Physics Letters B 687 (2010) 110–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters B
www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

Radial motion into an Einstein–Rosen bridge

Nikodem J. Popławski
Department of Physics, Indiana University, Swain Hall West, 727 East Third Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We consider the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole in isotropic coordinates,
Received 12 May 2009 which represents the exterior region of an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole). The particle enters the in-
Received in revised form 8 March 2010 terior region, which is regular and physically equivalent to the asymptotically flat exterior of a white
Accepted 9 March 2010
hole, and the particle’s proper time extends to infinity. Since the radial motion into a wormhole af-
Available online 11 March 2010
Editor: S. Dodelson
ter passing the event horizon is physically different from the motion into a Schwarzschild black hole,
Einstein–Rosen and Schwarzschild black holes are different, physical realizations of general relativity. Yet
Keywords: for distant observers, both solutions are indistinguishable. We show that timelike geodesics in the field
Black hole of a wormhole are complete because the expansion scalar in the Raychaudhuri equation has a disconti-
Isotropic coordinates nuity at the horizon, and because the Einstein–Rosen bridge is represented by the Kruskal diagram with
Wormhole Rindler’s elliptic identification of the two antipodal future event horizons. These results suggest that ob-
served astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that
formed simultaneously with the black hole. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black
hole existing inside another universe.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

rg
1. Isotropic coordinates R 0r 0r = R θ φ θ φ = − , (3)
r 3 (1 + r g /(4r ))
6

The interval of the static, spherically symmetric, gravitational so the Kretschmann scalar is finite everywhere: R μνρσ R μνρσ =
field in vacuum, expressed in isotropic coordinates, was found by
12r 2g r −6 (1 + r g /(4r ))−12 , going to zero as r → ∞ and r → 0. The
Weyl [1]:
Einstein–Rosen metric for r > r g /4 describes the exterior sheet of
(1 − r g /(4r ))2 2 2  4   a Schwarzschild black hole (the transformation of the radial co-
ds2 = c dt − 1 + r g /(4r ) dr 2 + r 2 dΩ 2 , (1) ordinate r → r S = r (1 + r g /(4r ))2 brings the interval (1) into the
(1 + r g /(4r ))2
standard Schwarzschild form [4]). The spacetime given by the met-
where 0  r < ∞ is the radial coordinate, dΩ is the element of ric (1) for r < r g /4 is regarded by an observer at r > r g /4 as the
the solid angle, and r g = 2G M /c 2 is the Schwarzschild radius. This interior of a black hole. Because of the invariance of the metric
metric does not change its form under the coordinate transforma- (1) under the transformation (2), this interior is an image of the
tion: other exterior sheet. This situation is analogous to the method of
r 2g image charges for spheres in electrostatics, where the interaction
r → r = , (2) between an electric charge situated at a distance r from the center
16r
of a conducting sphere of radius R < r is equivalent to the in-
and is Galilean for r → ∞. Therefore it is also Galilean for
teraction of the same charge with a charge of the opposite sign
r → 0, describing an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole): two
situated inside this sphere at a distance R 2 /r from its center [5].
Schwarzschild solutions to the Einstein field equations (a black
The radius R corresponds to the Schwarzschild surface in isotropic
hole and white hole) connected at the singular (det g μν = 0) sur-
coordinates, r = r g /4.
face r = r g /4 (common event horizon) [2,3]. The nonzero compo-
nents of the Riemann curvature tensor for this metric are given
2. Radial motion
by
rg Consider a massive particle moving radially in the gravitational
R 0θ 0θ = R 0φ 0φ = R r θ r θ = R r φ r φ = ,
2r 3 (1 + r g /(4r ))6 field described by the metric (1). For brevity, we use

(1 − r g /(4r ))2  4
h = g 00 = , f = − grr = 1 + r g /(4r ) . (4)
E-mail address: [email protected]. (1 + r g /(4r ))2
0370-2693/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.029
 N.J. Popławski / Physics Letters B 687 (2010) 110–113 111

The motion of the particle is given by the radial geodesic equa-

tions. If the particle is at rest at r = r0 , then these equations are

dt 
= u0 = h0 /h, (5)
dτ
dr  1/2
= u r = h 0 h −1 f −1 − f −1 , (6)
c dτ
where τ is the proper time of the particle, h0 = h|r =r0 , and
= −1(+1) for an infalling (outgoing) motion. Consider a parti- Fig. 1. Light cones in the gravitational field represented by the metric (13).
cle falling into a black hole, = −1. As r → r g /4, h goes to zero
and f → 16, so both u 0 and u r become infinite. Even if the initial time τ0 of a clock at rest that remains fixed at r0 . The time at
motion were not purely radial, the components u 0 , u r would still any event is taken to be equal to the proper time on the radially
become infinite at r = r g /4, with u θ , u φ remaining finite. There- falling clock that is coincident with this event, following the proce-
fore, each motion of a massive particle becomes effectively radial dure due to Gautreau and Hoffmann [8]. Eqs. (5) and (6) give (for
at the surface r = r g /4. = −1)
A distant observer situated in a nearly Galilean spacetime mea-  
sures the velocity of the infalling particle as c dτ = h0 c dt + f (h0 − h)/h dr , (11)
√
dr ur (h0 f −1 h − f −1 h2 )1/2 which, using τ0 = h0t 0 , integrates to
vd = =c = −c √ . (7)
dt u0 h0  r 
As r → r g /4, v d goes to zero. Writing r = r g /4 + ξ , where 0 < cτ = h0 ct + f (h0 − h)/h dr , (12)
ξ  r g , gives v d ≈ −c ξ/(2r g ) and thus r − r g /4 ∼ exp(−ct /(2r g )), r0
so the particle reaches the surface of a black hole r = r g /4 after
giving the transformation between the coordinates (r , t ) and (r , τ ).
an infinite time t. This surface is an event horizon for a distant
In terms of τ , the metric (1) becomes
observer, as it is for the standard Schwarzschild metric [6]. The
proper time τ of the particle for moving radially from r = r0   2
ds2 = h c dτ − f (h0 − h)/h dr /h0 − f dr 2 − f r 2 dΩ 2 . (13)
to r = r g /4 is finite, which can be shown by considering r0 =
r g /4 + ξ : Radial null geodesics are given by ds = 0 and dΩ = 0:
r g /4+ξ
 c dτ  
= f h0 /h( 1 − h/h0 ± 1). (14)
c τ = dr /u r ≈ r g . (8) dr
r g /4 The plus (minus) sign corresponds to an outgoing (infalling) null
geodesic. For r → ∞, the spacetime is Galilean and c dτ /dr = ±1.
After reaching the surface r = r g /4, the particle continues moving; For r = r g /4, c dτ /dr = ∞ for the outgoing null geodesic and 0
its radial coordinate r decreases to r1 = r 2g /(16r0 ) ≈ r g /4 − ξ (at for the infalling one, as shown in Fig. 1. For r = 0, c dτ /dr = ±∞;
which u r = 0) in a proper time τ = r g /c. The radial motion of however, in terms of the new radial coordinate r  (2), we obtain
a massive particle (in terms of the proper time) in the spacetime c dτ /dr  = ±1 (Galilean spacetime). Massive particles can move in
(1) for r  r g /4 is the image (in the sense of the method of image both radial directions, except at the unidirectional surface r = r g /4,
charges for spheres in electrostatics) of the particle’s motion for where only infalling geodesics (decreasing r) lie inside the light
r  r g /4. Applying the transformation (2) to Eqs. (5) and (6) in the cone.
region r  r g /4 gives The singularity theorem of Penrose guarantees that, when-
ever matter satisfies reasonable energy conditions, some sort of
dt 
= h0 /h, (9) geodesic incompleteness occurs inside a black hole [9]. The key
dτ component in this theorem is the Raychaudhuri equation [10], de-
dr   1/2 scribing the time evolution of the expansion scalar for a timelike
= − h0 h−1 f −1 − f −1 , (10) congruence. The expansion scalar θ = u i ;i measures the fractional
c dτ
rate at which a small volume of matter changes with respect to
where h = (1 − r g /(4r  ))2 /(1 + r g /(4r  ))2 and f = (1 + r g /(4r  ))4 . time as measured by a comoving observer. The Raychaudhuri equa-
An infalling radial geodesic motion inside a black hole appears, in tion guarantees that any timelike geodesic inside a Schwarzschild
terms of the new radial coordinate r  , as an outgoing motion from black hole converges in a caustic (θ → −∞) within a finite proper
a white hole (the time reversal of a black hole). time. For the infalling radial motion into the Einstein–Rosen bridge
The local velocity of the particle v l , measured in terms of the (1) from infinity (h0 = 1), Eq. (6) yields
proper time, as determined by static clocks synchronized along 
the trajectory of the particle, is related to u 0 by u 0 = (h(1 − 1   3 r g sgn(1 − r g /(4r ))
v l2 /c 2 ))−1/2 [7]. As the particle moves from r = r0 to r = r g /4, v l θ= hf 3 r 2 u r ,r = − . (15)
hf 3 r 2 2 r 3 (1 + r g /(4r ))3
increases from zero to c, and as the particle moves from r = r g /4
to r = r1 , v l decreases to zero. In a Schwarzschild field, v l exceeds As the particle moves from infinity to r = r g /4, θ decreases from 0
c inside a black hole, which does not violate Einstein’s theory of to −3/(2r g ). At r = r g /4, θ undergoes a discontinuity, jumping to
relativity because the interior of a Schwarzschild black hole is not 3/(2r g ). As the particle moves from r = r g /4 to r = 0, θ decreases
static and neither can be clocks synchronized along the trajectory back to zero. The discontinuity of the expansion scalar at the event
of the particle. horizon of a wormhole prevents θ from decreasing to −∞, as it
Consider radially moving geodesic clocks that are falling into a occurs inside a Schwarzschild black hole. Therefore this disconti-
black hole from the isotropic radius r0 , and synchronized such that nuity guarantees that timelike geodesics in the gravitational field
the time of each clock at the instant of release equals the proper of a wormhole are complete.
112 N.J. Popławski / Physics Letters B 687 (2010) 110–113

√
ek k −1
e 2 ((k +3) tan k+k) ,
2
Uh = Vh = √ (22)
1+k 2

and the value of the slope dV /dU at the horizon:

 
dV    
 = ζ = coth k k2 + 3 tan−1 k + k . (23)
dU  h 2

After the particle, which started moving from the radius

r S0 > r g at t = 0 (point A in Fig. 2), reaches the event horizon of
a Schwarzschild black hole at r S = r g , r = r g /4 (point B), it moves
toward the central singularity at r S = 0 (point E) as η (which is an
increasing function of the particle’s proper time τ ) goes to π .
The completeness of the particle’s geodesic in the spacetime
of the Einstein–Rosen bridge in the Kruskal coordinates can be ex-
plained if we note that both coordinate pairs (−U , − V ) and (U , V )
mathematically correspond to the same coordinates r, t. Rindler
suggested that both coordinate pairs (−U , − V ) and (U , V ) physi-
Fig. 2. Infalling radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a Schwarzschild
cally represent the same coordinates r, t, i.e. region III is identical
black hole (ABE) and an Einstein–Rosen black hole (ABCD) in the Kruskal coordi-
nates. For the Einstein–Rosen black hole, the events on the segment OF are identi-
with region I, and (interior) region IV is identical with region II;
fied with the events on the segment OG, e.g., points B and C represent the same the Kruskal spacetime is elliptic [15]. In order to represent the
spacetime event. Einstein–Rosen bridge in the Kruskal coordinates, we need to im-
pose Rindler’s elliptic identification of event antipodes only on
3. Kruskal representation the line V = U , i.e. only the two antipodal future event horizons
are identical. After the particle reaches the event horizon of an
A maximal extension of the Schwarzschild metric [11,12] Einstein–Rosen black hole at point B, it moves from point C , which
shows that a massive particle cannot travel in the spacetime of is identical with point B, to point D, which is related to point A
a Schwarzschild black hole from Kruskal’s right-hand quadrant via the transformation (2) of the isotropic radial coordinate r. As
(exterior region I in Fig. 2) to left-hand quadrant (exterior re- the particle moves from point C to D, the proper time τ increases,
gion III) without violating causality: the Schwarzschild bridge is while the coordinate time t decreases (runs in the reverse direc-
not traversable [3,13]. Such a particle either remains in region I or tion with respect to observers in region I). This reversion does not
moves to the upper quadrant (interior region II), where it reaches cause any problems, because it occurs after t → ∞, so observers
the central singularity and its proper time ends. Eq. (7) can be in region I never see it. At infinity of region III, the proper time
solved in the Schwarzschild coordinates, where h = 1 − r g /r S and τ of the particle coincides with −t, so −t has the meaning of the
f = (1 − r g /r S )−1 , in the parametric form [14]: physical coordinate time of a white hole (region III).
The dependence of r on η in the radial geodesic motion of a
rS 1 massive particle into an Einstein–Rosen black hole is given by
= (1 + cos η), (16)
r S0 2
  2  2
ct k + tan(η/2) r S0 rg 1 rg
= ln +k η+ (η + sin η) , (17) r 1+ = (1 + cos η)r0 1 + . (24)
rg k − tan(η/2) 2r g 4r 2 4r0

where r S0 = r0 (1 + r g /(4r0 ))2 , k = (r S0 /r g − 1)1/2 , and the param- The segment A B corresponds to the motion
 from r = r0 (τ = 0,
eter η goes from 0 (the particle is at rest at t = 0) to the value at dV /dU = ∞) to r = r g /4 (τ = τh = r 3S0 /r g (ηh + sin ηh )/(2c ),
the event horizon, ηh = 2 tan−1 k. Eqs. (6) and (16) give the proper dV /dU = ζ ), and the segment C D corresponds to the motion from
time τ as a monotonously increasing function of η : r = r g /4 (τ = τh , dV /dU = ζ ; the slope dV /dU is continuous at

the horizon as we go from point B to C ) to r = r1 = r 2g /(16r0 ) (τ =
1 r 3S0 2τh , dV /dU = ∞). Therefore crossing the Einstein–Rosen bridge
τ= (η + sin η). (18)
2c rg is possible if we regard Rindler’s elliptic identification of the two
antipodal future event horizons as physical. The particle enters re-
Transforming from the Schwarzschild coordinates (r , t ) to the
gion III (with no possibility of coming back to region I), which
Kruskal coordinates (U , V ) (in region I) [12],
has no curvature singularities and is mathematically equivalent to
ct the asymptotically flat exterior of a white hole [16]. The particle’s
U = (r S /r g − 1)1/2 er S /(2r g ) cosh , (19) proper time does not end in this region, but extends to infinity.
2r g
ct
V = (r S /r g − 1)1/2 er S /(2r g ) sinh , (20) 4. Discussion
2r g
together with Eq. (7), gives the derivative dV /dU : The difference in the character of the radial motion inside
r the event horizon between an Einstein–Rosen black hole and a
dV k − tanh 2rct · ( rS0 − 1)1/2 Schwarzschild black hole indicates that the two black hole so-
g S
= r . (21)
dU k tanh 2rct − ( rS0 − 1)1/2 lutions are physically different with regard to the nature of the
g S
interior sheet and equivalent with regard to the nature of the
In the limit η → ηh we can write η = ηh − ξ , where 0 <ξ  1, static exterior sheet (region I). For an Einstein–Rosen black hole
which gives r S /r g − 1 ≈ kξ , exp(ct /(2r g )) ≈ 2 cos(ηh /2) k/ξ × with Rindler’s elliptic identification of the two antipodal future
exp[k(ηh + r S0 (ηh + sin ηh )/(2r g ))/2] and (r S0 /r S − 1)1/2 ≈ k − ξ/2. event horizons the interior (from the point of view of a dis-
We obtain the values of U , V for the particle at the event horizon: tant observer; it really is the exterior region III) is static, while
 N.J. Popławski / Physics Letters B 687 (2010) 110–113 113

