /\mathrm{}^2)`$ in five dimensions, the extremal solution is

$$f(r)=1+\frac{r^2}{2\alpha }\frac{\mathrm{}^22\alpha }{2\alpha }\sqrt{\left(\frac{r^4}{\mathrm{}^4}\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}^2\alpha }\right)}.$$
(A15)
Therefore, in the limit $`\alpha 0`$, one has

$$f(r)1+\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4r^2}=\frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2r^2}\right)^2.$$
(A16)
The solution with $`\alpha >0`$ is only asymptotically locally AdS; viz., when $`\alpha =\mathrm{}^2/5`$, the curvatures are

$`R_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^6}{r^8}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{12}}}\right)=R_1^1,`$
$`R_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^6}{r^8}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{12}}}\right)\right]\delta _i^j.`$ (A17)
Although the subleading terms are much suppressed for $`r>\mathrm{}`$, for the extremal background there are extra contributions on the right hand side of Eq. (A14).


format: text

text:
# Proton vs. neutron halo breakup

## I I. INTRODUCTION.

This paper is concerned with the differences which might arise in reactions initiated by a neutron halo nucleus like 11Be and a proton halo nucleus like 17F or 8B. Halo nuclei are a special case of radioactive beams for which the last nucleon is very weakly bound, with separation energies of the order of 0.5 MeV or less, and in a state of low angular momentum (l=0,1). They exhibit extreme properties like very large total and breakup cross sections. Nuclear and Coulomb breakup of neutron halo nuclei have been studied in great detail both experimentally as well as theoretically and are now quite well understood processes hs . On the other hand proton halo nuclei such as 8B and 17F are still under investigation. Their behavior as projectiles of nuclear reactions needs to be understood better in particular as 8B is partner in (p,$`\gamma `$) radiative capture reactions of great astrophysical interest for the understanding of the neutrino flux from the sun (see for example the discussion and references of dave ). Also the existence of a proton halo has sometimes been questioned kelly  and results from different experiments might seem to be contradictory gai . For those nuclei Coulomb breakup reactions in the laboratory have been used to get indirect information on the radiative capture, since it has been shown that the Coulomb breakup cross section is proportional to the radiative capture cross section ber .

In the case of neutrons the Coulomb breakup cross section is largest for heavy targets and the interplay with nuclear breakup is well understood both experimentally as well as theoretically, in particular thanks to the measurements of angular distributions for both processes anne ; nak94 ; bon98a ; mar02 . Then 208Pb and 58Ni have been used as targets with beams of 8B or of 17F at various energies dave mot -blan . Data on lighter targets such as 9Be and 28Si kelly ; borcea ; neg  also exist. At the same time a number of theoretical papers have appeared dealing with the problem of the accuracy necessary to interpret the data fil -tt . In particular the problems of higher order effects in Coulomb breakup, of the inclusion of E0, E1, and E2 multipolarities in the Coulomb field and of the relative magnitude of nuclear and Coulomb contributions and of their interference have been discussed at length.

A number of experimental papers neg ; blan  have shown that for a 8B projectile it is the nuclear breakup and in particular the stripping (or absorption) borcea ; neg  component that dominates the experimental cross section. In borcea ; neg  a 28Si target was used and different beam energies around 40A.MeV were explored. The data of Table I of neg  show that stripping (110$`\pm `$ 9 mb) is very close to the total diffraction (112$`\pm `$ 12mb) which contains both nuclear and Coulomb components. On the other hand at the same beam energy and on the same target the one neutron breakup of 11Be, measured by neg2  and calculated by abfc  gave a stripping cross section of 220 mb and a total diffraction of 300 mb of which 120 mb from Coulomb breakup. These results could be considered rather astonishing in view of the fact that the proton in 8B has a separation energy of 0.14 MeV while the neutron separation energy in 11Be is larger and equal to 0.5 MeV. On the other hand the data of blan  for the breakup of 8B on 208Pb at 142A.MeV provided a one-proton removal cross section of 744$`\pm `$9 mb of which about 300-450 mb were estimated to be due to nuclear breakup and 311 mb to Coulomb breakup. This is again a surprising result because for the system 11Be+208Pb at 120A.MeV it was calculated in mar02  that the cross sections would be 321 mb for nuclear breakup and 1050 mb for Coulomb breakup, the model of mar02  being very reliable as it agrees with exclusive data anne . Similarly, the recent data from GSI lola  at the relativistic beam energy of 936 A.MeV give for the one proton removal cross section of 8B on 208Pb and 12C, 662$`\pm `$60 mb and 94$`\pm `$8mb respectively while at a similar energy (790A.MeV) the one neutron removal from 11Be on the same targets was 960$`\pm `$60mb and 169$`\pm `$4 respectively kob .

On the other hand, very recently a new theoretical work has appeared where the authors treat the nuclear breakup of 17F to first order berpaw , contrary to what it has been established in the literature, namely that halo breakup should be treated to all orders in the neutron-target interaction. An a posteriori justification of the approach of Bertulani and Danielewicz berpaw  is that the calculated nuclear breakup is larger by several orders of magnitude than the Coulomb breakup. In fact the approach of berpaw  can be justified with the results of another theoretical work by Esbensen and Bertsch esbber1  on the proton halo nucleus 8B, where it was shown that starting from about 40 A.MeV in the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$, dynamical calculations and first order perturbation theory with or without far field approximation, yields nearly the same Coulomb breakup cross sections for distances of closest approach for the core target trajectory of 20 fm or larger. Also in esbber  the same authors found that for 17F nuclear diffraction and Coulomb breakup have very similar probabilities to occur and the values are also close to those for nuclear stripping. An earlier calculation by Esbensen and Hencken esbhenk  showed that nuclear one proton removal cross sections for a 8B projectile would be larger than Coulomb cross sections up to target mass AT=100. Similar conclusions were reached by Dasso, Lenzi and Vitturi DLV .

In order to get some insight into the peculiarities of the proton halo reactions, in particular in comparison to neutron halos, we introduce here an effective treatment of proton single particle states which simplifies their treatment and makes them behaving as neutrons. Related approaches have recently been introduced by other authors carmen . We do not propose our method as opposed to dynamical calculations, but we are simply concerned with the understanding of the underlying physics and the interpretation of numerical results from more sophisticated methods such as direct solutions of the Schrödinger equation or coupled channels.

We show in the following how to treat proton transfer and breakup in a way that is similar to neutron transfer and breakup by using an effective potential in which the weakly bound protons behave as “normally” bound neutrons and then we come to some simple conclusions. The basic idea is that breakup is a kind of “transfer to the continuum” and as such its main features come from matching conditions and Q-value effects bon99 .

## II Proton vs. neutron: effective potential

We begin this section by noticing the differences in the treatment of a neutron halo breakup and a proton halo breakup. In ref.mar02  the neutron breakup was studied to all orders in the nuclear and Coulomb fields. The nuclear potential responsible for the neutron transition to the continuum was taken to be the neutron-target optical potential. On the other hand it was shown that Coulomb breakup originates from an effective repulsive force acting on the neutron and due to the core-target Coulomb potential. If we were to extend the same model to proton breakup we should add the two Coulomb interactions of the proton itself with its core in the initial state and with the target in the final state. Now, because of the slow variation of the Coulomb field, we can use the adiabatic approximation or frozen halo rj , for these two Coulomb interactions which make the proton breakup different from the neutron breakup. The detailed derivation of the formalism is given in the Appendix.

The effect of the proton-core and proton-target Coulomb potentials can be understood qualitatively by discussing Fig. 1 which shows the potentials felt by a neutron (dashed line) and a proton (full line) in 8B, 17F, 58Ni and 208Pb. Supposing the two particles have the same binding energy $`\epsilon _i<0`$ the proton wave function inside the potential of Fig. 1 is like a neutron wave function with binding energy $`\epsilon _iZ_Pe^2/R_i`$ up to the radius $`R_i`$. The proton potential is like the neutron potential pushed up by $`Z_Pe^2/R_i`$ where $`R_i`$ is the barrier radius. For any given nucleus this radius is rather larger than the nuclear or Coulomb radius values usually quoted in the literature. But from Fig. 1 one can see that it is the value corresponding to the barrier peak. We give these values in Table I, together with the experimental binding energies of the halo state in 8B and of two states in 17F .

But as it is shown in the Appendix, in a scattering process there is also an effect due to the Coulomb potential of the projectile. It can be understood by looking at Fig. 2 which shows the nuclear-Coulomb potentials for $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}+^{58}\mathrm{Ni}`$ (top) and $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}+^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ (bottom) at several distances. Short and long dashed lines are the separate projectile and target potentials respectively. Full line is the projectile-target combined potential. The effect of the target potential on the projectile potential is actually twofold:

* the center of the projectile potential shifts up by an amount $`Z_Te^2/d`$ where $`d`$ is the distance of closest approach between the two nuclei.
* the height of the barrier on the side near the target goes up by an amount $`Z_Te^2/|dR_i|`$ relative to the center. While on the other side it goes up by $`Z_Te^2/|d+R_i|`$.

This suggests that the true binding energy $`\epsilon _i`$ could be replaced by

$$\epsilon _i\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i=\epsilon _i\mathrm{\Delta }_i.$$
(1)
Where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\frac{Z_Pe^2}{R_i}+Z_Te^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{|d+R_i|}+\frac{1}{|dR_i|}\right)\frac{1}{d}\right).$$
(2)
$`\frac{Z_Te^2}{2}\left(\frac{1}{|d+R_i|}+\frac{1}{|dR_i|}\right)`$ is the average effect of the target Coulomb potential at the points $`r=\pm R_i`$ on the left and right sides of the projectile.

In the reactions we are discussing the initial states are always bound. According to Eq.(1) they will be shifted down by a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Therefore the phase space for breakup states will be reduced and thus breakup probabilities for protons will be smaller than for neutrons having the same binding energy. Furthermore there will be an important target dependence.

Then we conclude that some features of proton breakup could be understood by analogy with neutron breakup by using effective parameters in the following way:

* use effective $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i`$ calculated from

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i^2}{2m}=|\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i|$$
(3)
* calculate the normalization constants $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ of asymptotic wave functions picc  as for neutron wave functions with binding energies $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i`$.

The approach here corresponds to an adiabatic approximation for the effect of the Coulomb force of one nucleus on the other and it was introduced for the first time in Ref.9  where it was also shown that it is equivalent to the sudden approximation which was instead discussed in Ref.10 . We used it already in 2  to discuss the proton transfer to the continuum reaction $`{}_{}{}^{197}\mathrm{Au}(^{20}\mathrm{Ne},^{19}\mathrm{Fl})^{198}\mathrm{Hg}`$ wald . The approximation of using effective parameters for protons so that they could be treated similarly to neutrons has a long story in direct reaction theories, see for example bw . However it is worth noticing that the definitions Eqs.(1) used here represent a generalization and improvement with respect to those used in 9 ; 10 ; bw . This is because we not only take into account the effect of the Coulomb barrier in the projectile and target potentials, but also consider the ”polarization” effect that the target Coulomb potential has on the projectile and vice versa. As Fig. 2 (bottom part) shows, in the case of a light projectile and a heavy target, the long range effect of the Coulomb potential gives a considerable shift upwards of the projectile potential. The importance of such effects and the meaning of the approach discussed here will be clearer later on when we will discuss Fig. 3 for the wave functions.

From Fig. 2 one sees clearly that the effect of the barrier is very important even at distances as large as 30 fm. In order to quantize the effects discussed above we give in Table I the barrier radii, called $`R_i`$ and $`R_f`$, for two nuclei usually used as projectiles $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$, and for $`{}_{}{}^{58}\mathrm{Ni}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$, which have been used as targets. In this case $`R_f`$ has been taken as the barrier radius which can be deduced from Fig. 1. In Table II we give the effective energy shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the effective binding energies for the possible projectile-target combinations discussed in this paper. For completeness we add the effective length parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i`$ and asymptotic normalization constants $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ of the initial asymptotic wave functions. It is indeed the tail of the wave function which determines the main characteristics of the breakup mechanism (bbst  and references therein).

