text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Black holes have so far played a crucial role in the development of quantum gravity and superstring theory. For instance, the discovery of the Hawking radiation  that black holes are not, after all, completely black but emit thermal radiation with a definite temperature due to quantum effects has triggered the widespread interest in quantum field theory in curved space-time. And the recent progress of a precise calculation of the black hole entropy and string dualities in superstring theory suggests that black holes do obey the ordinary rules of quantum mechanics so the laws of quantum mechanics do not need to be modified radically down to the Planck scale . Thus the study of black holes would give us the most valuable clues of constructing a quantum theory of gravity and a unified theory of fundamental interactions in future.

In recent years, we have witnessed a vast interest in the idea of a brane world where our world is considered to be a 3-brane embedded in a higher dimensional space-time . The key point of this scenario is localization of gauge and matter fields on the world-volume of the 3-brane, for which D-branes  would provide a natural framework. Another key point is that even gravity, which watches the whole space-time structure so lives in the whole space-time, can be also localized on the 3-brane in the sense that a normalizable graviton zero mode trapped by the brane reproduces four dimensional Newton’s law with only a small correction .

It is then natural to ask whether or not there are black hole solutions on a 3-brane in a well-known gravity localized model in $`AdS_5`$, the Randall-Sundrum model  in a brane world. Actually, in the model, since it turns out that the geometry on the brane is Ricci-flat, one can find the Schwarzschild geometry as a solution to Einstein’s equations . On the other hand, the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole satisfies Einstein’s equations with the stress-energy of the electric field as a source, so it appears to be difficult to have the charged black hole in the Randall-Sundrum model. Related to this point, it is recently shown that it is impossible to embed the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole in the gravity localized model via the conventional Kaluza-Klein reduction of the bulk metric . This situation is quite unsatisfactory since the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole makes its appearance in various modern theories such as supergravity and superstring theories. The aim of this paper is to show that it $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}`$ indeed possible to have the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole as a solution in gravity localized models, which include the Randall-Sundrum model in case of $`AdS_5`$. To do that, we shall introduce the bulk $`U(1)`$ gauge field in the models, which is needed to obtain Einstein’s equations with energy-momentum tensor associated with the electric field.

At this stage an interesting question arises with respect to the localization of the bulk gauge field on a 3-brane in the Randall-Sundrum model . In the Randall-Sundrum model, we are now familiar with the following fact about the localization of bulk gauge field on the 3-brane by means of a gravitational interaction: zero mode of spin 1 bulk vector field is not localized neither on a brane with positive tension nor on a brane with negative tension . Recently, this localization mechanism has been also investigated in higher dimensional topological defect models  by the present author . In the analysis , we have clarified that zero mode of spin 1 vector field $`\mathrm{𝑖𝑠}`$ localized on a brane with positive tension only in a string-like defect model with codimension 2, but the other topological defects cannot support zero mode of vector field on a 3-brane like the domain wall in the Randall-Sundrum model.

Accordingly, at first sight we might conclude that although we could succeed in constructing the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole on a 3-brane by including the bulk gauge field in the gravity localized models, the black hole, or more precisely, the charge carried by the black hole, cannot stay in our universe and enters in the higher dimensional space-time except the string-like defect model. Surprisingly enough, however, the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole $`\mathrm{𝑐𝑎𝑛}`$ reside in our universe. Why is the charged black hole bound on 3-brane by circumventing the aforementioned no-go theorem? A key word here is ’zero mode’. Although it is certainly true that the $`\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡}`$ zero mode of the bulk gauge field is not trapped on a 3-brane, the $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡}`$ zero mode has a possibility of being trapped on the 3-brane. Indeed, this phenomenon precisely occurs in the present situation as will seen later.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present our setup and derive the equations of motion from an action in a general space-time dimension. In Section 3, we show that there are the Reissner-Nordstrom black holes as solutions to the equations of motion obtained in Section 2. Then, in Section 4, we explain why such charged black holes are localized on a 3-brane. The final section is devoted to discussions.

## 2 Setup

We would like to consider $`\mathrm{𝑔𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙}`$ topological defects in the extra internal dimensions, which are described by a scalar field with an orthogonal symmetry with the Higgs potential. In the defects, the scalar field takes the vanishing configuration at the core, whereas it has the ’hedgehog’ configuration outside the core. In this article, we pay our attention to only the exterior geometry outside the core of the defects.

The action with which we start is that of gravity in general $`D`$ dimensions, with the conventional Einstein-Hilbert action, a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and some matter action $`S_m`$:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa _D^2}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)}+S_m,`$ (1)
where $`\kappa _D`$ denotes the $`D`$-dimensional gravitational constant with a relation $`\kappa _D^2=8\pi G_N=\frac{8\pi }{M_{}^{D2}}`$ with $`G_N`$ and $`M_{}`$ being the $`D`$-dimensional Newton constant and the $`D`$-dimensional Planck mass scale, respectively. For simplicity, we set $`\kappa _D`$ to 1 from now on. In this article, as $`S_m`$ we shall take the $`U(1)`$ Maxwell’s action $`S_A`$ plus the $`O(n)`$ globally symmetric scalar action $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the Higgs potential ($`S_m=S_A+S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$), which are defined as

$`S_A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}F_{NS}},`$
$`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{2}g^{MN}_M\mathrm{\Phi }^a_N\mathrm{\Phi }^a+\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\eta ^2)^2\right\}},`$ (2)
where $`F_{MN}=_MA_N_NA_M`$. And we use the index convention such that $`M,N,\mathrm{}`$ denote $`D`$-dimensional space-time indices, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ $`p`$-dimensional brane ones, and $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ $`n`$-dimensional extra spatial ones, so the equality $`D=p+n`$ holds. Throughout this article we follow the standard conventions and notations of the textbook of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler .

Taking a variation of the action (1) with respect to the $`D`$-dimensional metric tensor $`g_{MN}`$ leads to Einstein’s equations

$`R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{MN}+2T_{MN},`$ (3)
where the energy-momentum tensor associated with Eq. (2) is given by

$`T_{MN}`$ $``$ $`T_{MN}(A)+T_{MN}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta g^{MN}}}(S_A+S_\mathrm{\Phi }),`$
$`T_{MN}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{MP}F_N^P{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{MN}F^2,`$
$`T_{MN}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`_M\mathrm{\Phi }^a_N\mathrm{\Phi }^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{MN}_P\mathrm{\Phi }^a^P\mathrm{\Phi }^a+g_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^a\eta ^2)^2,`$ (4)
with the contraction over indices being achieved in terms of the $`D`$-dimensional metric tensor $`g^{MN}`$. The Bianchi identity gives rise to the conservation law for the energy-momentum tensor

$`^MT_{MN}=0.`$ (5)
Finally, the equations of motion to vector fields $`A_M`$ read

$`_M(\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{NS})=0.`$ (6)
Next we shall propose our setup and ansatzs in order to solve the equations of motion derived thus far. First of all, let us adopt the following cylindrical metric ansatz:

$`ds_D^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{MN}dx^Mdx^N`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }(x^M)dx^\mu dx^\nu +\stackrel{~}{g}_{ab}(x^c)dx^adx^b`$
$`=`$ $`e^{A(r)}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+e^{B(r)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,`$
where d$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2`$ stands for the metric on a unit $`(n1)`$-sphere, which is concretely expressed in terms of the angular variables $`\theta _i`$ as

$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2=d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\theta _3^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3d\theta _4^2+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _id\theta _n^2,`$ (8)
where each variable takes the range $`0r\mathrm{}`$, $`0\theta _22\pi `$ and $`0\theta _i(i=3,4,\mathrm{},n)\pi `$, and the volume element is given by $`𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}=\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2})}`$.

As mentioned above, global defects are regarded as taking ’hedgehog’ configuration outside the core in the extra dimensions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^a=\eta {\displaystyle \frac{r^a}{r}},`$ (9)
where $`r^a`$ is defined as

$`r^a=(r\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,r\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3,r\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\mathrm{cos}\theta _4,\mathrm{},r{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _i).`$ (10)
Then, the energy-momentum tensor $`T_N^M(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ takes the form outside the defect core

$`T_r^r(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n1)\eta ^2e^{B(r)},`$
$`T_{\theta _j}^{\theta _i}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3)\eta ^2e^{B(r)}\delta _j^i,`$
$`T_\nu ^\mu (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n1)\eta ^2e^{B(r)}\delta _\nu ^\mu .`$ (11)
For the field strength $`F_{MN}`$ of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`A_M`$, we take an ansatz such that only the nonvanishing components are

$`F_{t\rho }=F_{\rho t}=e^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}f_{t\rho }=e^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}f_{\rho t},`$ (12)
where we have denoted the coordinates $`x^0`$ and $`x^1`$ on a $`(p1)`$-brane as $`t`$ and $`\rho `$, respectively, and we assume that $`f_{t\rho }`$ is a function depending on only the radial coordinate $`\rho `$ on a brane. Here we have inserted the nontrivial $`r`$-dependent factor $`e^{\frac{1}{2}A(r)}`$ in front of $`f_{t\rho }`$ for the purpose of canceling out the $`r`$-dependent factor appearing in $`T_{MN}(A)`$ as will be seen shortly.

With these ansatzs, after a straightforward but a little tedious calculation, Einstein’s equations (3) reduce to

$`e^A\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{p(n1)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{4}}(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n1)(n22\eta ^2)e^B2\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ (13)
$`e^A\widehat{R}+(n2)B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(n2)}{2}}A^{}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{4}}(B^{})^2`$
$`+(n3)(n22\eta ^2)e^B+pA^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{p(p+1)}{4}}(A^{})^22\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ (14)
$`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+2\widehat{t}_{\mu \nu }.`$ (15)
In the above the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to $`r`$, and then $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\widehat{R}`$ are respectively the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature associated with the brane metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$. Here we have defined the effective cosmological constant on the $`(p1)`$-brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$, by the equation

$`e^A\mathrm{\Lambda }_p={\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}(A^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}A^{}B^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)}{8}}(A^{})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}\left\{B^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4}}(B^{})^2+(n22\eta ^2)e^B\right\}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (16)
In addition, the nonvanishing energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }(A)`$ takes the form

$`T_{\mu \nu }(A)=f_{\mu \lambda }f_\mu ^\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }f^2\widehat{t}_{\mu \nu },`$ (17)
where the indices are raised by means of $`\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }`$. Note that as promised this energy-momentum tensor has no dependency on $`A(r)`$ due to Eq. (12).

Furthermore, the conservation law for this energy-momentum tensor (5) reads

$`\widehat{}_\mu \widehat{t}_\nu ^\mu =0,A^{}\widehat{t}_\mu ^\mu (n1)\eta ^2B^{}e^B=0.`$ (18)
Finally, Maxwell’s equations (6) become

$`_\mu (\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\lambda \sigma }f_{\nu \sigma })=0.`$ (19)
Note that the raising and the lowering of the indices are respectively carried out by the brane metric tensor $`\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ in all the reduced equations of motion, which is crucial for the existence of a black hole solution on a brane.

## 3 The Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solution

We are now in a position to find the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole on a $`(p1)`$-brane in a warped geometry as a solution to a set of equations obtained so far.

Henceforth, let us confine ourselves to $`p=4`$, in other words, a 3-brane, from a physical interest. (The generalization to an arbitrary $`p`$ is straightforward.) In addition to it, we require an ansatz $`\widehat{R}=0`$. The physical plausibility of this ansatz arises from the reasoning that the scalar curvature of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is vanishing although the Ricci tensor is not zero but proportional to stress-energy tensor of the electric field. In what follows, we shall solve a set of equations for the domain wall $`n=1`$ first, and then for the higher dimensional defects $`n2`$.

### 3.1 Domain wall (n=1) in five dimensions (D=5)

In this subsection, we solve a set of equations in the case of $`n=1`$ and five space-time dimensions.

In this case, under the ansatzs $`p=4`$ and $`\widehat{R}=0`$, the (rr)-component of Einstein equations, (13), reduces to the form

$`3(A^{})^22\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ (20)
whose solution is given by

$`A=cr,`$ (21)
with the definition of a constant $`c\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}`$. Here three remarks are in order. The first is that the positivity of $`(A^{})^2`$ requires the negativity of a bulk cosmological constant, i.e., anti-de Sitter space as in the Randall-Sundrum model. Actually, when the brane geometry is completely flat ($`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$) and chargeless, the present model becomes equivalent to (a half $`AdS_5`$ slice of) the Randall-Sundrum model where a single 3-brane sits at the origin $`r=0`$ and a fifth dimension is noncompact. The second remark is related to the sign in front of the positive constant $`c`$ where we have selected a positive sign to bind the graviton on our 3-brane. The final remark is the integration constant in the right hand side of (21). It is obvious that the constant can be set to zero by the redefinition of the brane coordinates $`x^\mu `$.

Then substituting (21) into (16), we find that the effective cosmological constant on the brane vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$. Next, under $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4=0`$ and the ansatz $`\widehat{R}=0`$, we see from (15) that

$`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }=2\widehat{t}_{\mu \nu }.`$ (22)
Indeed, this equation is consistent with our ansatz $`\widehat{R}=0`$ from Eq. (18).

In consequence, the remaining equations which we should solve are Eqs. (22), (18) and (19). (Note that Eq. (14) stems from the $`(\theta _i\theta _i)`$-component of Einstein’s equations so this equation does not exist in the case of domain wall.) Provided that we choose $`f_{t\rho }=\frac{Q}{\rho ^2}`$ with $`Q`$ being a constant corresponding to the electric charge, as a special solution these equations give us the electrically charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole geometry on the brane . Accordingly, we arrive at the following line element as desired

$`ds_5^2=e^{cr}d\widehat{s}^2+dr^2,`$ (23)
where $`d\widehat{s}^2`$ is the line element of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole geometry on the brane

$`d\widehat{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\rho ^2}})dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{2M}{\rho }+\frac{Q^2}{\rho ^2}}}d\rho ^2+\rho ^2(d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi d\phi ^2).`$
### 3.2 Higher dimensional defects (n $``$ 2) in D dimensions (D = 4 + n $``$ 6)

Now we turn our attention to the more general defect with codimension $`n`$ in $`D`$ space-time dimensions. A defect with codimension 2 in six space-time dimensions is called a string-like defect. Similarly, a defect with codimension 3 and 4 in seven and eight space-time dimensions is called a monopole-like and an instanton-like defect, respectively. Of course, all the defects are a 3-brane. (Recall that we have set $`p=4`$.) In this case, even if we take the ansatzs $`p=4`$ and $`\widehat{R}=0`$ like the domain wall, Einstein equations (13) and (14) do not reduce to a simple and manageable expression owing to the existence of the nontrivial term $`e^B`$, which comes from the fact that in the $`n`$ extra dimensions with $`n2`$ the space is not flat but curved. (Note that the extra space with $`n=2`$ is marginal since the space is conformally flat, so there is a nontrivial solution in this case, which was discovered by Gregory .)

An important observation here is that one must set a function $`B(r)`$ to a constant because otherwise we encounter a ’naked’ singularity at somewhere $`r`$. This observation can be checked by calculating the bulk scalar curvature and higher orders of the curvature tensor . Thus, we assume the form

$`B=2\mathrm{ln}R_0,`$ (25)
where we selected the constant to be a specific form for later convenience.

With the ansatzs $`p=4`$, $`\widehat{R}`$ and (25), Einstein equations (13) and (14) read respectively

$`3(A^{})^2+(n1)(n22\eta ^2)R_0^22\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ (26)
$`4A^{\prime \prime }5(A^{})^2+(n3)(n22\eta ^2)R_0^22\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.`$ (27)
It is straightforward to solve the equations (26) and (27) whose result is given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`cr,`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{n+2}}},`$
$`R_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n+2)(n22\eta ^2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}}.`$ (28)
This solution coincides with the one found in Ref. .

Note that this solution also has a warp factor and makes sense only in anti-de Sitter space. Interestingly enough, in this case as well, the brane cosmological constant is zero, so the same argument as in the domain wall gives us the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solution on a 3-brane as a special solution. Consequently, we have the bulk geometry with the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole as the brane geometry

$`ds_D^2=e^{cr}d\widehat{s}^2+dr^2+R_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,`$ (29)
where $`d\widehat{s}^2`$, and the constants $`c`$ and $`R_0`$ are given by Eqs. (24) and (28), respectively.

## 4 Localization of Reissner-Nordstrom black hole on a 3-brane

In the previous section, we have shown that the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole exists on a 3-brane in the gravity localized models by introducing the $`U(1)`$ bulk gauge field. But our knowledge of localization of gauge field on the topological defects  gives us a fear that the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole which we have found may not be localized on the brane but live in the whole space-time. In what follows, we shall show that the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is in fact confined to the 3-brane.

As can be seen in Eqs. (23) and (29), the 5D line element (23) has a similar structure to the general one (29). As a result of this fact, it is known that in the both cases, zero mode of the bulk gauge field is $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑜𝑡}`$ localized on a 3-brane . To save space, we shall explicitly prove that the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole which we have found in the previous section is in fact confined to a 3-brane only for the solution (29). The case of 5D solution (23) is a direct consequence of the proof.

Let us start with the action of $`U(1)`$ vector field:

$`S_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle d^Dx\sqrt{g}g^{MN}g^{RS}F_{MR}F_{NS}}.`$ (30)
From (29) with the help of (8), we can calculate

$`\sqrt{g}=R_0^{n1}e^{2A}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)^{n2}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _3)^{n3}\mathrm{}(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{n2})^2(\mathrm{sin}\theta _{n1})\sqrt{\widehat{g}}.`$ (31)
Then, using Eqs. (12), (29) and (31), we can rewrite the action as follows:

$`S_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2})}}R_0^{n1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑re^A{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}^{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}^{\lambda \sigma }f_{\mu \lambda }f_{\nu \sigma }}+\mathrm{}.`$ (32)
The existence of a normalizable mode of gauge field on a 3-brane requires that the coefficient in front of 4D gauge action should be finite . Therefore, provided that we define the nontrivial coefficient in (32) as $`I_1`$, the requirement that the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole is confined to a 3-brane is that $`I_1`$ is finite. This is indeed the case as follows:

$`I_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑re^A={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑re^{cr}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}<\mathrm{}.`$ (33)
It is quite of importance to consider why $`I_1`$ becomes finite in the present situation since the corresponding coefficient in a Minkowski flat 3-brane is known to be divergent so that the bulk gauge field cannot be trapped on the brane by means of only a gravitational interaction . Note that an exponential factor $`e^A`$ in (33) comes from (12). (Recall that as mentioned in Section 1, if we do not have this exponential damping factor as in the flat brane, $`I_1`$ becomes divergent, leading to the conclusion that zero mode of spin 1 bulk vector field is not localized neither on a brane with positive tension nor on a brane with negative tension .) This factor was introduced in order to have the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole as a solution to Einstein’s equations. (See Eqs. (15), (17) and recall an ansatz $`f_{t\rho }=\frac{Q}{\rho ^2}`$.) Accordingly, the existence of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole solution naturally causes the localization of the black hole charge on a 3-brane! We believe that this is one of striking phenomena in the gravity localized models. Put differently, a no-go theorem with regard to the non-localization of gauge field  holds only when its zero mode is a constant mode with respect to the radial coordinate $`r`$, whereas in the case at hand zero mode explicitly depends on the coordinate $`r`$ so this no-go theorem is not valid now.

## 5 Discussions

In this article we have investigated the possibility of having the electrically charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole in the gravity localized models in a general dimension. To do so, it was necessary to introduce the bulk gauge field in order to make Einstein’s equations with the stress-energy tensor of the electric field. But the story was not so simple since it is well known that the bulk gauge field is not generally localized on a 3-brane. Thus, even if we could construct the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole on a 3-brane, the black hole, or more precisely speaking its electric charge, may not be trapped on the brane and propagate freely in the whole space-time. In other words, the charged black hole originally living in our world may lose its charge into the extra space and become the Schwarzschild black hole on a 3-brane as time passes by.

One of striking features is that the charged Reissner-Nordstrom black hole in the gravity localized models is indeed localized on our universe and the localization mechanism is provided by Einstein’s equations in a remarkable way.

In a flat Minkowski $`(p1)`$-brane, spin 1/2 and 3/2 fermionic fields are known to be localized on the brane with the exponentially rising warp factor . We wish to know in future whether or not a similar phenomenon to the trapping of the charged black hole could happen in a physical situation relevant to those fermionic fields.


format: text

text:
# Knots of Ten or Fewer Crossings of Algebraic Order Two

## 1 Twisted Doubles of the Unknot

We begin with a formal definition. A knot is a homeomorphism class of a pair of manifolds, $`(S,K)`$, with $`SS^3`$, $`KS^1`$, with a smooth embedding $`KS`$. A knot is called slice if there is a manifold pair $`(B,D)`$, $`BB^4`$, $`DB^2`$, with a proper smooth embedding $`DB`$, such that $`(B,D)(S,K)`$. We will usually abuse notation and refer to $`K`$ as a knot.

