Asymptotically Lifshitz spacetimes with universal horizons in (1 + 2) dimensions

Sayandeb Basu∗

Physics Department, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA 95211, USA

Jishnu Bhattacharyya†

School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

David Mattingly‡ and Matthew Roberson§

Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA

Horava gravity theory possesses global Lifshitz space as a solution and has been conjectured toprovide a natural framework for Lifshitz holography. We derive the conditions on the two derivativeHorava gravity Lagrangian that are necessary for static, asymptotically Lifshitz spacetimes withflat transverse dimensions to contain a universal horizon, which plays a similar thermodynamic roleas the Killing horizon in general relativity. Specializing to z = 2 in 1 + 2 dimensions, we thennumerically construct such regular solutions over the whole spacetime. We calculate the mass forthese solutions and show that, unlike the asymptotically anti-de Sitter case, the first law applied tothe universal horizon is straightforwardly compatible with a thermodynamic interpretation.

I. INTRODUCTION

Construction of holographic duals for Lifshitz field the-ories is an important and active line of research. Such du-als release holographic approaches from the straitjacketof relativistic conformal field theory and thereby tremen-dously expand the types of systems holographic methodscan be applied to. Any gravitational dual to a Lifshitzfield theory must possess solutions that exhibit Lifshitzsymmetry somewhere in the spacetime. Lifshitz geome-try is not a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations,however, and so gravitational duals of Lifshitz field the-ories generally either possess extra tensor fields or oth-erwise modify the Einstein-Hilbert action of general rel-ativity. For example, spacetimes with Lifshitz geometrysomewhere in the bulk can be solutions of general relativ-ity with extra gauge fields [1], Einstein-Maxwell-dilatontheory [2] and Einstein-Proca theory [3].

Lifshitz symmetry either asymptotically or in the bulkis not an inherent feature of any of the above theories,but merely a class of solutions. There is one gravitationaltheory, however, where Lifshitz symmetry is in fact in-timately related to the structure of the theory: Horava-Lifshitz theory, or Horava gravity for short [4]. Horavagravity is a modified theory of gravity with a preferredfoliation. The preferred foliation on the spacetime per-mits a splitting of spacetime into space and time in apreferred manner, thereby allowing for the imposition ofa Lifshitz symmetry on the theory at high energies. Thisin turn renders the theory power counting renormaliz-able without introducing ghosts, unlike what happens in

∗ sbasu@pacific.edu† jishnu.bhattacharyya@nottingham.ac.uk‡ david.mattingly@unh.edu§ mkrbrson@gmail.com

higher curvature relativistic gravity [4, 5]1. Horava grav-ity therefore serves as a well-behaved candidate theory ofquantum gravity.

Our interest is in using Horava gravity as a gravita-tional dual to non-gravitational Lifshitz field theories.Typically a holographic construction first requires a dual-ity between a zero temperature field theory on the bound-ary and a bulk solution. Indeed, it has been argued thatHorava gravity on a globally Lifshitz background pro-vides a better gravitational dual for zero temperature Lif-shitz field theories, as certain quantities not reproducedin a relativistic gravitational dual naturally fall out fromHorava gravity when considering a global Lifshitz solu-tion [7].

In the usual constructions, one extends a zero temper-ature field theory duality to finite temperature by con-sidering gravitational solutions containing a black holein the bulk, with the Hawking temperature of the blackhole corresponding to the temperature of the dual the-ory. In the Horava case, however, this identification be-comes immediately problematic as black hole thermody-namics in Horava gravity is poorly understood. Due tothe non-relativistic Lifshitz symmetry in the UV, highenergy excitations in Horava gravity can typically prop-agate faster than light. Excitations propagate towardsthe future relative to the preferred foliation, and hencethere is a well-defined notion of causality [8], but UV ex-citations can escape from inside a Killing horizon of astatic black hole solution in Horava gravity. Thereforethe usual Killing horizons familiar from general relativ-ity (and extensions such as apparent horizons appropri-ate to more dynamic settings) no longer play the role ofcausal boundaries. As a consequence, there is no genericfirst law associated with Killing horizons [9] and hence no

1 In fact, projectable Horava gravity is perturbatively renormaliz-able [6].

arX

iv:1

601.

0327

4v1

[he

p-th

] 1

3 Ja

n 20

16

2

horizon thermodynamics. Hence it is unclear how to ex-tend any duality between the global Lifshitz solution anda zero temperature Lifshitz field theory on the boundaryto finite temperature.

A possible prescription for establishing a finite tem-perature duality is provided by analyzing the physics ofuniversal horizons. Universal horizons are the true causalboundaries of bounded bulk regions in non-projectableHorava gravity [10, 11]. While the notion of the univer-sal horizon can be formalized beyond any symmetries [8],for our present purpose it suffices to present them withinthe context of spherically symmetric black hole space-times with flat or AdS asymptotics. If we label the leavesof the preferred foliation by a scalar function T and de-note one such leaf by ΣT then each ΣT can bend in sucha way as to still create an event horizon even for arbitrar-ily fast excitations, as shown in figure 1. Any excitationtrapped inside the universal horizon (dotted region infigure 1) has to move ‘backward in time’ with respect tothe preferred foliation in order to escape to infinity, andthereby violate causality. Universal horizons have beenfound in D = 1+2 dimensioal Horava gravity, in analogyto BTZ black holes [12], in spherical symmetry with AdS,and flat asymptotics in four dimensions [10, 11, 13], andfor the slowly rotating asymptotically flat case in fourdimensions [14].

Univ

ersa

l hori

zon

Killing horizon

T = constant

Χa

r

v

FIG. 1. Bending of the preferred (T = constant) hyper-surfaces (thick brown lines) in ingoing Eddington-Finkelsteintype coordinates in a static and spherically symmetric blackhole solution of Horava gravity. The Killing vector χa pointsupward throughout everywhere. The vertical green line is aconstant r hypersurface and denotes the usual Killing horizondefined by gabχ

aχb = 0. The universal horizon of a Horavagravity black hole, denoted by the vertical blue line, is also aconstant r hypersurface (located at r = ruh) defined by thecondition uaχ

a = 0, where ua is the unit timelike normal vec-tor to the constant T hypersurfaces. The dotted region insidethe universal horizon (i.e. for r < ruh) denotes a black holeregion even for arbitrary fast excitations; the constant T hy-persurfaces for this region are not shown to keep the diagramclean.

Universal horizons do obey a first law [15, 16]. Tunnel-

ing and discontinuity calculations using eternal universalhorizon geometries indicate that they do radiate ther-mally [17, 18], although calculations in collapsing geome-tries give a different picture [19]. Obviously for a com-plete holographic construction a full thermodynamics ofuniversal horizons must be built. In this paper we take amore modest goal: if a holographic construction for finitetemperature Lifshitz field theories using Horava gravityis to be constructed, we need to, at the very least, findstatic solutions that are asymptotically Lifshitz and con-tain universal (and Killing) horizons in Horava gravity.These solutions, which we construct numerically, are thefocus of this paper. For earlier attempts in this directionsee, e.g. [20, 21].

