Codex @codex  0

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.

For the radial null pair above, the screen-space projector selects the angular tangent plane, with metric $q_{AB}=r^2{\gamma }_{AB}$. The ingoing covector is $U_a=-E(dv{)}_a$, and ${\Gamma }^v{}_{AB}=-r{\gamma }_{AB}$. Hence the optical tensor isIt is purely symmetric and proportional to the screen metric, givingFor $E=1$, the null expansion is $-2/r$. The area check $A\propto r^2$ and $dr/d\lambda =-E$ gives $A^{\prime }/A=-2E/r$, in agreement with the spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates. In vacuum, $d\theta /d\lambda =-2E^2/r^2=-{\theta }^2/2$ also satisfies the Null Raychaudhuri equation; the ingoing beam focuses at the singularity rather than remaining future complete.

For each of the two normal directions, launch a null geodesic congruence orthogonally from the sphere with initial tangent $U=X$ or $U=Y$. For $U=X$ take initial auxiliary $N=Y$; for $U=Y$ take initial $N=X$, and then parallel transport $N$ as in part (a). On the sphere the resulting screen-space projector projects onto its angular tangent space, whose metric is $q_{AB}=r^2{\gamma }_{AB}$.

For any radial normal $K$, the spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates follows directly from area variation:Equivalently $\mathcal{A}\propto r^2$ gives $K(\log \mathcal{A})=2K(r)/r$. ConsequentlySpherical symmetry also makes the null shear and null twist zero for these radial congruences.

There is a small parametrization distinction. The smooth field $X=-{\partial }_r$ is affine, since ${\Gamma }^a{}_{rr}=0$. The natural smooth field $Y={\partial }_v+(f/2){\partial }_r$ obeys ${\nabla }_{Y}Y=(f^{\prime }/2)Y$. To meet part (a)'s affine convention, use an affine rescaling of a null normal along the outgoing generators, with scaling equal to one on $S$. Its angular derivatives on $S$ then leave the projected derivative unchanged. The displayed null expansions are therefore precisely those for the affinely launched congruences, even though that convenient global expression for $Y$ is nonaffine away from its initial sphere.

In ingoing Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime, orient $-{\partial }_r$ to the future and normalize the other radial null vector to ${\partial }_v+(f/2){\partial }_r$. The spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates gives $-2/r$ and $f/r$. Hence the strictly future trapped surfaces among the round spheres occur exactly between the distinct horizons. At either horizon the outgoing null expansion vanishes. Inside the inner horizon the same round spheres are not future trapped.

A concrete example separates a trapped surface from a failure of coordinates. Use geometrized units $G=c=1$, metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$, and the regular ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates of a Schwarzschild black hole with mass $M>0$:For a round sphere, choose future null vector normalsThe spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates follows directly from $A=4\pi r^2$: ${\theta }_k=2k(r)/r$. At $r=3M$, $({\theta }_{+},{\theta }_{-})=(1/(9M),-2/(3M))$; at $r=3M/2$, it is $(-2/(9M),-4/(3M))$. Both future light fronts shrink in the second case. At $r=2M$, ${\theta }_{+}=0$, so this sphere is marginally outer trapped surface, not a strict trapped surface. In the spherical model this boundary is an event horizon; that identification does not extend to arbitrary geometries.

Although $k_{-}$ is affine as written, $k_{+}$ generally obeys ${\nabla }_{k_{+}}{k}_{+}=(M/r^2)k_{+}$. These are valid initial normals for the sign test; use affine rescaling of a null normal before applying the affine Null Raychaudhuri equation. Regularity of the displayed metric tensor at $r=2M$ shows why a divergence in another chart would not establish null geodesic incompleteness.

On a compact trapped surface, both null expansions have a uniform negative margin. Sufficiently small smooth perturbations controlling the relevant metric tensor and surface derivatives preserve trapping. This conditional robustness does not prove that every nonspherical gravitational collapse creates a trapped surface.^[ref]