In , Casson and Gordon define an invariant $`\tau (K,\chi )`$ that vanishes if a knot is slice. This invariant depends on the knot $`K`$ and a character $`\chi `$. Let $`K_n`$ be the $`n`$–fold cyclic cover of a knot complement $`SK`$, and let $`\overline{K}_n`$ be the $`n`$–fold branched cyclic cover of $`SK`$. The character $`\chi `$ is a homomorphism $`\chi :H_1(\overline{K}_n)/d`$. If a knot is algebraically slice and $`n`$ is a prime power, there is a metabolizer of $`H_1(\overline{K}_n)`$: a half–rank subgroup $`HH_1(\overline{K}_n)`$ such that $`H`$ is self–annihilating under the linking form on $`H_1(\overline{K}_n)`$. If a knot is slice, then Casson and Gordon proved that there exists a metabolizer $`H`$ such that for all characters $`\chi :H_1(\overline{K}_n)/d`$, $`d`$ a prime power, that are trivial on $`H`$, $`\tau (K,\chi )`$ vanishes. Casson and Gordon also defined another related invariant $`\sigma (K,\chi )`$, and a signature of the $`\tau `$ invariant $`\sigma _1(\tau (K,\chi ))`$, and then proved that the two invariants are related by $`|\sigma (K,\chi )\sigma _1(\tau (K,\chi ))|1`$.

Let $`T_k`$ be the $`k`$–twisted double of the unknot (Figure 1).

$`T_k`$ is algebraically slice for $`k=0,2,6,12,\mathrm{}`$, i.e. for $`k=u(u1)`$. For any other $`k`$, $`T_k`$ is of algebraic order two or of algebraic order four (i.e. either $`T_k\mathrm{\#}T_k`$ or $`T_k\mathrm{\#}T_k\mathrm{\#}T_k\mathrm{\#}T_k`$ is algebraically slice). According to Levine , $`T_k`$ is of order 4 exactly when $`4k+1=p^\alpha m`$, for some prime $`p`$, $`p3mod4`$, $`\mathrm{gcd}(p,m)=1`$, and some odd $`\alpha `$. Specifically, any $`T_k`$ such that $`4k+1`$ is prime fails to be of algebraic order one or four, and thus is of algebraic order two.

In the concordance group, the knot $`T_0`$ is the unknot, and therefore slice; the knot $`T_2`$, popularly called the stevedore’s knot, is also slice. The figure–eight–knot, $`T_1`$, is of order two in the knot concordance group. Casson and Gordon  proved that, except for $`k=0,2`$, no other algebraically slice twisted double of the unknot is slice. Livingston and Naik considered the knots $`T_k`$, with $`k=(pq1)/4`$, $`p`$, $`q`$ primes congruent to 3 mod 4. These are of algebraic order four; they were shown to be of infinite concordance order . We will show that any $`T_k`$ where $`k3`$ and $`4k+1`$ is a prime, which is of algebraic order two, is of infinite concordance order. As corollaries, the set of $`T_k`$, $`k>3`$, $`4k+1`$ prime, are linearly independent in the concordance group, and for any algebraically slice knot $`K`$, the set of $`k`$–twisted doubles of $`K`$ are linearly independant in the knot concordance group.

The two–fold branched cover of $`T_k`$ is the lens space $`L(4k+1,2)`$. As lens spaces are well understood, this is one of the few cases where it is not too difficult to calculate Casson–Gordon invariants. In fact, some of the Casson–Gordon invariants for these knots were calculated in .

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`T_k`$ be the $`k`$–twisted double of the unknot. Then for all $`k3`$, if $`4k+1`$ is a prime, $`T_k`$ is of infinite concordance order.

Note that this theorem applies to $`8_1=T_3`$ and $`10_1=T_4`$.

###### Proof.

We are considering the knot $`\mathrm{\#}_nT_k`$. Because $`T_k`$ is algebraic order 2, we assume $`n`$ is even. Let $`M_{k,n}`$ be the two–fold branched cover of $`\mathrm{\#}_nT_k`$. Let $`m=4k+1`$. By , we have

$$\sigma (T_k,\chi ^{2r})=4\left(\text{area}\mathrm{}(r,\frac{2r}{m})\text{int}\mathrm{}(r,\frac{2r}{m})\right).$$

Here $`\mathrm{}(x,y)`$ is the triangle on the $`x,y`$–plane with vertices at $`(0,0)`$, $`(x,0)`$, and $`(x,y)`$. The notation int refers to a count of integral points of the triangle as follows: count 1 for every integral interior point, $`1/2`$ for every non–vertex integral boundary point, and $`1/4`$ for every integral vertex point except $`(0,0)`$. The character $`\chi ^{2r}`$ is defined as follows. The character $`\chi :H_1(L(m,2))/m`$ is the character of , pg. 26; let $`\chi ^{2r}`$ be the $`2r`$–power of $`\chi `$. The character is of order $`m`$, thus $`r`$ takes values in the integers modulo $`m`$.

We can write $`\chi ()=\mathrm{lk}(x,)`$ for some $`xH_1(L(m,2))`$. Since $`H_1(L(m,2))`$ is isomorphic to $`/m`$ and $`m`$ is prime, we may consider $`x`$ to be the generator of $`H_1(L(m,2))`$, written as 1. Then we have $`\chi ^{2r}()=\mathrm{lk}(2r,)`$.

By considering triangles, Casson and Gordon  found that

$$\sigma (T_k,\chi ^{2r})=\frac{4r^2}{m}2r+1\text{ for }0<2r<m,$$

we can further find that

$$\sigma (T_k,\chi ^{2r})=\frac{4r^2}{m}6r+2m+1\text{ for }m<2r<2m.$$

We will abbreviate the first of these polynomials as $`\sigma _1(r)`$ and the second as $`\sigma _2(r)`$. Elementary algebra reveals that the minimum for $`\sigma _1(r)`$ over $``$ occurs at $`m/4`$; the closest integer point to that is $`(m1)/4=k`$, and

$$\sigma _1(k)=\left(\frac{1}{4m}\right)\left(m^2+4m+1\right),$$

which is negative for all $`m5`$. The only positive value of either $`\sigma _1`$ or $`\sigma _2`$ (for $`k3`$) occurs at $`(m1)/2`$ and $`(m+1)/2`$ respectively, and

$$\sigma _1\left(\frac{m1}{2}\right)=\sigma _2\left(\frac{m+1}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{m}.$$

We now need to find an appropriate metabolizer and character. A basis for the vector space $`H_1(M_{k,n})(/m)^n`$ comes from the isomorphism

$$H_1(M_{k,n})\underset{n}{}H_1\left(L(m,2)\right).$$

Let $`M`$ be a metabolizer of $`H_1(M_{k,n})`$; $`M`$ is isomorphic to $`(/m)^{n/2}`$. Linear algebra gives us a basis

$$(1,0,\mathrm{},0,a_{1,1},\mathrm{},a_{1,n/2})$$

$$(0,1,\mathrm{},0,a_{2,1},\mathrm{},a_{2,n/2})$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$(0,0,\mathrm{},1,a_{n/2,1},\mathrm{},a_{n/2,n/2})$$

for $`M`$, written in the given basis for $`H_1(M_{k,n})`$. Taking the sum of these basis elements, every metabolizer contains the element

$$(1,1,\mathrm{},1,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n/2}).$$

Multiplying the above element by $`k=(m1)/4`$, we see that $`M`$ also contains, for some $`k_i`$’s,

$$(k,k,\mathrm{},k,k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n/2}).$$

Let

$$\overline{\chi }=(\chi ^k,\chi ^k,\mathrm{},\chi ^k,\chi ^{k_1},\mathrm{},\chi ^{k_{n/2}}).$$

