4

I try to answer the question whether spacetime of Schwarzschild vacuum solution is geodesically complete by analyzing its null geodesics. The infinitesimal length element is $$ds^2=(1-\frac{r_s}{r})~c^2 dt^2-(1-\frac{r_s}{r})^{-1} dr^2-r^2 d\Omega^{2}. \tag{1}$$ The solving of corresponding differential equation for $ds=0$ results in $$\pm~ c t=r+r_{s} \log{(r-r_s)}. \tag{2}$$

The "coordinate time" $t$ is coevally affine parameter which value for infalling ($+$) geodesic ranges from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ for $r\in (+\infty,~ r_{s})$.

As the answers below have proved the statement in bold letters is not true! Coordinate time is a non-affine parameter. However, one can always re-parametrize $t$ to affine parameter $\tau(t)$ (see Appendix in Quasi-geodesics in relativistic gravity) which function is $$\pm~ c \tau=r+2 r_{s} \log{(r-r_s)}-\frac{r_{s}^2}{r-r_s}. \tag{3}$$

For ingoing geodesic the affine parameter $\tau \in (-\infty$,$+\infty$) generates geodesic $r(\tau)\in (+\infty,~ r_{s})$.

Thus, Schwarzschild vacuum solution represents a geodesically complete manifold with null geodesics that never cross the event horizon ($r=r_{s}$) which is not part of that manifold. Do I interpret it correctly (this time)?

Remark

The derived equation (3) is not correct as well because the used equation A.7 from the mentioned reference has a wrong sign (it should be plus instead of minus there). The correct formula for affine parameter is $$\tau\equiv A\int{e^{\nu+\lambda}} dr+B= A r +B \tag{4}.$$

My interpretation based on the at first derived equation (3) was therefore not correct.

JanG
  • 1,831
  • Coordinate time is not an affine parameter, I'm pretty sure. Can you prove that it is? – Javier Apr 27 '23 at 12:55
  • (3) is not the geodesic equation in Schwarzschild (i.e. the equation that enforces that parameterized curve parallel transport its own tangent vector.) – TimRias Apr 27 '23 at 14:11
  • @Javier I have read it somewhere but I see I have to re-thing it. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:04
  • @TimRias I have to check my notes. I am afraid now you could have right. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:07
  • @Javier What about the answer in https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/265140/281096. That with $t$ affine parameter I have read there, too. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:11
  • @TimRias The same question to you, please see above answer to Javier's comment. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:13
  • 1
    Not sure what that answer has to do with this question, but just in case: the other answers are using $t$ for the affine parameter, not coordinate time - it's not the same $t$ as yours. Anyway, a parameter $\lambda$ is affine iff $D^2 x^\mu / D\lambda^2 = 0$. You can check explicitly whether that happens here or not. – Javier Apr 27 '23 at 15:15
  • @Javier Thanks! – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:36
  • It is not clear how you arrive at (3), but it clearly is not defining an affine parameter, since all affine parameters for radial null geodesics are of the form $s=A r +B$ (as follows from my answer below). – TimRias May 01 '23 at 07:05
  • @TimRias I understand your point and work on explanation. – JanG May 01 '23 at 07:25
  • @TimRias I am afraid your are right but as yet I could not find my error in applying Faraoni's method. – JanG May 01 '23 at 15:57
  • @TimRias I have found the error but in Faraoni's equation A.7 (Appendix in Quasi-geodesics in relativistic gravity). The sign for the exponent should be plus and not minus. Correcting it the corresponding affine parameter reads $\tau=A r+B$. – JanG May 03 '23 at 10:01

2 Answers2

6

The definition of geodesic completeness requires the $\textbf{affine parameter}$ which paramerizes geodesics to take values between $-\infty $ to $\infty$. Note also that a spacetime can also be geodesically incomplete if it is extendible. This is the case with Schwarschild spacetime. It is only valid for $r >r_s$. Therefore, it is trivially incomplete.

We, therefore, consider the Kruskal Spacetime which is the maximally extended version of Schwarschild spacetime and is inextendible. To see why it is inextendible, it suffices to look at geodesics inside the event horizon. A simple calculation shows that any $\textbf{causal curve}$ will eventually reach the black hole singularity in less than $\pi M$ affine parameter time. Therefore, the Kruskal Spacetime is not geodesically complete.

$\textbf{Edit}:$ Furthermore, the range for $t$ should be checked for one geodesic and not both of them at the same time. In you case, you should check that both geodesics (ingoing or outgoing) have t ranging from $-\infty $ to $\infty$. Now you may argue that light coming from past infinity and suddenly changing direction at $r = r_s$ and going outward will have t ranging from $-\infty $ to $\infty$ but this is not a geodesic.

