Are horizons fingerprints of General Relativity ? and more questions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of horizons in the context of gravitational theories, particularly whether they are intrinsic to General Relativity (GR) or expected in other gravitational frameworks. Participants explore the physical and mathematical conditions for the existence of horizons, their implications in various theories, and experimental evidence supporting their existence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that horizons may be considered fingerprints of General Relativity, while others question whether they should be expected in any theory of gravitation.
  • A participant mentions the Rindler horizon in special relativity as a case where horizons appear in noninertial frames, suggesting a connection to gravitational fields through the equivalence principle.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that the existence of horizons could be derived from the behavior of accelerated particles approaching the speed of light, leading to the emergence of an asymptotic boundary.
  • Concerns are raised about the necessity of special relativity in understanding horizons, with some arguing that it may not be required to explain their existence.
  • One participant discusses the challenges in constructing relativistic classical field theories of gravitation that do not predict event horizons, noting that many attempts have failed to avoid them.
  • There is a mention of the qualitative features of event horizons in GR, particularly in relation to supermassive black holes and low curvature regions.
  • Experimental indications for the existence of horizons are acknowledged, with a reference to resources for further information.
  • Participants discuss the mathematical conditions for different types of horizons, emphasizing the technical nature of definitions such as event horizons and Killing horizons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether horizons are unique to General Relativity or common across various gravitational theories. There is no consensus on the necessity of special relativity for understanding horizons, nor on the implications of various gravitational theories regarding the prediction of horizons.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific interpretations of gravitational theories and their mathematical formulations, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion also touches on the complexities of defining horizons and the potential for new theories that could challenge existing understandings.

lalbatros
Messages
1,247
Reaction score
2
Are horizons fingerprints of General Relativity,
or should I reasonnably expect them in any theory of gravitation ?

If you believe that horizons should be expected in most theories,
what are the physical reasons, how could I conceive horizons as unavoidable ?

On the contrary, why and how would you justify that horizon should not occur ?

Are there experimental indications for the existence of horizons ?

What are the mathematical conditions for the occurrence of an horizon ?

How and why was physics led to this new concept ?

Thanks to enlarge my horizon on this topic!

Michel
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Horizons come up in the simple case of the coordinate system of an accelerating observer in special relativity - the so called Rindler horizon which I've talked about before. A link which talks about this only in SR terms (but is still somewhat advanced) is

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Rindler/RindlerHorizon.htm

A link to gravity is the equivalence principle, which suggests that the coordinate system of an accelerating spaceship is a useful analogy to a gravitational field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In other words, horizons are fingerprints of special relativity in noninertial frames.
 
Demystifier,

In other words, horizons are fingerprints of special relativity in noninertial frames.

Could we not even say that the full SR is not needed ?

Is it not enough to assume that accelerated particles can never exceed the speed of light: v<=c ?
Indefinitively accelerated particles will reach c assymptotically. This assymptote divides the space in two half. One of these half-space can interact with the accelerated particle. The other half-space can never interact with it: an horizon appears (Rindler).

The EP makes the bridge to gravitational fields.

Thanks for your decisive help.

Michel
 
In GR you require that metric locally takes a Minkowski form. For that reason, I think that SR is needed.
 
Are horizons predicted by gravitation theories generally?

Hi again, Michel,

lalbatros said:
Are horizons fingerprints of General Relativity,
or should I reasonnably expect them in any theory of gravitation ?

If you believe that horizons should be expected in most theories,
what are the physical reasons, how could I conceive horizons as unavoidable ?

There are several things you might mean by "unavoidable" here. I will interpret your question as follows: if we construct a viable relativistic classical field theory of gravitation (any such theory must neccessarily closely mimic gtr), and study the spherically symmetric vacuum solutions to the field equations in our theory, should we expect to find that event horizons are predicted by this theory? (Clearly, this is a rather limited interpretation of when a theory can be said to "predict event horizons", but at least it is comparatively straightforward to check!)

Many people have tried to construct relativistic classical field theories of gravitation which are viable but which do not admit event horizons in this sense, or in some similar sense. As far as I know (after discounting erroneous claims), none have succeeded, and there quite a few reasons why one should expect this programme to be very difficult.

For example, in gtr, a supermassive black hole is predicted to have an event horizon located in a region of comparatively low curvature, so we might expect this qualitative feature to be hard to avoid in any theory which closely resembles gtr in spacetime regions having comparatively low curvature. You can probably think of objections to this reasoning--- certainly it is not a proof!--- but more elaborate arguments can be given.

I should add that there are many alternatives to gtr which have been suggested. Those which are well defined can generally be expressed by writing down some kind of action principle (as can gtr) in which the gravitational term(s) differ from gtr. Many of these theories have the property that, like gtr, their spherically symmetric vacuum solutions possesses event horizons, and some do not. The latter group (at least, the theories I know about) consists of theories which are known to be inconsistent with at least some well-established experimental or observational evidence.

It is possible to study large CLASSES of relativistic classical field theories of gravitation all at the same time, and to show that whole CLASSES have the properties that they predict horizons in the sense above while agreeing with available evidence. Similarly, one can show that large classes of theories which do not predict horizons in the sense above must all DISAGREE with some evidence. However, it is always possible that someone might come up with a radically new theory not belonging to either of these classes, and which "achieves the miracle" desired by some. I don't see much hope of decisively ruling out this possibility entirely.

lalbatros said:
[Are there experimental indications for the existence of horizons ?

Oh gosh, yes! Here is a page which is quite out of date but which might help you scan the arXiv (or press releases from universities where astronomers have been studying this question) for more up to date information: http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html#bh .
Incidently, be careful in reading press releases--- they tend to be hyped rather shamelessly, like any other form of self-promotion.

lalbatros said:
[What are the mathematical conditions for the occurrence of an horizon ?

Well, there are many types of horizon; you probably want either "event horizon" or the much easier concept of "Killing horizon". The definitions are rather technical; see for example Hawking and Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, 1973. A crucially important point about the difficult notion of an event horizon is that this concept has a profoundly "teleological" nature. Some pictures illustrating this very clearly, using thought experiments involving the Vaidya null dust solution, can be found in Frolov and Novikov, Black Hole Physics, Kluwer, 1998.

Chris Hillman
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
967
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K