Bh-Notes-2014 - 15 Imperial College

Black Holes
MSc in Quantum Fields and Fundamental Forces

Academic Year 2014/15
Fay Dowker
Blackett Laboratory,
Imperial College,
London, SW7 2AZ,
U.K.
Contents
1 The Schwarzschild Black Hole 3

1.1 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates 7
1.2 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates 10
1.3 Penrose Diagrams 14
2 Charged & Rotating Black Holes 23

2.1 The Reissner-Nordström Solution 24
2.2 Rotating Black Holes 27
3 Killing Vectors & Killing Horizons 30

3.1 Symmetries & Killing Vectors 30
3.2 Conservation Laws 33
3.3 Hypersurfaces 37
3.4 Killing Horizons 38
3.5 Black Hole Uniqueness 40
3.6 Komar Integrals 42
4 Black Hole Thermodynamics 46

4.1 Overview 46
4.2 The First Law of Black Hole Mechanics 47
4.3 Working up to Hawking’s Area Theorem 48
4.4 The Raychaudhuri Equation 51
4.5 Causal Structure 54
4.6 Hawking’s Area Theorem 56
5 Hawking Radiation 57
5.1 Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime 59
5.2 QFT in Rindler Space in 1 + 1 dimensions 62
5.3 QFT in the spacetime of a spherical collapsing star: Hawking Radiation 70
Recommended Reading:
Popular/Historical:
• K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, Picador, 1994.
• W. Israel, Dark Stars: The Evolution of an Idea, in Three Hundred Years of

Gravitation (S.W. Hawking & W. Israel, eds.), Cambridge University Press,
1987.
Textbooks:
• S.W. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,

Cambridge University Press, 1973.
• R.M. Wald, General Relativity, Chicago University Press, 1984.
• S. M. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity,

Addison-Wesley, 2004.
Lecture Notes:
• P. Townsend, Black Holes. Available online at arXiv:gr-qc/9707012.
General:
• S. W. Hawking & R. Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1996.
This is a series of lectures by Hawking and Penrose concluded by a final debate.

Hawking’s part of the lectures is available online at arXiv:hep-th/9409195.
–2–
1 The Schwarzschild Black Hole
The Schwarzschild metric (1916) is a solution to the vacuum Einstein equations
Rµν = 0. It is given by
−1
2 µ ν 2M 2 2M
ds = gµν dx dx = − 1 − dt + 1 − dr2 + r2 dΩ22 , (1.1)
r r
where 0 < r < ∞ is a radial coordinate and dΩ22 = dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 is the round
metric on the two-sphere.
The line-element (1.1) is the unique spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat

solution to the vacuum Einstein equations. This result is known as Birkhoff’s the-
orem and it has strong implications. For example, since (1.1) is independent of t,
Birkhoff’s theorem implies that any spherically symmetric vacuum solution must be
time-independent (static).
To study the physics of black holes, we will start with a simple model of spheri-
cally symmetric gravitational collapse: a ball of pressure-free dust that collapses un-
der its own gravity. Since the dust ball is spherically symmetric, Birkhoff’s theorem
tells us that outside of it (where the energy-momentum tensor vanishes), the metric
must be Schwarzschild. Since the metric is continuous, it must be Schwarzschild
on the surface, too. Let us follow the path of a massive particle on the surface of
the dust ball. Assume it follows a radial geodesic, dθ = dφ = 0. Since the pull of
gravity in the r-direction is the same for all particles at a given radius, the particle
will remain at the surface throughout its trajectory.
The action of a massive relativistic particle moving in a spacetime (M, g) along

a trajectory xµ (τ ) parametrised by τ is given by
dxµ dxν
Z Z
1 2
S = L dτ = gµν − m dτ. (1.2)
2m dτ dτ
An implicit assumption in this form of the action is that the parameter τ is equal to
the proper time measured along the particle’s worldline (more on this in section 3.2).
For the radial trajectory of the surface particle we have xµ (τ ) = (t(τ ), r(τ ), θ0 , φ0 ).
Define
R(t) ≡ r(τ (t)), (1.3)
the radius of the particle’s position as a function of coordinate-time t. We want to
find the equation of motion for R(t). A simple way to get the first equation is from
dτ 2 = −ds2 , which implies
" −1 2 # 2
2M 2M dR dt
1= 1− − 1− . (1.4)
R R dt dτ
–3–
The factor dt/dτ can be found from the Euler-Lagrange equations of the action:

∂L d ∂L
− = 0. (1.5)
∂xµ dτ ∂(dxµ /dτ )
The action of the dust particle in the Schwarzschild background takes the form
Z 2 −1 2 !
1 2M dt 2M dR
S= − 1− + 1− − m2 dτ. (1.6)
2m R dτ R dτ
Since it has no explicit dependence on the t-coordinate (it only depends on dt/dτ ),
the Euler-Lagrange equation for the t-coordinate

d ∂L d 2M dt
= −2 1 − =0 (1.7)
dτ ∂(dt/dτ ) dτ R dτ
reveals a constant of motion along the geodesic xµ (τ ):

2M dt
= 1− = const. (1.8)
R dτ
The constant is equal to the energy per unit rest mass of the particle, as mea-
sured by an inertial observer at r = ∞. To see this, recall that the energy of
a relativistic particle is given by the t-component of the momentum (co-)vector
pµ = (−E, p) = mgµν dxµ /dτ . Then

dt 2M dt
E/m = −p0 /m = g00 = 1− = > 0. (1.9)
dτ R dτ
A particle starting at rest at infinity has = 1 at R = ∞ and therefore = 1 ev-

erywhere along its geodesic. Consequently, a particle starting at rest at some finite
radius R = Rmax must have < 1. We will therefore assume 0 < < 1 from now on.
Plugging (1.8) into (1.4) we obtain

" −1 # −2
2M 2M 2 2M
1= 1− − 1− Ṙ 1− 2 , (1.10)
R R R
where we have defined Ṙ ≡ dR/dt. This gives the following equation for Ṙ:
2
2 −2 2M 2M 2
Ṙ = 1− −1+ . (1.11)
R R
We immediately see that Ṙ vanishes at
R = Rmax ≡ 2M/(1 − 2 ) > 2M (1.12)
–4–
Figure 1. Ṙ2 as a function of R for the massive surface particle.
and at R = 2M , as illustrated in Figure 1. The zero at Rmax simply corresponds

to the initial condition that the particle starts off at rest at Rmax . However, Ṙ ap-
proaches zero again as R → 2M + : the particle appears to slow down as it approaches
the Schwarzschild radius.
How much coordinate time t2M does it take the particle to reach R = 2M from
R = Rmax ? Integrating (1.11), we find
Z t2M Z 2M −1 − 12
2M 2M
t2M = dt = − dR 1 − − 1 + 2 = ∞! (1.13)
0 Rmax R R
To convince yourself that this integral is infinite, look at the contribution to the
integral from the region near R = 2M . Let R = 2M + ρ with 0 < ρ 2M and
Taylor expand in ρ:
Z 0 −1 − 12
2M 2M 2
t2M = finite number − dρ 1 − −1+
ρ 2M + ρ 2M + ρ
Z 0 (1.14)
2M 0
= finite number − dρ + O(ρ ) .
ρ ρ
This is infinite since the 1/ρ term in the integral diverges logarithmically at 0.
Hence, as far as the coordinate time t is concerned, the particle never reaches the
Schwarzschid radius.
This result seems physically rather strange. The surface of a collapsing ball of
dust slows down as it approaches R = 2M and never actually reaches R = 2M .
–5–
Figure 2. (dR/dτ )2 as a function of R for the massive surface particle.
However, notice that while t is equal to the proper time along the worldliness of in-
ertial observers in the “rest frame of the star” at r = ∞, it has no physical meaning
in the region of spacetime close to r = 2M relevant to the infalling particle itself. t
is just a coordinate, and coordinates in general relativity are not physical.
So let us instead work with the proper time τ along the world line of the infalling
particle. How does R change as a function of τ ? Using (1.8) and (1.4) we find
2
dR 2 Rmax
= (1 − ) −1 . (1.15)
dτ R
We see that nothing strange at all happens as R → 2M + . The particle (and therefore
the surface of the dust ball) passes smoothly through R = 2M . This is confirmed by
the plot of (dR/dτ )2 against R in Figure 2.
Let us calculate the proper time τ2M that elapses for the particle between R = Rmax
and R = 2M . Using (1.15), we find (exercise)
Z τ2M Z 2M
dτ 2M √
τ2M = dτ = dR = 2
1 − + arcsin , (1.16)
3
0 Rmax dR (1 − 2 ) 2
which is indeed finite. The peculiar behaviour near R = 2M has disappeared — a

first indication that the singularity in the metric at R = 2M is due to a pathology
in the time coordinate t.
–6–
The proper time taken to reach r = 0 is also finite:
Z 0
dτ πM
τ0 = dτ = 3 . (1.17)
Rmax dR (1 − 2 ) 2
This means that the entire dust star collapses to the single point r = 0 in a finite
proper time, a first sign that there is a true singularity at r = 0 — a curvature singu-
larity — at which physical (coordinate-independent) quantities such as Rµνρσ Rµνρσ
diverge.
While the calculations above have given us some useful insights, we have been
a bit careless. We worked out the geodesics using the Schwarzschild metric, and
traced them through r = 2M , even though the metric (1.1) breaks down at r = 2M .
Furthermore, for r < 2M , the factor 1 − 2M

r
becomes negative, which makes t
appear like a space-coordinate and r like a time-coordinate. Statements such as “the
star collapses to r = 0 in finite time” then become somewhat suspect. To make our
calculations sound, let us replace the coordinate system (t, r, θ, φ) by a more suitable
set of coordinates.
1.1 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates

If we want to overcome the problems encountered in the Schwarzschild coordinate
system, an obvious place to start is the time-coordinate t. We will replace t by a
coordinate that is “adapted to null geodesics”. For a null geodesic we have ds2 = 0,
which implies −2
2 2M
dt = 1 − dr2 . (1.18)
r
First, we define the radial (Regge-Wheeler) coordinate r∗ via
−2
2M
dr∗2 ≡ 1− dr2 , (1.19)
r
so that null geodesics obey the simple equation dt2 = dr∗2 . Solving (1.19) and requir-
ing r∗ to be real and increasing with r, we obtain

r − 2M
r∗ = r + 2M ln . (1.20)
2M
The range 2M < r < ∞ corresponds to −∞ < r∗ < ∞, since r∗ → −∞ as

r → 2M + . For this reason, r∗ is also known as a tortoise coordinate: as we approach
the Schwarzschild radius, r changes more and more slowly with r∗ since dr/dr∗ → 0.
–7–
The solutions t ± r∗ = const. correspond to ingoing and outgoing null geodesics.
Let us define a new pair of lightcone coordinates:
u = t − r∗
(1.21)
v = t + r∗ ,
such that lines of constant v correspond to ingoing null geodesics and lines of con-
stant u to outgoing null geodesics.
1.1.1 Ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

We now make a coordinate transformation from (t, r, θ, φ) to (v, r, θ, φ), i.e. we
replace t by the coordinate v that labels ingoing radial null lines. The coordinates
(v, r, θ, φ) are called ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein (IEF) coordinates and the line-
element in IEF coordinates reads (exercise)

2 2M
ds = − 1 − dv 2 + 2dvdr + r2 dΩ22 . (1.22)
r
This metric is perfectly regular at r = 2M (i.e. it is non-degenerate: det gµν 6= 0).

In fact, it is fine everywhere except at r = 0. We may therefore extend the range of
r across r = 2M to all r > 0 (you can easily check that (1.22) is a solution to the
vacuum Einstein equations Rµν = 0 for all r > 0). We can see clearly now that there
is nothing peculiar about r = 2M ; there is nothing going on in the local physics
that would tell you that you are approaching or passing through the surface r = 2M .
The original coordinates (t, r, θ, φ) were simply not suitable to describe the spacetime
region beyond r = 2M due to their bad behaviour there.
Figure 3 shows radial ingoing (v = const.) and outgoing (u = const.) null

geodesics in the IEF metric. Notice how the lightcones tip over as we cross the
Schwarzschild radius: while “outgoing” photons that start off oustide the horizon
eventually escape to infinity, “outgoing” photons emitted at r = 2M remain at
r = 2M forever.1 “Outgoing” photons emitted at r < 2M stay within r < 2M and
fall towards r = 0. As they reach r = 2M , their geodesics become parallel to ingoing
null geodesics.
We call the surface r = 2M (a two-sphere in 3 + 1 dimensions) the event horizon

and the region r < 2M the black hole. The surface dust particle is massive, so its
worldline must lie between ingoing and outgoing null geodesics (inside the lightcone).
1
This reveals one at first perhaps counter-intuitive aspect of the horizon, which we will see in
more detail in later sections: the surface r = 2M is a null surface (null geodesics travel along it),
even though it is a surface of constant r.
–8–
�* =�-�
�
� ��
-�
-�
Figure 3. Ingoing (dashed red) and outgoing (solid blue) null geodesics in IEF coordinates
for M = 1. The horizon at r = 2M is highlighted in black. Both axes labelled in units of
M.
As you can see in Figure 3, this means that the particle must eventually hit r = 0.
Furthermore, no signal from an event inside the event horizon can ever escape the
black hole to reach an observer at r > 2M .
From Figure 3 we can also get an idea how someone hovering at a fixed radius
r > 2M outside the black hole will perceive the infalling matter as it falls across the
horizon. Imagine a signal being transmitted from the surface of the dust ball at a
constant rate. Due to the bending of the lightcones in the vicinity of the horizon,
the signals reaching the observer will become sparser and sparser as the surface ap-
proaches r = 2M . If we think of these signals as electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light,
then the light is shifted toward the lower (i.e. red) end of the spectrum, and the
signal received by the distant observer becomes redder and redder until it eventually
disappears.
1.1.2 Outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

In the previous section, we made a coordinate transformation by replacing t by v.
Another obvious possibility is to use the outgoing EF coordinate u = t − r∗ instead.
This leads to outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein (OEF) coordinates (u, r, θ, φ).
The metric in OEF coordinates is given by

2 2M
ds = 1 − du2 − 2dudr + r2 dΩ22 . (1.23)
r
–9–
�* =�+�
�
� ��
-�
-�
Figure 4. Ingoing (dashed red) and outgoing (solid blue) null geodesics in the OEF metric
for M = 1. The horizon at r = 2M is highlighted in black.
Note the similarity between (1.22) and (1.23): the only difference is the sign of the
cross-term. However, the physical picture of the spacetime described by the line-
element (1.23) turns out to be very different. To see this, let us consider again
“ingoing” (v = const.) and “outgoing” (u = const.) null geodesics. They are de-
picted in Figure 4, where we have defined the OEF time t∗ = u + r∗ . “Ingoing”
photons emitted at r > 2M or r < 2M never cross r = 2M : they approach r = 2M
and hover the horizon forever. Conversely, all outgoing null geodesics escape to in-
finity. Looking at the lightcones, we see that everything inside r = 2M is ejected.
The interior region r < 2M is therefore called a white hole and r = 2M the white
hole horizon. It is the exact time reversal of a black hole (you can see this by turning
Figure 3 upside down and comparing it with Figure 4).
What happens in the spacetime described by OEF coordinates is clearly very dif-
ferent from what happens in the spacetime described by IEF coordinates. This may
seem contradictory, since both are obtained by coordinate transformations from the
original Schwarzschild spacetime. We will learn how to make sense of this apparent
contradiction by introducing yet another coordinate system.
1.2 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates

First, change coordinates to (u, v, θ, φ), replacing both Schwarzschild coordinates r
and t by u = t − r∗ and v = t + r∗ (where r∗ is the function of r defined in (1.20)).
The metric then reads

2 2M
ds = − 1 − dudv + r2 dΩ22 , (1.24)
r
– 10 –
where r = r(u, v) can be given in terms of u and v via (1.20) and r∗ = (v − u)/2.
This metric has a coordinate singularity at r = 2M , so it is only defined for r 6= 2M .
To remove the singularity, we define a new pair of coordinates U and V in the region
r > 2M by
u v
U = − exp − and V = exp . (1.25)
4M 4M
Note that U < 0 and V > 0 for all values of r. The coordinates (U, V, θ, φ) are called
Kruskal-Szekeres (KS) coordinates. The Schwarzschild metric in KS coordinates is
(exercise):
2 32M 3 r
ds = − exp − dU dV + r2 dΩ22 , (1.26)
r 2M
where r = r(U, V ) is defined in terms of U and V by the implicit equation
U V = − r−2M r
2
2M
exp 2M
.
This metric is well-defined for r = 2M and indeed for all r > 0. Notice that for
r < 2M , we have U V > 0, which is incompatible with (1.25). However we consider
the initial definitions of U and V in terms of the Schwarzschild coordinates for now
as only holding for r > 2M and extend the spacetime to coordinate ranges of U and
V to −∞ < U, V < ∞ with metric (1.26).
Figure 5 is a picture of the spacetime described by the KS metric. Since null lines
are conventionally plotted at 45◦ , we define time and space coordinates T = U + V
and X = T − V , which label the vertical and horizontal axes in the figure. The
U and V axes are then at 45◦ to the T and X axes. At the horizon r = 2M , we
have U V = 0, which means either U = 0 or V = 0. This corresponds to the solid
diagonals. The singularity r = 0 corresponds to the (two branches of the) hyper-
bola described by U V = 1, which is represented by a wavy line (singularities will
always be represented by wavy lines). In general, surfaces of r = const. correspond
to hyperbolae U V = const. with U V < 1, as shown in blue on the diagram. Spatial
sections with t = const. have U/V = const. and |U/V | < 1, which corresponds to
straight lines through the origin with gradient between −1 and 1. Finally, ingoing
and outgoing null geodesics are respectively given by U = const. and V = const.
We can now see the relation between the different coordinate systems. The
original Schwarzschild coordinates (t, r, θ, φ) only cover region I. When we changed
to IEF and OEF coordinates, we extended our spacetime to regions II and III,
respectively. There is a new region that we only see in KS coordinates, region IV .
2
We can write r explicitly as r(U, V ) = 2M [1 + W (−U V /e)] where e is Euler’s constant and W
stands for the Lambert W -function.
– 11 –
Figure 5. Kruskal spacetime. Either each point of this diagram can be thought of as
representing a 2−sphere of radius r(T, X) or the diagram is interpreted as the causal
structure of radial motion at one fixed polar angle {θ, φ}. The black lines at 45◦ correspond
to r = 2M . The singularity r = 0 is represented by a wavy line. Solid blue hyperbolae
correspond to r = const. surfaces and straight dashed lines correspond to t = const.
surfaces.
This region is a mirror image of region I, which can be seen by defining

