format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A longstanding and poorly explored problem in General Relativity is the interaction between Schwarzschild black holes, or more generally the interaction between Reissner-Nordstrom black holes. While extremal Reissner-Nordstrom black holes are in equilibrium, corresponding in the modern language to BPS states of an yet unknown supersymmetric theory, in the non-extremal case the holes are expected to attract each other. It may then come as a surprise that a static solution representing $`l`$ Schwarzschild black holes placed along a common axis is indeed known in the literature . The aim of this paper is to study such holes by using standard gravity techniques as well as the modern String Theory approach to black hole physics.

The geometry representing $`l`$ collinear Schwarzschild black holes has been known for a while . It belongs to the general class of static axisymmetric Einstein vacua studied by Weyl , who showed that the problem of finding such solutions can be reduced to an associated problem in Newtonian gravity. In the case of $`l`$ collinear Schwarzschild black holes of mass $`M_n`$ each, one needs to find the classical potential for a system of $`l`$ rods each with mass $`M_n`$ and length $`2M_nG`$. It may appear that for more than one hole this solution represents $`l`$ Schwarzschild black holes in equilibrium. However, such a solution fails the elementary flatness requirement . In other words, the geometry contains conical singularities (similar to those found for cosmic strings) on the sections between the holes. The failure to find a spacetime free of singularities is interpreted as an instability, i.e. two of such black holes cannot be in static equilibrium . This fact may seem discouraging, however the above solution, and in particular the contribution from the conical singularities, still has a well defined gravitational action . This means that we can use standard Euclidean Gravity thermodynamical arguments. The corresponding thermodynamical potential describes a system of black holes at fixed temperature and at fixed distance, i.e. we interpret the conical singularities as boundary conditions that keep the holes at fixed distance preventing the collapse of the system.

A similar analyses can be done for charged black holes. The motivation is that in some cases such holes have a natural embedding in String/M-theory as bound states of branes. Here we shall consider the triple intersection of M5-branes over a string . Remarkably, using the effective string description of these bound states and for large separation between the holes we were able to reproduce the entropy formula derived in the gravitational analysis. We find this fact reassuring, confirming that the old solution representing collinear Schwarzschild black holes and the new charged ones are in fact sensible solutions, if interpreted appropriately.

This paper starts in Section Two by reviewing the geometry representing $`l`$ collinear Schwarzschild black holes. Then we analyze the black holes’ horizons, in particular how they are deformed by the mutual gravitational attraction between the holes. We shall see that the horizons area and surface gravity are changed by the presence of other holes. Then we discuss the conical singularity between the holes and its stringy description. The energy associated with such string is identified with the binding energy between the black holes and agrees with Newtonian gravity for large distances. In fact, we shall argue that for short distances, the gravitational approach breaks down because we are dealing with physics at the Planck scale. This happens when the holes are expected to merge. We proceed by determining the action for the Euclidean solution which is related to the Free energy for a system of black holes at fixed temperature and at fixed distance. We find that for large separation the entropy follows the area law and the generalized force between the holes is in agreement with Newtonian gravity.

Section Three is devoted to the study of charged black holes. First we embed the collinear Schwarzschild solution in five dimensions, apply a boost along the extra compact direction and reduce back to four dimensions. This procedure generates a solution representing $`l`$ collinear charged black hole in Einstein-Maxwell gravity with a scalar field. Then it is straightforward to find the solution with arbitrary $`e^{a\varphi }F^2`$ coupling between the scalar field and the electromagnetic field. We analyze the properties of the charged black holes, with an emphasis on thermodynamics, generalizing the results mentioned above for uncharged black holes.

After finding the solution representing $`l`$ collinear non-extremal charged black holes we were lead to use String Theory to reproduce the results obtained in the semi-classical approach. This is the topic discussed in Section Four. We shall consider two black holes, each embedded in String/M-theory as a triple intersection of M5-branes over a string. Using the effective string description of such black holes we were able to reproduce exactly the corrections to the entropy due to the interaction between the holes. Furthermore, we resolve a puzzle that arose in the semi-classical calculation of the mean energy. Apparently the term associated with the interaction between the holes has the wrong sign to be associated with a Coulomb attractive potential. Careful considerations of the effective string model lead to the following solution of the problem: the left- and right-movers on the effective strings interact through an attractive Coulomb potential reducing their energy by $`V_{int}`$. As a consequence the left- and right-mover levels are shifted, leading to the correct entropy and energy formulae. Essentially the problem arises because Newtonian gravity ignores the black holes internal degrees of freedom, which are affected by this long range interaction.

We give our conclusions in Section Five.

## 2 Collinear Schwarzschild Black Holes

Any static axisymmetric vacuum space-time, with two commuting killing vectors $`\frac{}{t}`$ and $`\frac{}{\varphi }`$, possesses a metric that can be written in the form

$$ds^2=Vdt^2+V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(2.1)
with

$$\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=e^{2K}\left(d\rho ^2+dz^2\right)+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(2.2)
The functions $`V`$ and $`K`$ depend on $`\rho `$ and $`z`$ only. With these assumptions the Einstein field equations read

$$K_\rho =\frac{\rho }{4V^2}\left(V_\rho ^{2}V_z^{2}\right),K_z=\frac{\rho }{2V^2}V_\rho V_z,$$
(2.3)
with the integrability condition $`V^2V=VV`$, where $``$ is the taken with respect to flat Euclidean space in cylindrical coordinates. The subscripts in the functions $`V`$ and $`K`$ represent partial differentiation with respect to that variable. Defining a function $`U`$ by $`V=e^{2U}`$ the equations of motion become

$$K_\rho =\rho \left(U_\rho ^{2}U_z^{2}\right),K_z=2\rho U_\rho U_z,$$
(2.4)
with the integrability condition

$$^2U=\left(\frac{^2}{\rho }+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }+\frac{^2}{z^2}\right)U=0.$$
(2.5)
The function $`U`$ is formally the Newtonian potential outside some mass distribution. Thus the problem of finding the metric for a static axisymmetric space-time has been reduced to an associated problem in Newtonian gravity.

In the case of the Schwarzschild black hole $`U`$ is the potential for a rod of length $`\mu =2MG`$ and mass $`M`$ (i.e. mass density $`1/2G`$). The solution representing $`l`$ collinear Schwarzschild black holes is obtained by considering the potential for $`l`$ rods of length $`\mu _n=2M_nG`$ and mass $`M_n`$ :

$$\begin{array}{c}U=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r_n^++r_n^{}\mu _n}{r_n^++r_n^{}+\mu _n},\\ \\ K=\frac{1}{4}\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r_n^+r_m^{}+[z(z_n+\mu _n/2)][z(z_m\mu _m/2)]+\rho ^2}{r_n^+r_m^++[z(z_n+\mu _n/2)][z(z_m+\mu _m/2)]+\rho ^2}\\ \\ \frac{r_n^{}r_m^++[z(z_n\mu _n/2)][z(z_m+\mu _m/2)]+\rho ^2}{r_n^{}r_m^{}+[z(z_n\mu _n/2)][z(z_m\mu _m/2)]+\rho ^2}),\end{array}$$
(2.6)
where $`z_n`$ is the $`n`$-th rod mid point and $`r_n^+`$ and $`r_n^{}`$ are given by

$$r_n^\pm =\sqrt{\rho ^2+[z(z_n\pm \mu _n/2)]}.$$
(2.7)
For simplicity we shall consider the case with two black holes but the results here presented are easily generalized to an arbitrary number of holes. In Figure 1 we represent the rods in the coordinate system used so far. Notice that in the single rod case the change of coordinates

$$\rho =r\sqrt{1\frac{\mu _1}{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,zz_1=(r\mu _1/2)\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(2.8)
brings the metric to the usual form known for the Schwarzschild black hole.

Let us start by determining the ADM mass associated with this background. From the asymptotic behavior

$$V1\frac{\mu _1+\mu _2}{r}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right),K\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right)\right)𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\right),$$
(2.9)
we conclude that the mass is $`M_1+M_2`$ as expected. Asymptotically space-time is flat and, provided the polar angle $`\varphi `$ is defined modulo $`2\pi `$, free of any singularity.

Next consider the metric near the $`z`$ axis. Along the sections that extend from the rods to infinity we have $`K=0`$ and $`V`$ has a well behaved limit. Hence the metric is well behaved along these sections of the $`z`$ axis. The holes’ horizons correspond to the sections with rods. We postpone a detail discussion of the horizons to the next subsection. Along the section between both rods the function $`K`$ is

$$K=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _2}\right),$$
(2.10)
and $`V`$ has a well behaved limit as well. Inspecting the spatial part of the metric given by equation (2.2) we conclude that there is a conical singularity connecting both rods. The deficit angle $`\delta `$ satisfies

$$\frac{\delta }{2\pi }=\left(1e^K\right)=\frac{\mu _1\mu _2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2)\mathrm{\Delta }z}.$$
(2.11)
In fact $`\delta `$ is negative so we have an excess angle. We conclude that the solution representing two Schwarzschild black holes is not free of singularities. This conical singularity signals an instability: two Schwarzschild black holes cannot be in equilibrium . This fact has discouraged further work on the subject over the years. However, it was pointed out in  that this solution has a well defined gravitational action. Essentially this means that we can do gravitational thermodynamics and, if correctly interpreting the conical singularity, extract new results from an apparently ill defined geometry. We end here our review of collinear Schwarzschild black holes. Further details can be found in references .

