format: text

text:
# 𝔹𝕃𝔸ℂ𝕂 ℍ𝕆𝕃𝔼 𝕌ℕ𝕀ℚ𝕌𝔼ℕ𝔼𝕊𝕊 𝕋ℍ𝔼𝕆ℝ𝔼𝕄𝕊This review is based on my plenary lecture at GR11 in Stockholm, July 1986. The plenary lecture was published in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, ed. M. A. H. MacCallum, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987, pp. 130-157.

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that spherical gravitational collapse produces a black hole (Oppenheimer and Snyder, 1939) . There are reasons to believe that this is true for collapse with small deviations from spherical symmetry (Doroshkevich, Zel’dovich and Novikov, 1966)  and it was conjectured by Penrose (1969)  that no ‘naked singularities’ can occur during complete gravitational collapse (Cosmic Censorship Conjecture). The Cosmic Censorship Conjecture is also the fundamental and not yet proved assumption we make when studying black hole equilibrium states. The considerable body of work on perturbations of stationary black holes brought us the presently accepted picture of gravitational collapse (Regge and Wheeler 1957; Visheshwara 1970; Ipser 1971; Price 1972; Press and Teukolsky 1973; Wald 1973, and others) . One would expect that a black hole formed by gravitational collapse would settle down to a stationary equilibrium state. Properties of equilibrium states were extensively studied in the late sixties and early seventies (Carter, 1971, 1973; Bardeen, Carter and Hawking, 1973; Hawking and Ellis, 1973; Hawking, 1973) . Theorems of Israel, Carter, Hawking and Robinson obtained between 1967 and 1975 gave proof of the remarkable result that Kerr (1963)  back holes are the only possible stationary vacuum black holes. The first black hole uniqueness theorem came as a surprise when Israel (1967, 1968)  proved that a static, topologically spherical black hole is described by the Schwarzschild or the Reissner-Nördström solutions. No hair and uniqueness theorems for a stationary axisymmetric, topologically spherical black hole were obtained by Carter (1971, 1973) , Robinson (1974, 1975) , Mazur (1982)  (and independently by Bunting (1983) ) using the Ernst (1968)  and Geroch (1971)  formulation of the Einstein equations for a stationary and axisymmetric gravitational field equations with a nice positivity property.

The basic assumptions made in a proof of uniqueness theorems were justified by Hawking (1973)  who demonstrated that a stationary black hole must be static or axisymmetric and the horizon has a spherical topology. Also, Hajicek (1973)  has shown that the outer boundary of the ergosphere must always intersect the event horizon. All these results depend on the validity of the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Causality of a part of spacetime outside the event horizon is also assumed in a proof of uniqueness theorems.

In this lecture I describe recent work on black hole uniqueness theorems, reformulating the problem of uniqueness of the Kerr-Newman et al. black hole solutions as a problem in the harmonic map theory. I would like to refer the reader to the excellent review article by Carter (1979)  for a more detailed account of basic assumptions made in a proof of uniqueness theorems.

## 2 The Einstein-Maxwell Equations for Spacetimes with One Killing Vector

The Ernst-Geroch formulation of the Einstein-Maxwell equations for the stationary axisymmetric case can be carried out with respect to one of the two existing Killing vectors. It is crucial for the proof of black hole uniqueness theorems to have such a formulation which leads to the harmonic maps between two Riemannian spaces, because only then may one hope to have a global divergence identity with the required positivity property. One can define, therefore, the Ernst potential with respect to the stationary Killing vector $`/t`$ or with respect to the axial symmetry Killing vector $`/\varphi .`$ However, as we will see below, it is the second choice which leads to a Riemannian metric on the image space of the Ernst potential because the norm $`X=(/\varphi ,/\varphi )`$ is everywhere positive and vanishes only on the symmetry axis. $`X`$ is positive because we assume that the black hole spacetimes are causal in the domain of outer communications (Carter, 1979) . What happens when we use the locally timelike Killing vector $`/t\mathrm{?}`$ First of all, we notice that the norm $`V=(/t,/t)`$ of $`/t`$ changes sign on the ergosurface of rotating black holes. This means that the signature of the metric on the image space $`𝐍`$ of the Ernst potentials is changing as we cross the ergosurface of the black hole. The metric on $`𝐍`$ is pseudoriemannian inside the ergosphere. For this reason the global divergence identity is losing its nice positivity property and besides the difficulties with deriving boundary conditions for black holes, in this case, we cannot apply it in the proof of the black hole uniqueness conjecture!

It may be useful to give a short presentation of a reduction of E-M equations from 4-dim to 3-dim using a covariant Geroch formulation for the case with one Killing vector $`\xi =\xi ^a_a.`$ Let $`(,g_{ab}),F_{ab}`$ be solutions to the Einstein-Maxwell equations

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ab}=8\pi T_{ab},$$
(1)
$$D_bF^{ab}=0,$$
(2)
$$D_{[a}F_{bc]}=0,$$
(3)
where

$$T_{ab}=\left(4\pi \right)^1\left(F_a^cF_{bc}\frac{1}{4}g_{ab}F_{cd}F^{cd}\right),$$
(4)
and $`F_{ab}`$ is the electromagnetic strength tensor.

Assume that $`(g_{ab},F_{ab})`$are invariant with respect to a one-parameter isometry group generated by the Killing vector field $`\xi =\xi ^a_a`$, i. e., $`𝔏_\xi g=𝔏_\xi F=0.`$ Our convention for the signature of $`g_{ab}`$ is $`(+++).`$ The projection of the E-M equation on the space of orbits of $`\xi `$ is straightforward (we follow Geroch formulation and notation (Geroch 1971) ). The metric on the space of orbits $`M`$ is $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}\lambda ^1\xi _a\xi _b,`$ where $`\lambda =\xi _a\xi ^a.`$ At this point it is convenient to notice that when $`\xi `$ is timelike, then $`h_{ab}`$ is Riemannian; on the other hand, if $`\xi `$ is spacelike, as is the case with $`/t`$ Killing vector inside the ergosphere of a black hole, then $`h_{ab}`$ is pseudoriemannian and the reduced field equations are hyperbolic in this region! One can also define a twist vector $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a`$ which is non-vanishing if $`\xi `$ is not hypersurface orthogonal Killing vector, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a=ϵ_{abcd}\xi ^bD^c\xi ^d.`$ In the vacuum case knowing $`(M,h_{ab},\lambda ,\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a)`$ one can reconstruct $`(,g_{ab})`$ completely. In the electrovacuum case one needs more information, i. e., we have to know the ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ fields defined as follows: $`E^a=F_{ab}\xi ^b,`$ $`B_a=^{}F_{ab}\xi ^b,`$which are automatically defined on $`M`$, i. e., $`E_a\xi ^a=B_a\xi ^a=0`$. Knowing $`E_a`$, $`B_a`$ one can reconstruct $`F_{ab}:`$

$$F_{ab}=\lambda ^1\left(2\xi _{[a}E_{b]}ϵ_{abcd}\xi ^cB^d\right).$$
(5)
It can be easily seen (Carter, 1972)  that ($`\text{2})`$, $`(\text{3})`$ and the Killing equations on $`(g,F)`$ imply the existence of ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ potentials $`E`$ and $`B`$ in a simply connected region of $`M,`$ i. e., $`E_a=_aE,`$ $`B_a=_aB.`$ The basic equations for spacetimes with one Killling vector $`\xi `$ which we apply in derivation of the reduced E-M equations are the following (we present them here for the sake of completeness; it can be seen that using them and the E-M equations, one arrives easily at the final Ernst form of the field equations. In the following, we will only indicate the main steps in the derivation of the reduced equations.)

