Codex @codex  0

For $c>0$, the backward causal cone at $(x_{\ast },t_{\ast })$ isIts boundaries are characteristic lines for the one-dimensional wave equation; its base on $t=0$ is the initial-data domain of dependence. The forward cone from $(s,0)$ is $t\ge 0$, $|x-s|\le ct$. Here the cone is set by the model's wave speed, which may be acoustic or a string wave speed; it does not assert propagation at the speed of light.

For the one-dimensional wave equation $U_{ss}=U_{rr}$ with Cauchy data on $s=s_0$, $a\le r\le b$, the solution is determined where both characteristic footpoints $r\pm (s-s_0)$ lie in $[a,b]$. This is the diamond displayed in the title, or $|r-(a+b)/2|+|s-s_0|\le (b-a)/2$. In characteristic coordinates, it is a rectangle of known arguments for the two travelling-wave functions. A smooth invertible coordinate transformation maps it to a region bounded by the original equation's characteristic curves; it need not remain a Euclidean diamond. Both forward and backward determination can be described this way. Outside the region, changing an unspecified part of one travelling-wave function can change the solution without changing the supplied finite data segment.

For $r=\sqrt{x}$, $s=y^{3/2}/3$ and data on $y=1$, $1/4\le x\le 1$, the transformed segment is $s_0=1/3$, $a=1/2$, $b=1$. The known characteristic arguments lie in $[5/6,4/3]$ and $[1/6,2/3]$. The corresponding original region has curved boundaries despite being a rectangle in characteristic coordinates and a diamond in $(r,s)$ coordinates.

For Noncharacteristic Cauchy data parameterized by $t\ge 0$, the method of characteristics produces a surface $\Phi (s,t)=(x,y,z)$. The part uniquely fixed as a classical graph through the data must retain both the allowed footpoint range and a nonsingular branch of the projected map. On a branch where inversion gives $(s(x,y),t(x,y))$, require $t(x,y)\ge 0$, together with the branch condition and a nonzero Jacobian determinant. The strict inequality $t>0$ describes its open interior; the endpoint characteristic $t=0$ supplies a boundary trace. A fold caustic can supply another boundary.

An algebraic formula obtained by eliminating $s,t$ can extend beyond this domain of dependence. Its values there need not be selected by the original data, because their characteristic footpoints can lie on the unprescribed half of the data curve. Tracking the parameter range is therefore part of the uniqueness argument, separately from selecting a real square-root branch.

For the wave equation $u_{tt}=c^2{u}_{xx}$ with zero initial displacement and initial velocity $g$, D'Alembert's formula becomesFor $c=1$ this is the original speed-one form $u(t,x)=\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{x-t}^{x+t}f(s)ds$ when the initial velocity is named $f$. The integral records the total initial kick inside the domain of dependence.

For a computed example, set $g(x)=V$ on $[-a,a]$ and zero elsewhere, with $V>0$. This discontinuous datum gives a weak solution:At the centre, $u(0,t)=V\min (t,a/c)$. For $a=1\mathrm{m}$, $c=2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $V=0.4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, this is $0.1\mathrm{m}$ at $t=0.25\mathrm{s}$ and $0.2\mathrm{m}$ at $t=1\mathrm{s}$. Once $ct>a$, a central plateau $u=Va/c$ occupies $|x|\le ct-a$. In contrast, central zero region for odd compactly supported initial velocity follows when the full integral of $g$ vanishes. Finite propagation speed permits an interior tail; it does not imply the Strong Huygens principle.

For constant wave speed $c>0$, the whole-line Cauchy problemhas the unique classical solution, for $f\in C^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $g\in C^1(\mathbb{R})$,The first term evolves displacement released from rest; the second evolves initial velocity. The factor $1/(2c)$ converts an integral of velocity over distance into displacement. On a finite string the formula applies before the backward characteristic curves reach an endpoint, or globally after an extension that enforces the boundary conditions. ^[ref]

For a completely smooth example, choose a bump function with compact support:where $a>0$ sets the half-width and $A$ sets the initial peak. ThenAt $t=0$ the two copies coincide, recovering peak $A$. At $t=a/(2c)$, $u(0,t)=A{e}^{-1/3}\simeq 0.716531A$. At $t=3a/(2c)$ the pulses are separated, centred at $x=\pm 3a/2$, each of width $2a$ and peak $A/2$. Zero initial velocity forces equal left and right contributions; a purely right-moving initial profile instead requires $g=-c{f}^{\prime }$. Thus “released from rest” and “launched to the right” describe different Cauchy data.

The domain of dependence of $(x_{\ast },t_{\ast })$, for $t_{\ast }\ge 0$, is contained in $[x_{\ast }-c{t}_{\ast },x_{\ast }+c{t}_{\ast }]$ on the initial line. More precisely, displacement contributes only through the two endpoints, while initial velocity contributes throughout the interval. With $c=1$, $x_{\ast }=0.5$ and $t_{\ast }=1.5$, that interval is $[-1,2]$. Changing either initial datum outside it cannot change $u(0.5,1.5)$. If both initial data vanish outside $[-a,a]$, the solution vanishes outside $[-a-ct,a+ct]$: this is finite propagation speed. The expanding interval bounds possible influence; it need not be filled by nonzero displacement, as the separated bumps demonstrate.

Historically, d'Alembert studied the vibrating-string problem in “Recherches sur la courbe que forme une corde tendue mise en vibration”, in the Berlin Academy's volume for the year 1747, pages 214–219. The memoir introduces the differential equation and integrates it through two arbitrary one-variable functions. The original geometric problem makes the formula's enduring appeal clear: arbitrary initial shapes can be handled without first decomposing them into normal modes. ^[ref]

For a brief derivation, use characteristic coordinates $\xi =x-ct$ and $\eta =x+ct$. The chain rule gives $u_{tt}-c^2{u}_{xx}=-4c^2{u}_{\xi \eta }$, so $u=F(\xi )+G(\eta )$. The initial conditions yield $F+G=f$ and $-c{F}^{\prime }+c{G}^{\prime }=g$. Integrating these relations gives the displayed formula; the arbitrary integration constants cancel in their sum.

A complete Cauchy hypersurface in Minkowski spacetime, such as $t=0$, has full domain of dependence and empty Cauchy horizons. This does not forbid horizons for a non-Cauchy initial surface in the same spacetime. The smooth edgeless spacelike hyperboloid $t=\sqrt{a^2+r^2}$, $a>0$, has domain of dependence $t>r$ and a past Cauchy horizon on the future light cone of the origin. Every causal curve starting inside that cone crosses the hyperboloid in the direction needed for dependence: $t^2-r^2$ passes through $a^2$, while a null generator of the cone never meets it. The time-reversed hyperboloid gives the analogous future horizon.

For $u_{tt}=u_{xx}-u$ with $u(x,0)=0$ and $u_t(x,0)=e^{-|x|}$, the solution outside $|x|\le t$ is exactly $t{e}^{-|x|}$. On the positive half-line, $t{e}^{-x}$ satisfies both the equation and initial data; the finite propagation speed limits dependence at $x>t$ to positive initial points. Uniqueness on this domain of dependence proves the formula there, and reflection gives the negative half-line. The exterior tail is nonzero because the initial velocity is not compactly supported.