u v
U = exp − and V = − exp (1.27)
4M 4M
on region IV and noting that the metric (1.26) will be of the same form as the
Schwarzschild metric. (The proper statement is that region IV is isometric to re-
gion I. In general relativity, two spacetimes or regions of spacetime that are isometric
are physically identical.)
The geometry of spatial sections is also worth a closer look. Consider a slice
with t = const. ⇐⇒ T /X = const. On Figure 5, it corresponds to a straight line
through the point (T, X) = (0, 0) ⇐⇒ r = 2M , where regions I and IV attach to
each other. In both regions the metric on the slice is given by
−1
2 2M
ds = 1 − dr2 + r2 dΩ22 (1.28)
r
and in both regions r increases from 2M to ∞. For large r, we have 1 − 2M

r
→1
and so the geometry becomes flat Euclidean. As we approach r = 2M , i.e. the centre
– 12 –
Figure 6. The Einstein-Rosen bridge with one spatial dimension suppressed. Each circle
represents a two-sphere in the three-dimensional analogue.
in Figure 5, the metric (1.28) starts to deviate from the Euclidean metric. What is
the geometry near r = 2M ? Since we cannot draw a three-dimensional surface, let
us suppress one angular coordinate by setting θ to its equatorial value θ = π2 . Then
−1 2
the metric is ds2 = 1 − 2M r
dr + r2 dφ2 . It is not hard to show (exercise) that
this is just the metric on a so-called quartic surface x2 + y 2 = (z 2 /8M + 2M )2 em-
bedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space E3 with cartesian coordinates x, y, z.3
The geometry is shown in Figure 6, where two identical copies of the surface have
been attached to each other at the circle r = 2M . One side corresponds to region I
and the other side to region IV . This is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge, which
is one example of a wormhole. Note that no observer can ever cross the wormhole, as
you can see clearly in the Kruskal diagram (and, further along in the lectures, in the
Penrose diagram for Kruskal space): in order to cross the wormhole from region I to
IV or vice-versa, the trajectory of the observer would have to be spacelike somewhere.
We can also get an intuitive sense for the strange sign change that appears in
the original Schwarzschild metric (1.1) between r > 2M and r < 2M , which makes r
appear like a time coordinate when r < 2M . Indeed, if r = 0 were just a “position in
space”, as one might naively think of it, it would seem that one could simply avoid
it by navigating around it. In Figure 5, we see that for anyone who has fallen across
the horizon, the singularity r = 0 is not a position in space — it becomes a moment
of time, as unavoidable as 9am tomorrow morning.
3
Hint: Recall that the metric onpE3 is ds2 = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 . Consider the surface parametrised
by x = r cos φ, y = r sin φ and z = 8M (r − 2M ), show that it satisfies the quartic equation above
and find the metric induced on it. For an illustration see http://wolfr.am/WIRjK3.
– 13 –
Finally, we can justify in retrospect some of the coordinate extensions (analytic
continuations) that we performed rather ad-hoc in the last sections. For example,
consider the extension from region I covered by Schwarzschild coordinates to regions
I + II covered by IEF coordinates. The original coordinate system with time co-
ordinate −∞ < t < ∞ covers region I only. If we think of region I as a physical
spacetime in its own right, then a particle will hit a “boundary” (r = 2M ) in fi-
nite proper time τ2M . In light of this, it seems physically quite reasonable to work
instead with the spacetime I + II obtained by extending the original coordinate
system, where this artificial boundary disappears.
1.3 Penrose Diagrams

In this section we introduce a useful way of representing the causal structure of an
infinite spacetime on a finite piece of paper. This involves performing a conformal
transformation on the metric:
Definition. A conformal transformation is a map from a spacetime (M, g) to a

spacetime (M, g̃) such that
g̃µν (x) = Λ(x)2 gµν (x)
where Λ(x) is a smooth function of the spacetime coordinates and Λ(x) 6= 0 ∀ x.
Conformal transformations preserve the causal structure of a spacetime. To see

this, consider a vector V µ on M . Then it follows from Λ(x)2 > 0 that
gµν V µ V ν > 0 ⇐⇒ g̃µν V µ V ν > 0

gµν V µ V ν = 0 ⇐⇒ g̃µν V µ V ν = 0 (1.29)
µ ν µ ν
gµν V V < 0 ⇐⇒ g̃µν V V < 0.
Hence, curves that are timelike/null/spacelike with respect to g are timelike/null/

spacelike with respect to g̃. Furthermore, by consequence of the second line, null
geodesics for g correspond to null geodesics for g̃ (whereas timelike/spacelike geodesics
for g are not necessarily geodesics for g̃).
The idea of a Penrose diagram is this. First, we use a coordinate transformation

on the spacetime (M, g) to bring “infinity” to a finite coordinate distance, so that
we can draw the entire spacetime on a sheet of paper. The metric will typically
diverge as we approach the “points at infinity”, i.e. the edges of the finite diagram.
To remedy this, we perform a conformal transformation on g to obtain a new metric
– 14 –
g̃ that is regular on the edges. Then (M, g̃) is a good representation of the original
spacetime (M, g) insofar that it has exactly the same causal structure. It is custom-
ary to add the points at infinity to M to form a new manifold M̃ . The resulting
spacetime (M̃ , g̃) is what is called the conformal compactification of (M, g).
Note that the curvature tensors are in general not preserved under conformal
µ µ
transformations, e.g. R̃νρσ 6= Rνρσ , R̃ 6= R etc. In that sense, the conformally com-
pactified spacetime (M̃ , g̃) is unphysical: it provides a good representation of the
causal structure of the physical spacetime (M, g), but it should otherwise not be
viewed as a picture of what is going on (for example, as noted above, the geodesics
of massive test particles in (M̃ , g̃) do not correspond to geodesics of massive test
particles in (M, g)).
1.3.1 Example 1: Minkowski space in 1 + 1 dimensions

The two-dimensional Minkowski metric is given by
ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 (1.30)
where −∞ < t, x < ∞. We introduce light-cone coordinates u = t − x and v = t + x,

in which the metric gµν takes the simple form
ds2 = −dudv. (1.31)
Now, to shrink “infinity” down to a finite coordinate distance, we define a new set
of coordinates via
u = tan ũ
(1.32)
v = tan ṽ.
These coordinates indeed have a finite range − π2 < ũ, ṽ < π2 (the range is open since
points with u, v = tan(± π2 ) = ±∞ are not points in spacetime). The line-element in
terms of ũ and ṽ is
1
ds2 = − dũdṽ. (1.33)
(cos ũ cos ṽ)2
It diverges as u, v → ±∞ ⇐⇒ ũ, ṽ → ± π2 . Define a new metric g̃µν through a
conformal transformation on gµν :
ds̃2 = (cos ũ cos ṽ)2 ds2 = −dũdṽ. (1.34)
This metric is regular at the points at infinity where either ũ or ṽ are equal to ± π2
and we can now add those points to the spacetime. The resulting spacetime (M̃ , g̃)
is the conformal compactification of (M, g). Both spacetimes are shown in (ũ, ṽ)
coordinates in Figure 7.
– 15 –
Figure 7. Left: Minkowski space (M, g) in (ũ, ṽ) coordinates. The boundaries ũ, ṽ = ± π2
are not part of M and g diverges there. Some timelike and spacelike geodesics of g have been
included: lines with r = const. are represented by dashed curves and lines with t = const.
are represented by solid curves. Right: The Penrose diagram of conformally compactified
Minkowski space (M̃ , g̃), with future/past timelike infinity i± , future/past null infinity J ±
and spacelike infinity i0 . The timelike and spacelike geodesics of Minkowski space are
clearly not all geodesics for (M̃ , g̃), since g̃ is flat in (ũ, ṽ) coordinates.
The two points (ũ, ṽ) = ( π2 , π2 ) and (− π2 , − π2 ) are denoted by i± . All future (past)
directed timelike curves end up at i+ (i− ), so we refer to i+ (i− ) as future (past) time-
like infinity. Future directed null geodesics either end up at ṽ = π2 with constant
|ũ| < π2 or at ũ = π2 with constant |ṽ| < π2 . This set of points is denoted by J +
(“scri-plus”) and referred to as future null infinity. An analogous definition holds
for past null infinity J − (“scri-minus”). Finally, spacelike infinity i0 denotes the set
of endpoints of spacelike geodesics, which corresponds here to (ũ, ṽ) = ( π2 , − π2 ) and
(ũ, ṽ) = (− π2 , π2 ).
1.3.2 Example 2: Minkowski space in 3 + 1 dimensions

The four-dimensional Minkowski metric
ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 (1.35)
can be written in terms of spherical polar coordinates (t, r, θ, φ) by choosing an

arbitrary point as the origin, say x = y = z = 0. We then have
ds2 = −dt2 + dr2 + r2 dΩ22 (1.36)
where dΩ22 is the round metric on the 2-sphere. Define light-cone coordinates u = t−r
and v = t + r and perform the same transformation (1.32) as above to bring infinity
– 16 –
Figure 8. Left: The Penrose diagram of 3 + 1 dimensional Minkowski space with some
lines of constant r and t. Each point represents a 2−sphere. As the null geodesic shown
passes through r = 0, it emerges on another copy of the Penrose diagram whose points
represent the antipodes on the two-spheres. Right: The conformal compactification drawn
as a portion of the Einstein static universe with the same null geodesic.
to finite coordinate distance. The only difference to the previous analysis is that
since r ≥ 0, we have the additional constraint u ≤ v ⇐⇒ ũ ≤ ṽ. The metric in
(ũ, ṽ, φ, θ) coordinates reads
1
ds2 = − 2 2

2 −4dũdṽ + sin (ṽ − ũ) dΩ2 (1.37)
(2 cos ũ cos ṽ)
and its conformal compactification corresponds to the spacetime (M̃ , g̃) with metric
ds̃2 = (cos ũ cos ṽ)2 ds2 = −4dũdṽ + sin2 (ṽ − ũ) dΩ22 . (1.38)
and extended coordinate ranges −π/2 ≤ ũ, ṽ ≤ π/2. On the Penrose diagram of
1 + 1 dimensional Minkowski space in Figure 7, ũ ≤ ṽ implies that we only include
the part that lies to the right of the vertical line x = 0. The resulting diagram for the
3 + 1 space is shown in Figure 8. Every point on the diagram represents a two-sphere
of radius sin(ṽ − ũ).
There exists a somewhat more illustrative way to picture the conformal com-
pactification. Define T̃ = ṽ + ũ and χ = ṽ − ũ. The coordinate ranges are then
(exercise) −π < T̃ < π and 0 < χ < π and the metric reads
ds̃2 = −dT̃ 2 + dχ2 + sin2 χdΩ22 . (1.39)
– 17 –
Figure 9. Eternally accelerating observers in Minkowski space. Their worldlines are shown
in blue and labelled by ξ. Events in the shaded region such as the black dot are hidden
to them. The Rindler horizon is the boundary between the shaded and unshaded regions.
Rindler space corresponds to the right wedge outlined by the dashed black null lines. The
straight dotted lines are lines of constant Rindler time η.
The spatial part dχ2 + sin2 χdΩ22 of this metric is just the round metric of a three-
sphere S 3 parametrised by polar coordinates (χ, θ, φ). The spacetime (1.39) therefore
represents a static universe with spherical spatial slices, which corresponds to a fi-
nite portion of the Einstein static universe (ESU) whose topology is R × S 3 . This is
shown in Figure 8, and the Penrose diagram corresponds to that part of the region
wrapped around the cylinder facing out of the page.
1.3.3 Example 3: Rindler space in 1 + 1 dimensions

Rindler space is a subregion of Minkowski space associated with observers eternally
accelerated at a constant rate. The worldlines of these “Rindler observers” (acceler-
ating in the positive x-direction) is given by the hyperbolae xµ xµ = −t2 + x2 = ξ 2 .
You can check (exercise) that the 4-acceleration aµ = d2 xµ /dτ 2 along this worldline
is indeed constant: aµ aµ = 1/ξ 2 .
Consider the one-parameter family of Rindler observers depicted in Figure 9.

The region x ≤ t is forever hidden to them, which makes the line x = t a horizon to
these observers.4 Rindler space corresponds to the right wedge x > |t| foliated by the
4
This horizon is different from the event horizon in the Schwarzschild black hole spacetime, since
the Schwarzschild horizon is observer/frame-independent, while the horizon here is associated with
– 18 –
Figure 10. The Penrose diagram for 1 + 1 dimensional Rindler space, seen as a portion of
Minkowski space. Some accelerated worldlines (curves of constant ξ) have been drawn for
ξ = 29 , 25 , 23 , 1, 23 , 52 , 29 . Note that all of the worldlines represent observers accelerating in the
postitive x−direction, even though they appear to bend toward the right for ξ > 1. This
distortion is a side effect of the coordinate transformation (u, v) → (ũ, ṽ).
worldlines of the accelerated observers in Figure 9. To obtain the Rindler metric, we

introduce a new set of space and time coordinates ξ and η in the subregion x > |t|
of Minkowski space. As space coordinate we use ξ, which labels the hyperbolic
worldlines x2 − t2 = ξ 2 . As time coordinate we use the proper time η = tanh−1 (t/x)
measured by a Rindler observer, synchronised such that η = 0 when the observer
passes the x-axis. The relation to Cartesian coordinates is
x = ξ cosh η and t = ξ sinh η (1.40)
and the coordinate ranges are 0 < ξ < ∞ and −∞ < η < ∞. The Minkowski metric
in (η, ξ) coordinates is
ds2 = −ξ 2 dη 2 + dξ 2 . (1.41)
The proper time measured by an accelerated observer — i.e. a stationary (ξ = const.)
observer in Rindler coordinates — is τ = ξη. Since Rindler space is a subregion of
Minkowski space, the Penrose diagram is just a piece of Figure 7, as shown in Fig-
ure 10.
1.3.4 Example 4: Kruskal space in 3 + 1 dimensions

Recall the Kruskal metric (1.26):
32M 3 r
ds2 = − exp − dU dV + r2 dΩ22 .
r 2M
a family of special observers/frames.
– 19 –
Define a new set of null coordinates via U = tan Ũ and V = tan Ṽ , such that
− π2 < Ũ , Ṽ < π2 . Then the line-element becomes
32M 3
r
2 −2 2 2 2 2
ds = (2 cos Ũ cos Ṽ ) −4 exp − dŨ dṼ + r cos Ũ cos Ṽ dΩ2 (1.42)
r 2M
We perform the usual conformal transformation, which leaves us with
ds̃2 = (2 cos Ũ cos Ṽ )2 ds2

32M 3 r (1.43)
= −4 exp − dŨ dṼ + r2 cos2 Ũ cos2 Ṽ dΩ22 ,
r 2M
and we add the points at infinity. The curvature singularity U V = 1 now corresponds
to
tan Ũ tan Ṽ = 1 ⇐⇒ sin Ũ sin Ṽ = cos Ũ cos Ṽ ⇐⇒ cos(Ũ + Ṽ ) = 0 (1.44)
which implies Ũ + Ṽ = ± π2 , or T̃ = ± π4 if we define T̃ and X̃ through Ũ = T̃ − X̃

and Ṽ = T̃ + X̃ in analogy to section 1.2. The Penrose diagram including the points
at infinity and the singularity is shown in Figure 11. Also shown is the curve corre-
sponding to the surface of a collapsing star. If we only keep the region exterior to
the surface, we obtain the Penrose diagram for the collapsing star on the right. The
interior of the star is excluded since the stress-energy tensor is non-zero there and
spacetime is not described by the Schwarzschild metric. Therefore, regions I and
III are the only regions of Kruskal spacetime relevant to the description of a black
hole formed through stellar collapse.
1.3.5 Example 5: de Sitter space in 3 + 1 dimensions

The de Sitter metric is a solution of the Einstein equations in the presence of a
positive cosmological constant Λ > 0:
1
Rµν − Rgµν + Λgµν = 0. (1.45)
2
It corresponds to a universe with uniform positive energy density and negative pres-
sure. To see this, note that (1.45) can be interpreted as the Einstein equations in
the presence of an energy momentum tensor
1
Rµν − Rgµν = Tµν (1.46)
2
with Tµν = −Λgµν , which implies positive energy density T00 = Λ and negative uni-
form pressure Tii = −Λ for i = 1, 2, 3.
– 20 –
Figure 11. Left: The Penrose diagram for Kruskal space. The possible trajectory of the
surface of a collapsing star is shown — the region to the left of the curve corresponds to
the interior of the star, where spacetime is not described by the Kruskal metric. Right:
The Penrose diagram for a collapsing star. The curved line represents the surface and
the shaded region corresponds to the interior of the star. The horizon corresponds to the
dashed line.
de Sitter space admits a number of different coordinate systems, some of which

cover the whole space and some of which cover only part of it. The geometry of spatial
sections in these coordinates can also vary (closed, open, flat). One convenient set of
coordinates are closed global coordinates (t, χ, θ, φ) in which the line-element reads
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 cosh2 (t/a)dΩ23 , (1.47)
corresponding to a spacetime whose spatial sections are three-spheres with a time-

dependent radius a cosh(t/a).
The best way to picture de Sitter space is as a hyperboloid embdedded in

Minkowski space of one dimension higher (so 3 + 1 dimensional de Sitter space
is a hyperboloid in 4 + 1 dimensional Minkowski space). Since our illustrations
are restricted to three dimensions, let us suppress two of the angular coordinates
by setting χ = θ = π2 . In that case, spatial cross sections are circles instead of
three-spheres and dΩ23 → dφ2 . To see that this two-dimensional de Sitter space is
a hyperboloid embedded in three-dimensional Minkowski space, consider the surface
parametrised by T = a sinh(t/a), X = a cosh(t/a) cos φ and Y = a cosh(t/a) sin φ,
where T, X, Y are Cartesian coordinates in Minkowski space. Then it is easy to check
that the embedding 2 + 1 dimensional Minkowski metric ds2 = −dT 2 + dX 2 + dY 2
reproduces (1.47) and furthermore that de Sitter space satisfies the equation of a
hyperboloid: −T 2 + X 2 + Y 2 = a2 . This is shown in Figure 12.
– 21 –
Figure 12. Left: The 1 + 1 dimensional de Sitter hyperboloid embedded in 2 + 1 dimen-
sional Minkowski space. Some curves of constant θ and t are shown. Right: The Penrose
diagram of de Sitter space. Dotted lines are lines of constant η. The diagonal line is the
de Sitter horizon for a comoving observer at the north pole χ = 0.
To construct the Penrose diagram of de Sitter space we pull out the factor of
a cosh2 (t/a) in the metric (1.47):
2
ds2 = a2 cosh2 (t/a) −dη 2 + dΩ23 ,

(1.48)
and define the “conformal time coordinate” η accordingly: dη 2 = dt2 /(a2 cosh2 (t/a)).
Integrating, we obtain η = ±2 tan−1 et/a +c. Choose the upper sign and fix c = − π2 so
that η is monotonically increasing with t and has the symmetric range η ∈ − π2 , π2 .

Substitution into (1.48) then yields

a2
ds2 = 2 2

−dη + dΩ 3 . (1.49)
cos2 η
This metric is conformal to the Einstein Static Universe, as shown in Figure 13 and
the Penrose diagram is that half of the cylinder facing out of the page.
1.3.6 Example 6: Schwarzschild in 3 + 1 dimensions with M < 0

In the Schwarzschild metric (1.1)
−1
2 2M 2 2M
ds = − 1 − dt + 1 − dr2 + r2 dΩ22
r r
there is no a priori restriction on the values of M . Let’s consider the case where
M < 0 (without going into the question what “negative mass” really means). The
– 22 –
Figure 13. Left: The conformal compactifiction of de Sitter space viewed as a finite slab
of the Einstein static universe. Right: The Penrose diagram for the negative mass black
hole. The singularity at r = 0 can be seen from J + .
|
term 1 − 2M = (1 + 2|M

r r
) is then always positive and there are no singularities in
the metric except the curvature singularity at r = 0.
We can construct the Penrose diagram in the same manner as in the positive
mass case, by writing the metric in terms of u = t − r∗ and v = t + r∗ coordinates
(with the restriction r ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ v ≥ u) and proceeding with the conformal com-
pactification as usual. The Penrose diagram is shown in Figure 13.
Notice that this singularity is different from the black hole singularity: it can
be seen from J + . Conversely, the singularity inside the black hole is hidden behind
the horizon r = 2M . A singularity that can be seen from J + is known as a naked
singularity. The white hole has a naked singularity too, as it can be seen in Figure 11.
While naked singularities occur quite frequently in solutions to Einsteins equations,
their physical status is debated. Roger Penrose has formulated the cosmic censorship
hypothesis: “Nature abhors a naked singularity”, which encapsulates the expectation
that naked singularities (except for the Big Bang) are unphysical and do not occur
in the real world.
2 Charged & Rotating Black Holes

The Schwarzschild black hole is only the simplest among a number of black hole
solutions to the Einstein equations. In fact, the astrophysical black holes for which
– 23 –
we have observational evidence all appear to be rotating, while the Schwarzschild
solution has zero angular momentum. In this section we review two further, more
general, black hole solutions.
2.1 The Reissner-Nordström Solution

Gravity coupled to the electromagnetic field is described by the Einstein-Maxwell
action
√
Z
1
S= −g (R − Fµν F µν ) d4 x (2.1)
16πG
where Fµν = ∇µ Aν − ∇ν Aµ and Aµ is the electromagnetic (four-)potential. The
normalisation of the Maxwell term in (2.1) is such that the Coulomb force between
two charges Q1 and Q2 separated by a (large enough) distance r is G|Q1 Q2 |/r2 . This
corresponds to geometrised units of charge.
The equations of motion derived from the variation of the Einstein-Maxwell

action are
1 λ 1 ρσ
Rµν − Rgµν = 2 Fµλ F ν − gµν Fρσ F
2 4 (2.2)
µν
∇µ F = 0.
They admit the spherically symmetric solution
−1
Q2 Q2

2 2M 2 2M
ds = − 1 − + 2 dt + 1 − + 2 dr2 + r2 dΩ22 , (2.3)
r r r r
which is known as the Reissner-Nordström solution. The electric potential is A0 = Qr

and the other components of Aµ vanish. We therefore interpret Q as the charge of
the black hole (by analogy with the electric potential of a point charge) and M as its
mass. Without loss of generality we will assume that Q > 0. By a theorem analo-
gous to Birkhoff’s theorem, the Reissner-Nordström solution is the unique spherically
symmetric solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations.
It is convenient to introduce the function
∆ = Q2 − 2M r + r2 = (r − r+ )(r − r− ) (2.4)
p
where r± = M ± M 2 − Q2 . The metric then reads
∆ 2 r2 2
ds2 = − 2
dt + dr + r2 dΩ22 . (2.5)
r ∆
There are three separate cases to look at: Q > M , Q < M and Q = M . Let’s
consider them in turn.
– 24 –
2.1.1 Super-Extremal RN: Q > M
If Q > M then ∆ has no real roots and the metric is regular for all r > 0. There is
a curvature singularity at r = 0. This is the same situation as for the negative mass
black hole, and the Penrose diagram looks exactly the same (Figure 13).
Note that an electron has charge e = 1.6×10−19 C and mass me = 9.1×10−31 kg.
√
In geometrised units this means Q = e/ 4π0 G = 1.4 × 10−29 kg, so Q M . Could
it be that an electron is just a charged black hole? No. The electron is a quantum
mechanical object, whose Compton wavelength λ = h/mc = 2.4 × 10−12 m is much
larger than its Schwarzschild radius rs = 2Gme /c2 = 1.4 × 10−57 m.
2.1.2 Sub-Extremal RN: Q < M

Now ∆ has two real roots r+ > r− and there are two coordinate singularities. As
always, we can remove them if we find a suitable coordinate system. Recalling our
strategy with the Schwarzschild metric, let us define a tortoise coordinate r∗ via
∆ 2 r2 2
dr = dr , (2.6)
r2 ∗ ∆
in terms of which the metric takes the form
∆
ds2 = − 2 (dt2 − dr∗2 ) + r2 dΩ22 . (2.7)
r
Radial null geodesics are then given by the simple equation t ± r∗ = const. (and
θ = φ = const.). A solution of (2.6) with a convenient choice of sign and integration
constant is
1 r − r+ 1 r − r−
r∗ = r + ln + ln , (2.8)
2κ+ r 2κ− r
where
r+ − r− r− − r+
κ+ = 2
>0 and κ− = 2
< 0. (2.9)
2r+ 2r−
Define the null coordinates u = t − r∗ and v = t + r∗ and ingoing Eddington-
Finkelstein coordinates (v, r, θ, φ). In terms of the latter, the metric becomes
∆
ds2 = − 2 dr2 + drdv + r2 dΩ22 , (2.10)
r
which is regular for all r > 0, including r = r+ and r = r− . To understand the
spacetime structure close to r = r± we can use two different sets of Kruskal-type
coordinates at each of the two radii:
U ± = − exp (−κ± u) and V ± = exp (κ± u) . (2.11)
This gives rise to the Penrose diagram shown in Figure 14. Notice that a timelike
trajectory can avoid r = 0, since the r = 0 singularity is timelike itself. In fact, to
hit r = 0, one must accelerate toward it (this time it is like a position in space).
– 25 –
Figure 14. The Penrose diagram for the sub-extremal Reissner-Nordström solution.
2.1.3 Extremal RN: Q = M

The metric of the extremal Reissner-Nordström solution is
2 −2
2 M 2 M
ds = − 1 − dt + 1 − dr2 + r2 dΩ22 , (2.12)
r r
which has one coordinate singularity at r = r+ = r− = M . To get rid of it, define
the tortoise coordinate dr∗ = (1 − Mr )−2 dr such that
2
2 M
ds = − 1 − (dt2 − dr∗2 ) + r2 dΩ22 , (2.13)
r
and change to ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (v, r, θ, φ), where v = t + r∗
labels ingoing null geodesics, which should be clear from a look at (2.13). This leaves
us with the improved line-element

2 M
ds = − 1 − dv 2 + 2dvdr + r2 dΩ22 (2.14)
r
which is regular at r = M . The inner and outer horizons have now coalesced. The
result is the Penrose diagram shown in figure (to come).
– 26 –
2.2 Rotating Black Holes
So far we have only discussed solutions with spherical symmetry. We now introduce
the Kerr-Newman solution (1965) to the Einstein-Maxwell equations, which describes
a rotating charged black hole of mass M , charge Q and angular momentum J ≡ M a
(so a is the angular momentum per unit mass). In Boyer-Lindquist coordinates
(t, r, θ, φ), in which the black hole rotates about the polar axis, the metric part of
the solution is given by
∆ − a2 sin2 θ a sin2 θ 2

2 2 Σ 2
r + a2 − ∆ dtdφ

ds = − dt + dr − 2
Σ ∆ Σ
2 2 2 2 2
(2.15)
2 (r + a ) − ∆a sin θ 2 2
+ Σdθ + sin θdφ
Σ
where where Σ = r2 + a2 cos2 θ and ∆ = r2 − 2M r + Q2 + a2 . The components of

the electromagnetic potential are
Qr Qar sin θ
At = , Aφ = − , Ar = Aθ = 0. (2.16)
Σ Σ
For a = Q = 0, we recover the Schwarzschild solution (1.1). For a = 0, we
recover the Reissner-Nordström solution (2.3). Finally, the solution is symmetric
under the simultaneous replacements φ → −φ and a → −a, so we can set a ≥ 0
without loss of generality.
When a black hole is rotating, there is no analogue of Birkhoff’s theorem. This

means that, during gravitational collapse with rotating matter, we cannot use the
same reasoning as in the spherically symmetric case to argue that, on the surface of
the collapsing matter, the metric should be of the form given above. All we can say
is that, after enough time has passed and matter and spacetime have “settled down”
to equilibrium, they will be described by the Kerr-Newman solution.
We will investigate the structure of the simple but illustrative special case of a
rotating black hole with zero charge Q = 0. The metric (2.15) then reduces to the
Kerr solution (1963):
2
2 dr 2M r 2
ds = Σ + dθ + (r2 + a2 ) sin2 θdφ2 +
2
a sin2 θdφ − dt − dt2 (2.17)
∆ Σ
where ∆ = r2 − 2M r + a2 and Σ = r2 + a2 cos2 θ. This metric is a solution to the

vacuum Einstein equations. It has coordinate singularities at
√
∆ = 0 ⇐⇒ r = r± = M ± M 2 − a2 . (2.18)
– 27 –
Below we will show a coordinate transformation that removes them. It also has a
curvature singularity at
Σ = 0 ⇐⇒ r = 0 and cos θ = 0. (2.19)
The latter condition implies that the curvature singularity is only there when θ = π2 ,
i.e. when r = 0 is approached along the equator. When approached from any other
angle, there is no singularity at r = 0.
There are again three cases to consider: M < a, M = a and M > a. We will
concentrate on the M > a solution, for which there are two coordinate singularities at
r+ (the “outer” horizon) and r− < r+ (the “inner” horizon). To remove them, we do
a coordinate transformation to ingoing Kerr coordinates (v, r, θ, χ), where v = t + r∗
and r∗ and χ are defined by
r 2 + a2 a
dr∗ = dr and dχ = dφ + dr. (2.20)
∆ ∆
The definition of χ implies that φ = const. does not correspond to χ = const. For
example, in order to stay at χ = const. as you fall in (dr < 0), you need to rotate
too: dφ = −a/∆dr. In terms of ingoing Kerr coordinates the metric becomes

2
ds = − dv 2 + 2dvdr − 2 (r + a2 − ∆)dvdχ
Σ Σ
"
2 2 2 2 2
# (2.21)
2 (r + a ) − ∆a sin θ 2 2 2
− 2a sin θdχdr + sin θdχ + Σdθ .
Σ
There are no more factors of ∆ in the numerators and the metric is regular at r+
and r− . The only remaining singularity is the curvature singularity at Σ = 0.
To draw the Penrose diagram is more difficult because the metric is not spheri-
cally symmetric. Since the curvature singularity at r = 0 only appears when θ = π2 ,
the Penrose diagram should look very different for θ 6= π2 and θ = π2 . In order to
represent both cases, it is customary to draw a Penrose diagram that is an amalgam
of the Penrose diagram for an observer falling in from the north pole (θ = 0) and of
that for an observer falling in in the equatorial plane (θ = π2 ) at fixed χ. Notice that
χ = const. means that φ is not constant, so the observer falling in at θ = π2 rotates
about the polar axis.
The procedure is very similar to that for the sub-extremal Reissner-Nordström

solution in section 2.1.2. First, perform a coordinate transformation to coordinates
(u, v, θ, φ) where u = t + r∗ and v = t − r∗ with r∗ as defined in (2.20). Then, define
Kruskal-type coordinates U ± and V ± close to r = r± , respectively, and draw the
– 28 –
Figure 15. The Penrose diagram for the sub-extremal Kerr black hole.
Penrose diagram. This leads to the infinitely sequence of spacetime regions we saw
in Figure 14. Up to this point, the analysis is identical for θ = 0 and θ = π2 . The
only difference is that the Penrose diagram for θ = 0 has a curvature singularity at
r = 0, whereas the Penrose diagram for θ = π2 has none. In the amalgam Penrose
diagram for the Kerr spacetime, we indicate this by drawing an interrupted wavy
line at r = 0. The result is shown in Figure 15.
2.2.1 Ring singularities

How can it be that there is a singularity for θ = π2 but not otherwise? The simple
explanation is that the singularity has the shape (topology) of a ring. Indeed, for
fixed r, v and θ, the metric (2.17) becomes
(r2 + a2 )2 − sin2 θ(r2 − 2M r + a2 )a2

ds2 = sin2 θdχ2 , (2.22)
a2 cos2 θ
which tends to ds2 = a2 sin2 θdχ2 as r → 0. When θ = π2 , we obtain
ds2 = a2 dχ2 , (2.23)
– 29 –
the metric of a ring with radius a. If you travel toward r = 0 from any other angle
than θ = π2 , you will not encounter the singularity. Instead, you will fall through the
interior of the “ring” and emerge in a new region of spacetime.
2.2.2 Closed Timelike Curves

A closed timelike curve (CTC), also called a time machine, is a curve that is every-
where timelike and that eventually returns to where it started from in spacetime.
CT Cs have been extensively explored in the context of general relativity. In fact,
they are ubiquitous and appear in a number of spacetimes that are solutions to the
Einstein equations.
Kerr spacetime is one such example: region X in Figure 15 contains CTCs. To

see this, consider a curve in region X at fixed t, θ = π2 and r < 0. Then

2 2 2 2M a
ds = r + a + dχ2 . (2.24)
r
Close enough to the singularity, where r is small and negative, r < 0 and
|r| < 2M a/(r2 + a2 ), (2.24) is negative and the curve is timelike. Since χ is a
periodic coordinate with χ ≡ χ + 2π, the curve is also closed: it is a CT C.
However, it turns out that region X is unphysical. Much like in the case of
the sub-extremal RN solution of section 2.1.2, the inner horizon at r = r− becomes
a curvature singularity in the presence of the smallest perturbations to the Kerr
metric: at the inner horizon, perturbations are infinitely blueshifted, which leads to
divergences in the curvature scalars.
3 Killing Vectors & Killing Horizons

So far we have produced a number of different black hole solutions and looked at
some of their features. In this section we introduce the concepts and machinery that
we will need to really understand the structure of black hole spacetimes.
∂
Notation: to denote partial derivatives we use shorthand notations such as ∂t = ∂t
and ∂µ = ∂x∂ µ as well as X,µ = ∂µ X when applied to a tensor X.
3.1 Symmetries & Killing Vectors

Let (M, g) be a Lorentzian manifold. Given a smooth vector field ξ on M , an integral
curve of ξ is a curve γ : R → M whose tangent vector is equal to ξ at every point
– 30 –
p ∈ γ. This can be expressed as the demand that

d
ξp (f ) = (f ◦ γ(λ)) (3.1)
dλ p
for all smooth functions f : M → R. Equivalently, given a coordinate system xµ on

M , the components of ξ in that coordinate system must satisfy

µ d µ
ξp = x (γ(λ)) , (3.2)
dλ p
where λ parametrises γ.
When ξ is smooth and everywhere non-zero, the set of integral curves form a
congruence: every point p ∈ M lies on a unique integral curve. Given any congruence
there is an associated one-parameter family of diffeomorphisms from M onto itself,
defined as follows: for each s ∈ R, define hs : M → M , where hs (p) is the point
parameter distance s from p along ξ, i.e. if p = γ(λ0 ) then hs (p) = γ(λ0 + s). These
transformations form an abelian group: the composition law is hs ◦ ht = hs+t , the
identity is h0 and the inverse is (hs )−1 = h−s .
This leads to the concept of the Lie derivative Lξ along the vector field ξ. When
applied to a vector V at point p it is defined as
Vp − (hδλ )∗ Vh−δλ (p)
(Lξ V )p = lim . (3.3)
δλ→0 δλ
Here (hs )∗ denotes the push-forward associated with the group element hs , which
maps a vector defined at p to a vector defined at hs (p). It can be shown (exercise)
that the Lie derivative of a vector is equal to the bracket
(Lξ V )p = [ξ, V ]p
where [X, Y ]µ = X ν Y,νµ − Y ν X,νµ .
The Lie derivative can be applied to any tensor on M , with appropriate defini-
tions analogous to (3.3). In particular, given a metric tensor g on M , we can take
its Lie derivative. Since the components of g transform covariantly (whereas vector
fields transform contravariantly), the Lie derivative of g involves the pull-back h∗s ,
which maps a covector at hs (p) to a covector at p:
gp − (hδλ )∗ ghδλ (p)
(Lξ g)p = lim . (3.4)
δλ→0 δλ
It can then be shown that
(Lξ g)µν = ∇µ ξν + ∇ν ξµ . (3.5)
– 31 –
If the metric does not change under the transformation hs we say that the transfor-
mation is an isometry and that the metric has a symmetry. In this case Lξ g = 0,
which implies
∇µ ξν + ∇ν ξµ = 0. (3.6)
This is known as Killing’s equation and a vector ξ that satisfies (3.6) is a Killing
vector. Note that this equation implicitly involves the metric, which is hidden in
∇. Finding the symmetries of a spacetime amounts to finding the vectors that sat-
isfy the Killing equation; this can be done either by inspection or by integrating (3.6).
A useful fact to know when looking for Killing vectors is the following. Given
any vector field ξ we can (locally) find a coordinate system (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) in which
ξ takes the form
∂
ξ= , (3.7)
∂x1
i.e. ξ µ = (1, 0, 0, 0). This implies that
∂gµν
(Lξ g)µν = . (3.8)
∂x1
Hence, if we find a coordinate system in which gµν is independent of one of the
∂
coordinates, say y, then we know that ∂y must be a Killing vector since
∂gµν
(L ∂ g)µν = = 0. (3.9)
∂y ∂y
The converse statement is not true: if gµν depends on all the coordinates, that does
not mean that that g has no Killing vectors.
3.1.1 Example 1: Schwarzschild

Using the fact above, a quick look at the Schwarzschild metric
−1
2 2M 2 2M
ds = − 1 − dt + 1 − dr2 + r2 dΩ22
r r
reveals the two Killing vectors k = ∂t and m = ∂φ . This means that Schwarzschild
spacetime is static and axisymmetric:
Definition. An asymptotically flat spacetime is stationary if it admits a Killing

vector k such that k 2 → −1 asymptotically. If in addition the metric is invariant
under t ↔ −t, the spacetime is static.
Definition. An asymptotically flat spacetime is axisymmetric if it admits a Killing

vector ` that is spacelike asymptotically and whose integral curves are closed.
– 32 –
Schwarzschild spacetime is not just axisymmetric but spherically symmetric: it
has two more spacelike Killing vectors, which together with ∂φ generate the symme-
tries of a sphere — the SO(3) transformations. The other two Killing vectors cannot
be “read off” from the metric but they can be found by solving Killing’s equation.
3.1.2 Example 2: Kerr-Newman

The Kerr-Newman solution (2.15)

2 Σ
dt2 + dr2 − 2 r + a2 − ∆ dtdφ

ds = −
Σ ∆ Σ
2
2 2 2 2

(r + a ) − ∆a sin θ
+ Σdθ2 + sin2 θdφ2
Σ
is axisymmetric and stationary: since gµν is independent of t and φ, it has Killing

vectors k = ∂t and ` = ∂φ . However, the metric is not invariant under t ↔ −t due
to the dtdφ term, so it is not static.
A number of uniqueness theorems, proved between 1967 and 1975, have estab-
lished the remarkable fact that the two-parameter Kerr family (parameters M and
J) is the unique stationary asymptotically flat solution of the vacuum Einstein equa-
tions and that the three-parameter Kerr-Newman family (parameters M , J and Q)
is the unique stationary asymptotically flat black hole solution of the electrovacuum
Einstein-Maxwell equations.
3.2 Conservation Laws

In classical physics, the presence of symmetries is very closely tied to the existence
of conservation laws. As we shall see in this section, this is also the case in general
relativity. We first take a look at the geodesic motion of test particles.
Consider the action of a particle in a spacetime (M, g) moving on a curve γ with

parameter λ and endpoints A and B. Pick a coordinate system xµ and denote the
coordinates of the curve by xµ (λ). Then the action for γ is given by
Z λB r
dxµ dxν
Z
µ
I (x ) = m dτ = m −gµν . (3.10)
λA dλ dλ
If we deform the curve by a small amount δxµ (λ) and require the action to be
stationary with respect to this variation, we obtain the Euler-Lagrange equations:
δI d µ
µ
= 0 =⇒ ∇(λ) ẋµ ≡ ẋ + Γµρσ ẋρ ẋσ ∝ ẋµ . (3.11)
δx dλ
– 33 –
The dot denotes differentiation with respect to λ. The solutions to (3.11) are the
geodesics in (M, g). If the right hand side vanishes, ∇(λ) ẋµ = 0, the geodesic is said
to be affinely parametrised and λ is an affine parameter. If we set λ = τ then (3.11)
reduces to
d2 xµ ρ
µ dx dx
σ
+ Γ ρσ = 0. (3.12)
dτ 2 dτ dτ
For the purpose of finding geodesics we can cast (3.10) into a more useful form by
introducing an independent function e(λ) (called the auxiliary field or einbein):
1 λB
Z
µ
dλ e−1 (λ)gµν ẋµ ẋν − m2 e(λ) .

I (x , e) = (3.13)
2 λA
To see that this is equivalent to (3.10), notice that from δI/δe = 0 we get
1p 1 dτ
− e−2 gµν ẋµ ẋν − m2 = 0 =⇒ e = −gµν ẋµ ẋν = (3.14)
m m dλ
and from δI/δxµ we get
d µ
ẋ + Γµρσ ẋρ ẋσ = (e−1 ė)ẋµ . (3.15)
dλ
This equation is already the geodesic equation ∇(λ) ẋµ = (e−1 ė)ẋµ and (3.14) re-
lates e to the choice of parameter λ. To turn this into the equation for an affinely
parametrised geodesic, we need to set ė = 0. Then dτ /dλ = const., which implies
that λ = aτ + b.
Consider now an infinitesimal translation of the curve γ along a Killing vector

field k (leaving e unchanged). In the coordinate chart xµ this corresponds to
xµ → xµ + αk µ (3.16)
where α is an infinitesimal constant. Then the action will be changed by an amount

δI = I(xµ + αk µ , e) − I(xµ , e)
Z
α h i
= dλ e−1 gµν k̇ µ ẋν + gµν ẋµ k̇ ν + gµν,σ ẋµ ẋν k σ
2
Z
α
dλ e−1 (gµν ẋσ ẋν k µ,σ + gµν ẋµ ẋσ k ν,σ + gµν,σ ẋµ ẋν k σ )

=
2
Z (3.17)
α
dλ e−1 ẋµ ẋν (gσν k σ,µ + gµσ k σ,ν + gµν,σ k σ )

=
2
Z
α
dλ e−1 ẋµ ẋν (∇µ kν + ∇ν kµ )

=
2
=0
where the last line follows from the fact that k satisfies Killing’s equation. To get
ν
from the second to the third line we used the fact that k̇ µ = dτd k µ = dx
dτ ν
∂ k µ = ẋν k µ,ν .
– 34 –
We see that k being Killing leads to a symmetry of the particle action. Associated
with this symmetry is a quantity (charge) that is conserved along geodesics:
Claim. Let k be a Killing vector. Then

Q = k µ pµ (3.18)
is conserved along geodesics, where pµ is the momentum of the particle defined by
∂L −1 ν dxν
pµ = = e gµν ẋ = mgµν . (3.19)
∂ ẋµ dτ
The last equality follows from equation (3.14) for e.
Proof. Consider a small variation δxµ = αk µ generated by the Killing vector k.

Set λ = τ for simplicity (the proof for general λ is similar). As shown above, such
variations leave the action invariant: δI = 0. Defining the Lagrangian density L as
R
I = Ldλ, we then have
∂L µ ∂L
µ
δx + µ δ ẋµ = 0. (3.20)
∂x ∂ ẋ
Using the Euler-Lagrange equations
∂L d ∂L
µ
= = ṗµ , (3.21)
∂x dτ ∂ ẋµ
the previous equation can be written as
d µ d
0 = ṗµ αk µ + pµ αk̇ µ = α (k pµ ) = α Q. (3.22)
dτ dτ
Therefore Q is constant along geodesics.

Recall the Killing vector k = ∂t in Schwarzschild spacetime. Then k µ = (1, 0, 0, 0)
and we have

µ µ ν 0 2M dt
Q = k pµ = k mgµν ẋ = mg00 ẋ = −m 1 − ≡ −E, (3.23)
r dτ
where we have identified Q with minus the energy of the particle in the rest frame
of the black hole. This agrees with the the definition of the constant = E/m in
equation (1.9) of section 1.
The conserved quantity associated with ` = ∂φ is

Q = mg33 ẋ3 = mr2 sin2 θφ̇ ≡ J, (3.24)
the angular momentum of the particle along the axis of symmetry as measured by
an observer at rest at infinity.
– 35 –
3.2.2 Example 2: Kerr
The vectors k and ` are also Killing vectors for the Kerr metric (2.15,2.17):
2
2 dr 2M r 2
ds = Σ + dθ + (r2 + a2 ) sin2 θdφ2 +
2
a sin2 θdφ − dt − dt2 .
∆ Σ
In Schwarzschild spacetime, you (or a test particle) can travel along integral curves of
k = ∂t anywhere outside the horizon — you will then appear stationary5 to observers
at infinity, since your position in space is not changing. This is possible because g00 is
negative everywhere for r > 2M , so that k 2 = g00 is negative and the integral curves
of k are timelike. It turns out that this is not the case in Kerr spacetime: there
is a region around the outer horizon, called the ergosphere or ergoregion, in which
it is impossible for you (and any test particle) to remain stationary with respect to
observers at infinity — everything rotates. This happens because

2M r
g00 = − 1 − (3.25)
Σ
becomes positive in the region
2M r
> 1 =⇒ ξ(r) ≡ Σ − 2M r = r2 + a2 cos2 θ − 2M r < 0, (3.26)
Σ
part of which lies outside the outer horizon r = r+ when a 6= 0. This is easy to
see by noting that the equation for ξ(r) is a parabola with roots at r̃± = M ±
√ √
M 2 − a2 cos2 θ and r̃+ is bigger than r+ = M + M 2 − a2 for θ 6= 0, π. Hence g00
is positive in the ellipsoidal region r+ < r < r̃+ , which has a maximum extent on the
√
equator θ = π2 where r̃+ = M + M 2 + a2 .
In the ergoregion, orbits of ∂t are not timelike, so you cannot travel along them
and remain stationary with respect to observers at infinity. In order for a curve
xµ = (t, r, θ, φ) to be timelike, its tangent vector uµ = dxµ /dτ must satisfy u2 = −1.
But in the ergoregion, every term in u2 = gµν uµ uν is positive except for gtφ ut uφ ,
which means that uφ = dφ/dτ must be non-zero. Moreover, since ut > 0 for a
future-directed worldline and gtφ < 0, uφ must be positive. Any timelike worldline is
therefore dragged around in the direction of rotation of the black hole. This effect is
an example of frame dragging.
3.2.3 Example 3: The Penrose Process

The Penrose process is a process that allows you to extract energy from a rotating
black hole. Imagine sending a particle into the ergoregion. Prepare it carefully such
5
The word “stationary” here has nothing to do with the definition of a stationary spacetime.
When used to describe the relative motion of one observer or test particle with respect to another
observer, stationary just means “not moving in space” from the point of view of the latter.
– 36 –
that, once in the ergoregion, it decays into two particles, one of which falls into the
black hole and one of which escapes the ergoregion again. Denote the energy of the
initial particle by E = −kµ pµ and that of the final particles by E1 = −kµ pµ1 and
E2 = −kµ pµ2 , where k is the asymptotically timelike Killing vector. Conservation of
four-momentum pµ = pµ1 + pµ2 implies that E = E1 + E2 . The fact that k is spacelike
in the ergoregion allows you to arrange the decay such that the energy of the particle
that falls into the black hole is negative with respect to you: E1 = kµ pµ1 < 0. To see
this, choose a coordinate system in which k µ = (0, x, 0, 0). Prepare your decay such
that pµ1 = (1, y, 0, 0), where y is small enough for p1 to be timelike and adjusted such
that xy > 0. Then E1 is negative and E2 > E: the particle that reemerges from the
ergoregion has more energy than the particle you sent in.
3.3 Hypersurfaces
Let S(x) be a smooth function of the spacetime coordinates. Consider the family of
hypersurfaces S(x) = const. The normal vector to S(x) = const. is given by
nµ = f (x)g µν ∂ν S, (3.27)
where f (x) is an arbitrary (smooth) normalisation function. A hypersurface is space-

like (timelike) when n is timelike (spacelike) everywhere on it. When the hypersurface
is timelike (spacelike) we can always find an f (x) such that n2 = −1 (n2 = +1). A
hypersurface is null when n is null, n2 = 0.
3.3.1 The induced metric

Consider a spacelike (timelike) hypersurface Σ in a spacetime (M, g). Normalise the
normal n to Σ such that n2 = −1 (n2 = +1). Then the induced metric h on Σ is
given by
hµν = gµν + nµ nν . (3.28)
The metric h is the restriction of g onto Σ: while h is degenerate on the full tangent
space at any point p ∈ Σ, it is positive definite for spacelike Σ (Lorentzian for time-
like Σ) on the subspace of the tangent space spanned by vectors tangent to curves
in Σ (i.e. vectors v that satisfy v.n = 0).
To give an example, consider a spatial slice Σ defined by S(x) = t = const. in 3+1

dimensional Minkowski space with Cartesian coordinates (t, x). Then nµ = (1, 0, 0, 0)
and
hµν = gµν + nµ nν = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1) + diag(1, 0, 0, 0) = diag(0, 1, 1, 1). (3.29)
On the spatial slice Σ, h is just the positive definite three-dimensional flat Euclidean
metric. Next, consider a timelike hypersurface Σ defined by S(x) = x1 = const. with
– 37 –
normal nµ = (0, 1, 0, 0). The induced metric on it is hµν = diag(−1, 0, 1, 1), which
carries Lorentzian signature on the subspace of the tangent space spanned by vectors
tangent to Σ.
3.3.2 Null hypersurfaces

For a null hypersurface Σ, the normal n to Σ is also tangent to Σ, since, by defini-
tion, a vector t is tangent to Σ if t.n = 0. This is satisfied by n itself when it is null:
n.n = 0. When the normal is null we will henceforth use the symbol ` instead. The
µ
normal ` is tangent to curves xµ (λ) in Σ: `µ = dx dλ
. In fact, the integral curves of `
are null geodesics:
Claim: For a null hypersurface Σ, the integral curves in Σ of the normal ` are null
geodesics.
Proof: For `µ = f g µν ∂ν S we have

`.∇`ν = `µ ∇µ (f g νρ ∂ρ S)
= `µ (∇µ f )g νρ ∂ρ S + f `µ g νρ ∇µ ∂ρ S (3.30)
−1 ν µ νρ
= (`.∇f )f ` + f ` g ∇µ ∂ρ S.
The second term reduces as follows:
`µ f g νρ ∇µ ∂ρ S = f `µ g νρ ∇ρ ∂µ S
= f `µ g νρ ∇ρ (f −1 `µ )
= f g νρ (∇ρ f −1 )`2 + `µ g νρ ∇ρ `µ (3.31)
1
= g νρ ∇ρ (`2 )
2
∝ `ν
using the fact that `2 = 0 on Σ in the third line. In the last line, note that `2 = 0
on Σ does not necessarily imply ∇ρ (`2 ) = 0, because `2 can be non-zero outside of
Σ and hence its derivative can be non-zero. However, any non-zero contribution to
∇ρ (`2 ) must be proportional to the normal to Σ: ∇ρ (`2 ) ∝ `ρ . Together with (3.30)
this implies that `.∇`ν ∝ `ν and therefore the integral curves of `µ are geodesics.
If the integral curves of `µ are not affinely parametrised, then we can always
find some function h(x) such that `˜µ = h(x)`µ has affinely parametrised integral
˜ `˜µ = 0. These curves are called the null geodesic generators of the
curves, i.e. `.∇
null hypersurface.
3.4 Killing Horizons

A null hypersurface Σ is a Killing horizon of a Killing vector ξ if ξ is normal to Σ
on Σ. Let ` be normal to Σ and affinely parametrised such that `.∇` = 0. Then, for
– 38 –
some function f , ξ = f ` on Σ. It follows that ξ satisfies
ξ µ ∇µ ξ ν = f `µ ∇µ (f `ν )
= f `µ `ν ∇µ f + f 2 `µ ∇µ `ν
(3.32)
= f `ν `µ ∇µ f
≡ κξ ν
on Σ. In the last line we have defined κ, the surface gravity: ξ µ ∇µ ξ ν = κξ ν . It takes

its name from the fact that κ is constant over the horizon and equals the force that
an observer at infinity would have to exert in order to keep a unit mass at the horizon.

In Schwarzschild spacetime, the surfaces of constant r are the “cylinders”of con-
stant S(r) = r and the black hole horizon corresponds to the particular surface
S(r) = 2M . To find the normal vector `µ = f g µν ∂ν S to the horizon, let us work in
IEF coordinates. We need the inverse of the IEF metric (1.22), which is given by
 
0 1 0 0
1 1 − 2M

0 0
 
µν r
g = . (3.33)

0 0 1/r2 0 
0 0 0 1/r2 sin2 θ
The normal vector to the surface S(r) = 2M is then
`µ = f (g vr ∂r S, g rr ∂r S, 0, 0) = f 1, 1 − 2M

r
, 0, 0 = f (1, 0, 0, 0) = f ∂v . (3.34)
This vector is null at r = 2M since `2 = f 2 g rr = f 2 1 − 2M

r
= 0 at r = 2M . Hence
r = 2M is a null hypersurface. ` = f ∂v is a Killing vector (since gµν is independent
of v) and it is timelike everywhere outside the horizon.
Remember that we already encountered a timelike Killing vector in Schwarzschild

spacetime: ∂t in Schwarzschild coordinates. In fact ∂t and ∂v are the same vector field.
To check this, denote Schwarzschild coordinates by (t, r, θ, φ) and IEF coordinates
by (v, r̃, θ̃, φ̃). Then
−1
dv = dt + 1 − 2M r
dr
dr̃ = dr
(3.35)
dθ̃ = dθ
dφ̃ = dφ
and therefore
∂v ∂r̃ ∂ θ̃ ∂ φ̃
∂t = ∂v + ∂r̃ + ∂θ̃ + ∂ = ∂v . (3.36)
∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t φ̃
– 39 –
The surface gravity κ is evaluated most easily in IEF coordinates. The equa-
tion (3.32) defining κ is a vector equation so we only need to evaluate one of its
components. For ξ = ∂v , the µ = v component of ξ σ ∇σ ξ µ is
ξ σ ∇σ ξ v = ξ σ ξ v ,σ + ξ σ Γvσρ ξ ρ = Γvvv . (3.37)
Now
1 1 M
Γvvv = g vσ (gvσ,v + gσv,v − gvv,σ ) = g vr (−gvv,r ) = 2 , (3.38)
2 2 r
which, on the horizon, reduces to Γvvv = 1/4M . Substitution into (3.37) then gives
κ = 1/4M .
Note that the particular normalisation of ξ is important. Had we used a vec-

tor with a different normalisation ξ˜ = cξ we would have obtained ξ.∇˜ ξ˜ν = (cκ)ξ˜ν ,
leading to a different value κ̃ = cκ for the surface gravity. In Schwarzschild space-
time, the normalisation that leads to κ = 1/4M is fixed by requiring that ξ 2 = −1
asymptotically.
3.4.2 Example 2: Kerr

The Killing horizon of a Kerr black hole is slightly more complicated in an interesting
way. Recall the Killing vectors k = ∂t and m = ∂φ of the Kerr-Newman black hole in
Boyer-Lindquist coordinates (t, r, θ, φ) of section 3.1.2. Let’s consider the zero charge
case of the Kerr black hole. In Kerr coordinates (v, r, θ, χ) — defined above (2.20)
— the Killing vectors correspond to k = ∂v = ∂t and m = ∂χ = ∂φ . The frame
dragging effect translates to the fact that k is not normal to the horizon. Instead,
for the rotating Kerr black hole, the normal to the horizon is a combination of k and
m (exercise) :
ξ = k + ΩH m, (3.39)
2
where ΩH = a/(r+ + a2 ) is interpreted as the angular velocity of the black hole.
The intuition here is that as you move forward in time along a null generator of the
horizon, you also have to rotate by a certain amount. Given ξ we can evaluate the
surface gravity κ+ on the outer horizon r = r+ using ξ.∇ξ ν = κξ ν , which evaluates
to (exercise)
r+ − r−
κ+ = 2
. (3.40)
2(r+ + a2 )
3.5 Black Hole Uniqueness

As already mentioned in section 3.1.2, the Kerr-Newman three-parameter family
is the unique stationary black hole solution of the Einstein-Maxwell theory. An
– 40 –
equilibrium black hole in the presence of the electromagnetic field is therefore fully
characterised by the three numbers M , J and Q.
However, the electromagnetic field is only one among many matter fields in
Nature. Through a series of theorems known as “no hair” theorems it has been es-
tablished that, in general, black holes have no other properties besides mass, angular
momentum and charge (of whichever fields are present). To illustrate the general
spirit of these proofs, we look at a simple example here.
Claim: A static black hole cannot be the source of a real (minimally coupled) scalar
field.
Proof: Let φ be a real scalar field that satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation
∇2 φ − m2 φ = 0. (3.41)
By the word “static” in the claim we mean that scalar field and spacetime (i.e. the
metric field) have settled down to equilibrium, which implies that the scalar field
does not vary in time anymore: “φ̇ = 0”. In covariant language the statement is that
there exists a timelike Killing vector k (= ∂t ) of the metric such that k µ ∇µ φ = 0.
Given k we can foliate the spacetime by t = const. hypersurfaces whose unit normals
n are proportional to k, n ∝ k. The black hole horizon is a Killing horizon of k.
Consider the integral

√
Z
I= φ(∇2 φ − m2 φ) −gd4 x, (3.42)
R
where V ⊂ M is the spacetime region outside of the horizon. From the Klein-Gordon
equation (3.41) it follows immediately that I = 0. On the other hand, using Stokes’
theorem to integrate by parts the first term, we get
√
Z Z
µν 2 2 4
I = (−g ∇µ φ∇ν φ − m φ ) −gd x + φ∇µ φdS µ (3.43)
V ∂V
where ∂V is the boundary of the region V and dS µ is the normal surface element on
∂V .
We now show that the surface integral in (3.43) vanishes identically. There
are four contributions to ∂V : the horizon r = 2M , the surfaces t = ±∞ and the
surface r → ∞ (the “sphere at infinity”). On the horizon and on the t = ±∞
surfaces, the normal surface element is proportional to k, so the integrand vanishes:
∇µ φdS µ ∝ k µ ∇µ φ = 0. We are left with the boundary term at r → ∞. To see that
– 41 –
this vanishes too, note that since the spacetime is static and asymptotically flat, the
metric takes the form
ds2 = f (r)dt2 + g(r)dr2 + r2 dΩ22 (3.44)
where f (r) = −1 + f1 r−1 + O(r−2 ) and g(r) = 1 + g1 r−1 + O(r−2 ). Using

√
∇2 = √1−g ∂µ ( −gg µν ∂ν ), a quick expansion shows that the leading terms in the
Klein-Gordon equation in the limit r → ∞ are
∂r2 φ + 2r−1 ∂r φ − m2 φ = 0, (3.45)
which implies that the field must fall off like φ ∼ 1/r or faster. For a sphere of radius
r the normal surface element takes the form dS ∝ rdr∂r , so the leading contribution
in the integrand is φ∇µ φdS µ ∝ rdrφ∂r φ ∼ dr/r2 . The integral of this vanishes in
the limit r → ∞.
Hence, the first integral in (3.43) must vanish identically. In terms of the induced
metric hµν = gµν − nµ nν on hypersurfaces of t = const. the integrand reads
g µν ∇µ φ∇ν φ = hµν ∇µ φ∇ν φ + (n.∇φ)2 = hµν ∇µ φ∇ν φ ≥ 0 (3.46)
having dropped the second term due to the fact that n ∝ k and k.∇φ = 0. The
last inequality follows from the fact that h is positive definite (see section 3.3.1).
Therefore, the integrand is always negative or zero and the integral is zero only if
the integrand vanishes everywhere. For m > 0 this implies that φ = 0 everywhere.
For m = 0 it implies that ∇µ φ = 0 =⇒ φ = const. everywhere, which is physically
indistinguishable from φ = 0 everywhere.
3.6 Komar Integrals

For a Killing vector k, the Killing equation ∇µ kν +∇ν kµ = 0 is the statement that the
symmetric part of ∇µ kν vanishes: ∇(µ kν) = 0. It follows that ∇µ kν is antisymmetric:
1
∇µ kν = ∇[µ kν] = (∇µ kν − ∇ν kµ ) ≡ Kµν . (3.47)
2
The tensor Kµν looks similar to the electromagnetic tensor Fµν = ∇µ Aν − ∇ν Aµ
and, indeed, just as Maxwell’s equations lead to a conserved electric charge, Ein-
stein’s equations lead to a conserved quantity when the spacetime has a Killing
vector. This is expressed most conveniently in the language of differential forms.
Lightening Review of Differential Forms
– 42 –
Given a d-dimensional spacetime (M, g), a differential form of order k (or k-form) on
M is a totally antisymmetric covariant k-index tensor. By definition, zero-forms are
functions and one-forms are covectors. Given a (local) coordinate chart xµ on M , the
coordinate differentials dx1 , dx2 , . . . , dxd are examples of 1-forms and together they
form a complete basis. A general one-form can therefore be written as F = Fµ dxµ ,
where Fµ are the components of F . A k-form F can be written as
1
F = Fµ µ ...µ dxµ1 ∧ dxµ2 . . . ∧ dxµk , (3.48)
k! 1 2 k
where ∧ is the antisymmetric wedge product: dxα ∧ dxβ = −dxβ ∧ dxα . The exterior
derivative of a k-form F is defined as the (k + 1)-form dF whose components are
(dF )µ1 µ2 ...µk+1 = (k + 1)∂ [µ1 ωµ2 µ3 ...µk+1 ] . (3.49)
A consequence of the antisymmetrisation in the definition is that d(dF ) = 0 always.

The Hodge star ? is a linear map that sends k-forms to (d − k)-forms. If F is a
k-form, then ?F is defined as the (d − k)-form whose components are
1
(?F )µ1 µ2 ...µd−k = εµ µ ...µ σ1 σ2 ...σk Fσ1 σ2 ...σk , (3.50)
k! 1 2 d−k
where ε denotes is the epsilon tensor defined by
√
εµ1 µ2 ...µd = −g ε(µ1 µ2 . . . µd ) (3.51)
where ε(µ1 µ2 . . . µd ) is the Levi-Civita totally antisymmetric symbol.

Stokes’ theorem states that for any form F the integral of the exterior derivative
dF over a region R ⊆ M is equal to the integral of F over the boundary ∂R of R:
Z Z
dF = F. (3.52)
R ∂B
The electromagnetic tensor defines the two-form F = 12 Fµν dxµ ∧dxν . In terms of
the four-potential A = Aµ dxµ it is given by F = dA, which implies that
dF = d(dA) = 0. Maxwell’s equations are completely encapsulated in the two
equations
d ? F = 4π ? j
(3.53)
d?j =0
where j = jµ dxµ . The second equation is the continuity equation. The Hodge star ?
exchanges magnetic and electric fields, i.e. the magnetic and electric components of
– 43 –
F are interchanged in ?F . Consider the electric charge in some spacelike region B,
which we define as
Z Z Z
1 1
Q(B) = ?j = d?F = ?F. (3.54)
B 4π B 4π ∂B
The last equality follows from Stoke’s theorem. This charge is conserved, which
can be shown as follows. Take any two spacelike surfaces B1 and B2 . Consider the
cylindrical region V , which is bounded by B1 and B2 and chosen to be large enough
that all the sources (i.e. the support of j) lie inside V . In other words j = 0 on
the cylindrical boundaries and outside of V . An illustrative example is shown in
Figure 16, where V corresponds to the solid cylinder-like region between B1 and B2 .
By virtue of the continuity equation we have:
Z
0= d?j
ZV
= ?j
∂V
Z Z
= ?j − ?j (3.55)
B1 B2
Z Z
1 1
= ?F − ?F
4π ∂B1 4π ∂B2
= Q(B1 ) − Q(B2 ),
which proves that Q is conserved.
Let’s turn to the analogous situation for Kµν . The associated two-form is defined
as K = 21 Kµν dxµ ∧ dxν . How does K show up in Einstein’s equations? First note
that (∇µ ∇ν − ∇ν ∇µ )k σ = R σρµν k ρ . For σ = µ we get ∇µ ∇ν k µ = Rρν k ρ or
∇µ K µ ν = Rρν k ρ , (3.56)
which looks just like ∇µ F µ ν = 4πjν . Einstein’s equations Rµν − 21 Rgµν = 8πGTµν
can be written as
1
Rρν = 8πG Tρν − gρν T . (3.57)
2
Let
1
ζν ≡ Rρν k ρ (3.58)
8πG
and ζ = ζν dxν . Then Einstein’s equations take the form
d ? K = 8πG ? ζ
(3.59)
d ? ζ = 0.
– 44 –
Figure 16. Two spacelike slices with subregions B1 and B2 . V is the spacetime volume
traced out between B1 and B2 . The regions are chosen in such a way that there are no
sources outside of V.
In analogy to (3.54) we can then define a Komar integral

Z
c
Qk (B) ≡ ?K (3.60)
8πG ∂B
for any Killing vector k. It can be shown that, for B large enough such that all
matter is inside of it and spacetime is vacuum outside of it, Qk (B) is conserved.
The physical interpretation of Qk depends on the Killing vector k. Some exam-

ples (whose proof is left as an exercise) for appropriate choices of constants c and
regions B are:
• In Schwarzschild spacetime, Qk (B) = M where k = ∂t .
• In Kerr spacetime, Qm (B) = J where m = ∂φ .
• In Kerr-Newman spacetime, Qk (B) = M and Qm (B) = J.
– 45 –
Law Thermodynamics Black Holes
The temperature T is constant The surface gravity κ is constant
0th throughout a system in thermal over the event horizon of a station-
equilibrium ary black hole
1
1st
P
dE = T dS + i µi dNi dM = 8π κdA + ΩH dJ + ΨH dQ
2nd dS ≥ 0 dA ≥ 0
T cannot be reduced to zero by a κ cannot be reduced to zero by a
3rd
finite number of operations finite number of operations
Table 1. Analogy between the laws of thermodynamics and black holes.
4 Black Hole Thermodynamics

4.1 Overview
In 1973, Bardeen, Carter and Hawking (BCH) wrote a paper titled “The Laws of
Black Hole Thermodynamics”, which summarises work on black holes as a series of
laws analogous to the laws of thermodynamics. The main points of this analogy are
shown in table 1. BCH emphasised that black holes have zero temperature (nothing
can escape black holes, so they cannot radiate) and cannot therefore have a physical
entropy — in their mind, the analogy between the laws of black hole mechanics and
the laws of thermodynamics was purely formal.
A young graduate student named Jacob Bekenstein disagreed. He noted that the
second law of thermodynamics would be violated if black holes had no entropy, since
one could throw arbitrarily entropic objects into the black hole, thereby lowering
the total entropy of the exterior universe. He claimed that black holes must have an
entropy SBH ∝ A to save the second law of thermodynamics. Bekenstein’s generalised
second law states that
dStotal ≥ 0 (4.1)
where Stotal = Sexternal + SBH . In 1974, it was Hawking who announced that black
holes are hot and radiate just like any hot body with a temperature
~κ
TH = , (4.2)
2πkB
from which it follows that a black hole has an entropy given by
A
SBH = (4.3)
4G~
– 46 –
the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy.
√ Since G~ has units of length squared, we may
define the Planck length lP = G~ so that the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy
1A
SBH = (4.4)
4 lP2
can be interpreted as a quarter of the area of the black hole, counted in units of lP2 .
So, after all, the analogy of table 1 between black hole mechancis and thermody-
namics seems to be more than a formal peculiarity: if one identifies the temperature
with ~κ/2πkB it becomes a physical unification. In the next sections we will discover
the origin of the results discussed here.
4.2 The First Law of Black Hole Mechanics

The first law encapsulates conservation of energy: if a stationary black hole with
parameters M, Q and J is perturbed to a new stationary state then the changes in
M, Q and J satisfy
1
dM = κdA + ΩH dJ + ΦH dQ, (4.5)
8π
where ΩH is the angular velocity of the black hole and ΦH is the “electric surface
potential”. We will use the uniqueness theorem that the only stationary, asymp-
totically flat black hole solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations are give by the
Kerr-Newman family (2.15)

2 Σ
dt2 + dr2 − 2 r + a2 − ∆ dtdφ

ds = −
Σ ∆ Σ
2
2 2 2 2

(r + a ) − ∆a sin θ
+ Σdθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 .
Σ
In order to verify (4.5), let us express κ, ΩH , ΦH and A in terms of M, Q and J (or
a = J/M , equivalently):
• The surface gravity κ on the outer horizon is given by (3.40) κ = (r+ −
2
r− )/2(r+ + a2 ).
• The surface area A of the horizon is defined at time t0 as the area of the
intersection of the hypersurface Σ of constant t = t0 with the horizon H defined
by r = r+ . For the Kerr-Newman metric, the induced line-element on the
intersection of the two hypersurfaces t = const. and r = const. is
(r + a2 )2 − ∆a2 sin2 θ
2
2 µ ν 2
ds = hµν dx dx = Σdθ + sin2 θdφ2 . (4.6)
Σ
√ 2
On H ∩ Σ we have ∆ = 0 and therefore h = (r+ + a2 ) sin θ, so that
Z √ Z 2π Z π
2
A= hdθdφ = dφ dθ(r+ + a2 ) sin θ = 4π(r+ 2
+ a2 ). (4.7)
H∩Σ 0 0
– 47 –
2
• The angular velocity ΩH = a/(r+ + a2 ) was derived in (3.39) above: it is the
non-zero constant in χ = ∂t + ΩH ∂φ that makes χ a Killing vector tangent to
the generators of the horizon.
• The electric potential ΦH is defined as the potential difference between infinity

and the horizon, i.e. the work done in bringing a unit charge from r = ∞ to
r = r+ :
Qr+
ΦH = (χµ Aµ )|r=r+ − (χµ Aµ )|r=∞ = (At + ΩH Aφ )|r=r+ = 2
. (4.8)
r+ + a2
The second term in the first line was dropped because Aµ vanishes as r → ∞.
Putting these together, we obtain

p
A = A(M, Q, J) = 4π 2M 2 − Q2 + 2M M 2 − Q2 − a2 . (4.9)
Since M, Q and J are independent parameters, this implies that

∂A ∂A ∂A
dA = dM + dQ + dJ, (4.10)
∂M ∂Q ∂J
which can be rearranged to (exercise)
1
dM = κdA + ΩH dJ + ΦH dQ. (4.11)
8π
The proof is deceptively simple. All the hard work goes into proving the unique-
ness theorems: you need to know that the black hole settles down to another Kerr-
Newman black hole and not some other spacetime. It is worth noting that there
exist proofs of the first law, known as “physical process proofs”, that do not assume
this.
4.3 Working up to Hawking’s Area Theorem

Recall that the integral curves of a smooth non-zero vector field form a congruence: a
collection of curves through a region of spacetime such that every point in the region
lies on exactly one of the curves. Every congruence naturally defines an associated
coordinate system (λ, y a ) with a = 1, 2, 3, where λ is the parameter such that the
vector ∂λ = t is tangent to the curve of the congruence at the point (λ, y a ). In other
words, the indices y a label the curves and λ is a parameter along the curves. The
vectors ηa = ∂ya are called connecting vectors (they connect neighbouring integral
curves).
We shall assume that the curves are geodesics and that λ is an affine parameter
so that t.∇tµ = 0. The congruence is then called an (affinely parametrised) geodesic
– 48 –
congruence. For a null congruence we have t2 = 0 and for a timelike congruences
we can set t2 = −1. The vectors t and ηa commute because they form a coordinate
basis:
[t, ηa ] = 0 =⇒ tµ ∇µ ηaν − ηaµ ∇µ tν = 0 (4.12)
D
for a = 1, 2, 3. Since tµ ∇µ = Dλ is the covariant derivative in the direction of the
congruence, this says that the rate of change of the connecting vectors along a curve
of the congruence is given by
D ν
η = tµ ∇µ ηaν = ηaµ ∇µ tν ≡ Bµν ηaµ , (4.13)
Dλ a
D
where Dλ := tµ ∇µ .
The tensor Bµν measures the geodesic deviation, i.e. the extent to which the
connecting vector fails to be parallelly transported along curves of the congruence.
When ηa is parallelly transported, Bµν is zero.
Note that there is an ambiguity in the definition of the connecting vectors: if ηa

is a connecting vector from a curve γ to a curve γ̃, then ηa + ζt with ζ ∈ R is also
a connecting vector from γ to γ̃. We may use this freedom to choose a convenient
set of connecting vectors. For example, when the congruence is timelike, it is always
possible to choose all three connecting vectors ηa to be orthogonal to t everywhere:
t.ηa = 0 for a = 1, 2, 3. This condition will be preserved along the congruence since
d
(t.ηa ) = tµ ∇µ (tν ηaν ) = (tµ ∇µ tν )ηaν + tµ tν ∇µ ηaν
dλ (4.14)
1
= tν ηaµ ∇µ tν = ηaµ ∇µ (t2 ) = 0.
2
When the geodesic congruence is null, we denote the null tangent vector by
`. In that case, the orthogonality condition ηa .` = 0 cannot be satisfied for three
connecting vectors ηa that are all orthogonal to ` because the three-dimensional
subspace of the tangent space orthogonal to ` includes ` itself: `.` = 0. We may
still choose two spacelike connecting vectors η1 and η2 that are orthogonal to `, i.e.
`.ηi = 0 for i = 1, 2. We then need one more connecting vector, which we can choose
such that it has the following properties: (i) n is null: n2 = 0, (ii) n is parallelly
transported along the congruence: (`.∇)nν = 0, (iii) and n satisfies `.n = −1. These
requirements are consistent since the conditions (i) and (iii) are conserved along the
congruence when n is parallelly transported: `.∇(n.n) = 0 and `.∇(n.`). Choosing
three such η1 , η2 , n is just a particular (and convenient) choice of basis for the space
of connecting vectors and it has no particular physical consequence. Once a choice
has been made for n, it fixes the two-dimensional subspace of the tangent space
orthogonal to both ` and n. We require the spacelike connecting vectors ηi to be
– 49 –
spacelike to both ` and n: ηi .n = ηi .` = 0 for i = 1, 2. The projector onto the two-
dimensional spacelike subspace of the tangent space spanned by η1 and η2 is given
by
Pνµ = δνµ + nµ `ν + `µ nν . (4.15)
It is a quick exercise to check that P has the right properties: P2 = P,
Pνµ nν = Pνµ `ν = 0 and Pνµ ηiν = ηiν .
We are interested in the geodesic deviation of the spacelike connecting vectors

ηi , which is given by
d µ
η = Bνµ ηiν . (4.16)
dλ i
The tensor Bνµ , however, is a map on the whole tangent space. It can be turned into
a map on the subspace spanned by the connecting vectors ηi , by noting that
d µ
ηi = `.∇ηiµ = `.∇(Pνµ ηiν ) = Pνµ `.∇ηiν = Pνµ Bρν ηiρ = Pνµ Bρν Pσρ ηiσ ≡ B̂σµ ηiσ , (4.17)
dλ
where B̂νµ ≡ Pρµ Bσρ Pνσ is the projection of Bνµ into the two-dimensional subspace. In
the third manipulation we used the fact that `.∇Pνµ = 0, which follows from the
definition (4.15) and the fact that n and ` are parallelly transported.
Any linear transformation on a vector space can be decomposed into three com-
ponents representing stretch, rotation and shear. For B̂νµ this can be done by setting
1
B̂νµ = θPνµ + σ̂νµ + ω̂νµ (4.18)
2
where
θ = TrB̂ is the expansion

1
σ̂µν = B̂(µν) − Pµν TrB̂ is the symmetric, trace-free part that represents shear
2
ω̂µν = B̂[µν] is the antisymmetric part that represents rotations
and TrB̂ ≡ B̂µµ is the trace of B̂νµ . The three components of B̂νµ contain information
about the geometry of the congruence. For example, it can be shown that ω̂ = 0
implies that the tangent vector field ` is normal to a family of null hypersurfaces (the
converse statement holds too). We will prove this below, but in order to do so, we
need two results first.
Theorem (Frobenius): A vector field χ is hypersurface orthogonal if and only if
χ[µ ∇ν χω] = 0. (4.19)
– 50 –
We omit the proof — for more detail and references containing proofs see section B.3
in Wald.
Lemma: `[ρ B̂µν] = `[ρ Bµν] .

Proof: Schematically,
B̂µν = Pµρ Bρσ Pνσ = Bµν + `µ (. . .) + (. . .)`ν (4.20)
using the definition of Pνµ in (4.15). The result then follows immediately due to the
total antisymmetrisation on the indices.
Using these results the proposition above can be proven.
Claim: The tangent field ` is normal to a family of null hypersurfaces if and only if
ω̂ = 0.
Proof: First, assume that ω̂ = 0. Then B̂[µν] = 0, which together with the previous
lemma implies
0 = `[µ B̂νρ] = `[µ Bνρ] = `[µ ∇ν `ρ] (4.21)
and by Frobenius’ theorem ` is hypersurface orthogonal. Conversely, assume that ` is
hypersurface orthogonal. Then it follows from Frobenius’ theorem that
`[µ B̂νρ] = `[µ Bνρ] = 0 and therefore
`µ ω̂ρσ + `ρ ω̂σµ + `σ ω̂µρ = 0. (4.22)
Contracting with nµ and using nµ `µ = 1 and nµ ω̂µρ = nµ ω̂σµ = 0 (since ω̂ contains

the projection operator), we conclude that ω̂ρσ = 0.
4.4 The Raychaudhuri Equation

The Raychaudhuri equation tells us how the area of the two-dimensional surface ele-
ments spanned by η1 and η2 changes along the congruence. Formally, the magnitude
a of the area element spanned by η1 and η2 is defined by
a = µνρσ nµ `ν η1ρ η2σ . (4.23)
Then it can be shown that (see e.g. Townsend section 6.1.1)
da
= θa (4.24)
dλ
where θ is the “stretch” term in B̂νµ defined in (4.18). From (4.24) we see that θ
indeed measures the expansion of the geodesics in the congruence: when θ > 0 the
– 51 –
geodesics diverge, and when θ < 0 the geodesics converge. Raychoudhuri’s equation
is a statement about the rate of change of θ:
dθ
= `.∇θ = `.∇B̂µµ = `.∇(Pρµ Bσρ Pµσ ) = `.∇(Bσρ Pρµ Pµσ )
dλ
= `.(Bσρ Pρσ ) (using P 2 = P )
= Pρσ `µ ∇µ Bσρ (using `.∇P = 0 from (4.15))
= Pρσ `µ ∇µ (∇σ `ρ )
= Pρσ `µ (∇µ ∇σ `ρ − ∇σ ∇µ `ρ + ∇σ ∇µ `ρ )
= Pρσ [`µ Rρ νµσ `ν + ∇σ (`µ ∇µ `ρ ) − (∇σ `µ )∇µ `ρ ]
= (δρσ + `σ nρ + nσ `ρ )`µ R[ρ νµσ] `ν − Pρσ (∇σ `µ )∇µ `ρ (using `.∇`ρ = 0)
= −Rµν `µ `ν − Pρσ Bσµ Bµρ (4.25)
= −Rµν `µ `ν − Pρσ Bαρ δµα Bσµ
= −Rµν `µ `ν − Pρσ Bαρ (Pµα − `α nµ − nα `µ )Bσµ
= −Rµν `µ `ν − Pρσ Bαρ Pµα Bσµ (using `µ Bσµ = Bαρ `α = 0)
= −Rµν `µ `ν − Pγσ Pργ Bαρ Pβα Pµβ Bσµ (using P = P 2 twice)
= −Rµν `µ `ν − B̂νµ B̂µν
= −Rµν `µ `ν − 1 1

2
θPνµ + σ̂νµ + ω̂νµ 2
θPµν + σ̂µν + ω̂µν
= −Rµν `µ `ν − 1 2
2
θ + ω̂ 2 − σ̂ 2 .
We also made use of the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. To summarise, the
Raychaudhuri equation for null geodesic congruences is:
dθ 1
= −Rµν `µ `ν − θ2 − σ̂ 2 + ω̂ 2 . (4.26)
dλ 2
So far, this is a purely geometrical statement about null geodesic congruences in a
Lorentzian manifold — it contains no physics. The physics comes from Einstein’s
equations
1
Rµν − Rgµν = 8πGTµν =⇒ Rµν `µ `ν = 8πGTµν `µ `ν , (4.27)
2
from which we obtain
dθ 1
= −8πGTµν `µ `ν − θ2 + ω̂ 2 − σ̂ 2 . (4.28)
dλ 2
The first term in this equation is constrained when matter satisfies the Weak Energy
Condition (WEC):
Tµν tµ tν ≥ 0 for all timelike t, (4.29)
which says that the energy density in the frame of any timelike observer is non-
negative. It then follows by continuity that Tµν `µ `ν ≥ 0 for the null vector `. This
– 52 –
has an important consequence for the expansion parameter θ:
Claim: The expansion θ of the congruence of null geodesic generators of a null

surface obeys the differential inequality
dθ θ2
≤− (4.30)
dλ 2
when matter satisfies the WEC.
Proof: In the Raychaudhuri equation (4.26)

dθ 1
= −Rµν `µ `ν − θ2 − σ̂ 2 + ω̂ 2 ,
dλ 2
the third term satisfies σ̂ 2 = hρσ hµν σ̂σµ σ̂νρ ≥ 0 because the induced metric on the
subspace of the tangent space spanned by η1 and η2 is positive-definite. The last term
vanishes, ω̂ = 0, because ` is hypersurface orthogonal. When the WEC is satisfied,
the first term in (4.26) is smaller than or equal to zero and therefore
dθ θ2
≤− , (4.31)
dλ 2
which proves the claim.
Claim: If θ = θ0 < 0 at a point p along a null geodesic generator γ, then θ → −∞

at a point q along γ with finite affine parameter-distance ≤ 2/|θ0 | from p.
Proof: By rearranging (4.30) we obtain

dθ−1 1 dθ 1
=− 2 ≥ . (4.32)
dλ θ dλ 2
Choose λ = 0 at p on γ. Integrating (4.32) and setting θ(λ = 0) = θ0 , we find that
θ−1 ≥ λ/2 + θ0−1 . Hence θ−1 = 0 at some point q along γ at affine parameter-distance
λ ≤ −2/|θ0 | from p.
Hence, if the geodesics are converging at any point on the congruence, they must
continue to converge and the expansion goes to −∞. This signals a breakdown of the
congruence and neighbouring geodesics then meet at some point q, called a caustic
or focus.
In the special case of a Killing horizon, the null geodesic generators are integral
curves of the Killing vector, which generates a symmetry of the spacetime. In that
case θ = 0 everywhere (this can be proven by studying B̂µν directly when the surface
is a Killing horizon).
– 53 –
4.5 Causal Structure
Given a spacetime (M, g), a timelike curve in M is a curve γ ∈ M with an everywhere
timelike tangent vector. A causal curve is a curve with a nowhere spacelike tangent
vector.
n Clearly,
o a timelike curve is also causal. If there
n exists a o
future directed
causal curve γ from p to q we say that p is to the causal
timeliken chronological past of q and
p≺q
o
we write p q . Given a subset U ⊂ M we define the
chronological past of U: I − (U ) = {x ∈ M |∃ u ∈ U s.t. x u}

(4.33)
causal past of U: J − (U ) = {x ∈ M |∃ u ∈ U s.t. x ≺ u} .
Analogous definitions can be given for the chronological future I + (U ) and the causal
future J + (U ). For any set S, we denote the (topological) closure of S (i.e. S together
with its limit points) by S, the interior of S (i.e. the largest open set contained in
S) by S̊ and the boundary of S by ∂S = S \ S̊.
The chronological past I − (U ) (and future) of a set U is always open. To see

this, notice that timelike curves are defined by the property that the norm of their
tangent vector at every point is bounded away from 0. This means that, for any
point p in I − (U ) that lies on some timelike curve γ from p to some u ∈ U , we can
always find a small neighbourhood N around p such that every point in N can be
connected to u by a timelike curve γ̃ obtained by a small deformation of γ. This
is the defining property of an open set: every point in the set has a neighbourhood
contained in the set. On the other hand, the causal past J − (U ) may or may not be
closed. For example, consider a point p in Minkowski space. Then J − (p) is closed (it
contains all its limit points). However, if we remove a point r from Minkowski space
that lies on the past light-cone of p, J − (p) will not be closed since the points on the
null geodesic beyond r, which extends that from p to r, are not in J − (p) whereas
they are in ∂J − (p).
The following relations between the chronological and causal past are always
true:
I − (U ) = J˚− (U )
(4.34)
I − (U ) = J − (U ) .
By consequence of the equivalence principle, every spacetime looks locally like Minkowski
space: for any point p ∈ M , there exists a so-called convex normal neighbourhood in
which the local causal structure is that of Minkowski space.
– 54 –
Some facts about the causal and chronological relations:
xy and yz =⇒ xz

x≺y and y≺z =⇒ x≺z (4.35)
xy and y≺z =⇒ xz
Furthermore, x ≺ y and y ≺ z together imply x z unless there is a unique null

geodesic
The boundary of the closure of the causal past of a set U ⊂ M , ∂ J − (U ) \ U

is always a null hypersurface. Indeed, if it were timelike somewhere, one could find
points p ≺ q with q ∈ J − (U ) and p ∈ / J − (U ), which is a contradiction. If it were
spacelike somewhere, one could find a point p ∈ J − (U ) such that all timelike future
directed curves γ through p would leave J − (U ) — a contradiction, too.
The surface ∂ J − (U ) is therefore a null hypersurface and generated by null
geodesics. No two points in ∂ J − (U ) can be timelike related. Since, suppose two
points p and q are in ∂ J − (U ) and p << q. That means there is an open set around
p that is contained in I − (q) and we can find a point p0 in that open set such that
p0 << q and p0 ∈ / J − (U ). Now p0 << q implies that there exists an open set around
q which is contained in I + (p0 ) and so we can choose a q 0 in that open set such that
p0 << q 0 and q 0 ∈ I − (U ). But q 0 ∈ I − (U ), p0 << q 0 and p0 ∈
/ J − (U ) are contradictory
statements. So
A null geodesic generator cannot leave ∂J − (U ), although it can join ∂J − (U ).
This is a consequence of the following
Theorem (Penrose): A null geodesic generator of ∂ J − (U ) cannot have a future

endpoint on ∂ J − (U ).
Proof: Let γ be a null geodesic generator of ∂ J − (U ) and let p be and r be points on

γ with r ≺ p. Consider a Convex Normal Neighbourhood (CNN) of p and a sequence
of points pi → p such that pi ∈ I − (U ). Then there exist timelike curves µi from pi
to U . Denote the point where µi leaves the CNN of p by qi . Since the boundary of
the CNN is compact, the points qi have an accumulation point q on the boundary of
the CNN.
We now show that q must lie on ∂ J − (U ).
The curves µi corresponding to the convergent subsequences of the points qi
also converge to a limit curve µ from p to q. Since the curves µi are timelike, µ
cannot be spacelike by continuity (but it could be null). Now q ∈ ∂J − (U ) because
q ∈ I − (U ), and therefore p ≺ q and q U , which implies p U . This contradicts
the assumption that q ∈ ∂J − (U ).
– 55 –
4.6 Hawking’s Area Theorem
The area theorem is a fully dynamical result about black hole spacetimes, which
means that it cannot make use of such concepts as Killing horizons, which rely on
particular spacetime symmetries. Hence we need another way to define the event
horizon of a black hole. A natural definition can be made in terms of the spacetime’s
causal structure: for an asymptotically flat spacetime (M, g), the future horizon H +
is defined as the boundary of the causal past of future null infinity, ∂J − (J + ). To
give an example, the horizon in the the Penrose diagram of the collapsing star in
Figure 11 corresponds to the dashed black line.
Note that, strictly speaking, J + is a set of points that is not part of the original
spacetime manifold (M, g). However, J + is contained in the conformal compactifi-
cation (M̃ , g̃), and since the causal structure is invariant under conformal transfor-
mations, the set of points H + obtained by taking the boundary of the causal past of
J + will be contained in the original spacetime manifold (M, g).
Since the horizon H + is the boundary of the causal past of a set, it is a null
hypersurface and its null geodesic generators cannot leave H + by the theorems in
the previous section. We are now in a position to prove Hawking’s area theorem.
Theorem (Hawking): The area of H + cannot decrease if the weak energy condition
holds and cosmic censorship holds (no singularities on or outside the horizon).
Proof: By the area of H + we mean the area of the intersection of H + with a space-
like hypersurface. Now H + is a null geodesic congruence and if we can show that the
expansion θ satisfies θ ≥ 0 everywhere on H + then the result follows immediately.
Suppose that θ = θ0 < 0 at some p ∈ H + . If the WEC holds, there is a conjugate
point q at finite affine parameter-distance along the geodesic γ through p and all the
points r ∈ γ beyond q are timelike related to p by theorem 9.3.10 in Wald. So γ must
have left H + at q. But that contradicts the Penrose theorem that null generators of
∂J − (J + ) can have no future endpoints on ∂J − (J + ). Hence θ ≥ 0 everywhere on
H + and the theorem follows.
This theorem is fully dynamical: it holds whatever far-from-equilibrium processes

are taking place. However, it is purely classical and does not hold when quantum
effects are important.
What does the area theorem imply for the black hole spacetimes we have come
across already? For a Schwarzschild black hole, the area is proportional to the mass:
A = 4π(2M )2 = 16πM 2 . Hence, if a physical process starts with a Schwarzschild
– 56 –
black hole and ends with another, the mass cannot decrease. That this relies on the
WEC is clear: the situation would be different if you were able to throw negative
2
energy into the black hole. For a Kerr black hole, A = 4π(r+ + a2 ) where r+ = M +
√
M 2 + a2 . Hence, the mass of a Kerr black hole could in principle decrease in the
course of a physical process, but it would have to be compensated by an increase in
the angular momentum.
5 Hawking Radiation
In this section, we will study the physics of black holes taking into account quantum
mechanical effects. In order to do so, we will need to become acquainted with the
methods of quantum field theory (QFT) in curved spacetime. First, a quick review of
(free, scalar) QFT in flat space. Remember that four-vectors are denoted by standard
letters and (spatial) three-vectors are denoted by bold-face letters, e.g. p stands for
the four-momentum and p stands for the three-momentum.
Lightening Review of Free Scalar QFT in Flat Space
The equation of motion for a real scalar field φ is the Klein-Gordon equation
φ − m2 φ = 0 (5.1)
where = η µν ∂µ ∂ν . A special set of solutions to (5.1) are the “positive-frequency”

plane waves
µ
ψp = Np eipµ x (5.2)
where p2 + m2 = 0. The positive-frequency
p condition is the requirement that the p0 -
component of p be positive: p0 = + p2 + m2 > 0.6 The set of all positive-frequency
plane wave solutions together with their complex conjugates, which we will denote
by ψp , ψp∗ , is a complete set of functions (a basis). Hence any field configuration

can be expanded as
Z
d3 p ap ψp (x) + a∗p ψp∗ (x) ,

φ(x) = (5.3)
where ap and a∗p are the expansion coefficents (the coefficients of ψp and ψp∗ must
be complex conjugates of each other in order for φ(x) to be real). Upon second
quantisation, the coefficients in (5.3) become operators ap and a†p (we denote the
Hermitian conjugate by a dagger and we will omit the hats on operators in most cases
for notational convenience, but from now on the field and its coefficients should be
6
Note that due to the signature of the metric p0 > 0 ⇐⇒ p0 < 0.
– 57 –
thought of as operators). In order that the standard canonical commutation relations
for the field [φ(t, x), φ̇(t, y)] = iδ(x − y) and [φ(t, x), φ(t, y)] = 0 translate to the
simple relations [ap , a†q ] = δ(p − q) and [ap , aq ] = 0 on the operator coefficients, we
normalise the mode functions using the Klein-Gordon inner product
←
→
Z
(f, g) = i d3 xf ∗ ∂t g (5.4)
←→
where f ∗ ∂t g = f ∗ (∂t g) − (∂t f ∗ )g. The required normalisation conditions are then
p 3
∗
(ψp , ψq ) = δ(p − q) and (ψp , ψq ) = 0, fixing Np = 1/ 2p0 (2π) 2 up to an arbitrary
complex phase. The vacuum state is defined by ap |0i = 0 ∀ p.
At first sight it seems that this definition of the vacuum state depends on a
particular choice of frame: we chose an inertial frame with coordinates xµ in which
we imposed the positive-frequency condition p0 > 0. This condition will look dif-
ferent in a new coordinate system x̃µ . However, it turns out that for all inertial
reference frames, i.e. those related to xµ by a Lorentz transformation x̃µ = Λµν xν ,
the positive-frequency condition leads to the same vacuum. To see this, consider
positive-frequency mode functions in a new frame x̃µ :
µ
ψ̃p = Np eipµ x̃ . (5.5)
The field then has an expansion

