Prepared for submission to JHEP

Thermodynamics of Many Black Holes

arXiv:2012.15561v1 [gr-qc] 31 Dec 2020

Ruth Gregorya,b,c Zheng Liang Limb Andrew Scoinsb

a Department of Physics, King’s College London, The Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
b Centre for Particle Theory, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK
c Perimeter Institute, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y5, Canada
E-mail: [Link]@[Link], [Link]@[Link]

Abstract: We discuss the thermodynamics of an array of collinear black holes

which may be accelerating. We prove a general First Law, including variations
in the tensions of strings linking and accelerating the black holes. We analyse the
implications of the First Law in a number of instructive cases, including that of the C-
metric, and relate our findings to the previously obtained thermodynamics of slowly
accelerating black holes in anti-de Sitter spacetime. The concept of thermodynamic
length is found to be robust and a Christoudoulou-Ruffini formula for the C-metric
is shown.
Contents
1 Overview 1

2 Four dimensional Weyl metrics: black hole arrays 3

2.1 The Schwarzschild solution 4
2.2 Rindler space 5
2.3 Many black holes 6

3 Thermodynamics of an array of black holes 9

3.1 Deriving the thermodynamic parameters 9
3.2 The First Law of Thermodynamics 11

4 Exploring Multi-Black Hole Spacetimes 14

4.1 Non-accelerating arrays 14
4.1.1 Schwarzschild with a string 14
4.1.2 Two black holes 15
4.1.3 Three black holes 15
4.2 Accelerating arrays 19
4.2.1 The C-metric 20
4.2.2 Two accelerating black holes 21

5 Conclusions 23

A Coordinate systems for the C-metric 24

1 Overview
Black hole thermodynamics is a rich subject, straddling both the classical and quan-
tum aspects of gravity. The thermodynamic charges of a black hole such as entropy
and temperature, while intrinsically quantum in nature, are related to classical at-
tributes such as horizon area and surface gravity [1–4]. Indeed, it was considering
the classical response of a black hole to infalling matter that led Bardeen, Carter,
and Hawking to make the link between black hole variations and the First Law of
thermodynamics in their seminal paper [5].
More recently, our understanding of black hole thermodynamics and the inter-
pretation of the various parameters has also been improving. The first law of ther-
modynamics in gravitational systems has been more comprehensively understood as

–1–
an extended thermodynamical law by including pressure in the guise of variations in
vacuum energy [6–10], and a more complete understanding of the nature of “M ” for
the black hole has emerged as the enthalpy of the system [7]; see [11] for a review.
These attempts at understanding the First Law have largely considered single,
isolated, black holes, as in the Kerr-Newman family of solutions. However, there are
more complex, and therefore more interesting, multi-black hole systems for which
exact solutions are known. Such geometries are thus amenable to thermodynamic
analysis. For example, the Israel-Khan solution [12] is an asymptotically flat geom-
etry consisting of two black holes kept apart by a “strut”—a conical defect with an
angular excess—corresponding to a negative tension cosmic string. More generally,
one can sacrifice global asymptotic flatness to remove the unphysical negative-tension
defect by running a positive tension cosmic string through the spacetime [13–15]. In
doing so, one retains local asymptotic flatness away from the core. Generalising fur-
ther, the accelerating black hole, encoded in the C-metric [16, 17], consists of a black
hole with a protruding cosmic string [18] (or an imbalance between antipodal strings)
that provides an accelerating force. In this case, not only is asymptotic flatness lost
near the string extending to spatial infinity, but a non-compact acceleration horizon
forms. Such systems beg the question: how does one define thermodynamics for a
geometry which is neither asymptotically flat, an isolated black hole, nor (in the case
of the Israel-Khan solution) stable?
Early thermodynamic investigations of black holes with conical defects focused
on a fixed deficit threading the horizon [13, 19–22], or a deficit “variation” during the
capture of a cosmic string [23]. The thermodynamic consequences of a truly varying
deficit, however, were not worked out until recently. In particular, an accelerating,
asymptotically locally anti-de Sitter black hole has provided a context within which
one maintains excellent computational control. This is owing both to one’s ability to
accelerate a black hole without forming an acceleration horizon, and the availability
of the holographic dictionary [24]. A fully general First Law was hence derived
[25, 26], accounting for a variation in a string’s tension µ:
δM = T δS − λδµ + · · · . (1.1)
This tension comes paired with a conjugate thermodynamic potential λ, christened
the thermodynamic length of the string [26]. These results were later generalised to
accelerating black holes carrying rotational and U (1) gauge charge [27, 28]. Interest-
ingly, the expression for thermodynamic tension parallels that of the gravitational
tension of Kaluza-Klein black strings [29–31], a set-up with no conical deficits.
Some understanding of the origin of thermodynamic length has also arisen. Con-
sidering a system of two black holes coupled by a strut, Krtouš and Zelnikov [32] have
found a thermodynamic length corresponding to the strut worldvolume evaluated at
some fixed time. This has since been verified for similarly coupled Kerr-Newman
black holes [33, 34].

–2–
 One should expect that if gravitational solutions are truly representatives of
a first law of thermodynamics in the classical limit, then one will find common
features no matter the number of black holes involved. We demonstrate this here,
by calculating variations of an array of collinear black holes – connected by strings –
which may be accelerated by external strings so as to form an acceleration horizon.
We allow all parameters in the solution to vary and thereby prove a general First
Law, X X
δM = TI δSI − λJ δµJ , (1.2)
I J

wherein the temperatures TI and entropies SI of the compact black hole horizons con-
tribute together with the thermodynamic lengths λJ and tensions µJ of the strings.
We justify the quantities appearing in (1.2), and consider its implications in a number
of instructive cases, including a triple black hole system and the C-metric geometry.
A key feature of our result is that the system behaves as a composite; the individual
black holes are not thermodynamically isolated, but each interacts with the other, a
variation of one having implications for all the rest.
Note also that the First Law (1.2) further supports the notion of M as en-
thalpy [7], even though there is no cosmological constant present here. The energy
momentum of the conical deficit, or cosmic string, takes the form of a worldsheet
cosmological constant: the string has a tension equal in magnitude and opposite in
sign to its energy density. Thus, the “−δµJ ” term in (1.2) is in fact a “+δpJ ” term, or
pressure term, for the cosmic string. That the First Law contains a λδp, rather than
pδλ is indicative that M truly represents an enthalpy, and not an internal energy as
previously imagined.
The outline of the paper is as follows: In section 2, we review the construction
of black hole arrays and acceleration horizons in Weyl gauge [35]. In section 3
we formulate a First Law for such systems, justifying the charges and potentials
involved. Section 4 discusses implications of the result via some instructive examples
and contains a novel Christodoulou-Ruffini mass formula [36] for the C-Metric.

2 Four dimensional Weyl metrics: black hole arrays

In this section we briefly review the multi-black hole solutions we will be analysing.
We will largely follow the presentation of [37], with minor notational changes. The
main new result in this section is a discussion of the determination of the acceleration
scale for an array of accelerating black holes in (2.31). The black holes are aligned
along an axis, and are static in the sense of possessing a time-like Killing isometry in
the region between the black hole and acceleration horizons. Though an Israel-Khan-
like solution for two rotating black holes is known [38], solutions for three or more
Kerr black holes remain elusive. We want to consider an arbitrary number of horizons

–3–
and thus will sidestep any discussion of rotation. One expects that rotational charges
may be included in the obvious way, once an appropriate geometry is written down.
With temporal and axial symmetry, the metric can be written in a block diag-
onal (Weyl) form, with metric functions γ, ν, and α depending only on transverse
coordinates r and z:
ds2 = e2γ dt2 − e2(ν−γ) (dr2 + dz 2 ) − α2 e−2γ dφ2 . (2.1)
The Einstein equations are:
∆α = −8πGαe2(ν−γ) [Trr + Tzz ] (2.2)
∇γ · ∇α h i
∆γ + = 4πGe2(ν−γ) Ttt − Trr − Tzz − Tφφ (2.3)
α
∆ν + (∇γ)2 = −8πGe2(ν−γ) Tφφ (2.4)
∂±2 α ∂± α
+ 2(∂± γ)2 − 2∂± ν = 8πG[Trr − Tzz ± 2iTrz ] (2.5)
α α
where Tab is the energy momentum tensor of any bulk matter, ∆ is the two dimen-
sional Laplacian (∂r2 + ∂z2 = ∂+ ∂− ), with ∂± = ∂r ∓ i∂z the derivatives with respect
to the complex coordinates (r ± iz)/2.
In the absence of matter or a cosmological constant, these have a very elegant
solution: one simply fixes the conformal gauge freedom remaining in the metric (2.1)
by setting α ≡ r/K, which is consistent with (2.2). Note, we introduce the parameter
K here to maintain a 2π periodicity of the φ−coordinate; this will become relevant
when we discuss conical sources. With α ∝ r, (2.3) becomes a cylindrical Laplace
equation for γ in vacuo, with solution
S(r0 )d3 r0
Z
γ = −2G (2.6)
|r − r0 |
for a source with energy density S(r). Note then that the metric component γ is
nothing but the Newtonian source of axial symmetry. In turn, ν is determined from
γ via (2.5). Since the equation for γ is linear, its solutions can be superposed; the
nonlinearity of Einstein gravity shows up in the solution of ν. Note that, since
regularity of the r-axis requires ν(0, z) = − log K, in general there will be conical
singularities when regular solutions for γ are superposed. These can be interpreted
as strings or struts supporting the static sources in equilibrium.

2.1 The Schwarzschild solution

As described in [37], a black hole may be represented by a finite-length line source1 ,
8πGS(r) = δ(r)/r for z ∈ [−m, m], yielding
1 m dz 0 R− − z−
Z
1
γS = − 2 0 2 1/2
= log , (2.7)
2 −m [r + (z − z ) ] 2 R+ − z+
1
We make the gauge choice to centre the rod at z = 0.

–4–
where
2
Z± = z ∓ m , R± = r2 + Z±2 . (2.8)
Integration of (2.5) then gives
1 E+−
νS = log , (2.9)
2 2R+ R−
where
E+− = R+ R− + Z+ Z− + r2 . (2.10)
Although this does not look like the familiar Schwarzschild black hole, the simple
transformation
z = (ρ − m) cos θ , r2 = ρ(ρ − 2m) sin2 θ (2.11)
in fact returns the metric to its standard spherical form, with 2m = 2GMS repre-
senting the Schwarzschild radius.

2.2 Rindler space

Interestingly, one can formally introduce an acceleration
horizon by adding a semi-infinite line source (SILM) [39],
where 8πGS(r) = δ(r)/r for z > z0 :
1 ∞ dz 0 1 R0 − Z0
Z
γR = − 2 0 2 1/2
→ ln , (2.12)
2 z0 [r + (z − z ) ] 2 `γ
p
where Z0 = (z−z0 ), R0 = r2 + Z02 , and the infinite integral
has been regulated by the lengthscale `γ . Solving for ν yields
the Rindler metric in Weyl coordinates:
(R0 − Z0 ) 2 `γ `γ r2
ds2 = dt − [dr2 +dz 2 ]− dφ2 . (2.13)
`γ 2R0 (R0 − Z0 ) Figure 1. Rindler
Since Rindler spacetime is simply flat spacetime as observed worldlines of observers
by an accelerating observer, we can transform (2.12) to with differing accelera-
Minkowski spacetime (in cylindrical polars) via the trans- tions but same horizon.
formation
τ 2 + ρ2 − ζ 2
 
`γ τ +ζ ρp 2
t= log , r= ζ − τ 2 , z − z0 = . (2.14)
2 ζ −τ `γ 2`γ
The origin of Minkowski corresponds to z = z0 , r = 0, (i.e. the start of the SILM),
p
as expected. The origin of the Weyl system corresponds to ζ = 2`γ z0 , which gives
a natural choice of gauge for the Weyl system. Note that the values of z0 and `γ
are independent from the perspective of solving the Einstein equations, the former
is a gauge choice—the origin of the z-coordinate—and the latter because the same
Rindler horizon can apply to observers with differing accelerations A = 1/`γ ; see
figure 1. Interpreting the origin of the Weyl system as the location of the accelerating
observer, thus fixing the gauge, gives z0 = 1/2A from ζ = 1/A.

–5–
2.3 Many black holes
Now we can consider superposing solutions for γ, to build up multi-black hole so-
lutions as described in [37]. We will briefly review these solutions, using a slightly
different notation to [37] that is more suited to our argument. Each black hole is
represented by a rod of length 2mI , I = 1..N , and acceleration is represented by
a SILM as described above. We will label the rod ends at zi , where i = 1..n and
z1 < z2 < ... If we have an array of accelerating black holes, n = 2N + 1, and
the SILM begins at zn , if we have an array of (non-accelerating) black holes, then
n = 2N is even. This arrangement is depicted in figure 2

(z, ρ)

R2I−1 Rn
R2I

··· ··· z
z1 z2 · · · z2I−1 z2I · · · z2N −1 z2N zn
2m1 2mI 2mN

Figure 2. The source arrangement for the multi-black hole system of section 2.3. In the
non-accelerating case, the point zn , representing the start of the SILM (thick red arrow),
and the SILM itself are absent; its neighbouring string (dashed black) instead extends to
z → ∞.

A natural generalisation of previous notation is

Zi = z − zi , Ri2 = r2 + Zi2 ,
(2.15)
Xi = Ri − Zi , Eij = Ri Rj + Zi Zj + r2 .

The solution for γ is simply the superposition of the general potentials from (2.7),
with ν then obtained by quadrature:
n
1X Xi
γ= (−1)i+1 log ,
2 i=1 `γ
n (2.16)
1X Eij
ν= (−1)i+j+1 log 2 + On γ .
4 i,j=1 `ν

Here, the `’s are integration constants that cancel only if n is even, and On acts as
a “switch” for additional terms when n is odd:
(
jnk 1 n odd
On = n − 2 = . (2.17)
2 0 n even

–6–
 As we move to the thermodynamics of the system, we will need the limit of these
functions as we approach the axis, r → 0. We therefore conclude this subsection by
finding the behaviour of (2.16) as r → 0, and discussing the conical deficits on the
axis. Noting that Ri → |Zi | as r → 0, we see that
(
r2 2|Zi | z < zi
Xi ∼ |Zi | − Zi + = r2 , (2.18)
2|Zi | z > zi2Zi

hence
p n
1X i+1 r2 X 2|Zi |
γ∼ (−1) log + (−1)i+1 log : z ∈ (zp , zp+1 ) (2.19)
2 i=1 2|Zi |`γ i=p+1 `γ

where p = 0 if z < z1 leaving only the second sum, and conversely the first sum for
z > zn .
Next, (
2Zi Zj z < Min[zi , zj ] , z > Max[zi , zj ]
Eij ∼ r2 (zi −zj )2 . (2.20)
2|Zi Zj |
Min[zi , zj ] < z < Max[zi , zj ]
Hence if we approach the axis at the I th black hole, for which z ∈ (z2I−1 , z2I ),
2I−1   n  
1X i+j+1 2Zi Zj 1 X i+j+1 2Zi Zj
ν∼ (−1) log + (−1) log
4 i,j=1 `2ν 4 i,j=2I `2ν
2I−1 n  2 (2.21)
r (zi − zj )2

1XX i+j+1
+ (−1) log + On γ .
2 i=1 j=2I 2|Zi Zj |`2ν
√ 
1 2`ν
Away from the black holes, writing ν0 = log 2 `γ
, we have:

ν(0, z) = On ν0 z < z1
2I
X n
X
= (−1)i+j+1 log(zj − zi ) + On ν0 z2I < z < z2I+1
i=1 j=2I+1 (2.22)
" n−1 #
X
= On (−1)i log(zn − zi ) + ν0 z2N < z < zn .
i=1

Notice that zj − zi+1 < zj − zi < zj+1 − zi , thus ν(0, z) < ν0 for the first string
tension, and (for accelerating black holes) νN < ν0 .
We can now identify the conical structure on the axis. The axis will have a
conical defect if the circumference of circles of proper radius ∆r around it are not
2π∆r. For small r, ∆r ∼ eν(0,z)−γ(0,z) and the circumference is 2πre−γ(0,z) /K, hence
the deficit angle δ is
e−ν(0,z)
 
δ = 2π lim 1 − , (2.23)
r→0 K

–7–
which is related to the cosmic string tension via δ = 8πGµ. (2.22) dictates how the
deficit angle changes as we move between the black holes. The tension between the
I th and (I + 1)th black hole is
2I n
!
1 e−On ν0 Y Y i+j
µI = 1− (zj − zi )(−1) . (2.24)
4 K i=1 j=2I+1

The final black hole has µN as the deficit for z > z2N ,

1 1 − 1
n = 2N
µN = 14  K
−ν N (z −z )
 , (2.25)
4 1 − eK 0
Q n 2i−1
i=1 (zn −z2i ) n = 2N + 1

and for the incident tension, z < z1 , we have

e−On ν0
 
1
µ0 = 1− . (2.26)
4 K

We now see the interpretation of K. For the non-accelerating black hole array,
there is an ambient tension running through the system, as the deficit outside the
array (z < z1 and z > z2N ) have the same conical deficit of
 
1 1
µ0 = µN = 1− . (2.27)
4 K

Equation (2.22) shows that eν(0,z) < 1 between the black holes. Hence, if we did not
insert the parameter K, instead retaining a 2π periodicity of φ for z < z1 and z > z2N ,
the conical singularity between any two of the black holes would be an excess δ < 0,
corresponding to a negative tension “cosmic strut” as in [32]. Although one can
consider such systems [20, 32–34], we prefer to keep physical sources. We therefore
take K large enough that all the conical singularities are deficits and correspond,
in principle, to physical cosmic strings [14, 15]. Note however that if K > 1, there
is an ambient conical deficit through the spacetime, irrespective of whether there is
acceleration.
For an accelerating black hole array, we follow the convention of [27, 40] that K
measures the ambient deficit, i.e.
 
1 1
µ0 + µN = 1− . (2.28)
2 K

This in turn allows us to determine ν0 :

√ !1/2 N
!
2`ν 1 Y (zn − z2i−1 ) 1
eν0 = = 1+ ≡ (1 + Vn ) . (2.29)
`γ 2 i=1
(zn − z2i ) 2

–8–
thus we have
   
1 2 1 2Vn
µ0 = 1− , µN = 1− . (2.30)
4 (1 + Vn )K 2 (1 + Vn )K
Note however that the choice of K is not unique; this one, (2.30), corresponds
to the same normalisation as the standard C-metric, however, if one were viewing
the metric as a split cosmic string, then an alternate natural choice might be to
normalise the “initial” deficit. That is, we could choose µ0 = 14 1 − K1 , in which

case µN = 14 1 − VKn .

Finally, we are left with the length scale `γ , which is (only) present in an accel-
erating array, This parameter represents the net acceleration scale of the spacetime.
We expect that for small accelerations (large zn ) this should asymptote the Rindler
value `γ ∼ 2zn . Interpreting the acceleration as the overall mass of the composite
black hole system divided by the overall force measured by the differential deficit,
we are led to
N
M Vn + 1 X
`γ = = (−1)k zk , (2.31)
µ0 − µN Vn − 1 1
P
where M = mI /K is the total mass of the system (see section 3.1). We see that
`γ has the required large zn limit and a clear physical interpretation in close analogy
with its pure Rindler cousin from section 2.2.

3 Thermodynamics of an array of black holes

We now derive a First Law for collinear black holes with varying positive tension
strings and a possible acceleration horizon, the solutions for which were presented in
section 2.3.

3.1 Deriving the thermodynamic parameters

First we need to derive these relevant thermodynamic parameters. For the entropy
of a given black hole, we compute the area of the relevant horizon
Z z2I
π πmI
SI = lim reν−2γ dz = lim reν−2γ . (3.1)
r→0 2K z K r→0
2I−1

For the temperature, the standard techniques apply, yielding

1 e2γ mI
TI = lim ν
= . (3.2)
r→0 2π re 2KSI
The limit of reν−2γ as we approach the axis is given by (2.19), (2.21), and using
(2.29), we obtain:
 ν0  2I−1 n
ν−2γ `γ e XX
log(re ) → log 2 + On log + (−1)i+j+1 log |zj − zi | . (3.3)
2 i=1 j=2I

–9–
 The most challenging thermodynamic quantity to identify is the total mass.
This is in part due to the fact that external strings which extend to infinity prevent
global asymptotic flatness and thus render the ADM mass [41] ill-defined. The
presence of a non-compact acceleration horizon further complicates matters. Some
attempt has been made [21] to redefine ADM mass in the presence of a conical
defect by calculating the mass relative to conical Minkowski space, rather than pure
Minkowski as one would in the usual construction. However, such a construction
gives undesirable results. In particular, one would conclude that the mass of the
C-metric is vanishing. This is puzzling from the perspective of having no smooth
transition to the non-accelerating black hole. It is also counter to the intuition
gained from the slowly accelerating black hole in AdS, for which the mass (with an
appropriately normalised time coordinate) is M AdS = m/K. One may be confident
in the AdS calculation due to the holographic correspondence.
Although one may struggle to find a useful notion of ADM mass, the existence of
the ∂t isometry means that one still has a Komar construction [42] at one’s disposal.
Focusing first on the non-accelerating case, [20] calculated the ADM mass for a
system of collinear black holes without external strings (µ0 = µN = 0). One can
compute the asymptotic behaviour,

2(ΣN
I=1 mI )
e2γ ∼ 1 − + O(r̃−2 ) , ν ∼ O(r̃−2 ) , (3.4)
r̃
where r̃ is a suitable radial coordinate, and simply read off the mass. As discussed
above, when we have an ambient conical deficit the ADM mass is undefined, but we
may instead read off the Komar mass as M = N
P
I=1 mI /K.
When an acceleration horizon is present, the situation requires more explana-
tion. We take k = ∂t as our Killing vector field generating time translations. The
normalisation of k is implicit in the choice (2.31) of `γ ; see the discussion given at
the end of section 2. The covector associated to k is k [ = e2γ dt. Taking the exterior
derivative and Hodge dual, we find
r 
? dk [ = 2γ 2γ

(∂ r e )dz − (∂ z e )dr ∧ dφ . (3.5)
Ke2γ
The causal structure of the spacetime is now significantly more complicated than
in the non-accelerating case, but there is still a well defined spatial infinity [43]. To
calculate the total mass, one could, in principle, integrate this form over a two-surface
there. That said, it is more instructive to use Gauss’ law to rewrite the boundary
integral as the sum of integrals over each black hole horizon and a bulk integration:
Z N Z
1 [ 1 X
?dk = ?dk [ + M bulk . (3.6)
8π ∞ 8π I=1 HI

– 10 –
The quantity on the left hand side is the total mass2 M . From (2.19) and (2.21), we
have the relevant behaviour for the integrand on the right hand side of (3.6) near
the I th horizon HI ,

r 4 |z2I+1 z2I |
∂r e2γ ∼ , e−2γ ∼ , (3.7)
2 |z2I+1 z2I | r2

making the integrand straightforward:

2
lim ?dk [ z∈(z
 
= dz ∧ dφ + . . . . (3.8)
r→0 2I ,z2I+1 ) K
Hence we conclude that the integral over HI , which we interpret as the mass of an
individual black hole in the array, is
Z
1 mI
MI ≡ ?dk [ = . (3.9)
8π HI K

Finally, we note that the volume integral M bulk vanishes, and that the strings them-
selves make no contribution to the above calculation.
The conclusion is that the total Komar mass is directly related to the rod lengths
of compact horizons. The same result for the mass of the solitary accelerating black
hole has been proposed in [28], albeit with a non-commital attitude to the normal-
isation of k. We also observe a clear similarity with the holographically calculated
mass of a slowly accelerating black hole in AdS [27].