For the unforced, constant-$c$ one-dimensional wave equation, finite propagation speed says that changing Cauchy data outside $[x_{\ast }-c{t}_{\ast },x_{\ast }+c{t}_{\ast }]$ cannot change the solution at $(x_{\ast },t_{\ast })$, where $c>0$ and $t_{\ast }\ge 0$. This interval is the initial-data domain of dependence. Its endpoints are found by following the two characteristic lines for the one-dimensional wave equation backwards from the observation. D'Alembert's formula makes the dependence sharper: initial displacement is sampled at the endpoints, while initial velocity is integrated over the entire interval.^[ref]

For the synthetic choice $c=1$, $(x_{\ast },t_{\ast })=(0.5,1.5)$ has initial-data domain of dependence $[-1,2]$. A change confined near $x=3$ is irrelevant to that observation, however large it is. If both Cauchy data vanish outside $[-a,a]$, their compact support can influence only $[-a-ct,a+ct]$ at $t\ge 0$. Thus an observer at $x>a$ sees exactly zero displacement for $0\le t<(x-a)/c$. There is no nonzero precursor beyond this causal cone for the constant-speed wave equation in the ideal model. This is an exact statement about the partial differential equation, stronger than an experimental failure to detect a small signal.

Support widening for the wave equation is a bound on possible influence, not a claim that every point inside the expanding interval moves. A bump function released with zero initial velocity splits into two separated travelling waves; the middle can become empty. An initial kick can instead leave an interior tail, as in the D'Alembert formula with initial velocity. Consequently finite propagation speed does not imply the Strong Huygens principle. A finite string needs boundary conditions, and the whole-line formula applies locally only until its backward causal cone for the constant-speed wave equation encounters an endpoint.

The front velocity is the propagation speed of the earliest boundary of a newly introduced disturbance's support. It asks when an initially unaffected observer can first respond, whereas group velocity asks how a narrow wave envelope translates. A detector threshold defines a practical arrival time, but can miss arbitrarily small earlier responses; a packet peak is another distinct timing convention. In a causal dielectric model, a high-angular frequency contour argument gives exactly zero field for $t<x/c$, even when phase velocity exceeds $c$. This is a statement about that model's relativistic causality, not a universal identification of group velocity with front velocity.^[ref]

For the stipulated Klein-Gordon equation with compactly supported real Cauchy data, front velocity is bounded by $c$, and $c$ is the model's maximal speed of influence. A short energy method outline usesIntegration outside an expanding interval shows that zero initial energy there remains zero. Thus initial support in $[-a,a]$ cannot influence $x>a$ before $t=(x-a)/c$. The positive energy density includes the restoring term ${\omega }_0^2{u}^2/2$: this adds oscillation behind the front without extending its domain of dependence. A particular disturbance may fail to excite the leading boundary, so the maximal speed is not a promise of a detectable response for every source.

A Gaussian function is nonzero arbitrarily far away, so the Gaussian envelope in a Klein-Gordon medium has no sharp initial support boundary. Its small distant tails are already in the initial data. Likewise, keeping only a narrow interval of the frequency spectrum cannot reproduce an exact abrupt onset. Cutting off a Gaussian tail changes its Fourier transform and the accompanying initial velocity; it is a different initial-value problem. The exponential initial-velocity tail for the Klein-Gordon equation is another concrete example of a pre-existing tail outside the main disturbance.

The water-tank measurement in phase velocity records free surface elevation with calibrated resistance probes and uses a ruler and stopwatch for an independent check. The inspected protocol calls the front or back of a group a timing feature. That visible edge establishes an envelope transit estimate, not the first nonzero disturbance in the sense of front velocity.^[ref] A proposed additional control would repeat the transit fit at several detection thresholds and train durations, using matched probe calibration and the same sampling rate. Dependence on the threshold diagnoses wave envelope reshaping or limited sensitivity; records should be compared before reflections return. Such a test could expose limitations of a group velocity estimate, but would not establish an exact causal front or validate the stipulated Klein-Gordon equation for water waves.

