You are on page 1of 30

The Two Schwarzschild Solutions: A Critical

Assessment
R.E. Salvino ∗
# 604
1 South Shamian Street
Guangzhou, China 510133

R.D. Puff
Department of Physics, Box 351560
University Of Washington
Seattle WA 98195

Revised: 29 Sep 2013

Abstract
We present a pedagogically sound derivation of the most general solution of the
time-independent, spherically-symmetric gravitational field equations. We use that
solution, the Combridge-Janne solution, as a basis for evaluating the original and textbook Schwarzschild solutions. We demonstrate that both versions of the Schwarzschild
solution are valid, are distinct and not equivalent to each other, but are related by
means of a one-parameter family of solutions. We explicitly show that the original
solution is the appropriate solution for a point mass source while the textbook solution is the appropriate solution for a wormhole source. In addition, the textbook
solution necessarily has a time-dependent aspect while the original solution is truly
time-independent. A number of issues surrounding these two solutions are clarified
and resolved.
Keywords: Combridge-Janne solution, generalized Schwarzschild solution, Schwarzschild
solution, original Schwarzschild solution, Hilbert solution, textbook Schwarzschild solution

1

Introduction

It is now known that the Schwarzschild solution, the first and best known exact solution
to the general relativistic field equations, actually comes in two versions. The first version,
which we will temporarily call the textbook solution [1,2] or the Hilbert solution [3,4], is by

Current address: 9 Thomson Lane, 15-06 Sky@Eleven, Singapore 297726.

1

far the most familiar, has the well-known coordinate singularity and event horizon at the
Schwarzschild radius, was the origin for the concept of a singularity in spacetime, and has
the preferred interpretation as the gravitational field of a wormhole in spacetime [1, 2, 5].
The second version, which we will call the original Schwarzschild solution [6–8], is regular
everywhere, has a physical singularity and event horizon at the single point r = 0, and has
the simple interpretation as the gravitational field for a point mass located at r = 0 [6–9]
The basic distinction between these two Schwarzschild solutions is traced to a single
metric function, g22 . The textbook solution develops from three general relativistic field
equations in two unknown metric functions, g00 and g11 . The g22 function, in effect, is chosen to be g22 = −r2 by means of an argument based on a suitable “choice of coordinates”
and is not determined by a field equation [1, 2]. It also satisfies the asymptotic boundary
condition that the gravitational field be described by the Newtonian theory far from the
source. The original Schwarzschild solution develops from four equations in three unknown
metric functions, g00 , g11 , and g22 . The four equations consist of the three general rela√
tivistic field equations plus the subsidiary condition −g = 1 where g is the determinant
of the metric [6–8]. While this additional condition was originally part of the structure of
the theory of general relativity and later abandoned, Einstein continued to promote this
additional equation as defining a particularly convenient choice of coordinates that may
simplify resulting equations [10]. Consequently, we view Schwarzschild’s approach as uti√
lizing a choice of coordinates such that −g = 1 and, having completed the solution in
those coordinates, then expressing the solution in the original contravariant coordinates.
In addition, Schwarzschild’s solution was designed to satisfy two boundary conditions. The
first is the same asymptotic condition that the textbook solution satisifies, that the field
be described by Newtonian theory far from the source. The second is the condition that
the metric functions be finite and continuous everywhere except at r = 0, the presumed
site of the point mass source object. Schwarzschild’s original solution then states that
g22 = −Rs2 (r) = −(r3 + α3 )2/3 where α = 2mG and mG = Gm/c2 is the geometric mass of
the object [6–8].
The difference between the number of boundary conditions imposed to uniquely determine the solutions is important. The field equations consist of a system of differential
equations and the highest order of those equations is two. Consequently, we expect that
two boundary conditions are needed to uniquely determine the solution. As we pointed out
in the above discussion, Schwarzschild did originally impose two boundary conditions while
the textbook presentation imposes only one. However, as we show below in Section 7, the
textbook condition that g22 = −r2 everywhere serves as the necessary second boundary
condition for the textbook solution. It is not recognized as a boundary condition because
it is imposed before the field equations are even established and its role is obscured by the
claim that the condition is the result of a “choice of coordinates.”
In both versions of the solution, only two field equations are necessary in the determination of the solution, but the third field equation is satisfied by that solution. Textbook
presentations often state that a third field equation is not needed and it is a common
2

exercise to verify that the textbook solution does indeed satisfy the third field equation.
Schwarzschild had pointed out in his original paper that only two of the three field equations, with the addition of the auxiliary condition, were needed, but he verified that the
solution did satisfy the third equation. The fact that the third field equation is not needed
in either case and yet is satisfied by both solutions is never explored and is simply accepted
as a pleasant fact. It is not, however, just a matter of luck. In 1916, within the context of a
perturbative treatment of the time-independent inhomogeneous and spherically symmetric
gravitation problem, de Sitter showed that there are only two independent field equations,
not three [11]. This is an exact and rigorous statement in the limit of vacuum field conditions. This means that the third field equation is necessarily satisifed by the solution since
it is a consequence of the other two equations. Furthermore, it should be expected that the
vacuum field equations will produce a solution for two of the metric functions in terms of
the third metric function while the third metric function remains undetermined by the field
equations. This, in fact, was explicitly demonstrated independently by Combridge [12] and
Janne [13] in 1923.
The solution provided by Combridge and Janne provides the basis for understanding the
the relationship between the two Schwarzschild solutions. Only two equations are needed
for the solution because the third field equation is not independent of the other two. Thus,

imposing the condition −g = 1 provides Schwarzschild with the basis for determining
the third metric function; stating that g22 = −r2 everywhere appears to provide the third
metric function simply by fiat. We will show below in Section 7 that both the original and

textbook Schwarzschild solutions come from the same imposed condition, −g = 1, but
correspond to two different boundary conditions imposed on the solution.
While work has been done on the original Schwarzschild solution, much of the emphasis
has been on attempting to discredit the textbook solution as a solution [14–21] On the other
hand, the proponents of the textbook solution view the original solution as misguided at
worst and nothing new and equivalent to the textbook solution at best [22–24]; most often,
it is simply ignored. In addition, the use of gauge function terminology [25], distinguishing
between the original Schwarzschild solution and the textbook solution, or Hilbert’s solution,
as different gauges, provides a false sense of understanding and obscures the underlying
relationship between these two solutions.
To clarify the issues surrounding and underlying the two Schwarzschild solutions, we
begin by simply removing all assumptions and agendas in the derivation of the solution and
examine the rigorous exact solution without bias. To facilitate connections with historical
papers that have worked with the differential equation approach and to reach the widest
possible audience, we choose to work in a standard coordinate basis and with the resulting
differential equations. In Section 2 we define our coordinate basis and derive the geodesic
equations, Christoffel symbols of the second kind, the components of the Ricci tensor, and
the vacuum field equations for the spherically symmetric system without any assumptions
or imposed conditons on the coordinates. In Section 3 we provide our derivation of the most
general time-independent, spherically symmetric solution of the vacuum field equations.
3

4 . the symbols t. We summarize and discuss our results in Section 8. and C are functions of r only and dΩ is the differential solid angle. It is explicitly shown that boundary conditions provide the basis for the individual solutions which establishes them as separate and distinct solutions. and C are independent of t). ϕ). In Section 6 we derive a very simple but rigorous equation relating the g22 metric function and the determinant of the metric. We show that Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution and the original Schwarzschild solution are distinct solutions and can not be shown to be equivalent by means of a coordinate transformation (Section 4). we focus almost exclusively on understanding the relationship between the original Schwarzschild solution and Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution. It is well-known that the most general line element for a time-independent and spherically symmetric system in this coordinate basis has the form [1. A wide variety of imposed conditions may be used in its place [26].2) where the three metric functions A.1) dΩ2 = dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 (2. 2] ds2 = A(r)(dx0 )2 − B(r)dr2 − C(r)dΩ2 (2. r. (x0 = ct. θ. 1 The Schwarzschild condition on the determinant of the metric is not the only imposed condition that may be used to determine the g22 metric function. however. B. and ϕ always refer to this coordinate basis and any change of coordinate basis is explicitly stated and utilizes typographically distinct symbols. 1 We then show that that equation is the groundwork for a generalization of the Schwarzschild solution into a one-parameter family of solutions that includes both Hilbert’s version of the solution and the original solution on an equal footing as special cases (Section 7). This line element is stationary (A. θ. In the process of doing so. r. In all that follows. The importance of the CombridgeJanne solution. 2 Derivation of the Field Equations We choose our coordinate basis to be a time-like coordinate and the standard spherical spatial coordinates. goes well-beyond understanding the connections between these two Schwarzschild solutions [26]. we then discuss the issues involved in using the g22 metric function as a radial coordinate. B.This is the solution mentioned above that was derived independently by Combridge and Janne. In Section 5. we explicitly demonstrate de Sitter’s discovery relating to the number of independent field equations which underlies the Combridge-Janne solution. While we use the Combridge-Janne solution as the basis for our analyses.

p We now introduce the radial function 2 R(r) = C(r) rather than choose C(r) = r2 . 5 .5) result from the Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from the variational problem 2 The symbols R and R(r) will always refer to the g22 metric function. it is unnecessarily restrictive. any references to the Ricci scalar will use the contracted tensor symbol Rαα . The Lorentzian character of the metric in the asymptotic region now means that both ν and λ vanish sufficiently far from the source while R(r) → r. 2] so that we write the metric as ds2 = eν (dx0 )2 − eλ dr2 − R2 dΩ2 (2. To display obvious parallels with the standard results and field equations. 2.4) where ν. effectively resultingpin C(r) = r2 as a choice for C(r). The condition C(0) = 0. such an approach requires the new radial coordinate to obey C(0) ≤ r < ∞. To maintain that 0 ≤ r < ∞ means either the radial coordinate r was not obtained from C(r). is not a general condition but is a specific boundary condition on the function C(r) and is appropriate for a specific source object. B(r) → 1. we will adopt the customary exponential forms for A(r) and B(r) [1.3) then A(r) → 1. λ. Since the limiting form of the line element for sufficiently large distances from the source of spacetime curvature is expected to be Lorentzian ds2 → (dx0 )2 − dr2 − r2 dΩ2 (2. and C(r) → r2 in the asymptotic region. To avoid confusion with the Ricci scalar. and R are functions of r only. However. The choice C(r) = r2 obscures the underlying structure of the equations and provides no significant simplification in the solution process. the source now known as a wormhole. In addition. or p C(0) = 0 was tacitly imposed. The conventional papproach is to caste such a choice in the language of a coordinate transformation. p r = C(r). 3). and C are functions of |r| only).static (g0k = 0 for k = 1. p however. and rotationally invariant (g33 = g22 sin2 θ and A. The last condition ensures the circumference of a great circle is given by 2πr and the surface area of a sphere is given by 4πr2 in the asymptotically flat spacetime. B. This has been shown to be a specific case of a more general solution [26] which will also be demonstrated below in Section 7. We follow the standard approach to calculating the Christoffel symbols of the second kind and note that the equations of the geodesic lines µ x ¨ +  µ α β  x˙ α x˙ β = 0 (2.

The Ricci tensor may be written as 6 .7) In the above equations. θ˙ = dθ/ds. 2. and 3 in turn provides all of the non-zero Christoffel symbols which we list in Table 1. Christoffel symbols.8) Calculating the partial derivatives and simplifying the resulting equations. In addition. and ϕ˙ = dϕ/ds. r˙ = dr/ds. are also given in Table 1. the determinant of √ the metric tensor. 1.δ Z F ds = 0 (2. ln −g.9) (2. Comparing these equations to the geodesic equations (2.12) where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to the radial coordinate r. respectively.11) (2. It is very easy to verify that these equations revert to the standard textbook results for R(r) = r. x˙ 0 = dx0 /ds. 1. 2.  2eν x ¨0 + ν ′ r˙ x˙ 0 = 0 1 1 ˙ 2 − e−λ RR′ sin2 θ(ϕ) ˙ 2 − e−λ RR′ (θ) ˙ 2=0 r¨ + eν−λ ν ′ (x˙ 0 )2 + λ′ (r) 2 2 (2. The EulerLagrange equations resulting from this variational problem are   d ∂F ∂F − µ =0 µ ds ∂ x˙ ∂x (2. g. the overhead dot denotes differentiation with respect to the line element variable s. and the relevant term that appears in the Ricci tensor. and determinant of the metric by including the g22 function R(r).5) for µ = 0.10) ′ R θ¨ + 2 r˙ θ˙ − sin θ cos θ(ϕ) ˙ 2=0 R ϕ¨ + 2 R′ r˙ ϕ˙ + 2 cot θθ˙ϕ˙ = 0 R (2. 3.6) where the function F is given by  2  ˙ + sin2 θ(ϕ) F = eν (x˙ 0 )2 − eλ (r) ˙ 2 − R2 (θ) ˙ 2 (2. we obtain the geodesic equations for µ = 0. These equations are the generalization of the standard results for the geodesic equations.

  0 1    2 2 1 3  3 2 1 1  1 ′ 2ν  1 ν−λ ′ ν 2e  1 ′ 2λ  −e−λ RR′  −e−λ RR′ sin2 θ 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3     0 0 0 1 1   = 0  = 2 1 2  R′ R  2 3 3 3  =  3  =  − sin θ cos θ 3 3  cot θ  R′ R 2 3 3 1 −eν+λ R4 sin2 θ g = ||gαβ || ln √ −g 1 2 (ν + λ) + 2 ln R + 12 ln(sin2 θ) 7 .12).9) . (2.Table 1: The non-zero Christoffel symbols of the second kind obtained from the geodesic equations.(2. √ eqs. We also include entries for the determinant of the metric g and ln −g.

17) provide the most general Ricci tensor components for the time-independent spherically symmetric problem.16) R22 = (e−λ RR′ )′ − 1 + (e−λ RR′ ) 2  λ′ + ν ′ i h ′ R33 = sin2 θ e−λ RR′ − 1 + (e−λ RR′ ) = sin2 θR22 2 (2. now yield the three general relativistic field equations ν ′2 λ′ ν ′ 2ν ′ R′ − + =0 2 2 R (2.14) 1  ′′ ν ′2 λ′ ν ′ 2λ′ R′ 4R′′  ν + − − + 2 2 2 R R (2.13) For static and spherically symmetric systems.15)  λ′ + ν ′  (2. (2.18) ν ′2 λ′ ν ′ 2λ′ R′ 4R′′ − − + =0 2 2 R R (2.Rµν = ln √ −g  |µ|ν −  α µ ν  + |α  β µ τ  τ β ν  −  τ µ ν  ln √ −g  |τ (2. By direct calculation. These are the timeindependent spherically symmetric vacuum field equations which explicitly contain the 8 .17) All other Rαβ are identically zero and provide no additional information. The vacuum equations. Rµν = 0.19) ν ′′ + ν ′′ + (e−λ RR′ )′ − 1 + (e−λ RR′ )  λ′ + ν ′  2 =0 (2. the non-zero components of the Ricci tensor are R00 eν−λ  ′′ ν ′2 λ′ ν ′ 2ν ′ R′  ν + − + =− 2 2 2 R R11 = (2. Eqs.14) − (2. the only non-zero derivatives are those with respect to x1 = r (contravariant coordinate index µ = 1) and x2 = θ (contravariant coordinate index µ = 2).20) since the R33 = 0 equation duplicates the R22 = 0 equation.

Eq. such as Hilbert’s “choice of coordinates such that √ R = r” or Schwarzschild’s “choice of coordinates such that −g = 1.1) may also be easily integrated to obtain 9 (3.20) and simplifying yields d −λ (e RR′2 ) = R′ dr (3.1).” It will eventually become clear that a choice of coordinates has nothing to do with such imposed conditions. the field equations are not sufficient to fully determine the solution. It will also become evident that the solution is quite straightforward and is not in need of any purported simplifications. (3.19) from (2. and (3. Rαβ = 0 is a system of three independent equations.1) into (2.3).g22 metric function R(r).18) gives 2R′′ =0 R′ (3. This last equation.19) also produces (3.2).3). for the time-independent spherically symmetric case.4) . (3. (3. (3. Consequently. (2. Subtracting (2.18) yields ν ′′ + ν ′2 − Substituting (3.1) into eq. Although it is often stated that.1) into (2. may be integrated to yield e−λ R′2 = 1 − α R where α is an integration constant. 3 Derivation of the Combridge-Janne Solution We will now provide the solution of the vacuum field equations without any additional assumptions or imposed conditions.1) ν ′ R′′ 2ν ′ R′ + =0 R′ R (3.2).3) So now our three independent equations are (3.2) ν ′ + λ′ − Substituting eq. Substituting (3. we wish to re-state and emphasize that de Sitter has shown that only two of the three field equations are independent [11].

To see why this is so. we note that (3.3).2) does not produce a differential equation for the function R(r).9) Performing the differentiations in (3. (3.5) where C0 is another integration constant. 10 . By direct calculation of the derivatives of (3.eν+λ = eC0 R′2 (3. not three. there are only two independent field equations.6) Our three equations are now (3. we find that ν e =e C0  α 1− R  (3. the third field equation (3. Using eq.10) which we immediately recognize as eq. (3.6) (an algebraic equation relating ν and R).2) is ultimately a consequence of eqs.9) and simplifying yields ν ′′ + ν ′2 − ν ′ R′′ 2ν ′ R′ + =0 R′ R (3. and equation (3.2) contains only ν and R and their derivatives. This provides an explicit demonstration of the result obtained by de Sitter [11].7) (3. comparing (3.4) (a differential equation relating λ and R). Now. we find  αR′ R2   ′ ′  ′ ν ′ C0 αR νe =e R2 ν ′ e ν = e C0  (3. equation (3.6) to eliminate ν ′′ and ν ′ from eq.1) and (3.6).8) Taking the ratio of these equations removes the constant factor eC0 and produces ′ ′ eν ν ′ R′ /R2  =  eν ν ′ R′ /R2 (3.5) with (3.4).2) (another differential equation relating ν and R). (3.2). Thus. (3. it produces an identity with no conditions on the function R(r).

To cast these results in the notation utilized by de Sitter. in curved spacetime.12) (3. the function R(r) remains undetermined and the solution to the vacuum field equations is not unique. As we mentioned in Section 2. λ. and µ [11. For instance. the standard approach to removing the indeterminancy of the solution involving ν. The undetermined nature of R(r) means that the function µ(r) is undetermined. λ. Although R(r) has the interpretation of the radius of a circle.15) The metric may now be written as This is the form of the metric originally established by de Sitter [11] and used by Combridge [12] and Janne [13]. the flat space conditions must be fulfilled in the asymptotically Lorentzian spacetime only. C = 2πR(r). having used all the available field equations. It may be characterized as a one-function family of solutions and can be summarized as eν = 1 −  λ e = dR(r) dr 2  2mG R(r) 2mG 1− R(r) (3. Consequently. that R(r) must obey the Lorentzian asymptotic condition R(r) → r as r → ∞. this will guarantee the circumference of a great circle in the asymptotic flat spacetime is 2πr and the surface area of a sphere is 4πr2 .13) We do know. but the metric functions ν(r) and λ(r) remain as functionals of the g22 metric function R(r). A = 4πR2 (r). Previously. and Janne. We now have determined the constants of integration. now known as the Schwarzschild radius. and µ has been to assume some relation among the functions ν.The asymptotic far-field limit determines the constant C0 to be zero and the constant α to be twice the geometric mass of the source. Combridge. we define the function µ(r) by R = reµ/2 (3. choosing λ − µ = 0 is equivalent to the symmetry condition that R(r) = reλ/2 which produces the isotropic metric 11 . or of a sphere.14) ds2 = eν c2 dt2 − eλ dr2 − eµ r2 dΩ2 (3.11) −1 R(r) = undetermined (3. 18]. α = 2mG = 2Gm/c2 . however.

This provides an indication that Schwarzschild’s original solution and the textbook solution do arise from the same condition. it more accurately produces the condition R′2 R4 = r4 which may be used as the basis for deriving the original Schwarzschild solution. Another example is provided by imposing the condition ν + 2µ + λ = 0. Although de Sitter identified this condition as corresponding to Einstein’s condition of choice [11]. We should point out. For example. that the condition R(r) = reλ/2 is valid only for eλ/2 ≥ 0: it must be supplemented by another condition if eλ/2 < 0 is allowed [27]. We will now demonstrate that these two versions of the Schwarzschild solution are physically distinct and are not reducible to each other by means of a coordinate transformation. it must be stressed that any such condition is arbitrary and amounts to nothing more than choosing a metric function by decree.17) (3. As a final example. It has been obtained by simply exploiting the extra degree of freedom provided by the indeterminate nature of R(r) to produce the metric with the desired symmetry. however. Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution also immediately results from simply choosing µ = 0 so that R(r) = r.ds2 = eν c2 dt2 − eλ dr2 + r2 dΩ2  mG  4 R2  = 1 + r2 2r 2 1 − 2mr G ν e = 2 1 + 2mr G eλ = eµ = (3. we note that it is not possible to write the two metrics in terms of different coordinate bases. respectively. if we write 2 ds =     2mG −1 2 2mG 2 2 c dt − 1 − dr − r2 dΩ2 1− r r 12 (4.16) (3. 4 The Two Schwarzschild Solutions The Combridge-Janne solution reduces to the original Schwarzshild solution and Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution for Rs (r) = (r3 + (2mG )3 )1/3 and RH (r) = r. Such an ab initio approach for the isotropic metric was advocated nearly 100 years ago by Eddington [28]. the coordinate basis remains the original spherical spatial coordinate basis introduced in Section 2.1) . First. 27] or any other set of coordinates.18) We note that this metric has not been obtained by means of a coordinate transformation to “isotropic coordinates” [1. While other choices are admissable. such a procedure provides no fundamental determination of the function R(r).