for a Schwarzschild black hole the interior (region II) is non- observer enters or resides in the interior region. This condition
static. Rindler’s identification also guarantees that the Einstein– would be satisfied if our Universe were the interior of a black hole
Rosen bridge is a stable solution to the gravitational field equa- existing in a bigger universe [21]. Because Einstein’s general theory
tions; without this identification the bridge would be unstable [3]. of relativity does not choose a time orientation, if a black hole can
Another difference between a Schwarzschild black hole and an form from the gravitational collapse of matter through an event
Einstein–Rosen black hole comes from the integral of the time– horizon in the future then the reverse process also possible. Such
time component of the gravitational energy–momentum pseu- a process would describe an exploding white hole: matter emerg-
dotensor (either Einstein or Landau–Lifshitz) over the interior hy- ing from an event horizon in the past, like the expanding Universe.
persurface, i.e. the total energy of the system [7,17]. This energy Scenarios in which the Universe was born from the interior of an
equals the sensible physical value r g c 4 /2G = Mc 2 for an Einstein– Einstein–Rosen black hole may avoid many of the problems of the
Rosen black hole, but diverges for a Schwarzschild black hole. standard Big-Bang cosmology and the black hole information-loss
Although the construction of the Einstein–Rosen bridge in the problem [22]. These scenarios, involving gravitational collapse of a
Kruskal coordinates through Rindler’s elliptic identification of the sphere of dust in isotropic coordinates, and generalization of the
two antipodal future event horizons may seem artificial, the ne- results of the present Letter to Schwarzschild–de Sitter and Kerr
cessity for Rindler’s identification to avoid the particle’s motion to black holes will be the subjects of further study.
the central singularity may be related to a singular behavior of
the Kruskal metric in the Minkowski limit r g → 0. However, the References
Kruskal coordinates are advantageous in describing the Einstein–
Rosen bridge because the surface r = r g /4 is regular (det g μν < 0) [1] H. Weyl, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 54 (1917) 117;
A.S. Eddington, Mathematical Theory of Relativity, Cambridge Univ. Press, New
in these coordinates. York, 1923.
The Schwarzschild black hole solution, singular at the cen- [2] L. Flamm, Z. Phys. 17 (1916) 448;
ter, does not exist in isotropic coordinates, while the Einstein– A. Einstein, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48 (1935) 73.
Rosen bridge (wormhole) geometry, regular everywhere, can be [3] R.W. Fuller, J.A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 919.
[4] K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin, 1916, p. 189.
built in the Schwarzschild coordinates by gluing together two
[5] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, Pergamon, Ox-
Schwarzschild exterior sheets at their common event horizon [18]. ford, 1984.
While the Schwarzschild metric is the spherically symmetric so- [6] A.S. Eddington, Nature 113 (1924) 192;
lution to the Einstein field equations in vacuum if we solve these G. Lemaître, Ann. Soc. Sci. A (Bruxelles) 53 (1933) 51;
equations using the Schwarzschild coordinates, the Einstein–Rosen D. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. 110 (1958) 965.
[7] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Pergamon, Oxford,
bridge is the spherically symmetric solution to the Einstein field
1975.
equations if we solve these equations using isotropic coordinates [8] R. Gautreau, B. Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2552.
for a source which is vacuum everywhere except at the surface [9] R.M. Wald, General Relativity, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
r = r g /4. It has been shown that the Einstein–Rosen bridge metric [10] A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. 98 (1955) 1123.
[11] J.L. Synge, Proc. R. Irish Acad. A 53 (1950) 83.
(1) is not a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations but it re-
[12] M.D. Kruskal, Phys. Rev. 119 (1960) 1743;
quires the presence of a nonzero energy–momentum tensor source G. Szekeres, Publ. Math. (Debrecen) 7 (1960) 285.
T μν that is divergent and violates the energy conditions at the [13] R. Balbinot, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 43 (1985) 76;
throat of the wormhole [18,19]. This metric satisfies the Levi-Civita M.S. Morris, K.S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56 (1988) 395;
√
identity, R 00 = √ 1g ∇ 2 ( g 00 ), where ∇ 2 is the Laplace–Beltrami M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 3182.
00 [14] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman, San Francisco,
operator [19,20]. This identity gives for (1): 1973;
 S.L. Shapiro, S.A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The
8π G 1 δ(r − r g /4) Physics of Compact Objects, Wiley, New York, 1983;
R 00 = T 00 − T = S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Clarendon, Oxford,
c4 2 8|r − r g /4| 1983.
[15] W. Rindler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 1001.
δ((r − r g /4) ) 2
= . (25) [16] I.D. Novikov, Astron. Zh. 41 (1964) 1075;
4 Y. Ne’eman, Astrophys. J. 141 (1965) 1303.
[17] E. Schrödinger, Space–Time Structure, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1950.
The curvature scalar at the throat of such a wormhole acquires [18] M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking, Am. Inst. Phys.
a similar delta-function contribution. It has been shown in [19] Press, New York, 1995.
that the delta-function matter source in the Einstein–Rosen bridge [19] E. Guendelman, A. Kaganovich, E. Nissimov, S. Pacheva, Phys. Lett. B 681 (2009)
457;
at r = r g /4 is a lightlike brane self-consistently interacting with
E. Guendelman, A. Kaganovich, E. Nissimov, S. Pacheva, arXiv:0904.0401, Int. J.
gravity. Mod. Phys. A 25, in press.
Both black hole solutions are mathematically legitimate, and [20] T. Frankel, Gravitational Curvature: An Introduction to Einstein Theory, Free-
only experiment or observation can reveal the nature of the in- man, San Francisco, 1979.
falling radial motion of a particle into a physical black hole. Since [21] R.K. Pathria, Nature 240 (1972) 298;
V.P. Frolov, M.A. Markov, V.F. Mukhanov, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 383;
the two solutions are indistinguishable for distant observers, which W.M. Stuckey, Am. J. Phys. 62 (1994) 788;
can see only the exterior sheet, the nature of the interior of a J. Smoller, B. Temple, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003) 11216.
physical black hole cannot be satisfactorily determined, unless an [22] D.A. Easson, R.H. Brandenberger, J. High Energy Phys. 0106 (2001) 024.