# The Schwarzschild Geometry: Part 3 - Comments

• Insights
• PeterDonis
In summary, Lines of constant X provide a smooth connected picture of the S2xR2 manifold. Each line has a nice interpretation: the evolution of a 2-sphere from r > 0, to some maximum r, then down toward 0 again. The smallest maximum r is the horizon radius; for larger X, the maximum radius grows without bound.
PeterDonis
Mentor
PeterDonis submitted a new PF Insights post

The Schwarzschild Geometry: Part 3

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

Silly Sock, m4r35n357, fresh_42 and 1 other person
Thanks, even though I might not have understood it all. I'm looking forward to the next part and perhaps some speculations of yours, what a future model would have to accomplish.

There's a little error in the first third "Here will will assume that the GR model holds for all ##r>0##."

fresh_42 said:
There's a little error in the first third "Here will will assume that the GR model holds for all ##r>0##."

Why do you think this is an error?

Silly Sock
In exploring the KS chart, I find it useful to look at lines of constant X. Lines of constant T either don't cover the whole chart, or must be treated as split before a certain T, and after another one. Each line of constant X simply goes from a minimum T to a maximum T, giving a smooth connected picture of the S2xR2 manifold. Each of these lines has a nice interpretation: the evolution of a 2-sphere from r > 0, to some maximum r, then down toward 0 again. The smallest maximum r is the horizon radius; for larger X, the maximum radius grows without bound.

PeterDonis
PeterDonis said:
Why do you think this is an error?
I meant it should have been "we will". I guess I should have said mistake instead. I'm not very good at distinguishing between error, failure, mistake and fault. There's only one word for it in my language.

PAllen said:
I find it useful to look at lines of constant X

The only thing I would clarify here is that these lines are timelike, so the word "evolution" that you use means "evolution in time". We could make that more specific by postulating an observer who follows this line as his worldline. (An interesting exercise is to compute the proper acceleration of this observer; it is not zero.)

PAllen said:
Lines of constant X either don't cover the whole chart, or must be treated as split before a certain T, and after another one.

I'm not sure I understand. "The whole chart" is not the entire range of ##T## and ##X## coordinates; it is only those pairs ##(T, X)## that satisfy ##T^2 - X^2 < 1##. Lines of constant ##X## have no breaks within this range, and cover it entirely.

PeterDonis said:
The only thing I would clarify here is that these lines are timelike, so the word "evolution" that you use means "evolution in time". We could make that more specific by postulating an observer who follows this line as his worldline. (An interesting exercise is to compute the proper acceleration of this observer; it is not zero.)
I used the word evolution deliberately to capture the timelike nature. Taken together, we have defined a congruence of world lines filling the entire manifold. Yes, I am well aware these world lines are not geodesic. I am going to write a follow on post on some additional physical interpretation for this congruence.
PeterDonis said:
I'm not sure I understand. "The whole chart" is not the entire range of ##T## and ##X## coordinates; it is only those pairs ##(T, X)## that satisfy ##T^2 - X^2 < 1##. Lines of constant ##X## have no breaks within this range, and cover it entirely.

Consider a line of constant T with T greater than the minimum T for the future singularity. Then, there are actually two such lines, not one and they are disconnected. This is fine, but the lines of constant X show you more directly how the whole manifold is connected.

PAllen said:
Consider a line of constant T...

Ah, got it. I had mixed up T and X in that part...

PAllen said:
I am going to write a follow on post on some additional physical interpretation for this congruence.

Cool!

PAllen said:
In exploring the KS chart, I find it useful to look at lines of constant X. Lines of constant T either don't cover the whole chart, or must be treated as split before a certain T, and after another one. Each line of constant X simply goes from a minimum T to a maximum T, giving a smooth connected picture of the S2xR2 manifold. Each of these lines has a nice interpretation: the evolution of a 2-sphere from r > 0, to some maximum r, then down toward 0 again. The smallest maximum r is the horizon radius; for larger X, the maximum radius grows without bound.
Expanding on this, one may make an analogy between this family of sphere evolutions and the exterior of spherical body. Such exterior region can be covered by families of world lines, each such family being a sphere of observers leaving the surface, reaching a maximum, and then returning (no requirement that they they be inertial). They can be set up so their maxima are all at constant T in some chart, and they don't cross, thus forming a valid congruence filling the entire exterior spacetime of the body. An observation is that this shows that the exterior of a spherical body, taken as a manifold by itself, has topology S2xR2.

However, there are some key differences from the KS congruence I described. The ordinary body congruence would have spheres evolving from minimum to maximum arbitrarily close to the minimum. There would be no notion of a minimum maxima that is larger by a finite amount than the minimum. Nor would there be a duplicate exterior corresponding to negative X in the KS case. This exterior would be analogous to one KS exterior quadrant, with the SC radius standing in for the body surface.

What GR tells us is that this construction (for the exterior of a body) cannot be shrunken down smoothly to represent a point body. It has a minumum size below which we (if we preserve vacuum and spherical symmetry) we must change the geometry, in the way mandated by the KS interior region(s).

Last edited:
PeterDonis
The next thing we notice is that the two boundary hyperbolas are spacelike (because their slope is always less than 45 degrees). That means that they are best viewed, intuitively, as moments of time, not places in space.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/schwarzschild-geometry-part-3/
should that be "are timelike (..."?
By two boundary hyperbolas I assume you mean the two thick lined hyperbolas at r=0.

should that be "are timelike (..."?
By two boundary hyperbolas I assume you mean the two thick lined hyperbolas at r=0.

Spacelike, not timelike.

should that be "are timelike (..."?

No. A slope of less than 45 degrees (relative to horizontal) is spacelike.

By two boundary hyperbolas I assume you mean the two thick lined hyperbolas at r=0.

Yes.

PAllen said:
Expanding on this, one may make an analogy between this family of sphere evolutions and the exterior of spherical body. Such exterior region can be covered by families of world lines, each such family being a sphere of observers leaving the surface, reaching a maximum, and then returning (no requirement that they they be inertial). They can be set up so their maxima are all at constant T in some chart, and they don't cross, thus forming a valid congruence filling the entire exterior spacetime of the body. An observation is that this shows that the exterior of a spherical body, taken as a manifold by itself, has topology S2xR2.

However, there are some key differences from the KS congruence I described. The ordinary body congruence would have spheres evolving from minimum to maximum arbitrarily close to the minimum. There would be no notion of a minimum maxima that is larger by a finite amount than the minimum. Nor would there be a duplicate exterior corresponding to negative X in the KS case. This exterior would be analogous to one KS exterior quadrant, with the SC radius standing in for the body surface.

What GR tells us is that this construction (for the exterior of a body) cannot be shrunken down smoothly to represent a point body. It has a minumum size below which we (if we preserve vacuum and spherical symmetry) we must change the geometry, in the way mandated by the KS interior region(s).
I was thinking about the above analogy. Since lines of constant ##X## in KS chart are timelike, they actually define a congruence of observers having those as their own worldlines. In their paths through spacetime they 'reach' 2-spheres of minimum and maximum radius.

On the other hand we can image a family of observers starting from each point on the surface of the spherical body. They leave that surface, travel towards points on 2-spheres of maximum radius and then back to the spherical surface they started from.

Why it shows that the exterior of spherical body has topology ##S^2 \text {x} R^2## ?

cianfa72 said:
Since lines of constant ##X## in KS chart are timelike, they actually define a congruence of observers having those as their own worldlines.
Yes.

cianfa72 said:
In their paths through spacetime they 'reach' 2-spheres of minimum and maximum radius.
Maximum, yes. Minimum, no; all lines of constant ##X## start on the white hole singularity and end on the black hole singularity, so they all reach 2-spheres of arbitrarily small radius. (The singularities themselves are not part of the manifold, so ##r = 0## is not on any of the lines.)

cianfa72 said:
we can image a family of observers starting from each point on the surface of the spherical body.
There is no spherical body. The spacetime shown in the Kruskal chart is vacuum everywhere.

cianfa72 said:
Why it shows that the exterior of spherical body has topology ##S^2 \text {x} R^2## ?
You don't need a "spherical body" to show that the topology of the spacetime shown in the Kruskal chart is ##S^2 \times R^2##. All you need is the fact that the manifold does not contain any points where ##r = 0##.

PeterDonis said:
You don't need a "spherical body" to show that the topology of the spacetime shown in the Kruskal chart is ##S^2 \times R^2##. All you need is the fact that the manifold does not contain any points where ##r = 0##.
If we take Minkowski spacetime in standard ##(t,x)## global chart each point represents a 2-plane hence its topology is ##R^2 \times R^2 = R^4##. On the other hand in spherical polar coordinates each point ##(t,r)## represents a spacelike 2-sphere with ##r=0## as minimum value.

For spacetime shown in Kruskal chart the difference wrt. Minkowski is that the radius ##r## of each spacelike 2-sphere labeled by ##(T,X)## is not allowed to vanish (##r=0##). So its topology cannot be ##R^2 \times R^2 = R^4##.

Last edited:
cianfa72 said:
If we take Minkowski spacetime in standard ##(t,x)## global chart each point represents a 2-plane hence its topology is ##R^2 \times R^2 = R^4##. On the other hand in spherical polar coordinates each point ##(t,r)## represents a spacelike 2-sphere with ##r=0## as minimum value.

For spacetime shown in Kruskal chart the difference wrt. Minkowski is that the radius ##r## of each spacelike 2-sphere labeled by ##(T,X)## is not allowed to vanish (##r=0##). So its topology cannot be ##R^2 \times R^2 = R^4##.
Yes, you have just stated in more detail the reason why the statement of mine that you quoted is true.

Just to clarify myself the point, I tried to draw an analogy.

Consider a flat three-dimensional Minkowski manifold minus a point (an event). We can map it using coordinate time ##t## and polar coordinates ##r,\phi##.

In a ##(t,r)## global chart each point represents a ##S^1## circle and each line ##t=const## is defined only for ##r>0## (i.e. points in the chart where ##r=0## do not belong to the manifold). From a topological point of view that means each spacelike hypersurface ##t=const## is basically ##R^2 - \{0,0\}## that is homeomorphic to ##S^1 \times R## -- see for instance here. If we apply it for all ##t## we get that the "three-dimensional Minkowski space minus a point" has topology ##S^1 \times R \times R = S^1 \times R^2##.

What if we take a 4D Minkowski manifold minus one point ? The same kind of reasoning above shows that it has topology ##S^2 \times R^2##. Hence the spacetime represented in Kruskal chart should have the same topology of "4D Minkowski manifold minus one point".

Does the above make sense ? Thank you.

cianfa72 said:
If we apply it for all ##t## we get that the "three-dimensional Minkowski space minus a point" has topology ##S^1 \times R \times R = S^1 \times R^2##.
No, we get that 3D Minkowski space minus a line (the line corresponding to the set of points ##r = 0## for each value of ##t##) has topology ##S^1 \times R^2##.

cianfa72 said:
What if we take a 4D Minkowski manifold minus one point ? The same kind of reasoning above shows that it has topology ##S^2 \times R^2##. Hence the spacetime represented in Kruskal chart should have the same topology of "4D Minkowski manifold minus one point".
No, 4D Minkowski space minus a line. See above. You're just replacing circles with 2-spheres in the above construction.

Last edited:
cianfa72
@cianfa72 another way of seeing how to get to topology ##S^2 \times R^2## by removing sets of points from ##R^4## (note that since we're talking about topology, the metric is irrelevant) is as follows: if we remove one point from ##R^3##, we have topology ##S^2 \times R## (an infinite open set of 2-spheres parameterized by ##r > 0##). If we then take an infinite open stack of these, this corresponds to removing a line from ##R^4##, and it has topology ##S^2 \times R^2##. This may be the construction you were thinking of, but it's not the one you described in post #18. Both constructions, with correct descriptions, are valid.

cianfa72
PeterDonis said:
No, we get that 3D Minkowski space minus a line (the line corresponding to the set of points ##r = 0## for each value of ##t##) has topology ##S^1 \times R^2##.
Ok yes, it makes sense.

PeterDonis said:
if we remove one point from ##R^3##, we have topology ##S^2 \times R## (an infinite open set of 2-spheres parameterized by ##r > 0##).
Note, btw, that this is the topology of a surface of constant coordinate time in Kruskal coordinates.

PeterDonis said:
Note, btw, that this is the topology of a surface of constant coordinate time in Kruskal coordinates.
Ok yes, since in Kruskal chart any line of constant coordinate time ##T## that intersects one of the two boundary hyperboles does not include the '##r=0## 2-sphere'. Therefore those spacelike 'slices' have topology ##R^3 - \{ 0,0,0\}##.

What about the lines of constant Kruskal coordinate time ##T## that do not intersect any boundary hyperbole ?

cianfa72 said:
Ok yes, since in Kruskal chart any line of constant coordinate time ##T## that intersects one of the two boundary hyperboles does not include the '##r=0## 2-sphere'. Therefore those spacelike 'slices' have topology ##R^3 - \{ 0,0,0\}##.
Actually, those are not single regions, they're two disconnected regions (because the boundary hyperbolas and the regions above/below them are not part of the manifold at all). Each individual disconnected region does have topology ##S^2 \times R##.

Strictly speaking, what I said as I said it applies to surfaces of constant Kruskal coordinate time that don't intersect the boundary hyperbolas and so are in fact single connected regions. (In fact what I said applies to any spacelike hypersurface whatever that lies entirely within the manifold, i.e., does not intersect either boundary hyperbola.)

Note, btw, that the latter kind of hypersurface (i.e., one that doesn't intersect either boundary hyperbola) does differ geometrically from the former kind (one that does intersect one of the boundary hyperbolas): the latter kind of hypersurface has a minimum value of ##r##, and extends from that minimum value to ##r \to infty## in both directions from that minimum value. The former kind of hypersurface just goes from ##0 < r < \infty## in one direction.

cianfa72 said:
What about the lines of constant Kruskal coordinate time ##T## that do not intersect any boundary hyperbole ?
See above. No point anywhere in the manifold has ##r = 0##.

PeterDonis said:
Note, btw, that the latter kind of hypersurface (i.e., one that doesn't intersect either boundary hyperbola) does differ geometrically from the former kind (one that does intersect one of the boundary hyperbolas).
ok, spacelike hypersurfaces (possibly disconnected) with different geometry but same topology ##S^2 \times R##.

I do not know if it might make sense apply Kruskal transformations as in the insight to Minkowski spacetime in spherical polar coordinates. Which kind of chart would we get ?

Last edited:
cianfa72 said:
I do not know if it might make sense apply Kruskal transformations as in the insight to Minkowski spacetime in spherical polar coordinates. Which kind of chart would we get ?
The standard Kruskal chart is in spherical polar coordinates. Each point in the standard Kruskal diagram, which represents the ##T-X## plane of the chart, represents a 2-sphere.

PeterDonis said:
The standard Kruskal chart is in spherical polar coordinates. Each point in the standard Kruskal diagram, which represents the ##T-X## plane of the chart, represents a 2-sphere.
Yes, my point was map using Kruskal transformations the Minkowski spacetime not the Schwarzschild one (as explained in the insight what we get applying Kruskal transformations is the Schwarzschild spacetime in Kruskal chart).

cianfa72 said:
my point was map using Kruskal transformations the Minkowski spacetime not the Schwarzschild one
You can't; the Kruskal transformations only make sense for ##M > 0##. For the ##M = 0## case, i.e., Minkowski spacetime, spherical polar coordinates are identical to "Kruskal" coordinates, with the "Kruskal" ##X## being the spherical polar ##r##.

cianfa72
PeterDonis said:
You can't; the Kruskal transformations only make sense for ##M > 0##. For the ##M = 0## case, i.e., Minkowski spacetime, spherical polar coordinates are identical to "Kruskal" coordinates, with the "Kruskal" ##X## being the spherical polar ##r##.
So for Minkowski spacetime (i.e. ##M=0## case) the "Kruskal" chart in ##X,T## diagram is defined only for the half plane ##X \geq 0##.

cianfa72 said:
So for Minkowski spacetime (i.e. ##M=0##) the "Kruskal" chart in ##X,T## diagram is defined only for the half plane ##X \geq 0##.
Yes. That follows from the fact that the topology of Minkowsi spacetime is ##R^4##, not ##S^2 \times R^2##. The fact that the full Kruskal chart for Schwarzschild spacetime looks a lot like a spacetime diagram of an inertial chart in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime is misleading in this respect.

cianfa72
PeterDonis said:
The fact that the full Kruskal chart for Schwarzschild spacetime looks a lot like a spacetime diagram of an inertial chart in 1+1 Minkowski spacetime is misleading in this respect.
I take it as follows. An inertial chart in ##T,X## coordinates for 1+1 Minkowski spacetime (1 timelike + 1 spacelike dimension) has a diagram that actually extends on all over the ##T,X## plane (i.e. there is not any boundary like the two hyperbolas of Kruskal chart for Schwarzschild spacetime).

As you said for 1+1 Minkowski spacetime the "Kruskal" ##X## coordinate is basically the spherical polar ##r## . Since in this case there is 1 spacelike dimension only, the 'spherical polar ##r##' (i.e. ##X##) takes actually all values in the range ##(- \infty, + \infty)##.

Last edited:
cianfa72 said:
An inertial chart in ##T,X## coordinates for 1+1 Minkowski spacetime (1 timelike + 1 spacelike dimension) has a diagram that actually extends on all over the ##T,X## plane (i.e. there is not any boundary like the two hyperbolas of Kruskal chart for Schwarzschild spacetime).
Yes, that's correct. But here ##X## is not a radial coordinate; these coordinates are Cartesian, not spherical. In spherical coordinates the ##T, R## "plane" of Minkowski spacetime is only a half-plane, with ##0 \le R < \infty##.

cianfa72 said:
As you said for 1+1 Minkowski spacetime the "Kruskal" ##X## coordinate is basically the spherical polar ##r## . Since in this case there is 1 spacelike dimension only, the 'spherical polar ##r##' (i.e. ##X##) takes actually all values in the range ##(- \infty, + \infty)##.
No, it doesn't. Minkowski spacetime only goes from ##0 \le r < \infty##. But the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime in Kruskal coordinates goes from ##- \infty < X < \infty## even though ##X## is a radial coordinate in spherical coordinates, not a Cartesian coordinate.

So the Kruskal diagram for Schwarzschild spacetime in ##T, X## coordinates, with ##X## a "radial" coordinate in spherical coordinates (i.e., every point in the diagram represents a 2-sphere, and there are hyperbolic boundaries) looks like a standard spacetime diagram for Minkowski spacetime in Cartesian coordinates, i.e., ##X## is a Cartesian coordinate, not a radial coordinate (and if we take the diagram to represent 1+3 Minkowski spacetime, then every point in the diagram represents a 2-plane, not a 2-sphere, and there are no hyperbolic boundaries).

If we take the ##M = 0## case of Schwarzschild spacetime, and keep spherical coordinates, then the whole left half-plane of the Kruskal diagram for Schwarzschild spacetime disappears and only the right half-plane remains (with no hyperbolic boundaries).

PeterDonis said:
No, it doesn't. Minkowski spacetime only goes from ##0 \le r < \infty##. But the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime in Kruskal coordinates goes from ##- \infty < X < \infty## even though ##X## is a radial coordinate in spherical coordinates, not a Cartesian coordinate.
So ##X## as radial coordiante in spherical coordinate can assume negative values ? (i.e. 2-spheres labeled with negative ##X## hence negative area) ?

PeterDonis said:
So the Kruskal diagram for Schwarzschild spacetime in ##T, X## coordinates, with ##X## a "radial" coordinate in spherical coordinates (i.e., every point in the diagram represents a 2-sphere, and there are hyperbolic boundaries) looks like a standard spacetime diagram for Minkowski spacetime in Cartesian coordinates, i.e., ##X## is a Cartesian coordinate, not a radial coordinate (and if we take the diagram to represent 1+3 Minkowski spacetime, then every point in the diagram represents a 2-plane, not a 2-sphere, and there are no hyperbolic boundaries).

If we take the ##M = 0## case of Schwarzschild spacetime, and keep spherical coordinates, then the whole left half-plane of the Kruskal diagram for Schwarzschild spacetime disappears and only the right half-plane remains (with no hyperbolic boundaries).
ok got it !

cianfa72 said:
So ##X## as radial coordiante in spherical coordinate can assume negative values ?
The ##X## coordinate in Kruskal coordinates in Schwarzschild spacetime can, yes. (Questions about coordinates are meaningless unless you specify which particular chart and which spacetime.) But while the Kruskal ##X## is a radial coordinate, it's not the same radial coordinate as ##r##. (In Kruskal coordinates ##r## is not even a coordinate, it's a function of the coordinates. See below.)

cianfa72 said:
(i.e. 2-spheres labeled with negative ##X## hence negative area) ?
The 2-spheres labeled with negative ##X## do not have negative area. ##X## is not an "areal radius"; a radial coordinate does not have to have a direct relationship with area of 2-spheres. The areal radius ##r## in Kruskal coordinates is a function of both the Kruskal ##X## and the Kruskal ##T##. I believe I give the function in the Insights article.

PeterDonis said:
The 2-spheres labeled with negative ##X## do not have negative area. ##X## is not an "areal radius"; a radial coordinate does not have to have a direct relationship with area of 2-spheres. The areal radius ##r## in Kruskal coordinates is a function of both the Kruskal ##X## and the Kruskal ##T##. I believe I give the function in the Insights article.
Ah ok, so why is Kruskal ##X## coordinate called 'a radial coordinate? Just because -- as pointed out in the Insight -- it is given as transformation from ##(t,r)## coordinates of Schwarzschild chart ?

• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
666
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
5K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
4K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
2K