but there can be no deforming transformations that may alter the range of the coordinates. y.1) and (4. (4. there is no way to distinguish between the coordinate bases (r. y. but it does provide the necessary relationship between the two radial coordinates r and Rs in metrics (4. (4.3) While the chain rule has converted the g22 function Rs (r) into the radial coordinate.3) has the form of the textbook Schwarzschild metric. ϕ).1) does not produce the original metric (4. ϕ) are related to two corresponding rectangular coordinate bases (x.2). Consequently.3) and using (4. It is clear that (4. ϕ) and (r. the two coordinate systems can be distinguished by a translation and a rotation.3) does not produce the textbook metric (4. (t. ϕ) and (r. In fact.4) in the textbook metric (4. we note that by using the chain rule. z). ϕ) so that r = r without loss of generality.4) shows that Rs (0) = 2mG . It is also clear that Rs ≥ 2mG since eq. θ. θ. the corresponding ranges of the rectangular coordinate bases are also identical.4) in the original metric (4.3) for the original Schwarzschild solution is the function defined in (4.3). At most. r.4) We point out that eq. we may convert the line element (4.   2mG 2 2 2mG −1 2 2 ds = 1 − c dt − 1 − dr − Rs2 dΩ Rs Rs 2  (4. we show explicitly in Section 7 that the two Schwarzshild solutions are obtained in the same coordinate system. it is easy to misinterpret 13 . θ.1). Because the range of the two sets of spherical coordinates are identical.4) does not function as the coordinate transformation that puts one metric in the form of the other: using (4.2) Rs (r) = r3 + (2mG )  3 1/3 where Rs = Rs (r). the two spherical coordinate bases (r.2) from the Combridge-Janne form to the conventional textbook form ds2 =  1−    2mG −1 2 2mG 2 2 c dt − 1 − dRs − Rs2 dΩ2 Rs Rs (4. the basis that was introduced in Section 3. respectively:  1/3 Rs = r3 + (2mG )3 (4.2) no longer provides the g22 function as a function of the radial coordinate r. Thus. the only function that can be used in conjunction with the chain rule to produce the line element (4. θ. Second. θ. The function in (4. z) and (x.

We note in passing that the singularity of the metric (4. This is a problem of interpretation that does not appear when using the original coordinate basis (t. the region exterior to the textbook event horizon corresponds to the ranges r > 2mG (4. it corresponds to a point singularity at r = 0. The original metric (4. So. To clarify the issue. ϕ). both inside and outside of the textbook event horizon with no complications or subtleties of any kind. it is perfectly well-behaved everywhere except for a singularity at Rs = 2mG . These are two completely different metrics describing two completely different physical configurations. r. however. The textbook metric (4. it does not imply a minimum value for the radial coordinate r different from r = 0. The line element (4.3) has no event horizon corresponding to the textbook event horizon and has a spatial singularity and coinciding event horizon at Rs = 2mG or r = 0. delineating the regions relative to the site of the textbook event horizon. is an artifact of using the g22 function Rs (r) as the radial coordinate. But Rs = 2mG corresponds to r = 0 not to r = 2mG .3) covers the entire spacetime.1) has an event horizon at r = 2mG and a temporal singularity at r = 0 since the radial coordinate r is timelike inside the event horizon. In fact.(4. θ. 14 .5) Rs > (2) 1/3 (2mG ) and the region interior to the textbook event horizon corresponds to the ranges 0 ≤ r < 2mG (4.3) at Rs = 2mG appears to be at a spherical surface. it is perfectly well-behaved there.3) as corresponding to the textbook solution outside of the event horizon. the metric (4. This.3) has no event horizon at that radius.6) 2mG ≤ Rs < (2)1/3 (2mG ) Consequently. Other issues of interpretation and meaning related to using the general R(r) as the radial coordinate are discussed below in Section 5. The minimum value of Rs (r) simply means that the g22 metric function has a non-zero minimum at r = 0. we note that the textbook solution has an event horizon at r = 2mG which corresponds to Rs = (2)1/3 (2mG ). The singularity at Rs = 2mG does not indicates a surface singularity.

7) where 0 ≤ r < ∞. this can only be satisfied by mG = 0. Since the original Schwarzschild solution has Rs3 = r3 + (2mG )3 .9) If we now demand that this be identical to Hilbert’s line element. 2 ds =     2mG 2 2 2mG −1 2 1− c dt − 1 − dr − r2 dΩ2 r r (4. we offer one last and perhaps more straightforward approach to demonstrating the inequivalence of the textbook metric and the original metric. 2mG 2mG =1− f r     2mG ′2 2mG 1− f = 1− f r 1− f 2 = r2 (4. Given Hilbert’s version of Schwarzschild’s solution [1. 15 .8) becomes 2 ds =     2mG −1 ′2 2 2mG 2 2 c dt − 1 − f dr − f 2 dΩ2 1− f f (4. this requires f to satisfy three equations.11) (4. we ask “What is the coordinate transformation that converts the textbook solution and the original Schwarzschild solution into each other?” If we denote this transformation by Rs = f (r).8) where Rs (0) = 2mG ≤ Rs < ∞.10) (4. and the original Schwarzschild solution 2 ds =     2mG 2 2 2mG −1 2 1− c dt − 1 − dRs − Rs2 dΩ2 Rs Rs (4.Finally.12) The only solution for f (r) is f (r) = r which requires Rs = r. 2]. The original Schwarzschild solution and Hilbert’s solution are identical only for the case in which there is no source and spacetime is strictly Lorentzian everywhere. then the original Schwarzschild line element (4.

treating r = R(r) as an independent radial coordinate replaces an undetermined function by at least one undetermined adjustable parameter.5 R(r) as a Coordinate Transformation The discussion in Section 4 suggests one way of removing the indeterminacy associated with the g22 function R(r) is to treat R(r) as a coordinate. to identify the infinite upper bound on r = R(r). the parameter R(0) can not be obtained from a boundary condition on R(r) and must then be treated in a phenomenological manner. the textbook event horizon at r = 2mG corresponds to R(2mG ). In particular. If the function R(r) has not been determined. While it is possible and. in the limit as r → 0. in its role as the g22 metric function. where ∆θ is the angle defined by the arc. we have used the asymptotic behavior. it can not be identified with the spherical radial coordinate r. R(r)∆θ. as in Section 4. In addition. For example. it identifies the radial location of a point in space-time. Consequently. The form of the Combridge-Janne solution shows that the function R(r) contains information about the source object. define a coordinate transformation from the original spherical radial coordinate r to a new radial coordinate r by means of the function r = R(r). The function R(r). However. R(r) describes the approach to the source.1) where. but R(2mG ) is unknown unless R(r) is known and so it must also be treated in a phenomenological manner. This relationship will not have the transparent characteristics of a boundary condition on the function R(r) and must have the character of a model-dependent statement. then those values will also have to be treated as undetermined adjustable parameters. Specifically. the boundary value R(0) also is specific to the source object and does not take on a single value for all sources: R(0) parametrizes the function R(r) and each value of R(0) provides a different function R(r). very convenient to do so. provides the distance in curved space-time along an arc of a great circle. We also stress that the radial coordinate r is a location marker. Unless space-time is flat. at times. there is no reason to expect the 16 . we hasten to point out that a great deal of information may be lost by treating it in this manner and a number of problems of interpretation may be introduced as well. Although r = R(r) may be given an interpretation as a radial coordinate. the radial coordiate r lies in the range 0 ≤ r < ∞ while the new coordinate r = R(r) has the range R(0) ≤ r < ∞ (5. This phenomenological treatment must be based upon a relationship between the lower bound R(0) and the nature of the source object. but is clearly a mapping of the radial coordinate r. treating R(r) as a coordinate then requires R(0) to be treated as an adjustable parameter which will also pose problems of interpretation for the parameter R(0). If there are any other values of r that identify characteristic features of spacetime. In other words. R(r) → r as r → ∞.

5) This last equation. even if using R(r) as the radial coordinate marker.3) d ˙ =0 (R2 sin2 θφ) ds (5. is replaced by 0 = eν (x˙ 0 )2 − e−ν R′2 r˙ 2 − R2 (θ˙2 + sin2 θφ˙ 2 ) (5. using R(r) as an independent coordinate means R(r) has two separate and distinct roles.4) In place of the radial geodesic equation. Nevertheless.6) The time-coordinate and angular coordinate equations are the standard ones. for the case of a light trajectory. This means. does not. (2. if we insist on treating R(r) as a coordinate transformation.11) and (2. one as the radial location marker and one as a measure of distance in curved space-time. we can examine the geodesic equations and their implementation in determining physical characteristics such as planetary orbits.12)) are d ν 0 (e x˙ ) = 0 ds (5. Thus.2) d ˙ = R2 sin θ cos θ(φ) ˙ 2 (R2 θ) ds (5.7) . and so on in terms of R(r). φ = π/2 which then yields the standard results eν x˙ 0 = L0 = constant 17 (5. R(r) can not be identified with the standard radial marker r except in the asymptotically flat Lorentzian space-time. We fix the trajectory in the x-y plane by the constant solution for φ. as noted above. R(r) reflects the twists and turns of curved space-time while r. As a metric function. we use the line element itself to obtain 1 = eν (x˙ 0 )2 − e−ν R′2 r˙ 2 − R2 (θ˙2 + sin2 θφ˙ 2 ) (5. The geodesic equations for the time-coordinate (eq. the trajectory of a light ray in space-time. and any information that R(r) may have about the properties of curved spacetime will be lost if it is treated exclusively as a coordinate.9) and the two angular coordinates (eqs.radial location marker r to provide the distance in curved space-time along an arc of a great circle. (2. as a radial location marker.

we seek a functional relationship between the determinant of the metric 18 .8) R2 sin2 θφ˙ = 0 (5. But Schwarzschild’s original solution [6–8] imposed the condition that the determinant of the metric have a specified value.9) The remaining equation. This suggests the possibility of a more general interpretation that relates R(0) to the geometrical size of the source object. is altered due to the presence of R′ . in the case of the deflection of a light ray. The standard textbook presentation of Hilbert’s version of the solution [1. 2]. and µ (see the end of Section 3) [11.11) is appropriate for a light trajectory. Consequently. 18] have no underlying theoretical basis so they also provide no guidance for deriving an equation for R(r). it leads to the interpretation of R(0) as the distance of closest approach to the origin. measures of distance from the origin r = 0 translate to measures from r = R(0).R2 θ˙ = Lθ = constant (5. Consequently. specifies the metric function by decree and can provide no guidance for deriving such an equation. This has no effect on the calculation of the perihelion shift of Mercury and.6) as 2 1 = eν (x˙ 0 )2 − e−ν r˙ − r2 (θ˙2 + sin2 θφ˙ 2 ) (5. Now the standard analyses [1] of trajectories and Keplerian orbits follow with the exception that the radial coordinate r = R(r) has replaced the radial coordinate r as the measure of radial distance. In other words. We note that R′ ˙ = R′ r˙ we may write only occurs in conjunction with r.11) where (5. we would like to derive an equation for R(r) that lies within the theoretical framework of general relativity [26]. rather than introducing the variable u = 1/r. he introduced coordinates √ that permitted the imposition of the condition −g = 1 for all values of the coordinates. The postulated relations among the metric functions ν.10) 2 0 = eν (x˙ 0 )2 − e−ν r˙ − r2 (θ˙2 + sin2 θφ˙ 2 ) (5. λ. In particular.5) and (5. R(r) = r. 6 An Equation for R(r) It was explicitly shown in Section 3 the the field equations do not determine the metric function g22 = −R2 (r). the equations invite the introduction of the variable u = 1/r. however. ˙ so using the chain rule r˙ = R(r) equation (5. More exactly.

This will guarantee that the right hand side of eq. Since √ the left hand side of eq.1). Using eq.3) yields a function of r only.3) Eq.3) is a fundamental relationship between the g22 metric function R(r) and the determinant of the metric expressed in the coordinate basis introduced in Section 2. (6. −g.3) shows that if R(r) is specified. it simply provides a means of specifying the determinant of the metric. (6. then the determinant of the metric tensor will be uniquely determined. we use eq. Any imposed condition for determining R(r) may be used as long as the resulting solution for R(r) obeys the asymptotic condition R(r) → r far from the source.3) is a function of r only. recalling that C0 = 0.3). (6. if the determinant of the metric tensor is not specified by some condition. then (6.3) to determine R(r) [26].5) in (6. (6. and taking the square root yields √ −g = R′ R2 sin θ (6. we note that the determinant of the 19 . Using an alternative condition to determine R(r) does not conflict with (6. (3.3).−g ≡ −||gαβ || = eν+λ R4 sin2 θ (6. the imposed auxiliary √ condition and the corresponding solution for R(r) provide a determination of −g from eq. As a result. when expressed in spherical coordinates.2) Simple rearrangement then provides an equation for R(r). we emphasize that an arbitrary specification of the determinant of the metric still produces an arbitrarily specified metric function R(r). 7 The Generalized Schwarzschild Solution Since our current focus is on understanding the relationship between the original Schwarzschild solution and Hilbert’s version of the solution. First. √ −g 1 dR3 = R R = 3 dr sin θ 2 ′ (6. (6. (6. must be linear in sin θ. Eq.3) as a means to generalize Schwarzschild’s original solution.1) and the g22 metric function R(r). We also emphasize that there is no obligation to make use of (6. Although eq.3) is a rigorous consequence of the spherically symmetric vacuum field equations. (6.3) shows that the metric function R(r) remains undetermined. Conversely.

consequently. √ .metric tensor is not a scalar but a scalar density of weight W = −2 and. the square root of the determinant of the metric is a scalar density of weight W = −1.

.

.

∂X .

−1 p .

−g = .

.

−g ∂X .

1) where |∂X/∂X| is the Jacobean for the coordinate transformation that connects the barred coordinate system (with determinant denoted by g) to the unbarred coordinate system (with determinant denoted by g). the determinant of the metric tensor has a particularly simple form.1). As an illustration. (7. (6. in conjunction with eq. If. can then be used to determine the function R(r). in a specific coordinate system. then equation (7.2) x3 = x3 = ϕ The Jacobean for this transformation is . we now make an explicit connection with Schwarzschild’s original solution by using Schwarzschild’s coordinate transformation [6–8] x0 = x0 = ct r3 (x1 )3 = 3 3 x2 = − cos(x2 ) = − cos θ x1 = (7.3).

.

.

∂X .

1 2 2 −1 2 −1 .

.

.

∂X .

g = −1.4) shows that working in coordinates which permit the condition −g = 1 is √ equivalent to working in the original spherical coordinate basis and requiring −g = r2 sin θ. (7. = ((x ) sin x ) = (r sin θ) (7.4) yields 20 . the determinant g is related to R(r) by (6. (7. the transformation for the square root of the determinant of the metric gives √ −g = ((x1 )2 sin x2 ) p p −g = (r2 sin θ) −g = r2 sin θ (7.3) so that using eq. In the spherical coordinate system. Consequently.4) √ Eq.3) The barred coordinate system is the system used to impose the condition on the determinant of the metric tensor.

the spherical coordinate basis is indistinguishable from the coordinate basis used in Hilbert’s derivation of the Schwarzschild solution.5) Eq. This equation can be easily integrated to give Rr0 = (r3 + r03 )1/3 (7. As shown in Section 4.4). The choice of coordinates only affects the form of the condition. since Hilbert’s derivation of the solution does not specify a source object.5) which determines R(r) was not produced by means of a choice of coordinates.6) for the two cases r0 = 2mG and r0 = 0 are shown in Figure 1.5). it simply imposes the condition R(r) = r. Clearly the differences between the two functions are restricted to the small r region. Schwarzschild could have √ imposed some other value on −g. As discussed in Section 2. (7.6) where r0 is an integration constant 3 which parametrizes the solution. the impact of Schwarzschild’s Rr0 (r) on the overall solution is 3 Schwarzschild’s original notation used the parameterpρ = r03 [6–8]. the condition was separately and explicitly imposed. Likewise. Although the Schwarzschild Rr0 (r) is only somewhat more complicated than the Hilbert version. (7. 4mG . It is due to the additional auxiliary condition.dR3 = 3r2 dr (7. (7.4). whether √ √ it takes the form of −g = 1 in the coordinates introduced by Schwarzschild or −g = r2 sin θ in the standard spherical coordinate basis introduced in Section 2. the difference in the solutions is in the respective g22 functions not in the coordinates. (7. any other imposed condition is equally viable as long as the solution of the imposed condition gives the asymptotic behavior R(r) → r as r approaches the asymptotically flat Lorentz spacetime [26]. √ in Schwarzschild’s original solution. we stress that there is no compelling reason to choose the imposed condition eq. that has been imposed to determine the g22 function. in the coordinates he used. As stated at the end of Section 6. it does not impose a condition on coordinates. −g = 1 or −g = r2 sin θ has resulted in the differential equation (7. While we have chosen to impose condition eq. Using (7. eq. In fact. 4 21 .6) for Rr0 (r) together with the solutions for ν and λ constitutes the generalized Schwarzschild solution [26] and provides the basis for both the original Schwarzschild solution (r0 = 2mG ) and Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution (r0 = 0).2). the condition −g = 1 was not automatically satisfied by means of the coordinate transformation given by (7. the coordinates did not restrict the value in any way. r .4) to connect with the original and textbook versions of the Schwarzschild solution. √ √ The imposed condition. 4 The functions given by (7. Note that setting r0 = 0 is equivalent to Rr0 (0) = C(0) = 0 which provides a direct connection to Hilbert’s original approach.

The dissimilarity between the “coordinate singularity” at r = 2mG and the physical singularity at r = 0 displays the dramatic simplification of interpretation for the original Schwarzschild solution. they are not astonishing. dramatic. The distinction between the finite potential spatial well and the temporal singularity at r = 0 is particularly striking. For r ≤ 2mG where the Hilbert g00 function changes sign. time-like r 6 Rr0 (r) 2mG 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r 2mG Figure 1: The original Schwarzschild Rr0 (r) with r0 = 2mG compared to Hilbert’s function Rr0 (r) with r0 = 0. As the parameter r0 is permitted to increase from zero to 2mG . The distinction between the purely space-like role of 22 . Although the differences between the Schwarzschild and Hilbert Rr0 (r) functions are significant for small r. Figure 2 shows the differences between the Schwarzshchild g00 function and the Hilbert g00 function. the differences between the two functions are considerable larger than the corresponding differences between the g22 functions. the vertical asymptote at r = 2mG slides to the left until it coincides with the vertical asymptote at r = 0 for r0 = 2mG . the radial coordinate and the function Rr0 (r) for the original Schwarzschild solution maintain their space-like character for all r. The change of r to the time-like coordinate for the Hilbert solution is reflected in the change of color of the plot at r = 2mG .Schwarzschild Hilbert. The overriding simplification of the original Schwarzschild solution is the lack of a role-swapping transition between the time-like coordinate and the radial coordinate. the Schwarzschild function remains postive semi-definite and forms a shallow well. This is simply a reflection of the differences in complexity of the corresponding source objects. Figure 3 shows the g11 functions for the original Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions. However. the resulting differences in the other metric functions are more visually notable. While also restricted to the small r region. space-like r Hilbert.

The change of r to the time-like variable for r < 2mG for the Hilbert solution is indicated by the change of color in the plot. 20 eλ 10 0 −10 Schwarzschild Hilbert.eν 0 −2 Schwarzschild Hilbert. The change of r to the time-like variable for r < 2mG for the Hilbert solution is indicated by the change of color in the plot. space-like r Hilbert. time-like r −4 0 1 2 3 4 r 2mG Figure 2: eν for the original Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions. space-like r Hilbert. time-like r −20 0 1 2 3 4 r 2mG Figure 3: eλ for the original Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions. 23 .

the nature of the source is never mentioned and the solution proceeds as if the nature of the source object is irrelevant or that the solution is “universal” and appropriate for all sources. including the origin r = 0. (7. eq. It also provides the connections among Einstein’s condition of choice. This suggests that the parameter r0 may be allowed to take on 24 . (7. Eq. This shows that r0 ≥ 2mG provides physically meaningful solutions but the solutions that are regular at r = 0 are solutions for objects of a finite size. (7. he determined the parameter r0 by requiring the metric functions to be continuous everywhere except at the origin. In fact. Rr0 (r) is treated as a coordinate and not as a metric function. ν + 2µ + λ is directly related to the determinant of the metric and not its square root. this clearly shows that postulating ν + 2µ + λ = 0 is equivalent to requiring −g = r4 sin2 θ which leads to eq. Schwarzschild’s original solution. the metric function condition ν + 2µ + λ = 0 produces the square of eq.6) provides the explicit functional dependence of Rr0 (r) on the original radial coordinate r. It is clear. however. r0 = 2mG . But in the derivation of Hilbert’s solution.7). not for a point mass. The solution for Rr0 (r). it must be admitted that such a choice corresponds to no particular well-defined boundary condition on Rr0 (r). While there is nothing ill-defined by such a choice. and the determinant of the metric.5).6) for the appropriate choice of sign for the square root of (7. As we mentioned at the end of Section 3. free of any undetermined parameters. Consequently. was obtained from a differential equation and the conventional method for determining constants of integration is to supply boundary conditions on the solution. which means that Rr0 (0) = C(0) = 0. eq. and eq.the original Schwarzschild and the composite space-like and time-like roles of the Hilbert solution highlight the overall simplicity of the point mass solution compared to that of a wormhole. (7. By contrast.5). Typically the boundary condition reflects the nature of the source object by means of the behavior of the function at a boundary or as the source object is approached. (7.4).6). that any value of r0 greater than the Schwarzschild radius will satisfy the requirement that the metric functions be continuous everywhere. in his original 1916 paper. In this language.5) provides the equation relating the original radial coordinate r to the new radial coordinate Rr0 and eq. (7. From the point of view of Hilbert’s approach to the Schwarzschild solution. the location of the point mass [6–8]. −g = eν+2µ+λ r4 sin2 θ (7. that was appropriate for a point mass. The only condition that may be stated as the boundary condition for Hilbert’s solution is the condition that Rr0 (r) = r everywhere which makes no obvious statement about the nature of the source object. (7. Schwarzschild was explicitly concerned with a unique solution to the gravitational field equations. To obtain Hilbert’s psolution. This requires the parameter r0 to be the Schwarzschild radius.7) Nevertheless. the constant r0 is required to be set equal to zero. the condition is imposed before the field equations are even established.

we obtain a far-reaching generalization of Schwarzschild’s solution by relaxing the continuity condition on the metric functions and permitting any real value for the parameter r0 . if we allow the parameter r0 to also take on values in the range r0 < 2mG . r = 0. by choosing r = 0 to correspond to the surface of the object. The appropriate boundary condition for small r depends on the nature of the source object. (7. which is not linear in Rr0 (r) but is linear in Rr30 . This simply means that the Schwarzschild parameter r0 is left as a free parameter to be determined by a boundary condition and eq. In the context of the current discussion. mG = 0. then r0 < 2mG will produce the necessary 3 = 8m3 − r 3 . Any constants in that solution are determined by boundary conditions for the given physical configuration. the metric should be regular everywhere except at the site of the point mass. is satisfied by (7.any value in the range r0 ≥ 2mG depending on the particular source object of the problem. 25 . For example. In other words. the asymptotic condition that Rr0 → r in the asymptotic Lorentzian spacetime. From the historical perspective. this requires the value of r0 for the original solution and the value of r0 for Hilbert’s solution to be equal. The function Rr0 (r). by appealing to the Hilbert solution’s discontinuity in the g11 function at r = 2mG as motivation.6). eq. this may require r0 ≥ 0. has been determined by a first order differential equation. The boundary condition at infinity.6) for any finite value of r0 . then the metric should be regular everywhere that it applies. For Schwarzschild’s point mass. If.5). This generalized solution contains both the original Schwarzschild solution (r0 = 2mG ) and Hilbert’s version of the solution (r0 = 0) as special cases. This also has the advantage of completely avoiding the difficult issues that arise with the use of piece-wise continuous functions in the solutions of nonlinear differential equations. for example if it is some object of finite extent. the object is not a point mass. This requires r0 = 2mG as Schwarzschild found. In addition. it is clear that the condition Rr0 (r) = r was applied for 5 The function Rr0 (r) = (r3 −|r0 |3 )1/3 is negative for r < |r0 | which may pose difficulties of interpretation. such as a wormhole.6) characterizes the generalized Schwarzschild solution as a one-parameter family of solutions [26]. (7. From elementary real analysis. (7. eq. if the source is some type of exotic object. The relation of the boundary condition at small r to the source of gravitational spacetime curvature suggests that the “boundary condition” Rr0 (r) = r for all r was not originally connected to the nature of the source in any way. however. In addition. it is known that two members of a one-parameter family of functions are equivalent if and only if the familyparameters for the two members are equal. as we found in Section 4 by another method. Consequently. then the parameter r0 may be determined by specifying the potential eν = 1 − 2mG /Rr0 (0) = 1 − 2mG /r0 on the surface and the solution is indeed regular everywhere including at the surface of the source object. with Hilbert’s coordinate singularity and corresponding event horizon at reh 0 G 5 source object described by r0 = 0. It also illustrates the relationship between the two versions of the Schwarzchild solution: they are siblings in the one-parameter family of solutions and are not equivalent to each other and related by means of a coordinate transformation.

it has been shown that the original transformation to isotropic coordinates is valid only outside the textbook event horizon at r = 2mG and must be supplemented by another time-dependent transformation inside the event horizon [27].6). and these two different boundary conditions. the radial coordinate r is time-like and the time coordinate t is space-like. 5]. the original Schwarzschild solution. termed the “Schwarzschild coordinates”. The time-dependence of the textbook wormhole solution emerges whether examined in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates [2]. r. neither solution excludes the other. In Section 4 we discussed the distinction of the two versions of the Schwarzschild solution by means of an attempt to relate the two solutions by a coordinate transformation. Here we have seen that the physical distinction between these two solutions is reflected by their two different values of r0 . This led to the view that the coordinates for the textbook solution. the wormhole solution.6).extraneous reasons. the solution for a wormhole. but is simply the result of 26 . It should also be clear by now that Hilbert’s version of the solution need not be viewed as the result of an error. θ. ϕ) inside the textbook event horizon at r = 2mG shows that the radial and time coordinates swap roles. eq. as Hilbert provided. in fact. The transformation to “isotropic coordinates” expressed the textbook metric in a form that had no event horizon and showed no such role swapping [1]. isotropic coordinates [27]. It should be clear by now that the original Schwarzschild solution and Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild solution do not conflict with each other. is time-independent outside of the event horizon but is time-dependent inside the event horizon. (7. ϕ). That attempt resulted in an explicit instance of the result known from elementary real analysis: two members of a one-parameter family of functions are equivalent if and only if the values of their respective parameters are equal. These two solutions are not mutually exclusive nor are they reducible to each other. is one problem. as Schwarzschild provided. 2. is time-independent everywhere since the event horizon at r = 0 has no interior. or simply continued use of the original coordinate basis (t. θ. as initially maintained by Abrams [14–16]. However. r. were pathological [2]. is a completely separate and distinct problem. a purported simplification. but they result from two different values of the parameter r0 in the one-family parameter of solutions described by eq. They describe the fields of two distinctly different source objects. It was the full explication of Hilbert’s version of the solution by means of alternate coordinate systems that provided a self-consistent picture of the exotic wormhole as the physical source for Hilbert’s solution [1. the point mass solution. is the fundamental significance of the invariant constructed from the acceleration associated with the time-like Killing vector [19]: an event horizon cannot be eliminated by means of a coordinate transformation. An event horizon is the site at which a metric exchanges its time-invariance for spatial invariance. (7. in turn. This underlies the basic physical distinction between the two Schwarzschild metrics: the textbook Schwarzschild solution. and was not motivated by the identification of the source object as a wormhole. This. are conveniently interpreted as due to the two distinct sources of the gravitational field. The continued use of the coordinate basis (t. These distinct values for r0 result from two different boundary conditions that have been imposed on the solution for Rr0 (r). The solution for a point mass.

The solution of this differential equation is the generalized Schwarzschild solution. corresponding to the boundary condition that Rr0 (r) = r for all r. r0 = 0. one for a point-mass object and one for an object with no classical analogue. a one-function family of solutions that is conveniently characterized by the g22 metric function. The solution (8.1) produces Schwarzschild’s original solution by imposing the requirement that the metric functions are continuous everywhere except at r = 0. the original Schwarzschild solution was specifically designed to provide a solution that was regular everywhere in spacetime except at r = 0. reflect two different boundary conditions that have been imposed on the solution for R(r). Following Schwarzschild’s original approach. 2 ds =     2mG 2mG −1 ′2 2 2 1− c dt − 1 − Rr0 (r)dr2 − Rr20 (r)dΩ2 Rr0 (r) Rr0 (r) (8. 8 Conclusion We have provided a pedagogically sound derivation of the Combridge-Janne solution. [4] 27 . This solution 6 See the footnote at the end of Appendix B in Ref. On the other hand. and (2) while Schwarzschild could have chosen r0 = 0. Hilbert’s oblique comment 6 that Schwarzschild’s “translation of coordinates” was ill-advised suggests that he missed two essential points of Schwarzschild’s original solution: (1) Schwarzschild did not translate coordinates.a certain value for the parameter r0 . r0 = 2mG and r0 = 0.1)  3 1/3 Rr0 (r) = r3 + r0  where r0 is an integration constant that is determined by a boundary condition on the function Rr0 (r). Both solutions are equally viable and do not exclude each other but describe the fields due to two entirely different and inequivalent source objects. This is more or less a geometrical condition that appears to make no explicit comment on the nature of the source of the field. It was left to later investigations to determine the nature of the source and to identify it as a wormhole in spacetime. we then imposed the auxiliary condition √ on the determinant of the metric in the form −g = r2 sin θ to produce a simple but rig√ orous differential equation that relates the the metric function R(r) to −g. We emphasize again that these two different values of the parameter. the value r0 = 2mG was required to describe the field for a point mass source. his functional form for Rr0 (r) was the result of an imposed condition on the determinant of the metric. which clearly points to a point mass source object.

In the light of this 28 . Traversing the event horizon from points outside the event horizon accesses past times with no possible reconnection to future times. This value of the radial coordinate is precisely the radius for which the g11 function is singular and the time-like coordinate and the radial coordinate exchange roles.is paired with the point mass source. such features are not characteristic of the point mass solution. The event horizon at that radius acts like a “time-membrane” or filter. This condition has no obvious connection to a particular source object. as is well-known. It is the particular g22 function that is responsible for the coordinate singularity and event horizon of the textbook solution. This exchange of coordinate roles reflects the exchange of symmetries that occurs at that particular value of the radial coordinate. Just as no gauge relationship converts one charge distribution into another. Of course. on both mathematical and physical grounds. ϕ). There is no necessary relationship among the different imposed conditions that may be used to determine Rr0 (r) and there is no necessary relationship among the different boundary conditions that may be imposed to determine the constant of integration for a specific imposed condition [26]. but an entire family of wormhole solutions. with the textbook solution corresponding to the largest wormhole. The solution (8. We note that (8. that these two solutions are distinct and inequivalent and provide two distinct and inequivalent metrics. These features are completely foreign to Schwarzschild’s original solution since he designed his solution to deliberately avoid such issues. The sibling relationship between different members of the generalized Schwarzschild solution reflects the difference between the different source objects that correspond to those solutions. Eq. r. but. Rr0 (r) = r and are characteristic of wormhole solutions. such as a point mass. The invariant norm aµ aµ associated with the time-like Killing vector [19] has a divergence for Hilbert’s solution at r = 2mG . there is no gauge relationship that converts one gravitational source object. objects for which the potential eν = 1−2mG /Rr0 (r) = 1−2Gm/(cRr0 (r)) may be specified on a surface by choosing r = 0 to be that surface. We have demonstrated. such as a wormhole.1) clearly shows that there is no “pathological character” [2] to be associated with the coordinate basis (t. If the solution is considered to have a “pathological” character. We also note that the generalized Schwarzschild solution accomodates finite-size objects. The point mass solution can then be seen as the intersection of the solution for objects of finite size (in the limit of zero size) and the wormhole solutions (in the limit of zero wormhole size). the solution is paired with the wormhole solution. this responsibility ultimately belongs to the boundary condition that produces the completed form of Rr0 (r) and reflects the nature of the source object. θ. that is because the source requires that “pathological” nature. into another source object. These “problematical” aspects of the wormhole solution are not due to “pathological coordinates” but are distinguishing features of Hilbert’s g22 metric funcition. (8.1) contains not just the textbook wormhole solution.1) also produces the textbook solution by imposing the geometrical condition that Rr0 (r) = r everywhere. The solutions for which 0 ≤ r0 < 2mG describe wormhole solutions of varying size.

Phil. Mag. it seems more accurate and more appropriate to reserve Schwarzschild’s name for the original solution and to designate the textbook solution as the Droste-Weyl-Hilbert solution or more simply as the Hilbert solution [4]. B. Abra. Soc. Phys. Zel. (1916). Math. Schiffer. Schwarzschild. Nachr. Akad.discussion.A.. Wiss. Month. Math. Hilbert. 29 . Also arXiv:physics/9905030v1 (1999). “Maximal Extension of Schwarzschild Metric”. and J. 2004). Janne..D. Submitted 23 Dec. Misner. [4] S. Acad. Gravit. Antoci. and Its Astronomical Consequences” (First Paper). trans. Weyl. by L.. trans. 726 (1923). Wiss. Bremen. “On Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation. Phys. Adler. trans. 79. L. and H. Annalen der Physik. Bull. Phys. USA. M. H. 1952). 53 (1917). Proc. Kruskal. 49 (1916). 1975). Kl. Kl. [5] M. [3] D. New York. K. The Principle of Relativity. and M. Schr¨oder. “On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point According to Einstein’s Theory”. “Uber das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie”. (Dover. Antoci and A. Astr. According to Einstein’s Theory”. Borissova and D. [7] K. 484 (1923). Thorne.. 1973). Pekeris. by S. [9] C. A. R. [12] J. [10] A.T.S. Sitzungsber. Not. 45. Minkowski. 35. edited by W..A. Introduction to General Relativity. ¨ [6] K. Wheeler. Preuss. Also arXiv:physics/0310104 v1. Sci. 76. ”Gravitational field of a charged mass point”. Combridge. Bazin. [8] K. Rabounski. San Francisco. [11] W. References [1] R. Gravitation (Freeman. Rev. Jeffery. Schwarzschild “On the Gravitational Field of a Point-Mass. Ges. (Science Edition. 6404 (1982). [13] H. “David Hilbert and the Origin of the ‘Schwarzschild Solution’ ” in Meteorological and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. Schwarzschild. Relativ. New York. by W. de Sitter. Acad. 951 (2003). Einstein. Lorentz. Loinger. G¨ottingen. 189. 1 (2008). 9. Natl.. Gen. R.. Second Edition (McGraw-Hill. 119. 1743 (1960). 699 (1916). Belg. Einstein. [2] C. 1916. Perrett and G.W. English translation in H. Jour.

Also arXiv: gr-qc/0102053. “Gravitational Field of Massive Point Particle in General Relativity”.E. 919 (1989). in General Relativity Research Trends.P. Nachr. H. Cambridge. [28] A. Fiziev. J. Antoci and D-E Liebscher. Rev. Int. “The Total Space-Time of a Point-Mass When Λ 6= 0. 30 ..S. 2474 (1979). A. [24] A. [15] L. Physica A. [25] P. Phys. 2006). Gen. 38. arXiv:gr-qc/0308005 v3 (2005). 322. 227. Phys.edu. Theor.S. Astron. [19] S. Relativ. “Reconsidering Schwarzschild’s Original Solution”. J. 20. Available on academia. 67.. Abrams. “The Combridge-Janne Solution and the g22 Metric Function”.S. 8. and Its Consequences for the Lake-Roeder Black Hole”. arXiv:gr-qc/0306088v12 (2003) [26] R. 1923). Corda. “Isotropic Coordinates and Schwarzschild Metric”. Salvino and R. 24 731 (1985). Buchdahl. “Alternative Space Time for the Point Mass”. Int. ”Interpreting Solutions with Nontrivial Killing Groups in General Relativity”. Can. EJTP. “Black Holes: The Legacy Of Hilbert’s Error”. “A Clarification on the Debate on ‘the Original Schwarzschild Solution’ ”. Mathematical Theory of Relativity (University Press. J. Phys. arXiv: gr-qc/1007. Abrams. 131 (1996). edited by A Reiner (Nova Science Publishers. D. [27] H. S.4997v1 (2010). Eddington.. “Reinstating Schwarzschild’s Original Manifold and Its Singularity”. Kosowsky. Antoci and D-E Liebscher. Also arXiv:gr-qc/0102055 v1. preprint (2013). 35. 65 (2011). private communication (2013). ”The Total Space-Time of a Point Charge and Its Consequences for Black Holes”. A. Gravit. [21] S.D. MacCallum. Abrams. 1887 (2006). NY. Also arXiv:grqc/0608033v1 (2006). Also arXiv:gr-qc/0102084 v2. Antoci and D-E Liebscher. [22] M. Phys. [17] L. Antoci and D-E Liebscher. [23] C. 2661 (1996). Puff. [18] S.S.[14] L.. Also arXiv:gr-qc/0102054 v1. Also arXiv: gr-qc/0406090 v2. Theor. Abrams. [16] L. [20] S. “The Topology of Schwarzschild’s Solution and the Kruskal Metric”. 137 (2001).