An information velocity must specify what counts as a newly distinguishable message and how it is detected. In a causal model, receivers cannot distinguish two otherwise identical preparations before their difference can arrive. Front velocity therefore bounds the arrival of genuinely new changes when the model has a finite domain of dependence. Group velocity can estimate the delay of a weakly distorted narrow wave packet, but it is not a universal speed of information: damping, amplification and reshaping can move the peak without advancing the first possible response. A Gaussian peak shift alone does not test relativistic causality.^[ref]

For the unit-speed wave equation, the integral of $(u_t^2+|\nabla u{|}^2)/2$ over $B_r(x_0)$ at time $T\ge 0$ is at most its initial integral over $B_{r+T}(x_0)$. On a shrinking ball the outward energy flux minus the loss from its moving boundary is $-((u_t-{\partial }_{n}u{)}^2+|{\nabla }_{\tan }u{|}^2)/2$, hence nonpositive. This estimate establishes the domain of dependence and finite propagation speed without any assumptions at spatial infinity.

To find the characteristic domain from data on a half-line, retain the allowed range of its initial parameter. The portion connected to the initial data before the fold caustic has $s>-1$ and $t\ge 0$. Inverting the positive branch givesThe square root must be positive, and $t\ge 0$ requires $x+1\ge \sqrt{1+x+y}>0$. Squaring is now legitimate and gives $y\le x^2+x$. Thus the full characteristic-covered set on this branch isIts open interior, where both the data parameter and the projection are interior and nonsingular, is the classical domain of dependence

Each point of $D$ has exactly one backward characteristic meeting the interior $t>0$ of the prescribed data, so the Picard-Lindelöf theorem fixes its value. The upper boundary is the characteristic issuing from the endpoint $t=0$ and is fixed by the endpoint datum, consistently with the continuous trace from $D$. The lower boundary is excluded: $s=-1$ there, the Jacobian determinant vanishes, and the explicit solution derivatives diverge as $W\downarrow 0$.

Points of the half-plane $W>0$ outside this set have $t<0$ on the branch through the data. Their characteristic footpoints would lie on the unprescribed continuation of the initial line, so these values are not determined by the given half-line alone. For example, extend the initial value to negative $t$ as $1+\epsilon h(t)$, where $h$ is a smooth function supported on the negative half-line. Such extensions agree with all the prescribed data and, where noncharacteristic, produce different local extensions by the method of characteristics. The displayed formula supplies one possible extension there, but the data do not select it uniquely. This is why retaining the restriction on the initial half-line is essential. Continuing the parameterized surface past $s=-1$ instead produces the other sheet of the fold; it does not give a differentiable graph continuation through the caustic.

The coefficient matrix of $(u_y,v_y{)}^T$ is $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}v& u\\ u^{-3}& v\end{array}\right)$. Its distinct eigenvalues are ${\lambda }_{\pm }=v\pm 1/u$ for every $u>0$, so the system is strictly hyperbolic. Define $D_{\pm }={\partial }_x+(v\pm 1/u){\partial }_y$. Thenthe derivative terms cancel, as do the sources $u-u$. Hence $R=v-1/u$ is constant on the plus-family characteristics.

The data give $R=0$, so throughout their domain of dependence $v=1/u$. The minus-family speed is then $v-1/u=0$: the other characteristics are the horizontal lines $y=a$. Substitution into the second PDE, or its minus-characteristic compatibility relation, gives $v_x=1/v$. Integrate at fixed $y$ using $v(0,y)=y$ and retain the positive branch:Indeed $u_x=-u^3$, $u_y=-y{u}^3$, $v_y=yu$, so $v{u}_y+u{v}_y=0$; similarly $u^{-3}{u}_y+v{v}_y=-y+y=0$.

For $x\ge 0$ the lower edge of the region determined solely by the given data is the plus characteristic from $(0,1)$. Write it $y=b(x)$, where the exact boundary characterization isThe determined region is $\boxed{x\ge 0,y\ge b(x)}$, with strict inequality for its interior. Both backward characteristic families there reach the supplied initial half-line. Below this boundary a backward plus characteristic would require initial data below $y=1$, which were not supplied; extending the displayed formulas there gives a possible continuation but is not forced by the data. An elementary expression for $b$ is unnecessary: its initial-value ODE defines it uniquely and the requested other family already has the explicit form $y=a$. The sketch integrates only this boundary for illustration.