In order to minimize the algebraic complexity of thefield equations we reduce to 1 + 2 dimensions, althoughour approach is easily adaptable to higher dimensionsas long as one assumes transverse planar, rather thanspherical, symmetry. The reduction to D = 1+2 is not ahindrance for eventual holographic uses, as for exampleAdS3/CFT2 duality is one of the best understood imple-mentations of holography.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II, weintroduce Horava gravity, the reduced action, and therelevant equations of motion. In section III we reviewthe global Lifshitz solution in D = 1 + 2 dimensions anddetail how the choice of Lifshitz asymptotics restricts thecoefficients in the Lagrangian. We also discuss the conse-quence of the so called ‘spin-0 regularity’ in this section.In section IV we describe our numeric procedure and givesome example solutions. The corresponding Smarr for-mulae and first laws are presented in section V. Finally,we summarize in the conclusions VI. Throughout the pa-per we use metric signature (−,+,+).

II. HORAVA GRAVITY AND EQUATIONS OFMOTION

A. The action and equations of motion

Horava gravity can be covariantly formulated as ascalar-tensor theory, where the dynamical scalar field T ,called the khronon, always admits a non-zero timelikegradient everywhere on-shell. This allows one to con-struct a unit-timelike hypersurface orthogonal one-formua, called the æther, such that

ua = −N∇aT, gabuaub = −1 , (1)

where the function N is solved for via the unit normconstraint as follows

N−2 = −gab(∇aT )(∇bT ) . (2)

Besides the usual diffeomorphism, Horava gravity isalso invariant under arbitrary reparametrizations of the

3

khronon: T 7→ T = T (T ). Under such reparametriza-

tions N is required to transform as N 7→ N =(dT /dT )−1N , such that the æther remains manifestlyinvariant under the reparametrizations of the khronon.This allows one to express the (two-derivative trun-cated/IR limit) action of Horava gravity in D = (1 + 2)dimensions in a manifestly covariant and reparametriza-tion invariant manner as follows [22]2

S =1

16πGæ

∫d3x√−g(−2Λcc +R+ L ) + Sghy + ST,b.

(3)Here Λcc is the cosmological constant which will be takento be negative in this work, R is the curvature scalar, andL is the khronon’s Lagrangian given by

L = −Zabcd (∇auc)(∇bud) . (4)

The tensor Zaccd is given by

Zabcd = c1gabgcd + c2δ

acδbd + c3δ

adδbc − c4uaubgcd , (5)

where c1, c2, c3, c4 are coupling constants. Sghy isthe standard Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term andST,b represents any additional boundary terms necessarydue to the presence of the khronon field. We will returnto the boundary terms in section III C when we discussthe total mass of solutions, but these boundary termsare irrelevant for a derivation of the bulk equations ofmotion. The bulk covariant equations of motion for themetric and khronon are generated by extremizing the ac-tion (3) under variations of the respective fields, with theassumption that the æther is derived from the khrononvia (1).

The khronon equation of motion and correspondingsolutions of Horava gravity are most efficiently analyzedby leveraging the relation between Horava gravity andEinstein-æther theory, as we now explain. The action (3),with the æther only satisfying the unit norm constraint(i.e. not hypersurface orthogonality) and being itselftreated as the fundamental field, leads to Einstein-æthertheory [23], a vector-tensor theory of gravity coupled toa unit timelike vector field. One may subsequently re-strict attention to the hypersurface orthogonal sector ofEinstein-æther theory by imposing the hypersurface or-thogonality condition on the æther (1) at the level ofthe equations of motion. Neglecting all boundary terms,the Einstein’s equations generated by extremizing the ac-tion (3) under variations of the metric, leads to formallyidentical Einstein’s equations for both Horava gravityand the hypersurface orthogonal sector of Einstein-æthertheory [24] (see also [25] for a more recent discussion, es-pecially from the perspective of the initial value problem

2 The complete action of Horava gravity can also be covariantizedvia such ‘Stuckelbering’ procedure [22]. In this work, however,we only work with the IR limit of the theory.

in both theories). However, the corresponding bulk ætherequations of motion in Einstein-æther theory is

~Æa = 0 , (6)

where ~Æa is the ‘component’ of the functional derivativeof the action (3) with respect to the æther which is or-

thogonal to the æther itself (i.e. ua ~Æa = 0), while the

khronon’s equations of motion in Horava gravity reads

∇a[N ~Æa] = 0 . (7)

The formal equivalence of the Einstein’s equations, takentogether with the similarities of (6) and (7), make it clearthat any solution of the hypersurface orthogonal sectorEinstein-æther theory is also a solution of Horava grav-ity [24], although the converse is generally not true.

In this work, we will restrict ourselves to static solu-tions of Horava theory in D = (1 + 2) with translationalsymmetry in the transverse space (see below). In a sim-ilar setting, the æther in Einstein-æther theory is au-tomatically hypersurface orthogonal as dictated by thesymmetries. One may then argue along the lines of [13]to conclude that solutions of Horava theory with thesesymmetries, and admitting a regular universal horizon inaddition, are also the only solutions of Einstein-æthertheory with these properties (note that the asymptoticbehaviour of the solutions is irrelevant in this argument).Therefore, it suffices to solve the Einstein-æther equa-tions of motion to obtain the desired solutions in Horavagravity; this will be the approach taken in this paper.

Even though the individual couplings c1, · · · , c4 appeardirectly in the action (3), one may argue that owing to thehypersurface orthogonality of the æther, only the combi-nations c13 = c1 + c3, c123 = c2 + c13 and c14 = c1 + c4show up explicitly in all subsequent expressions [10]. Fi-nally, it will be useful to note the following kinematicalquantities: aa = ub∇bua being the acceleration of theæther congruence, Kab = ∇aub + uaab being the extrin-sic curvature of the constant khronon hypersurfaces, andK = gabKab being the corresponding mean curvature.

B. Equations of motion under staticity andtransverse space translation symmetry

It will be convenient to use ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein type (EF) coordinates, in which the metricon a static spacetime, with translational symmetry inthe transverse space, becomes

ds2 = −e(r)dv2 + 2f(r)dvdr + r2dy2, (8)

where r is the canonical radial coordinate, and y is thecoordinate on the transverse space. Note that y is not abounded coordinate; rather −∞ < y < ∞. The Killingvector associated with staticity, denoted by χa, is givenby χa = ∂v in these coordinates, while the Killing vectorassociated with the translational symmetry in the trans-verse space (i.e. under y → y+ constant) is ∂y.

4

The æther one-form decomposes in these coordinatesas

ua = (u · χ)dv +f(r)dr

(s · χ)− (u · χ), (9)

where (s · χ) = saχa, sa being the unique (‘outward

pointing’) spacelike unit vector which is orthogonal toboth the æther and the transverse direction. As alreadymentioned, the symmetries of the spacetime make theæther hypersurface orthogonal as the above expressionalso manifestly reveals (the functions (u · χ) and (s · χ)are functions of r only), while the unit-norm constrainton the æther (1) is taken into account via

e(r) = (u · χ)2 − (s · χ)2 . (10)

The functions e(r) and f(r) capture the free metric com-ponents that one needs to solve for from the equationsof motion of Horava gravity. The (symmetry reduced)æther has one additional free component. It will be alge-braically beneficial to write this component via the vari-able X(r) defined by

X(r) = (s · χ)− (u · χ) . (11)

In what follows, the equations of motion will be solvedfor the functions e(r), X(r) and f(r) for reasons to beexplained below, and the functions (u ·χ) and (s ·χ) canthen be determined by inverting (10) and (11).

Instead of adapting the fully general covariant equa-tions of motion to the above symmetries, it is more con-venient to substitute the above symmetry-adapted ex-pressions for the metric and the æther into the action (3)directly, which yields the following time independent ac-tion

S = −∫

dr(4rf2X4)−1

[−2eX(f(r2(c123 − c14)e′X ′

− rX(r(c123 + c14)X ′2 + c2e′) + c123X

3)

+ 4rX3f ′) +X2(f(−2r2X(c123 + c14)e′X ′

+ r2(c123 − c14)e′2 + rX2(r(c123 − c14)X ′2

− 2(c2 − 4)e′ + 4re′′) + c123X4 + 2c2rX

3X ′)

− 4r2X2e′f ′ + 8Λccr2f3X2) + e2f(r2(c123 − c14)X ′2

+ c123X2 − 2c2rXX

′)] , (12)

where ′ denotes differentiation with respect to r. Theequations of motion are then generated by extremizingthe above time independent action with respect to vari-ations of the three independent free components of themetric and the æther: e(r), f(r), and X(r). While so-lutions to the equations thus obtained are not alwaysguaranteed to be static solutions of the original covariantequations of motion, the set of solutions of the equationsfrom (12) is guaranteed to include solutions of the full co-variant equations. In other words, being a solution of the

equations from (12) is a necessary but not sufficient con-dition on static solutions of the covariant equations. Wewill therefore look for solutions of the equations from (12)and then check if they are static solutions of the covariantequations of motion a posteriori.

The equations for e(r), f(r), and X(r) followingfrom (12) are rather complicated coupled ODEs and arenot particularly illuminating, so we will not reproducethem if full here. However, there are some importantstructural aspects that need to be mentioned. First, onemay note note that the time independent action (12) doesnot contain any term that is quadratic in derivatives off(r), either via f ′′(r) or f ′(r)2. As a result, the equa-tion of motion for f(r) is an algebraic equation, whichsimplifies the system considerably (and is the primarymotivation for choosing X(r) as a fundamental free com-ponent). In our subsequent numerical analysis, we sub-stitute this algebraic expression for f(r) back into theequations of motion for e(r) and X(r) which yields twosecond order differential equations for e′′(r) and X ′′(r)in terms of e(r), e′(r), X(r) and X ′(r).

Second, the resulting differential equations for e(r) andX(r) both naıvely have a singularity at a particular valueof the pair e(r) and X(r). The source of this singularityis a feature previously found in studies of black holesin Horava gravity known as the spin-0 horizon. In thepresent setting, unlike general relativity in D = (1 + 2),Horava gravity is known to contain a propagating scalaror spin-0 mode with local (low energy) speed s0 relativeto the æther frame given by the expression [22] (comparewith the corresponding expression in D = 1 + 3 [26])

s20 =

c123

c14(1− c13)(1 + c13 + 2c2). (13)

The different local speed relative to the æther frame isequivalently described by stating that the low energyspin-0 mode propagates on the light cone of an effec-

tive spin-0 metric g(0)ab given by

g(0)ab = gab − (s2

0 − 1)uaub. (14)

The low energy spin-0 mode has a corresponding causalhorizon, known as the spin-0 horizon, and its radial loca-

tion is given by the largest root of |χ|2s0 ≡ g(0)ab χ

aχb = 0,analogous to the Killing horizon in general relativity. Onthis horizon the equations of motion break down (c.f.the discussion in [27]). In our case, this is reflected inthe equations of motion for e(r) and X(r) which takethe form

e′′(r) =Fe(e, e

′, X,X ′, r, ci)

8(1− c13c14(1 + c13 + 2c2))r2X(r)6|χ|2s0(15)

X ′′(r) =FX(e, e′, X,X ′, r, ci)

8(1− c13c14(1 + c13 + 2c2))r2X(r)5|χ|2s0.(16)

Fe and FX are complicated and unilluminating functionsand hence their full form will be omitted. On the spin-0 horizon this equation will generally be unstable unless

5

Fe and FX also vanish. This regularity requirement willeventually reduce our black hole solutions down to a oneparameter family. We will return to this issue when wedescribe our numerical approach.

The spin-0 horizon has a useful property in that itcan be ‘moved around’ relative to a Killing horizon via afield redefinition. As noted in [28], under disformal fieldredefinitions, i.e. redefinitions of the form

g′ab = gab − (1− σ2)uaub , ua = σ−1ua, σ > 0, (17)

the action (3) transforms into itself with simply new val-ues of the ci coefficients. In particular, the coefficientstransform as

1− c′13 = σ(1− c13), c′123 = σc123, c′14 = c14. (18)

The speed of the spin-0 mode is not invariant under thedisformal redefinitions, and in fact, given an initial setof coefficients one can always perform a field redefinitionsuch that the spin-0 speed becomes unity. In other words,one can always set the Killing horizon and spin-0 hori-zon to be co-located without loss of generality. This willsimplify the numerical analysis.

In the present work, we wish to seek solutions ofHorava gravity with Lifshitz asymptotics and a regularuniversal horizon in the bulk. In particular, we need tosolve (15) with asymptotically Lifshitz boundary condi-tions on the metric and æther components. To that end,we need to derive the appropriate asymptotic behaviourof the functions e(r), X(r) and f(r) as r →∞, as well asthe conditions under which the solutions are also regularin the bulk of the spacetime, especially on their respec-tive spin-0 horizons. These issues will be taken up in thefollowing section, which will also pave the way towardsthe numerical construction of the sought after solutions.

III. ASYMPTOTICALLY LIFSHITZSPACETIMES

A. The global Lifshitz solution

Before we can properly discuss asymptotically Lif-shitz spacetimes we first must discuss the global back-ground Lifshitz solution which plays the same role globalAdS space does for asymptotically AdS spacetimes. InD = 1 + 2 dimensions in the canonical (Schwarzschild-type) t, r and y coordinates (y being the transverse co-ordinate), the global Lifshitz spacetime introduced in [1]is an obvious generalization of AdS3 spacetime, but withinhomogeneous scale invariance between space and time.In its standard/canonical form, the metric of the globalLifshitz spacetime in D = 1 + 2 is

ds2 = −(r/`l)2zdt2 + (r/`l)

−2dr2 + (r/`l)2dy2 , (19)

where the constant z = 1 is the (Lifshitz) scaling expo-nent and the fixed length scale `l is the Lifshitz scale.For z = 1, the metric (19) describes AdS3.

The metric (19) is manifestly isometric under constanttranslations of the time coordinate t, under t 7→ −t,as well as under constant translations of the transversespace coordinate y. More interestingly, the metric (19)is also isometric under scale transformations of the form

t 7→ λz t, y 7→ λ y, r 7→ λ−1r . (20)

Clearly for z > 1, the scale invariance between t and yis inhomogeneous.

We are eventually interested in constructing black holesolutions which are only asymptically Lifshitz, and forthat purpose it will be useful to switch to ingoing EFcoordinates (8). In particular, the metric (19) of theglobal Lifshitz spacetime takes the following form in EFcoordinates (compare with (8)),

ds2 = −(r/`l)2zdv2 + 2(r/`l)

z−1dvdr + (r/`l)2dy2 .

(21)The scale transformations analogous to (20) leaving themetric (21) invariant are3

v 7→ λzv , y 7→ λy , r 7→ λ−1r . (22)

As discovered in [7], the global Lifshitz metric (21) isa solution to the Horava gravity equations of motion,along with the following profile for the æther (comparewith (9))

ua = −(r/`l)zdv + (r/`l)

−1dr , (23)

In particular, the æther satisfies (as per requirement) allthe above symmetries including that under (22) and isaligned with the Killing vector χa everywhere4. The so-lution parameters z and `l are fully determined by theparameters Λcc and c14 by the following relations

Λcc = −z(z + 1)

2`2l, c14 =

z − 1

z. (24)

The second relation means, in particular, that the Lif-shitz exponent is uniquely determined by the couplingc14. Notice that the global solution is independent of thevalues of the couplings c13 and c2.

B. Asymptotic expansion

Moving on to static, asymptotically Lifshitz space-times, it is not immediately clear under what conditionsthe various metric and æther coefficients admit a well-defined power series in r−1; this is a concern especially

3 This follows from the definition of the v coordinate: dv = dt +(r/`l)−(z+1)dr.

4 It can be easily proved that in a globally Lifshitz solution, theequations of motion of Horava gravity forces the æther to beglobally aligned with the Killing vector χa.

6

when z is non-integer. We must therefore construct auseful parametrization of the asymptotic forms of thevarious metric and æther coefficients around r =∞.

While in the global Lifshitz solution the æther is glob-ally aligned with the Killing vector χa, in an asymptot-ically Lifshitz case this will not be the case everywherein the spacetime. Rather, we merely require an asymp-totic alignment between the æther and χa. The addi-tional measure for the ‘misalignment’ between the ætherand χa is conveniently captured through the quantity(s · χ) ≡ saχ

a, where sa, as introduced previously is theunique outwards pointing unit spacelike vector orthog-onal to the æther and the transverse directions every-where. Intuitively, we wish to define an asymptoticallyLifshitz spacetime in the present context as a spacetimewhere the æther becomes aligned with the Killing vectorand the metric approaches the global Lifshitz solution asr → ∞. These conditions can be properly implementedin the present coordinates by requiring

limr→∞

(u · χ)√−χ · χ

= −1 ,

limr→∞

(s · χ)√−χ · χ

= 0 ,

limr→∞

f(r)

rz−1= 1.

(25)

Since we wish our solutions to smoothly approach theglobal solution upon tuning some parameters (e.g. themass) we can factor out the appropriate global Lifshitzbehaviours from (u · χ), e(r) ≡ −(χ · χ), and f(r) andwrite

e(r) = (r/`l)2zE0(r) ,

(u · χ) = −(r/`l)zU0(r) ,

f(r) = (r/`l)z−1F0(r) ,

(26)

such that the conditions (25) becomes equivalent to

limr→∞

E0(r) = 1 , limr→∞

U0(r) = 1 , limr→∞

F0(r) = 1 .

(27)Asymptotically Lifshitz spacetimes are not, ofcourse, necessarily solutions of the Horava gravityequations of motion. Rather, for asymptotically Lifshitzsolutions, the functions U0(r), E0(r) and F0(r) not onlymust have well-defined limits to r = ∞ but also mustsatisfy an asymptotic expansion of the equations ofmotion. As we shall see, the asymptotic equations ofmotions yield a significant restriction on the choice ofthe ci coefficients.

In order to compute the asymptotic equations of mo-tion we need some convenient parametrization of the fall-offs of these functions as r →∞. To that end, we will as-sume that given some z, there exists a number ν? > 0such that the functions U0(r), E0(r), and F0(r) are ana-lytic at r = ∞ in r−ν? , i.e. , they all admit well definedpower series (albeit asymptotic) expansions in powers of

r−ν? as follows:

E0(r) = 1 +e1(z + 1)`ν?l

rν?+e2(z + 1)2`2ν?l

r2ν?+ O(r−3ν?) ,

U0(r) = 1 +u1(z + 1)`ν?l

rν?+u2(z + 1)2`2ν?l

r2ν?+ O(r−3ν?) ,

F0(r) = 1 +f1(z + 1)`ν?l

rν?+f2(z + 1)2`2ν?l

r2ν?+ O(r−3ν?) .

(28)

In particular, the O(r−nν?) coefficient for some integern = 1 has been defined with an explicit factor of (z+ 1)n

for convenience with the asymptotic analysis, as well as afactor of `nν?l has been included to make the coefficientsdimensionless.

The above expansions yield analogous expansion for(s · χ) and X(r) via (10) and (11). For the expansionof (s · χ) in particular, we may start with the followingexpression

(s · χ)2 = (r/`l)2z[U0(r)2 − E0(r)

],

which follows from (10). If we plug in the ansatz (28)above, we end up with the following asymptotic be-haviour for (s · χ)

(s · χ)2 = (r/`l)2zO(r−nsν?) ,

which encompasses the possibility that, for some integerns = 1, the first (ns − 1) terms in the series for U0(r)2 −E0(r) are zero. In other words, (s · χ) may have thefollowing asymptotic behaviour

(s · χ) = (r/`l)z−nsν?2 S0(r) , (29)

along with

S0(r) = cæ +s1(z + 1)`ν?l

rν?+s2(z + 1)2`2ν?l

r2ν?+O(r−3ν?) ,

(30)such that for a given ns, cæ 6= 0 is a constant whichcaptures the leading order behaviour of S0(r). In partic-ular, the case ns = 0 is not allowed on account of thepresumed asymptotically Lifshitz behaviour; indeed, forall ns = 1 one finds that the second condition in thedefinition of asymptotic Lifshitz-ness proposed in (25) isalso met. This expansion for (s · χ) also generates anasymptotic expansion for X(r) via (11).

C. Boundaries, mass and determination of ν?

To proceed in the expansion we need to determine ν?,which can be done by requiring a non-zero but finite massfor the black hole solutions. Unlike the local equationsof motion, the total mass does depend on the boundaryterms present in the action (3). Therefore, the first stepis to deal with the additional possible boundary termST,b.

7

Boundary terms are introduced into actions so that thevariational principle is well defined. The variation of theGHY term, for example, explicitly cancels the boundaryterm generated when varying the Einstein-Hilbert termand imposing Dirichlet boundary conditions on the met-ric. Since Horava gravity has the Einstein-Hilbert termin the bulk action (3), the GHY term is necessary if wemaintain Dirichlet boundary conditions for the metric.We must check, however, if a) the other terms in theHorava gravity action are compatible with Dirichlet met-ric conditions, b) what type of boundary conditions areappropriate for the khronon, and c) if additional bound-ary terms are generated from the khronon variation.

The variation of the bulk Horava gravity action (3)yields the following additional boundary variations

δSb =

∫∂V

d2x√h[ncBabcδg

ab + ncBcδT + ncB ac (~∇aδT )

],

(31)where na is the normal to the boundary ∂V , hab is the in-

duced metric on the boundary, ~∇a is the projected spatialcovariant derivative on the preferred foliation, and Babc,B ba and Ba are tensors built out of gab, hab, ua and

their derivatives. We immediately see that with Dirich-let boundary conditions for the metric the first term van-ishes and hence the boundary analysis for the metric pro-ceeds exactly as it does in general relativity: additionof the GHY term and Dirichlet boundary conditions forthe metric makes the variational principle well definedfor metric variations. Therefore the particular (compli-cated) expression for Babc is irrelevant for our subsequentdiscussions and we will omit it.

