# Why General Theory of Relativity Allows the Existence of Only Extremal Black Holes

## Abstract

Supersymmetric String theories find occurrences of extremal Black Holes with gravitational mass $`M=Q`$ where $`Q`$ is the charge ($`G=c=1`$). Thus, for the chargeless cases, they predict $`M=0`$. We show that General Theory of Relativity, too, demands a unique BH mass $`M=0`$. Physically, this means that, continued gravitational collapse indeed continues for infinite proper time as the system hopelessly tries to radiate its entire original mass energy to attain the lowest energy state $`M=0`$.

PACS: 04.70. Bw

The concept of Black Holes (BHs) is now important not only for astrophysicists but also for elementary particle physicists. In particular, one of the promising candidates for the Quantum Gravity is the Supersymmetric String theory (or M-theory). In the low energy limit, such theories are naturally expected to be consistent with classical General Theory of Relativity (GTR). However, the supersymmetric theories find the occurrences of BHs with mass $`M=0`$ for the chargeless Schwarzschild case. We show that, GTR too, actually, yields the same result. In the context of the GTR, the concept of BHs first arose with the discovery of famous vacuum spherically symmetric Schwarzschild solution:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r_g}{r}\right)dt^2(1\frac{r_g}{r})^1dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(1)   
Here we shall call ‘$`r`$” as the “Schwarzschild radial coordinate”; $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the usual polar angles and $`r_g=2M`$ ($`G=c=1`$). Because of the importance of this solution, we would like to remind the reader the salient points behind it as discussed by Landau & Lifshitz. Bearing in mind the fact that there can not be any spacetime cross term in the metric describing isotropic cases, the most general form of the metric (not necessarily for vacuum) is

$$ds^2=e^{\nu (r)}dt^2e^{\lambda (r)}dr^2e^{\mu (r)}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)$$
(2)   
But for a spherically symmetric finite system, the origin is unique and out of infinite choices for the value of $`r`$, only one value is physically meaningful. And this uniqueness comes from the function $`e^\mu (r)`$. For a fixed $`r`$ and $`t=constant`$ hypersurface, and for a fixed $`\theta =0`$, the invariant circumference is

$$𝑑s=2\pi e^{\mu /2}$$
(3)   
And therefore only the unique and invariant choice $`e^{\mu /2}=r`$ can claim to be the physically meaningful radial coordinate. And thus $`r`$ naturally retains its essential space like character in every situation. By starting from this general premises, one can derive the vacuum Schwarzschild metric (1) without imposing a single assumption or extraneous condition like whether $`r>2M`$ or $`r2M`$. One important point is that this metric is, naturally, asymptotically flat, as can be seen that $`g_{rr}=g_{tt}=1`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$. And then, by demanding that at large $`r`$, the metric assumes Newtonian form, one interprets $`M`$, appearing in Eq. (1) as the “gravitational” mass. Simultaneously $`t`$, as defined by Eq. (1), assumes a clear physical meaning as the proper time of $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$, the distant inertial observer. And since, there is no assumption or precondition in the derivation of Eq. (1), naturally, Schwarzschild was unhappy with the occurrence of this singularity in his solution and consoled himself with the fact that no physical body, in hydrostatic equilibrium, can be squeezed below $`r<2M`$. If a body is static and could be squeezed at $`r=2M`$, its surface gravitational red-shift would be $`z=\mathrm{}`$:

$$z_s=(12M/r)^{1/2}1$$
(4)   
On the other hand, Schwarzschild found that the absolute upper limit $`z_s2`$ for any static body.

Here recall that for a free falling particle the radial speed as measured by a local static Schwarzschild observer $`V_{Sch}=1`$ at $`r=2M`$. Then no amount of Lorentz boost can hold the Sch. observer as static and this fact is turned around to say that the Sch. coordinate breaks down at $`r=2M`$. Physically this would mean “the system of reference for $`r<r_g`$ can be realized only by means of moving bodies, whose motion is directed toward the center”. In practical terms this would mean that, in case we are trying to model a relativistic static star having $`r2M`$, we would not be successful, and on the other hand, the star must be collapsing, which in turn means that, when one is describing the collapse of a dust ball, he is free to match the internal solutions with the external vacuum Sch. solutions. And indeed, Oppenheimer and Snyder (OS) did so in their famous work. Nonetheless, such explanations hardly appear to be satisfactory because if $`r`$ has a clear physical significance as the invariant radius and $`t`$ too has a clear physical significance as the time recorded by $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$, why should the Sch. coordinate break down at $`r=2M`$ (for the static case) or why should the metric coefficients be singular at $`r=2M`$? Rather than ever trying to face such physical questions head on, traditionally all authors, have, inadvertently, pushed them below the carpet of mathematics, by using the standard refrain that it is like the singularity at the origin of the polar coordinate system ($`g_{\varphi \varphi }=0`$ at $`\theta `$ =0). And the freedom of choice of coordinates in GTR has come very handy in running away from such poignant physical questions. For example, it was generally agreed upon by the community in 1960 that the Kruskal coordinates, rather than the $`r,t`$ coordinates correctly describes the spacetime both inside and outside of a Schwarzschild BH. For the external region (Sector I)

$$u=f_1(r)\mathrm{cosh}\frac{t}{4M};v=f_1(r)\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{4M};r2M$$
(5)   
where

$$f_1(r)=\left(\frac{r}{2M}1\right)^{1/2}e^{r/4M}$$
(6)   
However, if one would stick to this definition of $`u`$ and $`v`$, they would be imaginary for $`r<2M`$. But since $`u`$ and $`v`$ are believed to be the real physical coordinates (rather than $`r,t`$), they can not be allowed to be imaginary. Therefore, by hand, the definition of $`u`$ and $`v`$ are altered for the region interior to the supposed event horizon (Sector II):

$$u=f_2(r)\mathrm{sinh}\frac{t}{4M};v=f_2(r)\mathrm{cosh}\frac{t}{4M};r2M$$
(7)   
where

$$f_2(r)=\left(1\frac{r}{2M}\right)^{1/2}e^{r/4M}=\sqrt{1}f_1(r)$$
(8)   
But note that, even now, to ensure that $`u`$ and $`v`$ are definable at all, first of all $`r`$ and $`t`$ must be definable over the entire spacetime. But how can $`r`$ and $`t`$ be meaningfully defined for $`r<2M`$ if either of them ceases to be definable? Note that, if we stick to the original relationship between $`r`$ and $`t`$ (like that of OS) $`t`$ would become undefinable or imaginary for $`r<2M`$

$$\frac{t}{2M}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{(r_{\mathrm{}}/2M1)^{1/2}+\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)}{(r_{\mathrm{}}/2M1)^{1/2}\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)}+\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{2M}1\right)^{1/2}\left[\eta +\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{4M}\right)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )\right]$$
(9)   
Here the test particle is assumed to be at rest at $`r=r_{\mathrm{}}`$ at $`t=0`$ (or for dust collapse, the starting point) and the “cyclic coordinate” $`\eta `$ is defined by

$$r=\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\eta )$$
(10)   
Since $`\mathrm{tan}(\eta /2)=(r_{\mathrm{}}/r1)^{1/2}`$, we may rewrite Eq. (9) in terms of a new variable

$$x=\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}/2M1}{r_{\mathrm{}}/r_b1}\right)^{1/2}$$
(11)   
as

$$\frac{t}{2M}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{x+1}{x1}+\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{2M}1\right)\left[\eta +\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{4M}\right)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )\right]$$
(12)   
It can be easily found that, irrespective of $`M`$ being finite or zero, $`t\mathrm{}`$ as $`x1`$ or $`r2M`$. For the time being, we assume that $`M0`$. Then, from Eq. (11), note that

$$x1;forr2M$$
(13)   
Thus for $`r<2M`$, $`t`$ is not definable at all because the argument of logarithmic function can not be negative. However nobody seems to have pondered whether the situation which is leading to an imaginary $`t`$ is unphysical or not. How can $`t`$ be imaginary if $`r`$ remains real with its glory as the physically measurable “invariant radius”. Note, even when one purports to describe the EH or the central singularity, one does so in terms of $`r`$, i.e, whether $`r=2M`$ or whether $`r=0`$. And, as far as $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is concerned, he is either able to watch an event ($`t=finite`$) or unable to do so ($`t=\mathrm{}`$). Probably later authors realized that $`t`$ can not be allowed to be imaginary, not because of the fact that $`t`$ is still the proper time of a Galilean observer, a measurable quantity, but because of the fact that, otherwise esoteric new coordinates, like $`u`$ and $`v`$ would not be definable. Thus we find that a modulus sign was introduced in the $`tr`$ relationship:

$$\frac{t}{2M}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{x+1}{x1}+\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{2M}1\right)\left[\eta +\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{4M}\right)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )\right]$$
(14)   
But, the conceptual catastrophe actually becomes worse by this tailoring. Of course, as the particle enters the EH, still, $`t\mathrm{}`$. Note that, $`t`$ having become infinite, definitely can not decrease, and more importantly inside the EH, $`t`$ can not be finite because, otherwise, it would appear that although the distant observer can not witness the exact formation of the EH (in a finite time), nevertheless, he can witness the collapse of the fluid inside the EH. This would mean violation of causality and the existence of some sort of a “time machine”. And we know that, it is only the comoving observer who is supposed to witness both the formation of EH and the collapse beyond it. But the foregoing equation tells that if $`M>0`$ (finite), the the value of $`t`$ not only starts decreasing but also suddenly becomes finite as the boundary enters the EH ($`r<2M`$)!! And as the collapse is complete,

