Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Rapid Communication
  • Access by Xinjiang University

A Young-Laplace law for black hole horizons

José Luis Jaramillo

  • Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert Einstein Institut, Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany

Phys. Rev. D 89, 021502(R) – Published 22 January, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.021502

Abstract

Black hole horizon sections, modeled as marginally outer trapped surfaces (MOTS), possess a notion of stability admitting a spectral characterization. Specifically, the “principal eigenvalue” λo of the MOTS-stability operator (an elliptic operator on horizon sections) must be nonnegative. We discuss the expression of λo for axisymmetric stationary black hole horizons and show that, remarkably, it presents the form of the Young-Laplace law for soap bubbles in equilibrium, if λo is identified with a formal pressure difference between the inner and outer sides of the “bubble.” In this view, which endorses the existing fluid analogies for black hole horizons, MOTS-stability is interpreted as a consequence of a pressure increase in the black hole trapped region.

Article Text

References (29)

  1. L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 71 (1973).
  2. T. Damour, Thèse de doctorat d’État, Université Paris 6, 1979; T. DamourProceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982), p. 587.
  3. R. H. Price and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 33, 915 (1986).
  4. K. S. Thorne, R. H. Price, and D. A. MacDonald, Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986).
  5. V. E. Hubeny, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 114007 (2011).
  6. D. M. Eardley, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2299 (1998).
  7. D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D 66, 044011 (2002).
  8. V. Cardoso and O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 181601 (2006).
  9. L. Andersson, M. Mars, and W. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 111102 (2005); Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 12, 853 (2008).
  10. I. Booth and S. Fairhurst, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084019 (2007).
  11. S. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6467 (1994).
  12. A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Living Rev. Relativity 7, 10 (2004).
  13. A. Ashtekar, C. Beetle, and J. Lewandowski, Classical Quantum Gravity 19, 1195 (2002).
  14. In the following, we only use points (i) and (ii) of Theorem 1. They can be proved following exactly the steps in Theorem 1 of [16], but dropping the assumption of vanishing λo. A full proof, including also point (iii), will be presented elsewhere.

  15. M. Reiris, private communication.
  16. M. Mars, Classical Quantum Gravity 29, 145019 (2012).
  17. We note that the combination λo*=λo+Λ is the relevant one in the horizon area-charge inequalities incorporating Λ [29].

  18. S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys. 321, 629 (2013).
  19. P. Davies, Proc. R. Soc. A 353, 499 (1977).
  20. Notice the role of Ωa() in the (Komar) angular momentum J=18πSΩa()ϕadA associated with an axial Killing vector ϕa.

  21. M. Kac, Am. Math. Mon. 73, 1 (1966).
  22. M. Engman and R. C. Soto, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 47, 033503 (2006).
  23. M. Berry, in Comportement chaotique des systèmes détermi-nistes, Les Houches XXXVI (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981), p. 173.
  24. A quantum/semiclassical model for BH interiors could do so, the Young-Laplace law then constraining its classical limit.

  25. J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195, 177 (1987).
  26. D. Kastor, S. Ray, and J. Traschen, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 195011 (2009).
  27. M. Cvetič, G. W. Gibbons, D. Kubizňák, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024037 (2011).
  28. J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1407 (1993).
  29. W. Simon, Classical Quantum Gravity 29, 062001 (2012).

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation