text:
# Baryogenesis in a flat direction with neither baryon nor lepton charge

## Abstract

We present a new mechanism of spontaneous baryogenesis. Usually such mechanisms require a derivative coupling between a scalar field and baryon current. In our model, the scalar field instead derivatively couples to a current associated with some global symmetry $`U(1)_Q`$. In this case, baryogenesis is still possible provided that an interaction exists, which violates the baryon and $`U(1)_Q`$ symmetries simultaneously. As a concrete example, we discuss baryogenesis in a flat direction with neither baryon nor lepton charge.

Baryogenesis is one of the most important challenges in cosmology and particle physics. Sakharov proposed three conditions to realize baryogenesis Sakharov : (i) an interaction which actually violates baryon conservation, (ii) violation of $`C`$ and $`CP`$ symmetries, (iii) deviation from thermal equilibrium. Thus far, many scenarios which have been proposed, satisfy the above requirements. However, a spontaneous baryogenesis mechanism, which was proposed by Cohen and Kaplan, works even in thermal equilibrium CK  contrary to the above conditions. This is because, while Sakharov’s conditions apply for the case where $`CPT`$ symmetry is conserved, $`CPT`$ symmetry is violated in the context of any spontaneous baryogenesis mechanism. Some applications of spontaneous baryogenesis have recently been discussed in DF ; LFZ ; FNT ; Yamaguchi .

A spontaneous baryogenesis mechanism requires a derivative coupling between a scalar field $`a`$ and a baryon current $`J_B^\mu `$,

$$_{eff}=\frac{_\mu a}{f}J_B^\mu ,$$
(1)
where $`f`$ is a cut-off scale. The baryon current $`J_B^\mu `$ is given by

$$J_B^\mu =\underset{i}{}B_ij_i^\mu ,$$
(2)
where $`B_i`$ and $`j_i^\mu `$ are, respectively, the baryon number and the usual number current of the $`i`$-th field. A nonzero value of $`_\mu a`$ leads to spontaneous $`CPT`$ violation since $`_\mu a`$ is odd under $`CPT`$ transformations. This enables spontaneous baryogenesis mechanisms to evade Sakharov’s conditions. Assuming that $`a`$ is homogeneous, the derivative interaction becomes

$$_{eff}=\frac{\dot{a}}{f}n_B\underset{i}{}\mu _in_i,$$
(3)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to time, $`n_B`$ is the baryon number density, and $`n_i`$ is the number density of the $`i`$-th field. $`\mu _i\dot{a}B_i/f`$ is an effective chemical potential for the $`i`$-th field, which creates a bias between baryons and anti-baryons. Then, according to the effective chemical potential, the baryon number density is induced while in thermal equilibrium,

$$n_B(t)=\underset{i}{}B_i\frac{g_i\kappa _iT^3}{6}\left(\frac{\mu _i}{T}+O\left[\left(\frac{\mu _i}{T}\right)^3\right]\right),$$
(4)
where $`g_i`$ represents the degree of freedom of the corresponding fields, $`\kappa _i`$ is 1 for fermions and 2 for bosons, and the summation should be taken for light fields in thermal equilibrium. In fact, baryon asymmetry is generated only when a baryon number violating interaction actually exists and is in thermal equilibrium. Thus, the final baryon asymmetry is determined at decoupling of the baryon number violating interaction.

In the above example, a scalar field derivatively couples to the baryon current. However, in this Letter, we show that baryogenesis is still possible even if a scalar field derivatively couples not to baryon current, but to other currents such as the lepton current and/or the Peccei-Quinn ($`PQ`$) current. Our basic idea is very simple. Assume that a scalar field derivatively couples to some global $`U(1)_Q`$ current which is not necessarily related to baryon current. Then, if an interaction exists and is in thermal equilibrium, which violates $`U(1)_Q`$ and baryon symmetries simultaneously, baryon asymmetry is generated in addition to the $`U(1)_Q`$ asymmetry through the spontaneous mechanism. This is because the ratio of $`U(1)_Q`$ charge to baryon charge must follow the ratio of violations of the interaction. Therefore generation of $`U(1)_Q`$ asymmetry always involves generation of baryon asymmetry.

The above idea has a lot of implications. For example, if a scalar field derivatively couples to lepton current and an interaction violating both lepton and baryon symmetries is in thermal equilibrium, baryon asymmetry is generated without resort to sphaleron effects. More amazingly, even if a scalar field has an interaction with neither baryon nor lepton charge but only derivatively couples to some global $`U(1)_Q`$ current such as $`PQ`$ current, baryon asymmetry is generated provided that an interaction which violates both $`U(1)_Q`$ and baryon symmetries is in thermal equilibrium.111In fact, baryogenesis is still possible for an interaction which violates both $`U(1)_Q`$ and lepton symmetries. In this case, a lepton asymmetry is generated, which can be converted into a baryon asymmetry through sphaleron effects. As a concrete example, we discuss this possibility later in detail.

To make our ideas clear and concrete, we consider spontaneous baryogenesis in the context of flat directions with neither baryon nor lepton charge. The characteristics of flat directions enable spontaneous baryogenesis to be realized. First of all, due to its flatness, a flat direction can easily acquire a large vacuum expectation value, which yields a derivative interaction between its phase and the symmetry current under which the flat direction is charged. Second, by virtue of a charge violating term (a so-called A-term), the phase starts rotating, thus acquiring a nonzero velocity. Thus, flat directions are suitable for realizing spontaneous baryogenesis. Use in baryogenesis of these features of flat directions was first proposed by Affleck and Dine in a slightly different context AD . If a flat direction has baryon and/or lepton number, rotation of its phase due to an A-term generates baryon and/or lepton asymmetries as a condensate of the flat direction. After decay of the flat direction, such asymmetries are transferred to the ordinary quarks and leptons completing baryo/leptogenesis. However, this mechanism applies only to flat directions with non-zero $`BL`$ charge because otherwise sphaleron effects wash out the produced baryon asymmetry. Recently, it was pointed out that this mechanism can be applied to flat directions with vanishing $`BL`$ charge by virtue of $`Q`$-balls Kusenko ; Enqvist ; Kasuya1 . This is because $`Q`$-balls can protect the $`B+L`$ asymmetry from the sphaleron effects. However, the mechanism does not work for flat directions with neither baryon nor lepton charge because no condensation of baryon or lepton number is produced. In this Letter, we show that baryogenesis is still possible for such a flat direction by applying the spontaneous mechanism with our new idea stated above, that is, baryon and/or lepton asymmetries generated thermodynamically instead of through condensation. Further implications and details of our ideas will be discussed in the future publication TY .

Now let us go into some details of our scenario. First, we show that if a flat direction with neither baryon nor lepton number is charged under another global symmetry and has a nonzero expectation value, its phase (more precisely, the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson associated with breaking of the global symmetry) derivatively couples to the corresponding current. One of the famous examples of such a global symmetry is the $`PQ`$ symmetry, which is introduced to solve the strong $`CP`$ problem of quantum chromodynamics pq . For definiteness, we adopt the supersymmetric DFSZ axion model222Here we assume that the $`PQ`$ scalar fields, which are responsible for the spontaneous $`PQ`$ symmetry breaking in the present universe, have negative mass squared of order of the Hubble parameter squared during inflation. Then we can avoid the problem of axion domain walls. In addition, cold dark matter (CDM) can also be explained by the axion in our scenario as a by-product of adopting the $`PQ`$ symmetry. DFSZ ; Ma , but it is trivial to extend it to the case with general global $`U(1)`$ symmetries.

Though a flat direction is specified by a holomorphic gauge-invariant polynomial, it is often described by a single complex scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi /\sqrt{2}e^{i\theta }`$. Assuming that a flat direction has only $`PQ`$ charge, its phase is given by

$$\theta =\frac{1}{N}\alpha _R,$$
(5)
where $`N`$ is the number of constituent fields, $`_iR_i`$ is the sum of the $`PQ`$ charges, $`R_i`$ is the $`PQ`$ charge of each field, and $`\alpha _R`$ is the angle conjugate to the generator of the $`PQ`$ symmetry. If the flat direction has a nonzero expectation value, the $`PQ`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken and a NG boson $`a_R`$ appears, which is given by

$$a_Rv_a\alpha _R,$$
(6)
where $`v_a\varphi `$ is a decay constant. Then, the NG mode $`a_R`$ transforms as $`a_Ra_R+v_aϵ`$ under the $`PQ`$ transformation $`\alpha _R\alpha _R+ϵ`$.

In order to obtain the interaction between the NG mode $`a_R`$ and the other charged fields, we define the $`PQ`$ current as

$$J_R^\mu \underset{m^{}}{}\frac{}{(_\mu \chi _m^{})}\delta \chi _m^{},$$
(7)
where $`m^{}`$ denotes all fields with non-zero $`PQ`$ charges; that is, $`\chi _m^{}`$ transforms under $`PQ`$ symmetry as $`\chi _m^{}\chi _m^{}+ϵ\delta \chi _m^{}`$ with $`\delta \chi _m^{}=iR_m^{}\chi _m^{}`$. Then, the $`PQ`$ current is given by

$$J_R^\mu =v_a^\mu a_R+\underset{m}{}R_mj_m^\mu ,$$
(8)
where $`m`$ denotes all fields with non-zero $`PQ`$ charges except the NG mode $`a_R`$. Current conservation yields the equation of motion for $`a_R`$:

$$_\mu J_{PQ}^\mu =v_a^2a_R+\underset{m}{}R_m_\mu j_m^\mu =0.$$
(9)
Here the first term in the middle equation is the kinetic term for the NG mode $`a_R`$ and the second term can be derived from the following effective Lagrangian,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{m}{}\frac{R_m}{v_a}\left(_\mu a_R\right)j_m^\mu ,$$
(10)
which yields the derivative interactions between the NG mode $`a_R`$ and the other charged fields.

Next, we show that a flat direction has a nonzero expectation value during and after inflation, and the corresponding NG boson rolls down along the potential; that is, it acquires a nonzero velocity. Although there are no classical potentials along flat directions in the supersymmetric limit, they are lifted by both supersymmetry breaking effects and non-renormalizable operators. Adopting gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking, a flat direction has a soft mass $`m_\varphi 1`$TeV. Moreover, assuming a non-renormalizable operator in the superpotential of the form

$$W=\frac{1}{nM^{n3}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n,$$
(11)
the flat direction is further lifted by the potential

$$V_{NR}=\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^{2n2}}{M^{2n6}},$$
(12)
where $`M`$ is a cutoff scale. During the inflationary epoch, there is another contribution to the potential. A flat direction has a negative mass squared proportional to the Hubble parameter squared, which is derived from a four-point coupling to the inflaton in the Kähler potential. Then, this negative mass squared term destabilizes the flat direction at the origin and the flat direction rolls down toward the minimum of the potential. The minimum of the potential $`\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}`$ is determined by the balance between the negative mass squared term and the non-renormalizable potential $`V_{NR}`$, and is given by

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{min}}\left(HM^{n3}\right)^{\frac{1}{n2}}.$$
(13)
In fact, the above non-renormalizable superpotential not only lifts the potential but also gives the charge-violating A-terms of the form

$`V_A`$ $`=`$ $`a_m{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{nM^{n3}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^n+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`M_A^4\mathrm{cos}\left[ka_R/v_a\right],`$
where $`m_{3/2}`$ is the gravitino mass, $`a_m`$ is a complex constant of order unity, $`M_A`$ is the energy scale of the A-term, $`kn/N`$, and we have assumed a vanishing cosmological constant. By virtue of this A-term, the NG boson $`a_R`$ begins rotating and acquires a nonzero velocity given by

$$\left|\dot{a}_R\right|\frac{k}{Hv_a}M_A^4,$$
(15)
where we used the slow-roll approximation because the inverse curvature scale of the potential is roughly $`\sqrt{m_{3/2}H}H`$. We have also assumed that $`a_R`$ sits far from the extremum of the potential by $`O(v_a)`$.

The final ingredient to realize the spontaneous mechanism is an interaction which actually breaks the relevant symmetry. In this Letter, as stated in the introduction, we consider an interaction which violates multiple symmetries simultaneously, that is, $`PQ`$ and lepton symmetries. Such a violating interaction is characterized by the amounts of violation of the $`PQ`$ and lepton symmetries, that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. Then, since the produced asymmetries $`n_R`$ and $`n_L`$ should be proportional to the amount of each violation, the simple relation $`n_R\mathrm{\Delta }_L=n_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ must be satisfied, or equivalently,

$$\underset{m}{}\mathrm{\Xi }_mn_m=0,$$
(16)
where we have defined $`\mathrm{\Xi }_m=R_m\mathrm{\Delta }_LL_m\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`L_m`$ is the lepton charge of the $`m`$-th field. However, generally speaking, the above relation is not satisfied by the usual estimate of the produced asymmetry given by

$$\overline{n}_m(t_D)=\frac{\kappa _mg_m}{6}\overline{\mu }_mT_D^2$$
(17)
with $`\overline{\mu }_mR_m\dot{a}_R/v_a`$. Therefore, $`\overline{\mu }_m`$ cannot be interpreted to be a chemical potential of the $`m`$-th field. Instead, we consider the projection of $`\{\overline{\mu }_m\}`$ onto the parameter plane perpendicular to $`\{\mathrm{\Xi }_m\}`$ in order to satisfy the above constraint. Such a projection $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m\overline{\mu }_m\frac{\left(\overline{\mu }\mathrm{\Xi }\right)}{\mathrm{\Xi }^2}\mathrm{\Xi }_m,$$
(18)
where we adopt the general shorthand

$`Y^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\kappa _mg_mY_m^2,`$
$`YZ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\kappa _mg_mY_mZ_m.`$ (19)
Then, it is easy to show that the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m`$ are invariant under the transformation $`\overline{\mu }_m\overline{\mu }_m+\alpha \mathrm{\Xi }_m`$ for an arbitrary constant $`\alpha `$. By use of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m`$, $`\{n_m\}`$ is given by

$$n_m(t_D)=\frac{\kappa _mg_m}{6}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_mT_D^2.$$
(20)
Then, the resultant lepton number density at decoupling is given by333More precisely, this result applies only for a flat direction which does not include squarks, such as $`LH_de`$ tony . The result for a flat direction which includes squarks will be given in publication TY . But, while the forms of $`C`$ and $`D`$ become more complicated, the essential result does not change.

$$n_L(t_D)=\underset{m}{}L_mn_m=\mathrm{\Delta }_R\mathrm{\Delta }_L\frac{C}{D}\frac{T_D^2}{6}\frac{\dot{a}_R}{v_a},$$
(21)
where we have defined

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`R^2L^2\left(RL\right)^2,`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^2R^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_R^2L^22\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R\left(RL\right).`$ (22)
From this result, we can easily reconfirm that an interaction which has $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L0`$, that is, which violates both $`PQ`$ and lepton symmetries simultaneously, is indispensable for the final generation of a lepton asymmetry.

As a concrete example of such a violating interaction, we consider the following dimension five operator,

$$_{\mathit{}}=\frac{2}{v}llH_uH_u+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(23)
where $`v`$ is a scale characterizing the interaction and may be identified with the heavy Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino in the context of the see-saw mechanism. Note that the above interaction breaks both $`PQ`$ and lepton symmetries by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=2(R_l+R_{H_u})0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=2`$. The violating rate of this interaction is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.04T^3/v^2`$ sarkar . Then, the decoupling temperature is calculated as

$$T_D5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}\left(\frac{g_{}}{200}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{v}{10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}}\right)^2,$$
(24)
where $`g_{}`$ counts the effective degrees of freedom for relativistic particles.

A part of the produced lepton asymmetry is converted into baryon asymmetry through sphaleron effects KSHT , which is estimated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{120k(R_L+R_{H_u})}{23\pi ^2g_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{D}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{T_D}}`$ (25)
$``$ $`3\times 10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{3/2}}{3\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_D}{10^{12}\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^1,`$
where we have assumed that $`\dot{a}_R>0`$ and that $`PQ`$ charges are of order unity.

Finally we discuss the constraint on the reheating temperature due to the gravitino problem. For $`m_{3/2}=310`$ TeV, the reheating temperature is constrained as $`T_{RH}10^{12}`$ GeV, assuming that the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is $`O(100`$ GeV) gra . If we take this bound seriously, the decoupling temperature $`T_D`$ must be less than $`10^{12}`$ GeV so that the violating interaction is in thermal equilibrium. For $`m_{3/2}100`$ GeV, the reheating temperature must be smaller than $`T_{RH}10^9`$ GeV. However, these constraints on the reheating temperature are evaded by the introduction of a supersymmetric partner with a mass much lighter than $`100`$ GeV. One such particle is the axino, which naturally exists in our scenario. In fact, it was shown that the reheating temperature is constrained rather loosely as $`T_{RH}<10^{15}`$ GeV for $`m_{3/2}100`$ GeV, if the axino is the LSP and the gravitino is the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) asaka .

In summary, we have discussed a spontaneous baryogenesis mechanism with an interaction violating another global symmetry in addition to baryon (lepton) symmetry. We have shown that even if a scalar field derivatively couples not to baryon current but to another current associated with some global symmetry $`U(1)_Q`$, baryogenesis is still possible by virtue of such a violating interaction. As a concrete realization of our idea, we have discussed baryogenesis in the context of a flat direction with neither baryon nor lepton charge. First, we have shown that the phase of such a flat direction, strictly speaking, the NG boson associated with breaking of the symmetry, derivatively couples to the global current if it is charged under another global $`U(1)_Q`$ symmetry, such as the $`PQ`$ symmetry. The A-term gives this NG boson a nonzero velocity, which leads to the $`CPT`$ violation. By virtue of the interaction violating $`U(1)_Q`$ and baryon (lepton) symmetries simultaneously, $`CPT`$ violation is transmitted to the baryon (lepton) sector, which makes it possible to generate baryon (lepton) asymmetry for this flat direction. In the case of a lepton asymmetry production, a part of the lepton asymmetry is converted into the baryon asymmetry through sphaleron effects.

We are grateful to W. Kelly for useful comments and correcting the English. F.T. is grateful to S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki for useful discussions. We are partially supported by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, and M.Y. is partially supported by Department of Energy under Grant # DEFG0291ER40688.


format: text

text:
# Entropy Corrections for Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström Black Holes

## I Introduction

It is well-known that the specific heat of a Schwarzschild black hole is negative:

$$C=\frac{dM}{dT}=8\pi M^2<0.$$
(1)
Thus it is thermodynamically unstable, and corrections to thermodynamic quantities of this black hole, e.g. entropy and temperature, are not well-defined. This is seen when one considers for instance the corrected entropy of any thermodynamic system (including black holes) due to small thermal fluctuations of the system, which is given by :

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(<E^2><E>^2\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`S_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(CT^2\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
When relation (3) is applied to black holes, one substitutes $`S_0S_{BH}`$, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole, and calculates $`C`$ for the particular black hole under consideration. Note that in using (3) in the context of black holes, one is simply assuming that the black hole behaves as an ordinary thermodynamic system, following usual laws of thermodynamics. Then starting from a continuum partition function and performing an inverse Laplace transform gives the density of states, whose logarithm yields Eq.(3) above. In addition, if one assumes that the black hole (more precisely, its horizon) is built up of more fundamental entities, such as quanta of area, or that observables such as horizon area and mass are quantised in a certain way, then as shown in refs. and , there could be additional terms in (3).