$$x=0;ifM>0;atr=0$$
(15)   
the corresponding value of $`t=T`$ required by the distant observer to see the collapse to the central singularity within the EH is simply

$$t=T=2M\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{2M}1\right)\left[\eta +\left(\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{4M}\right)(\eta +\mathrm{sin}\eta )\right]$$
(16)   
By using Eq. (5), this can be rewritten as

$$T=\pi (r_{\mathrm{}}2M)\left(1+\frac{r_{\mathrm{}}}{4M}\right)$$
(17)   
And note that, if we really insist that $`T=\mathrm{}`$ as per the original agenda, we must realize that $`M=0`$! This would mean (i) there is no additional spacetime between the EH and the central singularity, i.e, they are synonymous and the Sch. singularity is a genuine singularity provided one realizes that by the time one would have $`r=2M`$, the value of $`M0`$, and (ii) the proper time for formation of this singularity is $`\tau M^{1/2}=\mathrm{}`$. The latter means that, it is not formed at any finite proper time, the collapse process continues indefinitely and there is no incompleteness for the timelike geodesics.

Einstein, too, was equally worried about this singularity and his intuition (correctly) told that it can not occur in actual physical cases. In fact he (unsuccessfully) struggled in 1938 to show that it was indeed so. But his proof was not convincing and was ignored. On the other hand, in 1939, it was convincingly shown by Oppenheimer and Volkoff, that given a certain equation of state (EOS) there is an upper limit on the gravitational mass upto which it is possible to have static configurations. Coupled with the fact that $`z_s2`$, it definitely meant that sufficiently massive bodies will undergo continued gravitational collapse. But the most important problem left to be answered now was where does the collapse process stop, a question actually burning ever since Newton discovered gravitation as an universal property. In the same year 1939, OS set out to find an answer for this question by solving the Einstein equations for an idealized homogeneous “dust”. They attempted to explicitly find the asymptotic behaviour of the metric coefficients for $`r2M`$ as a function of $`t`$ because, as explained earlier, for a collapsing body, $`r,t`$ remains valid coordinate system even when one (incorrectly) considers $`M>0`$. For the internal solutions, for the sake of convenience, they first worked with “comoving coordinates” $`R`$ and $`\tau `$ and then transformed the results to $`r,t`$ system by matching the solution with Eq. (1) at the boundary. And their solution (apparently) gave the impression that gravitational collapse ends in the formation of a BH of unspecified gravitational mass $`M`$. Since then, it has not been possible to find any other exact solution of gravitational collapse even for the spherically symmetric case. And inspired by the OS work, in the sixties and seventies a large number of relativists, formulated, by trials and errors, the so called “singularity theorems” which showed that, under a set of (apparently) reasonable assumptions, generic gravitational collapse should result in the formation of “singularities”. These singularities could be both “naked” as well as BH type. And the Cosmic Censorship Conjecture asserts that the resultant singularity should be a BH type. One of the important assumptions behind the singularity theorems is that of the existence of “trapped surfaces”, which for the spherical case implies the occurrence of a surface with

$$\frac{2M(r)}{r}>1$$
(18)   
However in 1998, it was shown by us that independent of the details of the collapse (or expansion) like the EOS and radiation transport properties, trapped surfaces do not form :

$$\frac{2M(r)}{r}1$$
(19)   
Consequently, for continued collapse, the final gravitational mass

$$M(r)0;r0$$
(20)   
if we rule out occurrence of negative mass (repulsive gravity). Physically, $`M=0`$ state corresponds to the lowest energy state which, the system naturally strives to attain by radiating the entire original mass energy. We have also found that the physically meaningful collapse ends with $`2M/r=1`$ state rather than $`2M/r<1`$ state. Thus as if the system tries to attain a zero mass BH state. Eventually, it is found that the proper time for formation of this state is $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$, which implies that GTR is singularity free (atleast for isolated bodies). Since our results are most general, it is trivially applicable to the OS case too. And naturally this result must be imprinted in the explicit OS solutions. Unfortunately, probably because of the excitement of having found BH solutions, OS completely overlooked this telltale imprint in their Eq. (36). They instead attempted to simplify Eq. (36) in such a manner that this explicit imprint got obliterated. Consequently they obtained physically inconsistent solutions under the assumption of a finite value of $`M`$. In fact they partially admitted the inconsistent internal solutions: for an internal point ($`R<R_b`$), $`e^\lambda `$ refused to become infinite even at $`r=0`$, i.e, when the collapse was complete! Unfortunately, they did not care to pursue this matter further (may be because of 2nd world war) and sent their paper to Physical Review where it got accepted. And the rest is, of course, history. And it is only recently that we have brought out all such issues in a most transparent manner to show that the OS work itself demanded $`M=0`$ even in the absence of our general result (Eq. ).

