A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes

Alan R. Parry

Abstract We survey many of the important properties of spherically symmetric spacetimes as follows.
We present several different ways of describing a spherically symmetric spacetime and the resulting
arXiv:1210.5269v2 [gr-qc] 20 Sep 2014

metrics. We then focus our discussion on an especially useful form of the metric of a spherically symmetric
spacetime in polar-areal coordinates and its properties. In particular, we show how the metric component
functions chosen are extremely compatible with notions in Newtonian mechanics. We also show the
monotonicity of the Hawking mass in these coordinates. As an example, we discuss how these coordinates
and the metric can be used to solve the spherically symmetric Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations. We
conclude with a brief mention of some applications of these properties.
Keywords spacetime metrics, spherical symmetry, einstein equation, einstein-klein-gordon equations,
wave dark matter
Mathematics Subject Classification (2000) 83C20

1 Introduction

Spherically symmetric spacetimes are an important case in the study of general relativity for a number
of reasons. Foremost among them is that it is often a good starting point in the study of a problem
in general relativity. For example, one of the first projects undergone in general relativity was to com-
pute nontrivial spherically symmetric spacetimes that are exact solutions of the Einstein equation. This
resulted in the discovery of the Schwarzschild spacetime, which is by far the most important spheri-
cally symmetric solution to date, and later Birkhoff’s theorem about Ricci flat or vacuum spherically
symmetric spacetimes as well as some generalizations of Birkhoff’s theorem [9, 17, 29, 43]. Spherically
symmetric spacetimes also create a situation where the dynamics of the system are less complicated by
effectively reducing a 4-dimensional solution to a 2-dimensional one. This accessibility makes using spher-
ically symmetric spacetimes all the more attractive as a starting point. Finally, while Birkhoff’s theorem
classifies all vacuum spherically symmetric spacetimes, there are still some nonvacuum spherically sym-
metric spacetimes that are interesting as well, both from a physical and mathematical standpoint. These
include describing spherically symmetric stars and perfect fluids via the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff
solutions and other methods [28, 38, 42], dwarf spheroidal galaxies, which are dominated by their dark
matter halos and closely approximated by spherical symmetry [34], and spherically symmetric scalar
fields, particularly in the context of dark matter [4, 7, 22, 26, 30, 39].
As spherically symmetric spacetimes are still of interest and there is a great deal of information
about them scattered throughout the literature, it would be useful to have a brief survey of many of the
important results about spherically symmetric spacetimes. The purpose of this paper is to collect a great
deal of useful information about spherically symmetric spacetimes and present it in a brief organized way.
This includes, first, a discussion of the many possible forms of a generic metric of a spherically symmetric
spacetime along with some advantages and disadvantages of each choice. Most of these metrics can be
described well within the established framework of numerical relativity and as such, we will use that
Alan R. Parry
Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, 196 Auditorium Road, Unit 3009, Storrs, CT 06269-3009, USA
Tel.: (860) 486-2362
Fax: (860) 486-4238
E-mail: [email protected]
2 A. R. Parry

framework to discuss them. Second, to facilitate some of the discussion of spherical symmetry as well as
to point out the particular usefulness of a certain choice of coordinates, we will discuss in detail what
we refer to as the Newtonian-Compatible metric collecting some well known results about spherically
symmetric spacetimes in terms of this metric. Following the discussion of this metric, we will apply some
of these results to a particular example, namely, a spherically symmetric scalar field. For brevity and
comprehensibility, we will collect most of the proofs of these results in an appendix. Even though none
of the results presented in this article are particularly new or unknown and most, if not all, have been
previously published, it is the hope of the author that many will find this brief and dense collection of
these results useful.
Before we get started, we should explain a notational convention about subscripts that we use. In
particular, we do not follow the commonly used abstract index notation unless explicitly stated. Instead,
we will generally use the following rules.
For functions, like M (t, r), unless the context makes it clear, subscripts will denote partial differen-
tiation with respect to the coordinate the subscript specifies, so that
 