Z
φ(x̃) = d3 p ãp ψ̃p + ã†p ψ̃p∗ (5.6)
in terms of these modes and the new vacuum state will be defined by ãp |0̃i = 0 ∀ p.
To prove that the two vacua are the same, |0̃i = |0i, we just need to show that
ap |0i = 0 ∀ p =⇒ ãp |0i = 0 ∀ p. (5.7)
(The converse implication then follows by symmetry.) It follows from p̃µ = pν Λνµ
that ψ̃p ∝ ψp̃ :
0 12 0 12
1 ipµ x̃µ p̃ 1 ip̃µ xµ p̃
ψ̃p = p 3 e = 0 3 e = ψp̃ . (5.8)
p0
p
2p0 (2π) 2 p 2p̃0 (2π) 2
Furthermore, the mode ψp̃ is a positive-frequency mode because p0 > 0 =⇒ p̃0 > 0.7
Hence, the coefficient in front of the positive-frequency mode ψ̃p with momentum p
7
This is true because by Lorentz transformations we really mean (proper) orthochronous Lorentz
transformations — orthochronous meaning that they preserve the direction of time. To see more
explicitly why this implies that the sign of the time-component of the four-momentum p is pre-
0
served, recall that for a (proper orthochronous) Lorentz transformation, Λ0 = γ = 1/ 1 − |v|2 /c2
and Λ0i = −γvp i /c, where v is the relative speed between the two reference frames. Then
p̃0 = Λ0µ pµ = γ( m2 + |p|2 − v.p/c) ≥ γ|p|(1 − |v| cos θ/c) > 0 as required. We used the fact that
γ is positive, |v| < c and cos θ ≤ 1.
– 58 –
in frame x̃µ will be the same as the coefficient in front of the positive-frequency mode
ψp̃ with momentum p̃ in frame xµ : ãp = ap̃ . By consequence, we have
ap |0i = 0 ∀ p =⇒ ap̃ |0i = 0 ∀ p̃ =⇒ ãp |0i = 0 ∀ p, (5.9)
which proves that |0i = |0̃i. Hence, the vacuum state in Minkowski spacetime is
independent of which inertial frame you use to define it. If the vacuum appears
empty of particles to observers in one inertial frame, it will appear empty of particles
to observers in all inertial frames. This is a direct consequence of the fact that
positive-frequency modes in one inertial frame are linear combinations (in this case
particularly simple ones) of positive-frequency modes in another inertial frame.
5.1 Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime

Fix some background spacetime (M, g). We will assume that the spacetime satisfies
the strongest of all global causality conditions: global hyperbolicity. A spacetime
is globally hyperbolic if it admits a Cauchy surface, which is a three-dimensional
submanifold of M such that every past and future inextendible causal curve intersects
the hypersurface exactly once. When a manifold admits a Cauchy surface, it can be
foliated entirely by a family Cauchy surfaces. In the context of field theory, the
presence of a Cauchy surface is relevant because once a Cauchy surface has been
picked and initial data has been specified on it, the corresponding solution to the
equations of motion is completely determined on the whole of the spacetime: much
like in the case of flat spacetime, everything is predictable from a set of initial data.
Some examples of spacetimes that are globally hyperbolic:
• Minkowski space (any spacelike hypersurface extending out to infinity in all

directions is a Cauchy surface).
• FLRW spacetimes.
• The collapsing star spacetime.
Some examples of spacetimes that are not globally hyperbolic:
• Minkowski space with a point removed. For any infinite spacelike hypersurface,
the removed point will either be to the future or past of it. But then there
will exist past/future inextendible causal curves that end at the removed point
and therefore fail to intersect the surface. This reflects the fact that specifying
initial conditions on the surface is not enough to fix a consistent solution to
the equation of motion on the whole spacetime: anything can happen at the
removed point (it could be a source or a sink to the field) and so additional
boundary conditions need to be specified there.
– 59 –
• Spacetimes with a naked singularity (such as the M < 0 Schwarzschild black
hole). In that case, there will be timelike curves that start and/or end on the
singularity and avoid crossing any candidate Cauchy surface we might think of.
Again this reflects the fact that we don’t know what happens at the singularity
— we would have to specify additional boundary conditions on it in order to
have a well-posed problem.
Assuming that (M, g) admits a Cauchy surface we study a free, real scalar field
on it which satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation
φ − m2 φ = 0 (5.10)
where = ∇µ ∇µ is now in general more complicated due to the coordinate-

dependence of the metric. The Klein-Gordon inner product generalises to
←→
Z
(f, g) = i dS µ f ∗ ∂µ g (5.11)
Σ
where Σ is a Cauchy surface and dS µ = nµ dS, nµ is the unit normal to Σ and dS

is the induced volume element on Σ. It can be shown that the Klein-Gordon inner
product between two solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation will be the same no
matter which Cauchy surface you choose to evaluate it on. Hence, specifying a con-
dition like “ψ must have unit norm (ψ, ψ) = +1” with respect to one Cauchy surface
ensures that the condition will hold for all Cauchy surfaces, and hence that it will
hold consistently throughout the whole spacetime.
Deep and difficult theorems in the theory of differential equations say that, when
there is a Cauchy surface, we can always find some (highly non-unique) orthonormal
basis of solutions {ψi , ψi∗ } such that
(ψi , ψj ) = +δij
(ψi∗ , ψj∗ ) = −δij (5.12)
(ψi , ψj∗ ) = 0.
Since there exists a plethora of such orthonormal bases, the “vacuum” state obtained
by doing standard second quantisation with one such basis in general has no physical
meaning.
However, if there exists a timelike Killing vector k = ∂t , i.e. we are dealing with
a stationary spacetime, then k commutes with the Klein-Gordon operator − m2
and one can find simultaneous eigenmodes of the two operators. The second quan-
tisation procedure can then be used to define a vacuum with a meaningful physical
– 60 –
interpretation, by designating a special subset of these modes as “positive-frequency
modes”. This special set is found as follows. First, note that k is antihermi-
tian: (f, kg) = −(kf, g). Hence it has imaginary eigenvalues kui = −iωi ui with
ωi ∈ R, and eigenfunctions with distinct values are orthogonal.8 We can therefore
find a basis {ψi } satisfying (5.12) such that kψi = −iωi ψi with ωi > 0 and use
this condition as the generalised “positive-frequency” condition with respect to k
(this of course reduces to the original condition in Minkowski spacetime, since there
kψp = ∂t ψp = ip0 ψp = −ip0 ψp with p0 > 0). If we second quantise with these modes,
then the state defined by ai |0i = 0 ∀ i, where ai are the operator coefficients of the
positive-frequency modes in the expansion of the field operator φ(x), is the ground
state of a physically meaningful Hamiltonian
Z
Ĥ = dS µ T̂µν k ν , (5.13)
t=const.
which can be interpreted as the operator corresponding to the total energy on the
surface t = const. So the state |0i is the minimum-energy state on the surface
t = const. in the sense that it is the minimum-eigenvalue eigenstate of Ĥ. In flat
spacetime this just reduces to Z
Ĥ = d3 xT̂00 . (5.14)
The Hamiltonian Ĥ dictates the time-evolution of all operators through the Heisen-
berg equation of motion:
dÔ h i
= i Ĥ, Ô , (5.15)
dt
i.e. it is the operator that generates time-translations.
We now apply this formalism to a simple curved spacetime. Consider a “sandwich

spacetime” (M, g), which is made up of three regions, region B (for bottom), region
C (for centre) and region T (for top). The Klein-Gordon equation holds throughout
the whole spacetime. Region B is stationary and it admits a timelike Killing vector
k B . Region C is not stationary and all sorts of dynamical processes might take place
in it (as long as the whole of M remains globally hyperbolic). In region T the metric
is again stationary, with a new timelike Killing vector k T . If we want to quantise the
field in region B, we choose a set of modes {fi , fi∗ } that satisfy k B fi = −iωi fi with
ωi > 0. On the other hand, in region T , we choose another set of modes {gi , gi∗ } that
satisfy k T gi = −iω̃i gi with ω̃i > 0. Note that even though the positive-frequency
conditions are imposed using the Killing vectors in the two separate regions B and
T , the modes fi and gi all extend throughout the whole of spacetime. In the two
8
As is customary, we discard the pathological “zero mode” ω = 0.
– 61 –
cases, the respective expansions of the field are then
X † ∗
X
† ∗

φ(x) = ai f i + ai f i = bi gi + bi gi (5.16)
i i
where the modes have been normalised with respect to the Klein-Gordon inner prod-
uct in each case such that [ai , a†j ] = δij and [bi , b†j ] = δij . Now, since {fi } is a basis
we can also expand any function gi in terms of it:
X
gi = Aij fj + Bij fj∗ . (5.17)
i
The coefficients Aij and Bij are called Bogoliubov coefficients and the transformation
between different bases is called a Bogoliubov transformation. Using the normalisa-
tion conditions (5.12) it can then be shown that the Bogoliubov coefficients satisfy
the following relations: X
Aik A∗jk − Bik Bjk
∗
= δij
k
X (5.18)
Aik Bjk − Bik Ajk = 0.
k
In matrix notation this can be written as AA† − BB† = 1 and ABT − BAT = 0.
We can also relate the different operator coefficients to each other, e.g.
bi = (gi , φ) = j A∗ij aj − Bij∗ a†j .
P
The procedure above defines a vacuum associated with the modes {fi , fi∗ } —
call it the “in-vacuum” — as the state that satisfies ai |0iin = 0 ∀ i. In a stationary
reference frame in region B, i.e. a frame that follows an integral curve of k T , this
vacuum will appear empty. What about region T ? More precisely, what is the
expected number hNi i of particles of species (or momentum) i in the state |0iin , if
evaluated in a stationary reference frame in region T ? It is given by the expectation
value of the number operator Ni = b†i bi (no summation over i), which is (exercise) :
X
hNi i = in h0|b†i bi |0iin = Bij Bij∗ = (BB† )ii (no summation over i). (5.19)
j
If this is non-zero, there is particle production. Another way to say this is that the
in-vacuum is different from the “out-vacuum” defined by bi |0iout = 0 ∀ i. Hence, a
changing spacetime geometry generically causes particle production.
5.2 QFT in Rindler Space in 1 + 1 dimensions

We will first look at QFT in Rindler space in 1 + 1 dimensions, since it features many
of the aspects that will be relevant in the discussion of Hawking radiation. By QFT
in Rindler space we really mean the field quantisation as it would be carried out by
– 62 –
Figure 17. Minkowski space in 1 + 1 dimensions and the left and right Rindler wedges.
Some accelerated worlines (lines of constant ξL and ξR ) have been drawn.
eternally accelerated observers in Minkowski space. We shall see that such observers,
when travelling through the Minkowski vacuum, will feel themselves immersed in a
thermal bath of particles.
In light-cone coordinates ū = t − x and v̄ = t + x, the line-element of 1 + 1-

dimensional Minkowski space is ds2 = −dūdv̄. In section 1.3.3 we constructed the
Penrose diagram for Rindler space and we considered only the “right Rindler wedge”:
ū < 0, v̄ > 0. This corresponds to the region R in Figure 17. There also exists a left
Rindler wedge ū > 0, v̄ < 0, denoted by L in Figure 17. In the right Rindler wedge,
define the coordinates ξ and η via
t = a−1 eaξ sinh aη
(5.20)
x = a−1 eaξ cosh aη
such that −∞ < ξ, η < ∞ and
ds2 = e2aξ (−dη 2 + dξ 2 ). (5.21)
The proper time measured by a Rindler observer (i.e. along a ξ = const. line) is
τ = e2aξ η if we synchronise it to τ = 0 as the observer passes the x-axis. Hence,
the coordinate η is a physical time-coordinate for the Rindler observer travelling at
constant ξ: it ticks at a rate proportional to the observer’s watch. Now define the
null coordinates u = η − ξ and v = η + ξ, in terms of which the Rindler metric reads
ds2 = −e2aξ dudv. (5.22)
The relation between the Minkowski and Rindler null coordinates is
ū = −a−1 e−au
(5.23)
v̄ = a−1 eav ,
– 63 –
Left Rindler Wedge L Right Rindler Wedge R
t = −a−1 eaξL sinh aηL t = a−1 eaξR sinh aηR

x = −a−1 eaξL cosh aηL x = a−1 eaξR cosh aηR
uL = ηL − ξL uR = ηR − ξR
v L = η L + ξL vR = ηR + ξR
ū = a−1 e−auR ū = −a−1 e−auL

v̄ = −a−1 eavR v̄ = a−1 eavL
ds2 = e2aξL (−dηL2 + dξL2 ) ds2 = e2aξR (−dηR

2 2
+ dξR )
= −e2aξL duL dvL = −e2aξR duR dvR
Table 2. Coordinates in the left and right Rindler wedges and their relations to Minkowski
coordinates.
which implies that

ū → 0 ⇐⇒ u → +∞
(5.24)
v̄ → 0 ⇐⇒ v → −∞,
as shown in Figure 17. Notice the analogy to the relationship between the null
Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates (denoted above as u, v) and the Kruskal coordi-
nates U, V (1.25): U = −e−u/4M and V = ev/4M .
Analogous definitions can be made for coordinates that cover the left Rindler
wedge. The coordinates and line elements for the left and right Rindler wedge are
shown in table 2, where we’ve used subscripts to distinguish between the two wedges.
In this section, Rindler coordinates without subscript always refer to the right wedge.
In fact, the time coordinates ηL = ηR = tanh−1 (t/x) are exactly the same func-
tion of Minkowski coordinates — they just take different ranges in L and R. We can
therefore drop the subscripts on η completely, as long as we remember that η < 0
corresponds to L and η > 0 to R. Lines of η = const. then correspond to lines
through the origin that extend over both L and R. These lines are Cauchy surfaces
for Minkowski spacetime. The vector ∂η is a timelike Killing vector (exercise) in both
L and R, but it is future-pointing in R and past-pointing in L. We now have three
globally hyperbolic manifolds with global future-pointing timelike Killing vectors:
Minkowski space with ∂t , the left Rindler wedge with −∂η , and the right Rindler
– 64 –
wedge with ∂η . In each of these the canonical quantisation procedure outlined in the
preceding section can be applied.
In Minkowski coordinates, the Klein-Gordon equation for the massless scalar

field is (−∂t2 + ∂x2 )φ = 0 and there exists a set of positive frequency “Minkowski”
modes
1
fk = √ exp (−iωk t + ikx) (5.25)
4πωk
with ωk = |k| > 0. It is useful to make the distinction between “left-moving”
and “right-moving” modes, which take a simple form in terms of Rindler light-cone
coordinates:
 1
√
 exp (−iωk ū) k>0 “right-moving”
fk = 4πωk (5.26)
1
√
 exp (−iωk v̄) k<0 “left-moving”.
4πωk
The field expansion is X
φ(x) = ak fk (x) + a†k fk (x)∗ (5.27)
k
and the Minkowski vacuum is defined by ak |0M i = 0 ∀ k.
In R, the Klein-Gordon equation becomes φ = e−2aξ (−∂η2 + ∂ξ2 )φ = 0, which

admits plane wave solutions
1
gkR = √ exp (−iωk η + ikξ) (5.28)
4πωk
with ωk = |k| > 0. These solutions are positive frequency with respect to ∂η . Note
that the functions gkR as defined in (5.28) are only specified for R ⊂ M . An eternally
accelerated observer in R might use these modes to carry out the quantisation of the
scalar field in R, which would lead to a field expansion
X
φ(x) = bk gkR (x) + b†k gkR (x)∗ (5.29)
k
and a vacuum bk |0R i = 0 ∀ k. This vacuum has no (obvious) relation to the

Minkowski vacuum and indeed pertains to an entirely different spacetime manifold
(the Rindler wedge). However, we are interested in a different question here: how
would an eternally accelerated observer travelling through Minkowski spacetime per-
ceive the Minkowski vacuum, i.e. the Poincaré-invariant ground state of Minkowski
spacetime? In order to answer this, we need to decide what the appropriate positive
frequency condition is for such an observer. The Killing vector ∂t is not natural to
Rindler observers, since the coordinate t is not proportional to the physical proper
time measured by a Rindler observer’s watch. Instead, we’ve seen above that the
– 65 –
proper time of a Rindler observer is proportional to η. Hence, the vector ∂η is the
natural Killing vector with respect to which a Rindler would measure frequencies
and define a notion of positive frequency.
We need to extend our definition of the Rindler modes because as defined in (5.28)
they are not specified on a Cauchy surface for M . For example, they are only defined
on half of the Cauchy surface η = 0 (for x > 0). This is easily remedied by defining
the global modes gkR as follows:
 √ 1 exp (−iωk η + ikξ) in R


gkR = 4πωk (5.30)

0 in L.


These modes are defined on an entire Cauchy surface (e.g. η = 0). The set gkR , gkR∗
does not form complete basis for the functions on M yet. For this reason, we also need
to consider the positive-frequency modes in the left wedge L, which are associated
with left-accelerating Rindler observers. These modes are given by
 √ 1 exp (+iωk η + ikξ) in L


gkL = 4πωk (5.31)

0 in R.

and are positive frequency with respect to −∂η in L (remembering that the future-
pointing timelike Killing vector in L is −∂η ). Taken together, the positive-frequency
modes in L and R form a complete set, and so a field configuration φ(x) in Minkowski
space may be expanded as
X
φ(x) = bk gkR (x) + ck gkL (x) + h.c. (5.32)
k
where h.c. denotes Hermitian conjugate. We can now ask: How many R-particles
are expected to be seen in the Minkowski vaccum — how many particles does the
externally accelerated observer in the right wedge see? In other words, what is
h0M |R Nk |0M i, where R Nk = b†k bk ? To simplify things, we specialise our question to
right-movers, for which k > 0 =⇒ ω = k. We need the Bogoliubov coefficients
Z ∞
R
gω = dω 0 (Aωω0 fω0 + Bωω0 fω∗0 ) (5.33)
0
1
where fω0 = (4πω 0 )− 2 exp (−iω 0 ū). Notice the resemblance of this integral with the
Fourier transform of gωR :
Z ∞
1 0
R
gω (ū) = dω 0 e−iω ū g̃ω (ω 0 ) (5.34)
2π −∞
– 66 –
where Z ∞
0 0
g̃ω (ω ) = dū eiω ū gωR (ū) (5.35)
−∞
(for notational convenience we omit the superscript R on the Fourier transform). Our
strategy is now to massage (5.34) into a form that allows us to write the Bogoliubov
coefficients in (5.33) in terms of the Fourier transform g̃ω . To that end, we split up
the integral in (5.34) as follows:
Z ∞ Z ∞
1 0 −iūω 0 0 1 0
R
gω (ū) = dω e g̃ω (ω ) + dω 0 eiūω g̃ω (−ω 0 ). (5.36)
2π 0 2π 0
We flipped the sign of the integration variable ω 0 → −ω 0 in the second term. Com-
paring with (5.33), we find
r r
ω0 ω0
Aωω0 = g̃ω (ω 0 ) and Bωω0 = g̃ω (−ω 0 ). (5.37)
π π
In order to find the Bogoliubov coefficients (5.37), we don’t actually need to evaluate
the Fourier transforms. It is enough if we can relate g̃ω (ω 0 ) to g̃ω (−ω 0 ), since the
additional condition AA† − BB† = 1 then fixes Aωω0 and Bωω0 completely. To do so
we prove the following claim:
Claim: g̃ω (−ω 0 ) = −e−πω/a g̃ω (ω 0 ) if ω 0 > 0.
Proof: The integral defining g̃ω uses gωR in terms of ū. Since u = −a−1 ln(−aū), the
right-moving R-modes take the form
 √ 1 e−i ωa ln(−au) for ū < 0


gωR = 4πωk (5.38)

0 for ū > 0.