We illustrate the last point by Fig. 3 where the dashed lines represent the proton single particle wave functions corresponding to the three initial states of Table I, calculated in a Woods-Saxon plus spin-orbit bbst  plus Coulomb potential with parameters: $`r_0=1.27fma=0.65fmV_{so}=7MeVr_c=1.3fm`$. The Woods-Saxon depth is fitted to give the correct binding energy. The solid lines represent the neutron wave functions calculated with the effective binding energies in the case of the $`{}_{}{}^{58}\mathrm{Ni}`$ target. One sees clearly that in each case the true proton wave function is very close to the “effective energy” neutron wave function. We remind the reader that at small distances the breakup is strongly reduced due to the core-target absorption into more complicated reaction channels.

From the values shown one clearly sees that the proton halo behaves in a breakup reaction with a heavy target as a neutron state bound with a “normal” energy of several MeV, for which it is very well known that the nuclear breakup is comparable to the Coulomb breakup and on the other hand that the stripping is dominant on diffraction end ; in ; hl .

To give an idea of the orders of magnitude involved, we have calculated total breakup cross sections for two reactions: $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{Be}^{10}\mathrm{Be}+n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}(1/2^+)^{16}\mathrm{O}+p`$, both at 40 A.MeV on a $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ target. Nuclear and Coulomb breakup of $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{Be}`$ have been studied in many experiments on heavy targets and absolute breakup cross sections are very well known anne ; nak94 . For Coulomb breakup we used first order perturbation theory and for nuclear breakup we used the transfer to the continuum model bon99 ; 2 . Our aim here is only to give some order of magnitude estimates. For the breakup of $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ we used a neutron wave function and the “effective parameters” of Table II. The values obtained are given in Table III. In the case of $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{Be}`$ we have used a spectroscopic factor $`\mathrm{C}^2\mathrm{S}=0.77`$ for the initial state, while for $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ we have used a unit spectroscopic factor. One sees that for the proton “halo” state in $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ there is a strong reduction of about a factor seven for Coulomb breakup and of a factor four for diffraction because both require the neutron to be in a final free particle state, which is obviously less probable the stronger the “effective binding” of the nucleon in the initial state. For stripping instead the reduction is just a factor three. It is interesting to note that the reduction in the proton removal cross sections from $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ as compared to $`{}_{}{}^{11}\mathrm{Be}`$ calculated here and in berpaw  would be stronger than the reduction already seen in the data for $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ discussed in the Introduction. This is because $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ has a larger $`Z_P`$ than $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ and therefore as shown in Fig. 2 and Table II its effective separation energies are larger.

It appears also clear that under such conditions Coulomb and nuclear breakup could not need to be calculated to all orders. Also the effect of the “effective parameters” introduced here has to be studied in more detail and results should be compared to full dynamical calculations.

## III Conclusions

In this paper we have tried to draw the attention to the physical origins of the differences in the behavior in a reaction of a proton halo nucleus as compared to a neutron halo. We have shown that if the target is heavy, but also if the projectile is heavier, as in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{17}\mathrm{F}`$ vs. $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ there is an effective barrier which makes the proton “effectively” bound by several MeV, so that some typical halo features might change in breakup reactions. In particular nuclear breakup and its stripping component could be of comparable magnitude as Coulomb breakup. This could explain the apparent discrepancy in the interpretation in terms of halo structure between data from different types of experiments. Also first order calculations are not completely unjustified. Therefore approaches of the type used in berpaw  although not very accurate would give reasonable order of magnitude predictions for weakly bound protons interacting with a heavy target but not for interactions with light targets or in the case of neutron breakup.

It is known that Coulomb breakup on a heavy target can be useful to simulate the (p,$`\gamma `$) reactions of astrophysical interest. However, exclusive measurements need to be done to separate Coulomb from nuclear breakup. Measuring proton angular distributions as done in anne  for neutron would help disentangling the dominant reaction mechanism, but also separating the large core-target impact parameter contributions as done in dave ; nak94  is very useful.

Acknowledgments

This work was initiated while one of us (A.B) was visiting the Theory Group of the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. She wishes to thank in particular P. Gregers Hansen, Pawel Danielewicz, Betty Tsang and Bill Lynch for the very warm and stimulating atmosphere and the hospitality extended to her.

## Appendix A Coulomb potentials

We consider the breakup of a proton halo nucleus like 17F consisting of a proton bound to a 16O core in a collision with a target nucleus. The system of the halo nucleus and the target is described by Jacobi coordinates $`(𝐑,𝐫)`$ where $`𝐑`$ is the position of the center of mass of the halo nucleus relative to the target nucleus and $`𝐫`$ is the position of the neutron relative to the halo core, and the coordinate $`𝐑`$ is assumed to move on a classical path. This allows target recoil to be included in a consistent way. The Hamiltonian of the system is

$$H=T_R+T_r+V_{pc}\left(𝐫\right)+V_2(𝐑,𝐫)$$
(4)
where $`T_R`$ and $`T_r`$ are the kinetic energy operators associated with the coordinates $`𝐑`$ and $`𝐫`$ and $`V_{pc}`$ is the potential describing the interaction of the proton with the core, and it contains nuclear and Coulomb parts. The potential $`V_2`$ describes the interaction between the projectile and the target. It is a sum of two parts depending on the relative coordinates of the proton and the target and of the core and the target

$$V_2(𝐑,𝐫)=V_{pt}\left(\beta _2𝐫+𝐑\right)+V_{ct}\left(𝐑\beta _1𝐫\right)$$
(5)
Here $`\beta _1=m_p/m_P`$, $`\beta _2=m_c/m_P=1\beta _1`$, where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`m_c`$ is the mass of the projectile core and $`m_P=m_p+m_c`$ is the projectile mass. Both $`V_{pt}`$ and $`V_{ct}`$ are represented by complex optical potentials. The imaginary part of $`V_{pt}`$ describes absorption of the proton by the target to form a compound nucleus. It gives rise to the stripping part of the halo breakup. The imaginary part of $`V_{ct}`$ describes reactions of the halo core with the target. The potentials $`V_{pt}`$ and $`V_{ct}`$ also includes the Coulomb interaction between the proton and the target and the halo core and the target. This part of $`V_{ct}`$ is responsible for Coulomb breakup.

The mass ratio $`\beta _1`$ is small for a halo nucleus with a heavy core. For example $`\beta _10.06`$ and $`\beta _20.94`$ in the case of 17F. This property is used here to approximate the proton-target and core-target potentials by

$`V_{pt}\left(\beta _2𝐫+𝐑\right)`$ $``$ $`V_{pt}(𝐫+𝐑)`$ (6)
$`V_{ct}\left(𝐑\beta _1𝐫\right)`$ $``$ $`V_{ct}(𝐑)+𝐕_{eff}(𝐫,𝐑)`$ (7)
The halo breakup is caused by the direct proton target interaction $`V_{pt}`$ or by a recoil effect due to the core-target interaction. Coulomb breakup of a one-proton halo nucleus is mainly a recoil effect due the Coulomb component $`V_{ct}`$ of the core-target interaction and is contained in $`𝐕_{eff}(𝐫,𝐑)`$. It is proportional to the mass ratio $`\beta _1`$.

The theory in this paper is based on a time dependent approach which can be derived from an eikonal approximation. The projectile motion relative to the target is described by a time-dependent classical trajectory $`𝐑\left(t\right)=𝐝+vt\widehat{𝐳}`$ with constant velocity $`v`$ and impact parameter $`𝐝`$ ( $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ is a unit vector parallel to the z-axis). As discussed in Ref.mar02  the main effect of $`V_{ct}(𝐑)`$ is to give an absorption for small core-target impact parameters and thus it reduces the core survival probability.

