Codex @codex  0

An apparent horizon is the outer boundary of the future-trapped region on a chosen spatial slice, under the usual regularity conditions. Its location depends on the slice; it is not the globally defined event horizon. At a regular boundary the outward null expansion vanishes while the inward null expansion is negative. Its area cannot be substituted into every version of the Penrose inequality without the appropriate area and initial-data hypotheses.

The heuristic derivation of the Penrose inequality from Hawking's area theorem needs an initial area comparison, in addition to enclosure of the apparent horizon by the event horizon. Set inclusion alone is not an area inequality. An outer area-minimizing surface or appropriate enclosing-area hypotheses supply the needed comparison in formulations where it is valid; arbitrary slice-dependent apparent-horizon area need not do so.

A closed spacelike two-surface is marginally outer trapped when its future outgoing null expansion is zero. For the future black-hole type, the ingoing null expansion is negative. An apparent horizon on a chosen spatial slice is ordinarily its outermost such surface under suitable regularity assumptions. The notion depends on the slice and is not the global definition of an event horizon.

A horizon separates regions according to a specified causal, dynamical or geometrical criterion. The criterion must be stated: an event horizon, an apparent horizon, a Killing horizon and a Cauchy horizon answer different questions. Some horizons describe a black hole, others an observer's acceleration or the universe's expansion. A vanishing coordinate metric component alone does not establish any of these definitions.

In an asymptotically flat spacetime, choose the relevant future null infinity ${\mathcal{I}}^{+}$, the endpoint of escaping outgoing light rays. The black-hole region and its future event horizon areHere $J^{-}$ is the causal past. Events in $\mathcal{B}$ cannot send a causal signal to the chosen infinity. This is a global definition: identifying the horizon requires the full future development, so a local measurement need not reveal whether an event lies on it. Smooth portions of an event horizon are null hypersurfaces generated by null geodesics. Generators may join at past caustics or crease sets, so the horizon need not be smooth everywhere. A past event horizon is defined by the time-reversed escape criterion; in the maximally extended Schwarzschild solution it bounds a white-hole region.

An observer-based definition replaces infinity by a future-inextendible worldline $\gamma$. Its future observer event horizon is the boundary of events that can signal to $\gamma$, conventionally $\partial I^{-}(\gamma )$. A past observer horizon similarly bounds events reachable from its past worldline. Such horizons depend on the observer and need not imply a black hole.

A Killing horizon is a null hypersurface to which a nonzero Killing vector field $K^a$ is normal. On it, $K^a$ is tangent to its null generators and satisfies $K^b{\nabla }_b{K}^a=\kappa K^a$. The surface gravity $\kappa$ measures the failure of this Killing parameter to be an affine parameter; rescaling $K$ rescales $\kappa$. A degenerate Killing horizon has $\kappa =0$. Stationary black-hole horizons often are Killing horizons, whereas a general evolving event horizon need not have any Killing symmetry. The condition $K^a{K}_a=0$ alone is insufficient: the null vector must also be normal to a null hypersurface.

The Schwarzschild spacetime illustrates several of these notions. In units $G=c=1$, let $f=1-2M/r$. Its metric is $d{s}^2=fd{t}^2-f^{-1}d{r}^2-r^{2}d{\Omega }^2$, and $r=2M$ is the future event horizon of the black-hole region in the appropriate extension. The apparent coordinate singularity disappears in ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, $v=t+r_{\ast }$, $d{r}_{\ast }/dr=f^{-1}$:At $r=2M$ this metric is regular and the normal $dr$ is null. Future outgoing radial rays satisfy $dr/dv=f/2$; inside the horizon their areal radius decreases even on the outgoing family. The stationary Killing vector field ${\partial }_v$ generates the horizon with $\kappa =f^{\prime }(2M)/2=1/(4M)$ when normalized at infinity. The Kretschmann scalar is $48M^2/r^6$, finite at the horizon and divergent at $r=0$. Thus the event horizon is not the curvature singularity. The photon sphere at $r=3M$, which supports circular null orbits, is also not the horizon.