### 2.1 Horizons

To study the horizons we need to investigate the behavior of the metric near the rods. To be definite we shall consider the first rod corresponding to the black hole with mass $`M_1`$. Then performing the coordinate transformation (2.8) the metric near $`r=\mu _1=2M_1G`$ takes the form

$$\begin{array}{c}ds^2f^2(\theta )\left[\left(1\frac{\mu _1}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}\right)^2\left(1\frac{\mu _1}{r}\right)^1dr^2\right]\hfill \\ \\ +\mu _1^{2}\left[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}\right)^2f^2(\theta )d\theta ^2+f^2(\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
where

$$f(\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1)/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1)/2+\mu _2}}.$$
(2.13)
Clearly the surface $`r=\mu _1`$ and $`t=const.`$ is a horizon with surface gravity and area given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\kappa _1=\frac{1}{2\mu _1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2},\\ \\ A(H_1)=4\pi \mu _1^{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}.\end{array}$$
(2.14)
As usual the temperature of the black hole is related to the horizon surface gravity by $`T_1=\kappa _1/(2\pi )`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$, we have $`\kappa ^1=2(\mu _1+\mu _2)`$ and $`A(H_1+H_2)=4\pi (\mu _1+\mu _2)^2`$. This limit corresponds to the case when both rods come together forming a single rod with mass $`M_1+M_2`$ and therefore a single black hole. On the other hand in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{}`$, we have $`\kappa _n^1=2\mu _n`$ and $`A(H_n)=4\pi \mu _n^{2}`$. This is expected because when both holes are far apart each one should behave as in the single black hole case.

We shall be interested in the study of interacting black holes in thermal equilibrium. Equating the holes’ temperature and discarding the trivial $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$ case we must have $`M_1=M_2M`$ (or $`\mu _1=\mu _2\mu `$). We are led to the following picture. For large $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ we have two holes with mass $`M`$ and temperature $`T=(8\pi MG)^1`$. The horizons are almost spherical and the holes are connected by a conical singularity. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ decreases we expect the horizons to be deformed to a egg like shape, with the conical singularity that connects both holes emanating from the flat sides of the horizons. The temperature decreases. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$ the horizons become the North and South hemispheres of a single black hole horizon with a mass equal to $`2M`$.

To make the above claim precise consider the angular part of the metric near the first rod

$$ds_{ang}^2\mu ^2\left[A^2f^2(\theta )d\theta ^2+f^2(\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right],$$
(2.15)
with

$$A=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu },f(\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu (\mathrm{cos}\theta +1)/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu (\mathrm{cos}\theta +3)/2}}.$$
(2.16)
Next change to the angular variable $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\theta )`$ by requiring

$$ds_{ang}^2\mu ^2g^2(\stackrel{~}{\theta })\left[d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\varphi ^2\right].$$
(2.17)
Then $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\theta )`$ and $`g(\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ are uniquely determined by

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}=Af^2(\theta )\frac{d\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta },g(\stackrel{~}{\theta })\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{f(\theta )}.$$
(2.18)
The integral can be done explicitly with the result

$$\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }/2)=C\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)\left(\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\right)^{\frac{4}{(\alpha +2)^2}}\left(3+\mathrm{cos}\theta +\alpha \right)^{\frac{2}{(\alpha +2)^2}},$$
(2.19)
where $`C`$ an integration constant and $`\alpha =2\mathrm{\Delta }z/\mu `$. The metric (2.17) defines an axisymmetric two-surface with radius $`R(\stackrel{~}{\theta })=\mu g(\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$. The constant $`C`$ can be fixed by requiring $`g^{}(0)=0`$, i.e. the surface is regular at the pole opposite to the other hole. The result is

$$C^2=\frac{\alpha ^2+6\alpha +4}{\alpha +2}(\alpha +4)^{\frac{4}{(\alpha +2)^2}1}.$$
(2.20)
As a check notice that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$, $`C=\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }/2)=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)/\sqrt{3+\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }[0,\pi /2]`$ and the two-surface is a North hemisphere with radius $`2\mu `$ as pointed out before. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{}`$ we have $`C=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\theta `$ and the two-surface becomes a two-sphere with radius $`\mu `$. In Figure 2 the horizons are represented for the cases $`\alpha =10,1,0.1`$.

Finally we investigate the relation between the proper length $`L`$ of the section with a conical singularity, i.e. the distance between the singular points in the holes’ horizons, and the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ in the associated Newtonian problem. A short calculation shows that

$$L=e^K_{z_2+\mu /2}^{z_1\mu /2}\frac{dz}{\sqrt{V}}=\mathrm{\Delta }z\left(\frac{\alpha +4}{\alpha +2}\right)^2E(m),m=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha +4}\right)^2,$$
(2.21)
where $`E(m)`$ is the Complete Elliptic Integral of the Second Kind. Indeed only for large distances between the holes we have $`L\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ (recall that $`E(1)=1`$). For small distances we have $`L2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }z`$ (recall that $`E(0)=\pi /2`$).

### 2.2 Conical Singularity

Let us start by writing the spacetime metric along the section between both rods

$$ds^2\left(V(z)dt^2+V^1(z)e^{2K}dz^2\right)+V^1(z)\left(e^{2K}d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\varphi ^2\right),$$
(2.22)
where

$$V(z)=\frac{z(z_1\mu /2)}{z(z_1+\mu /2)}\frac{z(z_2+\mu /2)}{z(z_2\mu /2)},e^K=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}.$$
(2.23)
The deficit angle along the axis is

$$\frac{\delta }{2\pi }=\frac{\mu ^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}.$$
(2.24)
This geometry is Ricci flat, however the presence of a conical singularity on the axis means that

$$\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}R=Area\delta ,$$
(2.25)
where $`Area`$ is the space-time area of the surface spanned by the conical singularity. It follows that the Ricci scalar can be defined distributionally according to

$$R=V(z)\frac{4\pi \mu ^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\delta (x,y),$$
(2.26)
where $`(x,y)`$ are the cartesian coordinates in the plane orthogonal to the $`z`$ axis. Furthermore, since the four-dimensional metric factorizes and this plane is a two-dimensional manifold we can use the result $`R_{ab}=(R/2)g_{ab}`$ to determine the non-zero components of the Ricci tensor: $`R_{xx}=R_{yy}=R/2`$. This defines, by means of the Einstein field equations $`G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }`$, an effective energy-momentum tensor associated with the conical singularity:

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\mu ^2}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\delta (x,y)\mathrm{diag}(1,0,0,V^2e^{2K}).$$
(2.27)
The situation is similar to the case of cosmic strings, but with the important difference that the deficit angle and therefore the tension $`T=\mu ^2/(4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z)`$ are negative. The singularity is therefore usually referred to as a strut rather than a string.

To determine the energy associated with this strut, let $`v=\frac{}{t}`$ and define the unit vector $`\zeta `$ by $`\zeta =v/(vv)^{1/2}`$. Then the energy density as seen by a static observer placed at infinity is

$$T^{\mu \nu }v_\mu \zeta _\nu =\frac{\mu ^2V^{3/2}(z)}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\delta (x,y).$$
(2.28)
The total energy associated with the strut as seen by this observer is obtained by integrating over the spatial directions

$$E=\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}.$$
(2.29)
This is interpreted as the gravitational binding energy between both black holes. In fact, for $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z1`$ we have $`EM^2G/\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, the Newtonian potential between two particles of mass $`M`$.

Next let $`w=\frac{}{z}`$ and define the unit vector $`\lambda `$ by $`\lambda =w/(ww)^{1/2}`$. The pressure along the $`z`$ axis is

$$T^{\mu \nu }\lambda _\mu \lambda _\nu =\frac{\mu ^2V(z)}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\delta (x,y),$$
(2.30)
which equals minus the local energy density. The pressure on the strut is obtained by integrating over the $`xy`$ plane:

$$P=\frac{\mu ^2}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z},$$
(2.31)
which for $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z1`$ gives $`PM^2G/\mathrm{\Delta }z^2`$. This explains why the black holes are kept at a fixed distance since the pressure exerted on the holes will cancel the gravitational attraction.

To understand the physics underlying this problem, notice that this geometry was found by requiring the coordinate distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to be fixed. In fact, in the associated Newtonian problem we considered the potential for two rods separated by a distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ but the gravitational attraction between the rods was ignored. Certainly the black holes will attract each other and are not in equilibrium. This is the reason why requiring $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ fixed leads to a conical singularity connecting both holes. Effectively this conical singularity can be seen as a strut connecting both holes. The strut energy is interpreted as the interaction energy between the black holes while its pressure prevents the gravitational collapse of the system. For large distances between the holes this interpretation is consistent with Newtonian gravity. Hence the presence of the conical singularity is in agreement with the energetics of the problem and with keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ fixed.

### 2.3 Gravitational Thermodynamics

The novelty of this solution is that its action is well defined. Therefore by the usual semi-classical gravitational thermodynamics arguments we can calculate the Free energy for two Schwarzschild black holes at fixed temperature and distance. This defines the entropy of the system and the generalized force conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, which for large distances should agree with the Newton force between two particles of mass $`M`$. Furthermore, the system will evolve such that the minimum of the thermodynamical potential is attained.

Before we start this calculation it is important to analyze whether the semi-classical evaluation of the partition function is reliable. We expect the General Relativity description to be valid for small deficit angle $`|\delta |`$. Effectively this corresponds to have a strut tension well below the Planck scale:

$$\frac{\mu ^2}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\frac{1}{G}\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}1,$$
(2.32)
which happens when the black holes are at a large proper distance from each other. Thus this work will focus on well separated black holes interacting through a Coulomb potential. This corresponds to the limit where both holes’ horizons are nearly spherical as represented in Figure 2(a).

The Euclidean action for the solution is

$$I=\beta \left(2\frac{M}{2}+\frac{M^2G\mathrm{\Delta }z}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2MG)^2}\right)=\beta \left(\frac{\mu }{2G}+\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}\right),$$
(2.33)
where

$$\frac{1}{T}=\beta =4\pi \mu \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu },$$
(2.34)
is the Euclidean time periodicity. The metric is regular at the fixed point sets of the Euclidean time translation Killing vector $`\frac{}{\tau }`$, that correspond to the two horizons in the Lorentzian version. These bolts are connected by the conical singularity along which $`\frac{}{\tau }`$ has no fixed points.

From (2.33) we can read the thermodynamical potential for two Schwarzschild black holes at fixed temperature and distance evaluated in the semi-classical limit:

$$(T,\mathrm{\Delta }z)=\frac{\mu }{2G}+\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2},$$
(2.35)
where $`\mu =\mu (T,\mathrm{\Delta }z)`$ through the relation (2.34). Then the entropy and generalized force conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ are

$$S=\frac{}{T}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }z},F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=\frac{}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}|_T.$$
(2.36)
It is useful to determine first $`\frac{\mu }{T}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ and $`\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}|_T`$. The result is

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\mu }{T}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=4\pi \mu ^2\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2+4\mu \mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu ^2}=4\pi \mu ^2\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)^2\right],\\ \\ \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}|_T=\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2+4\mu \mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu ^2}=\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\right].\end{array}$$
(2.37)
Then the entropy and generalized force are

$$\begin{array}{c}S=8\pi GM^2\left[1+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)^2\right]=\frac{1}{4G}\left(A(H_1^{})+A(H_2^{})\right),\\ \\ F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=\frac{M^2G}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\right].\end{array}$$
(2.38)
To order $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ the entropy satisfies the area law. The correction arises from the conical singularity contribution to the Free energy and it is associated to the deformation of the horizon due to the gravitational attraction between the holes. The generalized force $`F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ matches exactly the Newtonian force between two particles of mass $`M`$, as expected for largely separated black holes.

In spite of the fact that the above results seem consistent with Newtonian gravity it may look surprising that for large distances the second term in the Free energy (2.35) has the wrong sign to be interpreted as the Free energy for two gravitating particles of mass $`M`$. The same comment applies to the mean value of the energy

$$E=+TS=2M+\frac{M^2G}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\right].$$
(2.39)
Firstly, notice that the Free energy decreases as $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ decreases because $`M`$ is not fixed. Figure 3 shows a plot of the Free energy for fixed temperature as $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ varies. The minimum of the thermodynamical potential corresponds to the single black hole case while for large distances the holes will tend to attract each other.

Secondly, the apparently wrong signs in (2.35) and (2.39) may be telling us that there are other internal degrees of freedom in the black holes that are being excited due to the gravitational interaction, with this net result. With the help of String Theory we shall see in Section Four that this is indeed the case. In fact, only by fixing the internal degrees of freedom of the black holes we should expect the variation of the energy to follow the Newtonian gravity prediction. To see this consider the energy variation under an adiabatic transformation

$$dE=TdSF_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}d(\mathrm{\Delta }z).$$
(2.40)
For a reversible process, i.e. at fixed entropy keeping the number of internal degrees of freedom fixed, we have

$$dE=\frac{M^2G}{\mathrm{\Delta }z^2}d(\mathrm{\Delta }z)E_fE_i=\frac{M^2G}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}|_{\mathrm{\Delta }z_i}^{\mathrm{\Delta }z_f},$$
(2.41)
in agreement with Newtonian gravity.

## 3 Charged Black Holes

The goal of this section is to generalize the previous results to charged black holes. First consider the five-dimensional Einstein theory and compactify the fifth direction on a circle according to

$$ds_5^{2}=e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi }\left(dyA_\mu dx^\mu \right)^2+e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi }g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(3.1)
Then the action for the four-dimensional theory reads

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{4}e^{\sqrt{3}\varphi }F^2\right],$$
(3.2)
where $`F=dA`$. Next embed the solution representing $`l`$ collinear Schwarzschild black holes (2.1) in five dimensions by adding an extra flat direction

$$ds_5^{2}=Vdt^2+V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j+dy^2,$$
(3.3)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is given by (2.2) and the functions $`V=e^{2U}`$ and $`K`$ are as in (2.6). Applying a boost along the $`y`$ direction the metric becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}ds_5^{2}=\frac{V}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\sigma V\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma }dt^2+V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j\hfill \\ +\left(\mathrm{cosh}^2\sigma V\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma \right)\left(dy\frac{(1V)\mathrm{cosh}\sigma \mathrm{sinh}\sigma }{\mathrm{cosh}^2\sigma V\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma }dt\right)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
According to the ansatz (3.1) this corresponds to the following solution of the four-dimensional theory

$$\begin{array}{c}ds^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}Vdt^2+H^{\frac{1}{2}}V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,\\ F=\mathrm{coth}\sigma d(H^1)dt,e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\varphi }=H,\end{array}$$
(3.5)
where $`H=1+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma (1V)`$.

The above Kałuża-Klein solution can be generalized to an arbitrary $`e^{a\varphi }F^2`$ coupling of the scalar field to the gauge field. The action

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{4}e^{a\varphi }F^2\right],$$
(3.6)
has the following solution representing $`l`$ collinear electrically charged black hole

$$\begin{array}{c}ds^2=H^{\frac{2}{1+a^2}}\left[\frac{V}{H^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}}dt^2+V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j\right],\\ F=\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}\mathrm{coth}\sigma d(H^1)dt,e^{2\varphi }=H^{\frac{4a}{1+a^2}}.\end{array}$$
(3.7)
The dual magnetic solution can be found by transforming $`\varphi \varphi `$ and $`FF`$. For the sake of clarity we shall consider only electrically charged black holes.

From the asymptotics of this solution we can determine the ADM mass, the electric charge and the charge associated with the scalar field:

$$\begin{array}{c}M_{total}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}M_n=\frac{1}{2G}\left(1+\frac{2}{1+a^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma \right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mu _n,\\ Q_{total}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}Q_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}\mathrm{sinh}(2\sigma )\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mu _n,\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{total}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\frac{2a}{1+a^2}\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma \underset{n=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mu _n.\end{array}$$
(3.8)
The mass and charges of the $`n`$-th black hole together with the non-extremality parameter $`\mu _n`$ satisfy the important relation

$$\mu _n^{2}=\left(2M_nG+a\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\right)^2(1+a^2)Q_n^{2}.$$
(3.9)
As usual the extremal limit corresponds to sending $`\mu _n0`$, $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ such that the charge $`Q_n`$ is kept fixed. Then $`V=1`$, $`K=0`$ and $`H`$ is a harmonic function.

For simplicity consider the solution representing two black holes. As before the rods correspond to the holes’ horizons. Along the first rod the metric has the following limiting behavior:

$$\begin{array}{c}ds^2\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}\sigma \{f^2(\theta )[(1\frac{\mu _1}{r})\frac{dt^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{8}{1+a^2}}\sigma }+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}\right)^2(1\frac{\mu _1}{r})^1dr^2]\hfill \\ \\ +\mu _1^{2}[\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}\right)^2f^2(\theta )d\theta ^2+f^2(\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
where

$$f(\theta )=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1)/2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1(\mathrm{cos}\theta +1)/2+\mu _2}}.$$
(3.11)
The horizon surface gravity and area read

$$\begin{array}{c}\kappa _1=\frac{1}{2\mu _1\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}\sigma }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2},\\ \\ A(H_1)=4\pi \mu _1^{2}\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1+\mu _2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu _1}.\end{array}$$
(3.12)
Again we shall consider black holes with the same temperature $`T=\kappa /(2\pi )`$. Hence we require $`\mu \mu _1=\mu _2`$ and each hole has mass $`M`$ and electric charge $`Q`$. The analyses of the holes’ horizons is entirely similar to the Schwarzschild case. The only difference is the conformal factor in the near-horizon metric (3.10).

Between the rods we have a conical singularity with deficit angle

$$\frac{\delta }{2\pi }=\frac{\mu ^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}.$$
(3.13)
As before this conical singularity can be effectively described as a strut that connects both black holes. The corresponding energy as seen by a static observer at infinity and the pressure on the strut along the $`z`$ axis are

$$E=\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z},P=\frac{\mu ^2}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }z}\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z^2},$$
(3.14)
respectively. The interpretation is similar to the Schwarzschild black holes case but now the holes interact through the gravitational, scalar and gauge fields exchange. This fact is revealed by formula (3.9) for the non-extremality parameter $`\mu `$.

### 3.1 Gravitational Thermodynamics

Our starting point is the Euclidean action for the solution representing two non-extremal charged black holes

$$I=\beta \left(2\frac{M}{2}2\frac{Q}{8G}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}\right)=\beta \left(\frac{\mu }{2G}+\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2}\right),$$
(3.15)
where

$$\frac{1}{T}=\beta =4\pi \mu \mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z+2\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu },\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}\mathrm{tanh}\sigma ,$$
(3.16)
are the Euclidean time periodicity and the horizons electric potential, respectively. Then the thermodynamical potential $`W=ETS\frac{Q_{total}}{4G}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reads

$$W(T,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Delta }z)=\frac{\mu }{2G}+\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }z}{4G(\mathrm{\Delta }z+\mu )^2},$$
(3.17)
with the non-extremality parameter $`\mu =\mu (T,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Delta }z)`$ defined through the relations (3.16). The entropy $`S`$, generalized force $`F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ and total charge $`Q_{total}`$ are determined by the usual thermodynamical relations

$$S=\frac{W}{T}|_{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Delta }z},F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}|_{T,\mathrm{\Phi }},\frac{Q_{total}}{4G}=\frac{W}{\mathrm{\Phi }}|_{T,\mathrm{\Delta }z}.$$
(3.18)
After some straightforward algebra we obtained the following results:

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{8\pi \mu ^2}{4G}\mathrm{cosh}^{\frac{4}{1+a^2}}\sigma \left[1+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)^2\right]=\frac{1}{4G}\left(A(H_1)+A(H_2)\right),\\ \\ F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}=\frac{1}{4G}\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)^2\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\right],\\ \\ Q_{total}=2Q\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)^2\right].\end{array}$$
(3.19)
To order $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ the entropy follows the area law, the force $`F_{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$ arises from the gravitational and scalar field attraction and electric repulsion between the holes and the charge $`Q_{total}`$ is the sum of the holes electric charge. Notice that we are using an ensemble with the temperature and electric potential held fixed. For example, this means that the total mass and charge are not fixed quantities. In fact for large separation we expect two black holes each with the same mass and charge as for the single black hole case ($`\mathrm{\Delta }z=0`$).

