text:
# On the continuity of the solution operator to the wave map system

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(N,g)`$ be a smooth $`d`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with metric $`g`$, which with no loss in generality we can isometrically embed in $`^m`$ for some $`m>d`$. For the functions $`u:\times ^nN`$ defined on the flat Minkowski space $`_t\times _x^n`$ with values in the target $`N`$, consider the functional

$$J(u)=_{\times ^n}_\alpha u,^\alpha u_{g(u)}𝑑t𝑑x$$

where summation over $`\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ is intended, with

$$(_0,\mathrm{},_n)=(_t,_{x_1},\mathrm{},_{x_n}),(^0,\mathrm{},^n)=(^t,_{x_1},\mathrm{},_{x_n})$$

as usual, while $`,_g`$ is the product in the metric $`g`$.

The critical points of the functional $`J`$ are called *wave maps*. If we choose a system of coordinates on $`N`$, then locally smooth wave maps satisfy the equation

(1.1)
$$\mathrm{}u^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{\mathrm{}}(u)_\alpha u^b^\alpha u^c=0,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},m,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the Christoffel symbols on $`N`$ in the chosen coordinates. The natural problem for this system of wave equations is clearly the Cauchy problem with data at $`t=0`$

(1.2)
$$u(0,x)=u_0,u_t(0,x)=u_1;$$

the usual space for the data are Sobolev spaces

$$(u_0,u_1)H^s(^n,N)\times H^{s1}(^n,N)$$

for suitable values of $`s`$. Here we used the space

(1.3)
$$H^s(^n;N)\{vH^s(^n;^m),v(^n)N\},s$$

with the induced norm; notice that $`H^s(^n;N)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`0N`$, but it causes no loss in generality to assume that $`0N`$ after a translation in the ambient space.

An alternative description of the wave map system, which usually gives a simpler expression in presence of symmetry of the target is the following: a wave map is a function $`u:\times ^n^m`$ such that

$$u(t,x)N,\mathrm{}uN\text{for all }(t,x).$$

A good introduction on this subject with comprehensive references can be found in .

The Cauchy problem for wave maps has been extensively studied in recent years, starting with the work of Ginibre and Velo . Not many general results for the Cauchy problem are known. Very roughly speaking and with several omissions, one has the following types of results:

* Global existence of weak solutions when the target is compact (several authors, see e.g. , , ).
* Local existence for data in $`H^s`$, $`s>n/2`$. This is classical if $`s`$ is large enough, but for $`s`$ close to the critical value $`s=n/2`$ it is a much more difficult result, due to Klainerman, Machedon, Selberg and obtained through careful bilinear estimates (see in particular ). See also Tataru  for the case of Besov spaces.
* Global existence for small data. Again, this result can be proved by “standard” methods in the smooth case (Y. Choquet-Bruhat), but the recent results of Tao (see in particular , see also ) show that it is sufficient to assume that the data are in $`H^s`$ for some $`s>n/2`$ and that they are small in the homogeneous $`\dot{H}^{n/2}`$ norm.
* In the presence of symmetry one has of course sharper results; to this class belong the radial case, considered by Christodoulou, Tahvildar-Zadeh and more recently by Struwe (see , , ), and the equivariant case, for which a fairly complete theory exists, due to Shatah, Tahvildar-Zadeh, Struwe, and Grillakis (see e.g. , , , ).

The precise behaviour of the wave map system in the critical case $`s=n/2`$ is an open problem (while in the *subcritical* case $`s<n/2`$ one has in general ill-posedness in a sharp sense, i.e. non-uniqueness, see e.g.  and ). A possible line of attack was suggested by Bourgain (see ,  and also Tzvetkov ) who proved that the map data $``$ solution to some nonlinear evolution equations is not $`C^2`$ in the subcritical Sobolev spaces. This holds for the cubic NLS, for KdV and mKdV with different critical indices. The result was sharpened by Kenig, Ponce and Vega  who proved that the solution map actually is not (locally) uniformly continuous in the subcritical spaces. We also mention  and  where the case of the supercritical nonlinear wave equation and of the Benjamin-Ono equation are considered.

Our aim here is to prove a similar result for the wave map system, in the *critical* case $`s=n/2`$. Our assumption on $`N`$ will be quite general; essentially we only require that $`N`$ is not flat. More precisely, we assume that

(1.4) there exists a geodesic curve $`\gamma :]s_0,s_0[N`$ with $`\gamma (0)=0`$, $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)0`$.
From such generality it will be clear that the ill-posedness in the sense of uniform continuity is a general properties of nonlinear equations like (1.1) more than a geometric property. Our result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`N`$ be a smooth Riemannian manifold, isometrically embedded in $`^m`$, such that there esists a geodesic curve $`\gamma :]s_0,s_0[N`$ with

(1.5)
$$\gamma (0)=0N,\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)0.$$

Assume a solution map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(u_0,u_1)u`$ for system (1.1) with data (1.2) is defined on some neighbourhood $`U`$ of 0 in $`X\times Y=H^{n/2}(^n;N)\times H^{n/21}(^n;N)`$. Then, for any $`T>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not uniformly continuous between the spaces

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:UH^{n/2}\times H^{n/21}C([0,T];\dot{H}^{n/2}(^n,^m))$$

or

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:UH^{n/2}\times H^{n/21}C^1([0,T];\dot{H}^{n/21}(^n,^m)).$$

As usual, we say that $`\mathrm{\Phi }:UX\times YL`$ is uniformly continuous on $`U`$ if: for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that, for any $`(u_0^{(1)},u_1^{(1)})`$ and $`(u^{(2)},u^{(2)})`$ in $`U`$

(1.6)
$$(u_0^{(1)},u_1^{(1)})(u_0^{(2)},u_1^{(2)})_{X\times Y}\delta u^{(1)}u^{(2)}_Lϵ$$

where $`u^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Phi }(u_0^{(1)},u_1^{(1)})`$, $`u^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Phi }(u_0^{(2)},u_1^{(2)})`$. Thus the above result excludes in particular that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is (locally) Lipschitz or Hölder continuous.

###### Remark 1.1.

It is not difficult to prove by similar arguments that the solution map is not uniformly continuous also in the *subcritical* case, i.e., from $`H^s\times H^{s1}`$, $`1s<n/2`$ with values in $`C([0,T],H^s)`$ or $`C^1([0,T],H^{s1})`$. However, it is already known, at least in the case of a rotationally symmetric target, that a much stronger ill posedness result holds, namely the local non-uniqueness can be proved. This was obtained for $`n=3`$ in , for $`n4`$ in  and for $`n=2`$ in . Since the arguments in these results have a local nature, it is reasonable to argue that non uniqueness may hold also in the general nonsymmetric case.

###### Remark 1.2.

The proof of the Theorem is based on an explicit construction of sequences of data such that the corresponding solutions violate (1.6); such solutions are of geodesic type, i.e., of the form $`\gamma v(t,x)`$ with $`v(t,x)`$ a real valued solution of the homogeneous wave equation. We recall that if $`\gamma (s)=(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m)`$ is an arbitrary curve in $`^m`$ with values in $`N`$, and $`v(t,x)`$ an arbitrary real valued function, for the composition $`u(t,x)=\gamma (v(t,x))`$ we can write

$$\mathrm{}u^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{\mathrm{}}(u)_\alpha u^b^\alpha u^c\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{}\mathrm{}v+\left(\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{\mathrm{}}(\gamma )\gamma _b^{}\gamma _c^{}\right)_\alpha v^\alpha v$$

and this is identically zero as soon as $`\mathrm{}v=0`$ and $`\gamma (s)`$ is a geodesic curve.

###### Remark 1.3.

The ill posedness for the wave map problem in the case $`n=1`$, $`s=1/2`$ is proved in . It is interesting to mention also the paper , where a *scalar* wave equation of the form

$$\mathrm{}u+f(u)_\alpha u^\alpha u=0$$

is studied in the critical spaces $`H^{n/2}\times H^{n/21}`$. Of course in the scalar case it is possible to prove a much stronger ill posedness result (actually, a blow-up result).

###### Remark 1.4.

If in addition to (1.4) we assume that the geodesic $`\gamma (s)`$ is defined for all $`s`$, i.e., that the target manifold is complete (by the Hopf-Rinow Theorem), and that the dimension of the base space is $`n=2`$, then we can modify the proof of Theorem 1.1 in such a way to use radial solutions exclusively. This is interesting in connection with the recent result of Struwe , who proved global existence of smooth radial solutions to the wave map system from $`\times ^2`$ to the two dimensional sphere. Thus in this case the solution map is well defined for smooth radial data, but not uniformly continuous in $`H^1`$. (Actually, by a more complex construction, which involves a localization in Fourier space, it is possible to construct a radial counterexample also under assumption (1.4) only). For a more precise statement we refer to the following proposition.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Assume $`n=2`$ and the target space $`N`$ is complete. Then the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 holds also if we restrict the solution map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to the subspace $`H_{\mathrm{rad}}^1\times L_{\mathrm{rad}}^2`$ of radial functions in $`H^1\times L^2`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

It is important to notice that in the proof of Theorem 1.1 the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are Christoffel symbols of some Riemannian manifold is not essential. In other words, the result holds for any system of the form (1.1), provided the curves locally defined by the system of equations

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{}}^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^{\mathrm{}}(\gamma )\gamma _b^{}\gamma _c^{}=0$$

satisfy an assumption like (1.5) near some point. This means that the ill posedness in the sense of uniform continuity is a general property of systems of the wave map type.

The authors are grateful to N.Tzvetkov for several discussions and remarks concerning the well-posedness of semilinear problems.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1.1

It is not restrictive to assume that $`\gamma `$ is parameterized by arc length; moreover, in the following we shall take $`T=1`$ for simplicity of notations but the proof is unchanged in general. Assumption (1.5) implies that for some component $`\gamma _j^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$ one has

(2.1)
$$|\gamma _j^{\prime \prime }(s)|c_1(N)\text{for}|s|c_0(N)$$

for suitable constants $`c_0,c_1`$ depending only on the manifold $`N`$.

Let $`v,w`$ be two $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ real valued solutions of the homogeneous wave equation

$$\mathrm{}v=\mathrm{}w=0$$

with data

$$v(0,x)=w(0,x)=v_0(x),_tv(0,x)=v_1(x),_tw(0,x)=w_1(x).$$

Notice that $`v(0,x)w(0,x)`$ and only the second datum is different. Moreover, we shall always work with data of compact support, so that $`v(t,)`$, $`w(t,)`$ will have support in a fixed ball (say $`B(0,10)`$) for all $`t[1,1]`$. Then the functions $`u^{(1)}=\gamma v`$, $`u^{(2)}=\gamma w`$ are solutions of the wave map equation (see Remark 1.2), provided $`v,w`$ take their values in the domain of $`\gamma (s)`$; more precisely we shall assume that

(2.2)
$$|v|c_0(N),|w|c_0(N)$$

and these conditions will be verified in the explicit construction of $`v`$ and $`w`$. The corresponding Cauchy data are given by

(2.3)
$$u^{(1)}(0)=u^{(2)}(0)=\gamma (v_0),_tu^{(1)}(0)=\gamma ^{}(v_0)v_1,_tu^{(2)}(0)=\gamma ^{}(v_0)w_1.$$

Assume now that the solution map is defined and uniformly continuous from some neighbourhood $`U`$ of 0 in $`H^{n/2}(^n;N)\times H^{n/21}(^n;N)`$ with values in the space $`C^1([0,1];\dot{H}^{n/21})`$ (the case of $`C([0,1];\dot{H}^{n/2})`$ is completely analogous). If we apply this to the data (2.3), we obtain that: *for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that*

(2.4)
$$_tu^{(1)}(0)_tu^{(2)}(0)_{H^{n/21}}\delta \underset{t[0,1]}{sup}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}ϵ$$

*for all data $`u^{(1)}(0)=u^{(2)}(0)`$ and $`_tu^{(1)}(0)`$, $`_tu^{(2)}(0)`$ in $`U`$.* We can express this condition in terms of the data for $`v,w`$. Indeed, we have

$$_tu^{(1)}(0)_tu^{(2)}(0)=\gamma ^{}(v_0)(v_1w_1),$$

where $`\gamma ^{}(v_0)`$ is a smooth function, equal to a constant outside some compact set in $`^n`$. Applying Lemma 4.1 in the Appendix for $`s=n/21`$, we have

$$\gamma (f)g_{H^{n/21}}c_n\gamma (f)_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}g_{H^{n/21}},$$

where we are using the notation

$$u_{XY}=u_X+u_Y;$$

since $`\gamma (0)=0`$ we can apply the standard Moser type estimate

(2.5)
$$\gamma (f)_{H^{n/2}}\rho _0(f_L^{\mathrm{}})f_{H^{n/2}}$$

for a suitable continuous increasing function $`\rho _0(s)`$ (see e.g. , Vol.III, Chapter 13, Proposition 10.2), we obtain an inequality like

(2.6)
$$\gamma (f)g_{H^{n/21}}\rho _1(f_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})g_{H^{n/21}}$$

for some continuous increasing $`\rho _1(s)`$, which is valid provided the range of the real valued function $`f`$ is contained in a compact subset of the domain of the smooth function $`\gamma (s)`$. Then we have

(2.7)
$$_tu^{(1)}(0)_tu^{(2)}(0)_{H^{n/21}}\rho _1(v_0_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}},$$

hence property (2.4) implies the following: for all $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that

(2.8)
$$v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}}\delta \underset{t[0,1]}{sup}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}ϵ$$

for all data $`(v_0,v_1)`$ and $`(w_0,w_1)`$ belonging to a suitable neighbourhood $`V`$ of 0 in $`H^{n/2}(^n)\times H^{n/21}(^n)`$ and such that $`v_0=w_0`$ and $`|v_0|c_0`$, where $`c_0=c_0(N)`$ is defined in (2.1).

We now estimate from below the second term in (2.8)

$$_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}=\gamma ^{}(v)_tv\gamma ^{}(w)_tw_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}.$$

We have

(2.9)
$$\gamma ^{}(v)_tv\gamma ^{}(v)_tw_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}(\gamma ^{}(v)\gamma ^{}(w))_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\gamma ^{}(v)_t(vw)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}.$$

We apply (2.6) to the last term, obtainig

$$\gamma ^{}(v)_t(vw)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\rho _1(v_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})_t(vw)_{H^{n/21}};$$

by the energy identity for $`\mathrm{}(vw)=0`$, $`v_0=w_0`$, we know that

$$_t(vw)_{H^{n/21}}v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}}$$

and in conclusion

(2.10)
$$\gamma ^{}(v)_t(vw)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\rho _1(v_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}}$$

To estimate from below the first term in the right side of (2.9) we use the Taylor developments

$$\gamma ^{}(b)\gamma ^{}(a)=\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(a)(ba)+F(a,b)(ba)^2,\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(a)=\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)+G(a)a$$

where $`F(a,b),G(a)`$ are smooth functions of their arguments whose explicit expression is not relevant. Then

$$\gamma ^{}(v)\gamma ^{}(w)=\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)(vw)+R(v,w)(vw)$$

where we have written for short

$$R(u,v)=G(v)v+F(v,w)(vw).$$

Recalling that $`|\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)|c_1`$ (see (2.1)), we have

$$\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(v)(vw)_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}c_1(vw)_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}R(v,w)(vw)_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}.$$

Now we can apply (4.9) of Lemma 4.1 in the Appendix to obtain

$$R(v,w)(vw)_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}R(v,w)_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}(vw)_tv_{H^{n/21}}$$

while using (2.5) it is standard to obtain

$$R(v,w)_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}\rho _2(v,w_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v,w_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}$$

($`v,w=v+w`$) for some continuous increasing function $`\rho _2(s)`$ whose precise form is not relevant. In conclusion, recalling also (2.9) and (2.10), we have proved the inequality

(2.11)
$$\begin{array}{c}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}c_1(vw)_tv_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _2(v,w_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v,w_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}(vw)_tv_{H^{n/21}}\\ \hfill \rho _1(v_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}}.\end{array}$$

To proceed, we must construct explicitly the functions $`v`$ and $`w`$. This is done with the help of a few lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`n2`$. There exists a sequence of real valued functions $`\varphi _jC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ supported in the ball $`\{|x|2\}`$, with

(2.12)
$$\varphi _j0\text{in}H^{n/21}(^n)\text{as}j\mathrm{}$$

such that, denoting by $`z_j(t,x):\times ^n`$ the solution of the linear problem

(2.13)
$$\mathrm{}z=0,z(0,x)=0,_tz(0,x)=\varphi _j(x)$$

one has

(2.14)
$$z_j(1,0)=1\text{for any}j.$$

The functions $`\varphi _j`$ and hence $`z_j(t,x)`$ can be chosen as radial functions in $`x`$, i.e., depending only on $`|x|`$.

###### Proof.

We begin by the case $`n=2`$. For $`0<p<q<1`$, we define $`\psi _{p,q}(y)`$ on $`^2`$ as follows:

(2.15)
$$\psi _{p,q}(y)=\frac{I_{\{p|y|q\}}(y)}{\sqrt{1|y|^2}\mathrm{log}(1|y|^2)}$$

where $`I_A(y)`$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $`A`$. An elementary computation gives

(2.16)
$$2\psi _{p,q}(x)_{L^2(^2)}^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1q^2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1p^2)}.$$

Notice that taking any $`0<p_1<p<q<q_1<1`$, and an arbitrary smooth radial cutoff function $`\chi _{p,q}`$ with

$$I_{\{p|y|q\}}(y)\chi _{p,q}(y)I_{\{p^{}|y|q^{}\}}(y),$$

we can modify definition (2.15) as follows:

(2.17)
$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{p,q}(y)=\frac{\chi _{\{p|y|q\}}(y)}{\sqrt{1|y|^2}\mathrm{log}(1|y|^2)}$$

in order to obtain a smooth initial datum with similar norm:

(2.18)
$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1q^2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1p^2)}2\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{p,q}(x)_{L^2(^2)}^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1q_1^2)}\frac{1}{\mathrm{log}(1p_1^2)}.$$

On the other hand, the solution $`z_{p,q}(t,x)`$ of the problem

$$\mathrm{}z=0,z(0,x)=0,_tz(0,x)=\psi _{p,q}$$

is explicitly given by

$$z_{p,q}(t,x)=\frac{t}{2\pi }_{|xy|t}\frac{\psi _{p,q}(y)}{\sqrt{t^2|xy|^2}}𝑑y$$

and in particular at $`(t,x)=(1,0)`$ one has

$$z_{p,q}(1,0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{p|y|q}\frac{1}{(1|y|^2)\mathrm{log}(1|y|^2)}𝑑y=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{\mathrm{log}(1q^2)}{\mathrm{log}(1p^2)}\right|.$$

By the positivity of the kernel we have immediately, for the solution $`\stackrel{~}{z}_{p,q}`$ obtained by replacing $`\psi _{p,q}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{p,q}`$,

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{\mathrm{log}(1q^2)}{\mathrm{log}(1p^2)}\right|\stackrel{~}{z}_{p,q}(1,0)\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{\mathrm{log}(1q_1^2)}{\mathrm{log}(1p_1^2)}\right|.$$

If we now choose for $`\delta ]0,1[`$

$$1p_1^2=\delta ,1p^2=\delta ^2,1q^2=\delta ^3,1q_1^2=\delta ^4$$

and write $`\psi _\delta =\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{p,q}`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}|\mathrm{log}\delta |^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\delta _{L^2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}|\mathrm{log}\delta |^{1/2}0\text{as }\delta 0$$

while $`z_\delta =\stackrel{~}{z}_{p,q}`$ satisfies

$$\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}\frac{3}{2}z_\delta (1,0)\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{log}4.$$

Defining $`\varphi _j=z_{\delta _j}(1,0)^1\psi _{\delta _j}`$ for any $`\delta _j0`$ we obtain the thesis.

The general case for $`n`$ even, $`n2`$ follows easily by modifying the above example, using the fact that the solution of (2.13) can be represented as

$$z(t,x)=\underset{0|\alpha |(n2)/2}{}a_\alpha t^{|\alpha |+1}_{|y|1}y^\alpha D^\alpha \varphi (x+ty)(1|y|^2)^{1/2}𝑑y,$$

which, for a radial function $`\varphi `$, gives

$$z(1,0)=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{(n2)/2}{}}c_\nu _0^1_r^\nu \varphi (r)(1r^2)^{1/2}r^{\nu +n1}dr.$$

Here of course we shall choose a datum $`\varphi `$ such that its radial derivative of order $`n/21`$ is of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{p,q}`$ seen above.

Let us now consider the case of odd $`n`$, starting from $`n=3`$. In this case it is sufficient to use the well known fact (see e.g., Theorem 11.1 in Volume I of ) that, for any bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ boundary,

$$C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{is dense in}H^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Omega })$$

and also in $`H^s`$ for $`s1/2`$. Since we shall need a special version of this result for radial functions, we shall give here a self-contained proof adapted to our situation.

Indeed, consider the space

(2.19)
$$Z=\{\varphi C_0^{\mathrm{}}():\varphi (x)=\varphi (x),\varphi 0\text{ near }1\text{ and }1\}$$

(where “near $`\pm 1`$” means “on some neighbourhood of these two points, depending on $`\varphi `$”). It is easy to see that $`Z`$ is a dense subset of the space of even $`H^{1/2}()`$ functions

(2.20)
$$H_{\mathrm{even}}^{1/2}()=\{uH^{1/2}():u(x)=u(x)\}$$

by the following argument: in the Hilbert space $`H_{\mathrm{even}}^{1/2}()`$ we can certainly choose a $`u_0`$ orthogonal to $`Z`$, and we must only prove that $`u_0=0`$. The tempered distribution $`T`$ whose Fourier transform is given by

$$\widehat{T}=\xi \widehat{u}_0$$

belongs to $`H^{1/2}()`$ and by the identity

$$T(\varphi )=(\xi \widehat{u}_0,\widehat{\overline{\varphi }})_{L^2}=(u_0,\overline{\varphi })_{H^{1/2}}=0$$

for any test function in $`Z`$, we see that the support of $`T`$ is contained in the set $`\{\pm 1\}`$, i.e., $`T`$ is a linear combination of a finite number of derivatives of $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _1`$. Hence $`\widehat{T}(\xi )`$ is a function of the form

$$\widehat{T}(\xi )=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{N}{}}(c_{\mathrm{}}e^{i\xi }+d_{\mathrm{}}e^{i\xi })\xi ^{\mathrm{}}$$

for a suitable $`N0`$ and complex numbers $`c_{\mathrm{}},d_{\mathrm{}}`$, and at the same time $`\xi ^{1/2}\widehat{T}(\xi )`$ must belong to $`L^2`$. It is trivial to see that the only such function $`\widehat{T}`$ is 0, and this implies $`u_00`$ too.

Thus we have proved that $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1,1[)`$ is dense in $`H_{\mathrm{even}}^{1/2}(]1,1[)`$ since this last space coincides with the space of restrictions of functions in $`H_{\mathrm{even}}^{1/2}()`$ to $`]1,1[`$, with the restriction norm (the norm of $`u`$ is the infimum of the norms of its possible extensions).

It would not be difficult to prove the same result for higher dimensions, but actually here we only need to construct a sequence of radial functions $`\psi _jC_0^{\mathrm{}}(B_1)`$ which converges to 1 in $`H^{1/2}(B_1)`$, where $`B_1`$ is the unit ball $`B_1=\{x^n:|x|<1\}`$. To this end, it is sufficient to remark that the operator

$$A:H_{\mathrm{even}}^s(]1,1[)H^s(B_1)$$

defined as

$$A(f)(x)=f(|x|)$$

is bounded for all $`0s1`$: this is proved directly for $`s=0,1`$ and follows e.g. by interpolation for the intermediate values of $`s`$. Hence taken any sequence $`f_j(x)`$ in $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(]1,1[)`$, with $`f(x)=f(x)`$, converging to 1 in the $`H^{1/2}(]1,1[)`$ norm, we need only define

$$\psi _j(x)=f_j(|x|)$$

to obtain the desired result.

Now, setting $`\varphi _j=1\psi _j`$ we obtain a sequence of radial smooth functions on $`B_1`$, converging to 0 in the norm of $`H^{1/2}(B_1)`$, and identically equal to 1 on some neighbourhood of $`B_1`$ (depending on $`j`$). By Kirchhoff’s formula then we obtain

$$z(1,0)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{B_1}\varphi _j(y)𝑑S=1$$

as needed.

In the general case $`n3`$ odd, we proceed in a similar way using the general representation of the solution; notice that for radial $`\varphi `$ the following formula holds

$$z(1,0)=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{(n3)/2}{}}b_\nu _r^\nu \varphi (1)$$

for suitable constants $`b_\nu `$. ∎

In the construction of the Lemma we have no control on the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of the functions $`z_j`$; if we give up the requirement that the $`z_j`$ be radial, however, it is easy to obtain the following result:

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`n2`$. There exists a sequence of real valued functions $`\varphi _jC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ supported in the ball $`\{|x|5\}`$ with

(2.21)
$$\varphi _j0\text{in}H^{n/21}(^n)\text{as}j\mathrm{}$$

such that, denoting by $`z_j(t,x):\times ^n`$ the solution of the linear problem

(2.22)
$$\mathrm{}z=0,z(0,x)=0,_tz(0,x)=\varphi _j(x)$$

one has

(2.23)
$$z_j(t_j,0)=1\text{for some sequence }t_j]0,1]$$

and

(2.24)
$$|z_j(t,x)|1\text{for all }(t,x,j)[0,1]\times ^n\times .$$

###### Proof.

The functions $`z_j`$ constructed in the Lemma are smooth and compactly supported, let $`(t_j,x_j)`$ be a point where $`|z_j|`$ attains its maximum value $`m_j`$ on the strip $`[0,1]\times ^n`$, and define

$$\stackrel{~}{z_j}(t,x)=m_j^1z_j(t,xx_j)$$

(and possibly multiply by the sign of $`z_j(t_j,x_j)`$). Notice that $`t_j>0`$ since $`z(0,x)0`$. This concludes the proof. ∎

Before passing to the main body of the proof, a last elementary rescaling lemma is necessary.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`\chi (x)`$ with $`\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/21}}0`$ be a smooth compactly supported (radial) function, vanishing for $`|x|2`$, and with the property

(2.25)
$$_^n\chi (x)𝑑x=0.$$

Let $`R1`$, $`M0`$ be positive numbers, $`0T1`$, and denote by $`v_{R,M,T}(t,x)`$ the (radial) solution of the homogeneous wave equation

(2.26)
$$\mathrm{}v=0,v(T,x)=0,_tv(T,x)=\chi _{R,M}(x)M\chi (Rx)$$

with data at $`t=T>0`$. Denote by $`v_0,v_1`$ the traces

(2.27)
$$v_0=v_{R,M,T}(0,x),v_1=_tv_{R,M,T}(0,x)$$

so that (2.26) is equivalent to a Cauchy problem for the homogeneous wave equation with data $`v_0,v_1`$ at $`t=0`$. Then the following estimates hold, for a constant $`c_n`$ depending only on the space dimension $`n`$ and on the function $`\chi (x)`$:

(2.28)
$$v_0_{H^{n/2}}+v_1_{H^{n/21}}c_n\frac{M}{R},$$

and, for all $`(t,x)[0,1]\times ^n`$,

(2.29)
$$|v_{R,M,T}(t,x)|c_n\frac{M}{R}.$$

Finally, for all $`0sn/2`$ and all $`t`$

(2.30)
$$v(t,)_{\dot{H}^s}+_tv(t,)_{\dot{H}^{s1}}c_n\frac{M}{R}R^{sn/2}.$$

###### Proof.

Rescale $`v(t,x)`$ as

$$v(t,x)=w(Rt,Rx)$$

so that

$$\mathrm{}w=0,w(RT,x)=0,_tw(RT,x)=\frac{M}{R}\chi (x).$$

By the energy estimates we have for all real $`s`$ and all $`t`$

(2.31)
$$w(t,)_{\dot{H}^s}+_tw(t,)_{\dot{H}^{s1}}2\frac{M}{R}\chi _{\dot{H}^{s1}}$$

which scaling back to $`v`$ gives

$$v(t,)_{\dot{H}^s}+_tv(t,)_{\dot{H}^{s1}}2\frac{M}{R}R^{sn/2}\chi _{\dot{H}^{s1}}.$$

Notice that (2.31) gives a finite bound also for $`s=0`$; indeed, by assumption (2.25) we have $`\widehat{\chi }(0)=0`$ and hence $`\widehat{\chi }/|\xi |L^2`$, i.e., $`\chi \dot{H}^1`$. Thus for all $`0sn/2`$ we obtain ($`R1`$)

$$v(t,)_{\dot{H}^s}+_tv(t,)_{\dot{H}^{s1}}2\frac{M}{R}R^{sn/2}(\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/21}}+\chi _{\dot{H}^1}).$$

This proves (2.30); inequality (2.28) is just the special case $`s=n/2`$ computed at $`t=0`$.

To prove (2.29) we use (2.31) again for $`s=n/2+1`$, which gives

$$\underset{t}{sup}w(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/2+1}}c_n\frac{M}{R}\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/2}},$$

while for $`s=0`$ it gives

$$\underset{t}{sup}w(t,)_{L^2}c_n\frac{M}{R}\chi _{\dot{H}^1},$$

and this is bounded by (2.25) as already remarked. Thus, by Sobolev embedding, we have

$$w_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\times ^n)}c_n\underset{t}{sup}w(t,)_{H^{n/2+1}}c_n^{}\frac{M}{R}(\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/2}}+\chi _{\dot{H}^1}).$$

Since $`v_L^{\mathrm{}}=w_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, this concludes the proof; the constant $`c_n`$ depends only on $`n`$ and the quantity $`\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/2}}+\chi _{\dot{H}^1}`$. ∎

We revert now to the main proof. The next step is the explicit construction of sequences of functions $`v,w`$ appearing in (2.11). As $`v`$ we shall choose the function $`v_{R,M,T}`$ constructed in the preceding lemma, with a suitable choice of the parameters. Notice that by (2.28) we can assume that the initial data $`v_0,v_1`$ belong to the neighbourhood $`V`$ of 0 in $`H^{n/2}\times H^{n/21}`$ on which property (2.8) holds, as soon as $`M/R`$ is small enough; e.g., if $`V`$ contains a ball of radius $`r_0(V)`$ centered in 0, we may assume that

(2.32)
$$4c_n\chi _{H^{n/21}}\frac{M}{R}<r_0.$$

Notice also that, in order to define the composition $`\gamma v`$, we must ensure that $`|v|<s_0`$ (at least on the strip $`[0,1]\times ^n`$) since the geodesic curve is only defined on the interval $`]s_0,s_0[`$, or even better, that $`|v|<c_0`$ given by (2.1). Using (2.29), we see that it is sufficient to further decrease $`M/R`$, e.g., to impose the condition

(2.33)
$$c_n\chi _{H^{n/2}}\frac{M}{R}<c_0/2.$$

In connection with Remark 1.4, we observe that condition (2.33) is not necessary when we assume that $`\gamma (s)`$ is defined for all $`s`$.

Then we define $`v_j=v_{R,M,T}`$ with the following choices. The parameter $`T`$ will be chosen as

(2.34)
$$T=t_jv_{R,M,T}(t_j,x)=M\chi (Rx),$$

where $`t_j`$ are given by Corollary 2.2; the parameter $`R=R_j`$ will be chosen such that

(2.35)
$$z_j(t_j,x)\frac{1}{2}\text{ on the ball }\{|x|2R_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\};$$

this is possible in view of (2.23) and of the continuity of $`z_j`$; it is not restrictive to assume that $`R_j+\mathrm{}`$. On the parameter $`M=M_j`$, besides (2.32), (2.33) further smallness conditions will be imposed in the following.

We now define $`w_j`$; let $`\mu >0`$ be a small parameter, and set ($`w_0v_0`$ and)

(2.36)
$$w_j=v_j+\mu z_j$$

where $`v_j`$ was defined above and $`z_j`$ is given by Corollary 2.2. Thus the data for $`w_j`$ are

$$w_0v_0,w_1=v_1+\mu \varphi _j$$

with $`v_0,v_1`$ the traces of $`v_j`$ at $`t=0`$, studied in Lemma 2.3. Again, in order to define the composition $`\gamma w`$, we must ensure that $`|w|<c_0`$, at least for $`0t1`$. Using (2.24) and recalling (2.29), (2.33), we see that it is sufficient to impose the condition

(2.37)
$$0<\mu <c_0/2.$$

Notice that the data $`w_0,w_1`$ belong to the given neighbourhood $`V`$ as soon as $`j`$ is large enough, since $`\varphi _j0`$ in $`H^{n/21}`$.

Consider inequality (2.11); our aim is to estimate its right side from below. The first term at $`t=t_j`$ gives

(2.38)
$$(v_jw_j)_tv_j_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}=\mu z_j(t_j,)\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{\dot{H}^{n/21}};$$

we can apply (4.12) of the Appendix, with $`s=n/21`$; since $`z_j1/2`$ on the support of $`\chi _{R,M}`$, we have

$$z_j(t_j,)\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\frac{c}{2}\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}c^{}z_j_{H^{n/2}}\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{H^{n/21}}.$$

Now we have for $`R`$ large enough

$$\chi _{R,M}_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}=\frac{M}{R}\kappa ,\chi _{R,M}_{H^{n/21}}2\frac{M}{R}\kappa ,$$

where by assumption

$$\kappa =\chi _{\dot{H}^{n/21}}0.$$

Moreover, by the energy identity we have for all $`t`$

(2.39)
$$z_j(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/2}}c\varphi _j_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}0\text{ as }j\mathrm{}$$

and also for all $`|t|1`$

(2.40)
$$z_j(t,)_{L^2}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(t|\xi |)}{|\xi |}\widehat{\varphi }_j_{L^2}\varphi _j_{L^2}0z_j(t,)_{H^{n/2}}0$$

Hence we have proved that

(2.41)
$$(v_jw_j)_tv_j_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}c(n,\kappa )\frac{M_j}{R_j}.$$

In view of the second term in (2.11) we need also a bound from above for the quantity $`(vw)_tv`$; by (4.9) from the Appendix, with $`s=n/21`$, we have

$$z_j(t_j,)\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{H^{n/21}}Cz_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{H^{n/21}}C\frac{M_j}{R_j}z_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}},$$

for $`j`$ large enough, and recalling that $`z_j0`$ in $`H^{n/2}`$ uniformly in $`|t|1`$ as remarked above, and $`|z_j|1`$ by construction, we finally obtain

(2.42)
$$(v_jw_j)_tv_j_{H^{n/21}}c^{}(n,\kappa )\frac{M_j}{R_j}$$

provided $`j`$ is large enough.

We notice that, by (2.29), (2.30),

$$v_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}c\frac{M_j}{R_j}$$

while, recalling that $`|z_j|1`$ and that $`z_j_{H^{n/2}}1`$ for $`j`$ large enough, we have

$$w_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}=v_j+\mu z_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}c\mu +c\frac{M_j}{R_j}.$$

Together with (2.42) this gives us the following estimate for the second term in (2.11):

(2.43)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _2(v_j,w_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_j,w_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}(v_jw_j)_tv_j_{H^{n/21}}\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _3(\mu +M_j/R_j)\left(\mu +\frac{M_j}{R_j}\right)\frac{M_j}{R_j}.\end{array}$$

We can impose now the last smallness condition on $`\mu `$ and $`M_j`$ (recall that $`M_j/R_j`$ is bounded):

(2.44)
$$\rho _3(\mu +M_j/R_j)\left(\mu +\frac{M_j}{R_j}\right)\frac{1}{2}c(n,\kappa )$$

where $`c(n,\kappa )`$ is the constant appearing in (2.41). Thus we get

(2.45)
$$\rho _2(v_j,w_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_j,w_j_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}(v_jw_j)_tv_j_{H^{n/21}}\frac{1}{2}c(n,\kappa )\frac{M_j}{R_j}.$$

The last term in (2.11) is quite easy to estimate: we have for $`j\mathrm{}`$

(2.46)
$$\rho _1(v_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}})v_1w_1_{H^{n/21}}\rho _4(\mu +M_j/R_j)\mu \varphi _j_{H^{n/21}}0.$$

We can finally choose $`M_j`$ and $`\mu `$; we define $`M_j=\lambda R_j`$, and $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ are two positive constants so small that conditions (2.32), (2.33), (2.44) are satisfied.

Summing up, by (2.41), (2.45), (2.46), we obtain

(2.47)
$$_tu^{(1)}(t_j,)_tu^{(2)}(t_j,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}\frac{1}{4}c(n,\kappa )\frac{M_j}{R_j}=\frac{1}{4}c(n,\kappa )\lambda .$$

provided $`j`$ is large enough.

We can now conclude the proof. Recalling (2.27), we can choose as data for $`v`$ the sequences

$$v_0^{(j)}=v_{R_j,M_j,t_j}(0,x),v_1^{(j)}=_tv_{R_j,M_j,t_j}(0,x)$$

while the data for $`w`$ are chosen as

$$w_0^{(j)}=v_0^{(j)},w_1^{(j)}=v_1^{(j)}+\mu \varphi _jv_1^{(j)}+c_0\varphi _j/2.$$

By (2.32) the data for $`v`$ belong to $`V`$; as a consequence, the data for $`w`$ belong to $`V`$ provided $`j`$ is large enough, since $`\varphi _j0`$ in $`H^{n/21}`$. Thus we are in position to apply the uniform continuity property (2.8); since $`w_1v_1=\mu \varphi _j/2`$ we have that for all $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that

$$\varphi _j_{H^{n/21}}<\delta \underset{t[0,1]}{sup}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}ϵ;$$

hence in particular at $`t=t_j`$ we must have

$$\varphi _j_{H^{n/21}}<\delta _tu^{(1)}(t_j,)_tu^{(2)}(t_j,)_{\dot{H}^{n/21}}ϵ$$

and this is in clear contradiction with (2.47).

## 3. Proof of Proposition 1.2

The proof follows exactly the same lines as for Theorem 1.1, and actually it is simpler from a technical point of view. Indeed, when $`n=2`$ we must violate the following uniform continuity condition: *for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that*

$$_tu^{(1)}(0)_tu^{(2)}(0)_{L^2}\delta \underset{t[0,1]}{sup}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{L^2}ϵ$$

*for all data $`u^{(1)}(0)=u^{(2)}(0)`$ and $`_tu^{(1)}(0)`$, $`_tu^{(2)}(0)`$ in $`U`$.* We choose as above two $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ real valued solutions $`v,w`$ of the homogeneous wave equation

$$\mathrm{}v=\mathrm{}w=0$$

with data

$$v(0,x)=w(0,x)=v_0(x),_tv(0,x)=v_1(x),_tw(0,x)=w_1(x),$$

and we set $`u^{(1)}=\gamma v`$ , $`u^{(2)}=\gamma w`$. Since $`|\gamma ^{}(s)|=1`$ by the choice of the arc lenght parameter, the uniform continuity for our choice of data becomes simply

(3.1)
$$v_1w_1_{L^2}\delta \underset{t[0,1]}{sup}_tu^{(1)}(t,)_tu^{(2)}(t,)_{L^2}ϵ$$

In order to violate this property, we estimate from below the second term in (3.1). We can write

$$_tu^{(1)}_tu^{(2)}=\gamma ^{}(v)v_t\gamma ^{}(w)w_t=(\gamma ^{}(v)\gamma ^{}(w))w_t+\gamma ^{}(w)_t(vw)$$

whence

$$|_tu^{(1)}_tu^{(2)}||\gamma ^{}(v)\gamma ^{}(w)||w_t||_t(vw)|$$

using the identity $`|\gamma ^{}|1`$. This implies easily

$$|_tu^{(1)}_tu^{(2)}|^2+|_t(vw)|^2\frac{1}{2}|\gamma ^{}(v)\gamma ^{}(w)|^2|v_t|^2,$$

which can be written

(3.2)
$$|_tu^{(1)}_tu^{(2)}|^2+|_t(vw)|^2\frac{1}{2}\left|_v^w\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right|^2|v_t|^2.$$

As $`v`$ we shall choose the radial function $`v_{R,M,T}`$ constructed in Lemma 2.3, with a suitable choice of the parameters. By (2.28) for $`n=2`$ we can assume that the initial data $`v_0,v_1`$ belong to the neighbourhood $`V`$ of 0 in $`H^1\times L^2`$ on which property (2.8) holds, as soon as $`M/R`$ is small enough; if $`V`$ contains a ball of radius $`r_0(V)`$ centered in 0, we may assume that

(3.3)
$$4\chi _{L^2}\frac{M}{R}<r_0.$$

Notice that, thanks to the assumption that the geodesic curve is globally defined, it is not necessary to impose any restriction to the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of $`v`$.

We now choose the data for $`w`$; let $`\mu >0`$ be a small parameter, and set ($`w_0v_0`$ and)

(3.4)
$$w_1=v_1+\mu \varphi _j$$

where $`\varphi _j`$ are the smooth radial functions constructed in Lemma 2.1. Then we have $`w=v+\mu z_j`$, with $`vv_{R,M,T}`$; again, no condition on the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of $`w`$ is necessary since $`\gamma (s)`$ is defined for all $`s`$.

Recall now (3.2) which gives

(3.5)
$$|_tu^{(1)}_tu^{(2)}|^2+|\mu _tz_j|^2\frac{1}{2}\left|_v^{v+\mu z_j}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right|^2|v_t|^2.$$

Notice that this is a pointwise inequality, valid at any $`(t,x)`$. We can fix now $`t=1`$, choose $`T=1`$ in the definition of $`v_{R,M,T}`$ while leaving $`R,M`$ free for the moment (apart from (3.3)), and we get

(3.6)
$$|_t(u^{(1)}u^{(2)})(1,x)|^2+|\mu _tz_j(1,x)|^2\frac{1}{2}\left|_0^{\mu z_j(1,x)}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right|^2|\chi _{R,M}|^2.$$

Integrating on $`^2`$, and using the energy inequality $`_tz_j(t,)_{L^2}\varphi _j_{L^2}`$ we get ($`=_{L^2}`$)

(3.7)
$$_t(u^{(1)}u^{(2)})(1,)^2+\mu \varphi _j^2\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mu z_j(1,)}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \chi _{R,M}^2.$$

Since $`z_j`$ is smooth and satisfies (2.14), we also have

(3.8)
$$2>z_j(t_j,x)>1/2\text{ for }|x|\frac{1}{R_j}$$

for some $`R_j`$ large enough; this is our choice for the parameter $`R=R_j`$ in the definition of $`v_{R,M,T}`$. Moreover, we shall choose $`M=M_j`$ proportional to $`R_j`$, in such a way that (3.3) is satisfied, i.e.,

(3.9)
$$\frac{M_j}{R_j}=\lambda _0\frac{r_0}{8\chi _{L^2}}.$$

Recalling (2.1), we can write for $`|s|<c_0(N)`$

(3.10)
$$\left|_0^s\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \right||s|c_1(N)$$

with $`c_1(N)>0`$. If we choose

(3.11)
$$\mu =c_0(N)/2,$$

by (3.8) we obtain

(3.12)
$$\left|_0^{\mu z_j(1,x)}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(\sigma )𝑑\sigma \chi _{R_j,M_j}(x)\right|\frac{1}{4}c_1(N)c_0(N)\chi _{R_j,M_j}(x)\text{ for }|x|\frac{1}{R_j}.$$

By (3.12) and (3.7) we thus get, recalling (3.9),

(3.13)
$$_t(u^{(1)}u^{(2)})(1,)^2+\frac{c_0^2}{4}\varphi _j^2\frac{1}{8}(c_0c_1)^2\chi _{R_j,M_j}_{L^2(|x|<1/R_j)}^2c_3$$

where the constant $`c_3`$ is given by

(3.14)
$$c_3=\frac{1}{16}(c_0c_1\lambda _0\chi _{L^2})^2$$

and is independent of $`j`$ ($`\chi _{M_j,R_j}_{L^2}=M_jR_j^1\chi _{L^2}=\lambda _0\chi _{L^2}`$).

The conclusion of the proof is now quite similar to the general case $`n2`$; like before, we choose as data for $`v`$ the sequences

$$v_0^{(j)}=v_{R_j,M_j,1}(0,x),v_1^{(j)}=_tv_{R_j,M_j,1}(0,x)$$

while the data for $`w`$ are

$$w_0^{(j)}=v_0^{(j)},w_1^{(j)}=v_1^{(j)}+\mu \varphi _jv_1^{(j)}+c_0\varphi _j/2.$$

By (3.9) the data for $`v`$ belong to $`V`$; on the other hand, the data for $`w`$ belong to $`V`$ provided $`j`$ is large enough, since $`\varphi _j0`$ in $`L^2`$. The uniform continuity property implies that for all $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`\delta >0`$ such that

$$\varphi _j_{L^2}<\delta _tu^{(1)}(1,)_tu^{(2)}(1,)_{L^2}ϵ$$

and this contradicts (3.13).

## 4. Appendix

The aim of this Appendix is to prove two multiplicative estimates needed in the proof of Theorem 1.1. The first one has the following form:

(4.1)
$$fg_{H^s(^n)}Cf_{H^s}g_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}},s<n/2.$$

Notice that this estimate is *asymmetric* in $`f,g.`$ We can obtain this estimate from the Kato-Ponce estimate (see Lemma 2.2 in )

$$fg_{H^s}Cf_{L^{p_1}}J^sg_{L^{p_2}}+CJ^sf_{L^{p_3}}g_{L^{p_4}}$$

which is valid for all $`s0,`$ for all $`p_2,p_3]1,\mathrm{}[`$, and $`1/2=p_1^1+p_2^1=p_3^1+p_4^1`$; here $`J^s=(1\mathrm{\Delta })^{s/2}`$. Then (4.1) follows taking $`p_3=2`$, $`p_4=\mathrm{}`$,

$$p_1=\frac{2n}{n2s},p_2=\frac{n}{s}$$

and using the Sobolev embeddings

$$f_{L^{p_1}}Cf_{H^s},J^sg_{L^{p_2}}Cg_{H^{n/2}}.$$

Also the second commutator estimate we need, i.e.,

(4.2)
$$J^s(fg)gJ^sf_{L^2}Cf_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}},s<n/2,n3,$$

can be proved by a similar argument based on the the Kato-Ponce commutator estimate (see Lemma 2.2 in )

$$J^s(fg)gJ^sf_{L^2}Cg_{L^{p_1}}J^{s1}f_{L^{p_2}}+CJ^sg_{L^{p_3}}f_{L^{p_4}}$$

which is valid for all $`s0,`$ for all $`p_2,p_3]1,\mathrm{}[`$, and $`1/2=p_1^1+p_2^1=p_3^1+p_4^1`$. Now (4.2) follows taking $`p_1=n,`$ $`p_3=s/n`$,

$$p_2=\frac{2n}{n2},p_4=\frac{2n}{n2s}$$

and using the Sobolev embeddings

$$g_{L^{p_1}}Cg_{H^{n/2}},J^{s1}f_{L^{p_2}}Cf_{H^s},$$

$$J^sg_{L^{p_3}}Cg_{H^{n/2}},f_{L^{p_4}}Cf_{H^s}.$$

For completeness, we give a self-contained proof of (4.1), (4.2) and a refined version of (4.2) involving homogeneous Sobolev norms; we hope that our method is of independent interest.

To this end, we must introduce some basic tools from the theory of Sobolev and Besov spaces.

1) Difference operators. Given $`h^n`$ and a function $`f:^n`$, we denote by $`f_j(x)`$ the $`j`$-th translate of $`f`$ in the direction $`h`$:

$$f_j(x)=f(x+jh),j$$

and the *difference operator* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f=f_1f,\text{i.e.,}\mathrm{\Delta }f(x)=f(x+h)f(x)$$

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}`$ the iterates of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Trivial properties are $`f_0f`$, $`(f_i)_j=f_{i+j}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\mathrm{\Delta }^jf)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{i+j}f`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(f_j)=(\mathrm{\Delta }f)_j\mathrm{\Delta }f_j`$.

Of special interest here will be the behaviour of the difference operator with respect to products. We have immediately

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(fg)=f_1g_1fg=f_1(g_1g)+(f_1f)g$$

which can be written shortly

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(fg)=\mathrm{\Delta }fg+f_1\mathrm{\Delta }g.$$

By induction one proves easily the Leibnitz rule

(4.3)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }^k(fg)=\underset{\mathrm{}+m=k}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{k}{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg.$$

2) Sobolev spaces with fractional index. All the functions (and the spaces) considered here are defined on the whole $`^n`$. The *homogeneou Sobolev seminorms* $`\dot{W}^{k,p}`$ with $`k0`$ integer, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$ are defined as

$$u_{\dot{W}^{k,p}}=\underset{\alpha =k}{}D^\alpha u_{L^p};$$

we write $`\dot{H}^k`$ for $`\dot{W}^{k,2}`$. Thus the standard Sobolev norms can be written

$$u_{W^{k,p}}=u_{L^p}+u_{\dot{W}^{k,p}}.$$

For our purposes it is not necessary to enter into the topological details of the definition of the corresponding spaces; only the norms are sufficient, and we shall always apply them to smooth functions. The $`\dot{W}^{s,p},W^{s,p}`$ (semi)norms with *noninteger* $`s>0`$ are more troublesome; the usual definition by interpolation is not well suited to prove multiplicative estimates. A handier equivalent characterization can be given using the fractional integrals

$$I_{s,p}(u)=\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_h^{[s]+1}u(x)|^p}{|h|^{n+sp}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/p}$$

where $`[s]`$ is the integer part of the noninteger $`s>0`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, and integration is performed over $`^{2n}`$; we shall write $`I_{s,2}=I_s`$. Then we have

(4.4)
$$u_{W^{k,p}}u_{L^p}+I_{s,p}(u)$$

(see e.g. 2.3.1 and Theorem 2.5.1 in ). The integral $`I_{s,p}(u)`$ plays the role of the homogeneous norm; this can be seen by a simple rescaling argument. For the following application it will be sufficient to consider the $`L^2`$ case, in which we have a simple definition using the Fourier transform

$$u_{\dot{H}^s}=|\xi |^s\widehat{u}_{L^2},u_{H^s}(1+|\xi |^2)^{s/2}\widehat{u}_{L^2}u_{L^2}+u_{\dot{H}^s}.$$

Indeed, let $`S_\lambda `$ be the scaling operators for $`\lambda >0`$

$$(S_\lambda u)(x)=u(\lambda x);$$

it is easy to check the scaling properties

$$S_\lambda u_{L^2}=\lambda ^{n/2}u_{L^2},S_\lambda u_{\dot{H}^s}=\lambda ^{sn/2}u_{\dot{H}^s}I_s(S_\lambda u)=\lambda ^{2sn}I_s(u).$$

Thus, fixed $`uH^s`$, if we apply the two equivalent definitions to $`S_\lambda u`$ we obtain

$$\lambda ^{sn/2}u_{\dot{H}^s}+\lambda ^{n/2}u_{L^2}\lambda ^{sn/2}I_s(u)+\lambda ^{n/2}u_{L^2}.$$

Letting $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, we obtain immediately

(4.5)
$$u_{\dot{H}^s}I_s(u).$$

3) Besov spaces. With the same type of norms it is possible to define the *Besov spaces* $`B_{p,q}^s`$ as follows (see Theorem 2.5.1 in ): for any $`s>0`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, $`1<q<\mathrm{}`$ set

(4.6)
$$f_{B_{p,q}^s}=f_{L^p}+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_h^{[s]+1}f_{L^p}^q}{|h|^{n+sq}}𝑑h\right)^{1/q}$$

and define the spaces accordingly. From this definition in particular it is evident that $`B_{p,p}^s=W^{s,p}`$ for noninteger $`s`$. We shall use the fact that

$$B_{2,2}^sH^s$$

for all values of $`s`$ (including integers).

We finally recall the continuous embedding (see e.g., Theorem 7.58 in  and Theorem 2.8.1 in ): for $`s,t0`$

(4.7)
$$1<pq<\mathrm{},s\frac{n}{p}=t\frac{n}{q}W^{s,p}W^{t,q}$$

and, more generally, the Besov version

(4.8)
$$r[1,\mathrm{}],1<pq<\mathrm{},s\frac{n}{p}=t\frac{n}{q}B_{p,r}^sB_{q,r}^t.$$

We are ready to prove our lemma. We use the notation

$$u_{XY}=u_X+u_Y$$

for any two Banach spaces $`X,Y`$ and $`uXY`$. We state the following Lemma for smooth functions, the extension to $`f,g`$ belonging to the appropriate spaces being obvious.

###### Lemma 4.1.

For all real $`0s<n/2`$ and any smooth functions $`f,g`$, the following inequality holds:

(4.9)
$$fg_{H^s(^n)}Cf_{H^s}g_{L^{\mathrm{}}H^{n/2}}$$

and, for all $`\lambda `$ with $`s<\lambda <n/2`$,

(4.10)
$$fg_{H^s(^n)}Cf_{H^{n/2+s\lambda }}g_{H^\lambda }.$$

Moreover, assume that

(4.11)
$$|g(x)|C_1>0\text{ on the support of }f\text{;}$$

then we have also

(4.12)
$$fg_{\dot{H}^s}cC_1f_{\dot{H}^s}c^{}f_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}}$$

for some constants $`c,c^{}>0`$ depending only on $`s,n`$.

###### Remark 4.1.

Estimate (4.9) can be regarded as the limit case of (4.10) as $`\lambda n/2`$; when $`\lambda s`$ we obtain (4.9) with $`f`$ and $`g`$ exchanged.

###### Proof.

Notice that in order to prove (4.9), (4.10) it is sufficient to prove them with the $`H^s`$ norm on the left hand side replaced by the homogeneous $`\dot{H}^s`$ norm, since the estimates are trivially true for the term $`fg_{L^2}`$. We need two different (but parallel) proofs in the cases $`s`$ integer or noninteger, since we have two different representations of the norm in these cases.

The proof for integer $`s`$ is is simple. Indeed, by the Sobolev embedding

$$H^s(^n)L^{\frac{2n}{n2s}}(^n),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}s<\frac{n}{2}$$

(see (4.7)) and by Hölder’s inequality we have

(4.13)
$$uv_{L^2}u_{L^{n/\mu }}v_{L^{2n/(n2\mu )}}Cu_{H^{n/2\mu }}v_{H^\mu }$$

for any real number

$$0<\mu <\frac{n}{2}.$$

We can apply (4.13) to the product of two derivatives (here and in the following we shall use the shorthand notation $`D^{\mathrm{}}`$ to denote any derivative of order $`\mathrm{}`$):

(4.14)
$$D^{\mathrm{}}fD^mg_{L^2}Cf_{H^{n/2+\mathrm{}\mu }}g_{H^{m+\mu }}.$$

For any integer $`s<n/2`$ we can write

(4.15)
$$fg_{\dot{H}^s}\underset{\mathrm{}+m=s}{}D^{\mathrm{}}fD^mg_{L^2}.$$

Now, (4.10) follows directly by applying (4.14) to each term $`0\mathrm{}<n/2`$ with the choice $`\mu =\mathrm{}+\lambda s`$, since in this case we have $`0<\mu <n/2`$ for all $`\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},s`$. To prove the limit case (4.9), i.e., with $`\lambda =n/2`$, the same methods works if we choose for $`\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{},s1`$

$$\mu =\mathrm{}+n/2s$$

and (4.14) gives

$$D^{\mathrm{}}fD^mg_{L^2}f_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}};$$

but we must consider the term with $`\mathrm{}=s`$ separately since $`\mu =n/2`$ in that case, and we have

$$D^sfg_{L^2}g_L^{\mathrm{}}f_{H^s}$$

and this concludes the proof.

Consider now (4.12) for $`s<n/2`$ integer; by (4.15) we have

(4.16)
$$fg_{\dot{H}^s}gD^sf_{L^2}c\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mathrm{}+m=s}{m1}}{}D^{\mathrm{}}fD^mg_{L^2}$$

and applying (4.14) to each term in the sum, with $`\mu =n/2\mathrm{}+s`$ as above (so that $`0<\mu <n/2`$), we obtain

$$fg_{\dot{H}^s}gD^sf_{L^2}cg_{H^{n/2}}f_{H^s}.$$

Recalling (4.11), we obtain (4.12).

From now on, assume $`0<s<n/2`$ is not an integer. To estimate from above $`fg_{\dot{H}^s}`$ we use the characterization (4.5) and the Leibnitz rule (4.3):

$$fg_{\dot{H}^s}I_s(fg)C\underset{\mathrm{}+m=[s]+1}{}\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}.$$

Thus we need an analogue of (4.14) for fractional integrals. Consider first the terms with both $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`m1`$. By Hölder’s inequality we can write for any $`p^1+q^1=1`$ and any $`\rho +\sigma =s`$

(4.17)
$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f|^{2p}}{|h|^{n+2p\rho }}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/p}\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^{2q}}{|h|^{n+2q\sigma }}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/q}$$

where we replaced $`f_m`$ with $`f`$ after a translation in the variable $`x`$. The parameters $`p,q,\rho ,\sigma `$ must be chosen in an appropriate way. First of all we can set (since $`\mathrm{},m1`$)

(4.18)
$$\rho =\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\{s\}}{2},\sigma =m\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\{s\}}{2}$$

where $`\{s\}=s[s]`$ is the fractional part of $`s`$, so that

$$\rho +\sigma =s,\mathrm{}=[\rho ]+1,m=[\sigma ]+1.$$

Recalling the definition of $`I_{s,p}`$, from (4.17) we thus obtain

(4.19)
$$\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}I_{\rho ,2p}(f)I_{\sigma ,2q}(g)cf_{W^{\rho ,2p}}g_{W^{\sigma ,2q}}.$$

Now let $`\lambda `$ be such that $`s\lambda n/2`$ (extreme cases included) and choose $`p,q]1,\mathrm{}[`$ as follows

(4.20)
$$2p=\frac{n}{\lambda \sigma },2q=\frac{2n}{n2(\lambda \sigma )};$$

notice that $`\lambda \sigma s\sigma >0`$ and $`n2(\lambda \sigma )2\sigma >0`$. Thus by (4.7) we have the embeddings

(4.21)
$$H^{n/2+s\lambda }W^{\rho ,2p},H^\lambda W^{\sigma ,2q}.$$

In conclusion we have proved for all $`\mathrm{},m1`$ with $`\mathrm{}+m=[s]+1`$, and any $`s\lambda n/2`$, the inequality

(4.22)
$$\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}cf_{H^{n/2\lambda +s}}g_{H^\lambda }.$$

Two terms are left. The term with $`m=0`$, $`\mathrm{}=[s]+1`$ is bounded simply by writing

(4.23)
$$\left(\frac{|g\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}f|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}g_L^{\mathrm{}}I_s(f)cg_L^{\mathrm{}}f_{H^s}.$$

On the other hand, the term with $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and $`m=[s]+1`$ is more delicate since we can not use the $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ norm of $`f`$. We proceed as follows: we apply Hölder inequality in $`dx`$ to obtain

$$\left(\frac{|f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{f_m_{L^{n/s}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g_{L^{2n/(n2s)}}^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑h\right)^{1/2}$$

and we notice that the norm $`f_m_{L^{n/s}}=f_{L^{n/s}}`$ is independent of $`h`$ and can be drawn out of the integral. What remains is exactly a Besov norm (see (4.6)) and we conclude

(4.24)
$$\left(\frac{|f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}f_{L^{2n/(n2s)}}g_{B_{\frac{n}{s},2}^s}cf_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}}$$

by the continuous embeddings

$$H^sL^{2n/(n2s)},B_{\frac{n}{s},2}^sB_{2,2}^{n/2}H^{n/2}$$

(see (4.7), (4.8)). By (4.22) for $`\lambda =n/2`$, (4.23) and (4.24) we obtain (4.9).

By the same method we can write

$$\left(\frac{|f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{f_m_{L^p}^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g_{L^q}^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑h\right)^{1/2}$$

where, for an arbitrary $`\lambda `$ with $`s<\lambda <n/2`$, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are chosen as

$$2p=\frac{n}{\lambda s},2q=\frac{2n}{n2(\lambda s)};$$

proceeding exactly as in the proof of (4.24) we obtain

(4.25)
$$\left(\frac{|f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}g|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}f_{L^{n/(\lambda s)}}g_{B_{\frac{2n}{n2(\lambda s)},2}^s}cf_{H^{n/2+s\lambda }}g_{H^\lambda }.$$

By (4.22) and (4.25) we obtain immediately (4.10) for noniteger $`s`$.

The proof of (4.12) for noninteger $`s`$ proceeds in a similar way. Using again the Leibnitz rule (4.3) we can write

$$I_s(fg)\left(\frac{|g\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}f|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}c\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{\mathrm{}+m=[s]+1}{m1}}{}\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{}}f_m\mathrm{\Delta }^mg|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}$$

which by (4.22) for $`\lambda =n/2`$ and (4.24) implies

$$I_s(fg)\left(\frac{|g\mathrm{\Delta }^{[s]+1}f|^2}{|h|^{n+2s}}𝑑x𝑑h\right)^{1/2}cf_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}}.$$

Using now assumption (4.11) we have

$$I_s(fg)C_1I_s(f)cf_{H^s}g_{H^{n/2}}$$

and recalling that $`I_s(u)u_{\dot{H}^s}`$, we conclude the proof.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the most spectacular consequences of brane-world theories  with low fundamental gravitational scale, $`M_{}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{TeV}`$ (for some works on the structure of these theories, on their cosmological implications and experimental signatures, see ), is the modification of the properties of small black holes  that, in principle, allows them to be copiously produced at the LHC and in other high-energy processes . In a collider setting, the dominant signal for such black hole production arises from the Hawking evaporation products of the black hole, in particular the characteristic spectrum of such radiation. In a previous paper , we considered the leading semiclassical corrections to the spectrum of Hawking radiation for a higher-dimensional black hole evaporating to scalar modes. We considered both a scalar field localised to the brane as well as the situation in which it could propagate in the full $`(4+n)`$-dimensional bulk, and computed the corresponding greybody factors as functions of energy $`\omega `$, angular momentum $`j`$, and number of (flat) extra dimensions $`n`$. The scalar case is both a useful testing place of the methods used in such a computation, and potentially relevant for Higgs, or other scalar boson production from black holes formed in collisions at the LHC or other high energy colliders. However, from a practical point of view the most important cases to consider are those of the production of SM fermions or SM gauge bosons to which we turn in this paper.

In both cases the fields that need to be considered are brane localised. For fermions this is because of the chiral nature of the SM fermions, since a fermion propagating in the bulk is necessarily non-chiral from the 4d perspective.111The RHD neutrino can propagate in the bulk, leading to an alternate, non-seesaw explanation of the lightness of the observed neutrino states . Thus in principle it is possible to consider the Hawking decay of a black hole to these bulk neutrino states. However, from the perspective of the brane observer this leads only to a missing energy signal which is not distinguishable from the many other sources of missing energy in brane-world theories. Therefore we do not consider this possibility in the present work. It is possible to consider SM gauge fields propagating in the higher-dimensional bulk, or a subspace thereof . However, the already existing collider constraints bound the size of such gauge extra dimensions to $`R_{\mathrm{gauge}}^1\stackrel{>}{}3\mathrm{TeV}`$, while, in the best possible case where only the graviton propagates in the extra dimensions, the limits on the new fundamental higher-dimensional Planck scale are of order $`M_{}\stackrel{>}{}1.2\mathrm{TeV}`$ . On the other hand, the validity of the semiclassical description of black holes requires that their horizon radius $`r_H`$ be large compared to the higher dimensional Planck length $`r_H1/M_{}`$, which given the just cited bounds, as well as the limits on the maximum mass of black hole that can be produced at the LHC, implies that $`r_H`$ must be somewhat large compared to $`R_{\mathrm{gauge}}`$, too. In this case the gauge fields can also be considered as effectively brane localised, the ‘brane’ in question having some non-trivial substructure. To leading order this substructure does not change the greybody factors we compute for the spin 1 case.

Note that the properties of a black hole, in particular its Schwarzschild radius, $`r_H`$, and production cross section, differ from the 4d result provided that $`r_H`$ is smaller than the size of at least some of the extra dimensions $`r_H<R`$. If the brane tension does not strongly perturb the $`(4+n)`$-dimensional black hole solution, and the extra dimensional space is approximately flat on the scale $`r_H`$, then the black hole is well-described as a angularly symmetric $`(4+n)`$-dimensional black hole centered on the brane, but extending out into the $`n`$ extra dimensions, leading to the expression ,

$$r_H=\frac{1}{M_{}}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\left(\frac{8\mathrm{\Gamma }((n+3)/2)}{(n+2)\pi ^{(n+1)/2}}\right)^{1/(n+1)},$$
(1)
for the Schwarzschild radius. Here, we follow these commonly made assumptions, which have the consequence of limiting our discussion to the Hawking decay of black holes in the context of Arkani-Hamed-Dimopoulos-Dvali like theories . In particular, black holes in theories of the Randall-Sundrum type  require a more involved treatment (for a recent paper considering the decay of RS black holes see ).

After such black holes are produced, they decay by the emission of Hawking radiation, and it is expected that they will decay mostly to particles on our brane . The spectrum of radiation, with a temperature $`T_{BH}=(1+n)/(4\pi r_H)`$ (in $`G=k_B=c=\mathrm{}=1`$ units), is given by the Hawking formula

$$\frac{dE(\omega )}{dt}=\underset{j,b}{}\sigma _{j,b}(\omega )\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega /T_{BH}\right)1}\frac{d^{n+3}k}{(2\pi )^{n+3}},$$
(2)
where $`j`$ labels the total angular momentum quantum number, $`b`$ labels any other quantum numbers of the emitted particle, as well as the particle type, and in the phase-space integral $`|k|=\omega `$ for a massless particle. Here $`\sigma (\omega )`$, known as the ‘greybody factor’, is an energy-dependent function arising from the backscattering of part of the outgoing radiation back into the black hole by the non-trivial metric in the region exterior to the black hole horizon (for early works on the emission spectra of 4d black holes, see ).

In this paper we calculate the greybody factors and emission rates for spin 1/2 and spin 1 particles localised to the SM brane in the presence of a non-rotating black hole of the type described above. It is expected that such a non-rotating black hole is a good approximation to the exact solution after the initial ‘balding’ and ‘spin-down’ phases . As discussed for the scalar case in our first paper , the greybody factor is computed using its equality with the absorption cross section for the appropriate type of particle incident on the background metric that describes the brane black hole. The equality of greybody factors to absorption cross sections implies that the greybody factors do not invalidate the thermal nature of the black hole.

Finally, it is important to recall that the semiclassical calculation of Hawking emission is only reliable when the energy of the emitted particle is small compared to the black hole mass $`\omega M`$, since only in this case is it correct to neglect the back reaction of the metric during the emission process. This in turn requires that the Hawking temperature obeys the relation $`T_{BH}M`$, which is equivalent to demanding that the black hole mass $`MM_{}`$. Inevitably this condition breaks down during the final stages of the decay process, but for those black holes of initial mass larger than $`M_{}`$ most of the evaporation process is within the semi-classical regime.

In Section 2 of this paper, we present the general equation for the radial part of the wave function of fields with spin 1/2 and 1, as well as a discussion of the metric used in calculating the greybody factors. We proceed to solve this equation at the asymptotic regimes of the near-horizon and far-field zones, for arbitrary number of extra dimensions and angular momentum number, and we match them in an intermediate zone in order to construct a complete, smooth solution over the whole radial regime.

In section 3, the greybody factors for fermionic and gauge fields are computed. Our full analytic results are contained in Eqs. (35-38), (40), (46), and (49). Although analytically complicated, these full results are necessary for the accurate determination of the Hawking emission spectrum from brane black holes (see section 4). We expect they will be of use to those searching for black holes at current and future colliders, or in ultra-high-energy-cosmic-ray collisions. However, for ease of comparison with previous studies of greybody factors we derive simplified expressions for the leading corrections to the spectrum of the Hawking radiation valid for $`\omega r_H1`$. These expressions are presented in Eq. (47) for spin 1/2 and Eq. (55) for spin 1, for arbitrary $`j`$ and $`n`$. Their values for $`n=2,4,6`$ extra dimensions, and for the first three, and thus most important, angular momentum modes (with $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{3}{2}`$, $`\frac{5}{2}`$ for spin 1/2, and $`j=`$1, 2, 3 for spin 1) are tabulated in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

In section 4, we proceed to calculate the full greybody factors and emission rates for spin 1/2 and spin 1 fields by a numerical evaluation of our full analytic results of sections 2 and 3 (valid beyond the simplified limit $`\omega r_H1`$). A similar analysis for spin 0 fields, based on the results derived in , is also included in this section. The results are presented in figures 1,2 and 3. Our conclusions are summarized in section 5.

## 2 General equation for spin 1/2 and 1 fields and its solution

The purpose of this paper is to calculate the greybody factors for the emission of fermion and gauge fields in the background of the metric on their 4-dimensional brane induced from a $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild-like black hole centered on the brane. The starting point of our analysis will be the general equation for the propagation of fields with spin $`s=1/2`$ and 1 in an arbitrary 4-dimensional spherically-symmetric background. Using the Newman-Penrose formalism  (see  for a compact review), this general field equation may be written as

$$_{AA^{}}\psi ^{AB_1\mathrm{}B_{2s1}}=0.$$
(3)
Following the analysis of Cvetic and Larsen , it is possible to derive from this general equation a set of $`2s`$ differential equations for the components of the wave function of the spin $`s`$ field. Specifically, assuming a general, spherically-symmetric background of the form

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}dt^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}dr^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(4)
and using a factorized ansatz for each component of the wave function of the field of the form

$$\psi _{ks}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{k/2}(2\mathrm{\Sigma })^{k/2s}R_{ks}(r)S_{ks}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(5)
the set of coupled differential equations separates into two sets of decoupled equations for the radial and angular parts of the wave function. In the above expression, $`k=0,\mathrm{},2s`$ labels the helicity of the components, and $`S_{ks}(\mathrm{\Omega })=e^{im\phi }d_{km}^{(j)}(\theta )`$, where $`j`$ and $`m`$ are the total angular momentum number and its projection on a fixed axis, respectively, and $`d_{km}^{(j)}`$ stand for the rotation matrices. Focusing on the radial part of the wave function, the form of the corresponding equation turns out to depend on the helicity of the component. For example, for the upper component $`\psi _s`$ ($`k=2s`$), it takes the form :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^s{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^{1s}{\displaystyle \frac{dR_s}{dr}}\right]+\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\omega ^2is\omega \mathrm{\Sigma }_r\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+2is\omega _r\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }+`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})[_r\left({\displaystyle \frac{_r\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)+(s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{_r\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^2+(1s){\displaystyle \frac{_r\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{_r\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}]\}R_s=0.`$
In the above, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }j(j+1)s(s1)`$. As we will shortly see, solving the above equation for the upper component of the field only is sufficient to lead to the determination of the absorption cross section, and thus the greybody factor.

In the presence of additional space-like dimensions, the higher-dimensional spherically symmetric generalizations of the 4-dimensional Schwarzschild solution have a line element given by

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+h(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2+n}^2,$$
(7)
where

$$h(r)=1\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^{n+1}.$$
(8)
The angular part of the above higher-dimensional metric tensor is

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2+n}^2=d\theta _{n+1}^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{n+1}\left(d\theta _n^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n\left(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\phi ^2)\mathrm{}\right)\right),$$
(9)
with $`0<\phi <2\pi `$ and $`0<\theta _i<\pi `$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. It is easy to check that, at distances $`rR`$, where $`R`$ the size of the extra compact dimensions, the above metric tensor reduces to the usual 4-dimensional Schwarzschild solution.

Under the assumption that the Standard Model fields, both fermions and gauge bosons, are restricted to live on a 4-dimensional brane, they propagate in a gravitational background which is given by the induced 4d metric on the brane following from the higher-dimensional black-hole background (7). This follows if we set $`\theta _n=\pi /2`$, for $`n2`$. Specifically it takes the form

$$ds^2=h(r)dt^2+h(r)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(10)
Comparing Eqs. (4) and (10), we may easily see that the general metric functions appearing in Eq. (4) are now given by: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=r^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=hr^2`$. Substituting in the general, radial differential equation (6), we obtain the following simplified equation:

$`(hr^2)^s{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left[(hr^2)^{1s}{\displaystyle \frac{dR_s}{dr}}\right]+\{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2r^2}{h}}+2is\omega r{\displaystyle \frac{is\omega r}{h}}(n+1)(1h)`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(2s1)(s1)(n+1)(1h)\}R_s=0.`$
In the above, we have used the relation

$$\frac{dh}{dr}=\frac{(n+1)}{r}(1h),$$
(12)
that follows from the definition Eq. (8). In this paper, we are going to study the cases of fermion ($`s=1/2`$) and gauge-boson fields ($`s=1`$). For those fields, the last term appearing inside the curly brackets in Eq. (11) vanishes independently of the number of projected extra dimensions and, therefore, it will be ignored in the following analysis.

In order to compute the greybody factor for the Hawking radiation in the gravitational background described in Eq. (10), through the emission of fermion and gauge-boson fields, we need to solve Eq. (11) for the radial part of the emitted field in the region outside the horizon of the black hole and all the way to infinity. Due to the complexity of the differential equation, the exact solution appears impossible to derive. As in  , (see also  for related works) we are going to follow an approximation method that is suitable for low energies $`\omega r_H1`$. The method involves solving Eq. (11) first in the vicinity of the black hole, then at infinite distance from it and, finally, matching the two asymptotic solutions in an intermediate regime. This method will help us derive the form of the absorption coefficient in the equivalent scattering problem of an incoming wave propagating in the background (10), in terms of which the absorption cross section, and thus the greybody factor of the emitted radiation is defined.

As we will shortly see, different components of the emitted field carry different parts of the particle wave function. For an emitted field with spin $`s0`$, it is only the upper, $`\psi _s`$, and lower, $`\psi _s`$, components that are the radiative ones. The upper component will turn out to correspond mainly to the incoming wave while the lower component corresponds mainly to the reflected wave. Moreover, the equation for the lower component is the charge conjugate of the one for the upper component, therefore solving for any one of them provides the solution for the other one. Here, we will concentrate on the incoming wave and compute the absorption coefficient by comparing the incoming flux at the asymptotic regimes of the horizon and infinity. The matching of the two solutions in the intermediate regime, however, is still necessary. We impose the following normalizations for the incoming mode of a field, with spin $`s`$,

$$R_s^{(h)}=A_s^{(h)}h^{i\beta _{BH}\omega /4\pi },$$
(13)
at the horizon of the black hole, where $`\beta _{BH}=1/T_{BH}`$, and

$$R_s^{(\mathrm{})}=A_s^{(\mathrm{})}(2\omega r)^{2s1}e^{i\omega r}$$
(14)
at infinity. In the forthcoming sections, and for the solution of the general, radial equation (11), we closely follow the analysis presented in Ref.  for the case of the emission of scalar fields.