The function ln(−z) is multi-valued on the complex plane so we will give it a branch
cut on the positive real axis. Then
Z ∞
0 0
g̃ω (−ω ) = dū e−iω ū gω (ū)
−∞
Z 0 (5.39)
1 −iω 0 ū −i ω ln(−au)
=√ dū e e a .
4πω −∞
Now we deform the path of integration, using the contour shown in Figure 18. The
contour is closed in the upper complex half-plane because the integral over the arc
segment C then vanishes for ω 0 > 0 in the limit as the radius of the arc goes to infinity.
In order to avoid the branch cut we choose γ2 to lie just above the real axis by an
infinitesimal amount i (which we send to zero at the end). Since the integrand has
– 67 –
Figure 18. The contour integral used in the evaluation of gωR (−ω 0 ) with a branch cut of
ln(−z) on the positive real axis.
no poles inside the closed contour (i.e. it is holomorphic there), Cauchy’s integral
theorem implies
I Z Z Z
−iω 0 ū −i ω 0 ω
0 = dū e e a
ln(−au)
= + + dū e−iω ū e−i a ln(−au) . (5.40)
γ1 γ2 C
Strictly speaking, there is another contribution on the right hand side for the integral
from i to 0 (see Figure 18), but this will vanish when we send to zero at the end
so we can forget about it here. Since the integral over the arc C vanishes, it follows
R R
from (5.40) that γ1 = − γ2 , which implies
Z ∞+i
0 1 0 ω
g̃ω (−ω ) = − √ dū e−iω ū e−i a ln(−au)
4πω i
Z −i
1 0 ω
= −√ dū eiω ū e−i a ln(au) (ū ↔ −ū)
4πω −∞−i (5.41)
Z 0
1 0 ω
= −√ dū eiω ū e−i a [ln(−au)−iπ] ( → 0)
4πω −∞
= −e−πω/a g̃ω (ω 0 )
as claimed.
Hence we have Aωω0 = −e−πω/a Bωω0 , which together with |Aωω |2 − |Bωω |2 = 1
implies
1
h0M |R Nω |0M i = (BB† )ωω = |Bωω |2 = 2πω/a . (5.42)
e −1
~a
This corresponds to a Planck spectrum with temperature T = 2πkB
.
– 68 –
In fact, we can show more: the state |0M i is the thermal state with respect to
the Rindler Hamiltonian ĤR , i.e. the Hamiltonian associated with a hypersurface
η = const. in the right Rindler wedge (in other words, ĤR generates time-translations
along ∂η ). Mathematically this statement is
e−β ĤR
TrL (|0M ih0M |) = (5.43)
he−β ĤR i
where β = (kb T )−1 = 2πkb /~a. To show this, it is convenient to introduce so-called
Unruh modes, which are positive frequency with respect to ∂t , i.e. they are linear
combinations of fk -modes. The Unruh mode of frequency k is defined as
1
eπω/2a gkR + e−πω/2a g−k
L

zk = p . (5.44)
2 sinh ωπ/a
In order to form a complete set, they must be complemented by the modes
1
zk0 = p e−πω/2a g−k
R
+ eπω/2a gkL .

(5.45)
2 sinh ωπ/a
The modes zk and zk0 together with their complex conjugates form a complete basis
for functions on Minkowski space. Hence, the field can be equally well expanded in
terms of them: X
φ(x) = dk zk (x) + dk0 zk0 (x) + h.c. (5.46)
k
Comparing this with (5.32) we can read off

1
0†

bk = p eπω/2a dk + e−πω/2a d−k
2 sinh ωπ/a
(5.47)
1
†

ck = p eπω/2a dk0 + e−πω/2a d−k
2 sinh ωπ/a
Since the Unruh modes are positive frequency with respect to ∂t , the Minkowski
vacuum satisfies dk |0M i = dk0 |0M i = 0 ∀ k. Now define the Rindler vacuum |0Rd i
by ck |0Rd i = bk |0Rd i = 0 ∀ k and further the (unnormalised) left- and right-wedge
n-particle states
n, k = (b† )n |0Rd i n, k = (c† )n |0Rd i .
R L
k and k (5.48)
Then it can be shown that

Y ∞
X
−1
e−nπω/a R n, k L n, k

|0M i = (cosh φk ) (5.49)
k n=0
where φk is defined by tanh φk = e−πω/a . This state is perfectly entangled between

the left and right Rindler wedges: if a measurement is done in R in which n right-
wedge particles are found, then we know with certainty that the post-measurement
– 69 –
state has n left-wedge particles. To find the state ρR in R, we need to trace over the
states in L via the “partial trace” TrL . Defining En = nω, we obtain
∞ Y
X e−βEn e−β ĤR
P∞ −βE R n, k R n, k =

ρR = TrL |0M i h0M | = (5.50)

m=0 e he−β ĤR i
m
n=0 k
as claimed above. This reveals something perhaps surprising about the Minkowski
vacuum: it is not a local quantity at all, i.e. it is not a state of the form
(vacuum at x1 ) ⊗ (vacuum at x2 ) ⊗ (vacuum at x3 ) ⊗ . . .
Instead, it is a highly entangled state whose fluctuations are correlated throughout

spacetime.
The actual physical meaning of the results above may perhaps seem a bit ob-
scure. We considered the quantisation of a quantum field “appropriate to a Rindler
observer” in Minkowski space, which led us to conclude that a Rindler observer is
immersed in a thermal bath of radiation. How convincing were our arguments for
choosing some appropriate quantisation scheme? How would an eternally accelerated
observer actually measure the radiation? To put the results derived above on more
solid grounds, Bill Unruh constructed a simple model of a detector (nowadays known
as an Unruh-deWitt detector) and showed that an accelerated detector in Minkowski
space behaves as if it were in a thermal bath of particles. This effect is known as the
Unruh effect. Hawking radiation, which we discuss next, is a phenomenon closely
related to this effect.
5.3 QFT in the spacetime of a spherical collapsing star:

Hawking Radiation
Consider the spacetime that corresponds to a spherically symmetric collapsing star,
heavy enough to form a black hole. The Penrose diagram is shown in Figure 19.
This is a curved spacetime that is globally hyperbolic (for instance J − is a Cauchy
surface). Even though the Schwarzschild black hole solution is a static spacetime, the
collapsing star spacetime is not: the formation of the black hole involves complicated
dynamics. However, the spacetime is approximately stationary in the far asymptotic
past (i.e. near J − ) and in the far asymptotic future (i.e. near J + ). Therefore
we can perform a second quantisation associated with stationary observers near J −
(which leads to the so-called in-vacuum), and a second quantisation associated with
stationary observers near J + . We can then ask the question we asked in the example
of the “sandwich spacetime” above: will observers in the far future see particles in
the in-vacuum?
– 70 –
Figure 19. Penrose diagram of the spherically symmetric collapsing star.
The field expansion defining the in-vacuum can be constructed by specifying

a complete set of positive-frequency modes on J − . For the quantisation in the far
future, it is not sufficient to define a complete set on J + , because J + is not a Cauchy
surface for the spacetime (for example, causal curves that end on the singularity
never register on J + ). However, the surface H + ∪ J + is a Cauchy surface, so we can
quantise the field in the far future by specifying a complete set on it. Hence there
will be three sets of modes:
fi : positive frequency on J −
gi : positive frequency on J + and zero on H + (5.51)
+ +
hi : positive frequency on H and zero on J .
(Strictly speaking, there is no timelike Killing vector on H + — recall that ∂t is null
on the horizon — so the term “positive frequency” is somewhat misleading there.
However, the outcome of the calculation does not actually depend on the choice of
modes hi , so we can just choose an arbitrary set of modes on H + and declare those
as the “positive frequency” modes, i.e. attach them to annihilation operators in the
field expansion, as long as together with gi they form a complete set. For more detail,
see Wald §14.3.) The set {fi , fi∗ } is complete. The sets {gi , gi∗ } and {hi , h∗i } are not
complete by themselves but together they form a complete set. We can expand the
field in two ways:
X X
φ(x) = ai fi (x) + h.c. = bi gi (x) + ci hi (x) + h.c. (5.52)
i i
As before, to find out what observers at late times on J + see in the state |0in i
defined by ai |0in i = 0 ∀ i, we will evaluate hNi i = (BB† )ii , for which we need the
Bogoliubov coefficients in the expansion
X
gi = Aij fj + Bij fj∗ . (5.53)
j
– 71 –
If we could find the exact solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation, this would
be a fairly straight-forward task: once the positive-frequency solutions gi on J + are
specified, we can do the analog of a Fourier transform to find their expansion in terms
of fi and fi∗ on J − (such an expansion always exists since {fi , fi∗ } is a complete set
of functions) and read off the Bogoliubov coefficients. However, we will see in a
moment that the Klein-Gordon equation is complicated in Schwarzschild spacetime,
which prevents us from finding analytic solutions. Instead, we will ask: if a given
solution to the Klein-Gordon equation is asymptotically positive-frequency at J + ,
then what is its form at J − ? In other words, we will impose a boundary condition
to the solution at J + and investigate what its corresponding form must be on J − .
This amounts to “tracing back in time” the solution from J + to J − .
The metric of the Schwarschild black hole spacetime with coordinates (t, r∗ , θ, φ)
reads
2 2M
ds = 1 − (−dt2 + dr∗2 ) + r2 dΩ22 . (5.54)
r
We will also use the light-cone coordinates u = t − r∗ and v = t + r∗ below. Using
the handy formula
1 √
= ∇µ ∇µ = √ ∂µ −gg µν ∂ν

(5.55)
−g
we can find the Klein-Gordon equation for the field φ(t, r∗ , θ, φ). Expanding the
solution in spherical harmonics φ(t, r∗ , θ, φ) = χl (r∗ , t)Ylm (θ, φ) we find
∂t2 − ∂r2∗ + Vl (r∗ ) χl = 0

(5.56)
where
2M l(l + 1) 2M
Vl (r∗ ) = 1 − + 3 . (5.57)
r r2 r
Set χl (r∗ , t) = e−iωt Rlω (r∗ ) so that
(∂r2∗ + ω 2 )Rωl = Vl Rωl . (5.58)
This equation can be cast into a form known as the confluent Heun equation, whose
solutions have been studied to some extent but are complicated. We can gain some
insight into the solutions by looking more closely at the potential Vl (r∗ ). Both near
the horizon H + (r → 2M ⇐⇒ r∗ → −∞) and near J ± (r → ∞ ⇐⇒ r∗ → ∞),
the potential tends to zero — it takes the form of a potential barrier, as shown in
Figure 20. Hence, if we consider how any particular solution to (5.58) evolves in
time, it will be partly transmitted and partly reflected as it comes in from r∗ = ∞.
– 72 –
Figure 20. The potential Vl as a function of r∗ (shown here for l = 1).
Near J ± , the solutions to (5.56) are just plane waves. The equivalent of right-
moving and left-moving for a radial coordinate is outgoing and ingoing (correspond-
ing, respectively, to r∗ increasing or decreasing with time) so we define “early modes”
1 Ylm
flmω+ = √ e−iωu (outgoing)
2πω r
(5.59)
1 Ylm
flmω− = √ e−iωv (ingoing)
2πω r
at J − , and “late modes”

1 Ylm
glmω+ = √ e−iωu (outgoing)
2πω r
(5.60)
1 Ylm
glmω− =√ e−iωv (ingoing)
2πω r
at J + . We will be interested mainly in ingoing early modes and outgoing late modes,
so we will use the shorthand notation
fω ∼ flmω−
(5.61)
gω ∼ glmω+ .
We need to express gω in terms of fω0 and fω∗0 on J − . First, note that plane waves
such as gω are in fact completely delocalised, i.e. they have support everywhere on
J + . However, using a superposition of such positive frequency plane waves, we can
always construct a localised “wave packet” on J + (for example a Gaussian packet)
and we can choose it to be peaked around some momentum ω0 and around some
coordinate value u0 . Hence, when we speak of the “outgoing mode at late times” we
really mean a linear combination of outgoing modes on J + . Keeping this in mind,
– 73 –
Figure 21. The BLA.
we phrase our argument below in terms gω for simplicity.
In order to find the expansion of the late mode in terms of early modes, we can
trace the solution back in time. As the wave travels inwards from J + (toward de-
creasing values of r∗ ), it will encounter the potential barrier. One part of the wave,
(r)
call it gω , will be reflected and end up on J − with the same frequency ω. This
will correspond to a term of the form Aωω0 ∝ δ(ω − ω 0 ) in (5.53). The remaining
(t)
part gω of gω will be transmitted through the barrier and will enter the collapsing
matter. In that region, the precise geometry of spacetime is unknown. However,
since we are interested in a packet peaked at late times (i.e. large u0 ) and at some
finite frequency ω0 , we know that the packet will be peaked at a very high frequency
as it enters the collapsing matter due to the gravitational blueshift. This leads to an
important simplification: the packet will obey the geometric optics approximation,
which means that gω takes the form A(x)eiS(x) where A(x) is slowly varying com-
pared to S. Substituting this into the Klein-Gordon equation gives ∇µ S∇µ S = 0,
which means that surfaces of constant phase are null. Given a wave, we can therefore
trace its surfaces of constant phase back in time by following null geodesics.
Consider tracing back the wave along a particular null geodesic γ which starts
off at some u = u0 at J + and hits J − at v = v0 . as in Figure 21. We denote
by γH a null generator of the horizon H + , which has been extended into the past
– 74 –
until it hits J − at some value of v. We may set this value to v = 0 without loss
of generality, since the spacetime is invariant under shifts v → v + c. In that case
we have v0 < 0 for the geodesic γ. Let n be a connecting vector between the two
curves as shown in Figure 21. Fix its normalisation by requiring n.` = −1, where `
is a generator of the Killing horizon H + . Near the horizon, the Kruskal coordinate
U = −e−κu is an affine distance along n and we can use it to measure the distance
between γ and γH (1.25). In order to find the form of the wave at J − , we need to
understand how the affine distance along the connecting vector n will change by the
time γ reaches J − . At J − , the coordinate v is an affine parameter along the null
geodesic integral curves of n. If U0 = 0 (corresponding to u0 = ∞) then the affine
distance is zero at J − . Hence we can expand the affine distance between γ and γH
at J − in powers of U0 : v = cU0 + O(U02 ) for some constant c > 0 (since U, v < 0).
Using u = −κ−1 ln(−U ) = −κ−1 ln(−cv), we can conclude that if a mode takes the
(t)
form gω ∼ e−iωu on J + , the transmitted part gω on J − will take the form
( ω
(t) ei κ ln(−v) for v < 0
gω ∼ (5.62)
0 for v > 0
up to a constant phase. This is exactly analogous to the Rindler modes in the

previous section, with κ ↔ a. We have Aωω0 = e−πω/κ Bωω0 and therefore
1
hNω i ∝ (5.63)
e~ω/kB T −1
~κ
where the Hawking temperature is given by T = 2πk B
. Since this temperature is
inversely proportional to the mass, the black hole heats up as it evaporates.
– 75 –

Bh-Notes-2014 - 15 Imperial College

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bh-Notes-2014 - 15 Imperial College

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bh-Notes-2014 - 15 Imperial College

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Black Holes

MSc in Quantum Fields and Fundamental Forces

1 The Schwarzschild Black Hole 3

2 Charged & Rotating Black Holes 23

3 Killing Vectors & Killing Horizons 30

4 Black Hole Thermodynamics 46

• K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, Picador, 1994.

• W. Israel, Dark Stars: The Evolution of an Idea, in Three Hundred Years of

• S.W. Hawking & G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,

• R.M. Wald, General Relativity, Chicago University Press, 1984.

• S. M. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity,

• P. Townsend, Black Holes. Available online at arXiv:gr-qc/9707012.

This is a series of lectures by Hawking and Penrose concluded by a final debate.

The line-element (1.1) is the unique spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat

The action of a massive relativistic particle moving in a spacetime (M, g) along

reveals a constant of motion along the geodesic xµ (τ ):

A particle starting at rest at infinity has  = 1 at R = ∞ and therefore  = 1 ev-

Plugging (1.8) into (1.4) we obtain

We immediately see that Ṙ vanishes at

R = Rmax ≡ 2M/(1 − 2 ) > 2M (1.12)

and at R = 2M , as illustrated in Figure 1. The zero at Rmax simply corresponds

which is indeed finite. The peculiar behaviour near R = 2M has disappeared — a

1.1 Eddington-Finkelstein Coordinates

The range 2M < r < ∞ corresponds to −∞ < r∗ < ∞, since r∗ → −∞ as

1.1.1 Ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

This metric is perfectly regular at r = 2M (i.e. it is non-degenerate: det gµν 6= 0).

Figure 3 shows radial ingoing (v = const.) and outgoing (u = const.) null

We call the surface r = 2M (a two-sphere in 3 + 1 dimensions) the event horizon

1.1.2 Outgoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

The metric in OEF coordinates is given by

1.2 Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates

This region is a mirror image of region I, which can be seen by defining

1.3 Penrose Diagrams

Definition. A conformal transformation is a map from a spacetime (M, g) to a

g̃µν (x) = Λ(x)2 gµν (x)

where Λ(x) is a smooth function of the spacetime coordinates and Λ(x) 6= 0 ∀ x.

Conformal transformations preserve the causal structure of a spacetime. To see

gµν V µ V ν > 0 ⇐⇒ g̃µν V µ V ν > 0

Hence, curves that are timelike/null/spacelike with respect to g are timelike/null/

The idea of a Penrose diagram is this. First, we use a coordinate transformation

1.3.1 Example 1: Minkowski space in 1 + 1 dimensions

ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 (1.30)

where −∞ < t, x < ∞. We introduce light-cone coordinates u = t − x and v = t + x,

ds2 = −dudv. (1.31)

ds̃2 = (cos ũ cos ṽ)2 ds2 = −dũdṽ. (1.34)

1.3.2 Example 2: Minkowski space in 3 + 1 dimensions

ds2 = −dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 (1.35)

can be written in terms of spherical polar coordinates (t, r, θ, φ) by choosing an

ds2 = −dt2 + dr2 + r2 dΩ22 (1.36)

ds̃2 = −dT̃ 2 + dχ2 + sin2 χdΩ22 . (1.39)

1.3.3 Example 3: Rindler space in 1 + 1 dimensions

Consider the one-parameter family of Rindler observers depicted in Figure 9.

worldlines of the accelerated observers in Figure 9. To obtain the Rindler metric, we

1.3.4 Example 4: Kruskal space in 3 + 1 dimensions

We perform the usual conformal transformation, which leaves us with

ds̃2 = (2 cos Ũ cos Ṽ )2 ds2

tan Ũ tan Ṽ = 1 ⇐⇒ sin Ũ sin Ṽ = cos Ũ cos Ṽ ⇐⇒ cos(Ũ + Ṽ ) = 0 (1.44)

which implies Ũ + Ṽ = ± π2 , or T̃ = ± π4 if we define T̃ and X̃ through Ũ = T̃ − X̃

1.3.5 Example 5: de Sitter space in 3 + 1 dimensions

A particle starting at rest at infinity has = 1 at R = ∞ and therefore = 1 ev-

R = Rmax ≡ 2M/(1 − 2 ) > 2M (1.12)