Finally, as for the Schwarzschild black holes, the thermodynamical potential $`W`$ and the mean energy $`E`$ have an apparently wrong sign in the interacting term. However, holding the entropy and charges fixed the variation of the energy does follow the expected Coulomb-like behavior. We shall come back to this point in the next section.

## 4 Interacting Black Holes in String/M-theory

To have a better understanding of the microscopic structure underlying the previous results we shall analyze the problem in String/M-theory. We consider four-dimensional black holes with four $`U(1)`$ charges. A convenient representation of such holes is the non-extremal M-theory configuration $`555`$ of three M5-branes intersecting over a common string along which momentum flows  (the M5-branes intersect pairwise over a 3-brane). There are three magnetic charges related to the number of M5-branes in three different hyperplanes and a electric charge which has a Kałuża-Klein origin. The four-dimensional Einstein metric for two of such black holes aligned along the $`z`$ axis is

$$ds^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}Vdt^2+H^{\frac{1}{2}}V^1\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(4.1)
where

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(1+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma _i(1V)\right),$$
(4.2)
and the functions $`V=e^{2U}`$ and $`K`$ are given by (2.6) with $`l=2`$. We shall set $`\mu \mu _1=\mu _2`$ such that the black holes have the same temperature. The M5-brane and Kałuża-Klein charges associated with each hole are

$$Q_i=\frac{\mu }{2}\mathrm{sinh}(2\sigma _i).$$
(4.3)
Next consider the dilute gas regime  where the energy associated with the Kałuża-Klein excitations is much smaller than the M5-branes mass:

$$\mu ,\mu \mathrm{sinh}\sigma _4\mu \mathrm{sinh}\sigma _j,j=1,2,3.$$
(4.4)
In this limit anti-branes are suppressed and the number of M5-branes $`N_j`$ satisfies

$$\frac{e^{2\sigma _1}}{4}\mu =\frac{N_1}{L_6L_7}\left(\frac{\kappa _{11}}{4\pi }\right)^{2/3},\frac{e^{2\sigma _2}}{4}\mu =\frac{N_2}{L_4L_5}\left(\frac{\kappa _{11}}{4\pi }\right)^{2/3},\frac{e^{2\sigma _3}}{4}\mu =\frac{N_3}{L_2L_3}\left(\frac{\kappa _{11}}{4\pi }\right)^{2/3},$$
(4.5)
where the eleven-dimensional gravitational coupling satisfies $`\kappa _{11}^{2}=V_7\kappa ^2`$, with $`V_7`$ the volume of the compact space. The first set of M5-branes has two compact orthogonal directions with length $`L_6`$ and $`L_7`$ and similarly for the other M5-branes. The mass of each black hole becomes

$$M=\frac{1}{4G}\left(Q_1+Q_2+Q_3\right)+\frac{\mu }{8G}\mathrm{cosh}(2\sigma _4)M_{BPS}+\delta M,$$
(4.6)
where $`M_{BPS}`$ is the total M5-branes mass and $`\delta M`$ is the mass associated with the Kałuża-Klein excitations along the common direction with length $`L_1`$. We interpret $`M_{BPS}`$ as the ground state mass, while the Kałuża-Klein modes correspond to the excitations of the system. The total momentum carried along this compact direction is

$$P=P_LP_R=\frac{\mu }{8G}\mathrm{sinh}(2\sigma _4).$$
(4.7)
In recent String Theory developments black holes are described by a dual conformal field theory . In some cases this is a $`1+1`$ conformal field theory, as in the original work , commonly referred as the effective string description of black holes \[15-19\]. For the M-theory configuration described above the black hole is described by an effective string with length $`L_{eff}=N_1N_2N_3L_1`$ and central charge $`c=6`$ . Then one matches the energy and the momentum carried by left- and right-movers on this string with $`\delta M`$ and $`P`$, respectively. As a result the entropy formula is recovered exactly. In the case at hand each black hole will still be described by an effective string. However, the interaction between both black holes means that the strings will interact with each other and that the level for left- and right-movers will change. To make these ideas precise we write the thermodynamical potential $`W`$ and the entropy of the system in the dilute gas regime and for large distance between the holes

$$\begin{array}{c}W=\frac{\mu }{2G}+\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z},\\ \\ S=\frac{8\pi }{4G}\sqrt{Q_1Q_2Q_3}\sqrt{\mu }\mathrm{cosh}\sigma _4\left(1+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right).\end{array}$$
(4.8)
Then the energy mean value $`E=W+TS+\frac{Q_{total}}{4G}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ reads

$$E=2\left(M_{BPS}+\delta M+\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z}2\left(M_{BPS}+\delta E\right)+V_{int},$$
(4.9)
where $`M_{BPS}`$ and $`\delta M`$ are defined in (4.6). We see that in this case the increase in energy $`\delta E`$ does not coincide with the increase in the mass $`\delta M`$ of each hole. As we start filling the left- and right-moving states in each effective string, they will interact reducing their energy by $`V_{int}`$ according to a large distance attractive Coulomb potential. In fact, the dependence on the string coupling $`V_{int}g^2N_LN_R`$ suggests that in a similar D-brane setting (e.g. the $`D5D1`$ system for five-dimensional black holes) the interactions arise from an annulus diagram with two insertions on a boundary. Thus, in order to reproduce a state corresponding to two black holes each of mass $`M_{BPS}+\delta M`$ we need an energy associated with the string excitations given by $`\delta E=\delta M+\frac{\mu ^2}{4G\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$. This fact explains the apparent discrepancy in the sign of the interacting term in the thermodynamical potential $`W`$ and energy $`E`$. There are two different contributions: one from the Coulomb attraction and another from the black holes internal states. In Figure 4 we represent the effect of the interaction between the effective strings.

To determine the level of the left- and right-moving states on each effective string note that

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta E=\frac{1}{4G}\left[\frac{\mu \mathrm{cosh}2\sigma _4}{2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right]=\frac{1}{4G}\left[\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu +\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu \right],\\ \\ P=\frac{1}{4G}\frac{\mu \mathrm{sinh}2\sigma _4}{2}=\frac{1}{4G}\left[\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu \left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu \right].\end{array}$$
(4.10)
Hence there is a shift in the left- and right-mover levels. Now we have

$$\kappa ^2\frac{N_L}{L_1}=\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu ,\kappa ^2\frac{N_R}{L_1}=\left(\frac{e^{2\sigma _4}}{4}+\frac{\mu }{2\mathrm{\Delta }z}\right)\mu .$$
(4.11)
Then the entropy associated with both effective strings is

$$S=22\pi \sqrt{N_1N_2N_3}\left(\sqrt{N_L}+\sqrt{N_R}\right),$$
(4.12)
which matches exactly the result in (4.8), including the correction of order $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. Thus we successfully reproduced the deviations in the entropy formula due to the long range interactions between these non-extremal charged black holes.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we analysed in detail the geometry representing $`l`$ collinear non-extremal black holes. In spite of the conical singularity connecting the black holes, this solution has a well defined action. This fact enabled us to study the interaction between largely separated non-extremal black holes by using standard gravitational thermodynamics techniques. Then we analysed this problem using the modern String Theory language and successfully reproduced the entropy formula for interacting black holes, including the correction due to the long range force between the holes. This interaction causes the left- and right-moving states that build up the internal degrees of freedom of the system to reduce their energy affecting the state counting.

It is interesting to note that the the binding energy due to the interaction between the holes is expected to lead to a energy shift in the observed Hawking radiation. In fact left- and right-movers with quantum numbers $`n_{L,R}`$ such that $`\frac{n_{L,R}}{R_1}<V_{int}`$ are bounded and cannot leave the branes. Unfortunately, it may be very difficult to see this by solving Laplace equation (e.g. for a scalar field) in this background. For example, the same problem in the simpler double-centred extremal case turns out to be highly non-trivial .

A point that is less clear to us is related to the quadratic and higher order corrections in $`\mu /\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ to the thermodynamical quantities here calculated. In particular the entropy does not follow the area law to this order. We suspect that the conical singularity is a good approximation to the long range Coulomb interaction but breaks down otherwise. Indeed, we saw that for small distances between the black holes the physics is Planckian and our approximations are no longer valid.

A possible venue of research is the study of this geometry in the decoupling limit. This may lead to interesting results on the Coulomb branch of the dual field theory at finite temperature (which is not stable since the Coulomb branch is lifted). For example, a study of the $`AdS/CFT`$ duality for $`𝒩=4`$ Super-Yang-Mills at finite temperature using D3-brane probes can be found in . Of course one may wish first to generalize the above collinear non-extremal charged black hole solutions to arbitrary space-time dimensions.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Frank Ferrari and Lori Paniak for many discussions. MSC is supported by FCT (Portugal) under programme PRAXIS XXI and by the NSF grant PHY-9802484.


text:
# Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays and Gamma Ray Bursts from Axion Stars

## I Introduction

The origin of ultra high energy cosmic rays ( UHECRs ) is one of most mysterious puzzles in astrophysics. UHECRs with energies $`10^{20}`$ eV can not travel in distance more than $`50`$ Mpc owing to the interactions between UHECRs and the cosmic background radiations. Observations, however, show that there are no visible candidates for the generators of such UHECRs in the arrival directions of UHECRs. There are several models of generators for UHECRs, but none of them give satisfactory explanations. They are divided into two categories. One is conventionally astrophysical models, and the other one Are particle physical models. It is explained in astrophysical models that the generator could be an object such as neutron star, active galactic nuclei or the same astrophysical object as generators of gamma ray bursts. It is explained in particle physical models that UHECRs could be caused by hypothetical objects such as cosmic string, magnetic monopole, super heavy relic particles decaying today, e.t.c.. The astrophysical models have a difficulty that cosmic rays can not be accelerated to such high energies. On the other hand, the particle physical model has difficulties concerning to production rate of UHECRs and a large number of theoretical assumptions on hypothetical objects.

