Five dimensional charged rotating minimally gauged supergravity black hole cannot

be over-spun and/or over-charged in non-linear accretion

Sanjar Shaymatov,1, 2, ∗ Naresh Dadhich,3, † Bobomurat Ahmedov,1, 4, ‡ and Mubasher Jamil5, 6, §
1
Ulugh Beg Astronomical Institute, Astronomicheskaya 33, Tashkent 100052, Uzbekistan
2
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Ulughbek, Tashkent 100214, Uzbekistan
3
Inter University Centre for Astronomy & Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Pune 411007, India
4
National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent 100174, Uzbekistan
5
Institute for Theoretical Physics and Cosmology,
Zheijiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
6
Department of Mathematics, School of Natural Sciences (SNS),
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan
(Dated: August 6, 2019)
arXiv:1908.01195v1 [gr-qc] 3 Aug 2019

We investigate the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture (CCC) by overspinning and overcharging pro-
cess through Gedanken experiments for five dimensional rotating charged minimally gauged super-
gravity black hole. Generally black hole could be over charged/spun violating CCC for linear order
accretion while the same is always restored for non-linear accretion. The only exception however
is that of a five dimensional rotating black hole with single rotation where CCC is obeyed at the
linear order as well. For the black hole under study, we obtain the expected results with CCC being
always obeyed for non-linear accretion. However in the case of single rotation CCC is respected for
linear accretion when angular momentum dominates over charge of black hole, and it is violated
when opposite is the case.

PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 04.20.Dw

I. INTRODUCTION [6] or overspun [7]. Thus a naked singularity could be

Black holes have always very exciting and interesting
objects both gravitationally and geometrically but they
have taken center-stage after the discovery of gravita-
tional waves produced by merger of two stellar mass black
holes in the LIGO-VIRGO detection experiment [1, 2].
The hidden properties of black holes could be probed by
analyzing gravitational waves in the near future. One
of the most fundamental questions in general relativity
(GR) is testing of CCC, which has so far remained un-
proven [3]. The physical possibility of violating CCC
under test particle/field accretion has of late been a very
active area of research.
A gedanken experiment was envisaged in which over-
charged/rotating test particles were bombarded into a
black hole to see whether a non-extremal black hole
could be turned into extremal black hole [4]? The an-
swer turned out to be negative because extremality is
approached, the allowed window of parameter space of
particle to reach the horizon pinches off [5] and thus ex-
tremality or zero black hole temperature can never be
attained. However the interest in this question got re-
vived when it was argued that a non-extremal black hole
cannot be converted into extremal but extremality could
be jumped over, and a black hole could be overcharged
∗ Electronic address: sanjar@astrin.uz
† Electronic address: nkd@iucaa.in
‡ Electronic address: ahmedov@astrin.uz
§ Electronic address: mjamil@zjut.edu.cn
created defying CCC.
This led to a spurt in activity where various authors
studied overcharging/spinning of black holes in different
settings and thereby violating CCC, [see,e.g. 8–19]. In
all these works, it was assumed that the test particle
follows a geodesic (or Lorentz force when charged) motion
while back and radiation reaction and self force effects
were not considered. It is though expected that when
these effects will be taken into account, there would be
no overcharging/spinning and destruction of black hole
horizon [20, 21, 21–25]. What happens is that particles
that could cause over extremal state would not be able to
reach black hole horizon. This was precisely the case, why
extremality was not attainable [4, 5]. Note that in test
particle accretion black hole is perturbed linearly while
realistic accretion process like fluid flow would involve
non-linear perturbation which could alter the situation
completely. This is what has recently been done.
An extensive analysis of non-linear accre-
tion/perturbations has been carried out [26] leading
to the expected result that black hole horizon cannot
indeed be destroyed, establishing validation of CCC. The
same conclusion was also shown for Kerr-AdS black hole
[27]. Following [26], a number of works have been done
of non-linear perturbations [28, 29] – black hole horizon
cannot be destroyed. Also the same analysis has been
done in higher dimension [30] as well, showing that five
dimensional Myers-Perry rotating black hole [31] though
could be overspun at linear order, however when second
order perturbations are taken into account the situation
reverses — no overspinning and CCC is restored. In
this case there is yet another subtle point where a black
 2

hole with single rotation cannot be overspun even at the form

linear order while it could, like all other cases, however
ds2 = − dt − a sin2 θdφ − b cos2 θdψ


be overspun when both rotations are present [32]. A
charged black hole in higher dimensions could always be × f dt − a sin2 θdφ − b cos2 θdψ


overcharged at linear order [33]. 
2q
+ (b sin2 θdφ + a cos2 θdψ)
Σ
In this paper we would like to examine this question
sin2 θ 
 2 2 
of linear and non-linear accretion for a charged rotating r dr 2
+ Σ + dθ2 + adt − (r2 + a2 )dφ
black hole in five dimension. In four dimension, it was ∆ Σ
straight forward to add charge parameter in the ∆ func- 2 
cos θ 2
tion of rotating solution;i.e. ∆ = r2 − 2M r + a2 + Q2 . + bdt − (r2 + b2 )dψ
Σ
Unfortunately this does not work in five dimension, and 1 
in fact an analogue of Kerr-Newman black hole has not + 2 abdt − b(r2 + a2 ) sin2 θdφ
r Σ
yet been found. There exists a solution in slow rota- 2
tion limit [34–36], and some solutions in supergravity − a(r2 + b2 ) cos2 θdψ . (1)
and string theory [37–43]. The closest that comes to
Kerr-Newman black hole is the one describing minimally Here the metric coefficients are specified by
gauged supergravity black hole [44]. Black hole energet-
(r2 + a2 )(r2 + b2 ) µΣ − q 2
ics in terms of ergosphere and energy extraction of this f (r, θ) = − ,
solution has been investigated [45]. We shall take this r2 Σ Σ2
2 2 2 2 2
solution of minimally gauged supergravity black hole for Σ(r, θ) = r + a cos θ + b sin θ,
a charged and rotating black hole in five dimension and ∆(r) = (r2 + a2 )(r2 + b2 ) + 2abq + q 2 − µr2 , (2)
examine linear and non-linear accretion for testing CCC.
where a and b are the angular momentum per unit mass
parameter and related to the specific angular momenta
In particular it would be interesting to examine the
as
case of single rotation for linear accretion where black
hole cannot be overspun [32] but could be overcharged 4 J φ + Jψ
[33]. It turns out that the ultimate behavior would be a+b= , (3)
π µ+q
determined by whether angular momentum is dominant
over charge or the other way round. In the former case with mass parameter µ = 8M 3π and charge parameter q =
black hole cannot be over extremalized while for the lat- 4Q
√ of the black hole. The electromagnetic potential is
ter it could be. 3π
given by
√
The paper is organized as follows: In Secs II and III, − 3q
we describe the black hole metric and its properties and A= (dt − a sin2 θdφ − b cos2 θdψ) . (4)
2Σ
build up background for studying linear and non-linear
accretion for over extremalizing black hole in the Sec. IV. The horizon of the black hole follows from the relation
Finally we conclude with a discussion in the Sec. V. We ∆ = 0, i.e.
shall use the natural units, G = c = 1 throughout. p p
µ − 2q − (a + b)2 ± µ + 2q − (a − b)2
r± = ± ,
2
(5)

from the above expression it is evident that the horizon

does not exist unless the following inequalities: a2 + b2 +
2|a||b| ≤ µ − 2q and a2 + b2 − 2|a||b| ≤ µ + 2q are satisfied.
Let’s rewrite the black hole horizon given in Eq. (5) by
mass, charge and angular momenta of the black hole as

II. THE BLACK HOLE METRIC AND ITS 1

r+ = √  √  [α
PROPERTIES 4 3π M + 23Q

√ !2
v
u
u √ 3Q 
+ tα2 + 108πJφ Jψ + 64 3Q M + ,
The metric of the five dimensional charged rotating 2
minimally gauged supergravity black hole solution [44]
in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates (t, r, θ, φ, ψ) takes the (6)
 3

where α is given by scribed by a naked singularity. Meanwhile, α = 0 corre-

 sponds to the extremal charged rotating black hole. The
2
α = 32M 3 − 27π (Jφ + Jψ ) area of the event horizon of the five dimensional charged
rotating minimally gauged supergravity black hole can be
√ 1/2
− 72M Q2 − 24 3 Q3 . (7) evaluated by setting dr = dt = 0 and r = r+ in the line
element of the metric (1). The metric tensor for black
hole horizon is then given by
Note that black hole horizon exists if and only if α2 > 0,
and if the opposite is true, the resulting object is de-

Σ 0 0
 
   
a[a(µΣ−q2 )+2bqΣ] (ab(µΣ−q2 )+(a2 +b2 )qΣ)
 
2 2
 0 r +a + sin θ sin2 θ
2
sin2 2θ
 
Σ 2Σ 
gαβ = . (8)
 
   
(ab(µΣ−q2 )+(a2 +b2 )qΣ) b[b(µΣ−q2 )+2aqΣ]
 
2 2 2 2
0 sin 2θ r + b + cos θ cos2 θ
 
 2Σ Σ 

The area of the horizon can be then determined as and

√ 2
2π 2
Z q
2 3qr+
− abq − q 2 , (9)


A= det|gαβ |dθdφdψ = µr+ Φ = −χα Aα |r=r+ = 2 − abq − q 2 . (16)
Ξ3 r+ µr+
which is of considerable importance owing to the area
theorem, stating that it does not decrease in any physical III. VARITIONAL IDENTITIES AND
process. PERTURBATION INEQUALITIES
The angular speeds along φ and ψ directions at the
horizon r = r+ are given by It is well known that Lagrangian L for a diffeomor-
2
a(r+ + b2 ) + bq phism covariant theory with n- dimensional manifold M
(φ)
Ω+ = 2 2 + b2 ) + , (10) can be described by metric gαβ and curvature tensors
(r+ + a2 )(r+ abq and symmetrized covariant derivatives of its curvature
2
(ψ) b(r+ + a2 ) + aq tensor, and it can be also given by other fields ψ [46].
Ω+ = , (11)
2
(r+ 2
+ a )(r+2 + b2 ) + abq The variation of Lagrangian is then given by

for which the Killing field yields δL = Eδφ + dΘ(φ, δφ), (17)
(φ) (ψ) where the equations of motion can be described by E = 0
χ = χ(t) + Ω+ χ(φ) + Ω+ χ(ψ) , (12)
and Θ is referred to as symplectic potential (n − 1) form.
where χ(i) = ∂i . Note that the Killing field is defined by The (n − 1)-form yields as
χ = χα ∂α .
Based on the Killing field given in (12), the surface ω(φ, δ1 φ, δ2 φ) = δ1 Θ(φ, δ2 φ) − δ2 Θ(φ, δ1 φ). (18)
gravity can be defined by
The Noether current 5-form along with a vector field ζ α
2kχα = ∇α −χβ χβ |r=r+ , is defined by


(13)

or by Jζ = Θ(φ, Lζ φ) − ζ · L, (19)

1 for which dJζ = 0 verifies the equation of motion to

k 2 = − (∇α χβ ) ∇α χβ |r=r+ .


(14) be satisfied. According to the [47], one can define the
2
Noether current in the following form
The surface gravity and electromagnetic potential at the
horizon of the black hole then take forms, respectively Jζ = dQζ + Cζ , (20)
2
+ a2 + b2 − µ r+


2r+ where Qζ is referred to as the Noether charge, while the
k= , (15)
2 − abq − q 2
µr+ constraint corresponds to Cζ = ζ α Cα .
 4

1
Eq.s(19) and (20) here plays an important role in get- where j a = 4π ▽b F αβ . From Eq. (26), the corresponding
ting linear variational identity on a surface Ξ symplectic current yields
1 
Z Z
δ2 (ǫijkhα F αβ )δ1 Aβ − δ1 (ǫijkhα F αβ )δ2 Aβ

δQζ − ζ · Θ(φ, δφ) = ω(φ, δφ, Lζ φ) ωijkh =
Ξ 4π
ZΞ Z 1
− ζ · Eδφ − δCζ , (21) + ǫijkhα wα , (29)
16π
Ξ Ξ
with
where the first term on the right side is defined by
Z wα = P αβγηµν (δ2 gβγ ▽η δ1 gµν − δ1 gβγ ▽η δ2 gµν ) ,
δHζ = ω(φ, δφ, Lζ φ) . (22) 1 1
Ξ P αβγηµν = g αµ g νβ g γη − g αη g βµ g νγ − g αβ g γη g µν
2 2
On the basis of linear variational identity, the non-linear 1 βγ αµ νη 1 βγ αη µν
− g g g + g g g . (30)
one on the same surface is defined by 2 2
Taking into account Lζ gαβ = ▽α ζβ + ▽β ζα and ▽α Aβ =
Z Z
δ 2 Qζ − ζ · δΘ(φ, δφ)] = ω(φ, δφ, Lζ δφ) Fαβ + ▽β Aα , the Noether current 4-form would be de-
Ξ
ZΞ Z fined by
− ζ · δEδφ − δ 2 Cζ .
Ξ Ξ 1
(Jζ )ijkh = ǫijkhα ▽β (▽[β χα] ) + ǫijkhα Tβα ζ β
(23) 8π
1
Taking into account Eq. (22) one can define linear order + ǫijkhα ▽γ (F γα Aβ ζ β ) + ǫijkhα Aβ j eα χβ ,
4π
variational identity (21) as (31)
Z Z
δM − Ω (δJφ + δJψ ) = [δQζ − ζ · Θ(φ, δφ)] − δCζ , and as well as the Noether charge Qζ and the constraint
B Ξ Cζ are given by
(24)
1 1
(Qζ )ijk = − ǫijkαβ ▽α ζ β − ǫijkαβ F αβ Aγ ζ γ
for given surface Ξ with a bifurcation surface B in the 16π 8π
case in which the equation of motion is satisfied. (Cγ )ijkh = ǫijkhα (Tγα + Aγ j α ) . (32)
Meanwhile non-linear variational identity (23) is then
given by
Z IV. OVER EXTREMALIZING BLACK HOLE
VIA GEDANKEN EXPERIMENTS
δ 2 M − Ω δ 2 Jφ + δ 2 Jψ = [δ 2 Qζ − ζ · δΘ(φ, δφ)]


B
Z Z
A. Extremal case
− ζ · δEδφ − δ 2 Cζ + EΞ (φ, δφ) , (25)
Ξ Ξ
Here, we consider a particle absorption by an extremal
where EΞ (φ, δφ) is used for canonical energy on the sur- five dimensional charged rotating black hole with mass
face Ξ as a non-linear correction δφ. M , angular momenta Jψ and Jφ and electric charge Q.
For Eq.s (24) and (25), symplectic potential 4-form is The extremality condition for black hole reads as
defined by √
2
32M 3 = 27π (Jφ + Jψ ) + 72M Q2 + 24 3 Q3 . (33)
1
Θ (φ, δφ) = ǫijkhα g αβ g γη (▽η δgβγ − ▽β δgγη )
16π A particle of energy δM and angular momenta δJψ and
1 δJφ is thrown onto black hole horizon. This leads to
− ǫijkhα F αβ δAβ , (26)
4π increase in the corresponding parameters of black hole
and a perturbed stationary state would be attained with
where the first term on the right side is responsible for
parameters, M + δM , J + δJφ , J + δJψ , and Q + δQ. The
GR part while the second – electromagnetic part because
condition for CCC violation would require the following
Lagrangian has form as
inequality
ǫ
R − F αβ Fαβ ,


L= (27) 96M 2 δM < 54π (Jφ + Jψ ) (δJφ + δJψ ) + 72Q2 δM
16π √
+ 144M QδQ + 72 3 Q2 δQ , (34)
Hence we have
1 for the first order linear accretion. An extremal black
E(φ)δφ = −ǫ( T αβ δgαβ + j α δAα ) , (28) hole will be pushed to over-extremal state if and only if
2
 5

the following linear order accretion satisfies In the extremal black hole case, the angular velocity and
the electric potential will take the forms
9π (Jφ + Jψ )
δM − (δJφ + δJψ ) 9π (Jφ + Jψ )
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) Ω+ = , (43)
√ 2
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 )
3 2M Q − 3Q √ 2

− δQ < 0 . (35) 3 2M Q − 3Q
(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) Φ+ = . (44)
(4M 2 − 3Q2 )
We must then ensure that whether over-extremal state
happens or not, satisfying Eq. (35). Let’s suppose that a The inequality (42) for extremal black hole then becomes
black hole with initial state is interacted by the absorbed 9π (Jφ + Jψ )
particle with small appropriate parameters described by δM − (δJφ + δJψ )
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 )
the stress-energy tensor Tαβ . Consequently, the mass √
3 2M Q − 3Q2


and angular momenta of the black hole are increased by
− δQ ≥ 0 . (45)
following amounts (4M 2 − 3Q2 )
This inequality clearly shows that (35) cannot be sat-
Z
ǫijkhα χγ(t) δTγα + Aγ δj α ,


δM = (36) isfied. The inequalities (35) and (45) are in clear con-
H
Z flict, hence an extremal five dimensional charged rotat-
ǫijkhα χγ(φ) δTγα + Aγ δj α ,


δJφ = − (37) ing minimally gauged supergravity black hole cannot be
ZH over-extremalized. Thus no violation of cosmic censor-
ǫijkhα χγ(ψ) δTγα + Aγ δj α , ship conjecture occurs for extremal black hole.


δJψ = − (38)
H Now we must ensure that it is indeed not possible to
over-extremalize an extremal black hole. Thus, we must
where the integrations are over surface element on the
understand whether or not the black hole after interact-
event horizon r+ . We assume that at the end of the
ing with test particle still remains an extremal black hole.
process, the black hole is returned to another stationary
(φ) (ψ) As was known that the first law of black hole dynam-
state. Using Eqs. (24) and (36-38) with Ω+ and Ω+ , we ics states that the changes in black hole parameters and
obtain the following equation which ensures that particle horizon area can be defined by
crossed the horizon eventually
k
(φ) (ψ)
Z δM = δA + Ω(φ) δJφ + Ω(ψ) δJψ + ΦδQ , (46)
δM − Ω+ δJφ − Ω+ δJψ = − δCγ = 8π
Ξ which completely satisfies
Z  
(φ) γ (ψ)
− γ
ǫijkhα χ(t) + Ω+ χ(φ) + Ω+ χγ(ψ) M = M (A, Jφ , Jψ , Q) , (47)
H
× δTγα + Aγ δj α ,


(39) where the horizon area can be also defined as a func-
tion of momenta and charge of an extremal black hole
where χγ is null vector on the horizonR r+ . Bearing in A = Aext (Jφ , Jψ , Q). For an extremal black hole, we will
mind Φ = −χγ Aγ |r=r+ and considering H δ(ǫijkhα j α ) = consider variation in the mass
δQ for the perturbed charge fallen into the black hole  
through the horizon +, we rewrite Eq. (39) as ∂M ∂Aext ∂M
δMext = + δJφ
∂A ∂Jφ ∂Jφ
(φ) (ψ)
δM − Ω+ δJφ − Ω+ δJψ − Φ+ δQ 
∂M ∂Aext ∂M

Z + + δJψ
= − ǫijkhα χγ δT γα , (40) ∂A ∂Jψ ∂Jψ
 
H ∂M ∂Aext ∂M
+ + δQ
where the volume element on the horizon can be written ∂A ∂Q ∂Q
as ǫijkhα = −5k[α ǫ̃ijkh] . Given the volume element on k (φ) (ψ)
= δA + Ω+ δJφ + Ω+ δJψ + Φ+ δQ ,(48)
the horizon one may then write 8π
Z
γα
Z where
− ǫijkhα χγ δT = ǫ̃ijkh χγ kα δT γα . (41)
H H ∂M
k = , (49)
∂A
This clearly shows that the right side is only positive in ∂Aext ∂Aext ∂Aext
the case when the null energy condition on the horizon δA = δJφ + δJψ + δQ . (50)
is satisfied, i.e. δTαβ k α k β ≥ 0, thereby having the in- ∂Jφ ∂Jψ ∂Q
equality for linear order accretion for an extremal black The surface gravity does go to zero k → 0 for an extremal
hole black hole. As a result, Eq. (48) yields
δM − Ω+ (δJφ + δJψ ) − Φ+ δQ ≥ 0 . (42) δMext = Ω+ (δJφ + δJψ ) + Φ+ δQ , (51)
 6

which characterizes an extremal black hole M = call the extremality condition Eq (33),
Mext (Jφ , Jψ , Q). The black hole exists provided that
M ≥ Mext (Jφ , Jψ , Q), and if the opposite, M < √
Mext (Jφ , Jψ , Q), is true, over-extremal state could hap- 32M 3 − 27π (Jφ + Jψ )2 − 72M Q2 − 24 3 Q3 = 0 .
pen. If the particle with angular momenta and charge
crosses the horizon of an extremal five dimensional To test gedanken experiments in order to over-
charged rotating black hole, the black hole’s angular mo- spin/overcharge a nearly extremal black hole, let us in-
menta and charge are given by Jφ + δJφ , Jψ + δJψ and troduce a one-parameter family of function f (λ) as
Q + δQ. Thus, its final mass, according to Eq.s (42) and
(51) is given
f (λ) = 32M (λ)3 − 27π [Jφ (λ) + Jψ (λ)]2
M + δM ≥ M + Ω+ (δJφ + δJψ ) + Φ+ δQ √
− 72M (λ)Q(λ)2 − 24 3 Q(λ)3 , (53)
= Mext (Jφ , Jψ , Q) + δMext
= Mext (Jφ + δJφ , Jψ + δJψ , Q + δQ) .(52)
where f (0) = α2 , being a bit larger than zero, corre-
As can be seen from Eq. (52), the black hole’s final mass sponds to the near extremal black hole, and M (λ), Jφ (λ),
is not less than an extremal black hole’s mass. This is Jψ (λ) and δQ(λ) are defined by
in agreement with the third law of black hole thermody-
namics [5, 48, 49].
M (λ) = M + λδM ,
From the above approaches, it follows that an extremal
five dimensional charged rotating black hole cannot be Jφ (λ) = Jφ + λδJφ ,
over-extremalized. At the end of this process, an ex- Jψ (λ) = Jψ + λδJψ ,
tremal black hole keeps its extremality, occurring no vi- Q(λ) = Q + λδQ . (54)
olation of the cosmic censorship conjecture.
Next, we investigate over-extremal state for a near-
extremal five dimensional charged rotating black hole for Let’s now follow a nearly extremal black hole. To jump
linear and non-linear perturbations through gedanken ex- from sub-extremal to over-extremal state we must obtain
periments. f (λ) < 0. To proceed, we expand f (λ) up to second order
in α and λ as

B. Near-extremal case
f (λ) = α2 + f1 λ + f2 λ2 + O(λ3 , λ2 α, λα2 , α3 ), (55)
In this subsection we apply gedanken experiments to
overspin/overcharge near extremal black hole. Let’s re- where

" √ #
3 2M Q − 3Q2


2 2

9π (Jφ + Jψ )
f1 = 24 4M − 3Q δM − (δJφ + δJψ ) − δQ , (56)
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) (4M 2 − 3Q2 )
( " √ #

3 2M Q − 3Q2 2


2 2

2 9π (Jφ + Jψ ) 2 2
f2 = 12 4M − 3Q δ M− δ Jφ + δ Jψ − δ Q
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) (4M 2 − 3Q2 )
2
 √ o
+ 96M (δM )2 − 27π (δJφ + δJψ ) + 72 M (δQ)2 + 2QδM δQ + 3Q(δQ)2 . (57)

From the Eq. (56), the expression in the bracket is defined by assuming optimal choice of linear order correction
 7

√
3 2M Q − 3Q2


9π (Jφ + Jψ )
δM − (δJφ + δJψ ) + δQ =
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) (4M 2 − 3Q2 )
q √ √
2
27πJφ Jψ + 4 3Q 2M + 3Q
−  √ √
2 2  √ √
2 2
27πJφ Jψ + 4 3Q 2M + 3Q 9π(Jφ + Jψ )2 + 4 3 3 Q 2M + 3Q
√ ! √ !2
 
3Q √
144 3πQ M + 3Q δJψ Jφ3 + 2Jψ Jφ2 (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + 2Jφ Jψ2 (δJψ + 2δJφ ) + δJφ Jψ3
 
× 6π M +
2 2
√ 4 
 
2 2 2

+ 243π Jφ Jψ (Jφ + Jψ ) (δJψ Jφ + δJφ Jψ ) + 16Q 2M + 3Q Jφ (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + Jψ (δJψ + 2δJφ )
√ !4 

√ √ 2

2 3Q 
+ 256Q M + 9 3πJφ Jψ + 4Q 2M + 3Q δQ α . (58)
2

Further, taking into account the optimal choice of lin-

ear order perturbation we test gedanken experiments to
overextremalize black hole for both linear and non-linear
particle accretion.

C. With two rotations

1. Linear order accretion

In view of the above equation (58), we rewrite f (λ)

for linear order correction as

√
−1
2 6 2M + 3Q
f (λ) = α −  √ √
2 1/2  √ √
2 2
27πJφ Jψ + 4 3Q 2M + 3Q 9π(Jφ + Jψ )2 + 4 3 3 Q 2M + 3Q
√ ! √ !2
 
3Q √
144 3πQ M + 3Q δJψ Jφ3 + 2Jψ Jφ2 (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + 2Jφ Jψ2 (δJψ + 2δJφ ) + δJφ Jψ3
 
× 6π M +
2 2
√ 4 
 
+ 243π 2 Jφ Jψ (Jφ + Jψ )2 (δJψ Jφ + δJφ Jψ ) + 16Q2 2M + 3Q

Jφ (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + Jψ (δJψ + 2δJφ )
√ !4 

3Q √  √ 2 
+ 256Q2 M + 9 3πJφ Jψ + 4Q 2M + 3Q δQ α λ + O(λ2 ) , (59)
2

from which it is certain that it is possible to obtain extremal condition µ − 2q = (a + b)2 yields
f (λ) < 0 for suitable values of given parameters. Thus
√ 
r
black hole could be over-extremalized. To ensure this, 32  J φ + Jψ
we try to explore f (λ) numerically. From Eq. (5), the M − 3Q = √ , (60)
27π M + 23 Q

for black hole parameters. From Eq. (60) it is clear that a

 8
√
−1
near-extremality requires Q < 3 M , which in turn black hole with two rotations could cetainly be over ex-
allows us to choose Q = 0.5M . For given Q = 0.5M , tremalized by linear order accretion.
f (0) = α2 corresponding to the near extremality defines
the angular momenta numerically, Jφ + Jψ = 0.322011
for the given value α = 0.01. For this thought experi-
2. Non-linear order accretion
ment one can take different values of black hole param-
eters and even smaller values of α. Setting M = 1,
let’s choose δJφ = 0.001 ≪ Jφ , δJψ = 0.001 ≪ Jψ and We here consider the second order particle accretion
δQ = 0.003 ≪ Q in order for the test particle approxi- O(λ2 ) so as to understand what might happen in the case
mation to hold well. Now let’s then evaluate Eq. (59) nu- of non-linear regime. Let’s start from Eq. (57), where the
merically, thereby f (0.1) = −0.00045. That is a charged non-linear terms are defined by

√

3 2M Q − 3Q2 2


2 9π (Jφ + Jψ ) 2 2 k 1
δ M− δ Jφ + δ Jψ − δ Q ≥ − δ2A =
4(4M 2 − 3Q2 ) (4M 2 − 3Q2 ) 8π 12 (4M 2 − 3Q2 ) α2

× N1 (M, Q, Jφ , Jψ , δJφ , δJψ , δQ) δM + N2 (M, Q, Jφ , Jψ ) δM 2 + N3 (M, Q, Jφ , Jψ ) δJφ δJψ + N4 (M, Q, Jφ ) δJψ2
!
+N5 (M, Q, Jψ ) δJφ2 + N6 (M, Q, δJφ , δJψ ) δQ 2
. (61)

Here the function Ni is related to the black hole param- linear term O(λ2 ) by using Eq. (61) and optimal choice
eters in a complex way. When we take into account non- of linear order correction, the function f (λ) is given by


√
−1
3 2M + 3Q λ
f (λ) > α − 

√ √
2 1/2  √ √
2 2
27πJφ Jψ + 4 3Q 2M + 3Q 9π(Jφ + Jψ )2 + 4 3 3 Q 2M + 3Q
√ ! √ !2
 
3Q √
144 3πQ M + 3Q δJψ Jφ3 + 2Jψ Jφ2 (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + 2Jφ Jψ2 (δJψ + 2δJφ ) + δJφ Jψ3
 
× 6π M +
2 2
√ 4 
 
+ 243π 2 Jφ Jψ (Jφ + Jψ )2 (δJψ Jφ + δJφ Jψ ) + 16Q2 2M + 3Q

Jφ (δJφ + 2δJψ ) + Jψ (δJψ + 2δJφ )
2
√ !4 
√ √ 2

3Q 
+ 256Q2 M+ 9 3πJφ Jψ + 4Q 2M + 3Q δQ + O(α3 , α2 λ, αλ2 , λ3 ) . (62)
2

This clearly shows f (λ) ≥ 0 always. Thus, it verifies D. With single rotation
that a five dimensional charged rotating black hole can-
not be over extremalized for a non-linear order accretion 1. Linear order accretion
while the opposite is true for a linear order accretion.
Let’s consider a particular case of single rotation, for
which Eq. (59) takes the following form
√
3
2 48 × 33/4 Q3/2 2M + 3Q
f (λ) = α −  √ √
2 2
9 3πJψ2 + 4Q 2M + 3Q
√ 
  
× 3πJψ δJψ + 4Q 2M + 3Q δQ αλ + O(λ2 ) .

(63)

It is clear from the above equation that overspin-
ning/charging is quite possible in general. However let’s
consider various cases separately.
• δQ = 0. Note that in the limit Q → 0 one can
reach f (λ) > 0, for which black hole could not be
overspun, thereby verifying the validity of the CCC
for black hole having a single rotation. This veri-
fies the recently obtained result Ref. [32] that CCC
is obeyed for single rotation even at linear order
accretion. Consider the numerical example: For
Q = 0.5, Jψ = 0.322011, δJψ = 0.001, and α = 0.01
with λ = 0.1 we get f (λ) = 0.000041. Thus CCC
would always hold good for neutral particle accre-
tion even for charged black hole with single rota-
tion.
• δJψ = 0. It is well known that a four dimensional
charged black hole could be overcharged [33]. To be
a bit more quantitative let’s reconsider the Eq. (63),
for Q = 0.5, Jψ = 0.322011, δQ = 0.003, and α =
0.01 with λ = 0.1, we get f (λ) = −0.00048. With
this we again verify the result of Ref. [33] that the
CCC could as in four dimension be violated.
In five dimension, a single rotating black hole could be
overcharged but not overspun, the natural question then
arises what happens to five dimensional charged black
hole with a single rotation – could it be overcharged or
overspun in the case of bombardment of over charged
particles?
• We know that black hole cannot be overspun but
it could be over charged. When both charge and
rotation are present, the outcome should depend
on which one is greater than the other. The ques-
tion is does this dominance refer to black hole ro-
tation and charge parameters or that of the im-
pinging particles. It turns out that it refers to
the parameters of the impinging particles. We will
show this by numerical examples. Let’s begin with
δJψ < δQ. The question is what might happen
in this case?. To answer this question we must
√
3
 
3/4 3/2
48 × 3 Q 2M + 3Q 3πJψ δJψ + 4Q 2M + 3Q δQ 

f (λ) =  α −  √
 2
9 3πJψ2 + 4Q 2M + 3Q
From Eq. (64), it is clear that black hole cannot be over
extremalized when second order perturbations, O(λ2 ),
are taken in. For non-linear accretion the CCC continued
to hold good.
9
approach, as in previous ones, the problem quan-
titatively. For given Q = 0.5, Jψ = 0.322011,
δQ = 0.003, δJψ = 0.0001, and α = 0.01 with
λ = 0.1 leads to f (λ) = −0.0002445, and so black
hole could be over extremalized violating the CCC.
Let’s now interchange black hole parameters and
keep the rest of the parameters unchanged. That
is, Q = 0.353553, Jψ = 0.499394, δQ = 0.003,
δJψ = 0.0001, and α = 0.01 with λ = 0.1, will
give f (λ) = −0.00001495, implying over extremal-
ization.
• δJψ > δQ. Let’s again consider the numerical ex-
ercise: Take a) Q = 0.5, Jψ = 0.322011 and b) Q =
0.353553, Jψ = 0.499394 for given δQ = 0.0003,
δJψ = 0.001, and α = 0.01 with λ = 0.1 and
that leads to a) f (λ) = 6.3832 × 10−6 > 0 and b)
f (λ) = 50.1196 × 10−6 > 0. It cannot be over ex-
tremalized, and the CCC continues to hold ground.
• δJψ = δQ. Let’s consider values of parame-
ters as follows: a) Q = 0.5, Jψ = 0.322011
and b) Q = 0.353553, Jψ = 0.499394 for given
δQ = 0.003, δJψ = 0.003, and α = 0.01 with
λ = 0.1, we get a) f (λ) = −0.000417867 and b)
f (λ) = −0.000116191. This shows that black hole
could reach over-extremal state when impinging
particles have angular momentum equal to charge.
What emerges from this analysis is that black hole with
single rotation for linear accretion obeys the CCC so long
as δQ < δJψ, and the opposite is true for δQ ≥ δJψ, irre-
spective of relative dominance of black hole rotation and
charge parameters. Interestingly in the case of equality
of angular momentum and charge of impinging particles,
it is charge’s interaction plays dominating role for over
extremalizing process.
2. Non-linear order accretion
Let’s rewrite Eq. (62) in the case of a single rotation,
 2
√

3 2 2 3
√ 2  + O(α , α λ, αλ , λ ) . (64)
λ


V. CONCLUSIONS
It is known that there does not exist a true analogue
of four dimensional Kerr-Newman rotating charged black
hole in five dimension. On the other hand there exists
 10

an analogue of Kerr rotating black hole in five or higher
dimensions. Strangely electric charge cannot be injected
to rotating black hole. However there exists a very close
cousin of Kerr-Newman black hole in minimally gauged
supergravity solution of rotating and charged black hole
[44]. To this black hole we have in this paper extended
the analysis of over extremalizing under linear and non-
linear accretion process [30].
In general it turns out that as is the case in for all
other cases, over extremalizing is possible for linear or-
der while it gets miraculously reversed when non-linear
perturbations are included. The five dimensional black
hole in question thus falls in line with all other black
holes that CCC could be violated at linear order but it is
restored at non-linear order accretion. However there is
a subtle exception for rotating black hole in five dimen-
sion which has two rotation axes permitting two rotation
parameters.
Very recently, some of us [32] had demonstrated a re-
markable property of a black hole with single rotation.
Unlike four dimensional black hole, it cannot be over-
spun even at the linear order accretion while it could be
overspun when both rotations are present. This prop-
erty is however carried through for the five dimensional
rotating charged black hole under study. A charged black
hole could always be overcharged under linear accretion.
In this case there are both rotation and charge present.
Hence the question, when would it be over extremalized
and when not? As expected it turns out that when ro-
tation parameter of impinging particle is greater than
its charge, over extremalizing is prohibited while the op-
posite is the case when charge is greater than or equal
to rotation parameter. It is interesting that in the case
of equality of rotation and charge parameters, it is the
latter’s contribution that dominates.
As pointed out in [32], a black hole with single rota-
tion in five dimension is a different entity like extremal
black hole. The latter can never be over extremalized
and interestingly so is the case for the former as well. It
seems when black hole has the maximum number of rota-
tions that are permitted in a given spacetime dimension,
it can be overspun while it has less than the maximum
allowed, it cannot be overspun. In four dimension maxi-
mum allowed parameter is one and that is why it can be
overspun while in five dimensions maximum allowed are
two. That is why it can perhaps only violate CCC when
two rotations are present but not for single rotation.
Acknowledgments
BA and SS acknowledge the Faculty of Philosophy and
Science, Silesian University in Opava, Czech Republic,
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics,
Pune, India, and Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main,
Germany, for warm hospitality. ND wishes to acknowl-
edge visits to Albert Einstein Institute, Golm and to As-
tronomical Institute, Tashkent supported by the Abdus
Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Tri-
este under the Grant No. OEA-NT-01. This research is
supported in part by Projects No. VA-FA-F-2-008 and
No. MRB-AN-2019-29 of the Uzbekistan Ministry for
Innovation Development, by the Abdus Salam Interna-
tional Centre for Theoretical Physics under the Grant
No. OEA-NT-01 and by the Erasmus + Exchange Grant
between Silesian University in Opava and National Uni-
versity of Uzbekistan.

[1] B. P. Abbott and et al. (VIRGO and LIGO Scientific arXiv:1304.6592 [gr-qc] .
Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), [11] J. V. Rocha and R. Santarelli,
arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc] . Phys. Rev. D 89, 064065 (2014),
[2] B. P. Abbott and et al. (VIRGO and LIGO Scientific arXiv:1402.4840 [gr-qc] .
Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), [12] S. Shaymatov, M. Patil, B. Ahmedov, and
arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc] . P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064025 (2015),
[3] R. Penrose, Nuovo Cimento Rivista Serie 1, 252 (1969). arXiv:1409.3018 [gr-qc] .
[4] R. Wald, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 82, 548 (1974). [13] J. Natário, L. Queimada, and R. Vi-
[5] N. Dadhich and K. Narayan, Phys. Lett. A 231, 335 cente, Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 175002 (2016),
(1997). arXiv:1601.06809 [gr-qc] .
[6] V. E. Hubeny, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064013 (1999), [14] Y. Song, M. Zhang, D.-C. Zou, C.-Y. Sun, and
gr-qc/9808043 . R.-H. Yue, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, 694 (2018),
[7] T. Jacobson and T. P. Sotiriou, in arXiv:1705.01676 [gr-qc] .
Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 222 (2010) [15] K. Düztaş, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 045008 (2018),
p. 012041, arXiv:1006.1764 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1710.06610 [gr-qc] .
[8] A. Saa and R. Santarelli, [16] S. Jana, R. Shaikh, and S. Sarkar,
Phys. Rev. D 84, 027501 (2011), Phys. Rev. D 98, 124039 (2018),
arXiv:1105.3950 [gr-qc] . arXiv:1808.09656 [gr-qc] .
[9] M. Bouhmadi-López, V. Cardoso, A. Nerozzi, [17] K. Düztaş and M. Jamil, arXiv e-prints (2018),
and J. V. Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084051 (2010), arXiv:1808.04711 [gr-qc] .
arXiv:1003.4295 [gr-qc] . [18] K. Düztaş and M. Jamil,
[10] Z. Li and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124022 (2013), Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950248 (2019),
 11

arXiv:1812.06966 [gr-qc] . [33] K. S. Revelar and I. Vega,

[19] S. Shaymatov, Int. J. Mod. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 49, 1960020 (2019). Phys. Rev. D 96, 064010 (2017),
[20] E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and G. Khanna, arXiv:1706.07190 [gr-qc] .
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 261102 (2010), [34] A. N. Aliev, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024011 (2006),
arXiv:1008.5159 [gr-qc] . hep-th/0604207 .
[21] P. Zimmerman, I. Vega, E. Poisson, and [35] A. N. Aliev, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084041 (2007),
R. Haas, Phys. Rev. D 87, 041501 (2013), hep-th/0702129 .
arXiv:1211.3889 [gr-qc] . [36] A. N. Aliev, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 4669 (2007),
[22] J. V. Rocha and V. Car- hep-th/0611205 .
doso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 (2011), [37] M. Cvetič and D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2612 (1996),
arXiv:1102.4352 [gr-qc] . hep-th/9603147 .
[23] S. Isoyama, N. Sago, and [38] D. Youm, Phys. Rep. 316, 1 (1999),
T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124024 (2011), arXiv:hep-th/9710046 [hep-th] .
arXiv:1108.6207 [gr-qc] . [39] M. Cvetič and D. Youm,
[24] M. Colleoni and L. Barack, Nuclear Physics B 476, 118 (1996),
Phys. Rev. D 91, 104024 (2015), arXiv:hep-th/9603100 [hep-th] .
arXiv:1501.07330 [gr-qc] . [40] M. Cvetič and D. Youm,
[25] M. Colleoni, L. Barack, A. G. Shah, and Nuclear Physics B 477, 449 (1996),
M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084044 (2015), arXiv:hep-th/9605051 [hep-th] .
arXiv:1508.04031 [gr-qc] . [41] M. Cvetič, H. Lü, and C. N. Pope,
[26] J. Sorce and R. M. Wald, Phys. Lett. B 598, 273 (2004), hep-th/0406196 .
Phys. Rev. D 96, 104014 (2017), [42] M. Cvetič, H. Lü, and C. N. Pope,
arXiv:1707.05862 [gr-qc] . Phys. Rev. D 70, 081502 (2004), hep-th/0407058 .
[27] B. Gwak, J. High Energy Phys. 9, 81 (2018), [43] Z.-W. Chong, M. Cvetič, H. Lü, and C. N. Pope,
arXiv:1807.10630 [gr-qc] . Phys. Rev. D 72, 041901 (2005), hep-th/0505112 .
[28] B. Ge, Y. Mo, S. Zhao, and [44] Z.-W. Chong, M. Cvetič, H. Lü, and C. N. Pope,
J. Zheng, Phys. Lett. B 783, 440 (2018), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 161301 (2005), hep-th/0506029 .
arXiv:1712.07342 [hep-th] . [45] K. Prabhu and N. Dadhich,
[29] B. Chen, F.-L. Lin, and B. Ning, arXiv e-prints (2019), Phys. Rev. D 81, 024011 (2010),
arXiv:1902.00949 [gr-qc] . arXiv:0902.3079 [hep-th] .
[30] J. An, J. Shan, H. Zhang, and [46] V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 50, 846 (1994),
S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104007 (2018), gr-qc/9403028 .
arXiv:1711.04310 [hep-th] . [47] V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4430 (1995),
[31] R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, gr-qc/9503052 .
Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 172, 304 (1986). [48] B. C. J.M. Bardeen and S. Hawking, Commun. Math.
[32] S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and Phys. 31, 161 (1973).
B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 585 (2019), [49] W. Israel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 397 (1957).
arXiv:1809.10457 [gr-qc] .