Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Proposition: the event horizon and the apparent horizon of a black hole always coincide.

As a reminder: the event horizon is defined as the boundary of the closure of the causal past of future null infinity, i.e. the boundary of the closure of the set of points which can reach infinity by a timelike path (so the boundary of the black hole). The apparent horizon is defined as the boundary of the set of trapped surfaces, where a trapped surface is defined as a surface for which all outgoing null rays converge.

Question: The above proposition is known to be false. Can someone give a counterexample? As always for counterexamples, the simpler the better!

I know the following:

  • For a counterexample we necessarily need to consider a non-stationary black hole, as Hawking proved that the proposition is true for stationary ones.
  • The apparent horizon is always inside the black hole. But doesn't this imply that there are points inside the black hole from which light rays can diverge?
  • Apparently, one counterexample is given by stellar collapse, though I fail to understand this counterexample, i.e. I don't recognize the points which are outside the apparent horizon and inside the black hole.
  • Unlike the event horizon, the apparent horizon is observer dependent. Wikipedia states: "For example, it is possible to slice the Schwarzschild geometry in such a way that there is no apparent horizon, ever, despite the fact that there is certainly an event horizon." Clearly they don't coincide then, but doesn't this contradict the fact that they do coincide for stationary spacetimes?

So basically, I know some differences between the two concepts, but I cannot think of a concrete example for which we can identify the apparent horizon and the event horizon, and see that they are different.

share|cite|improve this question
You can look at Hawking-Ellis Proposition 9.2.8, the comments after it, and the figure on the next page(figure 59). I don't know if that figure satisfies you as an example. – MBN Jan 16 '14 at 9:52
I checked that figure before. I understand it provides a counterexample, though I don't understand why the apparent horizon is at the specific place where it's depicted there. – ScroogeMcDuck Jan 16 '14 at 21:09

One simple counterexample is the observer moving in the Minkowski spacetime with constant acceleration. This observer perceives an apparent horizon - Rindler horizon, while there is no event horizon at all (and therefore no black hole). The existence of this apparent horizon leads to the Unruh effect - black-body radiation measured by such observer.

share|cite|improve this answer
Rindler horizon is not an apparent horizon in the sense of the OP: It is not the boundary of the set of trapped surfaces, where a trapped surface is defined as a surface for which all outgoing null rays converge. – Valter Moretti Jan 16 '14 at 15:12
It's constant acceleration from the observers standpoint. – Kevin Kostlan Jan 16 '14 at 15:54
@V.Moretti: Agreed. Can this possibly lead to another type of counterexamples: there could be an event horizon but no trapped surfaces since null rays rays do not converge? – user23660 Jan 16 '14 at 16:01
@V.Moretti: Another thought: we possibly could provide convergence to null rays normal to Rindler horizon by placing the accelerating observer inside a contracting cosmological solution. – user23660 Jan 16 '14 at 16:42
I think there is no way to use Rindler horizon: Rindler horizon is in Minkowski spacetime and therein null rays are null segments, it is impossible to have trapped surfaces. Maybe you write Rindler horizon but you actually mean Killing horizon (?). In general, however, the existence of trapped surfaces does not depend on the observer. I am not an expert on these counterexamples however my feeling is that apparent horizons and event horizons are different, though related, notions so it should be possible to find out a counterexample in the literature. – Valter Moretti Jan 16 '14 at 16:49

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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