The origin of gamma ray bursts ( GRBs) is also one of most mysterious puzzles in astrophysics. Some of their energies reach $`10^{54}`$ erg in the case of spherical emission of the burst. It is very difficult to find a model explaining such a huge energy. There are, however, several models proposed. They are also divided into two categories, astrophysical one and particle physical one. Since conventional astrophysical explanation are optimistically believed to have no serious problems, particle physical one is not urgently needed so that no such serious model is pursued. Conventionally, astrophysicists consider that the generator could be merger of neutron star-neutron star, neutron star-black hole or the collapstar ( collapse of extremely massive star ), e.t.c. G recently, there are a number of growing evidences supporting that GRBs with long duration are caused by the collapse of extremely massive star. These models are optimistically believed to explain the properties of GRBs such as amount of energies released, baryon contamination of eject, afterglow spectrum, e t c.. But owing to difficulties in the treatment of MHD involving neutrinos and unknown properties in the fluid of nucleons, there is no successful model among them. In particular, the problem of the baryon contamination seems difficult to be solved in conventional astrophysical models. On the other hand, in some particle physical models, axions or other unknown weakly interacting particles are used to overcome the baryon contamination problem based on the conventional astrophysical engines. Moreover, in other particle physical models, one claims that the engine is collapse of mirror star, cosmic string or collision between axion star and neutron star. The engine in these model is associated with dark matter; mirror matter, cosmic string or axion.

Among these candidates for dark matter, the axion is the most plausible one. Probably, some of axions may form boson stars ( axion stars ) in the present Universe by gravitational cooling or gravitational collapse of axion clumps formed at the period of QCD phase transition. In this paper we explain a generation mechanism of UHECRs and GRBs, and discuss their production rates. Our mechanism for both phenomena is collision between axion stars and neutron star. Different strength of the magnetic field at the surface of the neutron star yields these different phenomena, i.e. UHECR and GRB. Furthermore, the axion stars can be plausible candidates for gravitational microlenses ( MACHO ) with an appropriate choice of the axion mass; the choice is taken in our model for explaining huge energies $`10^{54}`$ erg in GRBs and extremely high energies $`10^{20}`$ eV in UHECRs. It is intriguing that the masses of the axion stars become those of the candidates for MACHOs with this choice of the axion mass. We also show that the collisions cause emission of observable monochromatic radiations from the axion stars. We can check the validity of our model by detecting the radiations.

We have previously proposed a possible generation mechanism of gamma ray burst ( GRB ). According to the mechanism the collision between axion star and neutron star generates a gamma ray burst; the axion star dissipates its mass energy very rapidly under the strong magnetic field of the neutron star. Thus, the energy released in the collision is given by the mass $`M_a`$ of the axion star. Typically, $`M_a10^5M_{}(10^5\text{eV}/m_a)`$ where $`m_a`$ ( $`M_{}`$ ) denotes the axion mass ( solar mass ). In the previous analysis we have taken the mass, $`m_a10^5`$ eV, as suggested observationally in standard invisible axion models. The mass of axion star, $`M_a10^{49}`$ erg, corresponding to this choice, however, is not enough to explain a huge energy $`10^{54}`$ erg observed in GRB980123 even if moderate jet is assumed in the GRB: If the solid angle of the jet is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the energy released in the GRB is about $`10^{54}\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi `$ erg.

In the present paper, we assume that the axion mass is given by $`m_a10^9`$ eV, although the choice is not conventional. Then, we can explain that the energies of GRBs can reach the huge energies $`10^{54}`$ erg. We can also show that cosmic rays are accelerated to the energies $`10^{20}`$ eV.

The essence of both phenomena is that a strong electric field $`10^{15}(B/10^{12}\text{G})\text{eV}\text{cm}^1`$ is induced in the axion star when it is located under magnetic field $`B`$ of a neutron star. This electric field can accelerate charged particles to the huge energies $`10^{20}`$ eV in the case of $`B>10^{12}`$ G, although such a strong electric field is unstable against electron positron pair productions. On the other hand, weaker and more stable electric field dissipates its energy in magnetized conducting medium of neutron star. In particular, in the case of neutron stars with relatively weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$ G, the axion star collides directly with them and its whole energy is dissipated very rapidly in their outer crust owing to the energy dissipation of the electric field. This rapid energy dissipation produces jet of baryons, which leads to emission of GBRs. In the case of strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G, however, the axion star evaporates before colliding directly with the neutron star; the evaporation occurs owing to the instability of such a strong electric field against electron-positron pairs creation. Therefore, the axion star decays into electron positron pairs which are accelerated to the energies $`10^{20}`$ eV by the electric field during its decay. In both cases the energies released are given by the mass of the axion star. Since the mass of the axion star is given by $`10^1M_{}10^{53}`$ erg with the assumption of $`m_a10^9`$ eV, the energy $`10^{54}`$ erg observed in some GRBs can be explained by assuming a moderate jet of the GRBs. Thus the collisions between the axion stars and the neutron stars are possible sources of both UHECRs and GRBs. Additionally, it turns out that the axion star is a plausible candidate for MACHO because the value of the mass $`M_a`$ is suitable for explaining the observations of MACHOs. Since all of baryonic candidates for MACHOs seem to have serious difficulties, nonbaryonic ones like the axion stars would be favored.

We also discuss that the collisions generate monochromatic radiations with a frequency $`m_a/2\pi 2.4\times 10^5`$ Hz. Their flux is sufficiently large to be observed. With the detection of such radiations we can test our model and determine the axion mass.

It is reasonable to think that some of axion stars gravitationally attract matters, i.e. H and He in the Universe and have baryon contamination, while the other ones have no such contamination. Then, the axion stars with the baryon contamination produce protons as UHECRs in the collision with neuron stars. On the other hand the other ones produce photons as UHECRs, which are generated in fireball of electron-positron pairs. Therefore, UHECRs produced in our mechanism are either protons or photons.

In the section ( 2 ) we describe the properties of the axionic boson stars for latter conveniences. In the section ( 3 ) we explain how the axion star induces an electric field under an external magnetic field. In particular, we show that the axion star is electrically polarized in spite of the neutrality of the axion itself. In the section ( 4 ) we describe how the electric field can accelerate charged particles to the energies $`10^{20}`$ eV. Such a strong electric field can be produced only around a neutron star with magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G. In the section ( 5 ) we explain a generation mechanism of GRBs by noting that the electric field dissipates rapidly its energy in conducting medium of neutron star. In the section ( 6 ) we show that our generation mechanism of UHECRs and GRBs gives the rate of the energy release consistent with the observations. In the section ( 7 ) we point out an observational signal of our mechanism, that is, electromagnetic radiations from axion star rotating around neutron star. The existence of such an observational signal is distinctive feature of our model. We summarize our results in the final section ( 8 ).

## II Axion Stars

Let us first explain axion stars ( ASs ), which are ones of most realistic boson stars. The axion is a Nambu-Goldstone boson associated with Pecci-Quinn symmetry, which was introduced for solving strong CP problem. The mechanism is the most plausible one for the problem. The symmetry is broken spontaneously at large energy scale, $`f_{PQ}10^{12}`$ GeV. But since the symmetry is anomalous, it is also broken dynamically by the effects of QCD instantons. Therefore, the axion obtains a mass, $`m_a`$.

The AS is a coherent object of the real scalar field $`a(x)`$ describing the axion. It is a gravitational bound state of axions represented by a solution of the equation of the axion field coupled with gravity. An approximate form of the solution without nodes is obtained in the limit of small mass $`M_a<<M_{}`$,

$$a(x)=f_{PQ}a_0\mathrm{sin}(m_at)\mathrm{exp}(r/R_a),$$
(1)
where $`t`$ ( $`r`$ ) is time ( radial ) coordinate and $`f_{PQ}`$ is the decay constant of the axion; there are solutions with nodes but their energies are much higher than that of this solution. The value of $`f_{PQ}`$ is constrained conventionally from cosmological and astrophysical considerations such that $`10^{10}`$ GeV $`<f_{PQ}<`$ $`10^{12}`$ GeV. The axion mass $`m_a`$ is given in terms of $`f_{PQ}`$ such that $`m_a10^2\text{GeV}^2/f_{PQ}`$. But, when we assume entropy productions below the temperature $`1`$ GeV in the early Universe, we may be released from the constraints. Hereafter we assume that $`f_{PQ}10^{16}`$ GeV or $`m_a10^9`$ eV for explaining huge characteristic energies of UHECRs and GRBs.

In the formula, $`R_a`$ represents the radius of an AS which has been obtained numerically in terms of mass $`M_a`$ of the AS;

$$R_a=6.4m_{pl}^2/m_a^2M_a1.6\times 10^5\text{cm}m_9^2(10^1M_{}/M_a),$$
(2)
with $`m_9=m_a/10^9`$ eV and $`m_{pl}`$ is Planck mass. Similarly, the amplitude $`a_0`$ in eq(1) is represented such that

$$a_0=1.73\times 10^2(10^5\text{cm}/R_a)^2m_9^1.$$
(3)
Therefore, we find that the solution is parameterized by one free parameter, either one of the mass $`M_a`$ or the radius $`R_a`$: Once we choose either of mass $`M_a`$ or radius $`R_a`$ of an AS, the whole properties of the AS are determined only in terms of the axion mass $`m_a`$ ( $`M_a`$ and $`R_a^1`$ should be less than a critical value mentioned soon below ).