$$D_a\xi _b=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^1ϵ_{abcd}\xi ^c\stackrel{~}{\omega }^d+\lambda ^1\xi _{[b}_{a]}\lambda ,$$
(6)
$$D_aD_b\xi _c=\xi ^dR_{dabc},$$
(7)
$$_{[a}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{b]}=ϵ_{abcd}\xi ^cR_e^d\xi ^e,$$
(8)
$$_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a=\frac{3}{2}\lambda ^1\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a_a\lambda ,$$
(9)
$$_a^a\lambda =\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^1_a\lambda ^a\lambda \lambda ^1\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a2R_{ab}\xi ^a\xi ^b,$$
(10)
$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ab}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_bh_{ab}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_c\stackrel{~}{\omega }^c\right)+\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^1_a_b\lambda \frac{1}{4}\lambda ^2_a\lambda _b\lambda +h_a^ch_b^dR_{cd},$$
(11)
where $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ab}^{}`$ is the Ricci tensor of $`h_{ab}.`$ Using the field equations (1), (4) and equations (7), (10), we arrive at

$$_{[a}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{b]}=4E_{[a}B_{b]}.$$
(12)
It is easy to see that we can define a curl-less ‘twist’ vector

$$\omega _a=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_a+2\left(BE_aEB_a\right),$$
(13)
i. e., $`_{[a}\omega _{b]}=0.`$ In a simply connected region one can define, therefore, a potential $`\omega :`$ $`\omega _a=_a\omega .`$ It is easy to check that if we conformally rescale the metric $`h_{ab}`$ using a scale factor depending on $`\lambda `$ we can cancel the second derivatives of $`\lambda `$ in the expression for the Ricci tensor on the manifold of orbits. The required conformal transformation has the form: $`h_{ab}=\lambda ^1\gamma _{ab}.`$

Introducing the complex Ernst potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ as follows

$$ϵ=\lambda \psi \overline{\psi }+i\omega ,\text{ }\psi =E+iB,$$
(14)
and taking all covariant derivatives $`_a`$ with respect to $`\gamma _{ab},`$ we can write equations (11), (12) and (13) in a nice symmetric form of 3-dim Einstein equations coupled to the Ernst equations:

$$\lambda _a^aϵ=\left(_aϵ+2\overline{\psi }_a\psi \right)^aϵ,$$
(15)
$$\lambda _a^a\psi =\left(_aϵ+2\overline{\psi }_a\psi \right)^a\psi ,$$
(16)
$$R_{ab}\left(\gamma \right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\left[_{(a}ϵ_{b)}\overline{ϵ}+2\psi _{(a}ϵ_{b)}\overline{\psi }+2\overline{\psi }_{(a}\overline{ϵ}_{b)}\psi +4\lambda _{(a}\psi _{b)}\overline{\psi }\right].$$
(17)
Now it can be easily seen that equations (15), (16) and (17) can be derived from the action principle of the 3-dim gravity coupled to a harmonic map model

$$S=\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}d^3x\left(RL\right),$$
(18)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar of the metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$ and $`L`$ is given by

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\left[ϵ+2\overline{\psi }\psi ^2+4\psi ^2\right].$$
(19)
$`L`$ defines an ‘energy’ integral for a harmonic map between two spaces $`(M,\gamma _{ab})`$and $`(N,H_{AB}),`$i. e., a map between the space of orbits $`M`$ of $`\xi `$ with its conformal metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$ and the space $`N`$ of Ernst’s potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A=(ϵ,\psi )`$with the metric $`H_{AB}`$ as defined by $`L.`$ At this point let me recall the definition of the *harmonic map.* I will give here a definition using coordinate systems on two spaces $`M`$ and $`N,`$ but one can easily see that it is a coordinate invariant statement.

###### Definition 1

Let $`(M,\gamma )`$ and $`(N,H)`$ be two (pseudo)Riemannian manifolds with metrics $`\gamma `$ and $`H`$ respectively. A map $`g:`$ $`MN`$ which in local coordinate systems $`x^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ on $`M`$ and $`N,`$ respectively, can be written as: $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A=g^A\left(x^a\right)`$ is called a *harmonic map* if the energy functional

$$I\left[g\right]=\frac{1}{2}_M\gamma ^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑x\gamma ^{ab}H_{AB}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)_a\mathrm{\Phi }^A_b\mathrm{\Phi }^B,$$
(20)
is stable under small deformations of $`g,`$ i. e., if the Lagrange-Euler equations for the functional $`I\left[g\right]`$are satisfied (Bochner, 1940; Fuller, 1954; Eells and Sampson, 1964) . $`N`$ is called the image space of the harmonic map $`g`$.

The Lagrangian (19) defines the hermitian metric on the image space $`N`$ of the Ernst potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{R}eϵ+\psi \overline{\psi }\right)^2\left[dϵ+2\overline{\psi }d\psi ^24\left(\mathrm{R}eϵ+\psi \overline{\psi }\right)d\psi d\overline{\psi }\right].$$
(21)
It is quite interesting to study properties of this metric. The metric (21) is Riemannian only when $`\lambda =\left(\mathrm{R}eϵ+\psi \overline{\psi }\right)>0;`$otherwise it is a pseudoriemannian metric. It will be demonstrated later that the image space $`N`$ is in fact the symmetric homogeneous space $`N=SU(2,1)/S\left(U\left(2\right)\times U\left(1\right)\right)`$ when $`\lambda >0,`$ and $`N=SU(2,1)/S\left(U(1,1)\times U\left(1\right)\right)`$ when $`\lambda <0`$ (Mazur, 1982a,b, 1984a,b) . Harmonic maps onto homogeneous spaces $`G/H`$ are known in physics as nonlinear sigma models. This peculiar sigma model property of the E-M field equations with one Killing vector proved to be crucial in proving black hole uniqueness theorems for stationary and axisymmetric black holes. Because we are interested in stationary and axisymmetric solutions we have to consider further reduction of the E-M field equations. We assume that there is another Killing vector $`\eta =\eta ^a_a`$ commuting with the previous Killing vector $`\xi =\xi ^a_a,`$ i. e., $`[\xi ,\eta ]=0.`$ Subsequent $`32`$ reduction from the space of orbits of $`\xi `$ to the space of orbits of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ is straightforward. The Ernst potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ defined with respect to $`\xi `$ will be well defined on the space of orbits $`M^{}=/G_2,`$where $`G_2`$ is the abelian isometry group generated by $`\xi `$ and $`\eta ,`$ only if the action of $`G_2`$ on $``$ has the orthogonal transitivity property. It means that there exists a family of 2-surfaces orthogonal to 2-surfaces of transitivity of $`G_2.`$ The dimensional $`42`$ reduction of the E-M equations from $`4`$ to $`2`$ dimensions can be carried out if the reduction does not depend on the order of the reduction in two steps. We first consider $`43`$ reduction with respect to $`\xi `$ and later $`32`$ reduction with respect to $`\eta .`$ The result of this reduction should be the same if we change the order of subsequent steps, i. e., we first reduce with respect to $`\eta `$ and later with respect to $`\xi .`$ The consistency conditions for the $`42`$ reduction are, of course, the vanishing of Lie derivatives of $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ with respect to the second Killing vector, i. e., $`_\eta ϵ=`$ $`_\eta \psi =0,`$where $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ are defined with respect to $`\xi .`$ Analogous conditions should be satisfied for the reversed order of the two steps of reduction; they are equivalent to the Frobenius integrability condition for the orthogonal transitivity of $`G_2.`$ As a result of reduction from $`4`$ to $`2`$ dimensions, we will obtain a $`2`$-dimensional gravity. Because any $`2`$-dimensional manifold is conformally flat and a nonlinear sigma model is conformally invariant in two dimensions, we observe that nonlinear sigma model equations will decouple from the two-dimensional gravity. It means that we can solve first nonlinear sigma model equations on the $`2`$-dimensional manifold of orbits $`M^{}`$ choosing the flat metric on $`M^{}.`$ The remaining $`2`$-dim Einstein equations will determine the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=e^{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\delta _{\mu \nu },`$ $`\mu =1,2`$, i. e., its conformal scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`M^{}`$ (we have chosen a ‘conformal gauge’ on $`M^{}`$). Once the solution to nonlinear sigma model equations is known we can determine the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ on $`M^{}`$ and we can reconstruct the four-dimensional spacetime $`(,g_{ab})`$completely. One can see, therefore, that the problem of uniqueness of black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations can be studied as a two dimensional boundary value problem for the nonlinear sigma model equations.

## 3 Black Hole Boundary Conditions

To this end let me present the black hole boundary value problem. We refer the reader to the more detailed derivation of these conditions discussed by Carter (Carter, 1973, 1979) . We will follow Carter’s notation. Thus if $`\xi =/\varphi `$ we denote $`\lambda =X`$ and $`\omega =Y.`$ The determinant of the matrix of scalar products of two Killing vectors $`\xi =/\varphi ,`$ $`\eta =/t`$ defines the real scalar field $`\rho :\rho ^2=(\xi ,\xi )(\eta ,\eta )(\xi ,\eta )^2.`$ The scalar field $`\rho `$ vanishes on the symmetry axis $`𝒜,`$ which is a set of fixed points of $`\xi =/\varphi `$ and on the event horizon $`.`$ $`\rho `$ is also a harmonic function on the space of orbits $`M^{}`$ of $`\xi `$ and $`\eta .`$ After reductions of the E-M equations for stationary and axisymmetric fields, we obtain a set of equations on the space of orbits $`M^{}`$

$$_\mu ^\mu \rho =0,$$
(22)
$$X_\mu \left(\rho ^\mu ϵ\right)=\rho \left(_\mu ϵ+2\overline{\psi }_\mu \psi \right)^\mu ϵ,$$

$$X_\mu \left(\rho ^\mu \psi \right)=\rho \left(_\mu ϵ+2\overline{\psi }_\mu \psi \right)^\mu \psi ,$$
(23)
where $`_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ on the space of orbits $`M^{}.`$ The black hole solutions are solutions to (22) and (23) for the Carter boundary conditions (Carter, 1973, 1979) , which can be written explicitly once we fix a coordinate system on $`(M^{},g_{\mu \nu }).`$ Once we know the topology of the event horizon of stationary black holes is $`R^1\times S^2`$ (Hawking, 1972, 1973)  and the topology of the domain of outer communications is $`R^2\times S^2`$ we can show, using Morse theory, that the harmonic function $`\rho `$ does not have *critical* points on $`\overline{M}^{}.`$ It means that a gradient of $`\rho `$ and its harmonic conjugate function $`z`$ is non-zero on $`\overline{M}^{}`$ (Carter, 1973, 1979) . From the asymptotic flatness condition, we have that $`\rho `$ at large distances behaves as the Weyl canonical cylindrical coordinate. The size of the event horizon fixes the overall scale of $`\rho .`$ We can take $`\rho `$ and $`z,`$ its harmonic conjugate function, as the globally well behaved coordinates on $`\overline{M}^{}`$

$$\rho ^2=c^2\left(x^21\right)(1y^2),\text{ }z=cxy,$$
(24)
where

$$c^2=M^2\left(J/M\right)^2Q^2.$$

$`x=1`$ defines the location of the event horizon $`,`$ $`y=`$ $`\pm 1`$ are the two branches of the symmetry axis $`𝒜,`$ and we reach the spatial infinity at $`x+\mathrm{}`$ . The black hole’s boundary conditions are parametrized by three parameters: the angular momentum $`J`$, the electric charge $`Q`$ and the parameter $`c`$ or the total mass of a black hole. The black hole solution is described by the asymptotically flat spacetime which is regular on the axis $`𝒜`$ and on the event horizon $`.`$ These conditions can be translated into the formalism discussed above. The asymptotic boundary conditions are:

$$E=Qy+O\left(x^1\right),$$

$$B=O\left(x^1\right),$$

$$Y=2Jy(3y^2)+O\left(x^1\right),$$

$$X=c^2x^2(1y^2)+O\left(x^1\right),$$
(25)
as $`x\mathrm{}`$ . The symmetry axis boundary conditions are: $`E,`$ $`B,`$ $`X`$ and $`Y,`$ should be well behaved functions of $`x`$ and $`y`$ which satisfy

$$_xE=O(1y^2),\text{ }_yE=O\left(1\right),$$

$$_xB=O(1y^2),\text{ }_yB=O\left(1\right),$$

$$_xY=O(1y^2),\text{ }_yY+2(E_yBB_yE)=O(1y^2),$$

$$X=O(1y^2),\text{ }X^1_yX=2y(1y^2)^2+O(1y^2),$$
(26)
as $`y\pm 1.`$ The event horizon boundary conditions demand only that $`E,`$ $`B,`$ $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are well behaved functions of $`x`$and $`y`$ as $`x1`$

$$_xE=O(1),\text{ }_yE=O(1),$$

$$_xB=O(1),\text{ }_yB=O(1),$$

$$_xY=O(1),\text{ }_yY=O(1),$$

$$X=O(1),\text{ }X^1=O(1),$$
(27)
It was conjectured that the only stationary and axisymmetric black hole solutions satisfying these boundary conditions are described by the Kerr-Newman et al. (Kerr, 1963; Newman et al., 1965)  family of solutions satisfying the condition of $`c^2=M^2\left(J/M\right)^2Q^2>0.`$ Great progress in proving correctness of this conjecture was achieved initially in the early seventies (Carter, 1971,1973; Robinson, 1974)  and then it culminated in a remarkable black hole uniqueness theorem for vacuum black holes (Robinson, 1975) .

The proof of *no hair* *theorems* of Carter and Robinson and Robinson’s *uniqueness theorem* for the Kerr black hole made use of remarkable divergence identities. The common ancestor of these mysterious identities is the Green identity for the Laplace equation, which is usually applied to show that the Dirichlet or Neuman boundary value problem is well posed. The *no hair theorems* of Carter and Robinson are basically statements about the absence of nontrivial bifurcations for solutions of the harmonic map equations (22) and (23) with the black hole boundary conditions (25), (26) and (27). It means that if we consider the linearized harmonic map equations for small perturbations of a harmonic map around a black hole solution with fixed values of $`M,`$ $`J`$ and $`Q`$ then there are no perturbations satisfying linearized black hole boundary conditions. The conclusion one could draw from these results (Carter, 1973)  was that if there were other solutions, they should form a disjoint family of solutions parametrized also by three conserved quantities: the total mass $`M,`$ the total angular momentum $`J`$ and the electric charge $`Q`$.

What remained to be done was to exclude the possibility of other than the Kerr-Newman et al. families of black hole solutions, proving, therefore, *the black hole uniqueness theorem*. For vacuum black holes, this goal was achieved by D. C. Robinson in 1975 who found a nonlinear version of Carter’s divergence identity and applied it to the proof of the black hole uniqueness theorem for the Kerr black hole. The most general form of the black hole uniqueness theorem was proven only recently

###### Theorem 1

*Black Hole Uniqueness Theorem (Mazur, 1982a,b; Bunting, 1983)* The only possible stationary and axisymmetric black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations satisfying boundary conditions (25), (26) and (27) are the Kerr-Newman et al. solutions subject to theconstraint $`M^2\left(J/M\right)^2Q^2>0.`$ Black holes are *completely* characterized by three parameters only: the total mass $`M,`$ the total angular momentum $`J`$ and the total electric charge $`Q.`$ If there is a magnetic charge $`P`$ in Nature, then black holes will be described completely by the four parameter family of Kerr-Newman et al. solutions with $`M^2\left(J/M\right)^2Q^2P^2>0.`$

Before proceeding with the proof of this *uniqueness theorem for black holes,* I would like first to introduce very useful techniques of the harmonic map theory. The remarkable divergence identities of Carter and Robinson will emerge as a natural consequence of the harmonic map property of the Einstein-Maxwell equations for stationary and axisymmetric fields.

## 4 Divergence Identities for Harmonic Maps and No Hair Theorems

Harmonic maps enjoy a lot of nice properties; especially we can say this for harmonic maps between two Riemannian manifolds where the image manifold has non-positive sectional curvature (Yau, 1982) . It is well known that if $`N`$ has non-positive curvature, than every map from $`M`$ to $`N`$ is homotopic to a harmonic map with minimal ‘energy’. This existence theorem for harmonic maps between two compact Riemann manifolds was established by Eells and Sampson (1964) . Moreover, there exists one to one and only one harmonic map in each homotopy class of maps between two compact Riemann manifolds $`M`$ and $`N,`$ when $`N`$ has negative curvature and if the image of the first homotopy group $`\pi _1\left(M\right)`$ of $`M`$ in $`\pi _1\left(N\right)`$ is not a cyclic group (Hartman, 1967) . Mathematically, the black hole uniqueness theorem is an example of a result which shows that under certain boundary conditions the same uniqueness theorem for harmonic maps can be extended to the non-compact case. I will present here results discussed first in (Mazur, 1984a,b; Mazur TPUJ 83 preprint)  (and independently by Bunting (1983) ). Because the *no hair theorems* are concerned with small perturbations of black hole solutions, we will be concerned here with the question of ‘stability’ of harmonic maps to a negatively curved Riemann manifold $`N.`$ The Euler-Lagrange equations for harmonic maps can be derived from the variational principle (20)

$$_a^a\mathrm{\Phi }^A+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^B^a\mathrm{\Phi }^C=0$$
(28)
For stationary and axisymmetric E-M fields eq.$`\left(\text{28}\right)`$is modified in the way that a covariant Laplacian in $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$ is replaced by $`\rho ^1\left(\rho \right),`$ where $`\rho `$ is a non-negative harmonic function. This modification does not change conclusions we will draw about properties of harmonic maps, because all divergence identities presented below will be multiplied by a non-negative function $`\rho `$.

In order to study the problem of bifurcations off a family of black hole solutions we need the linearized form of $`\left(\text{28}\right).`$ Let us consider a one-parameter family of maps $`f_\tau :MN,`$ represented locally by functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A(\tau ,x)`$. A tangent vector $`/\tau `$ to a curve $`f_\tau `$ with components, $`X^A=\mathrm{\Phi }^A/\tau `$ satisfies the ‘small perturbations’ equation (the Jacobi ‘geodesic deviation’ equation; see e. g. (Misner, 1978) )

$$D_aD^aX^A+R_{BCD}^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^B^a\mathrm{\Phi }^CX^D=0,$$
(29)
where

$$D_aX^A=_aX^A+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BC}^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^BX^C.$$
(30)
It is a general property of nonlinear systems that the nonexistence of linearized perturbations for a given boundary value problem is sufficient to exclude the possibility of a corresponding bifurcating family of exact solutions. The following divergence identity is useful to determine the possibility of bifurcation of solutions to $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$

$$^a\left(H_{AB}X^AD_aX^B\right)=H_{AB}D_aX^AD^aX^B+R_{ABCD}X^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^BX^C^a\mathrm{\Phi }^D.$$
(31)
The divergence term on the l.h.s. of $`\left(\text{31}\right),`$when integrated over $`M`$ gives the surface term contribution which vanishes for a large class of boundary conditions (when $`M`$ has a boundary $`M;`$ for $`M`$ compact it vanishes identically). The first term on the r.h.s. of $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$is non-negative when $`M`$ and $`N`$ are Riemannian. The second term is also non-negative only when the sectional curvature of $`N`$ is non-positive. If the surface term vanishes, as happens for black hole solutions, then it follows that each term on the r.h.s. of $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$vanishes separately, i. e.,

$$D_aX^A=0$$

and

$$X^{[A}_a\mathrm{\Phi }^{B]}=0.$$

Then from $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$ it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^AX^B=0,$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_B^A=R_{BCD}^A_a\mathrm{\Phi }^C^a\mathrm{\Phi }^D.$$

There can exist a non-zero solution to the zero eigen-value problem for the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if its determinant is zero. In general, a given solution of $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$for which we are seeking bifurcations has the property that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a non-degenerate matrix. One can also see that the number of bifurcations is equal to $`dim(N)rank(\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$We conclude that, in general, there are no bifurcations for harmonic maps when the sectional curvature of $`N`$ is non-positive (unless we have a degenerate case). The Carter and Robinson *no hair theorems* are simply very special cases of the result I have described briefly above. The positive definite divergence identity $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$when applied to electrovacuum black holes, i. e., to solutions of $`(\text{22})`$ and (23) satisfying black hole boundary conditions (25), (26) and (27) gives as a result the black hole no hair theorem (Carter, 1971, 1973; Robinson, 1974; Mazur, 1984a,b) \[5, 6, 36, 26, M84b)\]. This is so because the image space of the Ernst potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ is a Riemannian space with negative sectional curvature (Mazur, 1982a,b, 1984a,b) . It is quite interesting that the complicated divergence identities of Carter and Robinson are just special cases of the general divergence identity $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$for perturbations of harmonic maps to negatively curved Riemann manifold $`N.`$ It is obvious that using a particular Ernst’s coordinate system on $`(N,H_{AB}),`$ as given by (21), one can obtain a rather unenlightening form of the identity $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$. It is the advantage of the geometrical approach of harmonic map theory which could bring us a better understanding of global black hole solutions. We have, therefore, a nice theorem

###### Theorem 2

*No Hair Theorem* (Carter, 1971, Robinson, 1974) There do not exist regular, small perturbations of the; stationary and axisymmetric black hole solutions of the E-M equations preserving boundary conditions (25), (26) and (27) for fixed values of the mass $`M,`$ the angular momentum $`J`$ and the electric charge $`Q`$ of a black hole. The only deformations of black holes that do exist are those obtained by a change of $`M,`$ $`J,`$ and $`Q.`$

It is also easy to see that starting with the divergence identity for small perturbations of harmonic maps one can obtain the *global* divergence identity with the required positivity property when $`N`$ has a non-positive sectional curvature. Consider a curve of harmonic maps $`f_\tau `$ , $`\tau [0,1]`$ . Then $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ are homotopically equivalent. For each the r.h.s. of $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$is non-negative. If we integrate both sides of the divergence identity $`\left(\text{31}\right)`$along a geodesic curve $`f_\tau `$ the right hand side (r.h.s.) will be non-negative. The left hand side (l.h.s.) will have a form

$$\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau _a^a\left(H_{AB}X^AX^B\right)=_a^a\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau (/\tau ,/\tau )0.$$
(32)
Taking advantage of the fact that there always exists a unique geodesic joining two points $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ on a simply connected Riemannian manifold $`N`$ with a negative sectional curvature one can evaluate the integral $`\left(\text{32}\right)`$. Because $`f_\tau `$ is a geodesic, it means that the norm $`(/\tau ,/\tau )`$ is a constant along $`f_\tau ,`$ i. e., $`(/\tau ,/\tau )=c^2=cons\mathrm{tan}t.`$ One can easily see that the geodesic distance between $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ is:

$$S(f_0,f_1)=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau \sqrt{(/\tau ,/\tau )}=c\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑\tau =c.$$

It means that the $`\tau `$ integral in $`\left(\text{32}\right)`$is equal to $`S^2(f_0,`$ $`f_1).`$ In this way we have arrived at the Bunting divergence inequality (Bunting, 1983)

$$^a_aS^2(f_0,f_1)0.$$
(33)
A similar identity where $`S^2`$ was replaced by an arbitrary function of $`S^2`$ with positive first and second derivatives was proposed also by the present author (Mazur, 1984a,b; Mazur TPJU-22/83 preprint) . One can apply the divergence identity $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$to the space $`N`$ of Ernst’s potentials. $`N`$ is Riemannian and it has negative sectional curvature. The ‘distance’ function $`S(f_0,f_1)`$ for two solutions of the harmonic map equations $`\left(\text{28}\right)`$(and in the special case of Ernst equations (23)) satisfying the same boundary conditions is non-negative and vanishes only on the boundary. For the case of Ernst’s equations for the stationary and axisymmetric fields the divergence identity is modified by the presence of the harmonic, positive function $`\rho `$ :

$$_\mu \left(\rho ^\mu S^2(f_0,f_1)\right)0.$$

When we integrate this identity over the manifold of orbits $`M^{}`$ we obtain surface terms which vanish. The contribution from the symmetry axis $`𝒜`$ and the event horizon $``$ vanishes in virtue of the boundary conditions $`\left(\text{26}\right)`$and $`\left(\text{27}\right)`$and because $`\rho `$ is vanishing there. The asymptotic boundary conditions $`\left(\text{25}\right)`$imply vanishing of a surface integral at infinity where $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. The r.h.s. of the identity $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$vanishes only when $`S(f_0,f_1)`$ is constant everywhere. But $`S(f_0,f_1)`$ vanishes on the boundary, so it must vanish everywhere. If we take $`f_0`$ to be the Kerr-Newman et al. black hole solution and for $`f_1`$ we take another possible black hole solution, then vanishing of $`S(f_0,f_1)`$ implies $`f_0`$ $`f_1,`$ i. e., *the black hole uniqueness theorem* (Mazur, 1982a,b; Bunting, 1983) . We have seen that the *no hair theorems* and the *black hole uniqueness theorem* can be proved applying a generalization of the Green divergence identity to the case of harmonic maps to Riemannian manifolds with non-positive sectional curvature. As it was mentioned above, one can easily generalize the inequality $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$by taking an even function of $`S`$ with positive first and second derivatives with respect to $`S`$. Consider a function of $`\sigma =S^2,`$ $`h\left(\sigma \right),`$ and evaluate its Laplacian

$$^2h\left(\sigma \right)=h^{}\left(\sigma \right)^2\sigma +h^{\prime \prime }\left(\sigma \right)\left(\sigma \right)^2.$$

Then

$$^2h(\sigma )0,$$

if $`h^{}\left(\sigma \right)>0,`$ $`h^{\prime \prime }\left(\sigma \right)>0`$ and $`\left(\text{33}\right)`$is satisfied, i. e., if $`N`$ has non-positive sectional curvature (Mazur, 1982b, 1983, 1984a,b).

The method the present author used in his proof of *the black hole uniqueness theorem* is based on a divergence identity for the Ernst equations (23), whose derivation was based on the observation that the image manifold of Ernst’s potentials is a homogeneous, symmetric Kähler manifold $`N=SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ This method seems to be much simpler in application because for the electrovacuum black holes the Riemannian space of Ernst’s potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ is a symmetric space with the $`SU(2,1)`$ isometry group. Because of this large symmetry, one can use group theoretical methods to construct an $`SU(2,1)`$ invariant two-point function $`h(f_0,f_1)`$ which is a certain function of the geodesic distance between two harmonic maps $`f_0`$ and $`f_1.`$ The algebraic explicit construction of the global divergence identity offers a simple understanding of the otherwise mysterious Robinson identity (Mazur, 1982a,b; Mazur, 1984a,b) , because the identity produced this way reproduces in the vacuum case the Robinson identity (Robinson, 1975) . The construction I am going to describe here has a much broader range of applications than solely the black hole uniqueness theorems. It can be applied to any nonlinear elliptic sigma model on symmetric Riemannian spaces with non-compact isometry groups, or, which is equivalent, with negative sectional curvature (Mazur, 1984a,b; Mazur and Richter, 1985; Breitenlohner and Maison, 1986) .

## 5 A Global Identity for Nonlinear Sigma Models and It Applications: Black Hole Uniqueness Theorem

Before discussing the most general case of sigma models on symmetric Riemannian and hyperbolic spaces and the divergence identity associated with them, let me first demonstrate explicitly that the metric (21) related to the electrovacuum Ernst equations is the left invariant metric on the homogeneous, symmetric and Kahler space $`N=SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ The detailed construction is described in (Mazur, 1982a,b, 1983) . There are many ways to see this. The metric (21) is an example of a Hermitian metric on an (almost) complex manifold $`N`$ with complex coordinates $`z^\alpha `$ (in the case of electrovacuum Ernst equations, $`\alpha =1,2,`$ $`z^1=`$ $`ϵ,`$ $`z^2=\psi `$ ):

$$ds^2=k_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}dz^\alpha dz^{\overline{\beta }}.$$

A complex Hermitian manifold $`N`$ is a Kähler manifold if it admits a closed non-degenerate $`(1,1)`$ form

$$\omega =\frac{i}{2}k_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}dz^\alpha dz^{\overline{\beta }}.$$

