arXiv:2011.12841v3 [gr-qc] 1 Feb 2021 † ∗ t 9 0,wre rn ols[1 2,adHo and 12], [11, worlds brane warped 10], [2– grav- [9, theory quantum string ity loop as [6–8], ef- such spacetime Lorentz-violating noncommutative contexts attracted 5], The different has in [1]. arise scale, years fects Planck last the the in effects on attention remaining gravity to quantum due regimes, of energy low at violation sigadcnitn praht h pnaeu lo- includes that spontaneous violations the diffeomorphism to and inter- Lorentz approach An cal consistent relativity. and general by esting required con- laws and constraints servation Lorentz geometric local mechanism the the preserve implement and breaking to violation order in symmetry adopted is 17] spontaneous [16, a count, [47–63]. gauge corrections radiative the and interac- [25–31], [41–46], photon-fermion tions sector [32–40], fermion sectors CPT-odd/even the vi- [18–24], symmetry of olation CPT phe- magnitude and include and developments the out Theoretical nomenological on carried parameters. bounds were Lorentz-violating stringent SME the involving raise the studies to of Several allowed sectors different 17]. fixed the [16, with fields tensors model con- background standard physical of the composed of is tractions and invariance, with Lorentz compatible observer even the terms, gauge-invariant additional (SME). known extension [2], spontaneous Model theory a Standard string of the in as idea and breaking the Colladay symmetry on by Lorentz based 15], proposed behavior [14, was the Kostelecký particles on elementary effects Lorentz-violating of for framework suitable account A to others. among [13], gravity Lifshitz lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades r.v.maluf@fisica.ufc.br address: Electronic h eetsac o in fteLrnzsymmetry Lorentz the of signs for search recent The hntegaiainlitrcini ae noac- into taken is interaction gravitational the When includes which theory, field effective an is SME The ewrs lc oe,LrnzSmer raig lc Ho Black Breaking, Symmetry Lorentz Holes, Black Keywords: s 04.70.-s,04.50.Kd,11.30.Cp,04.60.-m angular numbers: shadow PACS the and I field bumblebee constant. the cosmological angula between effective shadow relation positive the a calculate ma with we the solution Then as geometry. of spacetime cosmolo conceived the effective tensor, an gravitat energy-momentum with the anisotropic holes From violati black field. symmetry symmetric bumblebee Lorentz spherically the the for for value mechanism expectation a provides which nti ok epeetbakhl ouin ihacosmolog a with solutions hole black present we work, this In lc oe ihacsooia osati ubee gravi bumblebee in constant cosmological a with holes Black .INTRODUCTION I. 2 etod inisNtri uaa,Uiesdd Federa Universidade Humanas, e Naturais Ciências de Centro vnd o sao 01 at nr,02050SoPaulo, São 09210-580 André, Santo 5001, Estados dos Avenida 1 apsd ii otlz E ..63,64570-Brazil - 60455-760 6030, C.P. CE, - Fortaleza Pici, do Campus nvriaeFdrld er UC,Dpraet eFísic de Departamento (UFC), Ceará do Federal Universidade .V Maluf V. R. 1, ∗ ˘r ava- n uin .S Neves S. C. Juliano and oetmtno.Tesmls aei ecie by energy- described anisotropic is an case field generate simplest vector The they a spacetime, say, in tensor. to direction momentum privileged is a that define VEV, which nonzero a fields with fields tensor the self-interacting involve and [71–73] spacetime 75]. Randers [74, the spacetime the- in the bipartite-Finsler of as structure such geometric Lorentz ory, the the alterna- of in of violation directly existence the symmetry the include mentioning that waves worth approaches gravitational tive is It and 68], 70]. universe [69, [67, the gravity of expansion linearized the [66], describe that in- sector models [65]. gravitational clude SME connections the spin involving and studies vierbein Recent dy- a from underlying built guarantees whose are self- fields namics (VEV) a tensor value of expectation the presence vacuum for The with potential manifold torsion. interacting Riemann-Cartan and space- a approach, curvature be an nonzero to such assumed ini- In is was [64]. time framework Ref. SME in the discussed tially in sector gravitational the fidb h rsneo h ubee E.Astatic A VEV. bumblebee the of presence the the mod- of by are terms ified that parameters in au- post-Newtonian solutions those parametrized approximated vector, obtained background the thors for configurations ent iino oain osatVV htis, that con- VEV, the constant imposed covariant authors a the of where dition [83], Bertolami Páramos by out and carried them. were of scenarios violation some Lorentz on focus will hole we black article, with of this connection In effects [77–82]. in interesting physics. arise spacetime some VEV Minkowski literature, bumblebee the the the in in spacetime known or curved studied is 76] the As been 67, in have 65, quadratic whether [64, models contexts, smooth bumblebee different a in The by Lorentz- triggered potential. spontaneous the breaking with [2], symmetry theories string of text omnprescription common (where h ubee oesaeeape fpooasthat proposals of examples are models bumblebee The nta tde nbakhl ouin ihnthe within solutions hole black on studies Initial atclr u eut r h eyfirst very the are results our particular, n eSao,Csooia Constant Cosmological Shadow, le ia osatadaespotdb an by supported are and constant gical ∇ oa on fve,sc ouin are solutions such view, of point ional ietto ftebmlbefil in field bumblebee the of nifestation µ aisfrtepooe lc hole black proposed the for radius r ize. nb suiganneovacuum nonzero a assuming by on clcntn nbmlbegravity, bumblebee in constant ical stecvratdrvtv) nta fthe of instead derivative), covariant the is B µ 2, n a rtcniee ntecon- the in considered first was and † ∂ oABC, do l µ b Brazil ν a, 0 = yasmn differ- assuming By . ty ∇ µ b ν 0 = 2 and spherically symmetric black hole solution was re- momentum tensor for those black holes. Section III cently built by Casana et al. [84], by considering a speaks of the shadow angular radius of the Schwarzschild- nonminimal coupling between the Ricci tensor and the de Sitter-like geometry, and the influence of the Lorentz- bumblebee field. The additional condition for the con- violating parameter on this phenomenon is pointed out. stant squared norm of the VEV allowed them to find an The final comments are in Section IV. We adopt ge- exact Schwarzschild-like solution. Modifications on the ometrized units in our calculations, i.e., G = c = 1, black hole thermodynamics due to the presence of the where G is the Newtonian constant, and c is speed of nonvanishing bumblebee VEV were pointed out in Ref. light in vacuum. [85], considering black holes geometries obtained in Refs. [83, 84]. Other black hole solutions were obtained in- volving different bumblebee models. A Kerr-like solution was built following a similar approach [86]. In Ref. [87], II. CONSTRUCTING BLACK HOLES IN THE a Reissner-Nordström solution emerged from the sponta- BUMBLEBEE GRAVITY neous Lorentz symmetric breaking triggered by a Kalb- Ramond field. Even exotic wormhole solutions have been investigated in the literature of that context [88, 89]. A. The adopted framework Having said all that, we follow some mentioned works and present new black holes geometries with a cosmo- As we pointed out, bumblebee models provide a sim- logical constant in the bumblebee model or gravity. As ple mechanism for studying the spontaneous breaking will see, such solutions with a cosmological constant are of the Lorentz symmetry in the gravitational scenario. just possible by assuming a suitable form for the bum- These types of models have a nontrivial VEV that af- blebee potential. However, as we will see, the proposed fects the dynamics of other fields coupled to the bum- geometries here are neither asymptotically anti-de Sitter blebee field, preserving geometric structures and conser- nor asymptotically de Sitter. In this sense, we call them vation laws compatible with a usual pseudo-Riemannian Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter-like and Schwarzschild-de manifold from general relativity [16, 64]. Sitter-like black holes, as much as the zero cosmologi- Among several possibilities of models that are able to cal constant case, obtained by Casana et al. [84], is not break the Lorentz symmetry, there is the simplest action asymptotically flat, thus it is called Schwarzschild-like form involving a vector field B , the bumblebee field, in black hole. Studies on black holes with a cosmological µ a torsion-free spacetime written as constant are considered as very important issues since the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory (AdS/CFT) corre- spondence and the observation of the accelerating expan- 4 1 ξ µ ν SB = d x√ g (R 2Λ) + B B Rµν sion of the universe (in the latter case, asymptotically de ˆ − 2κ − 2κ Sitter or de Sitter-like black holes are justified). 1 µν µ 2 Bµν B V (B Bµ b )+ M , (1) From the metric obtained here, we calculated a very −4 − ± L important observable in order to relate the bumblebee field to the spacetime geometry: the shadow angular ra- dius. Shadow of black holes has been a seminal topic in where κ =8πG/c4 is the gravitational coupling constant, physics recently. And the reason for that is the very first Λ is the cosmological constant, and ξ plays the role of image of a black hole announced by the Event Horizon a coupling constant that accounts for the nonminimum Telescope Collaboration in 2019 [90, 91]. Indeed, that interaction between the bumblebee field and the Ricci famous image shows the shadow of M87*, the central su- tensor or geometry (with mass dimension [ξ] = M −1) permassive black hole in the Messier 87 galaxy. However, [65, 67]. Also, one has Bµν ∂µBν ∂ν Bµ or the bum- ≡ − the very first shadow of a black hole was calculated in the blebee field strength, and M describes the matter and L last century. In the 60s Synge [92] obtained that which we additional couplings with the field Bµ. The potential V call today shadow of the Schwarzschild black hole. Then is responsible for triggering the spontaneous Lorentz vi- Bardeen did the same for the Kerr geometry [93]. In the olation in case of the bumblebee field assumes a nonzero µ 2 recent years, shadows have been drawn for several black VEV Bµ bµ, satisfying the condition B Bµ = b . h i ≡ 2 ∓ holes in many contexts [86, 94–98]. According to recent It is worth emphasizing that the quantity b is a positive works, relations between the shadow and the black hole real number, and the sign implies that bµ is timelike or ± parameters are possible in the general relativity realm or spacelike, respectively. The model described by the ac- even in contexts beyond the Einsteinian context [95–99]. tion (1) and other versions involving different couplings Our focus here is in a model beyond general relativity. or choices of the potential have been investigated in a This article is structured as follows: In Section II the variety of contexts (as mentioned in Introduction). framework is presented, and both the Schwarzschild-anti- The gravitational field equations in the bumblebee con- de Sitter-like and the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-like black text or gravity can be directly obtained by varying the holes are built in the bumblebee gravity, some features action (1) with respect to the metric tensor gµν , while are discussed like horizons, singularity, and the energy- keeping the bumblebee field Bµ fixed. That procedure 3 yields Adopting both the mentioned Ansatz and the condition µ 2 bµb = b = const., one has the radial component of the B M Gµν +Λgµν = κ Tµν + Tµν bumblebee field when it assumes the VEV, i.e.,
′ α 1 αβ ρ(r) = κ 2V BµBν + B Bνα V + BαβB gµν br(r)= b e . (6) µ − 4 | | 1 α β α α As we can see, contrary to Bertolami and Páramos [83], +ξ B B Rαβgµν BµB Rαν Bν B Rαµ 2 − − the authors of Ref. [84], from Eq. (6), have µbν = 0, ∇ 6 1 α 1 α which is the same form of the bumblebee field that we + α µ (B Bν )+ α ν (B Bµ) 2∇ ∇ 2∇ ∇ will adopt next. It is worth pointing out that the vanish- ing condition for the covariant derivative is just possible 1 2 1 α β M (BµBν ) gµν α β B B + κT , (2) for special spacetimes with a geometrical constraint that −2∇ − 2 ∇ ∇ µν comes from the underlying pseudo-Riemann geometry as- sumption. as modified gravitational field equations, in which Gµν is ′ With that Ansatz plus the mentioned bumblebee form the Einstein tensor and the operator means derivative ′ with respect to the potential argument. In the general and assuming V = V =0, the following metric case, T B and T M are the energy-momentum tensors of µν µν 2M 2M −1 the bumblebee field and of the matter field, respectively. ds2 = 1 dt2 +(1+ ℓ) 1 dr2 − − r − r In order to solve Eq. (2), it is necessary to choose a bumblebee potential V and a metric Ansatz with some +r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 (7) symmetry, like the spherical or the axial symmetry. By doing that, one obtains a set of equations and, solving is a solution of the modified field equations (2). The met- them, a full metric. Here we focus on the spherical sym- ric (7) is also called Schwarzschild-like geometry. The metry and comment some potentials as options to get a bumblebee field or the Lorentz-violating parameter is full black hole metric, whether with or without a cosmo- represented in that metric by ℓ = ξb2, and the parameter logical constant. M stands for the usual mass of the Schwarzschild black The action (1) also provides an equation of motion for hole in the limit ℓ 0. Note that the condition (4) and µ → B . By varying that action in this time with respect to the potential choice imply that the field Bµ stays frozen the bumblebee field leads to in its VEV bµ, that is to say, V = 0 (vacuum condi- tion) and the assumption V ′ =0 ensures that the field is µν ′ ν ξ µν µB =2 V B BµR . (3) in the minimum of the potential. Besides that, since the ∇ − 2κ background field bµ is a spacelike vector purely radial, its associated field strength is identically null, i.e., Bµν =0. With all framework introduced, in which we do not con- A solution like (7) resembles that one obtained by sider a coupling between the bumblebee field and the Seifert in Ref. [100], in which a Lorentz-violating topo- matter field, we will apply it to the nonzero cosmological logical defect was studied. In the mentioned paper, the constant case, generating then black holes with a cosmo- author presented a topological defect solution from a logical constant. But before that, we comment a previous Lorentz symmetry breaking triggered spontaneously by result that involves a null cosmological constant. a tensor field, namely, a rank-two antisymmetric ten- sor field. Such a solution was interpreted as a vacuum monopole solution. As we said, such a monopole solution B. The Λ = 0 case reseambles (7), but it does not approach asymptotically the line element (7) due to a different r-dependence. On In this framework, an exact black hole solution with- the other hand, according to Ref. [101], for the Lorentz out a cosmological constant was constructed by Casana symmetry breaking triggered by a vector field, which is et al. [84], also known as the Schwarzschild-like black just the case considered here, a domain wall (another hole. According to the authors, a spherically symmet- kind of topological defect) solution was obtained only ric spacetime in the absence of both matter ( M = 0) when a timelike vector was adopted. In this sense, the and a cosmological constant (Λ=0) was interpretedL as a possibility of a topological defect solution for a spacelike Schwarzschild-like black in the bumblebee gravity, from vector (like the bumblebee field adopted here) is prohib- a radial bumblebee field Bµ written as ited. From the metric (7), it is clear to see that the event Bµ = bµ = (0,br(r), 0, 0). (4) horizon does not depend on ℓ. As is well known, consid- ering a metric like (5), zeros of grr = e−2ρ(r) =0 provide In the coordinates (t,r,θ,φ), the general spherical Ansatz the localization of horizons. As we can directly read, for used by the authors (and adopted here) is given by the metric (7) one has r+ = 2M, the same value of the event horizon of the Schwarzschild black hole. In the 2γ(r) 2ρ(r) 2 2 2 gµν = diag( e ,e , r , r sin θ). (5) same way, as we will see, the photon sphere is located at − 4 rph =3M, like Schwarzschild’s. Such a surface is respon- values. Like the bumblebee field, the Lagrange multiplier sible for the black hole shadow. On the other hand, as can also be expanded around its vacuum value λ as pointed out by Casana et al. [84], the light bending and h i λ = λ + λ.˜ (10) the perihelion advance bring out the Lorentz-violating h i parameter and its (possible) tiny influence.1 It is worth For our purpose here, it is convenient to fix the initial emphasizing that the solution (7) cannot be converted ˜ into the standard Schwarzschild solution for a nonzero conditions taking λ = 0, which implies that the field λ value of ℓ by means a suitable coordinate transformation remains frozen in its VEV. This is a similar hypothesis used for the bumblebee field in Ref. [84]. A priori, λ [84, 85]. In this sense, the metric (7) is an entirely new h i spacetime metric. could depend on the spacetime position, but it is suf- ficient to assume it as a real constant. Thus, in what follows, the on-shell value of λ is given by λ λ , with ≡ h i C. The Λ 6= 0 case its value fixed from the equations of motion (2) or (3) in terms of other parameters of the model. It is worth noting that the action (1) with the condi- Following the approach outlined above, we will now tions V = V ′ = 0, adopted by Casana et al. [84], will investigate some effects of the Lorentz violation in the provide a black hole solution from the Ansatz (5) only if presence of a nonzero cosmological constant on the model Λ=0. A black hole solution with a nonzero cosmological described by the action (1). More specifically, we are in- constant needs a different potential, in the case of a so- terested in obtaining an exact black hole solution in the lution with the relation e2γ(r) = (1+ ℓ)e−2ρ(r) exhibited presence of a cosmological constant, a geometry similar in the Schwarzschild-like black hole (7). Therefore, in to either the Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter black hole or order to build black holes with a cosmological constant, the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (depending on the we assume, for that purpose, the linear potential written sign of the cosmological constant). One route to be ex- as plored here is to relax the vacuum conditions, i.e., V =0 ′ and V = 0 assumed by Casana et al. [84]. A simple µ 2 λ µ 2 ′ λ V (B Bµ b )= (B Bµ b ) and V = , (11) example of a potential that satisfies such conditions is − 2 − 2 clearly provided by a smooth quadratic form where Bµ is assumed radial-like (4). With such a po- Ansatz λ 2 tential and the (5), one has three independent V = V (X)= X , (8) 2 2 equations from Eq. (2) because Gφφ = sin θGθθ. That is to say, our system of equations reads where λ is a constant, and X is a generic potential argu- ′ 2 ment. In this case, the VEV bµ is solution of V = V =0. 1 1 Λr ρ′(r) 1 − e2ρ(r) =0, (12) Another simple choice of potential consists of a linear − 2r − (1 + ℓ) function " # λ V = V (λ, X)= X, (9) 2 (1 + ℓ) 2 γ′′(r)+ γ′(r)2 γ′(r)+ ρ′(r) γ′(r)ρ′(r) − r ℓ − where now λ is a Lagrange-multiplier field [17]. Note 1 (1 + ℓ) 1 + (κλb2 Λ)r2 e2ρ(r) =0, (13) that the equation of motion for the Lagrange-multiplier −ℓr2 − − ensures the vacuum condition X = 0, and then V = 0 ′′ h ′ 2 1 ′ ′ ′ i′ for any field λ on-shell. However, for the linear func- γ (r)+ γ (r) + [γ (r) ρ (r)] γ (r)ρ (r) ′ r − − tional form (9), it follows that V = 0 when the field λ Λ is nonzero, so additional contributions6 from the poten- + e2ρ(r) =0. (14) (1 + ℓ) tial V can modify the Einstein equations. Since λ has no kinetic terms, it is auxiliary and cannot propagate. As we can see, our system shows three independent equa- However, it is also an additional degree of freedom that tions and two unknown functions (γ and ρ). A third appears in the equations of motion. In fact, the equations would come from the matter energy-momentum tensor of motion for the metric (2) and the bumblebee field (3) with a suitable equation of state. In our case, without a provide constraints on the field λ. Moreover, in order matter field, that function is zero. to be well defined, all bumblebee models require explicit Equation (12) is a differential equation which involves initial conditions on the field excitations about vacuum just ρ(r). Thus, its solution is directly given by
1 C Λ −1 ρ(r)= ln (1 + ℓ) 1 1 r2 , (15) 2 − r − 3 1 In Ref. [84], there are upper bounds on the parameter ℓ from, " # for example, light deflection, time delay of light, and perihelion advance of the planet Mercury. The most stringent upper bound where C1 is an integration constant interpreted as some on the Lorentz-violating parameter is ℓ< 10−15 to date. sort of mass parameter of the Schwarzschild geometry. 5
By making Λ=0, we hope to recover the Schwarzschild- by (11), a solution of this type will be possible if and only like solution. In this sense, C1 =2M for that purpose. if In order to generate a solution of Eqs. (12)-(14) similar κλ to the Λ=0 case, we use the mentioned relation between Λ= (1 + ℓ). (17) the metric terms, e2γ(r) = (1+ ℓ)e−2ρ(r). Thus from Eq. ξ (15), one has The constraint (17) is a conditio sine qua non in order to 1 2M Λ generate a metric with a cosmological constant from the γ(r)= ln 1 r2 (16) 2 − r − 3 modified Einstein equations (2) and the potential (11). This is the constraint on the field λ coming from the as solution of our system. Such a relation between the modified Einstein field equations as mentioned earlier. metric terms provides γ(r) and an appropriate solution With all metric terms known, namely (15) and (16), for the system of equations (12)-(14) even with a nonzero our proposed metric with spherical symmetry and a cos- cosmological constant. However, with the potential given mological constant reads
2M Λ 2M Λ −1 ds2 = 1 (1 + ℓ) e r2 dt2 +(1+ ℓ) 1 (1 + ℓ) e r2 dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 , (18) − − r − 3 − r − 3
κλ in which, by convenience, we conceive of Λe = ξ as with ǫ and pr playing the role of the energy density and an effective cosmological constant. It is worth mention- the radial pressure, respectively, and pt is the tangen- ing that the constraint (17) also guarantees the energy tial pressure. Then the anisotropic feature of the space- conservation of the bumblebee energy-momentum tensor. time (18) gets evident, the radial and tangential pres- Indeed, sures are different. As we can see, in particular, the ra- dial pressure is always negative when Λe > 0, which is µν ν TB =0 (19) the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-like case as we will indicate ∇ later. A relation between the bumblebee field (specifi- rr for all components, except for the TB component that cally its potential) and a de Sitter phase in cosmology asks that constraint in order to satisfy the energy- was already indicated in Ref. [66] and it appears in the momentum conservation. And the equation of motion gravitational context once again here. for the bumblebee field (3) is also verified by using the It is worth emphasizing that the metric (18) is neither constrain (17) for the nonzero cosmological constant case. asymptotically de Sitter nor asymptotically anti-de Sit- The metric (18) is richer than the metric (7) that ex- ter. That is, we cannot write that metric in a particular cludes a cosmological constant. As will see, the bumble- form such that, in the end of the day, bee field influence is found even on the horizons, contrary to the Schwarzschild-like solution in which the event hori- zon radius is the same of the Schwarzschild black hole. rr Λ 2 In particular, the last part of this article will show the lim gtt = lim g = lim 1 r . (22) r→∞ r→∞ r→∞ − 3 influence of the bumblebee field on the shadow angular radius. Those influences are a consequence of the Lorentz symmetry violation, which is translated into geometry The factor before grr, namely (1 + ℓ), forbids the above or into the general relativity language from a privileged limit. According to Ref. [85] mentioned before, that spacetime direction or an anisotropic fluid. This is note- factor also forbids a coordinate transformation that turns worthy from the total energy-momentum tensor of the the Schwarzschild-like black hole into the Schwarzschild metric (18) given by black hole. The same argument can be adopted here, for our metric uses the e2γ(r) = (1+ℓ)e−2ρ(r) relation such as ǫ the Schwarzschild-like black hole. Therefore, the metric − µ 1 pr (18) is not converted into either the Schwarzschild-anti- Tν = , (20) κ pt de Sitter black hole or the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black pt hole. in which Another feature of the metric (18) regards to real or “fictitious” singular points. The former is the physical ℓ singularity that appears by taking, for example, the limit pr = ǫ = Λe and pt = Λe, (21) − −(1 + ℓ)r2 − − of the Kretschmann scalar K (built from the Riemann 6 tensor), which is given by 0.0
8 ℓ 8 4ℓ r+ K = R Rαβδγ = Λ2 + Λ + αβδγ 3 e (1 + ℓ)r2 3 e (1 + ℓ)r2 -0.2 2.0 16M 48M 2 + + . (23) 1.8 (1 + ℓ)r3 ℓ(1 + ℓ)r4 -0.4
e
The Schwarzschild-like singularity is present only at r = L 1.6 0 (considering 0 < ℓ 1). The mentioned “fictitious” -0.6 singular points are, indeed,≪ a bad choice of the coordinate system. As we said, zeros of grr give us not a “physical 1.4 - singularity”, but special surfaces, horizons, which depend 0.8 on the sign of Λe in the metric (18). 1.2 The metric (18) is also independent of two coordinates: -1.0 t and φ. Thus, that geometry possesses two Killing vector 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 fields (∂/∂t and ∂/∂φ) related to two conserved quanti- { ties, energy and angular momentum (both will be useful later for the geodesic motion). Figure 1: Relations between the metric parameters and the event horizon radius, r+, for the Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter- ℓ Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter-like black hole like case. Λe and stand for the effective cosmological con- stant and the Lorentz-violating parameter, respectively. As we can see, that parameter can decrease the event horizon Assuming Λe < 0, we have a Schwarzschild-anti-de radius. In this graphic, we adopted M = 1. Sitter-like solution. And its spacetime structure is given by a unique horizon, the event horizon, whose radius is 1 1 (M, Λe,ℓ) 3 r+ = 1 F , (24) With ℓ = 0 one has the well-known Schwarzschild-de − (M, Λe,ℓ) 3 − (1 + ℓ)Λe 2 F Sitter condition to generate two horizons. And for 2 with 9M (1 + ℓ)Λe = 1, our metric shows an extreme case, in which r+ = rc. Analytic expressions for the event and 2 2 2 1 the cosmological horizons are, respectively, (M, Λe,ℓ)=(1+ ℓ) Λe 3M + 9M . F s − (1 + ℓ)Λe ! (25) 2 π α r+ = cos + , (27) The relation between the parameters of the black hole (1 + ℓ)Λe 3 3 (18) and the event horizon radius is indicated in Fig. 1. p As we can see, for large values of Λe , the symmetry | | breaking parameter, ℓ, decreases the horizon radius. 2 π α r = cos , (28) In this case, Λe < 0, the unique Killing surface coin- c (1 + ℓ)Λe 3 − 3 cides with the event horizon. The Killing surfaces local- ization is calculated from gtt =0, they are surfaces where −1 p the Killing vector field ∂/∂t is null or lightlike. Above with α = cos (3M (1 + ℓ)Λe). As we can see in Fig. 2, the Lorentz-violation parameter, ℓ, modifies the space- all, from that surface to infinity, the Killing vector field p ∂/∂t is timelike in the Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter-like time structure, it decreases the cosmological horizon ra- dius and, at the same time, increases the event hori- case. In this entire region, r > r+, static observers are viable ones. zon radius for considerable values of Λe. The region r+
point of view). As we mentioned, our observer will be 0.10 at rest in the domain of outer communication, that is to r+ 3.0 say, our observer is a static one. The shadow silhouette 0.08 is given by unstable orbits (circular unstable orbits for our metric) outside the event horizon. In such orbits, 2.8 photons may either go into the black hole or go to the
e 0.06 opposite direction, reaching, for example, our observer. L 2.6 Therefore, we need the null geodesic equations in order to 0.04 obtain such special orbits and trace them to the observer 2.4 position. Geodesics are calculated from the Lagrangian 0.02 2.2 1 µ ν = gµν x˙ x˙ , (29) 0.00 2.0 L 2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 where dot means derivative with respect to the affine { parameter of the curve (indicate here by τ). In particular, an equatorial null geodesic (θ = π/2) for the metric (18) 0.10 becomes simply rc 2M Λe 2 ˙2 0.08 20 1 (1 + ℓ) r t − − r − 3 −1 2M Λe 2 2 2 ˙2 e 0.06 +(1 + ℓ) 1 (1 + ℓ) r r˙ + r φ =0. 15