It is also important to note that the solution is not static but oscillating with the frequency of $`m_a/2\pi `$. It has been demonstrated that there is no static regular solution of the real scalar massless field coupled with gravity. This may be general property of the real scalar massive field like the axion field. In fact, the oscillation in the solutions cause emission of electromagnetic radiations under a magnetic field, which is a general phenomenon expected in axions exposed to the magnetic field. On the other hand, static solutions of boson stars exist in the complex scalar field.

We should comment that the solution (1) can represent approximately solutions even with larger masses. More general solutions with larger masses have higher oscillation modes such as $`\mathrm{sin}(3m_at),\mathrm{sin}(5m_at)`$ e t c.. But their amplitudes are much smaller than $`a_0`$.

The AS mass is determined by physical conditions under which the AS has been formed; how large amount of cloud of axions are cooled gravitationally to form the AS, etc.. The situation is similar to other stars such as neutron stars or white dwarfs. A typical mass scale in these cases is the critical mass; stars with masses larger than the critical mass collapse gravitationally into more compact ones or black holes. In the case of the AS, there also exists a critical mass $`M_c`$ which is given by

$$M_c10^1M_{}m_9^1.$$
(4)
The ASs with masses larger than this one collapse into black holes. Therefore, we may adopt this critical mass $`M_c`$ as a characteristic mass scale of the ASs. The corresponding radius $`R_a`$ of the ASs with this critical mass is given such that $`R_a1.6\times 10^5m_9^1\text{cm}`$. ( The critical mass is the maximal mass, which ASs can take. Thus, their masses, in general, are smaller than this one. Since energies of ASs released in GRBs are given by their masses, the maximal energy in GRBs is given by the critical mass ).

We wish to comment that a critical mass for stars like neutron stars, white dwarfs etc., represents order of masses they possess actually in the Universe. For example, the masses of the neutron stars are in a region of $`1.0M_{}1.6M_{}`$, while the critical mass of neutron star is given by about $`2M_{}`$. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the characteristic mass of the axion star is the order of the critical mass, $`M_c`$.

Although the gravitational cooling for ordinary star formation is in general ineffective because it is too slow process, it has been shown that the cooling is very effective for the real scalar axion field. Thus, the axion stars can be easily formed gravitationally in a gas of the axions. It is reasonable to assume that the most of the axions in the Universe forms the axion stars.

Until now, we do not consider a case that the axion star has an ordinal matter, i.e. H and He. It is very natural to consider a possibility that the axion attracts gravitationally such matters after its formation. In the case the star is composed of the axions and the matters. The amount of the matters would be no more than the critical mass of the axion, unless it collapses into a black hole. It turns out below that such axion stars with matter contamination play role for emitting protons as UHECRs in the collision with neutron stars.

## III Axion Star under external magnetic field

Let us explain how an AS induces an electric field under an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, in particular, that of a neutron star. Owing to the interaction between the axion and the electromagnetic field described by

$$L_{a\gamma \gamma }=c\alpha a(x)\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi ,$$
(5)
where the value of $`c`$ ( of the order of unity ) depends on axion models, the Gauss law is modified such that

$$\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{E}=c\alpha \stackrel{}{}(a(x)\stackrel{}{B})/f_{PQ}\pi +\text{“matter”}.$$
(6)
The last term “matter” denotes electric charges of ordinary matters. The first term in the right hand side represents an electric charge made of the axion. Although the axion is neutral, it can possess an electric charge under a magnetic field owing to the interaction eq(5). The interaction mixes electric and magnetic sectors. Thus, the axion star is electrically polarized under the magnetic field. ( This polarization is oscillating and so there exist a corresponding oscillating current, $`J_a=c\alpha _ta(x)\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi `$; it can be read by checking other Maxwell equations. Thus, radiations are emitted by the AS, which might be observable. We will discuss it in later section. ) Accordingly, the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E_a}`$ is induced;

$$\stackrel{}{E_a}=c\alpha a(x)\stackrel{}{B}/f_{PQ}\pi ,$$
(7)
with $`\alpha 1/137`$. Numerically, its strength is given by

$$E_a10^{15}\text{eV}\text{cm}^1B_{12}m_9,$$
(8)
with $`B_{12}=B/10^{12}`$ G, where we have used the solution in eq(1) for the critical mass. Obviously, the spatial extension of the field is given by the radius $`R_a1.6\times 10^5m_9^1\text{cm}`$ of the AS. Therefore, we find that the electric field is much strong around a neutron star with magnetic field $`10^{12}`$ G. This electric field is an engine of UHECRs in our model.

It should be mentioned that the existence of the electric field is originated in the coherence of axions composing axion star. Incoherent axions can be converted into incoherent photons under a magnetic field. But, they never induce electric field with large spatial extension. This electric field causes UHECRs and GRBs. Thus, it is essentially important in our discussion that the axions are coherent in axion stars.

We should also mention that electromagnetic radiations from the axion star are caused by the interaction5 which transforms axions to photons under magnetic field. This is the same phenomenon as one in Sikivie-type axion detectors; incoherent axions are converted into photons in the detector. In the case of coherent axions, oscillating electric current is induced due to the oscillation of the coherent axions themselves, as we have shown above. Hence, it is very general property for the solutions of axion star to oscillate in time.

## IV generation mechanism of ultra high energy cosmic rays

The ultra high energy cosmic rays with energy $`>10^{20}`$ eV pose a serious challenge for conventional theories of origin of cosmic rays. Such high energy cosmic rays can not travel in distance of more than $`50`$ Mpc due to the interaction between the cosmic rays and the cosmic background radiation, or infrared background. But there are no candidate astrophysical sources like active galaxy nuclei in the directions of the UHECRs. Eight events of UHECRS have been detected and the detection rate is approximately once per year and per $`100\text{km}^2`$. There are no conventional astrophysical and particle physical explanation for these observations.

Here we explain the events with a mechanism of the collision between axion stars and neutron stars with strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ Gauss. Under such a strong magnetic field the axion star induces strong electric field, which can accelerate charged particles to the energy $`>10^{20}`$ eV. The electric field induced in the axion star is oscillating with the frequency, $`m_a/2\pi 2.4\times 10^5m_9\text{Hz}`$. Thus a particle with electric charge Ze can be accelerated by the field in a direction within the half of the period, $`\pi /m_a`$ or to a distance $`R_a`$ ( $`\pi /m_a\times \text{light velocity}`$ ), unless it collides with other particles within the period. Thus, the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ obtained by the particle is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=\text{Ze}E_a\times \pi /m_a\times \text{light velocity}10^{20}\text{Z}\text{eV}B_{12}.$$
(9)
Therefore, the electric field can accelerate the charged particle to the energy $`10^{20}\text{Z}`$ eV. These charged particles may be baryons contaminated in AS or electron-positron pairs produced by the decay of the electric field itself. Note that the direction of the acceleration is parallel to the magnetic field. Thus the energy lose of the accelerated particles due to synchrotron emission is not important in the acceleration region.

Comment is in order. It seems apparently from eq(9) that stronger magnetic fields yield cosmic rays with higher energies. Stronger magnetic fields, however, induce stronger electric fields, which are unstable against electron-positron pair creations. Therefore, strong magnetic fields do not necessarily yield cosmic rays with higher energies.

If the particles collide with other particles on the way of acceleration, in other words, their mean free paths are shorter than $`R_a`$, they can not obtain such high energies. It is easy to see, however, that the mean free paths of quarks or leptons with much higher energies than their masses are longer than $`R_a`$ in magnetosphere of neutron star. This is because since cross sections, $`\sigma `$, of quarks or leptons with such energies $`E`$ behaves such as $`\sigma 1/E^2`$, mean free paths $`1/n\sigma `$ is longer than $`R_a10^5`$ cm unless number density $`n`$ of particles around the AB is extremely large ( i.e. $`n>10^{44}/\text{cm}^3`$ for $`E=10^{20}`$ eV ). Obviously, under the electric field eq(8), the particles can obtain energies higher than their masses $`1`$ MeV by moving parallel to the electric field only in the distance of $`10^9`$ cm.

The point in the acceleration is that as the electric field is much strong, charged particles can gain much energies by moving in a short distance. The mean free path becomes larger as the particles gain more energies. Thus, under the strong electric field the particles can gain effectively the energies without losing their energies.

As is well known, the strong electric field is unstable against electron-positron pair creations. Thus the field decays when the magnetic field of the neutron star is strong sufficiently. This implies that AS itself decays into the pairs.

Let us estimate the decay rate of the field and show that the AS decays before colliding directly with a neutron star whose magnetic field at surface is stronger than $`10^{12}`$ G. We also show that the AS can collide directly with a neutron star whose magnetic field is relatively weak $`10^{10}`$ G.

The decay rate $`R_d`$ of the field per unit volume and per unit time is given by

$$R_d=\frac{\alpha E_a^2}{\pi ^2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(m_e^2\pi n/eE_a)}{n^2}$$
(10)
where $`m_e`$ denotes electron mass. The rate is very small for an electric field much weaker than $`m_e^2\pi 4\times 10^{16}`$ eV/cm. The electric field of AS, however, can be very strong and it can be comparable to $`m_e^2\pi `$. Therefore, the rate is much large. Numerically, it is given by

$$R_d10^{47}B_{12}^2m_9^2\text{cm}^3\text{s}^1\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}(0.7\times 10^2n/B_{12}m_9)/n^2.$$
(11)
Since the spatial extension of the field is approximately given by $`10^5m_9^1`$ cm, the total decay rate $`W`$ of the field in AS is $`10^{62}B_{12}^2m_9^1\text{s}^1_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(0.7\times 10^2n/B_{12}m_9)/n^2`$. Numerically, it reads

$$W10/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=0.5,W10^6/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=0.55,W10^{32}/\text{s}\text{for}B_{12}=1$$
(12)
with $`m_9=1`$.

Therefore, we find that the AS decays very rapidly ( or almost suddenly ) when it approaches a region where the strength of the magnetic field reaches a critical value of about $`10^{12}`$ G. Hence, the AS evaporates before colliding with the neutron star whose magnetic field at the surface is stronger than $`10^{12}`$ G. The whole energy of the AS is transmitted to electron-positron pairs, each of which can obtain energies $`10^{20}`$ eV. These particles are emitted into a cone with very small solid angle. They form an extremely short pulse whose width being less than millisecond. Actually, when we suppose that the relative velocity of the AS is equal to light velocity, it decays approximately within a period of $`10^4\text{sec}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$sec; in the period it passes the region where the magnetic field increases from $`0.5\times 10^{12}`$ G to $`10^{12}`$ G. These leptons may be converted into baryons and photons through the interactions with themselves, interstellar medium or ejection of progenitor of the neutron star. In particular, the energies of the leptons are transmitted mainly to those of photons. Therefore, high energy photons are emitted as ultra high energy cosmic rays in the collision, when the magnetic field is sufficiently strong.

On the other hand, high energy protons are emitted in the collision between neutron star and axion star with matter contamination. Such a matter can be accelerated to the ultra high energy before the axion star decays. The amount of the protons emitted as UHECRs depends on the matter contamination in the axion star. We expect that almost of the same amount of protons with that of the leptons are emitted in such a collision.

We comment that the velocity of AS trapped gravitationally to a neutron star, is approximately given by the light velocity just when it collides with the neutron star. This is because an AS is trapped to a neutron star when the AS approaches it within a distance $`10^{11}`$ cm where its potential energy dominates over its kinetic energy. After that, the AS goes around the neutron star, losing its potential energy and angular momentum by emitting gravitational and electromagnetic waves. Finally, the AB collides with it. Thus, the velocity of the AS reaches approximately the light velocity when it collides with the neutron star.

We have to examine the number density of the leptons produced during the decay of AS and have to check whether or not the density is less than $`10^{45}/\text{cm}^3`$; the particles can not obtain the ultra high energies $`10^{20}`$ eV unless the number density surrounding AS is not beyond the value quoted. They collide with other particles on the way of the acceleration and lose their energies. Suppose that the mass $`M_a`$ of AS is transmitted to the energy of electron-positron pairs. Then, their number is given by $`M_a/m_e`$. They may be produced in the volume $`R_a^3`$ of AS. If we assume that they remain to stay in the volume after their production, the number density is $`M_a/m_eR_a^310^{44}/\text{cm}^3`$. Actually, the pairs escape in a direction pointed by the electric field within the life time of the field $`10^4\text{sec}10^5`$ sec. Thus, the real number density in AS is less than $`10^{44}/\text{cm}^3`$. Therefore, we find that the number density of the pairs produced from the decay of AS is not so large to interrupt them obtaining the ultra high energies.

We can see from eqs(9) and (11) that the critical electric field depends on the factor of $`B_{12}\times m_9`$, while the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ obtained by accelerated charged particles depends only on the factor of $`B_{12}`$. Therefore, we find that if axion mass $`m_a`$ is smaller than $`10^9`$ eV, the maximal energy of cosmic rays can be larger than $`10^{20}`$ eV when a neutron star has strong magnetic field $`B>10^{12}`$ G. For instance, if $`m_a=0.2\times 10^9`$ eV, the cosmic rays with energies $`5\times 10^{20}`$ ZeV can be produced when a neutron star has magnetic field $`>5\times 10^{12}`$ G at the surface.

## V generation mechanism of gamma ray bursts

Gamma ray bursts are observed daily from sources extending out to those of the most distant galaxies in the Universe. Duration of the bursts ranges from millisecond to thousand seconds. Pulse shape structures vary much from bursts to bursts. Typical energies of the gamma rays observed are of the order of $`0.1`$ MeV. A mysterious puzzle of these bursts is the huge amount of energies released in the bursts. Some of the bursts carry energies $`10^{54}`$ erg when spherical explosion from sources is assumed. Furthermore, baryon contamination in fire balls of the explosion is less than $`10^4M_{}`$. Therefore, it is very difficult to make realistic astrophysical models for explaining these properties, although it is believed optimistically that the origin of these phenomena would be some known astrophysical objects, such as merger of neutron star - neutron star, collapse of extremely massive star, etc.

Here, we explain a particle physical generation mechanism of gamma ray bursts. According to the mechanism, we can understand the problems of the huge energies released and the baryon contamination. But it is still difficult to understand the variant of the durations and the pulse shapes. The bursts are possibly produced in the collision between AS and neutron star with relatively small magnetic field such as $`10^{10}`$ G. In such a weak magnetic field, the AS collides directly with the neutron star and dissipates its whole energy in an outer crust of the neutron star. Actually, the decay rate $`W`$ of the electric field is negligibly small for the case of the weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$ G. Thus the AS does not decay before colliding directly with such a neutron star. The AS, however, decays in magnetized conducting medium such as the outer crust of neutron star. Namely the electric field of the AS induces electric current in the crust, which dissipates its energy owing to finite electric conductivity of the crust. Thus, the AS decays very rapidly by dissipating its energy. Consequently, particles of the crust are emitted as a jet in the collision, which forms fireball emitting gamma ray bursts.

We will estimate the rate of the energy dissipation in the outer crust with use of the conductivity, $`\sigma =10^{26}`$/s. The value of the conductivity, in general, depends on physical parameters of the crust such as temperature, composition, density, etc.. The value of $`\sigma `$ we use, however, is a typical one of the crust and does not vary so much even if we change the parameters of the density, temperature, or composition within a reasonable range.

We calculate the rate $`W_{dis}`$ of the dissipation per unit time and unit volume as follows,

$`W_{dis}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{AS}}\sigma E_a^2d^3x/{\displaystyle _{AS}}=4c^2\times 10^{61}/(4\pi /3R_a^3)\text{erg/s}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{10^{26}/s}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_a}{10^1M_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{(10^{10}\text{G})^2}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`2.4\times 10^{45}\text{erg/s}\text{cm}^3{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{10^{26}/s}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{(10^{10}\text{G})^2}}m_9^2,`$ (14)
where we have used the solution in eq(1) for the critical mass. The integration has been performed over the volume ( $`=4\pi R_a^3/3`$ ) of an AS, which has been supposed to be involved completely in the conducting medium. Thus it represents an average rate of the energy dissipation in the outer crust.

We find that the energy dissipation proceeds very rapidly in the medium. We compare the rate with the energy density of the AS, which is given by $`10^{37}\text{erg}/\text{cm}^3`$. Hence, we find that the AS dissipates the whole energy $`10^{53}`$ erg in the outer crust even if it rushes into the medium with the light velocity; the depth of the crust is equal to several hundred meters. It never reaches the core of the neutron star.

This very rapid energy release leads to the ejection of the particles composing the crust. The ejection could be emitted into a cone with small solid angle as a jet. This is because the particles ( mainly irons ) of the neutron star are accelerated and emitted in the direction parallel to the strong electric field $`10^{13}B_{10}`$ eV/cm. The particles are accelerated to energies $`10^{18}`$ eV, while their characteristic energies inside the crust are $`10^6`$ eV. Thus, we expect that solid angle of the jet is much small, although the particles do not necessarily obtain such high energies because of loosing energies by the collisions with others. The fact that the whole energy of AB is dissipated only in the outer crust, implies that the ejection are only particles composing the crust. Thus a fraction of the baryon contamination in the jet is less than $`10^5M_{}`$ as required observationally. We expect that a large amount of neutrinos with high energies is also produced in the collision with the rapid energy dissipation. The neutrinos burst can be observed in future observatory although it has lost the direction pointing to a source of a GRB in which it was born. This is our generation mechanism of gamma ray bursts with energies $`10^{53}`$ erg.

In the above case, the AS dissipates its whole energy in the first collision. On the other hand, an AS may collide several times with a neutron star when its mass is much smaller than the critical mass $`10^1M_{}`$; the mass has been assumed as a characteristic mass scale of ABs. We see from the general formula eq(2) of $`R_a`$ that the radius of the AS with smaller mass than the critical one is larger than the critical radius $`10^5`$ cm. For example, if its mass is given by $`10^2M_{}`$, the radius is about $`10^6`$ cm. This is comparable to the radius of the neutron star. Hence, the collisions may occur several times. Such an AS never loose its whole energy in the first collision. How many times the collisions occur depends on the collision parameters. Unless the centers of both stars are on the straight line parallel to the relative velocity, the whole energy of AS does not dissipate in the first collision. There could be several collisions after the first collisions. The electric field induced in the AS is also small compared with the one mentioned above; $`E_a10^{11}\text{eV}\text{cm}^1B_{10}m_9`$, for $`M_a=10^2M_{}`$. Thus, the energies of the particles emitted from the neutron star are much smaller than $`10^{18}`$ eV. Furthermore, since the rate of the energy dissipation becomes smaller in the case of AS with smaller mass, the rate of the energy release is also smaller. It means that jet emitted in the collision is softer; its flux ( and energies of each particles ) is smaller than that of a jet emitted from the collision of AS with the critical mass. The total energies released ( $`10^{52}`$ erg for $`M_a=10^2M_{}`$ ) are also smaller than $`10^{53}`$ erg. We expect that these collisions generate gamma ray bursts with long duration and soft gamma rays. On the other hand, gamma ray bursts with short duration and hard gamma rays are produced in the first collision in which the whole energy is dissipated completely.

We should comment that when the axion star with much matter contamination collides, the jet ejected from the collision may contain baryon contamination much larger than $`10^5M_{}`$. Thus in such a collision, Lorentz factor of the jet is not so large that gamma ray bursts may not be produced.

## VI rate of energy release in uhecrs

We now wish to estimate an energy release rate in the collisions between ASs and neutron stars. We assume that UHECRs are produced in the collision of neutron stars with relatively strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G and that GRBs are produced in the collision of neutron stars with relatively weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$ G. Thus it is assumed that all of neutron stars are divided into those with $`B>10^{12}`$ G and those with $`B10^{10}`$ G. We take the fraction of the neutron stars with $`B>10^{12}`$ G to be $`f`$; $`0<f<1`$. Although the collisions may occur, in general, in the whole Universe, we estimate the rate of the collision which arises in a galaxy. Thus the real rate is larger than a rate in our estimation. Furthermore, we assume that the dark matter is composed mainly of axion stars. In particular a hale is composed of the axion stars. The estimation, however, involves several ambiguities associated with number density of neutron stars, energy density of dark matter or velocity of ASs in the Universe etc. Therefore the estimation does not lead to a conclusive result although our result is consistent with the observations.

First we assume that almost of all neutron stars are mainly located around a galaxy in which they were born. We also assume that their distribution is uniform in a halo of the galaxy whose size is supposed to be given by $`50`$kpc. Our result does not depend on the precise value of the size although it depends on mean energy density of the dark matter in the halo. Thus the collision between neutron star and axion star arises in the halo. The number of the neutron stars located around a galaxy is supposes to be $`10^9`$; the present rate of appearance of supernovae in a galaxy is about $`0.11`$ per $`10`$ year and the rate of the appearance could be larger in early stage of the galaxy than the one at present. Therefore, the number density $`\rho `$ of the neutron stars would be given such that $`\rho 10^9/(50\text{kpc})^3`$.

v

All of these neutron stars are assumed to possess either strong magnetic field $`>10^{12}`$ G or weak magnetic field $`10^{10}`$. Furthermore, to estimate the rate of the energy release we need to know average density $`ϵ`$ of the dark matter, i.e. density of axion stars. Here we use a value of $`ϵ0.5\times 10^{25}\text{g}/\text{cm}^3`$, which represents a local density of our halo: Our result depends on $`ϵ`$ linearly. Using these parameters we can estimate the rate owing to the collision between the AS and the neutron star. The collision takes place as a result of AS losing angular momentum and potential energy soon after AS being trapped gravitationally to a neutron star. Thus, we estimate the cross section for a neutron star to trap an AS in the following. Namely an AS is trapped by the neutron star when the AS approaches the neutrons star within a distance $`L_c`$ in which its kinetic energy $`M_av^2/2`$ is equal to its potential energy $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5}\times M_{}M_aG/L_c`$ around the neutron star. $`G`$ is gravitational constant. Here the mass of the neutron star and the relative velocity $`v`$ are assumed to be $`1.5\times M_{}`$ and $`3\times 10^7`$ cm/s, respectively. Thus, the cross section is found such as $`L_c^2\pi `$ with $`L_c6\times 10^{11}\text{cm}`$. The lose of its potential energy and angular momentum would be caused by the emission of gravitational and electromagnetic waves; electromagnetic radiations arise due to the oscillating current $`J_a`$. It also takes place by the interaction between the electric field of AS and plasma wind from neutron star. The detail calculation has not yet been done. It will be clarified in future publication.

Anyway, under the assumptions, we obtain the rate of the collision between neutron star and axion star per Mpc<sup>3</sup> and per year,

$$(ϵ/10^1M_{}\times \rho \times L_c^2\pi \times v\times 1\text{year})/(20)^33\times 10^{10}/\text{Mpc}^3\text{year}.$$
(15)
where we have obtained the rate per a galaxy with its volume $`(50\text{kpc})^3`$ and have divided it with $`(20)^3`$ to get the rate per Mpc<sup>3</sup>. This rate is divided into the rate of production of UHECRs and the rate of production of GRBs.

Here we comment that the rate heavily depends on the relative velocity $`v`$: $`L_c^2\times vv^3`$. Thus if we choose a value $`v=2\times 10^7`$ cm/s, the rate is given by $`10^9/\text{Mpc}^3\text{year}`$. Thus our result involves an ambiguity of the order of $`10`$.

Since the energy of $`10^{53}`$ erg is released in the collision, we find that the rate of the energy release as UHECRs is given by

$$(3\times 10^{43}10^{44})f\text{erg}/\text{Mpc}^3\text{year}.$$
(16)
where we assumed that the whole energy released is transmitted to UHECRs or GRBs. Our result does not include the contributions from collisions arising far outside of a galaxy. The real rate is larger than the rate in our estimation. Thus we may conclude that the result roughly agrees with the observation. It is well known that both rates of energy release in UHECRs and GRBs are nearly the same with each other. It implies that the fraction of the neutron stars with $`B>10^{12}`$ G is nearly the same with the fraction of neutron stars with $`B10^{10}`$. Taking account of several ambiguities in the parameters used above and the rough estimation, we can say simply that our model can explains roughly the observations.

## VII observational signal of axion stars

We have discussed our model for generation mechanisms of UHECRs and GRBs. These are generated in the collision between axion star and neutron star. An significant question is how we can check observationally our model. Since we have supposed that dark matter in Universe is composed mainly of axion stars, observation of the axion stars is important for checking validity of our model. There are several attempts of the detection of the axion itself. These attempts use axions conversion into photons under magnetic field in terrestrial experiments. But there are no attempts to observe axion stars. Since a collision between an axion star and the earth is very rare, we need to detect signals from the axion stars located far away from the earth.

Here we wish to discuss the observation of two types of signals from the axion stars. One is associated with gravitational lensing and the other one associated with monochromatic radiations from the ASs.

It was very intriguing to detect microgravitational lens effects associated with the halo of our galaxy. Since the first observations have been reported, several candidates for MACHOs have been proposed. Observationally, it is necessary for the candidates to have masses $`M`$ roughly such as $`0.1\times M_{}<M<0.7\times M_{}`$. Since we have assumed that the halo of our galaxy is composed of ASs and their mass is $`10^1M_{}`$, the ASs are plausible candidates for the MACHOs. As has been recognized, baryonic candidates like white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. have serious problems. Nonbaryonic candidates are favored. The problems are associated with chemical abundance of carbon and nitrogen in the Universe: If these baryonic stars are MACHOs, an overabundance of the elements is produced far in excess of what is observed in our galaxy. Hence, the ASs are theoretically the most fascinating candidates for the MACHOs as nonbaryonic ones. They are also candidates for the generators of both UHECRs and GRBs. If the most favorable mass of the MACHO is $`0.5M_{}`$, we need to choose $`m_a0.2\times 10^9`$ eV since the mass of the ASs is given by $`10^1M_{}/m_9`$. We note that smaller axion mass leads to stronger electric field as well as larger mass of AS. Thus, it yields higher energies of the UHECRs, $`5\times 10^{20}`$ eV and of GBRs, $`5\times 10^{53}`$ erg than the ones we have claimed above. Accordingly, the determination of the mass of MACHOs gives the upper limit of both the energies of the ultra high energy cosmic rays and the energies released in the gamma ray bursts in our mechanism.

We point out another way of the observation of the axion stars. Since the electric field $`E_a`$ as well as electric current $`J_a`$ induced in ASs is oscillating, electromagnetic radiations are emitted; the frequency of these monochromatic radiations is $`2.4\times 10^5m_9`$ Hz ( their wave length is given by $`1.3\times 10^5/m_9`$ cm. ) Their flux is stronger as the magnetic field imposed on AS is stronger. AS revolves around neutron star, loosing its potential energy and angular momentum, and then collides with it. In the revolution, AS emits the radiations with flux depending on the strength of the magnetic field. Hence, we expect that such radiations with maximal flux can be detected just in advance of UHECRs. Their flux is strongest among others just before UHECRs being emitted; the magnetic field is strongest when the AS decays into charged particles. It is easy to estimate their luminosity by evaluating gauge potential $`A_i`$,

$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0}}{\displaystyle _{AS}}J_a(tR_0+\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n})d^3x={\displaystyle \frac{c\alpha \sigma a_0B_i}{\pi R_0}}{\displaystyle _{AS}}\mathrm{sin}m_a(tR_0+\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{n})\mathrm{exp}(r/R_a)d^3x`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4c\alpha m_aa_0B_i}{R_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_a^3}{(m_a^2R_a^2+1)^2}}\mathrm{sin}m_a(tR_0),`$ (18)
where $`R_0`$ ( $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ ) denotes a distance ( direction ) between ( from ) the neutron star and ( to ) the earth. We have integrated the current $`J_a`$ over the AB, which is located near the neutron star. Thus, the luminosity $`L`$ of the radiations is given by

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`4c^2\alpha ^2a_0^2m_a^4B^2{\displaystyle \frac{R_a^6}{(m_a^2R_a^2+1)^4}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`6.7\times 10^{41}B_{12}^2\text{erg/s},`$ (20)
with $`c=1`$. If the emission arises in a distance $`10`$ Mpc from the earth, we obtain the flux at the earth, $`10^9\text{Jy}B_{12}^2/m_9`$; we have assumed that the velocity of the AS revolving is $`0.1\times `$ light velocity. Although the possibility of observing the radiations is very intriguing, it might be difficult to detect the radiations with such a low frequency because they could be absorbed by interstellar ionized gases before arriving the earth. v

The author wishes to express his thank to all the staffs in Theory Group, Tanashi Branch, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization for their warm hospitality extended to him. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan No.10640284