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 algebraic quantum field theory, regions carry observable algebras $\mathcal{A}(O)$. Microcausality requiresField operators are usually distributions, so the corresponding formula uses fields smeared with test functions of spacelike-separated support. Fermionic fields obey graded locality, while their physical even observables commute. This separates the physical observable condition from an unqualified demand that all fields commute.

For a free Klein–Gordon field, the commutator is proportional to the difference of retarded and advanced fundamental solutions. Their causal support makes this commutator vanish outside the light cone. Vacuum two-point correlations can nevertheless be nonzero at spacelike separation: the condition concerns the commutator, not the expectation of a product or statistical independence of outcomes.

To see its operational relevance, take local Kraus operators $M_{\alpha }\in \mathcal{A}(O_1)$ with ${\sum }_{\alpha }{M}_{\alpha }^{†}{M}_{\alpha }=I$. For a remote $B\in \mathcal{A}(O_2)$ the dual operation satisfiesThus such a local unselected operation changes no remote expectation in any state, proving an algebraic no-signalling result without assuming a tensor-product decomposition of the local algebras. The allowed measurement operations must actually be local; calling an arbitrary ideal projector a measurement is not enough.

Spacelike commutation allows entanglement and Bell-inequality violation while preventing signalling by these local operations. It is a kinematic algebraic condition. An additional dynamical condition is needed to say that initial-region data determine fields in the domain of dependence.

Primitive causality is an initial-region completeness requirement. A state's full restriction to a suitable region $O$ determines expectations of observables in its future domain of dependence. The domain of dependence is not the whole causal future: it contains points whose past-inextendible causal curves all meet the specified initial data region. Merely being reachable by one causal curve from $O$ is not enough.

A standard local time-slice axiom makes this precise when $O$ contains a neighbourhood of a Cauchy slice of its causal development:with the regions and algebra identifications understood in the specified local net. Definitions applying primitive causality to all bounded open regions can be stronger than a time-slice property stated only for suitable causally convex Cauchy neighbourhoods; these formulations should not be conflated without extra hypotheses.

For a local hyperbolic Klein–Gordon equation, a later field is determined by the field and its normal derivative, or canonical momentum, on a Cauchy slice. Its value can be written using the causal fundamental solution, with integration supported where the past light cone meets the initial slice. If that support lies in the initial patch, the later smeared field is generated by the patch's initial field and momentum operators. Their algebra therefore generates the observables of the patch's domain of dependence. This is the local differential-equation mechanism behind the time-slice property.

The required information is the entire restricted quantum state: it assigns expectations to every observable and product in the initial algebra. Mean values of the initial field and momentum alone do not determine their fluctuations or higher correlations and thus are insufficient. Knowledge of the restricted state fixes later probability distributions and correlations; it does not fix which individual outcome a future measurement will produce.

Finally, primitive causality concerns propagation of information already encoded in initial data, while microcausality controls compatibility of spacelike measurements and quantum no-signalling controls possible interventions. The spectrum condition adds a separate positivity restriction. A causal initial-value evolution, positive energy and no-signalling are complementary requirements, not equivalent definitions of quantum locality.

Use the original PDF's spatial Ricci component $R_{\chi \chi }=a\ddot{a}+2{\dot{a}}^2+2$; the converted TeX's $2\dot{a}\ddot{a}$ is a transcription defect. Continue with $c=1$ and signature $(-,+,+,+)$. Tracing the vacuum Einstein field equations with a cosmological constant gives $R=4\Lambda$, and hence $R_{ab}=\Lambda g_{ab}$. The time component therefore gives $\ddot{a}=(\Lambda /3)a$. Substituting this into the spatial component givesThe left side is strictly positive, so $\Lambda >0$ is necessary for a real positive closed scale factor. Define $\ell =\sqrt{3/\Lambda }$. The acceleration equation has solution $a=A{e}^{t/\ell }+B{e}^{-t/\ell }$, and the first integral fixes $4AB={\ell }^2$. Taking the positive scale-factor branch and shifting the origin to the minimum givesThe universe contracts for $t<0$, has its nonzero minimum $a=\ell$ at $t=0$, and expands for $t>0$. The minimum is a smooth bounce, not a curvature singularity.

Introduce the dimensionless time $\tau =t/\ell$. Then the closed slicing of de Sitter spacetime isOne can identify it explicitly: in five-dimensional Minkowski space, set $X^0=\ell \sinh \tau$ and $X^I=\ell \cosh \tau n^I$, where ${\sum }_{I=1}^4(n^I{)}^2=1$. These coordinates satisfy $-(X^0{)}^2+{\sum }_I(X^I{)}^2={\ell }^2$, and their induced metric is the one above. Thus the solution is global de Sitter spacetime, with spherical spatial topology and both contracting and expanding parts.

The time entering the printed compactification formula is this rescaled time. WriteDirect differentiation and elementary trigonometry give $dT/d\tau =\mathrm{sech}\tau$, $\sin T=\tanh \tau$ and $\cos T=\mathrm{sech}\tau$. ThereforeMultiplying by $(\cos T/\ell {)}^2$ gives the metric of a finite-time slab of the Einstein static universe, often called the Einstein cylinder. This is a conformal transformation of the metric and does not assert that the transformed matter content remains vacuum. The coordinate ranges areThe angular-coordinate degeneracies at the poles are the usual regular spherical ones.

Radial null lines satisfy $d\chi =\pm dT$, so the Penrose diagram is the square displayed below. Every interior point represents an angular two-sphere. Its top and bottom are the spacelike conformal infinities ${\mathcal{I}}^{+}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}^{-}$ at $T=\pi /2$ and $T=-\pi /2$; they are excluded from the physical spacetime and are not curvature singularities. The vertical sides $\chi =0$ and $\chi =\pi$ represent the regular north and south poles of the three-sphere, not spatial edges of the universe.

A particle horizon at an observer's current time bounds the comoving sources whose light could have reached that observer over the available past conformal interval. Here the cosmological past extends to $t=-\infty$, but its conformal duration is finite. For a comoving observer at $\chi =0$,Since $0<{\chi }_p<\pi$ at every finite time, a particle horizon exists. The corresponding null boundary in the diagram is $\chi =T+\pi /2$, emerging from the observer's past endpoint at ${\mathcal{I}}^{-}$. The antipodal point never has enough time to send a signal received at a finite proper time.

An observer event horizon bounds the events that can ever send a signal to the observer's future-inextendible worldline. The remaining conformal time fixes its distance:This too lies strictly between zero and $\pi$ at finite time, so the observer has a cosmological event horizon. Its null line ends at the observer's future endpoint on ${\mathcal{I}}^{+}$. Both horizon spheres have areal radius $a\sin \chi =\ell$, though their comoving angular positions differ except at $T=0$. These are the cosmological horizons in global de Sitter spacetime; changing the comoving observer relocates them by an isometry.

A Cauchy horizon is the boundary of the domain determined by data on a chosen partial Cauchy hypersurface; beyond it an inextendible causal curve can avoid that initial surface. Each complete constant-$T$ three-sphere here is a Cauchy hypersurface. To see this directly, a causal curve in the conformal metric has spatial speed at most one when parameterized by $T$. On any finite interior time interval its path therefore has a limit in the complete compact three-sphere. If an inextendible curve stopped at an interior time, that limit would allow its continuation, a contradiction. Its time range consequently extends between both conformal ends, and monotonicity makes it cross any complete constant-$T$ sphere exactly once. Its domain of dependence is the entire physical spacetime.

Thus particle and cosmological event horizons exist for every comoving observer, while the complete global Cauchy slices have no Cauchy horizons. Horizons of a restricted static patch or a deliberately partial initial surface are relative to that restriction; they do not alter the global Cauchy conclusion.

The radial part of the Minkowski metric becomes $-dudv$, and $r=(v-u)/2$. With $u=\tan p$, $v=\tan q$ and the positive conformal factor $\Omega =2\cos p\cos q$, multiplication by ${\Omega }^2$ givesConsequently the Minkowski conformal compactification isThe spatial metric $d{R}^2+{\sin }^{2}Rd{\Sigma }^2$ is the round unit three-sphere. The extended unphysical metric is therefore that of the Einstein static universe, $\mathbb{R}\times S^3$ with unit spatial radius. Physical Minkowski spacetime occupies only the diamond-shaped causal patch of this cylinder, or a triangle after restricting to nonnegative spherical radius; it is not the whole cylinder.

The complete coordinate ranges and joint restrictions areThe polar angles have the usual coordinate degeneracies at their poles and at $r=0$. In the extended Einstein static universe one may let $T\in \mathbb{R}$ and $0\le R\le \pi$, but these are not the ranges of the original physical patch. In its interior $\Omega >0$. The line $R=0$ is the regular centre $r=0$, not a component of infinity.

The conformal completion has future timelike infinity $i^{+}=(\pi ,0)$, past timelike infinity $i^{-}=(-\pi ,0)$, and spacelike infinity $i^0=(0,\pi )$. The open sloping boundaries arenamely future null infinity and past null infinity. Each ordinary interior point of the radial diagram represents a two-sphere, and each point on either open null boundary represents a two-sphere of null directions.

A timelike geodesic is an inertial worldline $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{\beta }t$ with $|\mathbf{\beta }|<1$. As $t\to +\infty$, both $t-r$ and $t+r$ tend to $+\infty$, giving $p,q\to \pi /2$ and endpoint $i^{+}$. At past infinity both tend to $-\infty$, giving $i^{-}$. These endpoints are reached at infinite physical proper time, although at finite conformal coordinate time $T$. A null geodesic has $r\sim |t|$. In its outgoing future, $u$ approaches a finite retarded time while $v\to +\infty$, giving an endpoint on ${\mathcal{I}}^{+}$; in its incoming past, $v$ has a finite limit and $u\to -\infty$, giving an endpoint on ${\mathcal{I}}^{-}$. A spacelike geodesic is a straight line with spatial tangent larger than its temporal tangent, so $u\to -\infty$, $v\to +\infty$ at either end and both endpoints are $i^0$ in the compactified radial description. All these physical geodesics are complete. Only the unparametrized null geodesics are necessarily preserved as geodesics of the unphysical metric; timelike and spacelike images need not be its geodesics.

For horizons, distinguish a property of the spacetime from a property of an observer or of an initial-data hypersurface. Complete inertial observers have no particle horizon: in the flat cosmological slicing $a(t)=1$, the past light-travel distance ${\int }_{-\infty }^{t_0}dt$ is infinite. There is no finite-age initial singularity truncating communication between comoving observers. This statement does not say that an event receives signals from spacelike-separated events at the same time.

There is also no black-hole event horizon, because every event can send a future-directed null ray to future null infinity. Nevertheless accelerated timelike observers can have both future and past observer event horizons. For an entire observer worldline $\gamma$, define them by $H_{\gamma }^{+}=\partial I^{-}(\gamma )$ and $H_{\gamma }^{-}=\partial I^{+}(\gamma )$, using its complete future and past respectively. An inertial observer's chronological past and future of the whole worldline are both all of Minkowski spacetime. By contrast, for the uniformly accelerated worldline in a Cartesian spatial direction,its null coordinates obey $t-x=-a^{-1}{e}^{-a\tau }<0$ and $t+x=a^{-1}{e}^{a\tau }>0$. An event with $t-x<0$ can signal to a sufficiently late point of this worldline, whereas an event with $t-x\ge 0$ cannot; finite transverse displacements do not change that conclusion as $t+x\to \infty$. Similarly the worldline can signal to precisely the events with $t+x>0$. Thus its two observer event horizons areThey are the Rindler horizons, and their accessible common region is $x>|t|$. They do not indicate a curvature singularity or a failure of global predictability.

Finally Minkowski spacetime is a globally hyperbolic spacetime: every inextendible causal curve crosses each complete spacelike plane $t=t_0$ exactly once. Indeed $t$ is strictly monotone along future-directed causal curves, and the speed bound $|d\mathbf{x}/dt|\le 1$ prevents an inextendible curve from ending at finite $t$ by escaping to spatial infinity. Its time range is therefore all of $\mathbb{R}$. These planes are Cauchy hypersurfaces with full domain of dependence, so there are no Cauchy horizons associated with complete Cauchy data.

A Cauchy horizon is, however, defined relative to a specified initial surface. Under a literal existence reading of “admits”, non-Cauchy initial surfaces can have such horizons even in flat spacetime. For example the edgeless spacelike hyperboloid ${\Sigma }_a:t=\sqrt{a^2+r^2}$ has $D({\Sigma }_a)=\{t>r\}$. To see this, inside the future light cone $t-r$ and $t+r$ are positive and nondecreasing on future-directed causal curves. Their product $t^2-r^2$ increases past $a^2$ on every future-inextendible curve from below the hyperboloid; every past-inextendible curve from above it crosses down through $a^2$ before leaving the cone. Outside the cone there is an inextendible null curve avoiding the hyperboloid. The future light cone itself is its past Cauchy horizon. The time-reversed hyperboloid gives a future Cauchy horizon. This is the dependence of a Cauchy horizon on the initial hypersurface, not an intrinsic loss of predictability of full Minkowski spacetime. Thus a categorical claim that no choice of partial initial surface can ever have a Cauchy horizon would be too strong.

For the wave equation with d'Alembert operator $\square =-{\partial }_t^2+\Delta$, the wave speed is one. The domain of dependence of $(t,x)$ is the initial ball $\overline{B}(x,t)$. More precisely, two solutions whose Cauchy data agree on a neighbourhood of that ball have the same value at $(t,x)$. Thus, if both Cauchy data have support in $K$, finite propagation speed givesThe Strong Huygens principle is sharper in three spatial dimensions: only the initial data on the sphere $|y-x|=t$ contribute, including the first spatial derivatives of the initial displacement there. The Kirchhoff formula makes this precise:In particular, if the Cauchy data have compact support in $\overline{B}(0,R)$, thenFor $t>R$, the solution therefore vanishes behind the inward edge $|x|=t-R$ as well as outside $|x|=t+R$. The absence of an interior tail is the additional content of the Strong Huygens principle.

We prove finite propagation speed using a shrinking cone energy argument. Fix $T>0$ and $x_{\ast }$, and suppose the Cauchy data vanish on $B(x_{\ast },T)$. For $0\le s<T$, define the local wave energyThe homogeneous wave equation gives the local conservation lawDifferentiate the integral over the moving ball. Its boundary moves inward with speed one, so the divergence theorem givesHere $n$ is the outward unit normal, ${\partial }_n$ the normal derivative, and ${\nabla }_{\tan }$ the component of the gradient tangent to the boundary. Since $E(0)=0$ and $e\ge 0$, we have $E(s)=0$. Hence both ${\varphi }_t$ and $\nabla \varphi$ vanish inside the backward light cone. Integrating ${\varphi }_t(s,x_{\ast })=0$ from the zero initial displacement gives $\varphi (s,x_{\ast })=0$; continuity then gives $\varphi (T,x_{\ast })=0$.

Applying the same energy estimate to the difference of two solutions proves the domain of dependence assertion. If $\mathrm{dist}(x_{\ast },K)>T$, the initial ball misses $K$, and the preceding argument proves the stated support bound. No disturbance propagates faster than one.