L − r − 3 (30) 0.04 10 As we said, our proposed metric has ∂/∂t and ∂/∂φ as 0.02 two Killing vector fields that, consequently, yield two con-
5 served quantities. The first one (∂/∂t) provides the en- 0.00 ergy conservation, and the second one (∂/∂φ) gives us 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 the angular momentum conservation. Therefore, photons { along the geodesics (30) have both conserved energy E and angular momentum L given by
Figure 2: Relations between the metric parameters and the 2M Λe 2 2 ˙ r E = 1 (1 + ℓ) r t˙ and L = r φ. (31) event horizon radius, +, and the cosmological horizon radius, − r − 3 rc, for the Schwarzschild-de Sitter-like case. Λe and ℓ stand for the effective cosmological constant and the Lorentz-violating As is known from textbooks, the geodesic equations from ℓ parameter, respectively. The parameter may increase the a spacetime with spherical symmetry like (18) may be event horizon and decrease the cosmological horizon. In this M written as a conservation equation for each photon, a graphic, we adopted = 1, thus white regions are forbidden familiar equation like for that value. 1 dr 2 + (r)= , (32) 2 dτ V E timelike Killing vector makes Eq. (18) a static space- time). In the next section, we calculate the shadow an- in which the gravitational potential (r) and the energy are defined as V gular radius of the metric (18) as seen by a static observer E in the domain of outer communication. L2 1 2M Λ (r)= (1 + ℓ) e , (33) V 2(1 + ℓ) r2 − r3 − 3 III. THE SHADOW ANGULAR RADIUS E2 = . (34) The black hole shadow is a dark region in the bright E 2(1 + ℓ) sky caused by a black hole and its huge gravitational field or the intense light deflection. Here we are interested in The condition of unstable orbits (d (r)/dr = 0 and calculating the angular radius of the shadow generated d2 (r)/dr2 < 0) that compose the blackV hole shadow V by the black hole (18) for Λe > 0, the Schwarzschild-de give us the following radius: rph = 3M. This is the Sitter-like case (more appropriate from the cosmological photon sphere radius, and such a sphere is the surface 8
2. ´ 10-4 { = 0.5 y { = 0.01 = 1.5 ´ 10-4 { 0.5 { = 0.01
L cosmologicalhorizon r -4 H 1. ´ 10 V Qstat Le < 0 5. ´ 10-5 x ro Le > 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 r
Figure 3: Gravitational potential (33) and the influence of the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ on it. As we can see, the parameter ℓ does not modify the photon sphere radius, indi- cated by rph = 3M. In this graphic one adopts M = 1 and Figure 4: Definition of the shadow angular radius Θstat for a r ro |Λe|=0.01. static observer at rest ( = ).
that creates the shadow silhouette. Therefore, in order from the following transformations to measure the shadow angular radius, our observer will be beyond the photon sphere. As we can see, that radius r2 = Ω(¯r)2r¯2, (39) is the same of the Schwarzschild photon sphere, as much as of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter sphere. The Lorentz- 2M Λ −1 violating parameter ℓ does not modify such a result (see (1 + ℓ) 1 (1 + ℓ) e r2 dr2 = Ω(¯r)2dr¯2, Fig. 3). − r − 3 Circular orbits implies dr/dφ =0, thus Eq. (30) deliv- (40) ers a useful ratio in which Ω(¯r) is the conformal factor. Therefore, from 2 the above relations, it is easy to get E 1 2M Λe 2 = 2 3 (1 + ℓ) . (35) L r − r − 3 dy 2 dφ 2 r2 =r ¯2 = With the aid of the photon sphere radius, rph = 3M, dx dr¯ (1 + ℓ) photons that compose the shadow silhouette present the 2M Λ dφ 2 following constant energy-angular momentum ratio: 1 (1 + ℓ) e r2 . (41) × − r − 3 dr E2 1 Λ = (1 + ℓ) e . (36) L2 27M 2 − 3 The term dφ/dr comes directly from the geodesic equa- We are going to follow the approach presented in Ref. tion (30), and with a useful trigonometric relation, [103] where the shadow angular radius was calculated for namely sin2 Θ = tan2 Θ/(1 + tan2 Θ), the following angle the Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole. In that approach, is obtained our static observer—as we said—is in the domain of outer 2M Λ E −2 communication, between the photon sphere and the cos- sin2 Θ= 1 (1 + ℓ) e r2 r . (42) − r − 3 L mological horizon. His/her radial coordinate is r = ro. According to Fig 4, the shadow angular radius is defined as For a static observer at r = ro in the domain of outer communication, the shadow angular radius is obtained ∆y tan Θ = lim . (37) from orbits with the calculated energy-angular momen- ∆x→0 ∆x tum ratio (36), that is to say, orbits from the photon In order to obtain the angle Θ, we adopt the isotropic sphere. Then substituting Eq. (36) into Eq. (42), we coordinate system, in which angles are invariant in com- have the sought-after relation parison with the Euclidian space. With that coordinate system, our two-dimensional metric (spatial components 2M Λe 2 1 ro (1 + ℓ) 3 ro with θ = π/2) becomes conformal to the two-dimensional sin2 Θ = − − . (43) stat 1 Λe 2 2 (1 + ℓ) r Euclidian space in spherical coordinates and can be writ- 27M − 3 o ten as As we can see, the above relation equals the result ob- 2 2 2 2 2 ds2 = Ω(¯r) dr¯ +¯r dφ , (38) tained in Ref. [103] by imposing ℓ = 0, which is the 9
Π 2 first time in the literature, the influence of the Lorentz- { = 0.5 violating parameter on the shadow angular radius was { = 0.1 straightforwardly indicated. Such a parameter—that { = 0.01 makes the action (1) non-Lorentz invariant and gener- ates anisotropic spacetimes with a privileged direction— Π decreases the shadow angular radius, as we just read in stat 4 Q Fig 5.
photon sphere IV. FINAL REMARKS
The bumblebee gravity is a Lorentz-violating model in which the VEV of the bumblebee field is nonzero and 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 provides, for example, a privileged spacetime direction by means of the Lorentz-violating parameter included ro in the spacetime metric. Here we built black holes so- lutions with an effective cosmological constant, which Figure 5: Shadow angular radius Θstat as seen by a static comes from a suitable choice for the bumblebee poten- observer at different locations (r = ro). The dashed line in- tial. Such an effective cosmological constant could be r M dicates the photon sphere, ph = 3 , which is the surface either positive or negative. In the first case, we have a that causes the black hole shadow. As we can see, the larger Schwarzschild-de Sitter-like black hole. And for the sec- ℓ the Lorentz-violating parameter is, less the shadow angular ond case, a Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter-like black hole. radius. If the angular radius is zero, our observer will be at The spacetime structure of both black holes was studied, the cosmological horizon. In this graphic, we adopted M = 1 and the influence of the Lorentz-violating parameter was and Λe = 0.01. pointed out, i.e., that parameter may increase or decrease the horizons radii depending on the sign of the effective cosmological constant. Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole studied in the men- The second part of this article was dedicated to the tioned article. Moreover, with ℓ = Λe = 0, we recover study of the shadow angular radius in the case of a pos- the shadow angular radius of the Schwarzschild geom- itive and effective cosmological constant, which is the etry. As we mentioned earlier, a geometry like (18), most appropriate case for a cosmological context. As with e2γ(r) = (1+ ℓ)e−2ρ(r), cannot be converted into we said, the Lorentz-violating parameter influence on the either the usual Schwarzschild solution (Λe = 0), or shadow angular radius—as far as we know, obtained for the Schwarzschild-anti-de Sitter solution (Λe < 0), or the first time in the literature here—decreases the shadow the Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution (Λe > 0) from a angular size. suitable coordinate transformation. Therefore, the pa- rameter 1+ ℓ cannot be absorbed into the cosmological constant, and then the result (43) does not turn into the shadow angular radius of the Schwarzschild-de Sitter Acknowledgments black hole as calculated in Ref. [103]. Some highlights of the result (43): for ro = rc, the We thank Celio Muniz for comments during the arti- shadow angular radius is zero, i.e., the sky is entirely cle development and an anonymous referee for valuable bright for our observer. On the other hand, for ro = rph, points raised in the the review process. RVM thanks the shadow angular radius is maximum, thus observer’s Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Cien- sky is half bright and half dark. Lastly, according to tífico e Tecnológico (FUNCAP), Coordenação de Aper- Fig. 5, we can see the influence of the Lorentz-violating feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and parameter on the shadow. The influence of the parame- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tec- ter ℓ on the shadow was commented in Ref. [86] where nológico (CNPq, Grant no 307556/2018-2) for the finan- a Kerr-like black hole was built in the bumblebee grav- cial support. JCSN also thanks Coordenação de Aper- ity. That parameter increases the shadow deformation feiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Fi- when a rotating black hole is considered. But, for the nance Code 001) for the financial support.
[1] S. Liberati, Class. Quantum Gravity 30, 133001 (2013). [4] V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1886 [2] V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989). (1989). [5] V. A. Kostelecký and R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B 359, [3] V. A. Kostelecký and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 545 (1991). 224 (1989). [6] S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kostelecky, C. D. 10
Lane, and T. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 141601 [41] M. Schreck, Phys. Rev. D 86, 065038 (2012). (2001). [42] G. Gazzola, H. G. Fargnoli, A. P. Baêta Scarpelli, M. [7] I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, and R. Roiban, Phys. Lett. B Sampaio, and M. C. Nemes, J. Phys. G 39, 035002 489, 390 (2000). (2012). [8] A. F. Ferrari, M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, E. Passos, [43] A. P. Baêta Scarpelli, J. Phys. G 39, 125001 (2012). A. Yu. Petrov, and A. J. da Silva, Phys. Lett. B 652, [44] B. Agostini, F. A. Barone, F. E. Barone, P. Gaete, and 174 (2007). J. A. Helayël-Neto, Phys. Lett. B 708, 212 (2012). [9] R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124021 [45] L. C. T. Brito, H. G. Fargnoli, and A. P. Baêta Scarpelli, (1999). Phys. Rev. D 87, 125023 (2013). [10] J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, and D. V. Nanopoulos, [46] S. Tizchang, R. Mohammadi, and S. Xue, Eur. Phys. J. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 32, 127 (2000). C 79, 224 (2019). [11] T. G. Rizzo, J. High Energy Phys. 1011, 156 (2010). [47] R. Jackiw and V.A. Kosteleck´y, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, [12] V. Santos and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. B 718, 3572 (1999). 1114 (2013). [48] J.-M. Chung, Phys. Rev. D 60, 127901 (1999). [13] P. Ho˘rava, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009). [49] M. Perez-Victoria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2518 (1999). [14] D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 55, [50] J.-M. Chung and B.K. Chung, Phys. Rev. D 63, 105015 6760 (1997). (2001). [15] D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 58, [51] G. Bonneau, Nucl. Phys. B 593, 398 (2001). 116002 (1998). [52] M. Perez-Victoria, J. High Energy Phys. 0104, 032 [16] R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 71, 065008 (2001). (2005). [53] O.A. Battistel and G. Dallabona, J. Phys. G 27, L53 [17] R. Bluhm, S.-H. Fung, V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D (2001). 77, 065020 (2008). [54] O.A. Battistel and G. Dallabona, Nucl. Phys. B 610, [18] R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecký, and N. Russell, Phys. Rev. 316 (2001). Lett. 79, 1432 (1997). [55] A. P. B. Scarpelli, M. Sampaio, M.C. Nemes, and B. [19] R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecký, and N. Russell, Phys. Rev. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 64, 046013 (2001). D 57, 3932 (1998). [56] O.A. Battistel and G. Dallabona, J. Phys. G 28, L23 [20] R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecký, and N. Russell, Phys. Rev. (2002). Lett. 82, 2254 (1999). [57] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 70, 101701(R) (2004). [21] V. A. Kostelecký and C. D. Lane, Phys. Rev. D 60, [58] T. Mariz, J.R. Nascimento, E. Passos, R.F. Ribeiro, and 116010 (1999). F.A. Brito, J. High Energy Phys. 0510, 019 (2005). [22] R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, [59] J.R. Nascimento, E. Passos, A.Yu. Petrov, and F.A. 1381 (2000). Brito, J. High Energy Phys. 0706, 016 (2007). [23] R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecký, and C. D. Lane, Phys. Rev. [60] A.P.B. Scarpelli, M. Sampaio, M.C. Nemes, and B. Lett. 84, 1098 (2000). Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C 56, 571 (2008). [24] R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecký, C. D. Lane, and N. Russell, [61] F.A. Brito, J.R. Nascimento, E. Passos, and A.Yu. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 090801 (2002). Petrov, Phys. Lett. B 664, 112 (2008). [25] V. A. Kostelecký and C. D. Lane, J. Math. Phys. 40, [62] F.A. Brito, L.S. Grigorio, M.S. Guimaraes, E. Passos, 6245 (1999). and C. Wotzasek, Phys. Rev. D 78, 125023 (2008). [26] V. A. Kostelecký and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 63, [63] O.M. Del Cima, J.M. Fonseca, D.H.T. Franco, and O. 065008 (2001). Piguet, Phys. Lett. B 688, 258 (2010). [27] D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Lett. B 511, [64] V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004). 209 (2001). [65] Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D 74, [28] R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 68, 085003 (2003). 045001 (2006). [29] R. Lehnert, J. Math. Phys. 45, 3399 (2004). [66] D. Capelo, J. Páramos, Phys. Rev. D 91 (10), 104007 [30] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 70, 056005 (2004). (2015). [31] G. M. Shore, Nucl. Phys. B 717, 86 (2005). [67] R. V. Maluf, V. Santos, W. T. Cruz, and C. A. S. [32] S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D 88, 025005 (2013). D 41, 1231 (1990). [68] R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, R. Casana, and M. M. [33] A. A. Andrianov and R. Soldati, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5961 Ferreira, Jr., Phys. Rev. D 90, 025007 (2014). (1995). [69] V. A. Kostelecký, A. C. Melissinos, and M. Mewes, [34] A. A. Andrianov and R. Soldati, Phys. Lett. B 435, 449 Phys. Lett. B 761, 1 (2016). (1998). [70] V. A. Kostelecký and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett. B 757, 510 [35] A. A. Andrianov, R. Soldati, and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. (2016). D 59, 025002 (1998). [71] V.A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, R. Tso, Phys. Lett. B 716, [36] A. P. Baêta Scarpelli, H. Belich, J. L. Boldo, and J. A. 470 (2012). Helayël-Neto, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085021 (2003). [72] J. E. G. Silva, C.A.S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. B 731, 74 [37] R. Lehnert and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 110402 (2014). (2004). [73] J.E.G. Silva, R.V. Maluf, C.A.S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. [38] C. Kaufhold and F. R. Klinkhamer, Nucl. Phys. B 734, B 766, 263 (2017). 1 (2006). [74] V. A. Kostelecký, N. Russell, R. Tso, Phys. Lett. B 716, [39] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. D 75, 105003 (2007). 470 (2012). [40] H. Belich, L. D. Bernald, P. Gaete, and J. A. Helayël- [75] J. E. G. Silva, R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Neto, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2632 (2013). Lett. B 798, 135009 (2019). 11
[76] Zonghai Li and Ali Övgün, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024040 Class. Quantum Gravity 36 (10), 105013 (2019). (2020). [90] K. Akiyama et al. (The Event Horizon Telescope Col- [77] Sean M. Carroll, Timothy R. Dulaney, Moira I. Gre- laboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019). sham, Heywood Tamx, Phys. Rev. D 79, 065011 (2009). [91] K. Akiyama et al. (The Event Horizon Telescope Col- [78] R. Bluhm, N.L. Gagne, R. Potting, A. Vrublevskis, laboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019). Phys. Rev. D 77, 125007 (2008). [92] J. L. Synge, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 131, 463 (1966). [79] R. Bluhm, N.L. Gagne, R. Potting, A. Vrublevskis, [93] J. M. Bardeen, Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr Phys. Rev. D 79, 029902 (2009) (Erratum). metric, in Black Holes, edited by C. DeWitt and B. [80] C.A. Hernaski, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124036 (2014). DeWitt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973), p. 215. [81] R. V. Maluf, J. E. G. Silva, C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. [94] E. F. Eiroa and C. M. Sendra, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 91 Lett. B 749, 304 (2015) (2018). [82] C. A. Escobar and A. Martín-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D 95, [95] J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 343 (2020). 095006 (2017). [96] J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 717 (2020). [83] O. Bertolami, J. Páramos, Phys. Rev. D 72, 044001 [97] S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024020 (2005). (2019). [84] R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, E. B. Santos, [98] A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104001 (2018). J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 003 (2020). [85] D. A. Gomes, R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, Annals of [99] R. Kumar, A. Kumar, and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. Physics 418, 168198 (2020). 896, 89 (2020). [86] C. Ding, C. Liu, R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, Eur. Phys. [100] M. D. Seifert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 201601 (2010). J. C 80, 178 (2020). [101] M. D. Seifert, Phys. Rev. D 82, 125015 (2010). [87] L. A. Lessa, J. E. G Silva, R. V. Maluf, C. A. S. Almeida, [102] Z. Stuchlik, and S. Hledik, Phys. Rev. D 60 044006 Eur. Phys. J. C, 80, 335 (2020). (1999). [88] A. Övgün, K. Jusufi, and I. Sakalli, Phys. Rev. D 99, [103] V. Perlick, O. Yu. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, 024042 (2019). Phys. Rev. D 97 104062 (2018) [89] R. Oliveira, D. M. Dantas, V. Santos, C. A. S. Almeida,