It may also be noted that there could be other corrections to black hole entropy due to a variety of other sources. For instance, quantum fluctuations of matter fields in black hole backgrounds, as well as fluctuations of spacetime geometry itself in the canonical quantum gravity framework give rise to corrections which are also logarithmic in nature. Details of these calculations can be found in . Since our analysis is not tied to any specific model of quantum gravity, it remains valid as long as the black hole is large. On the other hand, the other corrections may become important as the size of the black hole approaches the Planck scale.

One sees that the formula breaks down for $`C<0`$. However, as was first shown by York , a positive specific heat solution can be obtained by considering Schwarzschild black holes within a finite $`S^2`$ cavity immersed in an isothermal bath. In fact for such canonical boundary conditions there are either two or no solutions depending on whether the temperature of the bath is above or below a minimum value. The larger mass of the solutions has a positive heat and the other has a negative specific heat. When one takes the cavity radius to infinity keeping the wall-temperature of the cavity fixed (i.e., not changing the temperature of the bath) the positive specific heat solution disappears and only the negative specific solution survives giving the known black hole solution. This holds for higher dimensions as well . In this article, we consider the positive specific heat solution and compute leading order corrections to its entropy. As we will see the logarithmic correction term due to small thermal fluctuation is of a different nature unlike in several other cases studied before . In this case, the mass and specific heat of the black hole are functions of the temperature and cavity radius, and the entropy correction is more interesting and non-trivial, as we will see below. The case of charged black hole, i.e., Reissner-Nordström black holes, within a cavity was first studied in  and we will find correction for their entropy as well for thermal fluctuation. See also  for related work on thermodynamics of Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström-AdS black holes. This paper is arranged in the following way. In the next section, we briefly review the thermodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes within a cavity and compute the entropy correction. In section (III), we extend our results to Reissner-Nordström black holes in arbitrary spacetime dimensions. Finally, we end with a summary of our results and some further directions in sections (IV). We use units in which $`G=c=\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$.

## II Schwarzschild Black Hole in a Box: Entropy corrections

Let us first consider a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`M`$. Wick rotating the Lorentzian time $`ti\tau `$ one obtains

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}\right)d\tau ^2`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,`$ (5)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric on unit $`S^2`$. The metric (5) is singular at $`r=2M`$. The singularity can be removed by periodically identifying $`\tau `$ with a period $`8\pi M`$. Hence the resulting metric is complete and regular for $`2Mr<\mathrm{}`$. The fixed point set of the Killing vector $`/\tau `$ is a regular bolt of the metric . The inverse of the periodicity of the $`\tau `$ coordinate gives the temperature of the hole measured at infinity.

### A Isothermal Cavity

Next, consider a spherical $`S^2`$ cavity of radius $`R`$ concentric with the black hole horizon. The black hole temperature measured at infinity is shifted by $`(g_{00})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, as one moves towards the black hole. The local temperature of the $`S^2`$ cavity is therefore given by

$$\beta =T^1=8\pi M\sqrt{1\frac{2M}{R}}.$$
(6)
Now we ask the reverse question. Given a spherical cavity for radius $`R`$ held at a temperature $`\beta ^1`$, what are the black hole solutions? In other words what are possible solutions for $`M`$? This was first considered by York  for four dimensions. Recently this has been discussed for higher dimensions in . For the purpose of exposition we deal with the case of four dimensions here and discuss generalisation to arbitrary dimensions in the next section. It is not difficult to see that there are in fact two black hole solutions or no solutions by considering Eq.(6) which can be written in the following form :

$$M^3\frac{1}{2}RM^2+\frac{R\beta ^2}{128\pi ^2}=0.$$
(7)
This is a cubic equation in $`M`$ and always admits a negative root and a pair of positive or complex roots depending on the coefficients. The coefficients are determined by the boundary variables $`R`$ and $`\beta `$. Defining new variables $`x2M/R`$ and $`\sigma =\beta /4\pi R`$, Eq.(7) can be cast in the following simple form:

$$x^3x^2+\sigma ^2=0.$$
(8)
When positive solutions exist, larger and smaller solutions of $`x`$ give larger and smaller hole respectively. Note that the positive roots take values from zero to one (see figure 1). It can be shown that two positive roots occurs if and only if

$$\sigma \frac{2}{\sqrt{27}}.$$
(9)
Thus one requires the temperature $`T`$ of the bath to be

$$T\frac{\sqrt{27}}{8\pi }\frac{1}{R}.$$
(10)
At the equality of (9) or (10) the two roots are degenerate. The larger solution therefore takes value within the closed interval $`[\frac{2}{3},1]`$. For completeness we mention here the explicit solutions of (8) here. The exact solutions are:

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)\right],`$ (11)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[1+2\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}\right)\right],`$ (12)
which translate in terms of black hole mass as:

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}\left[12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)\right],`$ (13)
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}\left[1+2\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}\right)\right],`$ (14)
where

$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha =1\frac{27}{2}\sigma ^2.$$
(15)
Evidently at the equality of (9), $`\alpha =\pi `$, the solutions coincide, and

$$x=\frac{2}{3}M=\frac{R}{3}.$$
(16)
By calculating the Euclidean action of the solution it was shown in  that the entropy of the black hole is unaffected by the presence of the box and is given by the usual relationship

$$S_{BH}=4\pi M^2.$$
(17)
The specific heat is defined as

$$C_R=T\left(\frac{S_{BH}}{T}\right)_R,$$
(18)
From (6) and (17), one obtains:

$$C=8\pi M^2\left(\frac{R2M}{3MR}\right)=4\pi R^2x^2\left(\frac{1x}{3x2}\right).$$
(19)
From its form it is apparent that the specific heat is positive in the range

$$\frac{2}{3}x12MR3M,$$
(20)
which is possible only for the larger hole ($`M_2`$ above). This can be also observed from Figure 1. For constant value of $`R`$, Figure 1 is a relation between (inverse of) temperature and the masses of the two Schwarzschild black holes. The mass of the larger solution increases with increasing temperature. For the smaller hole it is just the opposite. Also note that in the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit, the larger mass solutions do not exist meaningfully (it fills in the cavity) irrespective of the temperature. Only the smaller solution $`x_1`$ exists with $`M=\frac{\beta }{8\pi }`$ since $`x_1\frac{2M}{R}=\frac{\beta }{4\pi R}`$ in this limit.

### B Logarithmic Correction

Substituting (19) and (6) in (2), we obtain the leading corrections to the entropy of the larger black hole:

$`𝒮=S_{BH}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left((3x2)^1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )\mathrm{}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`S_{BH}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{BH}}{4\pi }}\right)^{1/2}2]^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{}`$ (22)
Note that the first correction term is negative. This is because, since $`x[2/3,1]`$, the argument of the logarithm is always greater than unity. Also, note that the corrections here is of a somewhat different type than those found in the different applications of (3). First, the correction depends on the value of $`x`$ which is a function of the product $`RT`$. When $`RT\frac{\sqrt{27}}{8\pi }`$ the correction is enormous irrespective of the value of $`R`$ alone (the horizon radius is $`\frac{2R}{3}`$). As one increases the temperature, keeping the radius of the cavity fixed, the infilling black hole becomes larger and fills in the whole cavity at infinite temperature. However, the correction term decreases with increasing temperature and still remains finite and non-zero approaching $`\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )`$ at the infinite temperature limit. For small cavity radius the correction term is therefore given by the first term and is always appreciable and overpowers $`S_{BH}`$ if the temperature is not high enough (signaling breakdown of formalism). For large cavity radius it is more appreciable at lower temperatures and becomes negligible, albeit non-zero, at high temperature. Again, if $`T`$ is near $`\frac{\sqrt{27}}{8\pi R}`$ it overpowers $`S_{BH}`$ even if the latter is large (again signaling a breakdown).

Another way to see the different nature of the correction terms is to note the coefficient of the correction term. The coefficient in front of either of the two terms (which can be combined together) is $`1/2`$, in contrast to BTZ of Schwarzschild anti-de Sitter black holes for example, where the coefficients are $`3/2`$ and $`d/2(d2)`$ respectively . However note that this $`1/2`$ is not in the same footing as the coefficients in those cases as the correction term here is not of the type $`k\mathrm{ln}(S_{BH})`$. Rather, if we are to write it in terms of $`S_{BH}`$ it takes the form given by the second equation of (22) which involves the cavity radius as well.

