This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# 1st Reading

**March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619
**

International Journal of Modern Physics A 1

Vol. 22, No. 00 (2007) 1–24

c World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company 3

ON (2 + 2)-DIMENSIONAL SPACE TIMES,

STRINGS AND BLACK HOLES 5

C. CASTRO

Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, 7

Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA 30314, USA

castro@ctsps.cau.edu 9

J. A. NIETO

Facultad de Ciencias F´ısico-Matem´ aticas de la Universidad Aut´ onoma de Sinaloa, 11

80010, Culiac´ an Sinaloa, M´exico

nieto@uas.uasnet.mx 13

Received 9 November 2006

Revised 5 January 2007 15

We study black hole-like solutions (space–times with singularities) of Einstein ﬁeld equa-

tions in 3 + 1 and 2 + 2 dimensions. We ﬁnd three diﬀerent cases associated with 17

hyperbolic homogeneous spaces. In particular, the hyperbolic version of Schwarzschild’s

solution contains a conical singularity at r = 0 resulting from pinching to zero size r = 0 19

the throat of the hyperboloid H

2

and which is quite diﬀerent from the static spherically

symmetric (3 + 1)-dimensional solution. Static circular symmetric solutions for metrics 21

in 2+2 are found that are singular at ρ = 0 and whose asymptotic ρ →∞limit leads to

a ﬂat (1 +2)-dimensional boundary of topology S

1

×R

2

. Finally we discuss the (1 +1)- 23

dimensional Bars–Witten stringy black hole solution and show how it can be embedded

into our (3+1)-dimensional solutions. Black holes in a (2+2)-dimensional “space–time” 25

from the perspective of complex gravity in 1 + 1 complex dimensions and their quater-

nionic and octonionic gravity extensions deserve furher investigation. An appendix is 27

included with the most general Schwarzschild-like solutions in D ≥ 4.

Keywords: Strings; black holes; 2 + 2 dimensions; general relativity. 29

PACS numbers: 04.60.-m, 04.65.+e, 11.15.-q, 11.30.Ly

1. Introduction 31

Through the years it has become evident that the 2 + 2 signature is not only

mathematically interesting

1,2

(see also Refs. 3–5) but also physically. In fact, the 33

2 +2-signature emerges in several physical context, including self-dual gravity a la

Plebanski (see Ref. 6 and references therein), consistent N = 2 superstring theory 35

as discussed by Ooguri and Vafa,

7,8

N = (2, 1) heterotic string.

9–12

Moreover, it has

been emphasized

13,14

that Majorana–Weyl spinor exists in space–time of 2+2 signa- 37

ture. Even cosmologically there is a wisdom

15

that the 2+2 signature is interesting.

1

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

2 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

In Refs. 23–26 it was shown how a N = 2 supersymmetric Wess–Zumino– 1

Novikov–Witten model valued in the area-preserving (super)diﬀeomorphisms group

is self-dual supergravity in 2 +2 and 3 +1 dimensions depending on the signatures 3

of the base manifold and target space. The interplay among W

∞

gravity, N = 2

strings, self-dual membranes, SU(∞) Toda lattices and SU

∗

(∞) Yang–Mills instan- 5

tons in 2 + 2 dimensions can be found also in Refs. 23–26.

More recently, using the requirement of the SL(2, R) and Lorentz symmetries it 7

has been proved

16

that 2+2 target space–time of a 0-brane is an exceptional signa-

ture. Moreover, following an alternative idea to the notion of worldsheets for world- 9

sheets proposed by Green

17

or the 0-branes condensation suggested by Townsend

18

it was also proved in Ref. 16 that special kind of 0-brane called quatl

19,20

leads 11

to the result that the 2 + 2-target space–time can be understood either as 2 + 2-

worldvolume space–time or as 1 + 1 matrix-brane. 13

Another recent motivation for a physical interest in the 2 + 2 signature has

emerged via Duﬀ’s

21

discovery of hidden symmetries of the Nambu–Goto action. In 15

fact, this author was able to rewrite the Nambu–Goto action in a 2+2 target space–

time in terms of a hyperdeterminant, reveling apparently new hidden symmetries 17

of such an action. More recently the Duﬀ’s observation has been linked with the

matrix-brane idea.

22

19

Considering seriously the possibility that the (2 +2)-dimensional “space–time”

is an exceptional signature one may wonder what is the connection between 21

(2 + 2)-dimensional “space–time” and other exceptional structures in physics such

as black-holes. In this respect it becomes convenient to discuss black-holes physics 23

from modern perspective. In particular, it become convenient to clarify the many

subtleties behind the introduction of a true point-mass source at r = 0

39

and the 25

admissible family of radial functions R(r) in the static spherically symmetric solu-

tions of Einstein ﬁeld equations

29–38

(see also Refs. 42–45). 27

We begin by writing down the class of static spherically symmetric (SSS) vacuum

solutions of Einstein’s equations

46

studied by Refs. 29–32, 52–58, 42–45 and 72,

among many others, given by a inﬁnite family of solutions parametrized by a family

of admissible radial functions R(r) (in c = 1 units)

(ds)

2

=

1 −

2G

N

M

o

R

(dt)

2

−

1 −

2G

N

M

o

R

−1

(dR)

2

−R

2

(r)(dΩ)

2

, (1.1)

where the solid angle inﬁnitesimal element is

(dΩ)

2

= (dφ)

2

+ sin

2

(φ)(dθ)

2

. (1.2)

This expression of the metric in terms of the radial function R(r) (a radial gauge)

does not violate Birkoﬀ’s theorem since the metric (1.1), (1.2) expressed in terms 29

of the radial function R(r) has exactly the same functional form as that required

by Birkoﬀ’s theorem and 0 ≤ r ≤ ∞. Metrics of the form (1.1) were employed 31

by Ref. 94 based on the nonperturbative renormalization group ﬂow and running

Newtonian coupling G = G(r) in quantum Einstein gravity.

90–93

33

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 3

There are two interesting cases to study based on the boundary conditions 1

obeyed by R(r): (i) the Hilbert textbook (black hole) solution

49–51

based on the

choice R(r) = r obeying R(r = 0) = 0, R(r → ∞) → r. And (ii) the controversial 3

(erroneous) Abrams–Schwarzschild radial gauge based on choosing the cutoﬀ R(r =

0) = 2G

N

M such that g

tt

(r = 0) = 0 which apparently seems to “eliminate” the 5

horizon and R(r → ∞) → r. This was the original solution of 1916 found by

Schwarzschild. However, the choice R(r = 0) = 2GM has a serious ﬂaw and is: how 7

is it possible for a point-mass at r = 0 to have a nonzero area 4π(2G

N

M)

2

and a

zero volume simultaneously? so it seems that one is forced to choose the Hilbert 9

gauge R(r = 0) = 0 and retain only those metrics that are diﬀeomorphic to the

Hilbert textbook black hole solution only. 11

Nevertheless there is a very speciﬁc radial function (never studied before to our

knowledge) R(r) = r+2G

N

MΘ(r)

36

that yields a metric which is not diﬀeomorphic 13

to the Hilbert textbook solution based on the Heaviside step function

a

which is

deﬁned Θ(r) = 1 when r > 0, Θ(r) = −1 when r < 0 and Θ(r = 0) = 0 (the 15

arithmetic mean of the values at r > 0 and r < 0). The Heaviside step function

behavior at r = 0 given by Θ(r = 0) = 0 will ensure us that now we can satisfy 17

the required condition R(r = 0) = r = 0, consistent with our intuitive notion that

the spatial area and spatial volume of a point r = 0 has to be zero. Since r = 19

±

x

2

+y

2

+z

2

, a negative r branch is mathematically possible and is compatible

with the double covering inherent in the Fronsdal–Kruskal–Szekeres

60–62

analytical 21

continuation in terms of the u, v coordinates. Each point of space–time inside

r < 2G

N

M is represented twice (black hole and white hole picture). However there 23

is a fundamental diﬀerence (besides others) with the Fronsdal–Kruskal–Szekeres

extension into the interior of r = 2GM, their metric description is no longer static 25

in r < 2GM, whereas in our case the metric is static for all values of r.

Thus the scalar curvature associated to the point mass delta function source 27

−2G

N

Mδ(r)/R

2

(dR/dr)

39

does not always remain invariant of the radial gauge

chosen. In the very special case chosen by Schwarzschild in 1916 given by R

3

= 29

r

3

+(2G

N

M)

3

the scalar curvature and measure remains the same as in the Hilbert

textbook choice R(r) = r due to the relation R

2

dR = r

2

dr. But this was a his- 31

torical ﬂuke. An unfortunate accident which has impeded the progress for 90 years

because many were misled into thinking that any radial gauge choice was always 33

equivalent to a naive radial reparametrization r →r

**of the Hilbert metric. It is not
**

because having a family of nondiﬀeormorphic metrics, parametrized by a family of 35

inequivalent radial gauges belonging to diﬀerent gauge orbits, is not the same thing

as having a family of naive radial changes of coodinates r →r

associated to a ﬁxed 37

and given ﬁduciary metric.

The reason why there are metrics which are not diﬀeomorphic to the Hilbert 39

textbook solution is due to the fact that there are orbits obtained by exponentiation

a

We thank Michael Ibison for pointing out the importance of the Heaviside step function and the

use of the modulus |r| to account for point mass sources at r = 0.

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

4 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

of generators of diﬀeomorphisms that yield diﬀeomorphisms which are not connected 1

to the identity and which still may act trivially at inﬁnity (Marsden theorem). The

identity element of the diﬀs group is in our case related to the Hilbert textbook 3

trivial radial gauge-function R(r) = r. Consequently, there are radial gauges which

are not obtained by a naive radial reparametrization r →r

**of the Hilbert textbook 5
**

metric and correspond to metrics which are not physically equivalent to it. More-

over, Donaldson showed that in D = 4 one has an inﬁnite number of inequivalent 7

diﬀerential structures, i.e. manifolds that are homeomorphic (topologically equiva-

lent) but are not diﬀeomorphic. The presence of matter (singularity) at r = 0 and 9

the diﬀerent choices of inequivalent radial gauges should single out the particular

diﬀerential structure in D = 4. 11

There is an essential technical subtlety required in order to generate δ(r) terms

in the right-hand side of Einstein’s equations. One must replace everywhere r →|r| 13

as required when point-mass sources are inserted. A rigorous mathematical treat-

ment of Colombeau’s theory of nonlinear distributions can be found in Refs. 63–66. 15

The Newtonian gravitational potential due to a point-mass source at r = 0 is given

by −G

N

M/|r| and is consistent with Poisson’s law which states that the Laplacian 17

of the Newtonian potential −GM/|r| is 4πGρ where ρ = (M/4πr

2

)δ(r) in Newto-

nian gravity. However, the Laplacian in spherical coordinates of (1/r) is zero. For 19

this reason, there is a fundamental diﬀerence in dealing with expressions involving

absolute values |r| like 1/|r| from those which depend on r like 1/r.

59

Therefore 21

the radial gauge must be chosen by R(|r|) = |r| + 2G

N

MΘ(|r|). Had one not use

|r| in the expression for the metric, one will not generate the desired δ(r) terms in 23

the right-hand side of Einstein’s equations R

µν

−

1

2

g

µν

R = −8πG

N

T

µν

= 0, and

one would get an expression identically equal to zero (consistent with the vacuum 25

solutions in the absence of matter) instead of the δ(r) terms.

39

To sum up, by using R(|r|) = |r| + 2G

N

MΘ(|r|), we safely have that R(|r|) = 27

|r| + 2G

N

M, when r > 0 and the horizon can the be displaced from r = 2G

N

M

to a location as arbitrarily close to r = 0 as desired r

Horizon

→ 0. To be more 29

precise, the horizon actually never forms since at r = 0 one hits the singularity.

Also, R ∼ r for r 2G

N

M and one recovers the correct Newtonian limit in the 31

asymptotic regime. It is now, via the Heaviside step function, that we may maintain

the correct behavior R(|r|) = |r|, when r = 0, and such that we can satisfy the 33

required condition R(r = 0) = r = 0, consistent with our intuitive notion that

the spatial area and spatial volume of a point r = 0 has to be zero. The metric 35

is smooth and diﬀerentiable for all r > 0 and one will have R

µν

= R = 0 (in the

region r > 0 empty of matter and radiation). The metric is discontinuous only at 37

the location of the point mass singularity r = 0 whose worldline which may be

thought of as the boundary of space–time. The scalar curvature is inﬁnite at r = 0 39

due to the delta function point mass source at r = 0, it jumps from zero to inﬁnity

at r = 0. 41

And most importantly, a radial reparametrization r → r

(r) leaves invariant

the scalar curvature and the measures associated with a given choice of the radial

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 5

function R

1

(r):

4πR

2

1

(r)dR

1

(r)dt = 4πR

2

1

(r

)dR

1

(r

)dt , (1.3a)

R

1

(r) = −

2G

N

M

R

2

1

(r)(dR

1

/dr)

δ(r) = R

1

(r

)

= −

2G

N

M

R

2

1

(r

)(dR

1

(r

)/dr

)

δ(r

) . (1.4a)

Choosing a diﬀerent radial function R

2

(r) gives under a radial reparametrization

r →r

(r):

4πR

2

2

(r)dR

2

(r)dt = 4πR

2

2

(r

)dR

2

(r

)dt , (1.3b)

R

2

(r) = −

2G

N

M

R

2

2

(r)(dR

2

/dr)

δ(r) = R

2

(r

)

= −

2G

N

M

R

2

2

(r

)(dR

2

(r

)/dr

)

δ(r

) . (1.4b)

1

In the same manner that one must not confuse active and passive diﬀeomor-

phisms we have

R(r) = r

(r) ⇒R(r) = −

2G

N

M

R

2

(dR/dr)

δ(r) = −

2G

N

M

R

2

(r)

δ(R(r))

= −

2G

N

M

r

2

(r)(dr

/dr)

δ(r) = −

2G

N

M

r

2

(r)

δ(r

(r)) . (1.5)

Because the scalar curvature is an explicit function of the radial function R(r)

given by this expression: −2GMδ(r)/R

2

(r)(dR/dr) = −2GMδ(R(r))/R

2

(r) we 3

can see that the scalar curvature does not remain invariant of the inﬁnite number

of possible choices of the radial functions R(r), except in the anomalous case when 5

R

3

= r

3

+(2GM)

3

(the radial gauge chosen by Schwarzschild in 1916) that leads to

−2GMδ(r)/r

2

, and which accidentally happens to agree with the scalar curvature 7

in the Hilbert gauge R(r) = r.

What remains invariant of the choices R(r) is the action

S = −

1

16πG

N

−

2G

N

M

o

R

2

(dR/dr)

δ(r)

(4πR

2

dRdt)

= −

1

16πG

N

−

2G

N

M

o

r

2

δ(r)

(4πr

2

dr dt) . (1.6)

The Euclideanized Einstein–Hilbert action associated with the scalar curvature

delta function is obtained after a compactiﬁcation of the temporal direction along a

circle S

1

giving an Euclidean time coordinate interval of 2πt

E

and which is deﬁned

in terms of the Hawking temperature T

H

and Boltzman constant k

B

as 2πt

E

=

(1/k

B

T

H

) = 8πG

N

M

o

.

S

E

=

4π(G

N

M

o

)

2

L

2

Planck

=

4π(2G

N

M

o

)

2

4L

2

Planck

=

Area

4L

2

Planck

. (1.7)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

6 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

It is interesting that the Euclidean action S

E

(in units) is precisely the same as 1

the black hole entropy S in Planck area units. This result holds in any dimensions

D ≥ 3. This is not a numerical coincidence. Furthermore, the action is invariant of 3

the choices of R(r), whether or not it is the Hilbert textbook choice R(r) = r or

another. The choice of the radial function R(r) amounts to a radial gauge that leaves 5

the action invariant but it does not leave the scalar curvature, nor the measure of

integration, invariant. Only the action (integral of the scalar curvature) remains 7

invariant.

The action–entropy connection has been obtained from a diﬀerent argument, 9

for example, by Padmanabhan

40

by showing how it is the surface term added to

the action which is related to the entropy, interpreting the horizon as a boundary 11

of space–time. The surface term is given in terms of the trace of the extrinsic cur-

vature of the boundary. The surface term in the action is directly related to the 13

observer-dependent-horizon entropy, such that its variation, when the horizon is

moved inﬁnitesimally, is equivalent to the change of entropy dS due to the vir- 15

tual work. The variational principle is equivalent to the thermodynamic identity

TdS = dE + p dV due to the variation of the matter terms in the right-hand side. 17

A bulk and boundary stress energy tensors are required to capture the Hawking

thermal radiation ﬂux seen by an asymptotic observer at inﬁnity as the black hole 19

evaporates.

With these modern developments at hand one may proceed to ﬁnd “black-hole” 21

type solutions of the Einstein ﬁeld equations for a (2 + 2)-dimensional “space–

time.” In Sec. 2 we present static hyperbolic solutions in a (2 + 2)-dimensional 23

“space–time” and describe its diﬀerences with the corresponding solution in 3 + 1

dimensions. In Secs. 3 and 4, we present the straightforward computations of the 25

static circular symmetric solutions of Einstein ﬁeld equations in 2 + 2 dimensions.

Finally, in Sec. 5 we show how the 1 + 1 Bars–Witten stringy black-hole solution 27

can be embedded into the (3 +1)-dimensional solution of the appendix and discuss

the “stringy” nature behind a point-mass. Black holes in a (2 + 2)-dimensional 29

“space–time” from the perspective of complex gravity in 1 +1 complex dimensions

and its quaternionic and octonionic gravity extensions deserve furher investigation. 31

In the appendix we construct Schwarzschild-like solutions in dimensions D ≥ 4.

2. Static Hyperbolic Symmetric Solution in 2 + 2 Dimensions 33

Consider the vacuum static spherically symmetric solutions of Einstein ﬁeld equa-

tions in a space–time of (3 + 1)-signature

R

µν

= 0 (2.1)

of the form

ds

2

= −e

µ(r)

(dt

1

)

2

+e

α(r)

dr

2

+R

2

(r)dΩ

2

, (2.2)

where

dΩ

2

= dφ

2

+ sin

2

φdθ

2

. (2.3)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 7

The solutions are

ds

2

= −

1 −

α

R

(dt

1

)

2

+

(dR/dr)

2

(1 −α/R)

dr

2

+R

2

(r)dΩ

2

, (2.4)

where α is a parameter that has mass dimensions. Several remarks are now in order

pertaining whether or not a Wick rotation of the metric (2.4) furnishes solutions

to the vacuum ﬁeld equations for the signature 2 +2. A naive Wick rotation of the

angle coordinate φ →iφ = χ in the above solutions (2.4) yields

sin

2

(φ) →sin

2

(iφ) = −sinh

2

(χ) , dφ

2

→−dχ

2

, (2.5)

and due to the two sign changes in (2.5) one would have a 1 + 3 signature instead 1

of a split 2 + 2 signature.

A Wick rotation of θ → iθ = χ, (dθ)

2

→ −(dχ)

2

yields a 2 + 2 signature but

since the range of the only remaining angle φ is [0, π], instead of [0, 2π], and one

will no longer cover the space completely. Furthermore, since there is a signature

change (a sign change in one of the metric components g

θθ

) the connection and

curvature expressions will be modiﬁed accordingly and there is no reason now why

the vacuum ﬁeld equations should be satisﬁed. In the next section we will ﬁnd

explicit solutions in the static circular symmetric case:

ds

2

= −e

˜ µ(R(ρ))

(dt

1

)

2

−e

˜ ν(R(ρ))

(dt

2

)

2

+e

˜ α(R(ρ))

(dR(ρ))

2

+ (R(ρ))

2

dθ

2

,

where the rho function R(ρ) is now a function of ρ, the radius of a circle ρ

2

= x

2

+y

2

. 3

In order to construct solutions with topology H

3

× R where H

3

is a three-

dimensional pseudosphere (a hyperboloid) of radius R parametrized by the coordi-

nates ψ, θ, χ as

x = Rcoshχcos θ , y = Rcoshχsinθ ,

t

1

= Rsinh χcos ψ , t

2

= Rsinh χsinψ ,

(2.6)

where −∞ ≤ χ ≤ ∞ and 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π; 0 ≤ ψ ≤ 2π such that the ﬂat space–time

metric in 2 + 2 dimensions is

ds

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+ (dx)

2

+ (dy)

2

= (dR)

2

+R

2

[cosh

2

χ(dθ)

2

−sinh

2

χ(dψ)

2

−(dχ)

2

] . (2.7a)

From Eq. (2.6) we infer that the three-dimensional pseudosphere H

3

is repre-

sented analytically by

−(t

1

)

2

−(t

2

)

2

+x

2

+y

2

= R

2

. (2.7b)

The curved space–time metric we are interested involve the two functions Σ =

Σ(R) and

˜

f =

˜

f(Σ(R)) = f(R) such that

ds

2

= e

˜

f(Σ)

(dΣ)

2

+ Σ

2

[cosh

2

χ(dθ)

2

−sinh

2

χ(dψ)

2

−(dχ)

2

]

= e

f(R)

dΣ

dR

2

(dR)

2

+ Σ

2

(R)[cosh

2

χ(dθ)

2

−sinh

2

χ(dψ)

2

−(dχ)

2

]

= e

µ(R)

(dR)

2

+ Σ

2

(R)[cosh

2

χ(dθ)

2

−sinh

2

χ(dψ)

2

−(dχ)

2

] , (2.8)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

8 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

where we have deﬁned e

µ(R)

≡ e

f(R)

(dΣ/dR)

2

. The ﬂat space–time metric (2.7) is 1

recovered from (2.8) in the limit R →∞ such that µ(R) →0 and Σ(R) ∼ R.

Another interesting parametrization r ≥ 0, and −∞≤ ξ ≤ ∞; 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π is

t

2

= r sinhξ , x = r coshξ cos θ , y = r coshξ sin θ , (2.9)

where r is the throat size of the two-dimensional hyperboloid H

2

deﬁned in terms

of t

2

, x, y as

−(t

2

)

2

+x

2

+y

2

= r

2

(2.10)

and the ﬂat space–time metric −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+ (dx)

2

+ (dy)

2

can be recast as

ds

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

+ (dr)

2

+r

2

[cosh

2

ξ(dθ)

2

−(dξ)

2

] . (2.11)

Notice that we have a 2+2 signature in Eq. (2.11), as one should, and that there is 3

a diﬀerence between the forms of the metric in Eqs. (2.7) and (2.11). The topology

corresponding to Eq. (2.7) is H

3

×R

∗

where H

3

is a three-dimensional hyperboloid 5

(a three-dimensional pseudosphere); whereas, instead, the topology corresponding

to Eq. (2.11) is R×R

∗

×H

2

. 7

R

∗

is the half-interval [0, ∞] representing the values of the radial coordinates.

In Eq. (2.7) the three-dimensional hyperboloid (pseudosphere) of ﬁxed radius R 9

is spanned by the three coordinates θ, ψ, χ as indicated by Eq. (2.6). Whereas

in Eq. (2.11), one temporal variable t

1

is characterized by the real line R and 11

whose values range from −∞, +∞, and the other temporal variable t

2

is one of the

three coordinates (t

2

, x, y) which parametrized the two-dimensional hyperboloid H

2

13

described by Eq. (2.10).

A curved space–time version of Eq. (2.11) is

ds

2

= −e

µ(r)

(dt

1

)

2

+e

ν(r)

(dr)

2

+ (R(r))

2

[cosh

2

ξ(dθ)

2

−(dξ)

2

] . (2.12a)

The metric in Eq. (2.12a) whose signature is 2 + 2 is the hyperbolic version of 15

the Schwarzschild metric. One can replace r → R(r) since Einstein’s equations do

not determine the form of the radial function R(r) as explained in the appendix. 17

The global topology of the solutions depends on the choices of R(r). We still must

determine what are the functional forms of µ(r) and ν(r). In order to go from 19

the solid angle (dΩ)

2

= sin

2

(φ)(dθ)

2

+ (dφ)

2

to cosh

2

ξ(dθ)

2

− (dξ)

2

one must ﬁrst

perform the change of coordinates φ → π/2 + φ such that sin

2

φ → cos

2

(φ) and 21

then Wick rotate φ →φ = iξ so that cos

2

(φ) →cosh

2

ξ and (dφ)

2

= −(dξ)

2

.

In the appendix we ﬁnd the solutions to Einstein’s vacuum ﬁeld equations in D

dimensions for metrics whose signature is (D − 2) + 2 (two times) associated with

a (D − 2)-dimensional homogeneous space of constant positive (negative) scalar

curvature. In particular when D = 4 and the two-dimensional homogeneous space

H

2

has a constant positive scalar curvature, like two-dimensional de Sitter space,

the metric components, in natural units G = = c = 1, are given by

g

t1t1

= −

1 −

βM

R(r)

, g

rr

=

(dR/dr)

2

(1 −βM/R(r))

, β = const (2.12b)

23

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 9

which are almost identical to the components appearing in the Schwarzchild solu- 1

tions for signature 3 + 1. The two-dimensional hyperboloid deﬁned by Eq. (2.10)

coincides with a two-dimensional de Sitter space of constant positive scalar curva- 3

ture. Anti-de Sitter space has a constant negative scalar curvature.

There is a physical singularity at r = 0, the location of the point mass source,

when the hyperboloid H

2

degenerates to a cone since the throat size r has been

pinched to zero. When the radial function is chosen to be R

3

= r

3

+(βM)

3

⇒R(r =

0) = βM then g

rr

(r = 0) = ∞ and g

t1t1

(r = 0) = 0. The proper circumference for

this choice R

3

= r

3

+ (βM)

3

is

C(r, ξ) = 2πR(r) cosh ξ

⇒C(r = 0, ξ) = 2πβM coshξ . (2.13)

The proper area for a given value of r is

A(r) = 2πR

2

(r)

+∞

−∞

coshξ dξ = 2πR

2

(r)2 sinh ξ →∞ (2.14)

and diverges as ξ → ∞ because the two-dimensional hyperboloid is not compact. 5

If one chooses R(r) = r, then R(r = 0) = 0, so the proper circumference is zero

(for ﬁnite ξ) and the proper area corresponding to r = 0 is 0 ×∞= ∞ since sinh ξ 7

approaches inﬁnity faster than r

2

approaches zero.

Another parametrization is

t

2

= r coshξ , x = r sinh ξ cos θ , y = r sinh ξ sinθ , (2.15)

where the thoat size r is deﬁned in terms of t

2

, x, y as

−(t

2

)

2

+x

2

+y

2

= −r

2

(2.16)

which can be obtained from Eq. (2.10) by r

2

→ −r

2

. Equation (2.16) represents

analytically the two disconnected branches of a two-dimensional hyperboloid:

ds

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+ (dx)

2

+ (dy)

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dr)

2

+r

2

[sinh

2

ξ(dθ)

2

+ (dξ)

2

] . (2.17)

Notice the sign change −dr

2

in Eq. (2.15) as one must have if one persists in having 9

a 2 + 2 signature. In this case the coordinate r must be interpreted as a “radial

time.” 11

The curved space–time version of (2.17) would be

ds

2

= −e

α(r)

(dt

1

)

2

−e

β(r)

(dr)

2

+ (R(r))

2

[sinh

2

ξ(dθ)

2

+ (dξ)

2

] , (2.18)

where α(r) and β(r) are two functions to be determined by solving Einstein’s equa-

tions. The functional form of α(r), β(r) differs from the functions µ(r), ν(r) in 13

Eqs. (2.12a) and (2.12b) due to a crucial sign change in the g

rr

component of the

metric in Eq. (2.18). 15

Concluding, we have 3 interesting cases described by the metrics of 2 +2 signa-

ture given by Eqs. (2.8), (2.12) and (2.18). The 2 +2 hyperbolic-symmetric version 17

of Schwarzschild’s 3 + 1 solution is given by Eqs. (2.12a) and (2.12b).

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

10 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

3. Static Circular Symmetric Solution in 2 + 2 Dimensions 1

Let us look for a solution of the ﬁeld equations of the form

ds

2

= −e

˜ µ(R)

(dt

1

)

2

−e

˜ ν(R)

(dt

2

)

2

+e

˜ α(R)

dR

2

+R

2

dθ

2

= −e

µ(ρ)

(dt

1

)

2

−e

ν(ρ)

(dt

2

)

2

+e

α(ρ)

dρ

2

+R

2

(ρ)dθ

2

, (3.1a)

where

˜ µ(R(ρ)) = µ(ρ) , ˜ ν(R(ρ)) = ν(ρ) , e

˜ α(R(ρ))

dR

dρ

2

= e

α(ρ)

. (3.1b)

The only nonvanishing Christoﬀel symbols are

Γ

1

31

=

1

2

µ

, Γ

2

32

=

1

2

ν

, Γ

4

34

=

R

R

, Γ

3

11

=

1

2

µ

e

µ−α

,

Γ

3

22

=

1

2

ν

e

ν−α

, Γ

3

44

= −e

−α

RR

, Γ

3

33

=

1

2

α

,

(3.2)

and the only nonvanishing Riemann tensor are

R

1

212

=

1

4

µ

ν

e

ν−α

, R

1

414

= −

1

2

µ

e

−α

RR

,

R

2

121

=

1

4

µ

ν

e

µ−α

, R

2

424

= −

1

2

ν

e

−α

RR

,

R

4

141

=

1

2

µ

e

µ−α

R

R

, R

4

242

=

1

2

ν

e

ν−α

R

R

,

R

1

313

= −

1

2

µ

−

1

4

µ

2

+

1

4

α

µ

, R

2

323

= −

1

2

ν

−

1

4

ν

2

+

1

4

α

ν

,

R

4

343

= −

R

R

+

1

2

α

R

R

, R

3

131

= e

µ−α

1

2

µ

+

1

4

µ

2

−

1

4

α

µ

,

R

3

232

= e

ν−α

1

2

ν

+

1

4

ν

2

−

1

4

α

ν

, R

3

434

= e

−α

R

1

2

α

R

−R

.

(3.3)

The ﬁeld equations are

R

11

= e

µ−α

1

2

µ

+

1

4

µ

2

+

1

4

µ

ν

−

1

4

α

µ

+

1

2

µ

R

R

= 0 , (3.4)

R

22

= e

ν−α

1

2

ν

+

1

4

ν

2

+

1

4

µ

ν

−

1

4

α

ν

+

1

2

ν

R

R

= 0 , (3.5)

R

33

= −

1

2

µ

−

1

4

µ

2

+

1

4

µ

α

−

1

2

ν

−

1

4

ν

2

+

1

4

α

ν

+

1

2

α

R

R

−

R

R

= 0 , (3.6)

and

R

44

= e

−α

R

−

1

2

µ

R

−

1

2

ν

R

+

1

2

α

R

−R

= 0 . (3.7)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 11

From (3.7) we get

α

= µ

+ν

+

2R

R

. (3.8)

Substituting (3.8) into (3.4) and (3.5) we obtain

µ

µ

=

R

R

−

R

R

(3.9)

and

ν

ν

=

R

R

−

R

R

, (3.10)

respectively. Equations (3.9) and (3.10) can be integrated to give

µ

= a

R

R

(3.11)

and

ν

= b

R

R

, (3.12)

respectively, where a and b are constants. Substituting (3.11) and (3.12) into (3.8)

leads to

α

= a

R

R

+b

R

R

+

2R

R

. (3.13)

The expressions (3.11)–(3.13) can be solved. We get

µ = a ln R/c , (3.14)

ν = b ln R/d (3.15)

and

α = a ln R/c +b ln R/d + 2 lnR

+f , (3.16)

where c, d and f are arbitrary constants. If we substitute (3.14)–(3.16) into (3.6)

we ﬁnd

−

1

2

a

R

R

−

R

2

R

2

−

1

4

a

2

R

2

R

2

+

1

4

a

R

R

a

R

R

+b

R

R

+

2R

R

−

1

2

b

R

R

−

R

2

R

2

−

1

4

b

2

R

2

R

2

+

1

4

b

R

R

a

R

R

+ b

R

R

+

2R

R

+

1

2

a

R

R

+b

R

R

+

2R

R

R

R

−

R

R

= 0 . (3.17)

This can be reduced to

a +

1

2

ab +b

R

2

R

2

= 0 . (3.18)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

12 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

Excluding the solutions

R = const (3.19)

Eq. (3.18) gives

a +

1

2

ab +b = 0 . (3.20)

Therefore we have shown why the form of R = R(ρ) can be completely arbitrary

while one must have the following constraint among the constants:

b = −

2a

(a + 2)

, (3.21)

where we assumed that a + 2 = 0. 1

A trivial solution of Eq. (3.20) is a = b = 0 which leads to µ = ν = 0 and

α = 2 ln(dR/dρ), when f = 0, yielding the metric

ds

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+dR(ρ)

2

+R

2

(ρ)dθ

2

, (3.22)

the ﬂat space–time metric is attained when R(ρ) = ρ, and also for any function

R(ρ) with the asymptotic property such that for very large values of ρ it behaves 3

R ∼ ρ.

4. An Explicit Nontrivial Solution 5

We have seen that the trivial ﬂat space–time solutions (3.22) are obtained when

a = b = f = 0 and when R(ρ) = ρ. In order to ﬁnd interesting nontrivial solutions

we should have a nontrivial rho function R(ρ) = ρ. Let us consider two particular

cases of (3.21). In the ﬁrst case taking a = 2 from Eq. (3.21) we get b = −1.

Similarly, in the second case by setting a = −1 in Eq. (3.21) implies b = 2. Thus in

the ﬁrst case (3.14)–(3.16) become

µ = 2 lnR/c , (4.1)

ν = −lnR/d (4.2)

and

α = 2 lnR/c −ln R/d + 2 lnR

+f . (4.3)

While in the second case we ﬁnd

µ = −ln R/c , (4.4)

ν = 2 lnR/d (4.5)

and

α = −lnR/c + 2 lnR/d + 2 ln R

+f . (4.6)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 13

An interesting possibility arises by setting c = d = M and f = 0. In the ﬁrst case we

get that the metric in 2+2 dimensions ends up being expressed in the R-variable as

ds

2

= −

R

M

)

2

(dt

1

)

2

−

M

R

(dt

2

)

2

+

R

M

(dR)

2

+R

2

(dθ)

2

, (4.7)

while in the second case we obtain

ds

2

= −

M

R

(dt

1

)

2

−

R

M

2

(dt

2

)

2

+

R

M

(dR)

2

+R

2

(dθ)

2

. (4.8)

Notice that in both solutions (4.7) and (4.8) there is a kind of duality in the two 1

times t

1

and t

2

factors.

Equations (4.7) and (4.8) can be written as

ds

2

= −

R

M

(dt

2

)

2

+

R

M

(dR)

2

+R

2

¸

(dθ)

2

−(dt

1

)

2

M

2

, (4.9a)

ds

2

= −

R

M

(dt

1

)

2

+

R

M

(dR)

2

+R

2

¸

(dθ)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

M

2

. (4.9b)

As announced earlier, the form of the rho function R(ρ) is undetermined. Any 3

arbitrary choice of R(ρ) solves Einstein’s equations.

A study reveals that a rho function R(ρ) given by

1

R

=

1

ρ

+

1

M

, (4.10)

in units of G = = c = 1 is an appropriate choice. When ρ = 0, R = 0 and when

ρ = ∞we have R(ρ = ∞) = M, so we do recover an asymptotically ﬂat space–time

metric at spatial ρ = ∞ given by

ds

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+ (dR)

2

+R

2

(dθ)

2

= −(dt

1

)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

+M

2

(dθ)

2

. (4.11)

Asymptotic inﬁnity is deﬁned by the condition R(ρ = ∞) = M. It is the three- 5

dimensional asymptotic boundary of the (2+2)-space–time. It is a three-dimensional

manifold of topology S

1

×R

2

. The radius of S

1

is R = M. When ρ = 0 we have in 7

Eq. (4.7) that R(ρ = 0) = 0, so the metric component g

22

(ρ = 0) = ∞ and there is

a metric singularity at ρ = 0 as expected. Conversely, in Eq. (4.8) the singularity 9

occurs in the component g

11

(ρ = 0) = ∞, instead.

5. Stringy 1 + 1 Black Holes Embedded in 3 + 1 and 11

2 + 2 Dimensions

One of the main topics of the present work has been to link the 2+2 signature with 13

the black hole concept, i.e. space–times with singularities. We have shown that there

are many diﬀerent interesting ways to do this. In Sec. 2 we presented three very 15

diferent cases associated with hyperboloids. In particular, in the static hyperbolic-

symmetric version of the Schwarschild case given by Eqs. (2.12a) and (2.12b), there 17

is singularity at r = 0 which is associated with the conical geometry resulting from

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

14 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

having pinched to zero size r = 0 the throat of the hyperboloid H

2

and which 1

is quite diﬀerent from the spherically symmetric case in 3 + 1 dimensions. In the

static circular symmetric case developed in Secs. 3 and 4 we obtained solutions with 3

singularties at ρ = 0 and whose asymptotic ρ → ∞ limit leads to a ﬂat (1 + 2)-

dimensional boundary of topology S

1

×R

2

where the radius of S

1

is R(ρ = ∞) = M. 5

One further interesting possibility may arise if we split the 2 + 2 metric as the

diagonal sum of two 1 + 1 metrics in the form

ds

2

= g

ab

(x)dx

a

dx

b

+g

mn

(y)dy

m

dy

n

, a, b = 1, 2 , m, n = 3, 4 . (5.1)

In this case one may look for solutions like

ds

2

=

du dv

1 −uv

+

dwdz

1 −wz

, (5.2)

where we have set the value of the mass parameter 2M = 1. Such mass parameter is

required on physical grounds and also because the denominators in Eq. (5.2) must 7

be dimensionless.

The metric of Eq. (5.2) can be understood as the diagonal sum of two 1 + 1

black holes solutions

95–97

and whose singularities are located at uv = 1 and wz = 1

respectively. There are two horizons. The region outside the ﬁrst horizon is indicated

by u ≥ 0 ≥ v and v ≥ 0 ≥ u; and the region inside the ﬁrst horizon is indicated

by 1 ≥ uv ≥ 0 and u, v ≥ 0. Similar considerations apply to the second horizon by

exchanging u ↔w and v ↔z. The lightcone coordinates are deﬁned by

u =

1

2

exp[x +t

1

+ log(1 −e

−2x

)] = X +T

1

,

v = −

1

2

exp[x −t

1

+ log(1 −e

−2x

)] = X −T

1

,

(5.3a)

w =

1

2

exp[y +t

2

+ log(1 −e

−2y

)] = Y +T

2

,

z = −

1

2

exp[y −t

2

+ log(1 −e

−2y

)] = Y −T

2

.

(5.3b)

Conformally ﬂat solutions of the form

ds

2

= e

Υ(x,y,t1,t2)

[(dx)

2

−(dt

1

)

2

+ (dy)

2

−(dt

2

)

2

] , (5.4)

where Υ(x, y, t

1

, t

2

) has a similar singularity structure as the metric in Eq. (5.2) 9

are worth exploring also.

The Bars–Witten black hole (1 + 1)-dimensional metric (setting 2M = 1) is

ds

2

= (dr)

2

−tanh

2

(r)(dt)

2

= −

du dv

1 −uv

(5.5)

with

u =

1

2

exp[r +t + log(1 −e

−2r

)] ,

v = −

1

2

exp[r −t + log(1 −e

−2r

)] .

(5.6)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 15

The Euclidean analytical continuation of the metric in Eq. (5.5) is obtained by 1

setting θ = it, such that the metric is ds

2

= dr

2

+ tanh

2

r dθ

2

and its Euclidean

geometry has the shape of a semiinﬁnite cigar that asymptotically approaches R

1

× 3

S

1

for r → ∞. We should notice that the Lorentzian metric of Eq. (5.5) has a

singularity at a complex value r = 0 + iπ/2 (setting 2M = 1) since tanh

2

(iπ/2) = 5

−tan

2

(π/2) = −∞ which is consistent with the singularities at the location where

uv = −

1

4

e

2r

(1−e

−2r

)

2

= 1, when r = 0+iπ/2, and a horizon at r = 0, since uv = 0 7

when r = 0.

However this is not the end of the story. The Bars–Witten black hole in (1+1)-

dimensional is obtained from a gauged Sl(2, R)/U(1) WZNW model with central

charge c = 2+6/k and is a consistent bosonic string background solution in a 1+1

target background given by the two-dimensional coset Sl(2, R)/U(1). Namely, the

CFT corresponding to the gauged Sl(2, R)/U(1) WZNW model with central charge

c = 2 + 6/k is a solution of equations derived from the vanishing beta functions

required by conformal invariance of the nonlinear sigma model. For example, the

relevant massless bosonic closed-string ﬁelds in a (D = 26)-dimensional target back-

ground (a diﬀerent CFT) are the antisymmetric tensor B

µν

(X

ρ

(σ

a

)); the dilaton

Φ(X

ρ

(σ

a

)) and the gravitational ﬁeld g

µν

(X

ρ

(σ

a

))); where σ

a

= σ

1

, σ

2

are the

worldsheet variables. The conditions for the vanishing of the one loop beta func-

tions, required by Weyl invariance of the nonlinear sigma model, to leading order

in the string tension α

turn out to be

99

R

µν

+

1

4

H

λρ

µ

H

νλρ

−2D

µ

D

ν

Φ = 0 , (5.7a)

D

λ

H

λ

µν

−2(D

λ

Φ)H

λ

µν

= 0 , (5.7b)

4(D

µ

Φ)

2

−4D

µ

D

µ

Φ +R+

1

12

H

µνρ

H

µνρ

= 0 , (5.7c)

where

H

µνρ

= ∂

µ

B

νρ

+∂

ρ

B

µν

+∂

ν

B

ρµ

, (5.7d)

is the third rank antisymmetric tensor ﬁeld strength that is invariant under the 9

transformations δB

µν

= ∂

µ

Λ

ν

− ∂

ν

Λ

µ

. For details of quantum nonlinear sigma

models, conformal ﬁeld theory, supersymmetry, black holes and strings we refer to 11

the monograph by Ketov.

98

The only consistent (2+2)-dimensional gravitational backgrounds on which N = 13

2 strings

7,8

(strings with worldsheet supersymmetry) can propagate are those that

are self-dual and which solve the Plebanski heavenly equations in 2+2 dimensions. 15

Self dual gravitational backgrounds in four dimensions are Ricci ﬂat whose metric

is given in terms of a Kahler potential. However, the metric in Eq. (5.2) is not 17

Ricci ﬂat since the (1 + 1)-dimensional black hole metric is not Ricci ﬂat. Such

metric in Eq. (5.5) is not a solution of the vacuum Einstein ﬁeld equations, it is 19

a solution of Eqs. (5.7) (without Kalb–Ramond ﬁelds B

µν

) where the role of the

dilaton Φ = ln(1 −uv) is essential. 21

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

16 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

Nevertheless, we will show how the Bars–Witten (1 +1)-dimensional black hole

metric can be embedded into the (3 +1)-dimensional solutions of the appendix, up

to a conformal factor e

Υ

, since the latter metrics were Ricci ﬂat by construction.

