I would use the definition of an event horizon as being the boundary of the past of the future null infinity of a space-time, future/past Cauchy horizon of a closed achronal surface as the boundary of its future/past domain of dependence and apparent horizon as the outermost trapped surfaces.

I would like to know a reference for or a proof of the following two concepts,

  1. For static/stationary space-times, the event horizon must equal the apparent horizon.

  2. For static space-times, the event horizon is where the static Killing field becomes null.

In the maximally extended Reissner-Nordstrom black-hole space-time the inner horizon is a Cauchy horizon for the "t=0" space-like surfaces. ( Was there a way to see the above without doing the extension?)

I can't prove it but I think the outer horizon of a Reissner-Nordstrom black-hole space-time is not a Cauchy horizon for any closed achronal surface.

  1. I would like to know what is the most precise statement one can make about the relationship between Cauchy horizons and event horizons.

  2. Definition of a black hole as in Yvonne's book is the complement of the past of the set covered by the null geodesics which have an infinite future canonical parameter.

This definition doesn't seem to guarantee global hyperbolicity for either the outside or inside of a black hole and neither does it even demand time-orientability of the space-time nor does this want the space-time to have a "regular" Penrose compactification.

She needs to put in an extra definition of calling a space-time to be ``asymptotically strongly predictable" if the complement of the closure of the black hole region is globally hyperbolic.

Does the above criteria get automatically implied if one uses the definition of black hole as the complement of the past of the future null infinity for those space-times which have a regular Penrose compactifiaction?

Hence my question as to in how general a situation can one guarantee that the space-time in the complement of the black-hole region is globally hyperbolic?

What is the most precise connection known between existence of a black-hole and global hyperbolicity of its interior and exterior?

(Somehow I can't number the questions as 1,2,3,4 and the software insists on calling it 1,2 and again 1,2!)

  • $\begingroup$ As drbobmeister indicated, the first two questions are in Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, section 9.3. Question 1 is answered by Proposition 9.3.1, Question 2 by 9.3.4. Question 4 is non-sensical. To even define a black-hole (event horizon), one generally needs asymptotic predictability, which requires existence of a partial Cauchy surface, so the DOC is globally hyperbolic by assumption. The region inside does not have to be not globally hyperbolic, as you can see in Schwarzschild, and many scalar-field collapse scenarios. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2010 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ See the meta discussion tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/760/preview-of-numberperiod/… about ways of getting the questions numbered the way you want them. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2010 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie Thanks for your reply. Can you expand "DOC" ? How does one prove that in the Schwarszchild case the region inside the event horizon is globally hyperbolic? Is there a characterization of such scenarios? (essentially my 4th question) $\endgroup$
    – Anirbit
    Nov 18, 2010 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ DOC = domain of outer communications = complement of black hole region. And what's there to prove about Schwarzschild? You draw the Penrose diagram, and it's trivial. For spherically symmetric space-times existence of Cauchy Horizon is equivalent to existence of boundaries of space-time where the area radius extends continuously to some finite value. For general space-times, there are no clear characterizations besides the definition. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2010 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie thanks for the clarification. Can you kindly give reference or explicitly state what is the definition of a black-hole that you are using? Now I have made my 4th question referenced and backed it up with motivations. I guess now it makes sense. $\endgroup$
    – Anirbit
    Nov 19, 2010 at 15:19

1 Answer 1


I would begin by checking out The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time by Hawking and Ellis. Note: I would probably have submitted this brief remark as a comment, but on my system "the software" won't allow comments until after at least one answer has been posted.

  • $\begingroup$ @drbobmeister: actually, the problem seems to be that you have fewer than 50 reputation points. Until then you can only leave comments on questions you've posted and on answers you've received to your questions. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2010 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Willie Wong: thank you for clarifying this matter. $\endgroup$ Nov 18, 2010 at 21:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.