Then with the approximations (6,7) to the potentials the wave function $`\varphi (𝐫,𝐝,t)`$ describing the dynamics of the halo proton satisfies the time-dependent equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (𝐫,𝐝,t)}{t}}=(H_r+V_{pt}(𝐫+𝐑(t))`$ $`+`$ $`V_{eff}(𝐫,𝐑(t)))`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\varphi (𝐫,𝐝,t)`$
where $`H_r=T_r+V_{pc}\left(𝐫\right)`$ is the Hamiltonian for the halo nucleus. In the present paper we neglect the nuclear part of final state interactions between the proton and the halo core, but include the Coulomb proton-core interaction $`V_{pc}(𝐫)=\frac{Z_hZ_Ce^2}{|𝐫|}`$ and the final state interactions between the proton and the target. This approximation should be satisfactory unless there are resonances in the proton-core final state interaction which are strongly excited during the reaction. The proton-core potential does not act dynamically and it cannot cause breakup. It gives the maximum contribution at the top of the proton-core barrier where $`|𝐫|=R_i`$. Therefore we take it constant as $`V_{pc}=\frac{Z_hZ_Ce^2}{R_i}`$.

When the nuclear proton-core final state interactions are neglected we can define a potential

$`\overline{V}_2(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{pt}^N(𝐫+𝐑(t))+V_{pt}^C(𝐫+𝐑(t))+V_{eff}(𝐫,𝐑(t))`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`V_{pt}^N(𝐫+𝐑)+V_{\mathrm{Coul},}`$
and $`V_{pt}^N`$ and $`V_{pt}^C`$ are the nuclear and Coulomb parts of the proton-target interaction.

Thus in the case of a proton breakup and for a heavy target, besides the proton target nuclear potential it is necessary to include in the total Hamiltonian the proton-core, proton-target and core-target Coulomb potentials. The proton-target potential and the core-target potential are included dynamically but the effect on the center of mass has to be subtracted. We have then

$$V_{\mathrm{Coul}}=Z_Te^2\left(\frac{Z_h}{|𝐑+\beta _2𝐫|}+\frac{Z_C}{|𝐑\beta _1𝐫|}\frac{Z_C}{|𝐑|}\frac{Z_h}{|𝐑|}\right)$$
(10)
where charges and masses are : core ($`A_C`$,$`Z_C`$), halo ($`A_h`$,$`Z_h`$), target ($`A_T`$,$`Z_T`$). We used also two ratios : $`\beta _1=A_h/A_P`$ and $`\beta _2=A_c/A_P1`$, with $`A_P=A_C+A_h`$.

Now we approximate $`V_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ with something simpler. One approach is to make the dipole expansion. This is quite good for the core-target recoil term because $`\beta _1`$ is small, but is less good for the halo-target term because $`\beta _21`$. It would be good for large separations when $`R>>r`$. Another possibility is to make a dipole approximation rather than a dipole expansion.

It means making an approximation to $`V_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ which is reasonable over the region of the projectile by writing

$$V_{\mathrm{Coul}}(𝐫,𝐑)V_{\mathrm{C0}}+C^{(D)}\frac{𝐫𝐑}{|𝐑|^3}$$
(11)
and choosing $`V_{\mathrm{C0}}`$ and $`C^{(D)}`$ so that, when $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐑`$ are alligned, the approximation fits the exact expression Eq.(10) at $`r=\pm R_i`$, at the barrier tops on the left and right of the projectile (see Fig. 2).

Thus we put

$$V_{\mathrm{C0}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{\mathrm{Coul}}(R_i,R)+V_{\mathrm{Coul}}(R_i,R)\right)$$
(12)
In other words $`V_{\mathrm{C0}}`$ is the average of $`V_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ at the points $`r=\pm R_i`$, on the left and right sides of the projectile (see Fig. 2). In this way the maximum contribution of the proton-target Coulomb potential $`Z_hZ_Te^2/|𝐑+\beta _2𝐫|`$ is taken into account to all orders.

The constant $`C^{(D)}`$ is chosen so that

$$C^{(D)}\frac{R_i}{R^2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(V_{\mathrm{Coul}}(R_i,R)V_{\mathrm{Coul}}(R_i,R)\right).$$
(13)
In the limit when $`R`$ is very large the dipole expansion is good and we have $`V_{\mathrm{C0}}0`$, $`C^{(D)}\beta _1Z_TZ_Ce^2\beta _2Z_TZ_he^2`$. For smaller values of $`R`$ the approximate form of $`V_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ fits the exact Coulomb potential near the left and right barriers of the projectile. The constants $`V_{\mathrm{C0}}`$ and $`C^{(D)}`$ are dependent on $`R`$ but in the calculations one would use the values at the point of closest approach in the path of relative motion.

This approximation would have several consequences:

1) There would be an effective binding energy for the initial state

$$\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i=\epsilon _i\frac{Z_Ce^2}{R_i}V_{\mathrm{C0}}$$
(14)
This is Eq.(1) of the text.

2) Because the approximate form of $`V_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ is a dipole field the breakup can be calculated by the methods used for neutron breakup. The only differences would be the effective strengths $`C^{(D)}`$ and the effective binding energy in the initial state $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i`$.

3) The main conclusion of the present discussion is that the effective binding modifies the halo character of proton breakup reactions.

Then the initial condition that as $`t\mathrm{}`$ the wave function tends to the initial halo nucleus wave-function reads

$$\varphi (𝐫,𝐝,t)\varphi _{lm}(𝐫,t)=\varphi _{lm}\left(𝐫\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_it/\mathrm{}\right)$$
(15)
provided the separation energy is given by Eq.(14).

Now

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_{eff}(𝐫,t)=C^{(D)}\frac{𝐫𝐑}{|𝐑|^3}$$
(16)
and the final proton wave function $`\varphi _f\left(t\right)`$ satisfies the equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\varphi _f\left(t\right)}{t}=(T_r+\stackrel{~}{V}_2(𝐫,t))\varphi _f\left(t\right)$$
(17)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_2(𝐫,t)=V_{pt}^N(𝐫+𝐑\left(t\right))+\stackrel{~}{𝐕}_{eff}(𝐫,𝐑\left(t\right)),$$

$`V_{pt}^N`$ would just be the nuclear part of the proton-target final state interaction and the boundary condition that $`\varphi _f\left(t\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐫\epsilon _ft/\mathrm{}\right)`$ when $`t`$ is large.

The final step is to make an eikonal approximation for $`\varphi _f\left(t\right)`$

$$\varphi _f\left(t\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐤𝐫i\epsilon _ft/\mathrm{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}_t^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_2(𝐫,t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)$$
(18)
such that we obtain for the amplitude

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{lm}(𝐤,𝐝)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle d^3𝐫𝑑te^{i𝐤𝐫+i\stackrel{~}{\omega }t}e^{\left(\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}_t^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_2(𝐫,t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)}}`$ (19)
$`\times \stackrel{~}{V}_2(𝐫,t)\varphi _{lm}\left(𝐫\right)`$
with a new $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\left(\epsilon _f\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i\right)/\mathrm{}.`$ Equation (19) is formally the same as the neutron breakup amplitude of Ref.mar02  with the difference that the effect of the halo charge has been included in the effective energy $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_i`$.


text:
# ac Josephson effect in the resonant tunneling through mesoscopic superconducting junctions

## Figure Captions

* Schematic diagram of the resonant tunneling through mesoscopic superconducting junctions. (a): Without MW irradiation, MAR trajectory can not be covered by a narrow resonance, and the tunnel current is exponentially small. (b) and (c): In the presence of MW irradiation, MAR trajectory can be closed by emitting or absorbing photons. Two types of PAAS are formed, carrying supercurrent with opposite signs.
* The curves of $`I_c\overline{I}(\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2})`$ vs $`E_0\frac{V_N}{2}`$ at bias voltage $`V_N=\frac{N}{2}\omega `$ ($`N`$ from $`0`$ to $`4`$), with symmetric MW strengths $`\alpha _L=\alpha _R`$. Parameters are: $`\omega =1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=0.02`$, $`k_BT=0.001`$. $`V_L=V_N`$ and $`V_R=0`$ are set as a convention.
* The curves of $`I_c\overline{I}(\varphi =\frac{\pi }{2})`$ vs $`E_0`$ at bias voltage $`V_N=\frac{N}{2}\omega `$ ($`N`$ from $`4`$ to $`4`$), with MW strengths $`\alpha _L=0`$ and $`\alpha _R=1`$. Other parameters are the same as Fig.2. The inset shows $`I_c`$ at $`E_0=V_L`$ vs the MW strength $`\alpha _R`$. Diagrams for corresponding PAAS is also shown in the plot.