- #1

- 8,943

- 2,949

I'm sure that there are limits to the analogy between the event horizon of black holes and the "Rindler horizon" for an accelerated observer, but there are a number of similarities:

For Schwarzschild spacetime as described in Schwarzschild coordinates:

In spite of the similarities, there seems to be a big difference between Hawking radiation and Rindler radiation: In the case of Hawking radiation, you can interpret the radiation as coming from the black hole--if not in the sense of literally traveling from the black hole, then at least in the sense of energy balance: the black hole mass shrinks to balance out the energy lost due to radiation. Objects dropping into a black hole increase its mass, and radiation shrinks its mass. The black hole information paradox is that if you consider a black hole as a box that you put energy into and get energy back out of, information is lost in that transaction--the energy that comes out contains no clue as to the information that went in. So the entire history of the black hole, from its initial creation to its demise due to Hawking radiation represents a loss of information, in apparent contradiction to the microscopic reversibility of all the fundamental laws of physics.

In contrast, there is no mass associated with the Rindler horizon. The horizon is not changed by dropping objects into it, nor by radiation coming "out" of it. So maybe there is no paradox in that case: The "stationary" observer can just assume that the information dropped into the horizon just remains forever below the horizon. So maybe the analogy breaks down. However, it seems to me likely that any proposed

For Schwarzschild spacetime as described in Schwarzschild coordinates:

- Spacetime is static, and a rocket must exert a constant thrust to remain stationary.
- There is a horizon such that no information can be sent from below that horizon to a stationary receiver above the horizon.
- If you drop an object from a stationary rocket above the horizon it will fall away toward the horizon, and approaches it asymptotically as coordinate time goes to infinity.
- On the other hand, the object will cross the horizon in a finite amount of the object's proper time.
- Taking into account quantum mechanics, the stationary rocket receives radiation (Hawking radiation) from the general direction of the horizon.

- Spacetime is static, and a rocket must exert a constant thrust to remain stationary.
- There is a horizon such that no information can be sent from below that horizon to a stationary receiver above the horizon.
- If you drop an object from a stationary rocket above the horizon it will fall away toward the horizon, and approaches it asymptotically as coordinate time goes to infinity.
- On the other hand, the object will cross the horizon in a finite amount of the object's proper time.
- Taking into account quantum mechanics, the stationary rocket receives radiation (Unruh radiation) from the general direction of the horizon.

In spite of the similarities, there seems to be a big difference between Hawking radiation and Rindler radiation: In the case of Hawking radiation, you can interpret the radiation as coming from the black hole--if not in the sense of literally traveling from the black hole, then at least in the sense of energy balance: the black hole mass shrinks to balance out the energy lost due to radiation. Objects dropping into a black hole increase its mass, and radiation shrinks its mass. The black hole information paradox is that if you consider a black hole as a box that you put energy into and get energy back out of, information is lost in that transaction--the energy that comes out contains no clue as to the information that went in. So the entire history of the black hole, from its initial creation to its demise due to Hawking radiation represents a loss of information, in apparent contradiction to the microscopic reversibility of all the fundamental laws of physics.

In contrast, there is no mass associated with the Rindler horizon. The horizon is not changed by dropping objects into it, nor by radiation coming "out" of it. So maybe there is no paradox in that case: The "stationary" observer can just assume that the information dropped into the horizon just remains forever below the horizon. So maybe the analogy breaks down. However, it seems to me likely that any proposed

*mechanism*for information loss in the case of black holes would have an analogy with Rindler horizons. If not, then it would be insightful to know how the two cases differ when it comes to information loss.
Last edited: