## Abstract

Isolated Horizons have played an important role in gravitational physics, from characterization of the endpoint of black hole mergers to black hole entropy. With an eye towards a canonical formulation we consider general relativity in first order form. We focus on two issues: i) The role of the internal gauge freedom in consistent formulations of the action principle, and ii) the role a 3+1 decomposition has in the allowed internal gauge. We clarify how the requirement of well posed variational principles compatible with general weakly isolated horizons (WIHs) does lead to a partial gauge fixing in the first order descriptions used previously in the literature. We consider the Palatini action together with the Holst extension, with and without boundary terms at the horizon. We show that, for the complete configuration space --with no gauge fixing--, the Palatini action is differentiable without additional surface terms at the WIH boundary, but the more general Holst action is not. A surface term at the horizon --that renders the action for asymptotically flat configurations differentiable-- makes the Holst action differentiable, but only if one restricts configuration space and partially reduces the internal Lorentz gauge. For the second issue, we show that upon performing a 3+1 decomposition and imposing the time gauge, there is a further gauge reduction of the Hamiltonian theory in terms of Ashtekar-Barbero variables to a $U(1)$-gauge theory on the horizon. We show that even when the Holst action is differentiable without additional surface terms or any gauge fixing for Type I spherically symmetric (strongly) isolated horizons --and a preferred foliation--, this result does not go through for more general isolated or weakly isolated horizons. Our results represent the first comprehensive study of these issues and clarify some contradictory statements found in the literature.

## Full Text

### Topics from this Paper

- Complete Configuration Space
- Internal Gauge
- Isolated Horizons
- Holst Action
- Additional Surface Terms + Show 5 more

Create a personalized feed of these topics

Get Started#### Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call### Similar Papers

- Classical and Quantum Gravity
- Mar 21, 2017

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jun 11, 2009

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Nov 12, 2010

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jul 16, 2010

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Dec 19, 2007

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Mar 29, 2005

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Mar 27, 2007

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jan 19, 2013

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jan 1, 2005

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Sep 9, 2005

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Feb 25, 2010

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Dec 21, 2004

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jan 28, 2004

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- Jun 23, 2003

### arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 26, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 26, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 25, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 25, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 22, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 20, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 17, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 14, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 6, 2021

- arXiv: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
- May 6, 2021