∂ ∂ ∂
Mr = M (t, r) and Mrt = M (t, r) . (1a)
∂r ∂t ∂r
Vector fields will typically be uniquely named and as such any subscript they have is simply part
of that name and usually denotes that that vector is in the coordinate direction of the subscript. For
example, ∂t is the coordinate vector field corresponding to the t-coordinate and later we will define νt
as the unit vector field in the t-coordinate direction. We will also use a similar practice with one-forms
where appropriate. Given this practice, we will explicitly define the vector fields and one forms we use.
For tensors, it is often more convenient to have the subindices denote the slots of the tensor. As such,
we will never give a tensor (other than a function, vector field, or one-form) a subscripted name. When
subscripts appear on a tensor or on the Christoffel symbols Γ , they will be a letter corresponding to
a coordinate and the subscript will denote plugging in that particular coordinate vector field into that
slot. Similarly, a superscript on a tensor will denote plugging in that particular coordinate one-form into
that slot. Thus raising and lowering indicies is done in the familiar way of appropriately contracting
the tensor with the metric or its inverse. We will also adopt the abstract index notation convention of
using a comma between subscripts to denote partial differentiation of a tensor component and a semi-
colon between subscripts to denote covariant differentiation of a tensor in the direction indicated by the
subscript. Thus, for example,
gtr = g(∂t , ∂r ), (1b)
Rtrθ ϕ = R(∂t , ∂r , ∂θ , dϕ), (1c)
∂
Ttr,θ = (T (∂t , ∂r )) , (1d)
∂θ
Ttr;θ = (∇θ T )(∂t , ∂r ) = (∇T )(∂t , ∂r , ∂θ ). (1e)

2 Metrics for a Spherically Symmetric Spacetime

The study of numerical relativity is devoted to devising ways of evolving the Einstein equation in order
to solve for the components of the spacetime metric in different situations of interest as well as actually
conducting such numerical experiments and comparing them to real data. This evolution usually takes
place in a spacetime which is foliated by t = constant spacelike hypersurfaces. The common method in
numerical relativity is to decouple the time component from the space components into what is commonly
called the (3+1)-formalism of general relativity [1, 19, 23]. Several formulations of this formalism are
usually used in practice, such as the Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) formulation [5, 41],
the Z4 formulation [11], or the fully constrained formulation (FCF) [13] among others, but the formulation
described below is sufficient for our present survey of spherically symmetric spacetimes.
The framework for this formalism is, as stated before, a spacetime, N , foliated by t = constant
spacelike hypersurfaces described by a Riemannian 3-metric γ which may change with time. Note that
such a foliation is possible for any globally hyperbolic spacetime [23, 43]. Consider a coordinate chart
on U ⊆ N , {t, x1 , x2 , x3 }, where ∂t is timelike and the ∂xj are all spacelike. Now consider an observer
starting on the t = t0 hypersurface at the coordinate (t0 , xj0 ). This observer then travels to another
infinitesimally close hypersurface t = t0 + dt to the coordinate (t0 + dt, xj0 + dxj ) as in Figure 1.
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 3

(t0 + dt, xi0 − β i dt) (t0 + dt, xi0 )

βi

αdt (t0 + dt, xi0 + dx)

t0 + dt
ds

(t0 , xi0 )

t0

Fig. 1 Infinitesimal distance in a t = constant hypersurface foliated spacetime.

The observer has now traveled an infinitesimal distance ds. We can measure the “square” of this
infinitesimal distance, ds2 , using the analogue of Pythagorean’s theorem and this will give us the line
element form of the metric. If another observer travels normal to the hypersurface from (t0 , xj0 ) to
the hypersurface t = t0 + dt, since the normal direction is not necessarily the same direction as the t
coordinate direction, it will arrive at the coordinate (t0 + dt, xj0 − β j dt). We call the 3-vector field, β,
the shift vector because it measures the spacelike shift of the coordinates while traveling normally. Note
that the components of β can vary with all the coordinates. This normal observer, having traveled in a
timelike direction, has experienced some proper time dτ , which is some multiple of the change in time
coordinate, that is,
dτ = αdt. (2)
Hence the length of its normal movement from one surface to the other is αdt. The value of α can vary
with all of the coordinates making it a function on the manifold. This function is called the lapse function
since it measures the lapse in proper time compared to coordinate time. To get the length in the spatial
direction between where the normal observer ended up and where the original observer did, we need only
to use the metric on the hypersurfaces and the difference of the two space coordinates. This difference,
for each i, takes the form
(xj0 + dxj ) − (xj0 − β j dt) = dxj + β j dt (3)
and so the length squared of the spatial movement will be

γjk (dxj + β j dt)(dxk + β k dt) (4)

where we have implemented the Einstein summation convention. Then using the generalized version of
Pythagorean’s theorem and recalling that t is a timelike direction we get that

ds2 = −α2 dt2 + γjk (dxj + β j dt)(dxk + β k dt), (5)

which is the line element of the metric. Note that the lapse function α and the shift vector β, both of
which together are usually referred to as the guage variables, completely determine the foliation of the
spacetime by the t = constant spacelike hypersurfaces. Equation (5) is then the most general form of
the metric for any foliated spacetime, that is, all metrics of a foliated spacetime can be written in this
form. Note that we will often write g instead of ds2 to refer interchangeably to the metric and the line
element.
From this metric, and a choice of slicing condition, a complete system of partial differential equations
that evolve the Einstein equation can be constructed. This system is often referred to as the ADM
formulation of general relativity in reference to the authors of the paper in which it was first introduced
[3]. It involves evolution equations of both the metric and the extrinsic curvature of the t = constant
hypersurfaces [3, 10, 19]. These equations are very commonly used in numerical relativity, but we find
they overcomplicate the situation in spherical symmetry, which is why we have elected not to use this
formulation of general relativity directly.
If we know more about the spacetime in question, we will be able to determine more of the components
of the metric. In a spherically symmetric spacetime, with coordinates, r, θ, ϕ, chosen so that θ and ϕ are
4 A. R. Parry

the polar-angular coordinates on the hypersurface, the shift vector must be completely radial so that
the metric remains invariant under rotations. In this case, we will denote the radial component of the
shift vector by simply β. Moreover, the 3-metric can be written as

γ = γrr dr2 + γθθ dσ 2 . (6)

where dσ 2 = dθ2 + sin2 θ dϕ2 is the standard metric on the unit sphere. This implies that the most
general spherically symmetric metric can be written in the form

g = −α2 dt2 + γrr (dr + β dt)(dr + β dt) + γθθ dσ 2

= − α2 − γrr β 2 dt2 + γrr β(dr dt + dt dr) + γrr dr2 + γθθ dσ 2 .


(7)

Note that all the metric component functions can only depend on t and r due to spherical symmetry.
For convenience, we will define two positive functions a(t, r) and q(t, r) so that

a(t, r)2 = γrr and q(t, r)2 = γθθ . (8)

This assignment is possibile because ∂r and ∂θ are both spacelike and hence γrr and γθθ are both positive
functions. Then we can rewrite (7) as

g = − α2 − a2 β 2 dt2 + a2 β(dr dt + dt dr) + a2 dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 ,

(9)

where α, a, β, and q are functions of only t and r. It is important to note here that since we have not
defined the coordinates t and r geometrically yet, there remain two degrees of freedom left in this metric.
There are several different choices that can be made in this regard. We mention the most common here,
but there is a very useful and more extensive list of several choices that can be made in a more general
setting in Gourgoulhon’s recent book [23].
There are three rather common slicing conditions that are often used in many settings, all of which
place a condition on the lapse function α. These conditions are the maximal slicing, harmonic slicing,
and geodesic slicing conditions.
Under the maximal slicing condition, one requires that each t = constant hypersurface be a maximal
hypersurface, that is, it has zero mean curvature,

H = 0. (10)

The metric stays of the form in equation (7), but since the evolution equations in the ADM formulation
evolve the components of the second fundamental form and H is the trace of the second fundamental
form, this places a constraint on some of the evolution variables, which can be used to simplify the
evolution equations [6, 20, 23]. Note here that after making this choice, there remains one more degree
of freedom which can be used to constrain the r coordinate.
Harmonic slicing requires that the coordinate function t be a harmonic function under the metric
g. That is, 2g t = 0, where 2g is the d’Alembertian or Laplacian operator with respect to the metric
g. This is often accompanied with the condition that the hypersurfaces remain orthogonal to the time
direction, which uses the remaining degree of freedom, and indeed some refer to both of these choices
together as harmonic slicing. In the case that both conditions are satisfied, this would yield a metric of
the form
g = −α2 dt2 + a2 dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 (11)
with the added condition 2g t = 0, which can be used to compute an evolution equation for the lapse
function α [12].
Geodesic slicing requires that movement along the curve ξ = (t, 0, 0, 0), which is given in our coordi-
nates, be geodesic, that is, coordinate observer worldlines are geodesics. This requirement is satisfied by
choosing
α = constant and β = 0. (12)
However, the most reasonable choice for the constant is 1, since the condition α = 1 on the lapse function
has the added implication that a normal observer’s proper time is the same as coordinate time and in
fact, since β = 0, normal observers are coordinate observers [2, 6, 23]. This results in a metric of the form

g = −dt2 + a2 dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 . (13)

A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 5

While this choice seems very attractive at first, since it either eliminates or greatly simplifies the evolution
equations, it does have a tendency to develop coordinate singularities when evolved in time and also has
considerable trouble dealing with real singularities arising, for example, from the collapse of a star to a
black hole [6]. As such, this choice of slicing must be used with caution. Note also that this requirement
is sometimes reduced to simply α = 1 without necessarily requiring the shift parameter or vector to
vanish.
We can alternatively use the degrees of freedom to make choices concerning the r-coordinate. We will
mention a few such choices here that are standard in the study of spherically symmetric spacetimes.
The first is the choice of normal slicing. That is, choose the t coordinate so that the ∂t vector field is
always normal to the hypersurfaces. This choice makes all normal observers coordinate observers as well.
This is equivalent to choosing the shift parameter or vector to be identically 0 and results in a metric of
the form
g = −α2 dt2 + a2 dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 . (14)
This choice has already been mentioned above as it is often coupled with harmonic or geodesic slicing
conditions [23]. Since the coordinate vector fields on the hypersurfaces were already orthogonal, this
results, as seen above, in a diagonal metric.
The next choice is to require that the metric on the hypersurfaces to be conformal to the flat metric.
This amounts to choosing the function q in (9) to satisfy q = ra, which would make the metric become

g = − α2 − a2 β 2 dt2 + a2 β(dr dt + dt dr) + a2 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 .

(15)

This choice is referred to as isotropic coordinates. It is often coupled with the normal slicing choice
above, which uses both of the degrees of freedom and results in a metric of the form

g = −α2 dt2 + a2 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 .

(16)

A common example of the normal-isotropic case is the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates [43].
A form of the metric closely related to isotropic coordinates is the confomally flat condition. Here
again, we require that the metric on the hypersurfaces to be conformal to the flat metric on R3 , but this
time we require the function q in (9) to satisfy q = rψ 2 to obtain the metric

g = − α2 − ψ 4 β 2 dt2 + ψ 4 β(dr dt + dt dr) + ψ 4 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 .

(17)

This choice is mathematically identical to the isotropic coordinate choice above; the only difference is
that it makes the fact that the spatial portion of this metric is conformal to the flat metric on R3 match
the usual definition of conformally flat. The conformally flat condition is also used in other instances
besides spherical symmetry. However, since this choice can always be made in spherical symmetry, we see
that in spherical symmetry, the conformally flat condition is exact [20]. Just like isotropic coordinates,
the conformally flat condition is often coupled with the normal slicing choice, using up the other degree
of freedom by setting β = 0 and yielding the metric

g = −α2 dt2 + ψ 4 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 .

(18)

It is also sometimes coupled with the maximal slicing condition above that the mean curvature vanishes.
In this case, the metric remains in the form of equation (17), but the equation H = 0 simplifies the
evolution equations just as before.
We should note that the conformally flat condition only imposes that the 3-metric on the t = constant
hypersurfaces be conformally flat. There is also a condition, called conformally flat spacetime coordinates,
which require that the entire spacetime be conformally flat, that is, conformal to the Minkowski metric.
This condition in spherical symmetry has been recently discussed in detail by Grøn and Johannesen [24].
Another choice on the r-coordinate is to choose it to be the “quasiglobal” coordinate. Here we choose
the r-coordinate so that
gtt grr = −1. (19)
This is often coupled with the normal slicing condition above that β = 0, which uses the remaining
degree of freedom. In this case, this condition becomes αa = −1 and the metric takes the form
1
g = −α2 dt2 + dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 . (20)
α2
6 A. R. Parry

This coordinate choice is useful when dealing with black holes and both sides of horizons. It is discussed
in much greater detail in the book by Bronnikov and Rubin [18].
Similar to choosing the t-coordinate to be a harmonic function of the metric, we can also require the
radial coordinate to be a harmonic function of the metric. This is called the harmonic radial coordinate.
In this case, we still have a metric of the form in equation (9), but we also require that 2g r = 0. As in
many other cases, this is often coupled with the normal slicing condition that β = 0, using the remaining
degree of freedom and yielding a metric of the form in equation (14) with the added condition that
2g r = 0. This choice is well suited to dealing with scalar fields, although we will use a different choice
when discussing a scalar field later in the survey. This choice is also described in detail in the book by
Bronnikov and Rubin [18].
The next r-coordinate choice we present is called the “tortoise” coordinate. This choice requires r to
be such that
gtt = −grr . (21)
This choice uses only one degree of freedom and can be realized by solving gtt = −grr for the metric in
equation (9). This amounts to rewriting a2 as follows
α2
a2 = , (22)
1 + β2
which yields a metric of the form
α2 βα2 α2
     