3.2 The First Law of Thermodynamics

We now show how to derive equation (1.2), the first law of thermodynamics for
an array of collinear black holes. Consider a variation to the array. The solution
(2.16) describes a coupled system; any variation of one black hole will impact on all
the others. Therefore, we do not expect individual First Laws for each black hole.
Instead, it makes sense to consider a variation of the total mass
N
X mI
M= , (3.10)
I=1
K

as this is a state function of the complete system. Indeed, this is the philosophy for
the First Law derived in [32]. Thus, to derive a First Law, we must compute
N
X 1 δK
δM = δmI − mI 2 . (3.11)
I=1
K K
2
There is a caveat here that we have divided through to retain only the mass of objects on one
side of the acceleration horizon.

– 11 –
 We begin by computing the variation in entropies for the individual black holes:
N N  
X 1 X  mI  On M δ`γ
TI δSI = δ + SΣ + + δν0 , (3.12)
I=1
2 I=1
K 2 `γ

2ν0
√
having replaced `ν = e `γ / 2, and where
N 2I−1 2N N 2I−1
mI X X i+j+1 δ(zj − zi ) mI X δ(zn − zi )
X X
SΣ = (−1) + On (−1)i . (3.13)
I=1
2K i=1 j=2I zj − zi I=1
2K i=1 zn − zi

This contains part of what we need for a First Law, but has a rather messy sum!
Now we turn to the cosmic strings. We write the thermodynamic lengths for the
strings as λI = −eνI LI , and then vary the tensions in (2.24), (2.25), and (2.26) to
obtain the contribution to the First Law coming from the tensions:
N N N
X X LI δK X LI
− λI δµI = + On δν0 + µΣ , (3.14)
I=0 I=0
4K 2 I=0
4K
where
N −1 2I 2N N 2I
LI X X i+j+1 δ(zj − zi ) LI X δ(zn − zi )
X X
µΣ = (−1) + On (−1)i .
I=1
4K i=1 j=2I+1 zj − zi I=1
4K i=1
zn − zi

(3.15)
Putting these two expressions together, we have:
N
X N
X
TI δSI − λI δµI
I=1 I=0
N N
(3.16)
δM X LI δK On X δ`γ
= + SΣ + µΣ + 2
+ (LI + 2mI )δν0 + 2mI .
2 I=0
4K 4K I=0 `γ
First, let us deal with the sums SΣ and µΣ in these expressions. Observing that
mI = (z2I − z2I−1 )/2, we can rewrite the entropy sum as
k+1
2N 2[ X
2 ]
k+1 −1
2N 2[ X
2
]−1 2N
i+j+k+1
X X (−1) δ(zj − zi ) On X δ(zn − zi )
SΣ = zk + (−1)i+k zk
k=1 i=1 j=2[ k+1 ]
4K zj − zi 4K k=1 i=1 zn − zi
2
(3.17)
Generalising [32] for the thermodynamic lengths of strings in between horizons as
LI = z2I+1 − z2I (with the exception of L0 and LN – see later) gives the tension sum
as
2N 2[ k2 ]
−1 X 2N
X X (−1)i+j+k δ(zj − zi )
µΣ = zk
k=2 i=1 j=2[ k ]+1
4K zj − zi
2
(3.18)
2N 2[ k2 ]
−1 X 2N
On X δ(zn − zi ) LN X δ(zn − zi )
+ (−1)i+k+1 zk + (−1)i .
4K k=1 i=1
zn − zi 4K i=1
zn − zi

– 12 –
We now see that many of the terms in SΣ are cancelled by terms in µΣ , leaving just
k = 1, 2N from the entropy sum, and intermediate i, j terms from each when 2[ k+1
2
]
differs from 2[ k2 ] + 1:

SΣ + µΣ
2N 2N −1
X (−1)j+1 δ(zj − z1 ) X (−1)i+1 δ(z2N − zi )
= z1 + z2N
j=2
4K zj − z1 i=1
4K z2N − zi
−1
2N
" 2N k−1
#
X X (−1)j+k δ(zj − zk ) X (−1)i+k+1 δ(zi − zk )
+ zk + zk
k=2 j=k+1
4K zj − zk i=1
4K zi − zk (3.19)
−1
2N
!
On X  δ(zn − zi ) δ(zn − z2N )
(−1)i (LN + z2N ) − zi

+ + LN
4K i=1
zn − zi zn − z2N
2N j−1 2N
XX (−1)i+j+1 On X δ(zn − zk )
= (δzj − δzi ) + (−1)k (LN + z2N − zk ) .
j=2 i=1
4K 4K k=1 zn − zk

We now have to identify LN (and L0 ). We write

LN = zc − z2N , L0 = z1 − zc (3.20)

in keeping with the expressions for LI , where zc is a normalisation, similar to that

of the SILM in γ, to be determined. We can therefore reduce this combination to
N 2N  
X δmI On X k δ(zn − zk )
SΣ + µΣ = + (−1) δ(zn − zk ) + (zc − zn )
I=1
2K 4K k=1 zn − zk
N 2N
X δmI On X δ(zn − zk )
= (1 − On ) + (zc − zn ) (−1)k (3.21)
I=1
2K 4K k=1
zn − zk
N
X δmI On δVn
= (1 − On ) − (zc − zn ) .
I=1
2K 4K Vn

Having simplified SΣ + µΣ , we now turn to the rest of the putative First Law,
(3.16). We note that the sum of the thermodynamic lengths can be related to the
sum of the masses:
N
X N
X −1 N
X
LI = (z2I+1 − z2I ) + LN + L0 = −2 mI . (3.22)
I=0 I=1 I=1

– 13 –
Hence,
N N N
X X δM X LI δK X δmI
TI δSI − λI δµI = + +
I=1 µ0 s
2 I=0
4K 2 I=1
2K
" N N
#
On X δ`γ X δVn (3.23)
+ 2mI − 2δmI − (zc − zn )
4K I=1 `γ I=1
Vn
 
On δ`γ δVn
= δM + mT OT − δmT OT − (zc − zn ) ,
2K `γ 2Vn
P
where mT OT = I mI is shorthand for the sum of the individual rod lengthscales.
Thus, we have derived the First Law (1.2) for a general array of black holes, provided
we identify

2mT OT δ`γ /`γ − 2δmT OT 4Vn mT OT

zc = zn + = zn − , (3.24)
δVn /Vn Vn2 − 1

for the accelerating black hole. For the non-accelerating black hole, the First Law is
automatically satisfied and we set L0 = LN = (z1 + z2N )/2.

4 Exploring Multi-Black Hole Spacetimes

Having derived these expressions, it is interesting to explore some sample acceler-
ating and non-accelerating black hole arrays to gain an understanding of the in-
terdependency of black hole entropy, and to see how the strings contribute to the
thermodynamic system as well as cross-checking against known results.

4.1 Non-accelerating arrays

We start by considering non-accelerating black holes. This includes the Schwarzschild
case as a basic cross-check of our results, and the two black hole system which has
already been considered in the literature [20, 32–34].

4.1.1 Schwarzschild with a string

As discussed in section 2, the Schwarzschild solution (with an axial conical defect)
has n = 2, N = 1, and z2 − z1 = 2m. Conventionally, we set the centre of the rod at
the origin so that z2 = −z1 = m. From (3.1) and (3.2) we find that the entropy and
temperature are S = 4πm2 /K and T = 1/8πm respectively, as expected. For the
cosmic string piercing the horizon, we have µ0 = µ1 = 41 1 − K1 , and λ0 = λ1 = m

in agreement with [26].

– 14 –
4.1.2 Two black holes
The First Law for the two black hole system, with K = 1, was explored in [32]. This
value of K means that there are no strings running to infinity, but instead the black
holes are held apart by a negative tension strut. Nevertheless, for larger K,

D2 − (m2 − m1 )2
K≥ (4.1)
D2 − (m1 + m2 )2

where D is the distance between the centres of the two rods, we find results harmo-
nious with their conclusions: the First Law holds with the thermodynamic length of
the defect connecting the black holes given by the worldsheet volume of the string
per unit time. The thermodynamic lengths of the semi-infinite strings are now
z4 − z1 D m1 + m2
λ0 = λ2 = = + (4.2)
2 2 2
i.e. the system responds to the average mass, and the length between the black holes.
Note that λ1 = −(z3 − z2 )eν1 also has a factor of the separation that is important for
consistency in varying the net conical deficit of the system. We discuss this in more
detail below for three black holes.

4.1.3 Three black holes

The three black hole system has rods on the intervals (z1 , z2 ), (z3 , z4 ), and (z5 , z6 );
see figure 3. We are interested in exploring how the locations of the sources affect

string 1, µ0 string 2, µ1 string 3, µ2 string 4, µ3 = µ0

2m0 2m 2m0

z1 z2 z3 o z4 z5 z6

z0 z0

Figure 3. The source arrangement for three (non-accelerating) black holes.

entropy and tension, and how a perturbation of one black hole impacts on the others.
Hence, we consider a set-up in which the two outer black holes have equal mass and
spacing from the middle black hole, which is centred around the origin: z6 − z5 =
z2 − z1 = 2m0 , and z6 = −z1 = z0 , z4 = −z3 = m. The entropies and tensions then

– 15 –
become:
4πm20 (z0 + m0 )(z0 + m0 + m)
S1 = = S3
K z0 (z0 + m0 − m)
4πm2 (z02 − m20 )(z0 + m0 + m)2
S2 =
K z02 (z0 − m0 + m)2
  (4.3)
1 1
µ0 = 1−
4 K
z02 (z02 − (m0 − m)2 )
 
1
µ1 = 1− 2 = µ2 .
4 (z0 − m20 )(z02 − (m0 + m)2 )K
It is easy to see that µ1 < µ0 . This is to be expected: in order to retain equilibrium,
additional force must be applied on the outer black holes to counterbalance their
attraction of the middle one.
For the thermodynamic lengths we have:

λ0 = (z6 − z1 )/2 = (z0 + m0 ) = λ3 ,

(z02 − m20 )(z02 − (m0 + m)2 ) (4.4)
λ1 = −(z0 − m0 − m) = λ2 .
z02 (z02 − (m0 − m)2 )

Thus the thermodynamic length of the ambient deficit—that is, the total from both
string 1 and 4—is the distance from the north pole of the topmost black hole to the
south pole of the bottom-most black hole. The length associated to the intermediate
strings is minus the distance between the horizons of adjacent black holes (see figure
4).
We have found an interesting phenomenon where the thermodynamic lengths of
the outer strings are positive whereas those of interior strings are negative. This is
puzzling from the perspective of the individual black holes. However, upon taking
the system as a composite it makes sense: if we alter the overall tension, we must
account for the contributions from both inner and outer cosmic strings. The negative
contribution from the interior lengths then counteracts the positive contribution from
the outer lengths. Explicitly, first set up the three black holes so that there is no
deficit between the central and outer black holes. That is, K takes the value

z02 (z02 − (m0 − m)2 )

K0 = 2 . (4.5)
(z0 − m20 )(z02 − (m0 + m)2 )

We now “add” a cosmic string to the system by increasing K to K0 + K1 , so that

K1 K1
δµ0 = , δµ1 = = K0 δµ0 . (4.6)
4K0 (K0 + K1 ) 4(K0 + K1 )

Note that the tension of the ambient cosmic string through the whole spacetime
increases from µ0 = (1 − 1/K0 )/4 to µ0 + δµ0 . However, the region between the black
holes, which initially had no deficit, now exhibits a cosmic string with tension K0 δµ0 ,

– 16 –
0.14 μ0 =0.1265 μ0 =0.244
0.25
0.12
0.10 μ1 0.20
0.08 0.15
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.02
μ1
0.00 z0 0.00 m0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8
10 20
λ0
15 λ0
5
10

5
0 z0
4 5 6 7 8 9 m0
0
2 4 6 8
-5 λ1 -5 λ1

-10

Figure 4. The variation of tensions and thermodynamic lengths of the three black hole
system: Left: for equal masses as a function of black hole separation, and Right: for fixed
black hole separation but varying the mass of the outer black hole. On the left, the tension
is set by taking the minimal value consistent with zero tension between the black holes
at minimum separation, zmin = 3, giving an ambient tension of 41/324. On the right the
separation is set at z0 = 10, and the outer black hole mass varies from zero to 8.8, which
is very close to the merger limit of maximal tension, µ0 ∼ 0.244.

i.e., a slightly greater tension than the increase in ambient string tension. Now let
us look at the overall change in energy:
3
X
λI δµI = λ0 δµ0 + λ1 δµ1 + λ2 δµ2 + λ3 δµ3
I=0
K1 (z0 − m0 − m) K1 (4.7)
= 2(z0 + m0 ) −2
4K0 (K0 + K1 ) K0 4(K0 + K1 )
(4m0 + 2m)K1
= .
4K0 (K0 + K1 )

This is the total length of string captured by the black holes multiplied by the tension.
We conclude therefore that the thermodynamic lengths really do behave in concert,
combining in such a way that the overall modification of tension has a sensible impact
on the overall thermodynamics of the system.
Turning to the entropies, one sees that S2 /m2 > S1 /m20 . Essentially, this is
saying that the inner black hole has a higher entropy in units of its mass (squared)
than the outer ones. We understand this from the impact of the conical deficits:

– 17 –
2.5 2.5
S1 /SK S2 /SK
S1 /SSCH S2 /SSCH
2.0 2.0
S1 Sμ S2 Sμ

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 z0 0.0 z0
4 6 8 10 12 14 4 6 8 10 12 14

Figure 5. The entropy of the outer (Left) and middle (Right) black holes for equal masses
as a function of black hole separation. The black holes all have unit mass, with an ambient
tension of 41/324. The tension is set by taking the minimal value consistent with no strut
between the black holes at minimum separation, here zmin = 3.

entropy is decreased in general by having a conical deficit, as part of the horizon is

“cut out”, leaving a rugby, as opposed to soccer, ball shape. We would expect that
the entropy of the middle black hole would be relatively higher, as the deficit running
through this black hole is less than the deficit emerging from the outer poles of the
outer black holes.
The picture is a little more subtle than this broad brush expectation however;
the central black hole has a uniform tension, µ1 , running through it, so naively, we
might expect that the entropy might be tracked by 4πm2 (1 − 4µ1 ), but in fact the
entropy is higher than this. For the outer black holes, we might expect the entropy to
be tracked by the average tension between the poles, but again, it is higher. Indeed,
the entropy is higher even than the Schwarzschild entropy for a range of separation
values z0 ; see figure 5.
Similarly, we can track what happens to the entropy of one black hole as a result
of changing the mass of the others. For example, keeping the central black hole at
unit mass, and keeping the other two black holes at a given distance, we can see how
the entropy of the central black hole