The khronon variation is more subtle, as we haveboundary variations in (31) that involve both direct vari-ations of the khronon and also derivatives of the varia-tions. Insight can be gained by examining what consti-tutes the boundary ∂V , as well the structure of Ba andB ba , which are given by

Ba = −2N ~Æa , B ac = 2NZabcd∇bud , (32)

where Zabcd is defined in (5). In the simplest settingwith a spacetime without any horizons and/or singulari-ties, ∂V consists of the boundary at (spatial) infinity tobe denoted by I in what follows5, as well as the bound-aries at infinite past and future. Since we need to adaptto the preferred foliation, the boundaries at infinite pastand future are also slices of the preferred foliation. There-fore, given the form of Ba (32), the contribution of thesecond term in (31) vanishes on the boundaries at infi-nite past and future, since na = ua on these surfaces.On the other hand, the field configuration on I is that

5 Due to the modified causal struture of spacetimes in Horava grav-ity, the boundary at spatial infinity is the only relevant boundaryat infinity; see [8] for further details.

of the corresponding global solution, here Lifshitz, whichsatisfies the Einstein-æther theory equations of motion.Hence the asymptotic (Lifshitz) boundary condition im-

plies ~Æa = 0 rather than ∇a(N ~Æa) = 0. Consequently,there is never a boundary contribution from the secondterm in (31) for the present choice of ∂V .

The lack of a boundary term proportional to δTmatches the intuition gained by considering the funda-mental reparametrization invariance of Horava gravity.On the boundary, such variations can always be absorbedby leveraging the reparametrization invariance. Con-sequently, setting Dirichlet boundary conditions on thekhronon is inappropriate. Rather, Neumann boundarycondition is the appropriate type of boundary conditionfor the khronon. We are requiring our spacetimes to beasymptotically Lifshitz, which in turn puts a conditionon ua at infinity; namely, it aligns with the asymptoticKilling vector that generates stationarity on I . Sinceua is related to the gradient of T (1), such Dirichlet con-ditions on ua correspond to Neumann conditions on thekhronon. The appropriate condition to maintain ua ori-entation at infinity (i.e. on I ) is, in fact, precisely thatthe spatial gradient of the khronon variation vanishes, asnon-zero spatial gradients are exactly what would ‘tilt’ua. Therefore, we impose Neumann conditions on the

khronon, in particular require ~∇aδT = 0 on I , whichkills the third boundary term in (31). In summary, atleast for the kind of boundaries we have considered sofar, the only boundary term necessary in our construc-tion is the usual GHY term since the appropriate physicalboundary conditions are Dirichlet for the metric varia-tions and Neumann for the khronon variations.

Things are more sutle if the spacetime admits a uni-versal horizon. In this case, imposing Dirichlet boundarycondition on the metric and Neumann boundary condi-tion on the khronon on every boundary surface still suf-fices to kill the first and the last terms in (31), therebysaving us from introducing additional boundary terms inthe action. However, the universal horizon raises the pos-sibility of additional ‘inner boundaries’ in the spacetimeon which the contribution from the middle term in (31)is not necessarily zero at first sight. To resolve this, let ustake a closer look at universal horizons in asymptoticallyLifshitz spacetimes.

In a stationary spacetime with flat asymptotics, theuniversal horizon is a leaf of the preferred foliation thatbarely fails to reach the boundary at infinity [8]. Anypreferred slice that reaches spatial infinity never crossesthe universal horizon, but instead asymptotes to it. Thecausal structure is intuitively much more accessible inspherically symmetric spacetimes, where the high degreeof symmetry allows one to appeal to e.g. figure 1 andconclude that the universal horizon has to be a leaf ofthe preferred foliation which is simultaneously a constantr hypersurface and therefore orthogonal to the Killingvector of stationarity χa. In other words, the universal

8

horizon is locally characterized by the condition

(u · χ)uh = 0 , (33)

whose radial location will be denoted by ruh6. The above

argument can be made more rigorous, and the condi-tion (33) still suffices as a local characterization of theuniversal horizon in the most general stationary space-times, as long as the quantity (a · χ) 6= 0 on the saidsurface [8].

In spacetimes with Lifshitz asymptotics, since theKilling vector χa is timelike asymptotically, we have thedesired asymptotic behaviour of the spacetime to utilizethe settings of [8]. Additionally, the quantity (a · χ) 6= 0on the universal horizon (see figure 4). Hence, condi-tion (33) also provides the suitable local characterizationof the universal horizon here, and the causal structure ofthe spacetimes we are dealing with is still qualitativelyas captured in figure 1.

In an asymptotically Lifshitz spacetime with a uni-versal horizon (just as in the corresponding case of anasymptotically flat spacetime), one may divide up thespacetime into two (causally) disjoint regions, namelythe ‘outside region’ which is the part of the spacetimethat is continuously connected to the boundary at infin-ity I and where (u · χ) < 0 holds everywhere, and the‘inside region’ which is the complement of the ‘outside re-gion’. The boundary of the ‘outside region’ then consistsof the boundary at infinity I , the boundaries at infinitepast and future (for the ‘outside region’), and the univer-sal horizon denoting an inner boundary for the ‘outsideregion’. One may invoke our previous logic to concludethat (31) vanish on the boundary at infinity, as well asthe boundaries at infinite past and future, if Dirichletand Neumann boundary conditions are imposed on themetric and the khronon, respectively. More importantly,the (future) universal horizon coincides with the bound-ary at infinite future, as can be inferred e.g. from figure 1,and hence (31) vanishes here as well. For the ‘inner re-gion’, at least in the present setting, one may at mosthave a sequence of ‘inner horizons’ which are themselvesleaves of the preferred foliation characterized by the con-dition (u ·χ) = 0 (neither of which are universal horizonshowever). Since these surfaces are leaves of the preferredfoliation themselves, i.e. na = ua on each of them, theboundary variation (31) vanishes on every possible innerboundaries as well. Therefore, even for the case of inter-est, the only boundary term necessary in our constructionis the usual GHY term with Dirichlet boundary conditionon the metric variations and Neumann boundary condi-tion for the khronon variations.

Now that the question of boundary terms has beensettled, we can proceed with calculating the mass. Sincethe GHY term is the only term, the total mass M of a

6 In a spacetime with multiple (disconnected) surfaces satisfying(u · χ) = 0, the outermost one is the universal horizon.

Lifshitz black hole solution using the preferred foliationis given by the familiar Hawking-Horowitz formula [29],

M = − 1

8πGæ

∫B

[Nk −Napabn

b]−Mgl , (34)

where B is the suitable ‘one-boundary’ – cross-sectionsof the boundary ∂V – on which the ‘surface terms’ inthe Hamiltonian (here generated purely from the GHYterm) contribute, Na is the shift vector, pab is the conju-gate momentum of the induced metric on the preferred

foliation, k is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of B,and Mgl is the mass of the background Lifshitz solution(to be explained in more details below).

To compute the integral (34) for the asymptoticallyLifshitz solutions considered in this work, we may beginby choosing the time translation vector along the Killingvector χa, for which the shift vector becomes the projec-tion of χa on the leaves of the preferred foliation. Fur-thermore, by construction, there is no intersection of the‘one-boundary’ B with any part of ∂V which itself isa leaf of the preferred foliation (since na = ua on suchsurfaces). In particular, this kills any possible contri-bution from the boundaries at past and future infinity.For all possible ‘inner boundaries’ including the universalhorizon (33), which are all characterized by the condition(u·χ) = 0 as previously discussed, the vanishing of the in-tegrand in (34) can, in fact, be seen explicitly as follows:for the present choice of the time translation vector, astraightforward computation yields N = −(u · χ) [8] and

k = ~∇asa ∝ (u · χ) and hence Nk = 0 on any (u · χ) = 0

hypersurface; in particular the vanishing of k can be ap-preciated from the fact that sa ∝ χa on any (u · χ) = 0

hypersurface, so that by Killing’s equation ~∇asa vanisheshere. The second term in the integrand Napabn

b van-ishes simply because pab is a linear combination of theinduced metric and the extrinsic curvature of the leavesof the preferred foliation while na = ua. Therefore, anycontribution to (34) comes only from the part of B which‘resides within’ the boundary at infinity I , and this isgiven by the line generated by the intersection of anypreferred slice with I . Moreover, due to the asymptoticalignment of ua with χa, the term containing the shiftdrops out, so that (34) for our solutions reduces to

M = − 1

8πGælimr→∞

∞∫−∞

dyr

`lNk −Mgl .

As mentioned previously, Mgl is the mass of the back-ground Lifshitz solution, and its relevance can be ex-plained as follows: the above expression without theMgl piece, when evaluated on the globally Lifshitz so-lutions, yields an infinity, whose origin is ultimately theomnipresent vacuum energy. The quantity Mgl is pre-cisely this ‘infinite mass’ ascribable to the globally Lif-shitz background that needs to be subtracted to makethe above expression, applied to an asymptotically Lif-shitz solution, meaningful.

9

The total mass M as given above is still infinite, evenwith background subtraction, since B is a non-compactinfinite line. As a remedy, we need to regulate the aboveexpression and work with a mass per unit length M ofthe black hole solutions. To that end, we may modify theabove expression as

M = − 1

8πGælimr→∞

limL→∞

1

L

L/2∫−L/2

dyr

`lNk −Mgl .

where L is a ‘regulating length’ and all the M ’s nowstand for mass per unit length. The integral over thetransverse space is now trivial and allows us to cancelout the appearance of the regulating factor L. Using theappropriate asymptotic expressions from (28), we thenend up with

M =− limr→∞

(r/`l)(z+1)

8πGæ×

[1

`l+

(2u1 − f1)(z + 1)`ν?−1l

rν?+ O(r−2ν?)]−Mgl .

The leading term proportional to `−1l is the source of the

divergent part in the mass due to the non-zero vacuumenergy density as just noted, and Mgl is chosen to pre-cisely cancel this term. Once this is taken care of, thespacetime mass per unit length is simply given by

M = − limr→∞

(r/`l)(z+1)

8πGæ

(2u1 − f1)(z + 1)`ν?−1l

rν?.

This above quantity goes as r(z+1)−ν? . Therefore in thelimit r →∞, the expression for the mass per unit lengthdiverges for ν? < (z + 1) while it goes to zero for ν? >(z+1) but is finite and non-zero (in general) only for thechoice of

ν? = (z + 1) . (35)

We therefore fix ν? by requiring that the class of solutionswe are studying admits a well-defined, non-zero notion ofmass after the appropriate background subtraction. Theexpression (35) also is consistent with the standard re-sults for Lifshitz black branes (see e.g. [3]). Once thisvalue of ν? is used, the mass per unit length of an asymp-totically Lifshitz solution is given by

M =(z + 1)(−2u1 + f1)

8πGæ`l, (36)

where we have expressed everything in terms of canonicalquantities z and `l. We will further massage this expres-sion in the next section after we solve the equations ofmotion for large r and determine the values of u1 and f1.

D. Restrictions on ci coefficients

Now that we have fixed ν?, we may analyze theasymptotic equations of motion. Substituting the expan-sions (28) and (30) into the equations of motion (15) and

expanding to first order yields a relationship on the cicoefficients in addition to those established by the globalLifshitz solution (24), namely:

c123 =4(1− c13)(z − 1)

ns(ns − 2)(z + 1)2. (37)

Therefore, physically acceptable solutions only exist for

ns = 3 (38)

and, quite remarkably, asymptotically Lifshitz solutionsexist only for ‘discrete’ choices for c123. The squared spin-0 speed (13) then also becomes ‘quantized’ according to

s20 =

4z

(1− c13)[ns(z + 1)− 2(z − 1)](ns(z + 1)− 4).

(39)One can then easily show that for ns = 3 (38) and forall z > 1, the above expression for s2

0 is strictly positive.Hence, all these backgrounds are physically acceptable.

The restriction (38) implies that the analysis of theequations of motion for the next two subleading ordersare completely universal. In particular, at O(r−(z+1)),we find

u1 = − rs2`l

, f1 = 0 , s1 = 0 . (40)

Note that the coefficient u1 is actually left undermined,allowing us to trade it for a length scale rs analogous tothe ‘Schwarzschild radius’. If we plug these values in (36),the mass per unit length of the solutions take a cleanerform

M =(z + 1)rs8πGæ`2l

. (41)

Next, at O(r−2(z+1)) we obtain

u2 = − r2s

8`2l,

f2 =(z2 − 1)r2

s

8z2`2l,

s2 = −cæ(ns − 2)(z + 1)(ns(z + 1)− 2(z − 1))r2s

32(ns + 1)z2`2l.

(42)

The analysis, for a completely general ns, can only becarried out until this order, as already observed; to pro-ceed further one needs to pick an ns. However, the gen-eral feature of all such solutions are similar: the solutionwill initially depend on two free parameters, namely rsand cæ. We have already noted that rs is directly re-lated to the mass of the solution (41). Although onecannot do this analytically, in principle cæ is fixed bydemanding regularity on the spin-0 horizon, i.e. settingFX |s0 = Fe|s0 = 0. This leaves the a one parameter fam-ily of solutions specified by rs. Furthermore, this analysismakes clear that we must choose particular values for theci coefficients in our numerical evolution or we will notasymptote to a Lifshitz solution. We now turn to thenumerical procedure.

10

IV. ASYMPTOTICALLY LIFSHITZ BLACKHOLES

The equations (15) do not yield exact solutions withLifshitz asymptotics and universal horizons, so we haveto resort to numerics. The basic approach is described indetails below below and closely follows the route takenin [10].

To begin with, we need to make choices for the variouscouplings and paramaters. In this work, we have onlyfocussed on the case of z = 2, although asymptoticallyLifshitz solutions with z > 2 are expected to have quali-tatively similar features. We will also set `l = 1 withoutany loss in generality. Finally, we will apply a field re-definition and choose the values of ci so that the spin-0and Killing horizons are colocated. Since the Lifshitz ex-ponent z is determined solely by c14 (24), the disformalfield redefinitions (18), which do not change c14, preservethe Lifshitz exponent z as well, and hence also preserves`l (24). However, as mentioned previously, the locationof the spin-0 horizon can be shifted. We use the field re-definition to colocate the spin-0 and Killing horizon, andthen choose coefficients that satisfy the ‘discreteness’ con-dition on c123 (37). Our numerical results in this sectionand section V are for the coefficients choice

c14 =1

2, c13 =

9

10, c2 = −161

180, (43)

and for ns = 4. One may check that for the above choiceof coeffients one gets s0 = 1 from (39).

With the above choices, our approach for findingasymptotically Lifshitz solutions is as follows:

1. Analytically expand the equations of motion aboutthe spin-0 horizon and solve for e(r) and e′(r) interms of X(r) and X ′(r) there so that e′′(r) andX ′′(r) remain regular.

2. Evolve outwards and inwards from the spin-0 hori-zon numerically.

3. Iterate (a la the ‘shooting method’) e′(r) and X ′(r)while keeping e(r) andX(r) fixed at the spin-0 hori-zon until the solution is asymptotically Lifshitz.

4. Perform an overall normalization on the solution,which corresponds to choosing and initial value ofX(r) on the spin-0 horizon so that r−4e(r) → 1and r−2X(r)→ 1 as r →∞.

We now address each of these steps and then presentsome example numerical results.

A. Analytic near spin-0/Killing horizon expansion

With the above choice of coefficients the singularityin the equations of motion occur at the Killing horizonsince the spin-0 horizon is colocated. The spin-0 hori-zon location rs0 is a free parameter at this point but

will eventually be related to the mass of the spacetime.At rs0 , the value of X(r) can also be chosen freely asit just changes the overall scale of the eventual solution,but e(rs0) = 0 by definition of a Killing horizon (recalle(r) = −gabχaχb). We then analytically expand e(r) andX(r) as a power series in (r − rs0) out to fourth order.Solving the equations of motion analytically order by or-der and imposing regularity by requiring that Fe andFX vanish on the spin-0 horizon relates the coefficientsfor the near horizon expansion of e(r), e′(r), X(r), andX ′(r). All the coefficients are fixed other than a depen-dence on a single additional, undetermined parameter µ,which exists in addition to rs0 since we have at this pointonly imposed regularity at the spin-0 horizon but haven’tspecified the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions. Asmentioned previously, only by requiring Lifshitz asymp-totics and spin-0 horizon regularity are we able to reducethe solutions to a one parameter family. We start theevolution at r = rs0(1±O(10−5)) which yields an initialaccuracy in e(r), e′(r), X(r) and X ′(r) vs. the exactsolution of O(10−20).

B. Numerical evolution and normalization

Given the initial values X(rs0), rs0 , and µ we evolveoutwards from r = rs0(1 ± O(10−5)) respectively withMathematica. For generic values of µ the exterior solu-tion eventually significantly deviates from the Lifshitz ge-ometry and, in fact, breaks down at some radius rdev. Wesearch in the µ parameter space, which changes e′(rs0)and X ′(rs0), to maximize rdev. In principle, by tuningµ arbitrarily finely we can push rdev out to infinity andland on the ‘exact’ asymptotically Lifshitz solution. Inpractice we tune µ until rdev is at least a factor of 104

larger than rs0 . This gives a very accurate asymptoticLifshitz region. It also, as promised, reduces the solu-tion space to a one parameter family controlled by rs0 .Evolving inwards with this µ then determines ruh.

The initial value of X(r) controls the overall scaling ofe(r), and X(r) in the solution. After each solution withsome initial rs0 has been found, we scale the asymptoticsolution such that the leading order term in e(r) goesexactly as r4.

C. Example solution

At the end of our procedure we have a full solution overthe entire spacetime for the functions e(r) and X(r) (andhence all other functions with can be expressed in termsof e(r), X(r) and their derivatives) that is asymptoticallyLifshitz and possesses a universal horizon. The Lifshitznormalized coefficients (i.e. dividing the coefficients bytheir approriate scaling in the globally Lifshitz case) fora typical solution is given in Fig. 2. Note that numer-ical evolution inside the universal horizon is possible inthis construction and indeed Fig. 2 shows the behavior

11

Killing horizonUn

iver

sal h

ori

zon 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

r

- 2

- 1

0

1

2 e H r Lr 4

X H r Lr 2

H u . Χ Lr 2

f H r Lr

FIG. 2. Normalized metric and æther coefficients for anasymptotically Lifshitz solution. Here c14 = 1

2, c13 = 9

10,

c2 = − 161180

, units are chosen such that `l = 1, and the ra-dius of the spin-0/Killing horizon is rs0 = 0.01. The radiallocation of the universal horizon is ruh ≈ 0.008 in these units.

of the free metric and æther components inside but stillnear the universal horizon. In principle, solutions canadmit multiple (u · χ) = 0 hypersurfaces (c.f. [10]). Insuch a case, the outermost (u · χ) = 0 hypersurface de-notes the universal horizon, as that is the surface thatcausally separates asymptotic infinity from an interiorregion. Since we are interested solely in the behaviourof ‘outside region’ of the spacetime up to the universalhorizon, we have not categorized the interior structure ofour solutions in detail.

V. MASS AND THE FIRST LAW

For each numeric solution we fit the numerical solu-tions for e(r) and X(r) by their asymptotic expansionsin section III B out to fifth order in r−(z+1). In particular,this yields the corresponding coefficients f1 and u1 ands1 in the asymptotic solutions (40), and we find s1 andf1 to be zero within the desired accuracy (thereby pro-viding a consistency check on the numerical evolutions).The value of u1 provides the value of the dimensionfulparameter rs hence allowing us to compute the mass perunit length from (41) for each one of the numerically con-structed solutions.

We evaluate how the mass scales with the radius ofthe universal horizon by calculating multiple numericalsolutions with different initial values of the spin-0/Killinghorizon and fitting the resulting rs and ruh values. In fig-ure 3 we can see that up to a tiny numerical error, rs andhence the mass per unit length M , homogeneously scalesas r3

uh. Since the mass is a homogeneous function of ruha first law of the form δM = qδA, where δA = δruhand q ∝ r2

uh is guaranteed. Note that the homogene-ity of M with respect to ruh is a non-trivial result asthere is an extra scale, the Lifshitz scale, involved andtherefore there is no guarantee of homogeneity a priori.Indeed, failure of homogeneity occurs in asymptoticallyAdS solutions in D = 1 + 3 [13]. In the D = 1 + 3 case,

0.05 0.10 0.15rUH

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

H rS L 1� 3

H rS L 1� 3 = I 0.777615 rUH - 1.32775´ 10-13 M

FIG. 3. r1/3s vs. ruh for z = 2 asymptotically Lifshitz black

holes with a universal horizon.

the first law for the asymptotically AdS solutions is ofthe form δM = qδA, but q is a non-homogeneous andindeed non-analytic function of ruh (see equation (58)of [13]) without any obvious thermodynamic interpreta-tion. Therefore while one might have expected that asimilar failure of naıve thermodynamics happens in theLifshitz case as well, since AdS can be thought of simplyas a z = 1 Lifshitz spacetime, this turns out to be incor-rect. Rather, as we shall see below, the Lifshitz solutionshold the possibility of a much more natural thermody-namic interpretation.

If a thermodynamic interpretation of the first law forthe above Lifshitz solutions exists, the temperature ofthe universal horizon must scale as r2

uh. Previous workon static, spherically symmetric universal horizon solu-tions with flat asymptotics indicated that the tempera-ture of the universal horizon calculated locally using thetunneling approach [17] is given by T = (a · χ)uh/4π.By considering the peeling of non-relativistic high energymodes (those with very high group velocity) near the uni-versal horizon [18], one can define an appropriate notionof surface gravity, κuh = (a · χ)uh/2, which yields the fa-miliar relationship T = κuh/2π. Since both constructionsare local, one would expect that they are independent ofasymptotics and the temperature in asymptotically Lif-shitz solutions is also proportional to (a · χ)uh. For thepresent case, therefore we need (a · χ)uh ∝ r2

uh as onlywith this scaling is it possible to construct a first law ofthe standard form.

We show in figure 4 that (a ·χ)uh has precisely the cor-rect scaling with r2

uh to construct the first law. Thereforethe first law for asymptotically Lifshitz solutions is atleast compatible with a straightforward thermodynamicinterpretation. A full verification of thermodynamics forLifshitz solutions would, of course, require a calculationof the temperature in this case as well. For now we merelystate that the first law of mechanics is compatible withsuch a thermodynamic interpretation and that all indi-

12

cations are that a first law of the form δM = TδS, withT ∝ (a · χ)uh, holds. We stress again that this is verydifferent from the asymptotically AdS case. The originof this discrepancy remains, at the moment, a mystery.

0.05 0.10 0.15rUH

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

H a . Χ L 1� 2

H a . Χ L 1� 2 = I 2.34808 rUH - 2.01567´ 10-12 M

FIG. 4. (a · χ)1/2uh vs. ruh for z = 2 asymptotically Lifshitz

black holes with a universal horizon.

VI. CONCLUSION

We have analyzed and constructed a new class ofsolutions in D = (1 + 2) dimensional Horava gravityand Einstein-æther theory, those with universal horizons

and Lifshitz asymptotics. For at least z = 2 asymptoticsthere is a first law of mechanics that fits nicely withwhat is known about universal horizon thermodynamics.This is in contrast to the D = 1 + 3 asymptotically AdScase, where the first law does not have a straightforwardthermodynamic interpretation. Of course, one stillneeds to calculate a temperature for Lifshitz solutionsto complete a thermodynamical relationship, whichwe leave for future work. If such a thermodynamicsholds, these solutions would then provide an interestingplayground for explorations of Lifshitz holography. Thestructure of both the asymptotic and near horizonregions is dramatically different from what is found inthe usual AdS3/CFT2 construction – neither regionhas a symmetry algebra appropriate to a (relativistic)conformal field theory. Therefore neither the statecounting approaches used at the boundary in D = 1 + 2gravity for BTZ black holes or near Killing horizons inhigher dimension, which rely on establishing invarianceunder a Virasoro algebra, naıvely apply. We shall returnto this question of calculating the entropy of a universalhorizon using Lifshitz algebras in future work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

JB acknowledges support from Prof. Thomas Sotiriou,University of Nottingham, UK via funding from the Eu-ropean Research Council under the European UnionsSeventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERCgrant agreement n. 306425 Challenging General Relativ-ity.

[1] S. Kachru, X. Liu and M. Mulligan, “Gravity du-als of Lifshitz-like fixed points,” Phys. Rev. D78, 106005 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.106005[arXiv:0808.1725 [hep-th]].

[2] K. Goldstein, S. Kachru, S. Prakash and S. P. Trivedi,“Holography of Charged Dilaton Black Holes,” JHEP1008, 078 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)078[arXiv:0911.3586 [hep-th]].

[3] M. Taylor, “Non-relativistic holography,”arXiv:0812.0530 [hep-th].

[4] P. Horava, “Quantum Gravity at a LifshitzPoint,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 084008 (2009)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084008 [arXiv:0901.3775[hep-th]].

[5] M. Visser, “Lorentz symmetry breaking as a quantumfield theory regulator,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 025011 (2009)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.025011 [arXiv:0902.0590 [hep-th]].

[6] A. O. Barvinsky, D. Blas, M. Herrero-Valea,S. M. Sibiryakov and C. F. Steinwachs, “Renormalizationof Horava Gravity,” arXiv:1512.02250 [hep-th].

[7] T. Griffin, P. Hoava and C. M. Melby-Thompson,“Lifshitz Gravity for Lifshitz Holography,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 8, 081602 (2013)

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081602 [arXiv:1211.4872[hep-th]].

[8] J. Bhattacharyya, M. Colombo and T. P. Sotiriou,“Causality and black holes in spacetimes with a preferredfoliation,” arXiv:1509.01558 [gr-qc].

[9] B. Z. Foster, “Noether charges and black hole me-chanics in Einstein-aether theory,” Phys. Rev. D73, 024005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.024005 [gr-qc/0509121].

[10] E. Barausse, T. Jacobson and T. P. Sotiriou,“Black holes in Einstein-aether and Horava-Lifshitz gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 124043 (2011)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124043 [arXiv:1104.2889[gr-qc]].

[11] D. Blas and S. Sibiryakov, “Horava gravity versusthermodynamics: The Black hole case,” Phys. Rev.D 84, 124043 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.124043[arXiv:1110.2195 [hep-th]].

[12] T. P. Sotiriou, I. Vega and D. Vernieri, “Rotat-ing black holes in three-dimensional Hoava grav-ity,” Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 4, 044046 (2014)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.044046 [arXiv:1405.3715 [gr-qc]].

13

[13] J. Bhattacharyya and D. Mattingly, “Universalhorizons in maximally symmetric spaces,” Int.J. Mod. Phys. D 23, no. 13, 1443005 (2014)doi:10.1142/S0218271814430056 [arXiv:1408.6479[hep-th]].

[14] E. Barausse and T. P. Sotiriou, “Slowly rotatingblack holes in Horava-Lifshitz gravity,” Phys. Rev.D 87, 087504 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.087504[arXiv:1212.1334].

[15] P. Berglund, J. Bhattacharyya and D. Mattingly,“Mechanics of universal horizons,” Phys. Rev. D85, 124019 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.124019[arXiv:1202.4497 [hep-th]].

[16] A. Mohd, “On the thermodynamics of universal horizonsin Einstein-Æther theory,” arXiv:1309.0907 [gr-qc].

[17] P. Berglund, J. Bhattacharyya and D. Mattingly,“Towards Thermodynamics of Universal Horizons inEinstein-ther Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no.7, 071301 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.071301[arXiv:1210.4940 [hep-th]].

[18] B. Cropp, S. Liberati, A. Mohd and M. Visser, “Ray trac-ing Einstein-ther black holes: Universal versus Killinghorizons,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 064061 (2014)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064061 [arXiv:1312.0405 [gr-qc]].

[19] F. Michel and R. Parentani, “Black hole radiation inthe presence of a universal horizon,” Phys. Rev. D 91,no. 12, 124049 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124049[arXiv:1505.00332 [gr-qc]].

[20] S. Janiszewski, “Asymptotically hyperbolic blackholes in Horava gravity,” JHEP 1501, 018 (2015)doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)018 [arXiv:1401.1463 [hep-th]].

[21] F. W. Shu, K. Lin, A. Wang and Q. Wu, “Lifshitzspacetimes, solitons, and generalized BTZ black holes inquantum gravity at a Lifshitz point,” JHEP 1404, 056(2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)056 [arXiv:1403.0946[hep-th]].

[22] T. P. Sotiriou, M. Visser and S. Weinfurtner, “Lower-dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity,” Phys. Rev. D83, 124021 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124021[arXiv:1103.3013 [hep-th]].

[23] T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, “Gravity with a dynam-ical preferred frame,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.024028 [gr-qc/0007031].

[24] T. Jacobson, “Extended Horava gravity andEinstein-aether theory,” Phys. Rev. D 81,101502 (2010) [Phys. Rev. D 82, 129901 (2010)]doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.129901, 10.1103/Phys-RevD.81.101502 [arXiv:1001.4823 [hep-th]].

[25] J. Bhattacharyya, A. Coates, M. Colombo andT. P. Sotiriou, “Evolution and spherical collapsein Einstein-aether theory and Horava gravity,”arXiv:1512.04899 [gr-qc].

[26] T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, “Einstein-Aether waves,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 024003 (2004)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.024003 [gr-qc/0402005].

[27] C. Eling and T. Jacobson, “Black Holes in Einstein-Aether Theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5643(2006) [Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 049802 (2010)]doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/18/009, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/4/049802 [gr-qc/0604088].

[28] B. Z. Foster, “Metric redefinitions in Einstein-Aether theory,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 044017 (2005)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.044017 [gr-qc/0502066].

[29] S. W. Hawking and G. T. Horowitz, “The Gravita-tional Hamiltonian, action, entropy and surface terms,”Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 1487 (1996) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/13/6/017 [gr-qc/9501014].