emir sezik
  • 1,778
  • The time $t$ in null geodesics equation is the affine parameter, and, what do you mean with geodesics inside event horizon? The Schwarzschild metric (static!) is valid only for $r>r_{s}$. – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 16:04
  • 1
    You are absolutely right ! It is therefore more appropriate to consider the Kruskal Spacetime instead of Schwarschild. Schwarschild is not geodesically complete because it is not the maximally extended spacetime. Kruskal is but it is not complete because of the singularity. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 16:08
  • I'll make the relevant corrections on the answer as well. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 16:08
  • Also, your conclusion regarding that $t$ ranges from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ is wrong because those ranges are for an observer that is ingoing and outgoing at the same time. For an outgoing observer, it is bounded above precisely by some value. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 16:24
  • There is no observer. I deal only with geometry. The range of affine parameter $r$ results from the equation (2) and $r$ values. – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 16:51
  • I see what you mean but to look at the possible parameter values, you need to pick a solution (in this case this amounts to the choice of plus or minus). Each solution is either bounded above or below and you cannot combine these two solutions. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 16:55
  • I have chosen ingoing null geodesics. However, one can use outgoing as well, but not both at the same time. – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 17:01
  • Yes exactly, and once you analyse one you'll see that r does not range from - infinity to infinity. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 17:02
  • No, the $r$ range is the open set $(r_{s},+\infty)$. The range $(-\infty,\infty)$ you can find for example in static perfect fluid sphere solutions like Schwarzschild second solution and that only below the Buchdahl limit. See equations (7) and (8) from https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/679431/281096. – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 18:02
  • Regard your edit. I consider only geometry. There is no light and especially no light coming and going outwards there. – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 18:14
  • I believe there has been a mistake in one of your equations then. Regardless, to conclude that a spacetime is geodesically complete, this must be true for all geodesics. This is clearly not true here. – emir sezik Apr 26 '23 at 18:37
  • I do not agree but thanks for your contribution! – JanG Apr 26 '23 at 18:43
  • The correct equation for the null rays in standard Schwarzschild coordinates is dr/dt=±(r-2)/r which gets 0 at the horizon and gives a division by 0 at the singularity. – Yukterez Apr 26 '23 at 23:50
  • @Yukterez There was a typo in equation (2) that I have corrected, thanks. Your pictures show clearly that null geodesics do not cross the event horizon. Am I right? – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 06:00
  • In standard coordinates the event horizon is crossed at t=∞, see MTW 32.1.png – Yukterez Apr 27 '23 at 06:04
  • @Yukterez I would agree if the point $r(t=\infty)$ would belong to geodesics, what is not the case. The geodesics are defined only for $t$ from open interval $(-\infty, +\infty)$. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 14:33
  • @emirsezik I was wrong, thanks again! – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:39
  • @JanG No problem! Glad I was of some help. – emir sezik Apr 27 '23 at 15:56
  • @emirsezik I think I have got it this time right. Please comment my corrected question. – JanG Apr 30 '23 at 17:46
4

No, to examine geodesic completeness you need to

  1. Consider the geodesic equation (what you are solving is not the geodesic equation).
  2. Consider all geodesics not just radial null rays.

Since you do neither of these things there is nothing you can say about the geodesic completeness of Schwarzschild spacetime based on your calculation.

(In particular, note that neither t nor r provide an affine parametrization of the curve defined by your equation (2).)

EDIT: The geodesic equations for a radial null geodesic in Schwarzschild spacetime are

\begin{align} \frac{d^2 t}{ds^2} &= -\frac{r_s}{r(r-r_s)}\frac{d t}{ds}\\ \frac{d^2 r}{ds^2} &= 0. \end{align}

The second equation implies that $r$ is in fact an affine parameter along the geodesic (so I take that back $r$ is an affine parameterization). Setting $s=r$ and solving the first equation gives your solution (2) (up to a typo).

This immediately shows that Schwarzschild exterior patch is geodesically incomplete, since we reach the $t=\infty$ edge of the patch at a finite value of the affine parameter $r=r_s$.

TimRias
  • 11,610
  • Regarding the point 1 see the added appendix. In case of point 2 which other geodesics do you mean? About $t$: to my knowledge for null geodesics (and only) it is the affine parameter, see for example https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/220240/281096 – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 08:09
  • 1
    @JanG The answer you've linked to simply introduced and defined the variable $t$ as being an affine parameter to their geodesic. They were not referring to any specific $t$ a priori, much less the Schwarzschild $t$ coordinate. It certainly does not mean that any random quantity one decides to label $t$ will always be an affine parameter. That is, this is simply a case of using the same variable name for different things in different contexts. – jawheele Apr 27 '23 at 15:18
  • @jawheele Thanks! – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:36
  • @TimRias, now I understand it, thanks! – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 15:37
  • @TimRias One question more: the range of affine parameter is $\pm\infty$. However, $r$ cannot be negative. It is defined as the inverse square of Gaussian curvature of a 2-sphere or its areal radius. – JanG Apr 27 '23 at 18:00
  • @JanG The square root can be either positive or negative, we just customary take the positive option. If we were to analytically continue the solution you might at some point be forced to take the negative option. This does not happen in Schwarzschilld spacetime (you hit a singularity before this can happen), but it does happen in the maximally extended Kerr solution. More to the point, the affine parameter $r$ not being able to realize its full range indicates the spacetime is not geodesically complete. – TimRias Apr 28 '23 at 08:23
  • @TimRias Yes, that's it. Damn singularity. I try to prove that GR does not break down what means that the black hole spacetime have to be geodesically complete. – JanG Apr 28 '23 at 10:30
  • @TimRias Would you mind to look into my corrected question? – JanG Apr 30 '23 at 17:42
  • @safesphere I have corrected my question. Maybe you would like to read it again. – JanG Apr 30 '23 at 17:44
  • @Javier Please take your time to read my corrected question. – JanG Apr 30 '23 at 17:45
  • @safesphere I try to prove that static Schwarzschild vacuum spacetime is complete, i.e. there is no „interior“ spacetime. – JanG May 01 '23 at 06:26
  • @safesphere Meanwhile I have realized that my approach is not expedient. Affine parameter is rather mathematical category and not physical. Thanks for your thoughts! – JanG May 02 '23 at 06:22