Yet to be doubly sure about the non-existence of finite mass BHs, in another recent work, we first assumed the existence of a finite mass Schwarzschild BH. The radial part of the Kruskal metric has the form

$$ds^2=g_{vv}dv^2g_{uu}du^2$$
(21)   
On the positive side all that Kruskal transformations achieved was to ensure that $`g_{uu}=g_{vv}`$ was definable over the entire spacetime (provided of course $`r`$ and $`t`$ are definable in the first place), they retained their respective original algebric signs, and do not blow up at $`r=2M`$ (provided $`M>0`$). On the flip side, it created a pandora’s box as far as physical concepts are concerned. For instance, it demanded that (i) although the central singularity is still described by $`r=0`$, its actual structure is that of a pair of hyperbolas : $`u=\pm (1+v^2)^{1\mathrm{`}/2}`$, (ii) the negative branch of the hyperbola corresponds to “White Hole” which can spew out mass energy at its will, (iii) Inside the BH, there are two universes connected by a spacetime “throat”, (iv) Even the spacetime at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, which is naturally seen to be flat and Newtonian by the original and exact Sch. solution, has a complex structure corresponding to $`u\pm v`$ or $`u\pm v`$.

To the knowledge of the present author, nobody raised here the question, when there are expected to be $`N`$ BHs, how much complex will be structure of the spacetime far away from all the BHs? And when astronomical observations firmly supported the view that far from massive objects, the structure of the spacetime is well described by the mundane $`r,t`$ coordinates, there was no introspection as to whether the complex structure of spacetime at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, suggested by the Kruskal view, was acceptable or not. Note, if a finite mass BH were a physical object, the radial geodesic of a physical particle must remain timelike at EH. And we have directly shown that it is not so; it becomes null just like the Schwarzschild case! Any reader can verify this by noting that since as $`r2M`$, $`u\pm v`$, and consequently the Kruskal derivative assumes a form

$$\frac{du}{dv}\frac{f(r,t,dt/dr)}{\pm f(r,t,dt/dr)};r2M$$
(22)   
And the corresponding limit becomes unity irrespective of whether $`f0,\mathrm{}`$ or anything. Therefore, one has $`du^2=dv^2`$ at $`r=2M`$ in Eq. (21), so that $`ds^2=0`$ !

Physically this means that the free fall speed at the EH, $`V=1`$, and this is not allowed by GTR unless $`R=M=0`$. Now we explain why $`V=1`$ at the EH for any coordinate system, Kruskal or Lemaitre or anything else. Let the speed of the static other observer be $`V_{SchO}`$ with respect to the Schwarzschild observer. By principle of equivalence, we can invoke special theory of relativity locally. Then the free fall speed of the material particle with respect to the other static observer will be

$$V=\frac{V_{Sch}\pm V_{SchO}}{1\pm V_{Sch}V_{SchO}}$$
(23)   
But since $`V_{Sch}=1`$ at the EH, we would always obtain $`V=1`$ too. And hence there can not be any finite mass BH. The value of $`V`$ can change in various coordinates only as long as it is subluminous to all observers. Thus, all that Kruskal transformations and several other transformations tried to do was to arrive at a metric whose coefficients do not (appear to) blow up at $`r=2M`$. But as we saw, this was a purely cosmetic approach because no independent effort was ever made to verify whether the actual value of $`ds^2=dt^2(12M/r)`$, which becomes zero at $`r=2M`$ for a Schwarzschild observer becomes timelike, $`ds^2>0`$, in the new coordinate.

And since after all, $`ds^2`$ is an invariant, the value of it can not change unless, in the new coordinate, the location of the EH materially changes! The latter statement means that, the location of the Sch. singularity or the central singularity have to be described independent of the clutches of the Schwarzschild system. In other words, the new coordinates must not be obtained by transforming the $`r,t`$ coordinates, if it were possible. It is really inexplicable how almost all the authors overlooked this simple point while taking the existence of finite mass BHs for granted. We still hope that the reader will not reject this paper to uphold the same inexplicable legacy. Finally, we conclude that as far as the value of the mass of the BHs are concerned, the results obtained by Supersymmetric String theories completely agree with corresponding GTR results. This result is also, in a certain way, in agreement with the result that the naked singularities could be of zero gravitational mass.