# Comments on “Another view on the velocity at the Schwarzschild horizon”

## Abstract

It is shown that the conclusions reached by Tereno are completely faulty

We have recently shown that the Kruskal derivative assumes a form 

$$\frac{du}{dv}\frac{f(r,t,dr/dt)}{\pm f(r,t,dr/dt)}$$
(1)   
because $`u\pm v`$ as $`r2M`$. Although this limit attains a value of $`\pm 1`$ irrespective of $`f0,\mathrm{},oranything`$, Tereno  refuses to accept this. Although, we have already pointed out that one should work out the limiting values of the relevant fractions appropriately, Tereno has decided to adopt another view point on this issue.

In his new note, he has correctly reexpressed our result in terms of the physical speed $`V`$, as seen by the Kruskal observer, and more explicit Sch. relationships:

For $`r>2m`$, the expression is,

$$V=\frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)\frac{dt}{dr}(12M/r)}{\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)+\frac{dt}{dr}(12M/r)},$$
(2)   
Now since as $`r2M`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)1`$, the above equation approaches a form:

$$V=\frac{f(r,t,dt/dr)}{f(r,t,dt/dr)};r2M$$
(3)   
Clearly, the foregoing limit assumes a value of 1 irrespective of whether $`f0,\mathrm{},oranything`$, Tereno thinks it is less than unity! He on the other hand invokes (correctly) the expression for $`dt/dr`$ for a radial geodesic:

$$\frac{dt}{dr}=E\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^1\left[E^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(4)   
where $`E`$ is the conserved energy per unit rest mass. It follows from this equation that

$$(12M/r)\frac{dt}{dr}=E\left[E^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)\right]^{1/2}$$
(5)   
Therefore, as $`r2M`$, we have

$$(12M/r)\frac{dt}{dr}1$$
(6)   
And if we put this result into Eq. (2), we will obtain

$$V=\frac{1\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)}{\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)+1};r2M$$
(7)   
And clearly this above limit is again -1. But again, Tereno will not accept i! Instead, he attempts to find an explicit $`t=t(r)`$ relation by a completely incorrect ansatz. First he considers an approximate value of the quantity in square bracket in Eq.(4). And when this approximation is valid in the infinetisimal neighbourhood of $`r=2M`$, he, incorrectly integrates it over a finite region. By feeding the resultant incorrect value of $`t(r)`$ in Eq. (2) and by plotting the same he concludes that $`V<1`$. Even if he is determined not to evaluate the appropriate limits and verify that $`v=1`$ at $`r=2M`$, his later exercise was unnecessary because the precise and correct $`tr`$ relationship is already known. For instance, he may look into Eq. (12.4.24) of Shapiro & Teukolsky, we can write

$$\frac{t}{2M}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{x+1}{x1}+\left(\frac{R}{2M}1\right)\left[\eta +\left(\frac{R}{4M}\right)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )\right]$$
(8)   
where $`R`$ is the value of $`r`$ at $`t=0`$ and the “cyclic coordinate” $`\eta `$ is defined by

$$r=\frac{R}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta )$$
(9)   
and the auxiliary variable

$$x=\left(\frac{R/2M1}{R/r1}\right)$$
(10)   
Now in principle using this exact parametric form of $`t(r)`$ and using the exact form of $`dt/dr`$, one can plot Eq. (2). And then subject to the numerical precision (note $`t=\mathrm{}`$ at $`r=2M`$), one may indeed verify that $`V=1`$ at $`r=2M`$. However, since, $`\mathrm{tanh}(t/4M)=1`$ at $`r=2M`$, essentially, we would be back to our starting position Eq. (1) by this procedure.

Now let us also consider the “Janis coordinates” considered by Tereno. Here the radial coordinate is

$$x_1=(w+r)/\sqrt{2}$$
(11)   
and the time coordinate is

$$x_0=(wr)/\sqrt{2}$$
(12)   
where

$$w(r,t)=t+r+2M\mathrm{ln}\frac{r2M}{2M}$$
(13)   
As correctly indicated by Tereno, the physical speed measured in this coordinate is $`V_j=dx_1/dx_0`$. And, in a general manner this can be written as

$$V_j=\frac{dx_1}{dx_0}=\frac{dw/dt+dr/dt}{dw/dtdr/dt}$$
(14)   
But if we go back to Eq. (4), it is found that

$$\frac{dr}{dt}=0;r=2M$$
(15)   
Therefore, as $`r2M`$, we have

$$V_j\frac{dw/dt}{dw/dt}=1;r2M$$
(16)   
And the eventual expression obtained in Eq. (13-14) of Tereno is simply incorrect.

If the reader is not still convinced about our result, we would remind a basic relationship obtained by the Kruskal coordinates:

$$u^2v^2=(r/2M1)e^{r/2M}$$
(17)   
By differentiating both sides of this equation w.r.t., we obtain

$$2u\frac{du}{dt}2v\frac{dv}{dt}=\left[\frac{(r/2M1)}{2M}e^{r/2M}+\frac{e^{r/2M}}{2M}\right]\frac{dr}{dt}$$
(18)   
From Eq. (4) , we note that $`dr/dt=0`$ at the EH, and therefore, the foregoing equation yields

$$\frac{du}{dt}=\frac{v}{u};r=2M$$
(19)   
But from Eq. (17), we find that $`v/u=\pm 1`$ at $`r=2M`$, and therefore

$$\frac{du}{dt}=\frac{v}{u}=\pm 1;r=2M$$
(20)   
We have already explained why the value of $`V1`$ at $`r=2M`$ in any coordinate system. If the free fall speed measured by a Sch. observer is $`V_S`$ and the relative velocity of the “other static observer” is $`V_{SO}`$ with respect to the Sch. observer, then we will have (locally):

$$V=\frac{V_S\pm V_{SO}}{1\pm V_SV_{SO}}$$
(21)   
And since, $`V_S=1`$ at $`r=2M`$, we will have $`V1`$. We hope Tereno will now realize that, indeed, $`V=1`$ at the event horizon. And correspondingly, the geodesic of a material particle becomes null at the EH. This in turn, implies that, there can not any finite mass BH, and the collapse process continues indefinitely. For an overall scenario see In case Tereno flashes another manuscript on the same line, we shall not respond any further.