4π (1 − m2 /z02 )(1 + m/z0 + 1/z0 )2

S central = (4.8)
K (1 − m/z0 + 1/z0 )2

alters as we change the mass of the outer black holes. The mass of the outer hole
m0 can range from zero to z0 − 1, however at this point the horizons merge and to
maintain a non-negative tension between the black holes we would have to have a
maximal deficit of 2π. Instead, we choose a maximal mass mmax , and set K so that
at the maximal mass there is no deficit between the black holes:
z02 (z02 − (mmax − 1)2 )
K = Kc ≡ . (4.9)
(z02 − m2max )(z02 − (mmax + 1)2 )

– 18 –
 2.5 10

2.0 8 S2 /SK
S1 /SK
1.5 6

1.0 4
S2 Sμ
0.5 S1 Sμ 2

0.0 m0 0 m0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8

Figure 6. The entropies of the outer (Left) and central (Right) black holes as a function
of the mass m0 of the outer black holes. The mass of the central black hole is fixed at 1,
and the outer black holes have the same mass m0 .

Figure 6 shows the variation of the entropy of the central black hole for a sepa-
ration z0 = 10, and a mass range up to mmax = 8.8. This is very close to the merger
limit, giving a large external tension µ0 ∼ 0.244, so a deficit angle of δ/(2π) ∼ 0.977.
As before, the entropy is normalised by the entropy of a single black hole in a space-
time with both this ambient deficit (SK = 4π/K) as well as that of a black hole with
a cosmic string of tension µ1 running through (Sµ = 4π(1 − 4µ1 )).
We now see a more nuanced behaviour. Initially, at m = 0, the spacetime is
precisely that of a single black hole of unit mass pierced by a cosmic string of tension
µ0 = µ1 = (1 − 1/K)/4. As we switch on the black hole mass at z0 , µ1 decreases,
and this results in an increase in entropy, but this is over and above what we would
expect simply from a drop in µ1 . This comes primarily from the m dependence in
(4.8). As we increase the mass further however, while the function S2 /SK continues
to grow, the ratio S2 /Sµ , of the entropy to that of a black hole with the µ1 cosmic
string starts to drop, eventually becoming less than one. We can understand this as
being a consequence of the very large deficit in the majority of the spacetime, even
though locally, at the central black hole, there is no cosmic string. The outer black
holes are very close (within a Schwarzschild radius) to the central black hole, thus
the geometry is strongly distorted there.

4.2 Accelerating arrays

Now let us consider accelerating black hole arrays of the type depicted in figure 2. The
main difference with the non-accelerating array is that we have chosen the parameter
K to represent the ambient tension, so that the asymptotic tension in principle varies
with the locations of the rod ends. The expressions for entropy, temperature, tension
and thermodynamic length are readily worked out from (3.1) and (3.2), though are
not particularly illuminating. However, we can intuit the general behaviour as we
vary the black hole masses and positions.

– 19 –
 First, note that µ0 > µN . We expect this because since the black holes are
accelerating there must be an imbalance between the tension of the string coming in
from infinity and that of the string exiting through the acceleration horizon. Next, as
we increase the first black hole mass m1 , the first tension µ1 will drop, as more of the
pulling power of the string will be used to accelerate the increased mass. Whether
the subsequent string tensions increase or decrease depends on the masses of the
individual black holes: the second black hole will be attracted to the first (and third,
if present) which provides an additional attractive force over and above that of the
cosmic string. Typically, if the black holes are well separated relative to their size,
the string tensions will cascade down in magnitude as one moves along the array, but
for large black holes, this need not be the case (see the two black hole case below).

4.2.1 The C-metric

It is worth briefly checking the C-metric results, first proposed in [28]. The C-metric
has a single horizon and a SILM so we have n = 3 and N = 1. The metric in Weyl
form is
2
`γ X2 dφ2

2 X 1 X3 2 `γ E12 E23 z3 − z0
ds = dt − [dr2 + dz 2 ] − r2 , (4.10)
`γ X2 4R1 R2 R3 E13 z3 − z2 X1 X 3 K 2
where z0 = (z1 + z2 )/2 is the centre of the black hole rod, and we have replaced
V3 = (z3 − z1 )/(z2 − z2 ). Here, `γ = 2(z3 − z0 ) is shown to be the reciprocal
of the acceleration of a small black hole in appendix A, where we also note the
transformation between this metric and the more familiar spherical coordinates.
Turning to the thermodynamics, we compute zc as
(z3 − z2 )(z3 − z1 ) (z3 z0 − z1 z2 )
zc = z3 − = . (4.11)
(z3 − z0 ) (z3 − z0 )
Meanwhile, the entropy and thermodynamic lengths are
4πm2 (z3 − z0 )2 4πm2
S= →
K (z3 − z2 )(z3 − z1 ) (1 − 4m2 A2 )
(z3 − z1 ) m(1 + 2mA)
λ0 = eν0 (zc − z1 ) = m → (4.12)
(z3 − z2 ) (1 − 2mA)
(z3 − z2 ) m(1 − 2mA)
λ1 = eν1 (z2 − zc ) = m →
(z3 − z1 ) (1 + 2mA)
in agreement with the parameters proposed in [28].
It is also straightforward to write down a Christodoulou-Ruffini-like formula [36]
for the C-metric. Following [40], define a quantity ∆ characterising the average
tension emerging from the black hole horizon, and a quantity C characterising the
tension differential:
1
∆ = 1 − 2(µ0 + µ1 ) = ,
K
µ0 − µ1 z2 − z1 (4.13)
C= = → mA .
∆ 4`γ

– 20 –
Then one finds that
∆S
M2 = 1 − 4C 2 .


(4.14)
4π
Increasing the acceleration of the black hole while maintaining a constant ambient
deficit removes energy from the black hole. This result is not as unsettling as it
may first appear, as energy may be lost both across the acceleration horizon and as
gravitational radiation at future infinity [44].

4.2.2 Two accelerating black holes

As a less trivial example, we present results for the two accelerating black hole system,
first explored in [37]. We have

(z42 − z32 + z22 − z12 )z5 − (z4 − z3 + z2 − z1 )(z1 z3 + z2 z4 )

`γ = 2z5 −
(z4 − z3 + z2 − z1 )z5 + z1 z3 − z2 z4 (4.15)
∼ 2(z5 − z com ) + O z5−1 ,

z 2 −z 2 +z 2 −z 2
where z com = 2(z44 −z33 +z22 −z11 ) is the centre of mass of the pair of black holes (this
formula generalises to any number of accelerating black holes).
Placing the two black holes at ±zb fixes the gauge, and we can see how the string
tensions and black hole entropies react to changes in black hole mass and distance
to the horizon (without loss of generality we can keep zb fixed as a choice of scale).
Writing

(m1 + m2 )(m1 + m2 + 2zb )(m1 m2 − zb2 + z52 )2

S0 = , (4.16)
(z5 + zb + m1 )(z5 − zb − m2 )(z5 (m2 + m1 ) + zb (m2 − m1 ))

the entropies are

4πm21 S0
S1 = ,
K (2zb + m1 − m2 )(z5 + zb − m1 )
(4.17)
4πm22 S0
S2 = .
K (2zb + m2 − m1 )(z5 − zb + m2 )

We can quickly see that if m1 = m2 , the entropy of the first black hole will always be
less than that of the second, which would be expected as the mean deficit through
the first black hole is greater than that through the second. However, normalising
the entropies with respect to their reference SK = 4πm2I /K, we can see that the
multiplicative factors in (4.17) show that both initially decrease as m2 increases
from zero before turning, although S2 /SK shows a sharper decrease and eventually
drops below S1 /SK . Again, this behaviour is easy to see from the ratios in (4.17).
Figure 7 shows this behaviour with varying mI .
In order to compare the impact of varying the masses of the black holes and their
separation, we first fix the outgoing tension at z → −∞, so that we are comparing

– 21 –
 3.0 S2 /SK 2.0

2.5
S1 /SK
1.5
2.0
S2 /SK
1.5 1.0
S1 /SK
1.0
0.5
0.5

m1 m2
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

10 15
λ0 λ0
10
5
λ2
5
m1
1 2 3 4 λ2 m2
1 2 3 4
-5 -5
λ1
λ1
-10 -10

Figure 7. The variation of entropies and thermodynamic lengths as a function of mass in

a two accelerating black hole set-up. The outgoing tension is fixed at µ0 = 1/8, and the
displacement of each rod from the origin at zb = 5. One mass is fixed at unity, with the
other mass varying from zero to 4. The upper plots show how the entropies, normalized
by 4πm2I /K, vary, and the lower plots the thermodynamic length. Note that K varies as
mI varies, in order to keep µ0 fixed.

the same conical asymptotics. Figure 7 shows the effect of varying the mass of the
inner and outer black hole respectively on the entropies and thermodynamic lengths.
In each case, we fix one of the masses at unity and vary the other. In both cases,
varying the mass of the black hole closer to the acceleration horizon (m2 ) causes a
“crossover” behaviour.
Figure 8 shows how the entropy, length (and tension) are affected by moving the
black holes apart. As before, the outgoing tension is fixed at 1/8, and both black
hole masses are fixed at m1 = m2 = 1; the acceleration horizon is at z5 = 12. The
normalised entropy of the black hole closer to the acceleration horizon increases as
the black holes are moved apart, whereas the entropy of the other black hole decreases
sharply. We can get a rough understanding of this by looking at the string tensions;
the tension between the second black hole and the acceleration horizon drops off
sharply at large separation, meaning that less of the angular direction is cut out
by the deficit, thus increasing entropy. The tension between the black holes, µ1 ,
in contrast increases, leading to an expectation that the first entropy will decrease.
While these statements are broadly true – note that we have already normalised the
K factor out of the entropy, indicating that the effect of this geometry is magnified.

– 22 –
As expected, the thermodynamic lengths exhibit a scaling with increasing separation,
with the intermediate length λ1 negative and decreasing to compensate the increase
in λ0 .
2.0
0.14
S2 /SK 20 λ0 μ0
1.5 0.12

0.10 μ1
10
1.0 λ2 0.08

S1 /SK zb 0.06
3 4 5 6 7 8
0.5 0.04
-10 0.02 μ2
λ1
zb zb
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 8. The variation of thermodynamic parameters for the double accelerating black
hole set-up where the two black holes have equal mass m1 = m2 = 1 and the distance
between them 2zb is varied. The acceleration horizon is fixed at z5 = 12.

5 Conclusions
To sum up: we have proven a thermodynamic First Law for a composite system
of black holes, both accelerating and isolated. We have allowed the varying of the
tensions of the cosmic strings along the axis that are necessary for maintaining the
equilibrium configuration. As with the accelerating AdS black hole thermodynam-
ics previously developed, these strings have a corresponding potential, the thermo-
dynamic length, which has a direct specification in terms of the Weyl coordinate
parametrising the axis of symmetry of the black hole array.
We have presented a range of accelerating and non-accelerating black hole sys-
tems to illustrate the various facets of the thermodynamic parameters. The main
point is that the black holes form a fully composite thermodynamical system—the
variation of one black hole affects all the others. We also see how the tensions and
lengths in a composite system collude in such a way that the overall picture makes
intuitive sense, whereas the individual black hole contributions may be less trans-
parent.
Our findings, that the thermodynamic lengths between compact horizons is re-
lated to the proper distance along the axis, are in agreement with previous results
[32–34]. However, in our construction there are also semi-infinite strings for which
this proper distance would be infinite, yet this is not what we would expect thermo-
dynamically. The thermodynamic length represents the contribution to the enthalpy
from the tension (negative pressure) of the cosmic string inside the black hole, thus

– 23 –
should be finite. We take this into account via a renormalisation process, the zc ,
similar to the renormalising of the metric coefficients.
In fact, the result for λ derived in [32], can actually be understood in terms of the
covariant-phase space formalism [45], much as black hole entropy and temperature
were interpreted by Iyer and Wald [46, 47]. In this construction, the idea is that, on
shell, variations the action consist solely of boundary data. Taking this variation to be
the action of some Killing vector field corresponding to time translation, one can find
a quantity which vanishes when integrated over a Cauchy slice. Taking the variation
of this quantity, and splitting the integral up into boundary pieces via Gauss’ law,
one obtains the First Law. The contribution from infinity gives the variation in
mass and the contribution at the horizon gives T δS. When strings are present, one
must also consider the contribution from a new surface: a “tube” which encases the
string3 . It is precisely this contribution which provides λδµ. From this perspective,
the thermodynamic lengths calculated in [27, 28] for the AdS C-metric may be seen
as renormalised worldvolumes (per unit time) of the infinite proper length strings.
The sense in which the external strings are renormalised in the asymptotically flat
case is less clear and would be interesting to understand.
While the system of many black holes is not stable, it is nonetheless interest-
ing that it too displays sensible thermodynamic properties, further supporting the
inclusion of cosmic strings in the thermodynamic picture.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the STFC [Consolidated Grant ST/P000371/1
-RG, DTG - AS], and by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (RG). Re-
search at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through
the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by
the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science.

A Coordinate systems for the C-metric

We collect the transformation formulae between the standard C-metric (expressed in
Hong-Teo form [50]) and the Weyl form of section 2. The C-metric in Weyl form is
2
`γ X2 dφ2

2 X1 X 3 2 `γ E12 E23 V3 + 1
ds = dt − [dr2 + dz 2 ] − r2 , (A.1)
`γ X2 4R1 R2 R3 E13 2 X1 X 3 K 2

where `γ = z3 − z0 = z3 − (z1 + z2 )/2 is the z-distance to the centre of the black hole
rod.
3
Similar ideas have been applied to thermodynamic investigations of black holes possessing
Misner strings [48, 49].

– 24 –
 Now let m = (z2 − z1 )/2 and A = 1/`γ . Define
p
f (r̄)g(θ) (Ar̄ + cos θ)(1 − m/r̄ + mA cos θ)
r = r̄ sin θ 2
, z − z0 = r̄ , (A.2)
(1 + Ar̄ cos θ) (1 + Ar̄ cos θ)2
where  
2 2 2m
f (R) = (1 − A r̄ ) 1 − , g(θ) = (1 + 2mA cos θ) . (A.3)
r̄
Then the Weyl metric (A.1) transforms to the C-metric in Hong-Teo coords [50],
rather than the standard Kinnersley-Walker coordinates discussed in [37]:
2
  2 
1 dr̄ dθ
2
ds = f¯(r̄)dt − ¯ − r̄
2 2 2
− ḡ(θ) sin θdφ 2
. (A.4)
(1 + Ar̄ cos θ)2 f (r̄) ḡ(θ)
Here we see the direct interpretation of `γ as the acceleration length scale; for small
m, A = 1/`γ corresponds to the magnitude of the four-acceleration of the black hole
[43].

References
[1] J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973).
[2] J. D. Bekenstein, Generalized second law of thermodynamics in black hole physics,
Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974).
[3] S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199-220
(1975) Erratum: [Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)].
[4] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Action integrals and partition functions in
quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977).
[5] J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking, The Four laws of black hole
mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161-170 (1973)
[6] C. Teitelboim, The Cosmological Constant As A Thermodynamic Black Hole
Parameter, Phys. Lett. 158B, 293-297 (1985).
[7] D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Enthalpy and the Mechanics of AdS Black Holes,
Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 195011 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2765 [hep-th]].
[8] B. P. Dolan, The cosmological constant and the black hole equation of state, Class.
Quant. Grav. 28, 125020 (2011) [arXiv:1008.5023 [gr-qc]].
[9] B. P. Dolan, Pressure and volume in the first law of black hole thermodynamics,
Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 235017 (2011) [arXiv:1106.6260 [gr-qc]].
[10] D. Kubizňák and R. B. Mann, P-V criticality of charged AdS black holes, JHEP
1207, 033 (2012) [arXiv:1205.0559 [hep-th]].
[11] D. Kubizňák, R. B. Mann and M. Teo, Black hole chemistry: thermodynamics with
Lambda, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no.6, 063001 (2017) [arXiv:1608.06147
[hep-th]].

– 25 –
[12] W. Israel and K. A. Khan, Collinear particles and bondi dipoles in general relativity,
Nuovo Cim. 33, 331-344 (1964)
[13] M. Aryal, L. Ford, and A. Vilenkin, Cosmic strings and black holes, Phys. Rev. D34
(1986) 2263.
[14] A. Achucarro, R. Gregory, and K. Kuijken, Abelian Higgs hair for black holes, Phys.
Rev. D52 (1995) 5729–5742, [gr-qc/9505039].
[15] R. Gregory, D. Kubizňák and D. Wills, Rotating black hole hair, JHEP. 06, 023,
(2013), [gr-qc/9505039].
[16] W. Kinnersley and M. Walker, Uniformly accelerating charged mass in general
relativity, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1359 (1970).
[17] J. F. Plebanski and M. Demianski, Rotating, charged, and uniformly accelerating
mass in general relativity, Annals Phys. 98, 98-127 (1976).
[18] R. Gregory and M. Hindmarsh, Smooth metrics for snapping strings, Phys. Rev.
D52 (1995) 5598–5605, [gr-qc/9506054].
[19] E. A. Martinez and J. W. York, Jr., Thermodynamics of black holes and cosmic
strings, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3580-3583 (1990).
[20] M. S. Costa and M. J. Perry, Interacting black holes, Nucl. Phys. B 591, 469-487
(2000) [hep-th/0008106].
[21] K. Dutta, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Boost mass and the mechanics of accelerated
black holes, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 335-352 (2006) [hep-th/0508041].
[22] C. Herdeiro, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and E. Radu, On the Bekenstein-Hawking area
law for black objects with conical singularities, Phys. Rev. D 81, 064013 (2010)
[arXiv:0912.3386 [gr-qc]].
[23] F. Bonjour, R. Emparan and R. Gregory, Vortices and extreme black holes: The
Question of flux expulsion, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084022 (1999) [gr-qc/9810061].
[24] I. Papadimitriou and Kostas Skenderis, Thermodynamics of asymptotically locally
AdS spacetimes, JHEP 08, 2005, 004 (2005) [hep-th/0505190].
[25] M. Appels, R. Gregory and D. Kubizňák, Thermodynamics of Accelerating Black
Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 13, 131303 (2016) [arXiv:1604.08812 [hep-th]].
[26] M. Appels, R. Gregory and D. Kubizňák, Black Hole Thermodynamics with Conical
Defects, JHEP 1705, 116 (2017) [arXiv:1702.00490 [hep-th]].
[27] A. Anabalón, M. Appels, R. Gregory, D. Kubizňák, R. B. Mann and A. Övgün,
Holographic Thermodynamics of Accelerating Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.10,
104038 (2018) [arXiv:1805.02687 [hep-th]].
[28] A. Anabalón, F. Gray, R. Gregory, D. Kubizňák and R. B. Mann, Thermodynamics
of Charged, Rotating, and Accelerating Black Holes, JHEP 04, 096 (2019)
[arXiv:1811.04936 [hep-th]].

– 26 –
[29] J. H. Traschen and D. Fox, Tension perturbations of black brane space-times, Class.
Quant. Grav. 21, 289-306 (2004) [gr-qc/0103106].
[30] T. Harmark and N. A. Obers, General definition of gravitational tension, JHEP
0405, 043 (2004) [hep-th/0403103].
[31] D. Kastor and J. Traschen, The Angular Tension of Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D 86,
081501 (2012) [arXiv:1207.5415 [hep-th]].
[32] P. Krtouš and A. Zelnikov, Thermodynamics of two black holes, JHEP 02, 164
(2020) [arXiv:1909.13467 [gr-qc]].
[33] C. J. Ramı́rez-Valdez, H. Garcı́a-Compeán and V. S. Manko, Thermodynamics of
two aligned Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. D 102, no. 2, 024084 (2020)
[arXiv:2007.02918 [gr-qc]].
[34] H. Garcı́a-Compeán, V. S. Manko and C. J. Ramı́rez-Valdez, Thermodynamics of
two aligned Kerr-Newman black holes, (2020) [arXiv:2008.01213 [gr-qc]].
[35] H. Weyl, Zur Gravitationstheorie, Annalen der Physik 359, 117-145 (1917)
[36] D. Christodoulou and R. Ruffini, Reversible transformations of a charged black hole,
Phys. Rev. D 4, 3552 (1971).
[37] H. F. Dowker and S. N. Thambyahpillai, Many accelerating black holes, Class.
Quant. Grav. 20, 127-136 (2003) [gr-qc/0105044].
[38] V.S. Manko, E. Ruiz, Metric for two arbitrary Kerr sources, Phys. Lett. B 794,
36-40 (2019) [arXiv:1806.10408 [gr-qc]].
[39] R. Emparan, H. S. Reall, Generalized Weyl solutions, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084025
(2002) [hep-th/0110258].
[40] R. Gregory and A. Scoins, Accelerating Black Hole Chemistry, Phys. Lett. B 796,
191-195 (2019) [arXiv:1904.09660 [hep-th]].
[41] R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. Misner, Dynamical Structure and Definition of Energy
in General Relativity, Physical Review. 116 (5), 1322–1330, (1959).
[42] A. Komar, Positive-definite energy density and global consequences for general
relativity, Physical Rev. 129 (4), 1873–1876, (1963).
[43] J. B. Grffiths, P. Krtouš and J. Podolsky, Interpreting the C-metric, Class. Quant.
Grav. 23, 6745-6766 (2006) [gr-qc/0609056].
[44] J. Podolsky, M. Ortaggio and P. Krtous, Radiation from accelerated black holes in
an anti-de Sitter universe, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 124004, (2003), [gr-qc/0307108].
[45] D. Harlow and J. Wu, Covariant phase space with boundaries, JHEP 10, 146,
(2020), [arXiv:1906.08616 [hep-th]]
[46] R. M. Wald, Black hole entropy is the Noether charge, Phys. Rev. D48, no. 8, (1993).
[47] V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for
dynamical black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. D50, 846–864, (1994), [gr-qc/9403028]

– 27 –
[48] A. B. Bordo, F. Gray, R. Hennigar and D. Kubizňák, Misner gravitational charges
and variable string strengths, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 19, 194001, (2019).
[arXiv:190.03785 [hep-th]]
[49] A. B. Bordo, F. Gray, R. Hennigar and D. Kubizňák, The first law for rotating
NUTs, Physics Lett. B, 798, 134972, (2019), [arXiv:1905.03785 [hep-th]]
[50] K. Hong and E. Teo, A New form of the C metric, Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 3269
(2003) [gr-qc/0305089].

– 28 –