One can easily see that the metric (21) is Kähler (Mazur 1983) , i. e.,

$$_\gamma k_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=_{\overline{\alpha }}k_{\gamma \overline{\beta }},\text{ }_{\overline{\gamma }}k_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=_{\overline{\beta }}k_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }},$$

where $`_\alpha =/z^\alpha `$ and $`_{\overline{\alpha }}=/\overline{z}^a`$. Moreover, the metric (21) has $`8`$ holomorphic Killing vectors which generate the Lie algebra of the pseudounitary group $`SU(2,1).`$ The group $`G=SU(2,1)`$ acts on $`N`$ nonlinearly by holomorphic (homographic) maps. One can see that by introducing new Ernst coordinates $`w^\alpha `$ on $`N:`$

$$z^1=\frac{w^11}{w^1+1},\text{ }z^2=\frac{w^2}{w^1+1}\text{ .}$$

and showing that the following holomorphic transformations of $`w^\alpha `$ are invariant transformations of the metric (21)

$$w^1^{}=\frac{u_1^1w^1+u_2^1w^2+u_3^1}{u_1^3w^1+u_2^3w^2+u_3^3}\text{ ,}$$

$$w^2^{}=\frac{u_1^2w^1+u_2^2w^2+u_3^2}{u_1^3w^1+u_2^3w^2+u_3^3}\text{ ,}$$

where the matrix $`u_\beta ^\alpha ,`$ $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3`$ satisfies the pseudo-unitarity condition

$$u^+u=\eta \text{ , }\eta =diag(1,1,1)$$
(34)
The group $`G=SU(2,1)`$ acts on $`N`$ simply transitively. This means that $`N`$ is a homogeneous Kahler manifold. Every homogeneous manifold of $`G`$ is diffeomorphic to the left coset space $`G/H`$ for some subgroup $`H`$ of $`G.`$ In our case, it can be easily seen that $`H=S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ Fix a point $`p_0N,`$ such that $`w^\alpha (p_0)=0.`$ Every point $`pN`$ can be reached from $`p_0`$ by a map $`u:`$ $`p=up_0,`$ $`uG.`$ Two maps $`u,u^{}G`$ represent the same point if $`uu^{}=uh,`$ $`hH.`$ $`H`$ is the isotropy subgroup of $`p_0`$ which is isomorphic to $`S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ The equivalence relation $``$ defines the coset space $`G/H.`$ The homogeneous space $`N=SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1))`$ is also a symmetric space. The last property helps to construct a unique left $`G`$ invariant metric on $`N`$ in terms of a coset representative $`g.`$

We would like to reformulate the Ernst equations (23) associated with the metric (21) in terms of group theoretical objects, like a coset representative $`g(uH)=g(u),`$ making their $`SU(2,1)`$ covariance explicit. This will help us to construct the generalized Robinson identity in the obvious way. Exploiting the $`SU(2,1)`$ covariance of the field equations (23) one can obtain an $`SU(2,1)`$ invariant divergence identity for two solutions of (23). The metric (21) is a left $`SU(2,1)`$invariant metric on a symmetric space $`N=SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ This leads to a nonlinear sigma model form of the Ernst equations (23), once we go from the Ernst parametrization of $`N`$ to a coset space representation of $`N.`$ We give here a short derivation of a global divergence identity for nonlinear sigma models on symmetric spaces and apply it to the electrovacuum Ernst equations.

We define the symmetric space as a triple $`(G,H,\mu )`$ where $`G`$ is a connected Lie group, and $`H`$ is a closed subgroup of $`G`$ defined by an involutive automorphism $`\mu `$ of $`G`$ such that $`(G_\mu )_0HG_\mu `$ with $`G_\mu `$ and $`(G_\mu )_0`$ being the set of fixed points of $`\mu `$ and its identity component, respectively. An involutive automorphism $`\mu `$ defines also a smooth mapping $`g`$ of a coset space $`G/H`$ into $`G:`$

$$g(u)=u\mu (u)^1,\text{ }g(uH)=g(u).$$

The $`G`$valued field $`g`$ satisfies a constraint:

$$g\mu (g)=I.$$

In terms of $`g`$ one can naturally introduce the left $`G`$invariant metric on $`G/H:`$

$$dS^2=\frac{1}{2}Tr(dgg^1)^2.$$

If $`G`$ is a non-compact group and $`H`$ is its maximally compact subgroup, then the metric $`\frac{1}{2}Tr(dgg^1)^2`$ is Riemannian. A harmonic map from a Riemannian space $`M`$ to a Riemannian coset space $`N=G/H`$ is called a *nonlinear sigma model* with the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}Tr\left(J_aJ^a\right),\text{ }J_a=_agg^1,$$
(35)
and field equations

$$_aJ^a=0.$$
(36)
The field equation $`\left(\text{36}\right)`$is covariant under the left $`G`$ translation on $`G/H.`$ A global divergence identity for the nonlinear sigma model $`\left(\text{35}\right)`$can be obtained exactly in the same way as the Green identity for the Laplace equation. To this end, consider two fields $`g_0`$ and $`g_1,`$ not necessarily solutions of $`\left(\text{36}\right)`$. Define a field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=g_0g_1^1,$$

which transforms under the rigid left $`G`$translations on $`N,`$

$$u_0uu_0,u_1uu_1,$$

$`uG,`$ in a simple way:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }u\mathrm{\Phi }u^1.$$

One can easily see that the trace of is invariant under the rigid $`G`$translations of two points on $`N.`$ It means that $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a function of geodesic distance between $`g_0`$ and $`g_1:`$

$$Tr\mathrm{\Phi }=h(S),\text{ }S=S(g_0,g_1).$$

Evaluating the covariant Laplacian of $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and using $`\left(\text{35}\right)`$we arrive at the generalized Green identity for nonlinear sigma models (Mazur, 1982a,b, 1984a,b)

$$_a^ah=Tr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_a\left(J^{(0)a}J^{(1)a}\right)\right]+Tr\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\left(J_a^{(0)}J^{(0)a}+J_a^{(1)}J^{(1)a}2J_a^{(0)}J^{(1)a}\right)\right]$$
(37)
where $`J_a^{(i)}=_ag_ig_i^1,`$ $`i=0,1.\text{}`$

###### Theorem 3

(Mazur, 1982b,1984a) A global identity $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$for Riemannian nonlinear sigma models has a positivedefinite right hand side if $`g_0`$ and $`g_1`$ are solutions to $`\left(\text{36}\right)`$and the following conditions on $`N`$ are satisfied:

1. $`N=G/H`$ is a Riemannian symmetric space with non-compact isometry group $`G`$.
2. $`N`$ has a non-positive sectional curvature.

We can see now a direct correspondence of this result to the basic properties of harmonic mappings to a Riemannian space $`N`$ with non-positive sectional curvature discussed before. For the electrovacuum Ernst equations, the identity $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$is a generalization of the Robinson identity and also it coincides with Robinson’s identity for the vacuum case. This form of the divergence identity $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$proves to be very useful in evaluating surface terms for black hole boundary conditions because the function $`h=Tr\mathrm{\Phi }`$ turns out to be only a rational function of Ernst potentials. The symmetric space $`N=SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1))`$ is singled out by the existence of an inner involutive automorphism of $`G=SU(2,1):`$

$$u\mu (u)=\eta u\eta ^1,\text{ }\eta =(1,1,1),$$

because $`\mu (H)=H,`$ $`H=S(U(2)\times U(1)).`$ A coset representative

$$g=u\mu (u)^1,$$

which is an element of $`G=SU(2,1),`$ i. e.,

$$g^+\eta g=\eta ,$$

satisfies also a constraint

$$g\mu (g)=g\eta g\eta ^1=I.$$

This implies that $`g`$ is a hermitian matrix $`g^+=g.`$ Writing

$$g=\eta +2P,$$

one can see that $`P`$ satisfies the following constraints:

$$P^+=P,\text{ }(P\eta )^2=P\eta .$$

We will recover the Ernst parametrization of $`SU(2,1)/S(U(2)\times U(1))`$ and satisfy constraints on $`P`$ if we write

$$P^{\alpha \beta }=v^\alpha \overline{v}^\beta ,$$

where

$$v^\alpha \eta _{\alpha \beta }\overline{v}^\beta =1,\text{ }\alpha ,\beta =1,2,3,$$

and define

$$w^1=\frac{v^1}{v^3},\text{ }w^2=\frac{v^2}{v^3}.$$

$`w^1`$ and $`w^2`$ can be written in terms of Ernst’s potentials $`ϵ`$ and $`\psi `$ as follows:

$$w^1=\frac{1+ϵ}{1ϵ}\text{ , }w^2=\frac{2\psi }{1+ϵ}\text{ .}$$

Using the Ernst parametrization of the coset space element $`g`$ which was discussed aboveone can calculate a function $`h(S)=Tr\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in terms of the Ernst potentials $`X_i,`$ $`Y_i,`$ $`E_i`$ and $`B_i,`$ $`i=0,1`$

$$h(S)=Tr\mathrm{\Phi }=3+X_0^1X_1^1\{(X_0X_1)^2+2(X_0+X_1)[(E_0E_1)^2+(B_0B_1)^2]+$$

$$+[(E_0E_1)^2+(B_0B_1)^2]^2+[Y_0Y_1+2(E_1B_0E_0B_1)]^2\}$$
(38)
The black hole uniqueness theorem for electrically charged black holes can be obtained by a straightforward application of the divergence identity $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$. When we integrate the l.h.s. of $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$we obtain a surface term which can be shown, after using $`\left(\text{38}\right)`$, to be vanishing for the black hole boundary conditions (25), (26) and (27). Because the r.h.s. of $`\left(\text{37}\right)`$is positive definite, it means that $`h=const.`$ This is consistent with the boundary conditions and $`\left(\text{38}\right)`$only when $`X_0=X_1,`$ $`Y_0=Y_1,`$ $`E_0=E_1`$ and $`B_0=B_1.`$ It means that the Kerr-Newman et al. family of solutions with $`M^2\left(J/M\right)^2Q^2>0`$ characterizes completely the stationary equilibrium black hole states in the Einstein-Maxwell theory. Concluding this talk, I would like to point out that it was only possible to prove black hole uniqueness theorems for the stationary black holes which are also axisymmetric. It is fortunate that the Einstein-Maxwell equations reduce to harmonic mapping equations which are moreover conformally invariant in the case of stationary and axisymmetric black holes. One may hope that the reasonable extension of arguments presented here may lead to the solution of the uniqueness problem for stationary black holes, without assumption of axial symmetry.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the national Science Foundation through Grant No. PHY 83-18350 with Syracuse University and a travel grant, also. I would like to thank the General Relativity Society for giving me the opportunity to present this material.

The address and affiliation(s) at the time this review was written were the following: Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1130, U. S.A. and Department of Theoretical Physics, Jagellonian University, Kraków, Poland.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for Higgs bosons  is one of the most important endeavours of present and future experiments . The minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model \[MSSM\] includes two isodoublet Higgs fields which materialize, after electroweak symmetry breaking, in five elementary Higgs bosons : two neutral CP-even ($`h,H`$), one neutral CP-odd ($`A`$) and two charged ($`H^\pm `$) particles. To leading order, the MSSM Higgs sector can be described by two parameters which are in general chosen as the pseudoscalar mass $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tg}\beta =v_2/v_1`$, the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values of the scalar Higgs fields. While the mass of the light Higgs boson $`h`$ is bounded to Mh

<
[-0.07cm]
130subscript𝑀

<
[-0.07cm]
130M_{h}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}130 GeV , the masses of the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A,H^\pm `$ are expected to be of the order of the electroweak scale up to about 1 TeV. The heavy Higgs bosons are nearly mass degenerate, MHMA(MZ2sin22β+ϵcos2β)/2MA

<
[-0.07cm]
2subscript𝑀𝐻subscript𝑀𝐴superscriptsubscript𝑀𝑍2superscript22𝛽italic-ϵsuperscript2𝛽2subscript𝑀𝐴

<
[-0.07cm]
2M_{H}-M_{A}\approx(M_{Z}^{2}\sin^{2}2\beta+\epsilon\cos^{2}\beta)/2M_{A}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$<$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}2 GeV for MA

>
[-0.07cm]
250subscript𝑀𝐴

>
[-0.07cm]
250M_{A}\raisebox{-3.69899pt}{~{}\shortstack{$>$ \\
[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~{}250 GeV with $`ϵ=3G_Fm_t^4\mathrm{log}(1+M_{susy}^2/m_t^2)/\sqrt{2}\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$. An important property of the SUSY Higgs bosons is the enhancement of the bottom Yukawa couplings with increasing $`\mathrm{tg}\beta `$. Moreover, the couplings to supersymmetric particles, charginos and neutralinos can be significant .

The light Higgs boson $`h`$ of the MSSM can be discovered at existing or future $`p\overline{p}/pp`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. However, the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A`$ may escape detection in a wedge centered around medium values of $`\mathrm{tg}\beta 7`$, and masses above 200 GeV even at the LHC . At $`e^\pm e^{}`$ linear colliders, heavy MSSM Higgs bosons can only be discovered in associated production $`e^+e^{}HA`$  according to the decoupling theorem. In first-phase $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders with a total energy of 500 GeV, the heavy Higgs bosons can thus be discovered with masses up to about 250 GeV. To extend the mass reach, the $`\gamma \gamma `$ option of linear colliders can be used in which high-energy photon beams are generated by Compton back-scattering of laser light . Neutral Higgs particles can be formed as resonances in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions :

$$\gamma \gamma h,H\text{and}A$$
(1)
Center-of-mass energies of about 80% of the primary $`e^\pm e^{}`$ collider energies and high degrees of longitudinal photon polarization can be reached at $`\gamma \gamma `$ colliders. Sufficient event rates are guaranteed for the expected high-energy luminosities $`=300`$ fb<sup>-1</sup> per annum . Photon colliders therefore provide a useful instrument for the search for heavy Higgs bosons not accessible elsewhere .

## 2 Analysis

Branching Ratios. As promising examples for the discovery of heavy MSSM Higgs bosons in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions the two decay modes $`H,Ab\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ have been investigated in detail for $`\mathrm{tg}\beta =7`$ and Higgs masses $`M_{H,A}>200`$ GeV. In this region the LHC is blind, if SUSY parameters are not realized in a small favourable region, and linear colliders cannot reach masses beyond 250 GeV in the first phase of the $`e^+e^{}`$ mode. For illustration, the additional MSSM parameters of the gaugino sector have been chosen as $`M_2=\pm \mu =200`$ GeV, assuming a universal gaugino mass at the GUT scale. These parameters correspond for positive $`\mu `$ to neutralino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2,3,4}^0}=85,148,208,271`$ GeV and to chargino masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^\pm }=141,270`$ GeV. For the sake of simplicity, sleptons and squarks are assumed to be so heavy that they do not affect the analysis in a significant way.

The decay branching ratios  are presented in Fig. 1a, the kinks corresponding to thresholds of new channels. For moderate masses, the $`b\overline{b}`$ decay modes turn out to be dominant, while for large Higgs masses the dominant modes are the decays into charginos and neutralinos. The decays to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs are suppressed with respect to $`b\overline{b}`$ decays by about an order of magnitude.

The partial decay widths $`H,A\gamma \gamma `$ determine the production cross sections. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings of the Higgs bosons are mediated by charged-particle loops . The loops of top quarks and charginos are dominant for the MSSM parameters chosen above. Congruent with the uncertainty principle, the charginos decouple asymptotically with increasing chargino masses. The partial $`\gamma \gamma `$ widths are shown in Fig. 1b.

Signals and Backgrounds. To leading order and in the narrow-width approximation, the production of Higgs bosons in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions is described by the cross section

$$\sigma (\gamma \gamma H,A)=\frac{8\pi ^2}{s}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(H,A\gamma \gamma )}{M_{H,A}}\frac{d^{\gamma \gamma }}{d\tau _{H,A}}$$
(2)
where $`d^{\gamma \gamma }/d\tau _{H,A}`$ denotes the differential $`\gamma \gamma `$ luminosity, normalized to unity, for $`\tau _{H,A}=M_{H,A}^2/s`$. The next-to-leading order QCD corrections consist of gluon insertions in the quark triangle loops of the photonic Higgs couplings and gluon radiation in the Higgs decays to quark-antiquark ($`b\overline{b}`$) pairs. The two-loop contributions to the Higgs-$`\gamma \gamma `$ couplings are of moderate size, if the quark mass inside the triangle loop is chosen as the running quark mass at a typical scale determined by the c.m. energy of the process . The QCD corrections to the Higgs decays into bottom quarks generate large logarithms, which however can be absorbed in the running Yukawa coupling at the scale of the c.m. energy . After inserting the running quark masses, the total QCD corrections increase the signal cross section by about 20–40%.

The main background processes $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ are pure QED reactions in lowest order. Since the signals are generated for equal photon helicities, this configuration can be enhanced by choosing the same helicities for the incoming laser photons and helicities for the electrons/positrons that are opposite to the laser photons in the initial state ; at the same time the background processes are suppressed. The NLO corrections to $`\gamma \gamma b\overline{b}`$ for polarized photon beams have been calculated in Ref. . They are moderate for photons of opposite helicities but large for photons of equal helicity. The differential cross section for photons of equal helicity is suppressed by a factor $`m_b^2/s`$ at lowest order due to the helicity flip in the bottom-quark line. This suppression is removed by gluon radiation and the size of the cross section increases to order $`\alpha _s`$. Large Sudakov and non-Sudakov logarithms due to soft gluon radiation and soft gluon and bottom-quark exchange in the virtual corrections must be resummed . In order to suppress the gluon radiation we have selected slim two-jet configurations in the final state as defined within the Sterman–Weinberg criterion. If the radiated gluon energy is larger than $`ϵ_g=10\%`$ of the total $`\gamma \gamma `$ invariant energy and if, at the same time, the opening angle between all three partons in the final state is larger than $`\theta _c=20^o`$, the event is classified as three-jet event and rejected. The contamination of $`b\overline{b}`$ final states by the process $`\gamma \gamma c\overline{c}`$ can be kept under experimental control by $`b`$ tagging.

Moreover, the interference between the signal and background mechanisms has been taken into account properly. This part affects only configurations with equal photon helicities in the initial state. We have calculated the next-to-leading order QCD corrections of the interference terms to quark final states including the resummation of the large (non-) Sudakov logarithms \[for details see Ref. \]. The QCD corrections to the interference terms are large.

## 3 Results

$`b\overline{b}`$ Channel. We assume that a rough scan in the $`\gamma \gamma `$ energy will first be performed, from which preliminary evidence for the observation of a Higgs boson can be derived. Since the luminosity spectrum of equal-helicity photons is strongly peaked at about 80% of the $`e^\pm e^{}`$ c.m. energy , the maximum can be tuned in the second step to the value of the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $`M_A`$ at which the signal peak in the energy scan appeared. The scalar resonance $`H`$ at a small distance $`M_HM_A1`$ GeV nearby is included by the non-zero experimental resolution at the same time. The analysis can be optimized by final-state cuts. The background is strongly reduced by a cut in the production angle of the bottom quarks, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.5`$, while the signal is affected only moderately. By collecting $`b\overline{b}`$ final states with a resolution in the invariant mass $`M_A\pm 3`$ GeV, that can be expected at photon colliders , the sensitivity to the combined $`A`$ and $`H`$ resonance peaks above the background is strongly increased.

The result for the peak cross section is shown in Fig. 2a as a function of the pseudoscalar mass $`M_A`$ for $`\mathrm{tg}\beta =7`$. It can be inferred from the figure that the background is strongly suppressed. The significance of the heavy Higgs boson signals is sufficient for the discovery of the Higgs particles up to about 70–80% of the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. energy. Thus, at a 500 GeV $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider the $`H,A`$ bosons with masses up to about 400 GeV can be discovered in the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel in the photon-collider mode, while for c.m. energies above 800 GeV the range can be extended to about 600 GeV. For heavier Higgs masses the signal rate becomes too small for detection.

In a fine scan of the resonance region within a minimal bracket of $`\pm 2`$ GeV of the invariant-mass resolution, the two Higgs bosons $`A`$ and $`H`$ can be disentangled at least in part of the supersymmetry parameter space. Increasing the energy stepwise from below, the Higgs boson $`A`$ is produced first, followed by the combination of $`A`$ and $`H`$, while finally $`H`$ is left before the scan leaves the resonance region. This procedure is analyzed quantitatively in Fig. 2b. If the supersymmetry parameters are favourable, the steps in the resonance formation curve are clearly visible. However, this theoretical analysis must be backed by future experimental simulations.

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ Channels. For the MSSM parameters introduced above, the heavy Higgs bosons have significant decay branching ratios to pairs of charginos and neutralinos, cf. Figs. 1. However, due to the integer chargino charge, the chargino background from continuum production is in general more than an order of magnitude larger than the signal. Pairs of neutralinos cannot be produced in $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions at leading order so that neutralino decays open a potential discovery channel for the heavy Higgs bosons $`H,A`$ \[see also Ref. \]. This is apparent for moderate Higgs masses below the chargino decay threshold. Detailed analyses of the topologies in the final state are needed however to separate the neutralinos from the background charginos above the chargino threshold. For example, the signal channel $`\gamma \gamma H,A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ leads in the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ cascade decay predominantly to the hadronic final states $`jj+\overline{)}E`$ with the jet-pair invariant mass $`M_{jj}`$ clustering near the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mass difference if the sfermions are heavy. By contrast, the continuum process $`\gamma \gamma \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ generates the final state $`W^{}W^{}+\overline{)}E`$ with distinct $`jjjj+\overline{)}E`$ jet topologies. Thus, the neutralino decays are expected to provide novel discovery channels of the heavy Higgs bosons at photon-photon colliders.

## 4 Summary

It has been shown in this letter that the heavy scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons $`H`$ and $`A`$ of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model MSSM can be discovered for medium values of $`\mathrm{tg}\beta `$ up to masses of about 400 GeV in the photon-photon collider mode of a linear collider project in the first phase; the mass reach can be extended to values above 600 GeV at a TeV collider. The discovery potential for the heavy Higgs bosons is unique since this region is not accessible neither in the respective $`e^+e^{}`$ phase of a linear collider, nor at the LHC in general.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to G. Blair, A. Djouadi, G. Jikia, M. Melles and S. Söldner-Rembold for discussions and advice. MMM would like to thank the Particle Physics Theory Group at the University of Edinburgh for hospitality and PPARC for financial support.