Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzshild solution?
- From: LEJ Brouwer <intuitionist1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:08:55 +0000 (UTC)
boson boss wrote:
So you do question The Wall or is it your head too soft? :-))
The reason I am interested is because the following papers claim that
there is an error in the interpretation of the radial coordinate 'r' in
the standard Schwarzschild metric:
L. S. Abrams, "Black holes: The legacy of Hilbert's error", Can. J.
Phys. 23 (1923) 43, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102055
S. Antoci, "David Hilbert and the origin of the 'Schwarzschild
solution'", http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310104
S. J. Crothers, "On the general solution to Einstein's vacuum field and
its implications for relativistic degeneracy", Prog. Phys. 1 (2006)
68-73.
In particular they show, in a rather simple fashion, that the event
horizon is at radius zero, coinciding with the position the point mass
itself, and actually appears pointlike to an external observer.
They claim that the reason that the original misinterpretation occurred
is because Hilbert incorrectly assumed a priori that the 'r' which
appears in the metric must be the radial coordinate (in fact, it need
only parametrise the radii to ensure a spherically symmetric solution).
The careful analysis of Abrams et al shows that the point mass actually
resides at r=2m, which therefore corresponds to the true origin, so
that there is in fact no 'interior' solution. In particular, they
mention that Schwarzschild's original paper never allowed for an
interior solution either.
If the event horizon is at the origin, and there is no interior
solution, then this tends to raise the question, "well, where does a
radially infalling particle actually go?". Does it just bounce off the
'brick wall' (or rather, 'brick point')? (I do not agree with the above
papers that the Kruskal extension is invalid - it is absolutely
necessary to have a consistent well-defined timelike direction).
Have we really all been making this silly mathematical error, and is
our present understanding of the simplest classical black hole way off
the mark?
Cheers,
Sabbir.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzshild solution?
- From: carlip-nospam
- Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzshild solution?
- Prev by Date: Re: Two-slit experiment
- Next by Date: Re: Two-slit experiment
- Previous by thread: Enhanced video of cloud chamber glow
- Next by thread: Re: Misinterpretation of the radial parameter in the Schwarzshild solution?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