### C Higher Dimensions

Higher dimensional Schwarzschild black holes and their thermodynamics within a finite isothermal cavity have been studied in . For $`d`$-dimensions the inverse temperature at the $`(d2)`$-dimensional boundary is given by:

$$\beta =T^1=\frac{4\pi xR}{d3}\sqrt{1x^{d3}}\frac{4\pi R\sigma }{d3},$$
(23)
from which one obtains:

$$x^{d1}x^2+\sigma ^2=0.$$
(24)
This equation cannot be solved using ordinary algebraic methods. However, analytic solution is still possible . This would be needed if one requires the entropy correction as a function of cavity radius and temperature. However, as in the above case of four dimensions the general properties of the corrections to entropy can be studied without requiring the explicit solutions by studying how the correction term varies with $`x`$. (Again note that $`x`$ takes value within the interval $`[0,1]`$.) This will be done in the next section as a special case of $`d`$-dimensional Reissner-Nordström. As we will see there entropy corrections to $`d`$-dimensional Reissner-Nordström (and hence Schwarzschild) black holes can be exactly evaluated.

## III Reissner-Nordström Black Holes

We now extend the above analysis for the Reissner-Nordström black holes which have a charge. This means we would have to specify suitable electrostatic potential at the boundary. We first discuss the case of four dimensions.

### A Four dimensions

The Euclideanised Reissner-Nordström black hole metric is:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)d\tau ^2`$ (25)
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,`$ (26)
with inverse temperature at boundary :

$`\beta =T^1`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r_+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r_+^2}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{R}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r_+R}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Rx^{5/2}}{x^2\alpha ^2}}\sqrt{(1x)(x\alpha ^2)},`$ (28)
where $`r_+=M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$ is the radius of the outer horizon and

$$\alpha =\frac{Q}{R}.$$

The counterpart of Eq.(7) is:

$$(1\mathrm{\Phi }^2)x^3x^2+(1\mathrm{\Phi }^2)^2\sigma ^2=0,$$
(29)
where $`x`$ and $`\sigma `$ has identical definitions in terms of $`r_+`$ and $`\beta `$ as before. Here, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the potential difference between $`r_+`$ and $`R`$, suitably red-shifted:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r_+}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{R}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Rr_+}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`\alpha \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{x^2\alpha ^2x}}},`$ (31)
Now, the two positive solutions of $`x`$ are:

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\mathrm{\Phi }^2)}}\left(12\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}}\right)\right)`$ (32)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\mathrm{\Phi }^2)}}\left(1+2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}\right)`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{27}{2}}\sigma ^2(1\mathrm{\Phi })^4,`$ (34)
of which only the second one is thermodynamically stable. The entropy is, in this case:

$$S_{BH}=\pi r_+^2=\pi R^2x^2.$$
(35)
(where we have dropped the subscript $`2`$ from $`x_2`$). The specific heat at constant $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`R`$ can now be computed by using the relation:

$$C_{\mathrm{\Phi },R}=\left(\frac{E}{T}\right)_{\mathrm{\Phi },R}=\left(\frac{S/x}{\mathrm{ln}\sigma /x}\right)_{\mathrm{\Phi },R}$$
(36)
with $`\sigma `$ obtained from Eq.(29). This yields:

$$C_{\mathrm{\Phi },R}=\frac{4\pi R^2x^3(1x)}{3x^22x\alpha ^2},$$
(37)
where now the specific heat is non-negative in the range:

$$r_+R\frac{3}{2}r_+\frac{1}{2}\frac{Q^2}{r_+},$$
(38)
Equivalently:

$`x`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (39)
$`3x^22x\alpha ^2`$ $``$ $`0.`$ (40)
In the above range, the corrected entropy assumes the form:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`S_{BH}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2(3x^22x\alpha ^2)(x\alpha ^2)}{(x^2\alpha ^2)^2}}\right)^1`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{}`$ (42)
This can be expressed in terms of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as:

$`𝒮=S_{BH}`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{3S_{BH}}{\pi R^2}2\sqrt{\frac{S_{BH}}{\pi R^2}}\alpha ^2\right)\left(\sqrt{\frac{S_{BH}}{\pi R^2}}\alpha ^2\right)}{\left(\frac{\pi R^2}{S_{BH}}\right)\left(\frac{S_{BH}}{\pi R^2}\alpha ^2\right)^2}}\right)^1`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(4\pi )+\mathrm{}`$ (45)
As expected, the above reduces to Eq.(22) for $`\alpha =0`$.

### B Higher dimensions

For the $`d`$-dimensional Reissner-Nordström black hole the Euclidean metric is given by

$`ds`$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}=(1{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi M}{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}r^{d3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi Q^2}{(d2)(d3)r^{2(d3)}}})d\tau ^2`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi M}{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}r^{d3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi Q^2}{(d2)(d3)r^{2(d3)}}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (48)
$`+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2,`$
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}^2`$ is a unit $`S^{d2}`$ sphere with the standard round metric on it. The inverse temperature is given by:

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`T^1`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r_+}{d3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{(d2)(d3)r_+^{2(d3)}}})^1\times `$ (51)
$`\left(1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_+}{R}}\right)^{d3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{(d2)(d3)(r_+R)^{d3}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi Rx^{1+3(d3)/2}}{d3}}(x^{2(d3)}\alpha ^{2(d3)})^1\times `$ (53)
$`\left(1x^{d3}\right)^{1/2}\left(x^{d3}\alpha ^{2(d3)}\right)^{1/2},`$
where $`x=r_+/R`$ as before, and now $`\alpha `$ is defined as:

$$\left(\alpha R\right)^{2(d3)}=\frac{2Q^2}{(d2)(d3)}.$$

Similarly, the the potential difference is:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r_+^{d3}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1(r_+/R)^{d3}}{12Q^2/(d2)(d3)(r_+R)^{d3}}}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(d2)(d3)}}}\alpha ^{d3}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1x^{d3}}{x^{2(d3)}\alpha ^{2(d3)}x^{d3}}}}`$ (55)
and Eq.(29) is generalised to:

$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)(d3)}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)x^{d1}x^2`$ (56)
$`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)(d3)}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)^2\sigma ^2=0,`$ (57)
where $`\sigma `$ has been defined as in Eq.(23). Using (36), the specific heat at constant $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can now be computed as:

$$C_{\mathrm{\Phi },R}=\frac{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}x^{2d5}\left(1x^{d3}\right)}{(d1)x^{2(d3)}2x^{d3}(d3)\alpha ^{2(d3)}}.$$
(58)
Stability is now guaranteed if the parameters lie in a range such that:

$$(d1)x^{2(d3)}2x^{d3}(d3)\alpha ^{2(d3)}0.$$
(59)
Explicit evaluation of $`x(M,Q)`$ and $`R(M,Q)`$ from the above is complicated for higher dimensions though, because of the higher powers of $`x`$. Eq.(58), along with (53) now gives the corrected entropy as:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`S_{BH}`$ (60)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}[x^{d2}((d1)x^{2(d3)}2x^{d3}(d3)\alpha ^{2(d3)})`$ (62)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{x^{d3}\alpha ^{2(d3)}}{R^{d4}\left(x^{2(d3)}\alpha ^{2(d3)}\right)^2}}]^1`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{(4\pi )^2}}\right]+\mathrm{}`$ (63)
which can be expressed in terms of $`S_{BH}`$ as:

$`𝒮=S_{BH}`$ (64)
$``$ $`\mathrm{ln}[({\displaystyle \frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}}})\times `$ (68)
$`\{(d1)({\displaystyle \frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}}})^{2(d3)/(d2)}`$
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}}})^{(d3)/(d2)}(d3)\alpha ^{2(d3)}\}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\{(\frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}})^{(d3)/(d2)}\alpha ^{2(d3)}\}}{\{(\frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}})^{2(d3)/(d2)}\alpha ^{2(d3)}\}^2}}]^1`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{(4\pi )^2}}\right]+\mathrm{}`$ (69)
For zero-charge, that is for $`d`$-dimensional Schwarzschild black holes, the corresponding expression is:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`S_{BH}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(d1)(\frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}})^{(d3)/(d2)2}}{R^{d4}(\frac{4S_{BH}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}R^{d2}})^{(d4)/(d2)}}}\right]^1`$ (70)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(d2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{d2}}{(4\pi )^2}}\right]+\mathrm{}`$ (71)
In each case, the entropy correction is different in nature than in previously studied examples.

## IV Discussions

In this article, we have shown how leading order corrections due to thermal fluctuations can be obtained for Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström black holes within a finite cavity. With appropriate boundary data, within a cavity thermodynamically stable solutions are possible. Normally, such corrections cannot be computed for Schwarzschild owing to its negative specific heat. For Reissner-Nordström black holes, corrections of this type were computed in  for a very small range of parameters near extremality, and that too in a perturbative approach (with perturbation parameter $`Q/M`$). Here, the result is non-perturbative, and holds for any parameter range. Finally, we generalised the stability analysis to higher dimensional Reissner-Nordström black holes, and computed its leading order entropy corrections. We found that the leading logarithmic corrections come with a negative signature. This means that the corrected dimensionality of the Hilbert space of the black holes under consideration, which is $`𝒩=\mathrm{exp}(𝒮)`$, is smaller than the uncorrected dimension. It would be interesting to explore implications of this result. It would also be interesting to do the generalisation to other types of black holes, e.g. Kerr-Newmann as well as black holes which are not asymptotically flat, e.g. those that are asymptotically anti-de Sitter or de-Sitter. The implications of the latter to $`AdS/CFT`$ and the $`dS/CFT`$ correspondence may turn out to be interesting. We hope to report on this elsewhere.

Acknowledgements SD thanks R. K. Bhaduri and P. Majumdar for useful correspondence and interesting discussions. This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. MMA would like to thank the Overseas Research Scheme, the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and DAMTP for financial support.