Relativity and Cosmology


Geometric and Physical Defects in the Theory of Black Holes

Authors: Stephen J. Crothers

The so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ is not Schwarzschild’s solution, but a corruption of the Schwarzschild/Droste solution due to David Hilbert (December 1916), wherein m is allegedly the mass of the source of the alleged associated gravitational field and the quantity r is alleged to be able to go down to zero (although no proof of this claim has ever been advanced), so that there are two alleged ‘singularities’, one at r=2m and another at r=0. It is routinely alleged that r=2m is a ‘coordinate’ or ‘removable’ singularity which denotes the so-called ‘Schwarzschild radius’ (event horizon) and that the ‘physical’ singularity is at r=0. The quantity r in the usual metric has never been rightly identified by the physicists, who effectively treat it as a radial distance from the alleged source of the gravitational field at the origin of coordinates. The consequence of this is that the intrinsic geometry of the metric manifold has been violated in the procedures applied to the associated metric by which the black hole has been generated. It is easily proven that the said quantity r is in fact the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of a spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of Schwarzschild spacetime and so does not denote radial distance in the Schwarzschild manifold. With the correct identification of the associated Gaussian curvature it is also easily proven that there is only one singularity associated with all Schwarzschild metrics, of which there is an infinite number that are equivalent. Thus, the standard removal of the singularity at r=2m is actually a removal of the wrong singularity, very simply demonstrated herein.

Comments: 12 pages

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 14 Mar 2011

Unique-IP document downloads: 217 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus