Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the behavior of non-radial timelike geodesics in Schwarzschild spacetime, particularly their interaction with the event horizon and singularity. Participants explore whether non-radial geodesics can cross the horizon and how angular momentum influences the proper time to reach the singularity.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
- Mathematical reasoning
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions whether non-radial timelike geodesics can cross the event horizon radially or if they can exist inside the horizon.
- Another participant asserts that angular momentum prevents crossing the horizon radially and clarifies that "radially" refers to temporal direction inside the horizon.
- A participant speculates that the proper time to reach the singularity may exceed a specific value depending on angular coordinates, asking for a formula to support this.
- Another participant expresses an intuitive feeling that the proper time to reach the singularity would actually decrease with non-radial trajectories.
- Some participants reference a previous thread and an exercise in MTW that discusses the longest proper time for a radial geodesic from the horizon to the singularity.
- There is a debate about whether the MTW exercise restricts itself to radial motion, with some asserting it does not and others suggesting that the conclusion about maximizing geodesics being radial is not an assumption.
- One participant proposes a heuristic argument regarding the proper time lapse of non-radial geodesics approaching null geodesics inside the event horizon.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on the relationship between angular momentum and proper time in non-radial geodesics, and there is no consensus on whether the proper time increases or decreases based on trajectory. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of non-radial geodesics inside the horizon.
Contextual Notes
Participants reference specific exercises and discussions from MTW, indicating a reliance on particular definitions and interpretations of geodesics, but the implications of these references are not universally accepted.