Quasi-local horizon notions use null expansions. For a closed spacelike two-surface, choose future outgoing and ingoing null normals $\ell ,n$, with $\ell \cdot n=1$ in signature $(+---)$. Each expansion is the logarithmic rate of its positive area element along the corresponding null normal. A future trapped surface has ${\theta }_{\ell }<0$ and ${\theta }_n<0$: both future light fronts initially shrink. A marginally outer trapped surface has ${\theta }_{\ell }=0$; for the future black-hole type also require ${\theta }_n<0$. On a chosen spacelike slice, the outer boundary of the future trapped region is an apparent horizon, ordinarily an outermost marginally outer trapped surface when regularity permits this characterization. It depends on the slice, and a slicing need not display an apparent horizon even when the global spacetime contains an event horizon.

For the Schwarzschild metric in ingoing coordinates choose $\ell ={\partial }_v+(f/2){\partial }_r$ and $n=-{\partial }_r$. The spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates givesThe round spheres inside $2M$ are future trapped, while $r=2M$ is marginal. On standard horizon-penetrating slices its sections give the apparent horizon, coinciding with the stationary event and Killing horizon. This coincidence in a symmetric stationary example does not identify the notions in a general spacetime.

A trapping horizon is a hypersurface foliated by marginal surfaces. Its future outer type obeys ${\theta }_{\ell }=0$, ${\theta }_n<0$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_n{\theta }_{\ell }<0$. Unlike an event horizon, this can be diagnosed from local expansion data and their variation. The null energy condition explains its causal character. At a marginal surface, the Null Raychaudhuri equation, with the present curvature sign and vanishing null twist, givesin units $c=1$. A possible nonaffinity term vanishes here because it is proportional to the zero expansion. Write a horizon evolution vector as $V=\ell -Cn$. Preserving ${\theta }_{\ell }=0$ gives $C=({\mathcal{L}}_{\ell }{\theta }_{\ell })/({\mathcal{L}}_n{\theta }_{\ell })\ge 0$. Hence $V^2=-2C\le 0$: the future outer horizon is spacelike or null. Its area expansion is ${\theta }_V=-C{\theta }_n\ge 0$. These conclusions use the outer condition and the energy condition, not merely marginality.

For the global event horizon, the future-complete horizon focusing proof of the area theorem uses the same Null Raychaudhuri equation. Under the null energy condition, a negative generator expansion forces a future caustic in finite affine parameter. Future completeness and the usual regularity or predictability assumptions exclude such a caustic on the future event-horizon boundary. Its generator expansion is therefore nonnegative and its classical area cannot decrease. These assumptions matter: this is not an unconditional result for every null surface or every matter model.

Rotating and charged solutions provide further distinctions. A nonextremal Kerr black hole has $r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{M^2-a^2}$, with $a=J/M$. Its outer Killing horizon is generated by ${\partial }_t+{\Omega }_H{\partial }_{\varphi }$, where ${\Omega }_H=a/(r_{+}^2+a^2)$, rather than by time translation alone. The ergosphere begins at the stationary-limit surface $g_{tt}=0$, whose radius is $M+\sqrt{M^2-a^2{\cos }^2\theta }$. Away from the axis this lies outside the event horizon: it forbids static observers but does not forbid escape to infinity. In Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime, the nonextremal radii are $r_{\pm }=M\pm \sqrt{M^2-Q^2}$. The outer surface is an event horizon, whereas the inner surface is a Cauchy horizon in the exact analytic extension.

A Cauchy horizon concerns predictability from initial data. The future domain of dependence $D^{+}(\Sigma )$ of a partial Cauchy surface consists of events for which every past-inextendible causal curve intersects $\Sigma$. Its future Cauchy horizon isBeyond it, causal influences can arrive without meeting the specified initial surface; data on that surface no longer determine the solution there. This is distinct from the inability to send signals to infinity. The inner horizon of the exact charged black hole supplies an example, and the definition necessarily specifies which initial surface is being used.

Flat spacetime itself has acceleration horizons. In the right Rindler wedge, set $t=\xi \sinh (a\tau )$ and $x=\xi \cosh (a\tau )$, with $\xi >0$. The Minkowski spacetime metric becomes $d{s}^2=a^2{\xi }^{2}d{\tau }^2-d{\xi }^2-d{y}^2-d{z}^2$. The null boundaries $t=x$ and $t=-x$ are Rindler horizons of the boost Killing flow. A uniformly accelerated observer cannot receive signals from one side of its future horizon, even though the curvature vanishes and inertial observers encounter no such boundary. These are observer and Killing horizons, not a black-hole event horizon defined using the full Minkowski null infinity.

In a spatially flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric with noncompact spatial sections, radial light rays have $d\chi /dt=\pm 1/a(t)$. The particle horizon measures how far signals could have travelled since the initial cosmic time; the cosmological event horizon measures how far signals emitted now could ever travel toward a comoving observer. Their comoving and proper radii areThe respective horizon is present only if its integral is finite. The event-horizon integral uses the actual future endpoint, often $t_f=\infty$, so it is global and observer-dependent. For $a(t)=t^q$ on $0<t<\infty$, a finite particle horizon exists for $0<q<1$, while a finite event horizon exists for $q>1$. Neither integral is finite for $q=1$. In the expanding flat patch of de Sitter spacetime, $a=e^{Ht}$ and the proper event-horizon radius is $H^{-1}$. The static form $d{s}^2=(1-H^2{r}^2)d{t}^2-(1-H^2{r}^2{)}^{-1}d{r}^2-r^{2}d{\Omega }^2$ identifies it as a cosmological Killing horizon; its surface-gravity magnitude is $H$ with the central static time normalization.

Finally, the Hubble radius must not automatically be called an event horizon. For a flat expanding cosmology, the two future radial null expansions of a sphere of proper radius $R$ are ${\theta }_{\pm }=2(H\pm 1/R)$. At $R=H^{-1}$ the ingoing expansion vanishes, while outside it both expansions are positive: this is the cosmological marginal, past-trapped type rather than a future black-hole trapped surface. A dust universe with $a\propto t^{2/3}$ has such a Hubble sphere but no future event horizon. Global causal boundaries, slice-dependent trapped-surface boundaries, symmetry horizons and initial-data boundaries must therefore be distinguished, even when several coincide in a special example.

In the final Schwarzschild spacetime, an outgoing ray with $r>2M_1$ escapes to future null infinity, whereas one with $r<2M_1$ cannot do so and ends at the Schwarzschild singularity. Their boundary is the outgoing null geodesic $r=2M_1$. Since the final region continues indefinitely, the boundary of the causal past of future null infinity there is exactly that Schwarzschild event horizon. Equivalently, integrating the outgoing equation backward from this final boundary selects the complete event horizon. ThusThe original Penrose diagram below shows the right-hand exterior and black-hole interior appropriate to ingoing coordinates. The green band is the ingoing accretion interval; the dashed blue curve is the spherical apparent horizon $r=2m(v)$. Outgoing null geodesics escaping to future null infinity lie to the right of the red event horizon; those to its left terminate on the future spacelike singularity. In the final stationary region the two horizons coincide. The red event horizon already lies outside $r=2M_0$ before the ingoing matter arrives, because its position is fixed by the future escape criterion.

Let $\Delta M=M_1-M_0$ and retain only terms first order in $\mu /M_0$ and $\rho /M_0$. The outgoing event horizon equation expands toHere ${\kappa }_0$ is the initial Schwarzschild surface gravity. The integrating factor $e^{-{\kappa }_{0}v}$ gives $d(e^{-{\kappa }_{0}v}\rho )/dv=-e^{-{\kappa }_{0}v}\mu /(2M_0)$. Future stationarity imposes $\rho =2\Delta M$ for $v>v_0$ and removes the growing homogeneous solution. Integrating from $v$ to infinity yields the teleological response of a Vaidya event horizon:The integral is finite because $\mu$ is bounded. Integrating by parts also givesFor $v>v_0$, this reduces to $2\Delta M$. For $v<0$, the first form becomesConsequently $r_H\to 2M_0$ as $v\to -\infty$. The positive constant $C$ shows that this event horizon is already expanding in the initially vacuum region. For monotone accretion, $\rho -2\mu \ge 0$, so it lies outside the instantaneous apparent horizon to first order. All displayed radius corrections are understood up to $O((\Delta M{)}^2/M_0)$.

A null geodesic congruence is a smooth family of null geodesics filling a region without intersections there. For affine tangent $k$, the null expansion is the trace of the optical tensor: $\theta =d(\log A)/d\lambda$ for an infinitesimal pencil's area. Positive expansion means spreading; negative expansion means focusing.

For hypersurface-orthogonal generators in four dimensions, the Null Raychaudhuri equation readsThe null twist vanishes. The null energy condition implies $R_{ab}{k}^a{k}^b\ge 0$ through the Einstein field equations. An initial ${\theta }_0<0$ would force a focal point within affine distance at most $2/|{\theta }_0|$. A future-complete generator cannot develop such a point while remaining on an achronal event horizon. Thus $\boxed{\theta \ge 0}$ under the energy and global predictability/future-completeness hypotheses of Hawking's area theorem. Quantum energy-condition violations or failure of those global assumptions remove the conclusion.

The event horizon is the global boundary $\partial J^{-}({\mathcal{I}}^{+})$ and depends on the whole future. An apparent horizon on a chosen spacelike slice is the outermost marginally outer trapped surface, ordinarily ${\theta }_{\mathrm{out}}=0$, ${\theta }_{\mathrm{in}}<0$. It is quasi-local and slice-dependent; its tube need not be null.

For a shell arriving at $v=0$, the final horizon is $r=2M$. Before arrival, outgoing flat-space rays obey $dr/dv=1/2$. Tracing this horizon backward gives $r=2M+v/2$ until its beginning at $r=0$, $v=-4M$. No apparent horizon exists in that earlier flat region, explicitly illustrating the event horizon's dependence on future collapse.

The physical argument for the Penrose inequality combines weak cosmic censorship conjecture, the dominant energy condition, and relaxation to a stationary black hole. Work in geometrized units. Let $M_f$ and $A_f$ be the final Kerr black hole mass and horizon area. Positive energy radiated to infinity gives $E_{\mathrm{ADM}}\ge M_f$, where $E_{\mathrm{ADM}}$ is the initial ADM energy. For a Kerr black hole with $a_f=J_f/M_f$,If the initial apparent horizon obeys the necessary apparent-horizon area comparison with the enclosing event horizon, and Hawking's area theorem applies during the evolution, thenConsequently the anticipated answer, under those additional hypotheses, isThe bound is saturated by a nonrotating Schwarzschild black hole with no energy loss. Rotation or outgoing radiation makes the argument's inequalities stricter.

There is an essential qualification: inclusion inside an event horizon does not by itself compare areas. An arbitrary apparent horizon on general, non-time-symmetric initial data need not satisfy the displayed apparent-horizon area comparison; the unqualified version with its area is not universally true, even with the dominant energy condition. On time-symmetric data the relevant outermost minimal surface is an outer area-minimizing surface, as used in the Riemannian Penrose inequality, with nonnegative scalar curvature. In more general formulations an appropriate enclosing-area quantity is needed. The physical expectation is conditional on this area comparison, as well as on censorship, predictability, settling, and the energy assumptions; the mere presence of a trapped surface does not supply every step.

The Penrose inequality compares asymptotic energy and an appropriate horizon or enclosing area in geometrized units. Its physical motivation uses censorship, positive radiated energy, settling to a Kerr black hole, and Hawking's area theorem. The area variable requires care: the area of an arbitrary apparent horizon on non-time-symmetric data does not give a universally valid inequality. The Riemannian Penrose inequality uses the relevant outermost minimal surface under nonnegative scalar curvature.

For complete asymptotically flat three-dimensional Riemannian initial data with nonnegative scalar curvature and an outermost compact minimal surface boundary of area $A$, the Riemannian Penrose inequality gives the displayed bound. Equality is realized by the spatial exterior of Schwarzschild spacetime. Time-symmetric gravitational initial data have this form when the Einstein field equations and energy hypothesis give the required nonnegative curvature. This theorem does not justify substituting arbitrary non-time-symmetric apparent horizon area into the same formula.

For a small bounded mass perturbation $m(v)=M_0+\mu (v)$ that becomes constant in the future, write the event horizon radius as $r_H(v)=2M_0+\rho (v)$. The outgoing radial null geodesics of the Vaidya metric give ${\rho }^{\prime }-\rho /(4M_0)=-\mu /(2M_0)$ to first order. Future stationarity selects the displayed solution and removes the exponentially growing homogeneous solution. If ${\mu }^{\prime }\ge 0$, integration by parts gives $\rho -2\mu =2{\int }_v^{\infty }{e}^{-(s-v)/(4M_0)}{\mu }^{\prime }(s)ds\ge 0$. Thus the event horizon can grow before local matter arrives, lying outside the instantaneous spherical apparent horizon $r=2m(v)$. This is a consequence of the event horizon's global definition, not propagation of a local signal into the past.