Note that $`\overline{\chi }`$ is element–wise linking with an element in the metabolizer $`M`$, and thus is trivial on $`M`$. We have

$`\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_nT_k,\overline{\chi })`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n/2}{}}\sigma (T_k,\chi ^k)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}}\sigma (T_k,\chi ^{k_i})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8m}}(m^2+4m+1)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}}\sigma (T_k,\chi ^{k_i})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{8m}}(m^2+4m+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{n}{8m}}\left(m^2+4m+5\right)`$
We apply Theorem 3 from  and the triangle inequality to calculate

$$\begin{array}{c}|\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_nT_k,\overline{\chi })\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_nT_k,\overline{\chi }))|=\left|\underset{i}{}\sigma (T_k,\chi ^i)\underset{i}{}\sigma _1(\tau (T_k,\chi ^i))\right|\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i}{}|\sigma (T_k,\chi ^i)\sigma _1(\tau (T_k,\chi ^i))|n\end{array}$$

Thus we get that

$$\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_nT_k,\overline{\chi }))\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_nT_k,\overline{\chi })+n\frac{n(m^2+12m+5)}{8m}$$

The expression on the right is strictly negative for all $`n2,m13`$. Therefore $`\sigma _1(\tau (K,\chi ))`$ is non–zero for all $`n2,k3`$, so $`T_k`$ is of infinite order in $`𝒞`$. ∎

###### Corollary 1.2.

The knots $`\{T_k|k=3,4,5,\mathrm{};4k+1\text{ prime}\}`$ are linearly independent in the knot concordance group.

###### Proof.

We use the notation that $`M^n`$ for the connected sum of $`n`$ copies of $`M`$, or the direct product of $`n`$ copies of $`M`$, depending on whether $`M`$ is a space or a module.

Take a linear combination of twisted doubles of the unknot, $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i}`$, $`k_ik_j`$ when $`ij`$. The Alexander polynomial of this knot is $`(k_it^2(2k_i+1)t+k_i)^{n_i}`$. If $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i}`$ is slice, its Alexader polynomial must factor as $`f(t)f(t^1)`$. Thus in order that our knot to be slice, we must have that each of the $`n_i`$ are even.

Let $`m_i=4k_i+1`$. The two–fold branched cover of the knot $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i}`$ is $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^NL(m_i,2)^{n_i}`$. Let $`\chi `$ be a character

$$\chi :H_1(\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^NL(m_i,2)^{n_i})\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_1(L(m_i,2))^{n_i}/m_1.$$

Since there is no non–trivial map $`/m_i/m_1`$ for $`i1`$, the character $`\chi `$ is zero on $`_{i=2}^NH_1(L(m_i,2))^{n_i}`$. We see by the proof of Theorem 3 in , that if $`\chi `$ is zero, then $`\sigma _1(\tau (K,\chi ))=\sigma (K,\chi )`$. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{c}|\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(\mathrm{\#}_{n_i}T_{k_i}),\chi )\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(\mathrm{\#}_{n_i}T_{k_i}),\chi ))|=\hfill \\ \hfill |\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_{n_1}T_{k_1},\chi )\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_{n_1}T_{k_1},\chi ))|.\end{array}$$

Thus by the proof of Theorem 1.1 above, there is a $`\overline{\chi }`$ such that

$$|\sigma (\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i},\overline{\chi })\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i},\overline{\chi }))|n_1$$

so

$$\sigma _1(\tau (\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i},\overline{\chi }))\frac{n_1(m_1^2+12m_1+5)}{8m_1}<0$$

and so $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^N(T_{k_i})^{n_i}`$ is not slice. ∎

This corollary, together with the work of Litherland concerning satellite knots , allows us to conclude that, for $`k3`$, $`4k+1`$ prime, the set of $`k`$–twisted doubles of any given algebraically slice knot is linearly independant in the knot concordance group.

To form a $`k`$–twisted double of an arbitrary knot $`K`$, take a $`k`$–twisted double of the unknot, embedded in a solid torus. Remove a tubular neighborhood of $`K`$ from $`S`$ and glue in that solid torus, gluing a meridian/longitude pair of the torus to a meridian/longitude pair of the knot $`K`$. We write $`T_k(K)`$ for the $`k`$–twisted double of $`K`$.

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`K`$ be an algebraically slice knot, and let $`\{k_i\}`$ be the set of positive integers such that $`k_i3`$ and $`4k_i+1`$ is prime. Then the set $`\{T_{k_i}(K)\}`$ is linearly independant in the knot concordance group.

###### Proof.

The Seifert surface and Seifert form of a $`k`$–twisted double of a knot are identical to those of the $`k`$–twisted double of the unknot, thus for $`4k+1`$ prime, a $`k`$–twisted double of any knot is of algebraic order 2.

Let $`\overline{T_k(K)}_n`$ the $`n`$–fold branched cover of $`T_k(K)`$. A trivial consequence of , Corollary 2, is that for any character $`\chi :H_1(\overline{T_k(K)}_n)/d`$, we have

$$\tau (T_k(K),\chi )=\tau (T_k,\chi )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma _K[\chi (x_i)]$$

It is shown in  that characters $`H_1(\overline{T_k(K)}_n)/d`$ are in a one–to–one correspondance with characters $`H_1((\overline{T_k})_n)/d`$, thus we abuse notation and use $`\chi `$ to denote both these characters. The invariant $`\sigma _K`$ of a knot is defined in ; it measures the algebraic sliceness of a knot.

The consequence of Litherland’s formula is that if we assume that $`K`$ is algebraically slice, then $`\sigma _K`$ and $`\sigma _K[\chi (x_i)]`$ are zero, and thus

$$\tau (T_k(K),\chi )=\tau (T_k,\chi ),$$

and so Corollary 1.2 suffices to prove the result. ∎

## 2 Twisted Alexander Polynomials

In general, Casson–Gordon invariants are difficult to calculate, though much work has been done to develop algorithms to calculate them in special cases (, , , ). One can often overcome this difficulty by using a related invariant, the twisted Alexander polynomial. The twisted Alexander polynomial is related to the determinant of the $`\tau `$ Casson–Gordon invariant . It is easier to calculate, in so far as there is an algorithm for calculating it .

The (non–twisted) Alexander polynomial is a very well–known knot invariant. Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ be the infinite cyclic cover of $`K`$. Then $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{K};[t,t^1])`$ is a torsion $`[t,t^1]`$ module. Since $`[t,t^1]`$ is a p.i.d., we can write

$$H_1(\stackrel{~}{K};[t,t^1])\frac{[t,t^1]}{p_1(t)}\mathrm{}\frac{[t,t^1]}{p_k(t)}.$$

We define the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)=p_i(t)`$. The product $`p_i(t)`$ is also known as the order of the module $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{K};[t,t^1])`$. The polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)`$ is well–defined up to units in $`[t,t^1]`$. It is well–known that if a knot is slice, the Alexander polynomial factors as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)=f(t)f(t^1)`$ . This is actually a consequence of being algebraically slice.

A twisted Alexander polynomial of a knot is an extension of the above concept. The general definition of a twisted Alexander polynomial can be found in ; we restrict ourselves to the specific case needed.

Let $`K_n`$ be the $`n`$–fold cyclic cover of the a knot complement $`SK`$. Take the map on fundamental groups induced by the covering map $`K_nSK`$, and post-compose it with the Hurewicz homomorphism. Call the composition $`\eta :\pi _1(K_n)`$. As the image of $`\eta `$ is isomorphic to $``$, we take $`\eta `$ to be onto.

Define a map $`\rho `$ as follows. Let $`\overline{K}_n`$ be the branched $`n`$–fold cyclic cover of $`K`$. Choose a character $`\chi :H_1(\overline{K}_n)/d`$. Precompose this map with the map on homology arising from the inclusion $`K_n\overline{K}_n`$ and with the Hurewicz homomorphism to get a map $`\pi _1(K_n)/d`$. Let $`(\zeta _d)`$ be the extension of the rationals by a $`d`$th root of unity; $`/d`$ maps into $`(\zeta _d)`$ by $`i\zeta _d^i`$. Thus we can define a map $`/d(\zeta _d)^{}=(\zeta _d)\{0\}`$. Composing, we get

$$\rho :\pi _1(K_n)(\zeta _d)^{}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}_n`$ be the universal cover of $`K_n`$. The fundamental group $`\pi _1(K_n)`$ acts on chains $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K}_n;(\zeta _d))`$. There is also an action of $`\pi _1(K_n)`$ on $`(\zeta _d)[t,t^1]`$ via $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$, defined by $`\gamma p(t,t^1)=t^{\eta (\gamma )}\rho (\gamma )p(t,t^1)`$. Thus $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ define a twisted homology $`H_{}(K_n;(\zeta _d)[t,t^1]_{\rho ,\eta })`$. This homology is a module over $`(\zeta _d)[t,t^1]`$, which is a p.i.d., so $`H_1(K_n;(\zeta _d)[t,t^1]_{\rho ,\eta })`$ has a well–defined order. We call this order a twisted Alexander polynomial of the knot $`K`$. Since the only choice that was made in the definition was a choice of a character $`\chi :H_1(\overline{K}_n)/d`$, we will write the twisted Alexander polynomial as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi (K)`$.

Just as the untwisted Alexander polynomial factors if a knot is slice, so does the twisted Alexander polynomial.

###### Theorem 2.1 (Theorem 6.2 ).

Let $`K`$ be a knot, and let $`\overline{K}_n`$ be the $`n`$–fold branched cyclic cover of $`K`$, with $`n`$ a power of a prime. If $`K`$ is slice, then there is a metabolizer $`HH_1(\overline{K}_n)`$ with the following property. For all characters $`\chi :H_1(\overline{K}_n)/d`$, with $`d`$ a prime–power and $`\chi (H)=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi (K)`$ factors as $`af(t)\overline{f}(t^1)(t1)^s`$, where $`a(\zeta _d)`$, and $`s=0`$ or $`s=1`$ if $`\chi `$ is trivial or non–trivial, respectivly.

### 2.1 Calculating the Twisted Alexander Polynomial

Just as the twisted Alexander polynomial is defined as an extension of the Alexander polynomial, so the calculation of the twisted polynomial is a variation on the calculation of the non–twisted polynomial. We will recall the method for calculating the former before going on to the latter.

Recall the definition of a Fox derivative. Let $`F(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ be a free group, and $`v`$ and $`w`$ be words in that group. The Fox derivative

$$\frac{}{x_i}w$$

is defined recursively as follows:

$$\frac{}{x_i}x_i=1$$

$$\frac{}{x_i}(vw)=\frac{}{x_i}v+v\frac{}{x_i}w.$$

The same definition can be extended to any factor group of a free group.

Let

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_m|r_1,r_2,\mathrm{},r_{m1}$$

be a presentation for the fundamental group of a knot complement, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\pi _1(SK)`$. Form a matrix whose $`i,j`$th entry is the Fox derivative $`r_i/x_j`$. Delete any one column to obtain an $`m1`$ by $`m1`$ matrix. Replace all the occurrences of $`x_i`$ in the entries of the matrix $`M`$ with $`t`$. This matrix is actually a presentation matrix for the first homology of the infinite cyclic cover of the knot complement as a $`[t,t^1]`$ module, where the action of $`t`$ on homology arises from the deck transformation action on the space. Take a determinant of $`M`$; this determinant is the Alexander polynomial of the knot .

The calculation of the twisted Alexander polynomial is analogous. This algorithm is due to Wada , applied to our specific case. We need a presentation of the fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ of the $`n`$–fold cyclic branched cover of the knot; this can be found using a Reidemeister–Schreier rewriting algorithm. We form as before the matrix $`M`$ of Fox derivatives of the relations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ with respect to the generators of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. We again delete a column, say column $`j`$, being careful to delete a column corresponding to a generator whose images under $`\eta `$ is non–trivial. The matrix is now $`(m1)n\times (m1)n`$. We replace the occurrences of $`x_i`$ in the entries of $`M`$ by $`\rho (x_i)t^{\eta (x_i)}`$, and take the determinant of the resulting matrix. The resulting polynomial is divided by $`(\rho (x_j)t^{\eta (x_j)}1)`$, and then multiplied by $`(t1)`$ if $`\chi `$ is trivial. The resulting polynomial is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\chi (K)`$ .

This process, though algorithmic, is tedious and difficult. For example, take the calculation of a twisted Alexander polynomial for the knot $`10_{84}`$. The fundamental group of this knot has 3 generators and 2 relations. One needs to consider a 13–fold cover of the knot; that cover has 26 relations in its fundamental group. In this case, the image of $`\rho `$ is $`/53`$, so in order to calculate the twisted Alexander polynomial, one needs to take a determinant of a 25 by 25 matrix with entries which are polynomials in $`t`$ with rational numbers multiplied by 53rd roots of unity as coefficients. Luckily, the algorithm lends itself to computer implementation. The polynomials for the knots mentioned here have calculated using Maple .

### 2.2 Example: The Knot $`8_{13}`$

We will show that the knot $`8_{13}`$ is not of concordance order two, i.e. that $`8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}`$ is not slice. This method is useable for all the knots of 10 or fewer crossings which are algebraic order two, but whose concordance order is unknown, except for the twisted doubles of the unknot, and $`10_{158}`$.

The homology of the 2–fold branched cover $`(\overline{8_{13}})_2`$ of $`8_{13}`$ is isomorphic to $`/29`$; fix an isomorphism $`H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}})_2\right)/29`$. For $`n/29`$, let $`\overline{n}`$ be a class in $`H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}})_2\right)`$ representing $`n`$. Then we can define $`\chi _n:H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}})_2\right)/29`$ to be the map $`\chi _n(x)=\mathrm{lk}(x,\overline{n})`$. We find the twisted Alexander polynomial of $`8_{13}`$ and $`\chi _1`$ to be

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\chi _1}(8_{13})=(t1)(t^2+\hfill \\ \hfill (11\zeta ^{28}+2\zeta ^{27}+11\zeta ^{26}+\zeta ^{25}+11\zeta ^{24}+2\zeta ^{23}+10\zeta ^{22}+3\zeta ^{21}+9\zeta ^{20}\\ \hfill +4\zeta ^{19}+9\zeta ^{18}+5\zeta ^{17}+7\zeta ^{16}+6\zeta ^{15}+6\zeta ^{14}+7\zeta ^{13}+5\zeta ^{12}+9\zeta ^{11}+4\zeta ^{10}\\ \hfill +9\zeta ^9+3\zeta ^8+10\zeta ^7+2\zeta ^6+11\zeta ^5+\zeta ^4+11\zeta ^3+2\zeta ^2+11\zeta )t+1).\end{array}$$

Here $`\zeta `$ is a primitive $`29`$th root of unity. Using the Maple computer algebra program, we find that this polynomial is irreducible in $`(\zeta )[t,t^1]`$.

To find twisted Alexander polynomials for other characters $`\chi _n`$, we note

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _n)=\sigma _n(\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _1)),$$

where $`\sigma _n`$ is the Galois automorphism that sends $`\zeta `$ to $`\zeta ^n`$.

To apply , Theorem 6.2, we need to find a metabolizer in

$$H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}})_2\right).$$

We have that

$$H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}})_2\right)/29/29.$$

Any metabolizer $`HH_1\left((\overline{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}})_2\right)`$ is rank one and so is generated by a single element, either $`(1,0)`$, $`(0,1)`$, or $`(1,a)`$ with $`a0`$. As a metabolizer is self–annihilating under the linking form, and the linking form is non–singular, the first two possibilities are ruled out: neither $`\mathrm{lk}((1,0),(1,0))`$ nor $`\mathrm{lk}((0,1),(0,1))`$ can be zero. In the third case, a metabolizer is generated by $`(1,a)`$. We have

$$\mathrm{lk}_{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}}((1,a),(1,a))=0.$$

Now

$$\mathrm{lk}_{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}}((1,a),(1,a))=(1+a^2)\mathrm{lk}_{8_{13}}(1,1).$$

Since the linking form is non–singular, $`\mathrm{lk}_{8_{13}}(1,1)`$ is non–zero, hence

$$1+a^20mod29,$$

and so

$$a=12\text{ or }a=17.$$

Thus we have two possible metabolizers in $`H_1\left((\overline{8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}})_2\right)`$. Let

$$M_{12}=<(1,12)>,M_{17}=<(1,17)>.$$

The character $`\chi _1\chi _{12}`$ disappears on $`M_{12}`$ and $`\chi _1\chi _{17}`$ disappears on $`M_{17}`$.

Neither

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13},\chi _1\chi _{12})=(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _1)\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _{12})$$

nor

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13},\chi _1\chi _{17})=(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _1)\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _{17})$$

factor as

$$a(t1)f(t)\overline{f}(t^1).$$

This is because $`\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _n)`$ is irreducible, so in order for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13},\chi _1\chi _{12})`$ to factor we need, w.l.o.g.,

$$f(t)=(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _1)$$

and

$$t^2\overline{f}(t^1)=(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _{12}).$$

We assume that the constant coefficient of $`f(t)`$ is normalized to 1, and multiply $`\overline{f}(t^1)`$ by $`t^2`$ in order to make all the powers of $`t`$ positive in $`t^2\overline{f}(t^1)`$.

If $`f(t)=(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _1)`$, then the coefficient of $`t`$ in $`f(t)`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}11\zeta ^{28}+2\zeta ^{27}+11\zeta ^{26}+\zeta ^{25}+11\zeta ^{24}+2\zeta ^{23}+10\zeta ^{22}+3\zeta ^{21}+9\zeta ^{20}\hfill \\ \hfill +4\zeta ^{19}+9\zeta ^{18}+5\zeta ^{17}+7\zeta ^{16}+6\zeta ^{15}+6\zeta ^{14}+7\zeta ^{13}+5\zeta ^{12}+9\zeta ^{11}+4\zeta ^{10}\\ \hfill +9\zeta ^9+3\zeta ^8+10\zeta ^7+2\zeta ^6+11\zeta ^5+\zeta ^4+11\zeta ^3+2\zeta ^2+11\zeta \end{array}$$

Note that then the coefficient of $`t`$ in $`t^2\overline{f}(t^1)`$ is the same as the coefficient of $`t`$ in $`f(t)`$. On the other hand, the $`t`$ coefficient of $`(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _{12})`$ (normalized to have all positive powers of $`t`$ and a constant coefficient 1) is

$$\begin{array}{c}5\zeta ^{28}+11\zeta ^{27}+10\zeta ^{26}+4\zeta ^{25}+2\zeta ^{24}+6\zeta ^{23}+11\zeta ^{22}+9\zeta ^{21}+3\zeta ^{20}\hfill \\ \hfill +\zeta ^{19}+7\zeta ^{18}+11\zeta ^{17}+9\zeta ^{16}+2\zeta ^{15}+2\zeta ^{14}+9\zeta ^{13}+11\zeta ^{12}+7\zeta ^{11}+\zeta ^{10}\\ \hfill +3\zeta ^9+9\zeta ^8+11\zeta ^7+6\zeta ^6+2\zeta ^5+4\zeta ^4+10\zeta ^3+11\zeta ^2+5\zeta ,\end{array}$$

thus $`\overline{f}(t^1)`$ cannot be $`(t1)^1\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13},\chi _{12})`$, and so $`\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13},\chi _1\chi _{12})`$ does not factor as required. One can see by a similar analysis that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13},\chi _1\chi _{17})`$ also does not factor as required; thus the knot $`8_{13}\mathrm{\#}8_{13}`$ is not slice, and $`8_{13}`$ is not order two in $`𝒞_1`$.

The knots $`8_{13}`$, $`9_{14}`$, $`9_{19}`$, $`9_{30}`$, $`9_{33}`$, $`9_{44}`$, $`10_{10}`$, $`10_{13}`$, $`10_{26}`$, $`10_{28}`$, $`10_{34}`$, $`10_{58}`$, $`10_{60}`$, $`10_{91}`$, $`10_{102}`$, $`10_{119}`$, $`10_{135}`$, and $`10_{165}`$ are all shown to be not of order two by this same method. Their twisted Alexander polynomials are found in .


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

Preliminary results of neutron spectra measurements from Pb, W, and Na targets irradiated by 0.8 and 1.6 GeV protons are presented. Measurements have been carried out using the proton beam extracted from the ITEP synchrotron and the TOF technique. Neutron registration has been carried out using BICRON MAB-511 liquid scintillation counters. Spectra measured at angles of 30o, 60o, 90o, 120o, and 150o have been compared with results of their simulation using the LAHET code system and the code CEM2k. The results are of interest both from data gathering viewpoint and as a benchmark of the up-to-the-date predictive powers of codes applied to design the hybrid Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS) using lead or lead-bismuth targets and sodium-cooled targets.

## Foreword

Data on neutrons and charged particles generated from proton beam interactions with targets and structure materials are necessary when designing the present-day ADS facilities with proton beam energy of $``$1-2 GeV . Requirements to the data accuracy are rather strict because such data determine the external source term of the ADS. Besides, the neutron and proton data determine the calculation accuracy requirements of such principal ADS blanket parameters as the $`k_{eff}`$, safety control system efficiency, energy deposition of the fuel assembly, and the minor actinide transmutation rates. These data are also important in calculating radiation resistance of structure materials exposed to high-energy particles.

What is said above determines the necessity for further experimental investigations of particle generation cross sections and conducting more accurate measurements of these cross sections at energies of bombarding protons up to several GeV. Such results are important, first, as nuclear constants by themselves and, second, in verifying the computational codes used in practice to calculate the parameters of ADS facilities.

All known experiments in measuring double differential cross sections of neutrons generated as a result of interaction of protons of intermediate energies with thin and thick targets made of different materials are tabulated in Table 1.

An analysis of the data presented in these works shows that double differential cross sections of neutrons for lead measured at proton energy of 0.8 GeV at LANL, KEK, and SATURNE agree well with each other. They agree rather well with results of calculations performed with different codes. The agreement is worse for targets with small mass numbers where discrepancy may reach 100%. With incident proton energy increased to several GeV, the discrepancy between experimental and calculation data increases too.

Additional measurements of neutron spectra and yields in the proton energy range up to 2 GeV for different materials are necessary to study causes of mentioned discrepancies and improve further the available models and codes. Such experiments for measuring neutron double differential cross sections from Pb(p,xn), W(p,xn), and Na(p,xn) reactions in thick targets bombarded by protons with energies of 0.8 and 1.6 GeV were performed at the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow. Measurements were made by the time-of-flight (TOF) techniques, neutron spectra were measured at angles of 30o, 60o, 90o, 120o, and 150o in the laboratory frame of reference.

The data obtained were compared with results of calculations by the LAHET code system  and the code CEM2k .

## Description of the experiment

The experiment has been carried out using the time-of-flight (TOF) technique, the TOF spectrometers were located in the 512nd beam of the ITEP proton synchrotron with a maximum energy of 10 GeV. Detectors were located at a distance of 2.5 m from the floor and more than 5 m from the ceiling and walls. The beam intensity was of approximately 105 protons per pulse. The beam was focused at the center of the investigated targets, its profile was close to an ellipse with axes of 2 cm $`\times `$ 2.5 cm. The distance between the target and neutron detectors changes from 1.5 m to 3 m and is not evacuated. The target materials and sizes are listed in Table 2. The contents of impurities in tungsten and sodium were less than 0.2% and 0.02%, respectively. Sodium was placed in a cylindrical steel container with 0.4-mm thick walls. The experimental facility layout is shown in Fig. 1, where PB is the proton beam, M2 is the bending magnet, Tg is the target under investigation, F3.0 and F3.1 are plastic scintillators.

A 12-m distance was selected to minimize the effect of the great mass of large magnet M2 on the measurement results. The targets under investigation were located in the second focus of the beam at 80 m from the accelerator internal target.

The particles leaving the target are recorded by three detector assemblies (N1, N2, N3). Each of the assemblies consists of a 1 cm x 19 cm x 19 cm plastic scintillator (AN1, AN2, AN3) placed in the immediate proximity to, and ahead, a BICRON MAB-511 $`\mathrm{}`$ 12.7 cm $`\times `$ 15.2 cm liquid neutron detector. There was no protection of the neutron detectors. Scintillators were turn on for coincidence with neutron detectors in charged particles spectra measurements and for anti-coincidence, in neutron spectra measurements.

Separation of neutrons and gammas have been performed with an amplitude-amplitude analysis of the registered particle pulse (A(full charge) – A(tail charge)) within the recoil proton energy range of 2.5 – $``$10 MeV and an amplitude-time (A(full charge) – T(pulse duration)) analysis within the recoil proton energy range of $``$ 10 – 300 MeV. The first method provides reliable separation of the small amplitude pulses. This is shown in Fig. 2. The second method separates large amplitude pulses (Fig. 3), where the quality of the amplitude-amplitude separation is lost.

Fig. 3 demonstrates the branch behavior of the amplitude-time separation technique. From Fig. 3, one can see that with increasing the pulse amplitude the branches that corresponds to neutrons and gammas diverge and the quality of separation increases accordingly.

Thus, an acceptable quality of separation was achieved in the range of small pulse amplitudes by appropriate matching the parameters, and in the range of large pulse amplitudes, by using the amplitude-time separation technique.

The neutron counter efficiency was calculated using the SCINFUL  and CECIL  codes. Because the SCINFUL code application is limited to 80 MeV and the CECIL code gives reliable results up to energies of several hundred of MeV, the results of calculation with the SCINFUL code were used for energies below 80 MeV and the results of calculation with the CECIL code were used for higher energies. The results of calculation using the CECIL code at 80 MeV and above were renormalyzed for matching with the results of the SCINFUL code at 80 MeV (see Fig. 4). The error in determining the efficiency is estimated to be equal to 10% at energies below 80 MeV and 15% at higher energies.

## Simulation of neutron spectra

Because targets used in the present experiment can not be regarded as thin, simulations of neutron spectra by LAHET have included not only neutron generation from the proton-nucleus interactions, but also multiple scattering of primary protons together with the low energy (below 20 MeV) neutron transport by the HMCNP code. In the cases of lead and tungsten, elastic scattering of neutrons with energy above 20 MeV was taken into consideration as well.

## Results

The measured neutron spectra from lead, tungsten, and sodium for proton energies of 0.8 and 1.6 GeV at angles of 30o, 60o, 90o, 120o, and 150o are shown in Figs. 5-7. The experimental data from other works ( and , for Pb at 0.8 GeV; , for Pb at 1.6 GeV; , for W 0.8 GeV) and calculations by LAHET are shown in the figures as well.

Comparison of experimental and calculation results shows a satisfactory agreement for the heavy nuclei targets, W and Pb (Fig. 8), at both proton energies. Exceptions may be seen for neutrons with energy above 100 MeV at angles 60o, 90o, and 120o for $`T_p=1.6`$ GeV and for energetic neutrons at 90o, 120o, and 150o for $`T_p=0.8`$ GeV. The agreement of calculated results with the data is worsen with transfer to sodium. Traditionally, this is explained by problems for the most of theoretical models to describe high-energy hadron interactions with nuclei of low masses.

As an example, for the lightest element measured, Na, where the thickness of target should be of the least importance for the measured neutrons, we show also calculations with the last version of the Improved Cascade-Exciton Model code, CEM2k , simulating pure proton-nucleus reactions, without taking into account any internuclear interactions (Fig. 7). One can see that for neutron energies above several MeV, where the thickness of target no longer affects significantly the measured spectra, CEM2k agrees with the data quite well, though some discrepancies in the very tails of the spectra still remain to be understood. Calculations with LAHET (both ISABEL and Bertini options) take into account the thickness of targets, therefore agree somewhere better than CEM2k with this data. Nevertheless, some disagreements between LAHET results and the data at the high-energy tails of most spectra and around $`20`$ MeV at forward angles for Na have yet to be understood. At a glance, it looks like we got with both LAHET and CEM2k too many preequilibrium neutrons at forward angles and too few high-energy neutrons at backward angles; the last could be an indication that the local Fermi distribution for intranuclear nucleons used by all models may be a too rough approximation. But these points need a further, more detailed investigation.

## Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to Dr. S. Meigo (JAERI) for his assistance in calculating the detection efficiency, to Dr. O. A. Shcherbakov (PINP, Gatchina) for helpful discussions of the measurement techniques, to Dr. V. L. Romadanov (MEPhI, Moscow) for his 14 MeV neutron source used in detector calibration, to Drs. V. N. Kostromin and I. A. Vorontsov (ITEP, Moscow) for their assistance in carrying out the experiments, and to Dr. F. E. Chukreev (KIAE, Moscow) for discussions of results.

The work has been carried out under the ISTC Project#1145 and was supported by the JAERI (Japan) and, partially, by the U. S. Department of Energy.