4
$\begingroup$

If one considers the Schwarzschild metric

$$ \text d s^2 = -V(r)\text d t^2 + \frac{1}{V(r)}\text d r^2 + r^2 \text d \Omega^2\;,\qquad V(r) = 1-\frac{2m}{r}\;, $$

and introduces the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates

$$ v = t+f(r)\;,\qquad u = t-f(r)\;, \qquad f'(r) = \frac{1}{V(r)} \;. $$

the coordinate singularity at $r=2m$ vanishes and the metric reads:

$$ \text d s^2 = -V(r)\text d v\text d u + r^2\text d \Omega^2\,. $$

However, by integrating $f'$ to get $f$ I would calculate $$ f(r) = \int \frac{1}{V(r)}\text d r = \int \left( 1+\frac{2m}{r-2m} \right) d r = r + 2m\ln|r-2m| \;. $$

But in books and lecture notes I always read $\ln(r-2m)$ instead of $\ln|r-2m|$. Isn't that wrong? In my opinion this makes a difference.

For example when I introduce the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates $$ \tan V = \text e ^{\alpha v}\;,\qquad \tan U = -\text e ^{-\alpha u}\;,\qquad \alpha = \frac{1}{4m}\, $$ I get $$ \tan V \tan U = -\text e ^{\frac{r}{2m}} |r-2m| $$ instead of $$ \tan V \tan U = -\text e ^{\frac{r}{2m}} (r-2m) $$ But these two cases lead to different Penrose diagrams.

So why is it wrong to to use the absolute value of $r-2m$ in the logarithm?

PS: When it is about the Reissner-Nordstrom metric all books and notes I find surprisingly use the magnitude in the argument of the logarithm. But why not in the case of Schwarzschild?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think the EF coordinates are defined differently depending on if you are inside or outside of the horizon, thus eliminating the need for the absolute value. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Feb 11 '15 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ As far as I know this is not the case. Because the expression for the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates $\tan V \tan U = -\text e ^{\frac{r}{2m}} (r-2m)$ does not cause any problems inside or outside the black hole (so even when you don't use the absolute values...). $\endgroup$ – thyme Feb 12 '15 at 15:53
3
$\begingroup$

The issue here is that the Schwarzschild coordinates are divided into two disconnected patches by the coordinate singularity at $r=2m$. There is no physical connection and the two pieces can be viewed as separate solutions.

The Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates take the outer solution and extend it beyond the horizon, but inside the horizon it is different from the Schwarzschild solution beyond the coordinate sigularity.

A simple mathematical reason for the absence of the absolute value would be that the coordinate change would not be a bijection including the absolute value as the function $v(r,t)=t+r+2m \log|r-2m|$ is not injective on $r\in[0,\infty)$. As stated above, the change of variables is only supposed to map the outer part of the spacetime $r\in(2m,\infty)$ into the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates.

The confusing part is that using $v(r,t)= t+r+2m \log|r-2m|$ can indeed also be used to map the inner part of the Schwarzschild coordinates into the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, but because we have to require the change of coordinates to be one-to-one we can then only define it for $r\in(0,2m)$.

So the change of coordinates $v(r,t)= t+r+2m \log|r-2m|$ can be used separately for the inner and outer sections of the Schwarzschild coordinates to map them into Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, but not both sections simultaneously, i.e. the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates can be seen an extension of both the inner and the outer Schwarzschild solution but they cannot incorporate both at the same time.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great answer...i was about to write the same......upvoted! $\endgroup$ – GRrocks Mar 26 '15 at 3:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.