### 2.1 Solving the general equation in the near-horizon zone

In the vicinity of the black hole, Eq. (11) can be solved by making a change of variable, $`rh`$. Using Eqs. (8) and (12), we may write the general-spin field equation in the form

$`h(1h){\displaystyle \frac{d^2R}{dh^2}}+\left[(1s)(1h){\displaystyle \frac{(n+2s)}{(n+1)}}h\right]{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dh}}+`$ (15)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega r_H)^2}{(n+1)^2h(1h)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2is\omega r_H\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(n+1)^2(1h)}}{\displaystyle \frac{is\omega r_H}{(n+1)h}}\right]R=0,`$
where, for simplicity of the notation, the subscript $`s`$ has been dropped from $`R`$. By using the redefinition $`R(h)=h^\alpha (1h)^\beta F(h)`$, the above equation takes the form of a hypergeometric equation

$$h(1h)\frac{d^2F}{dh^2}+[c(1+a+b)h]\frac{dF}{dh}abF=0,$$
(16)
with

$$a=\alpha +\beta +\frac{s+n(1s)}{(n+1)},b=\alpha +\beta ,c=1s+2\alpha .$$
(17)
The power coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, in turn, are found by solving second-order algebraic equations leading to the results

$$\alpha _+=s+\frac{i\omega r_H}{n+1},\alpha _{}=\frac{i\omega r_H}{n+1},$$
(18)
and

$$\beta _\pm =\frac{1}{2(n+1)}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}2s\pm \sqrt{(1+2j)^24\omega ^2r_H^28is\omega r_H}\right],$$
(19)
respectively. The general solution of the hypergeometric equation (16) is

$$R_{NH}(h)=A_{}h^\alpha (1h)^\beta F(a,b,c;h)+A_+h^\alpha (1h)^\beta F(ac+1,bc+1,2c;h),$$
(20)
where $`A_\pm `$ are arbitrary constants. Expanding the above solution in the limit $`rr_H`$ (equivalently $`h0`$) we obtain the asymptotic behaviour

$$R_{NH}A_{}h^\alpha +A_+h^\alpha =A_{}h^s\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)+A_+h^s\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)$$
(21)
for $`\alpha =\alpha _+`$, and

$$R_{NH}A_{}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)+A_+\mathrm{exp}\left(i\omega r_H^{n+2}y\right)$$
(22)
for $`\alpha =\alpha _{}`$. In the above, we have used the ‘tortoise’ coordinate $`y`$ defined as

$$y=\frac{lnh(r)}{r_H^{n+1}(n+1)}.$$
(23)
The choice $`\alpha =\alpha _+`$ leads to a solution with an outgoing wave of zero amplitude at the horizon, and an incoming wave with infinite amplitude. This is an irregular solution which must be discarded. On the other hand, the choice of $`\alpha =\alpha _{}`$ leads to regular incoming and outgoing waves with amplitude unity at the horizon. The boundary condition that only incoming modes are to be found in the region outside the horizon of a black hole forces us also to set $`A_+=0`$. After these choices are made, the solution near the horizon has exactly the normalization of the fields described in Eq. (13), since $`\alpha _{}=i\omega \beta _{BH}/4\pi `$, thus determining the asymptotic normalization constant to be $`A_s^{(h)}=A_{}`$. Turning to the $`\beta `$ coefficient, the criterion for the convergence of the hypergeometric function $`F(a,b,c;h)`$

$$\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}(cab)=\left(\pm \frac{1}{n+1}\sqrt{(1+2j)^24\omega ^2r_H^28is\omega r_H}\right)>0$$
(24)
clearly demands that we choose $`\beta =\beta _{}`$.

We finally need to shift the hypergeometric function towards large values of $`r`$. This may be done, by using a standard linear transformation formula , in the following way:

$`R_{NH}(h)=A_{}h^\alpha [(1h)^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \beta +1s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}}F(a,b,a+bc+1;1h)`$
$`+(1h)^{\beta +(12s)/(n+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta \frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +\frac{s+n(1s)}{n+1}\right)}}F(ca,cb,cab+1;1h)].`$
We can now “stretch” the above expression towards the intermediate regime, by expanding in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, or $`h1`$, and take

$`R_{NH}(h)`$ $``$ $`A_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{r}}\right)^{(j+s)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \beta +1s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`A_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_H}{r}}\right)^{js+1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta \frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +\frac{s+n(1s)}{n+1}\right)}}.`$
Note that, in order to simplify the procedure of the “matching”, the low energy limit has been taken in the expression of the $`\beta `$ coefficient in the power of $`r`$. No expansion has been made, up to this point, in the arguments of the Gamma functions.

### 2.2 Solving the general equation in the far-field zone

We now need to find the far-field zone solution before being able to match the two asymptotics in the intermediate regime. Going back to the general equation (11), and in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ or $`h1`$, we obtain

$$\frac{d^2R}{dr^2}+\frac{2(1s)}{r}\frac{dR}{dr}+\left(\omega ^2+\frac{2is\omega }{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{r^2}\right)R=0.$$
(27)
In order to solve the above equation, we set: $`R=e^{i\omega r}r^{j+s}\stackrel{~}{R}(r)`$. By also making a change of variable $`z=2i\omega r`$, the above equation adopts the form of a confluent hypergeometric equation

$$z\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{R}}{dz^2}+(bz)\frac{d\stackrel{~}{R}}{dz}a\stackrel{~}{R}=0,$$
(28)
with $`a=js+1`$ and $`b=2j+2`$, and general solution

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(z)=B_+M(a,b,z)+B_{}U(a,b,z),$$
(29)
where $`M`$ and $`U`$ are the Kummer functions, and $`B_\pm `$ are arbitrary coefficients. We may therefore write the complete solution for the radial function at infinity as

$$R_{FF}(r)=e^{i\omega r}r^{j+s}\left[B_+M(js+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}j+2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\omega r)+B_{}U(js+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}j+2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}i\omega r)\right].$$
(30)
We first need to expand the above expression for large values of $`r`$. This expansion will help us make sure that the emitted fields have the far-field normalization given in Eq. (14) and will enable us to compute the incoming flux at infinity. In the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, we find

$$R_{FF}(r)=\frac{e^{i\omega r}r^{2s1}}{(2i\omega )^{js+1}}[B_{}+\frac{B_+e^{i\pi (js+1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+s+1)}]+\frac{e^{i\omega r}B_+\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(js+1)(2i\omega )^{j+s+1}r}+\mathrm{}$$
(31)
The first part of the above expression gives the incoming wave at infinity, and thus, by comparison with Eq. (14), defines the coefficient $`A_s^{(\mathrm{})}`$. The second part gives the outgoing wave. This outgoing part is suppressed as it should be. We remind the reader that the above solution corresponds only to the upper component of the emitted field (either to $`\psi _{1/2}`$ or to $`\psi _1`$) which in turn corresponds to the incoming wave. The charge conjugate of the above solution gives the lower component (the other radiative component) of the emitted field, which will have a dominant outgoing wave and a suppressed incoming one.

We may now stretch the far-field solution (30) towards small values of $`r`$. In the limit $`\omega r1`$, we therefore obtain

$$R_{FF}(r)=B_+r^{j+s}+\frac{B_{}}{r^{js+1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(js+1)(2i\omega )^{2j+1}}.$$
(32)
Matching the two solutions (26) and (32) in the intermediate regime, we obtain the relations

$`B_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{}}{r_H^{j+s}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \beta +1s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}},`$ (33)
$`B_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{}r_H^{js+1}(2i\omega )^{2j+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta \frac{12s}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(js+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +\frac{s+n(1s)}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+1)}}.`$ (34)
With the determination of the above arbitrary coefficients, we have now completed the determination of the complete solution for both fermions and gauge-boson fields propagating in the background of a projected $`(4+n)`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole on a 4-dimensional brane. We now proceed to the calculation of the greybody factor in each case for an arbitrary number of extra compact space-like dimensions.

## 3 Greybody factors for the emission of fermionic and gauge fields

As we will shortly see, the expression of the greybody factors for Hawking radiation for fermions and gauge fields, involves the quantity $`|A^{(h)}/A^{(\mathrm{})}|^2`$ determined by the two normalization coefficients appearing in the asymptotic solutions (13) and (14). By using the relations (33)-(34), this takes the form

$$\frac{A^{(h)}}{A^{(\mathrm{})}}=\frac{A_{}(2\omega )^{j+s}e^{i\pi (js+1)/2}}{[B_{}+\frac{B_+e^{i\pi \left(js+1\right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2j+2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(j+s+1\right)}]}=\frac{(2\omega r_H)^{j+s}e^{i\pi (js+1)/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )[C(\omega r_H)^{2j+1}+D]},$$
(35)
where the coefficients $`C`$ and $`D`$ stand for

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2j+1}e^{i\pi (s1/2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta \frac{12s}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(js+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha +\beta +\frac{s+n(1s)}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+1)}},`$ (36)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha \beta +1s)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \beta +\frac{12s}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+s+1)}}.`$ (37)
The measure squared of the ratio $`A^{(h)}/A^{(\mathrm{})}`$ can then be written as

$$|\frac{A^{(h)}}{A^{(\mathrm{})}}|^2=\frac{(2\omega r_H)^{2(j+s)}}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s+2\alpha )|^2[CC^{}(\omega r_H)^{4j+2}+(\omega r_H)^{2j+1}(CD^{}+C^{}D)+DD^{}]}.$$
(38)
The derivation of a final explicit result for the greybody factors or emission rates from the above expression requires the evaluation of Gamma functions for complex arguments. This task is a tedious procedure with the result being highly complicated and unilluminating. Accurate evaluations of the greybody factors and associated emission rates do require use of the above expressions, and so in section 4, we present numerical results for the final expression of the greybody factors, as a function of $`\omega r_H`$, by using the exact value of the above ratio. However, for comparison with previous studies, and as in the case of the analysis for the emission of scalar fields , a simplified expression may be derived in the low-energy limit $`\omega r_H1`$. Expanding the Gamma functions in this limit, we may express the denominator of the fraction appearing in Eq. (38) in a power series in $`(\omega r_H)`$ keeping only the leading term. The result of the expansion depends strongly on the spin of the emitted particle, therefore, we will now discuss separately the results for each case. We emphasise that applications in which accurate values of the emissions rate are required should not use these simplified expressions valid only for $`\omega r_H1`$, but rather should use the full semiclassical results derived above (together with Eqs. (40), (46), and (49)) as in the evaluation presented in section 4.

### 3.1 Spin 1/2 fields

Following Ref. , we define the incoming flux of a fermionic field as the radial component of the conserved current, $`J^\mu =\sqrt{2}\sigma _{AB}^\mu \psi ^A\overline{\psi }^B`$, integrated over a two-dimensional sphere. This may be finally written as

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{dN}{dt}=|R_{1/2}|^2|R_{1/2}|^2,$$
(39)
in terms of the measure squared of the upper and lower components of the fermionic field. Taking the ratio of the value of this quantity at the horizon with respect to its value at infinity, we obtain the absorption probability for the scattering of an incoming wave travelling from spatial infinity towards the horizon of the projected black hole. It can be simply expressed as

$$|A_{s=1/2}|^2=|\frac{A^{(h)}}{A^{(\mathrm{})}}|^2$$
(40)
if we take into account the fact that the upper component contributes little to the infalling flux both at infinity and at the horizon.

Setting $`s=1/2`$ and expanding the $`C`$ and $`D`$ coefficients, defined in Eqs. (36)-(37), in the limit $`\omega r_H1`$, we obtain

$`CC^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{(4j+2)/(n+1)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2,`$ (41)
$`CD^{}+C^{}D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2j+1}}{\pi }}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2,`$ (42)
$`DD^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{4j}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(4j+2)/(n+1)}}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2.`$ (43)
Taking into account the fact that the smallest physically allowed value of the total angular momentum $`j`$ is the value of the spin, $`s=1/2`$, we easily conclude that the dominant term in the denominator of Eq. (38), in the low-energy limit, is given by the first term in the expansion of $`DD^{}`$. Moreover, we have

$$\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+2\alpha )|^2}=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\pi )}{\pi }\frac{1}{\pi }+\frac{2\pi (\omega r_H)^2}{(n+1)^2}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^3,$$
(44)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the imaginary part of $`\alpha `$. Putting everything together, we obtain

$$|A_{s=1/2}|^2\frac{2\pi (\omega r_H)^{2j+1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(4j+2)/(n+1)}}{2^{2j}\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2.$$
(45)
The absorption probability leads to the absorption cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}(\omega )`$ via

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(s)}(\omega )=\frac{\pi (2j+1)}{\omega ^2}|A_s|^2$$
(46)
for any spin $`s`$ and angular momentum partial wave number $`j`$. Thus, for the fermion case the final absorption cross section is, in leading order in $`(\omega r_H)`$,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}(\omega )=\frac{2\pi ^2r_H^2(2j+1)(\omega r_H)^{2j1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(4j+2)/(n+1)}}{2^{2j}\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+1)^2}.$$
(47)
This is the primary analytic result valid for $`\omega r_H1`$ for the case of spin 1/2 fermions.