The embedding of the (1+1)-dimensional metric (5.5) into the conformally rescaled

(3+1)-dimensional solutions of the appendix are obtained by introducing the mass

parameter 2M (in units of G = c = 1) in the appropriate places in order to have

consistent units, and by writing

e

Υ(r)

1 −

2M

R(r)

= tanh

2

r

2M

, e

Υ(r)

(dR/dr)

2

1 −2M/R(r)

= 1 , (5.8)

leading to the solutions for Υ(r) and R(r) respectively

e

Υ

=

1

1 −2M/R(r)

tanh

2

r

2M

, (5.9a)

where

dR

1 −2M/R

= R + 2M ln

R −2M

2M

=

dr

tanh r/2M

= 2M ln

¸

sinh

r

2M

. (5.9b)

This last equation (5.9b) yields the functional form R(r) (tortoise radial variable)

in implicit form for the radial function R(r). From Eq. (5.9b) one can infer that

R(r = 0) = 2M , R(r →∞) →R ∼ r . (5.10)

The radial function R has a lower (ultraviolet cutoﬀ) bound given by 2M. The fact 1

that the “point” r = 0 can have a nonzero proper area but zero volume seems to

indicate a “stringy” nature underlying the very notion of a point-mass itself. The 3

string worldsheet has area but no volume. Aspinwall

27,28

has studied how a string

(an extended object) can probe space–time “points.” 5

Notice that if we allow for complex values of r, like r = 0 + i2M(π/2), that

furnish singularities in the metric (5.5), one must include a constant of integration

R

0

= 2M(1 +iπ/2) to the solution in Eq. (5.9b):

R −2M

1 +

iπ

2

+ 2M ln

R −2M

2M

= 2M ln

¸

sinh

r

2M

(5.11)

such that when one plugs in the value r = 0 + i2M(π/2) in the right-hand side of

Eq. (5.11), it coincides with the left-hand side of (5.11) when the value of the radial 7

function R(r = 0 + i2Mπ/2) = 2M(1 + iπ/2), after an analytical continuation

into the complex plane is performed. This is just a consequence of the relation 9

ln[sinh(iπ/2)] = ln[i sin(π/2)] = ln i = iπ/2.

This complex analytical continuation into regions where r, R are complex-valued 11

roughly speaking amounts to looking into the “interior” of the point-mass. Having

complex coordinates to probe into the “interior” of a point-mass is not so farfetched. 13

This suggests that quantum space–time might be intrinsically fractal , meaning that

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 17

the Hausdorﬀ topological dimension of an object (let us say of a point) does not 1

coincide with the fractal dimension. For a throrough and profound treatment of

complex dimensions, fractal strings and the zeros of Riemman zeta function see 3

Ref. 100. The interplay among nonextensive statistics, chaos, complex dimensions,

logarithmic periodicity in the renormalization group and fractal strings see Ref. 101. 5

The conformal factor is

e

Υ

=

1

1 −2M/R(r)

tanh

2

r

2M

, (5.12)

where R(r) is given implicitly by (5.10). Notice that from the conditions in (5.10)

the conformal factor e

Υ

becomes unity at r = ∞ as it should if one wishes to

have asymptotic ﬂatness. When r = 0 the conformal factor (5.12) is

0

0

undeﬁned.

A careful study reveals that the conformal factor e

Υ

at r = 0 is zero so that

e

Υ(r=0)

R

2

(r = 0) = 0 and the conformally rescaled proper area at r = 0 is zero.

Therefore, at r = 0 the conformally rescaled interval ds

2

is zero consistent with the

fact that the (1+1)-dimensional metric exhibits a null horizon at r = 0. Concluding,

in this fashion, we have shown how one can embed the (1 + 1)-dimensional Bars–

Witten stringy black hole solution into the conformally rescaled (3+1)-dimensional

solutions of section of the appendix and are given by

ds

2

= −tanh

2

r

2M

(dt)

2

+ (dr)

2

+e

Υ(r)

R

2

(r)dΩ

2

. (5.13)

Notice that the conformally rescaled metric (5.13) is not Ricci ﬂat; it has singulari-

ties at complex values r = 0 +i2Mπ/2 ⇒e

Υ

= ∞; R = 2M(1 +iπ/2) upon using

Eq. (5.11). There is a diﬀerence between the metric (5.13) with the Ricci ﬂat metric

(outside the singularity at the point mass source) given in the Fronsdal–Kruskal–

Szekeres coordinates by

ds

2

= −e

W(u,v)

du dv

1 −uv

+ (R

∗

(u, v))

2

[sin

2

φ(dθ)

2

+ (dφ)

2

]

= −e

W(u,v)

du dv

1 −uv

+ (R

∗

(u, v))

2

dΩ

2

, (5.14)

where W(u, v) and R

∗

(u, v) are now two complicated functions of the two variables

u, v (since when one crosses the horizon the metric is no longer static). Whereas 7

in Eq. (5.13) one truly has a static metric everywhere and two functions of one

variable Υ(r), R(r) instead. 9

Before ending this work we will just add some remarks pertaining complex

gravity in 1 + 1 complex dimensions and its relation to ordinary gravity in 2 + 2 11

real dimensions. The properties of geometrical objects in the tangent space (at each

point of a curved space–time) associated to the complex, quaternionic and octo- 13

nionic algebra permits the construction of Einstein’s complexiﬁed, quaternionic and

octonionic gravity. In particular, gravity in 2 + 2 real dimensional can be studied 15

from the point of view of complex gravity in 1 + 1 complex dimensions. gravity in

4+4 real dimensional can be studied from the point of view of quaternionic gravity 17

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

18 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

in 1 +1 quaternionic dimensions, and gravity in 8 +8 real dimensional can be seen 1

as octonionic gravity in 1 + 1 octonionic dimensions.

102,103

To illustrate this, let us write the following complex line element in four complex-

dimensions:

ds

2

=

dz

1

dz

1

+d˜ z

1

d˜ z

1

1 −z

1

z

1

− ˜ z

1

˜ z

1

+

dz

2

dz

2

+d˜ z

2

d˜ z

2

1 −z

2

z

2

− ˜ z

2

˜ z

2

. (5.15)

Complex gravity requires that g

µν

= g

(µν)

+ ig

[µν]

so that now one has g

νµ

=

(g

µν

)

∗

,

102–104

which implies that the diagonal components of the metric g

z1z1

=

g

z2z2

= g

˜ z1˜ z1

= g

˜ z2˜ z2

must be real, and which in turn implies that a real slice of

the 4-complex dimensional space spanned by the four complex variables z

1

, z

2

, ˜ z

1

,

˜ z

2

may be taken by imposing the following two constraints:

˜ z

1

= z

∗

1

, ˜ z

2

= z

∗

2

(5.16)

and upon doing so one ends up with a four real -dimensional space of signature 2+2

whose real line element is

ds

2

=

dz

1

dz

1

+dz

∗

1

dz

∗

1

1 −z

1

z

1

−z

∗

1

z

∗

1

+

dz

2

dz

2

+dz

∗

2

dz

∗

2

1 −z

2

z

2

−z

∗

2

z

∗

2

, (5.17)

where z

1

, z

2

are the complex coordinates of the 1 + 1 complex dimensional space–

time (2+2 real dimensional) while z

∗

1

, z

∗

2

are their complex conjugates, respectively.

After deﬁning

z

1

=

1

√

2

(X +iT

1

) , z

∗

1

=

1

√

2

(X −iT

1

) ,

z

2

=

1

√

2

(Y +iT

2

) , z

∗

2

=

1

√

2

(Y − iT

2

) ,

(5.18)

the metric in Eq. (5.14) coincides precisely with the metric in Eq. (5.2) comprised of 3

the diagonal sum of two black hole solutions in 1 + 1 real dimensions. The quater-

nionic and octonionic versions of Eq. (5.16), in conjunction with the generalized 5

Einstein’s ﬁeld equations, will be the subject of future investigations. The quater-

nionic analog of two-dimensional conformal ﬁeld theory in four dimensions has been 7

studied by S. Vongehr.

105

It is interesting to see (if possible) how one can construct

four-dimensional quantum nonlinear sigma models within the context of quantum 3- 9

branes (conformal ﬁeld theories in the four-dimensional worldvolume of the 3-brane)

and ﬁnd the analog of the coupled equations (5.7) associated with the vanishing of 11

the beta functions in two-dimensional CFT; namely from the perspective of a four-

dimensional quaternionic conformally invariant ﬁeld theory formulated on Kulkarni 13

four-folds (the four-dimensional analog of Riemann surfaces) corresponding to 3-

branes moving in curved target space–time backgrounds. The cancellation of the 15

four-dimensional conformal anomaly should constrain the type of backgrounds on

which 3-branes can propagate. 17

It is worth mentioning that black hole solutions in a two times context have

been considered by some authors. In particular Kocinski and Wierzbicki

107

con- 19

sidered Schwarzschild type solution in a Kaluza–Klein theory with two times. In

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 19

fact, using noncompactiﬁed Kaluza–Klein theory with internal signature of the 1

form 2 + 3 these authors determine a spherical symmetric solution. Vongehr

108

also considered examples of black holes within the context of the two-times physics 3

formulation of Bars (see Ref. 106 and references therein). Their basic examples

coreponds essentially to a solutions associated with the signatures 1 +1 and 2 +3. 5

Finally, the four-dimensional Kaluza–Klein approach to general relativity in

2 + 2 as a local product of a (1 + 1)-dimensional base manifold and a (1 + 1)- 7

dimensional ﬁber space

109,110

warrants further investigation in so far that 2 + 2

gravity can be described by a (1 + 1)-dimensional Yang–Mills gauge theory of dif- 9

feormorphims of the two-dimensional ﬁber space coupled to a (1 + 1)-dimensional

nonlinear sigma model and a scalar ﬁeld; i.e. this formulation of 2 + 2 gravity 11

by

109,110

is more closely related to the stringy picture of the Bars–Witten black

hole in 1 + 1-dimensions. Thus, it seems interesting to pursue further research to 13

see the possible connection between the present work and these other approaches.

For example, to study black holes solutions in noncommutative geometry,

73

in par- 15

ticular Finsler spaces,

67–71,79,80

phase spaces

74–78,81,82

and the implications of the

minimal Planck scale

41

stringy uncertainty relations

83,84

in black holes physics.

86–89

17

Appendix A. Schwarzschild-like Solutions in Any Dimension D > 3

Let us start with the line element

ds

2

= −e

µ(r)

(dt

1

)

2

+e

ν(r)

(dr)

2

+R

2

(r)˜ g

ij

dξ

i

dξ . (A.1)

Here, the metric ˜ g

ij

corresponds to a homogeneous space and i, j = 3, 4, . . . , D−2.

The only nonvanishing Christoﬀel symbols are

Γ

1

21

=

1

2

µ

, Γ

2

22

=

1

2

ν

, Γ

2

11

=

1

2

µ

e

µ−ν

,

Γ

2

ij

= −e

−ν

RR

˜ g

ij

, Γ

i

2j

=

R

R

δ

i

j

, Γ

i

jk

=

˜

Γ

i

jk

,

(A.2)

and the only nonvanishing Riemann tensor are

R

1

212

= −

1

2

µ

−

1

4

µ

2

+

1

4

ν

µ

,

R

1

i1j

= −

1

2

µ

e

−ν

RR

˜ g

ij

,

R

2

121

= e

µ−ν

1

2

µ

+

1

4

µ

2

−

1

4

ν

µ

,

R

2

i2j

= e

−ν

1

2

ν

RR

−RR

˜ g

ij

,

R

i

jkl

=

˜

R

i

jkl

−R

2

e

−ν

δ

i

k

˜ g

jl

−δ

i

l

˜ g

jk

.

(A.3)

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

20 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

The ﬁeld equations are

R

11

= e

µ−ν

1

2

µ

+

1

4

µ

2

−

1

4

µ

ν

+

(D −2)

2

µ

R

R

= 0 , (A.4)

R

22

= −

1

2

µ

−

1

4

µ

2

+

1

4

µ

ν

+ (D −2)

1

2

ν

R

R

−

R

R

= 0 , (A.5)

and

R

ij

=

e

−ν

R

2

1

2

(ν

−µ

)RR

−RR

−(D−3)R

2

˜ g

ij

+

k

R

2

(D −3)˜ g

ij

= 0 , (A.6)

where k = ±1, depending if ˜ g

ij

refers to positive or negative curvature. From the

combination e

−µ+ν

R

11

+R

22

= 0 we get

µ

+ν

=

2R

R

. (A.7)

The solution of this equation is

µ +ν = ln R

2

+a , (A.8)

where a is a constant. 1

Substituting (A.7) into Eq. (A.6) we ﬁnd

e

−ν

(ν

RR

−2RR

−(D −3)R

2

= −k(D−3) (A.9)

or

γ

RR

+ 2γRR

+ (D −3)γR

2

= k(D −3) , (A.10)

where

γ = e

−ν

. (A.11)

The solution of (A.10) for an ordinary D-dimensional space–time (one temporal

dimension) corresponding to a (D − 2)-dimensional sphere for the homogeneous

space can be written as

γ =

1 −

16πG

D

M

(D−2)Ω

D−2

R

D−3

dR

dr

−2

⇒ g

rr

= e

ν

=

1 −

16πG

D

M

(D −2)Ω

D−2

R

D−3

−1

dR

dr

2

, (A.12)

where Ω

D−2

is the appropriate solid angle in (D − 2)-dimensional and G

D

is the

D-dimensional gravitational constant whose units are (length)

D−2

. Thus G

D

M 3

has units of (length)

D−3

as it should. When D = 4 as a result that the two-

dimensional solid angle is Ω

2

= 4π one recovers from Eq. (A.12) the four- 5

dimensional Schwarzchild solution. The solution in Eq. (A.12) is consistent with

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 21

Gauss law and Poisson’s equation in D − 1 spatial dimensions obtained in the 1

Newtonian limit.

For the most general case of the (D − 2)-dimensional homogeneous space we

should write

−ν = ln(k −

β

D

G

D

M

R

D−3

) −2 lnR

, (A.13)

where β

D

is a constant. Thus, according to (A.8) we get

µ = ln

k −

β

D

G

D

M

R

D−3

+ const (A.14)

we can set the constant to zero, and this means the line element (A.1) can be

written as

ds

2

= −

k −

β

D

G

D

M

R

D−3

(dt

1

)

2

+

(dR/dr)

2

k −

βDGDM

R

D−3

(dr)

2

+R

2

(r)˜ g

ij

dξ

i

dξ . (A.15)

One can verify, taking for instance (A.5), that Eqs. (A.4)–(A.6) do not determine 3

the form R(r). It is also interesting to observe that the only eﬀect of the homo-

geneous metric ˜ g

ij

is reﬂected in the k = ±1 parameter, associated with a positive 5

(negative) constant scalar curvature of the homogeneous (D−2)-dimensional space.

Acknowledgments 7

We wish to thank the referee for his numerous and critical suggestions to improve

this work. J. A. Nieto thanks L. Ruiz, J. Silvas and C. M. Yee for helpful comments. 9

This work was partially supported by grants PIFI 3.2. C. Castro thanks M. Bowers

for hospitality and Sergiu Vacaru for many discussions about Finsler geometry and 11

related topics.

References 13

1. M. F. Atiyah and R. S. Ward, Commun. Math. Phys. 55, 117 (1977).

2. R. S. Ward, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 315, 451 (1985). 15

3. M. A. De Andrade, O. M. Del Cima and L. P. Colatto, Phys. Lett. B 370, 59 (1996),

hep-th/9506146. 17

4. M. A. De Andrade and O. M. Del Cima, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 1367 (1996).

5. M. Carvalho and M. W. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7574 (1997), hep-th/9612074. 19

6. H. Garcia-Compean, N = 2 string geometry and the heavenly equations, in Proc.

Conf. on Topics in Mathematical Physics, General Relativity and Cosmology in 21

Honor of Jerzy Plebanski, Mexico City, Mexico, 17–20 Sept. 2002, eds. H. Garc´ıa-

Compe´ an et al. (World Scientiﬁc, 2006), hep-th/0405197. 23

7. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 367, 83 (1991).

8. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 361, 469 (1991). 25

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

22 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

9. D. Kutasov, E. J. Martinec and M. O’Loughlin, Nucl. Phys. B 477, 675 (1996), 1

hep-th/9603116.

10. J. Martinec, Matrix theory and N = (2, 1) strings, hep-th/9706194. 3

11. D. Kutasov and E. J. Martinec, Nucl. Phys. B 477, 652 (1996), hep-th/9602049.

12. D. Kutasov and E. J. Martinec, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 2483 (1997), hep- 5

th/9612102.

13. P. G. O. Freund, Introduction to Supersymmetry (Cambridge University Press, 1986). 7

14. S. V. Ketov, H. Nishino and S. J. Gates, Phys. Lett. B 307, 323 (1993), hep-

th/9203081. 9

15. J. A. Nieto, M. P. Ryan, O. Velarde and C. M. Yee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 2131

(2004), hep-th/0401145. 11

16. J. A. Nieto, Nuovo Cimento B 120, 135 (2005), hep-th/0410003.

17. M. B. Green, Nucl. Phys. B 293, 593 (1987). 13

18. P. K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. B 373, 68 (1996), hep-th/9512062.

19. J. A. Nieto, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 10, 3087 (1995), gr-qc/9508006. 15

20. J. A. Nieto, From the Quatl to the Ketzal of a generalized string theory, prepared

for 5th Mexican Workshop on Particles and Fields, Puebla, Mexico, 30 October–3 17

November 1995, published in Particles and Fields and Phenomenology of Fundamen-

tal Interactions, Puebla, 1995, 525-528.M. 19

21. J. Duﬀ, Phys. Lett. B 641, 335 (2006), hep-th/0602160.

22. J. A. Nieto, The 2 + 2 signature and the 1 + 1 matrix-brane, hep-th/0606219. 21

23. C. Castro, J. Math. Phys. 35, 920 (1994).

24. C. Castro, J. Math. Phys. 35, 3013 (1994). 23

25. C. Castro, Phys. Lett. B 288, 291 (1992).

26. C. Castro, J. Math. Phys. 34, 681 (1993). 25

27. P. S. Aspinwall, J. High Enegy Phys. 0407, 021 (2004), hep-th/0312188.

28. P. S. Aspinwall, J. High Energy Phys. 0301, 002 (2003), hep-th/0203111. 27

29. L. Abrams, Can. J. Phys. 67, 919 (1989).

30. L. Abrams, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2474 (1979). 29

31. L. Abrams, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2438 (1980).

32. L. Abrams, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2941 (1980). 31

33. C. Castro, Phys. Lett. B 626, 209 (2005).

34. C. Castro, Found. Phys. 35, 971 (2005). 33

35. C. Castro, Progr. Phys. 2, 86 (2006).

36. C. Castro, Exact solutions of Einstein’s equations in the presence of delta function 35

point mass source, submitted to Found. Phys.

