Curvature Singularity: Necessary & Sufficient Conditions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the necessary and sufficient conditions for curvature singularities in the context of general relativity. Participants explore the definitions and implications of singularities, particularly focusing on scalar quantities, metric coefficients, and the role of coordinate systems in identifying or resolving singularities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a physical singularity is sufficient if any scalar quantity blows up, questioning why it is not necessary for all to do so.
  • Others argue that the conditions for a singularity are complex, noting that it is not always necessary or sufficient for scalar or tensor curvatures to blow up, and that geodesic incompleteness may be a more general criterion for singularities.
  • A participant references Sean M. Carroll's lecture notes, suggesting that a sufficient condition for a singularity is the existence of any scalar quantity derived from the Riemann tensor that approaches infinity at a point.
  • There is a challenge regarding the idea that finding a coordinate system where the metric is no longer singular can disprove a singularity, with requests for examples, particularly concerning the Schwarzschild metric.
  • Some participants clarify that solutions to Einstein's Field Equations are pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, implying that singularities cannot be removed by coordinate choices, and emphasize the relevance of geodesic incompleteness.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of curvature and physical singularities, with a focus on the invariance of scalars under coordinate transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the definitions and conditions of curvature singularities, with no consensus reached on the sufficiency of various conditions or the implications of coordinate choices.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining singularities, noting that certain scalar curvatures may not be sufficient indicators of singularities, and that the definitions may depend on specific contexts or interpretations within general relativity.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
For a physical singularity I think it is sufficient that anyone scalar quantity blows up,
Why is it not a necessary condition that all blow up?

For a curvature singularity am I correct in thinking that it is a sufficient condition to find a coordinate system in which the metric coefficient no longer blows up at that point?

Is the only necessary condition for a curvature singularity to check that all non scalar quantites are not infinite?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The necessary and sufficient conditions for a singularity are non-trivial. It is not always necessary or sufficient for anyone of the scalar curvatures or tensor curvatures or metric coefficients to "blow up". Indeed, even the definition of a singularity itself is complicated. This is why Hawking and Penrose (and others) worked so hard on their singularity theorems. There are cases where the scalar curvature is 0 everywhere, but the curvature tensor can be singular. Or There can be cases where the scalar curvatures or curvature tensor itself is singular only "at infinity" where no observer can reach.

The best, most general, criterion we have of a singularity, as best as we can figure, is the presence of geodesic incompleteness.

See Wald chapter 9 for details.
 
Matterwave said:
The necessary and sufficient conditions for a singularity are non-trivial. It is not always necessary or sufficient for anyone of the scalar curvatures or tensor curvatures or metric coefficients to "blow up". .

In lecture notes on GR by Sean.M. Carroll he has that a sufficient condition to prove a singularity is that if there exists any (and not all) scalar quantity constructed from the Riemann tensor that goes to infinity at some point, the point is a singularity.

I don't understand how finding a coordinate system in which the metric is no longer singular at some point can not be a sufficient condition to disprove a signularty ? Does anyone have any examples, e.g. a coordinate system in which the singular nature of r=0 dissapears for the Schwarzschild metric,

thanks.
 
Last edited:
binbagsss said:
I don't understand how finding a coordinate system in which the metric is no longer singular at some point can not be a sufficient condition to disprove a signularty ? Does anyone have any examples, e.g. a coordinate system in which the singular nature of r=0 dissapears for the Schwarzschild metric,

Your suggestion is a little complicated to carry out, for the following reason: By definition, any solution of Einstein's Field Equations is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, which means that for any event e there is a neighborhood that can be described with nonsingular coordinates. So in that sense, there are no singularities. The point (or line, actually r=0 is not part of the manifold, strictly speaking. That's why "geodesic incompleteness" is relevant. A timelike geodesic in the neighborhood of r=0 will, in a finite amount of proper time, leave the manifold. Or said another way, there is a maximum finite amount of proper time such that the geodesic cannot be extended past that time.
 
stevendaryl said:
Your suggestion is a little complicated to carry out, for the following reason: By definition, any solution of Einstein's Field Equations is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold, which means that for any event e there is a neighborhood that can be described with nonsingular coordinates. So in that sense, there are no singularities. The point (or line, actually r=0 is not part of the manifold, strictly speaking. That's why "geodesic incompleteness" is relevant. A timelike geodesic in the neighborhood of r=0 will, in a finite amount of proper time, leave the manifold. Or said another way, there is a maximum finite amount of proper time such that the geodesic cannot be extended past that time.

And so the definition of a curvature singulairty is not a singularity that can be removed by good choice of coordinates?
Instead what's a good definition for curvature and physical singularity?
 
binbagsss said:
the definition of a curvature singulairty is not a singularity that can be removed by good choice of coordinates?

Correct. Note that the definitions people have been giving you involve scalars going to infinity. A scalar is an invariant and can't be changed by changing coordinates.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
924
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K