As it is obvious from the above formula, the absorption cross-section has a strong dependence on the total angular momentum number $`j`$ of the emitted field as it affects both the power of the dominant $`(\omega r_H)`$-term and the multiplicative coefficient in front. On the other hand, as in the case of the emission of brane-localised scalar fields studied in , no dependence of the power of $`(\omega r_H)`$ on the number of extra dimensions emerges for a brane-localised fermionic field. Nevertheless, the multiplicative coefficient in front depends on the number of extra dimensions.

In order to be able to draw concrete conclusions about the dependence of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}`$ on $`j`$ and $`n`$, the value of the absorption cross-section for $`n=`$ 2, 4 and 6, and $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}`$ have been computed and displayed in Table 1. By looking at the entries of this Table for $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$ and for every $`n`$, we see that the absorption cross section becomes proportional to the area of the horizon of the black hole, times a numerical coefficient, and is independent of the energy of the emitted particle. As the total angular momentum number $`j`$ increases, the absorption cross section rapidly decreases as it gets suppressed by extra powers of $`\omega r_H`$ and its numerical coefficient also gets smaller. If instead we fix $`j`$ and vary the number of extra dimensions, then we see that the absorption cross section gets enhanced as the number of the projected extra dimensions increases. The behaviour, therefore, of the leading term in the expression of the greybody factor, in the low-energy regime, for the emission of brane fermionic fields is similar to the one for the emission of brane scalar fields .

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\text{}\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟏}:\mathrm{Absorption}\mathrm{Cross}\mathrm{Section}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{brane}\mathrm{localised}\mathrm{fermionic}\mathrm{field}}\\ & & \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}& j=1/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}2^{5/3}\pi r_H^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{2^{4/3}}{9}\pi r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=5/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{\pi }{150}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒}& j=1/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}2}^{1/5}\pi r_H^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{4\pi }{9}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2/5}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=5/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{2^{3/5}}{75}\pi r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔}& j=1/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\mathrm{4\hspace{0.17em}2}^{3/7}\pi r_H^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{4}{9}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{6/7}\pi r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=5/2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}\frac{2}{75}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2/7}\pi r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \end{array}`$

### 3.2 Spin 1 fields

We now move to the case of gauge fields. In this case, no conserved current may be defined, however, the incoming flux can be expressed as the integral of the flow of energy, $`T^{\mu \nu }=2\sigma _{AA^{}}^\mu \sigma _{BB^{}}^\nu \psi ^{AB}\overline{\psi }^{A^{}B^{}}`$, through a 2-dimensional sphere . Then we obtain the expression,

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{dN}{dt}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega }\left(|R_1|^2|R_1|^2\right),$$
(48)
where the redshift of the local energy of photons has been taken into account. The absorption probability is given again by the ratio of the value of the above quantity at the horizon with respect to its value at infinity, and it is found to be

$$|A_{s=1}|^2=\frac{1}{(2\omega r_H)^2}|\frac{A^{(h)}}{A^{(\mathrm{})}}|^2.$$
(49)
Going back to Eq. (38) and setting $`s=1`$, we expand the $`C`$ and $`D`$ coefficients in the limit $`\omega r_H1`$. Thus, we obtain

$`CC^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{4j+2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(j)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+1)^2}}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2,`$ (50)
$`CD^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2j+1}}{\pi (n+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi j}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi (j+1)}{n+1}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi (2j+1)}{n+1}\right)}}+𝒪(\omega r_H),`$ (51)
$`DD^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)^2}}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2.`$ (52)
The first term in the expansion of $`DD^{}`$ gives again the dominant term in the denominator of Eq. (38) in the low-energy limit. Also, we have

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\alpha )}=\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\pi )}{\pi }\frac{4(\omega r_H)^2}{(n+1)^2}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^4.$$
(53)
By using the above results, the absorption probability may be written as

$$|A_{s=1}|^2\frac{4(\omega r_H)^2(2\omega r_H)^{2j}}{(n+1)^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2j+1}{n+1}\right)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)^2}+𝒪(\omega r_H)^2,$$
(54)
leading to the following absorption cross section, for the gauge field case, in leading order in $`\omega r_H`$,

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}(\omega )=4\pi r_H^2(2\omega r_H)^{2j}\frac{(2j+1)}{(n+1)^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{j+1}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(j+2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2j+1}{n+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(2j+2)}\right)^2.$$
(55)
This is our primary analytic result valid for $`\omega r_H1`$ for the case of gauge fields.

As in the case of scalar and fermionic fields, the absorption cross section for brane localised gauge fields depends non-trivially on the angular momentum number $`j`$ and the number of the extra dimensions $`n`$. The power of the dominant $`(\omega r_H)`$-term depends only on $`j`$ but the numerical coefficient in front depends strongly on both parameters. The values of the above quantity for $`n=`$2, 4 and 6, and $`j=`$1, 2 and 3 are given in Table 2.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\text{}\mathrm{𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞}\mathrm{𝟐}:\mathrm{Absorption}\mathrm{Cross}\mathrm{Section}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{brane}\mathrm{localised}\mathrm{gauge}\mathrm{field}}\\ & & \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟐}& j=1& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{64}{81}\pi ^3r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{\pi }{5}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{4\pi }{1575}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟒}& j=1& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{4}{75}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2/5}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{10})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2}{5})^2r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{4\pi }{125}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2}{5})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{5})^2r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{64\pi }{39375}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/5)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(4/5)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/5)^2}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ \text{}𝐧=\mathrm{𝟔}& j=1& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{16\pi }{147}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/7)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2/7)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/7)^2}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=2& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{2^{6/7}}{245}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{14})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{2}{7})^2r_H^2(\omega r_H)^4+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & j=3& \sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}\frac{64}{77175}\frac{\pi ^3}{\mathrm{sin}^2(4\pi /7)}r_H^2(\omega r_H)^6+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \end{array}`$

Unlike the case of scalar and fermionic field emission, the absorption cross section for the emission of gauge fields depends on the energy of the emitted particle even in the case of the lowest partial wave with $`j=1`$. This follows from the different dependence of the dominant $`(\omega r_H)`$-term on the angular momentum number. Any further increase in the value of $`j`$ leads to the appearance of a suppression factor of powers of $`(\omega r_H)`$ while the increase in the number of extra dimensions strongly enhances the absorption cross section.

## 4 Evaluation of Results

In this section, we proceed to calculate the corresponding emission rates for spin 1/2 and 1 fields in the background of the projected 4-dimensional black hole given in Eq. (10). In this section we will not use the simplified expressions valid only for $`\omega r_H1`$, but rather the full analytic expressions Eqs. (36-38).

For the relevant 4-dimensional process of the emission of brane-localised fields, Eq. (2) takes the form

$$\frac{dE(\omega )}{dt}=\underset{j}{}\sigma _j(\omega )\frac{\omega ^3}{\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega /T_{BH}\right)1}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi ^2}.$$
(56)
Thus for the evaluation of the emission rates, we need the expressions of the greybody factors summed over the angular momentum number $`j`$. A simple numerical analysis shows that, by summing over the first three partial waves, we obtain the dependence of the greybody factors on the parameter $`\omega r_H`$ to high accuracy, with all higher partial waves adding an almost zero contribution to the final result. The numerical evaluation gives us the ability to use the exact value of the ratio (38) instead of the simplified leading-order corrections presented in Eqs. (47) and (55), which are valid only for $`\omega r_H1`$. Such a numerical analysis will reveal how fast the low-energy approximation breaks down as the expansion parameter $`\omega r_H`$ increases. Figures 1(a) and (b) depict the greybody factors for fermions and gauge fields, respectively, in units of $`\pi r_H^2`$, as functions of $`\omega r_H`$. The first three partial waves have been summed in each case and the dependence for $`n=0,2,4`$ and 6 is shown. We observe that, for small enough values of $`\omega r_H`$, we reproduce, as expected, the behaviour given by the leading-order corrections and according to which the greybody factors are enhanced as the number of extra dimensions projected on our brane increases. This agreement holds for both species of fields up to the value $`\omega r_H0.4`$. As $`\omega r_H`$ increases further, it is the lower-dimensional models that seem to give the largest greybody factors. However, our calculation is limited to a WKB-like semiclassical approximation and only an exact numerical analysis of the original master equation, Eq. (11), can determine $`\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}(\omega )`$ in the intermediate and high-energy regime $`\omega r_H\stackrel{>}{}1`$. Let us finally note that our analysis correctly reproduces the behaviour of the greybody factors in the case of $`n=0`$ , with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1/2)}(\omega )`$ adopting a non-vanishing asymptotic value at very low energies and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{abs}}^{(1)}(\omega )`$ going to zero. The same behaviour is observed in the cases with $`n0`$.

Figures 2(a) and (b) display the behaviour of the differential emission rate per time unit and energy interval $`d^2E/dtd\omega `$ versus the parameter $`\omega r_H`$, for fermions and gauge fields, as it follows by combining Eq. (56) with the exact expression of the greybody factor in each case and the definition of the temperature of the projected 4-dimensional black hole, $`T_H=(n+1)/4\pi r_H`$. The emission rates are substantially enhanced as the number of extra dimensions increases. The increase is larger for gauge fields which leads to the result that the emission rates for the two species become comparable, for large values of $`n`$. On the other hand, for low values of $`n`$, the emission rate for a fermion is considerably larger compared than that for a gauge field, with the difference reaching an order of magnitude in the limiting case of $`n=0`$.

It is useful to perform a similar numerical analysis for the case of scalar fields being emitted by the same 4-dimensional black hole, a case studied in Ref. . By following a similar analytical approach, the leading-order correction in the expression of the greybody factor in that case was also derived. According to those results, the leading correction for the first, and thus dominant, partial wave was independent of the number of extra dimensions. Any difference in the value of the greybody factor was to come from the higher partial waves whose coefficient indeed increased with increasing $`n`$. As $`\omega r_H`$ increases, however, the next-to-leading-order corrections for each partial wave (for example, the terms being denoted by “…” in Table 1 and 2, and similarly in Table II in ) can dominate the contribution coming from the higher partial waves. In the case of

fermions and gauge fields, we showed that this does not happen until the value $`\omega r_H0.4`$. For scalar fields, it turns out that this value is much smaller. Figure 3(a) depicts the greybody factor for the emission of brane-localized scalar fields, by using the exact value of the ratio of the two coefficients $`B_+`$ and $`B_{}`$, given in Eq. (46) of Ref. . We immediately see that, for extremely small values of $`\omega r_H`$, the greybody factors, for various values of $`n`$, converge to the same asymptotic value, in agreement with our simplified expression. However, very soon, the next-to-leading-order corrections dominate and cause the greybody factor to decrease as $`n`$ increases. The emission rate for scalar fields is nevertheless enhanced as the number of extra dimensions increases. This is caused by the decrease in the denominator of Eq. (56), due to the dependence of the temperature $`T_{BH}`$ on $`n`$, that overcomes the decrease of the greybody factor. As in the case of fermion and gauge fields, the increase amounts to orders of magnitude compared to the limiting case of $`n=0`$.

## 5 Conclusions

In an earlier paper , we studied the problem of the decay of a higher-dimensional Schwarzschild-like black hole through the emission of either higher-dimensional bulk, or brane-localised, scalar modes. In this paper, we extended the computation of the greybody factors that appear in the Hawking decay process to the spin 1/2 and spin 1 brane-localised cases of greatest phenomenological interest. Since the angular momentum of the black hole has been ignored, our calculations are relevant to the post balding and spin-down phases of the life of a black hole produced at a high energy collider or by ultra high energy cosmic ray interactions. The semiclassical approximation methods employed allow us to calculate the greybody factors and the corresponding emission rates for a general number $`n`$ of flat extra dimensions of the Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali type. (It is important to bear in mind that black holes in highly curved bulk spacetimes, for example Randall-Sundrum 5d theories, require a somewhat modified treatment from the one presented here.) The primary analytic results of our calculation for the greybody factors, for arbitrary $`j`$ and $`n`$, are presented in Eqs. (35-38), and (40), (46), and (49). Simplified expressions are provided in Eqs. (47) and (55) spin 1/2 and spin 1 respectively. In both cases there is an increase in the greybody factor as $`n`$ is increased at fixed $`j`$. As the subsequent numerical analysis revealed, this behaviour survives up to intermediate values of the energy of the emitted particle and contributes to a considerably enhanced emission rate for both fermions and gauge bosons. A similar analysis for the emission of scalar fields also led to an enhancement of the emission rate as $`n`$ increases despite the fact that the greybody factor, rapidly deviating from the behaviour dictated by the leading-order correction in the low-energy approximation, is suppressed. We expect that our results will be of use in the detailed study of the signatures of possible black hole production events.

Note added. While writing this paper, the related work of Ref.  appeared which also considers the greybody factors for black holes in brane-world theories.

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Roberto Emparan and Nemanja Kaloper for discussions.