37. C. Castro, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 2095 (2002). 37

38. C. Castro, On dark energy, Weyl geometry and diﬀerent derivations of the vacuum

energy density, to appear in Found. Phys., 2007. 39

39. C. Castro, On novel static spherically symmetric solutions of Einstein equations and

the cosmological constant problem, CTSPS preprint, May 2006. 41

40. T. Padmanabhan, Dark energy: Mystery of the millennium, astro-ph/0603114.

41. L. Nottale, Fractal Spacetime and Microphysics: Towards Scale Relativity (World 43

Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1992).

42. P. Fiziev, Gravitational ﬁeld of massive point particle in general relativity, gr- 45

qc/0306088.

43. P. Fiziev and S. V. Dimitrov, Point electric charge in general relativity, hep- 47

th/0406077.

44. P. Fiziev, The gravitational ﬁeld of massive non-charged point source in general 49

relativity, gr-qc/0412131.

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

On (2 + 2)-Dimensional Space–Times, Strings and Black Holes 23

45. P. Fiziev, On the solutions of Einstein equations with massive point source, gr- 1

qc/0407088.

46. A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Berlin II, 831 (1915). 3

47. K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Berlin I, 189 (1916) [English transla-

tions: S. Antoci and A. Loinger, physics/9905030]. 5

48. M. Brillouin, J. Phys. Rad. 23, 43 (1923) [English translation: S. Antoci,

physics/0002009]. 7

49. D. Hilbert, Nachr. Ges. Wiss Gottingen Math. Phys. K 1, 53 (1917).

50. H. Weyl, Ann. Physik (Leipzig) 54, 117 (1917). 9

51. J. Droste, Proc. Ned. Akad. West, Ser. A 19, 197 (1917).

52. A. Loinger, On Black Holes and Gravitational Waves (La Goliardica Pavese, 2002), 11

129 pages.

53. A. Loinger and T. Marsico, On the gravitational collapse of a massive star, 13

physics/0512232.

54. S. Crothers, Progr. Phys. 1, 68 (2005). 15

55. S. Crothers, Progr. Phys. 2, 3 (2005).

56. S. Crothers, Progr. Phys. 3, 7 (2005). 17

57. N. Stavroulakis, Progr. Phys. 2, 68 (2006).

58. M. Pavsic, Obzornik za Matematiko in Fiziko 28, 5 (1981) [English translation: Grav- 19

itational ﬁeld of a point source].

59. M. Ibison, private communication. 21

60. C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. 116, 778 (1959).

61. M. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. 119, 1743 (1960). 23

62. G. Szekers, Publ. Mat. Debreca 7, 285 (1960).

63. J. F. Colombeau, New Generalized Functions and Multiplcation of Distributions 25

(North Holland, Amsterdam, 1984).

64. J. F. Colombeau, Elementary Introduction to Generalized Functions (North Holland, 27

Amsterdam, 1985).

65. J. Heinzke and R. Steinbauer, Remarks on the distributional Schwarzschild geometry, 29

gr-qc/0112047.

66. M. Grosser, M. Kunzinger, M. Oberguggenberger and R. Steinbauer, Geometric 31

Theory of Generalized Functions with Applications to Relativity, Kluwer Series on

Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 537 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001). 33

67. S. Vacaru, P. Stavrinos, E. Gaburov and D. Gonta, Cliﬀord and Riemann–Finsler

structures in geometric mechanics and gravity, to appear in Book Title (Geometry 35

Balkan Press), 693 pages.

68. S. Vacaru, Phys. Lett. B 498, 74 (2001). 37

69. S. Vacaru, J. Math. Phys. 46, 042503 (2005).

70. S. Vacaru, J. Math. Phys. 46, 032901 (2005). 39

71. S. Vacaru, J. Math. Phys. 47, 093504 (2006).

72. S. Antoci and D. E. Liebscher, Reinstating Schwarzschild’s original manifold and its 41

singularity, gr-qc/0406090.

73. J. Wess, Einstein–Riemann gravity on deformed spaces, hep-th/0611025. 43

74. M. Born, Proc. R. Soc. A 165, 291 (1938).

75. E. Caianiello, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 32, 65 (1981). 45

76. G. Lambiase, G. Papini and G. Scarpetta, Phys. Lett. A 263, 147 (1999).

77. M. Toller, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 29, 963 (1990). 47

78. V. Nesterenko, Class. Quantum Grav. 9, 1101 (1992).

79. H. Brandt, Contemp. Math. 196, 273 (1996). 49

80. H. Brandt, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 10, 267 (199???).

1st Reading

March 9, 2007 10:44 WSPC/139-IJMPA 03619

24 C. Castro & J. A. Nieto

81. C. Castro, Found. Phys. 35, 971 (2005). 1

82. C. Castro, Progr. Phys. 1, 20 (2006).

83. D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197, 81 (1987). 3

84. D. Gross and P. Mende, Phys. Lett. B 197, 129 (1987).

85. C. Castro, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 14205 (2006). 5

86. K. Nozari and S. Mehdipour, Failure of standard thermodynamics in Planck scale

black hole system, hep-th/061007. 7

87. L. Colatto, A. Penza and W. Santos, Noncommutative geometry induced by spin

eﬀects, hep-th/0512266. 9

88. F. Nasseri and S. Alavi, Schwarzschild black hole in noncommuttaive spacetime,

hep-th/0508051. 11

89. A. Lewis, Coulomb potential of a point mass in theta noncommutative geometry,

hep-th/0605140. 13

90. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Renormalization group improved black hole spacetime,

hep-th/0002196. 15

91. M. Reuter and J. M. Schwindt, A minimal length from cutoﬀ modes in asymptotically

safe quantum gravity, hep-th/0511021. 17

92. M. Reuter and J. M. Schwindt, Scale-dependent structures and causal structures in

quantum Einstein gravity, hep-th/0611294. 19

93. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 73, 0830005 (2006), hep-th/0602159.

94. C. Castro, A. Nieto and J. F. Gonzalez, Running Newtonian coupling and horizonless 21

solutions in Quantum Einstein Gravity, to appear in Quantization in Astrophysics,

Brownian Motion and Supersymmetry, eds. F. Smarandache and V. Christianato 23

(MathTiger Publishers, Chennai, India, 2006).

95. I. Bars, Lecture at Strings 91, Stonybrook, June 1991. 25

96. E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 44, 314 (1991).

97. E. Witten, On black holes in string theory, Lecture given at Strings 1991 Conf., 27

Stony Brook, New York, Jun 1991, hep-th/9111052.

98. S. Ketov, Quantum Non-Linear Sigma Models, Conformal Field Theory, Supersym- 29

metry, Black Holes and Strings (Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2000).

99. M. Green, J. Schwarz and E. Witten, Superstring Theory (Cambridge University 31

Press, 1986).

100. M. Lapidus and M. Frankenhuysen, Complex Dimensions and the Zeros of the Zeta 33

Functions (Birkhauser, New York, 2000).

101. C. Castro, Physica A 347, 184 (2005). 35

102. S. Marques and C. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1716 (1987).

103. K. Borchsenius, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2707 (1976). 37

104. J. Moﬀat and D. Boal, Phys. Rev. D 11, 1375 (1975).

105. R. Zucchini, J. Geom. Phys. 27, 113 (1998). 39

106. I. Bars, The standard model of particles and forces in the framework of 2T-physics,

hep-th/0606045. 41

107. J. Kocinski and M. Wierzbicki, Rel. Grav. Cosmol. 1, 19 (2004), gr-qc/0110075.

108. S. Vongehr, Examples of black holes in two time physics, hep-th/9907077. 43

109. J. H. Yoon, 4-dimensional Kaluza–Klein approach to general relativty in 2+2 space-

times, gr-qc/9611050. 45

110. J. H. Yoon, Algebraically special class of spacetimes and 1 + 1-dimensional ﬁeld

theories, hep-th/9211129. 47