2
g=− dt + (dr dt + dt dr) + dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 . (23)
1 + β2 1 + β2 1 + β2
Note that both of the gauge variables α and β still appear in the metric and retain their meaning. If
this choice is coupled with normal slicing (i.e. β = 0), using the remaining degree of freedom, we obtain
a metric of the form
g = −α2 dt2 + α2 dr2 + q 2 dσ 2 . (24)
This choice is closely related to null coordinates and the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates described
below. Many of the advantages of this choice of coordinate are discussed in detail in the book by
Bronnikov and Rubin, but they appear in other texts as well [6, 18].
The last choice we mention in the (3+1) framework is to give the coordinate r geometric significance
by choosing it to be the areal coordinate. That is, choose the coordinate r so that the area of each metric
2-sphere on the hypersurface is exactly 4πr2 . This choice requires that q = r. Additionally, it is almost
always accompanied with the normal slicing choice above, again using both degrees of freedom. This
results in the polar-areal coordinates on a spherically symmetric spacetime and yields a metric of the
form
g = −α2 dt2 + a2 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 . (25)
This chart is probably the most familiar form of a general spherically symmetric metric, and is the chart
most commonly used when introducing the Schwarzschild spacetime. And rightly so, as it has some very
clear advantages. For one, the r-coordinate’s role is analogous to its role in a flat spacetime. Additionally,
these coordinates give the Einstein curvature tensor a very simple form. However, they may not be well
suited to dealing with high gravitational fields as we would likely run into the same limitations that the
polar areal metric has in describing the Schwarzschild spacetime inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is
not much of a problem, however, if one is interested in working in the low field limit such as describing
objects on a galactic scale.
We present one more useful coordinate system and metric for a general spherically symmetric space-
time that does not fit into the (3+1)-formalism framework, nor does it depend on the ability to foliate
the spacetime, but is useful from a theoretical standpoint nonetheless. In these coordinates, we still
choose to use the polar-angular coordinates θ and ϕ to describe the rotations, but instead of separating
the time and radial coordinates, we choose coordinates u and v such that ∂u and ∂v are nonparallel
future pointing null vectors. This coordinate system is descriptively called null coordinates. In this case,
the metric on the spacetime takes the form

g = A (du dv + dv du) + Q2 dσ 2 (26)

where A and Q are functions of only u and v. Note that there are no extra degrees of freedom with
this metric as all coordinates have been well-defined. While these coordinates are not very well suited to
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 7

numerical evolutions, they can be very useful for theoretical discussions about the spherically symmetric
spacetime. For example, in these coordinates, it is very straightforward to prove the monotonicity of
the Hawking mass given the dominant energy condition. Additionally, it seems to perform well when
in the presence of high gravitational fields. In the Schwarzschild case, these coordinates are known
as the Kruskal coordinate system and is the system generally used to describe the region inside the
Schwarzschild radius, although other equally useful coordinate systems exist to describe this region such
as the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates and the Painlevé-Gullstrand-Lemaı̂tre coordinates [33, 43].
We make one final note here about static spacetimes. If the spherically symmetric spacetime is also
known to be static, meaning that there exists a timelike killing vector field with orthogonal spacelike
hypersurfaces, then we can automatically eliminate the cross term in the general metric (9) by selecting
the time coordinate to be in the direction of the timelike killing vector field and choosing the remaining
coordinates to be the general spherical coordinates on the orthogonal spacelike hypersurfaces. This
effectively sets β = 0. A survey article on static spherically symmetric spacetimes can be found in [21].
All of these different coordinate choices and different forms of the metric on a spherically symmetric
spacetime have advantages to them. However, for the problem of numerically evolving a spacetime metric
in a low gravitational field, we find that the polar-areal coordinates are the best suited due to the very
simple system one gets from the Einstein equation. As such, polar-areal coordinates is the coordinate
system that we will use throughout this paper, but, in addition, we will introduce new variables that will
give the metric a different form. This new form of the metric will result in the added advantages that
the new metric functions have very clear analogues in the Newtonian or low-field limit and the Einstein
curvature tensor will become even more simplified.

3 A Newtonian-Compatible Metric

Let N be a spherically symmetric, (3+1)-dimensional spacetime with a Lorentzian metric g and be

foliated by t = constant spacelike hypersurfaces. Choose the polar-areal coordinate system discussed
above so that the t-coordinate direction is always normal to the hypersurfaces, the radial coordinate r
is the areal coordinate (that is, so that the metric sphere of metric radius r always has a surface area of
4πr2 ), and θ and ϕ are the usual polar-angular coordinates on the hypersurface. In these coordinates,
the metric g has the line element form

g = −α(t, r)2 dt2 + a(t, r)2 dr2 + r2 dσ 2 (27)

Now we define the functions V (t, r) and M (t, r) as follows,

a2 − 1
 
r
V = ln α M= (28)
2 a2

and rewrite the metric (27) in terms of these functions to obtain,

 −1
2M
g = −e2V dt2 + 1 − dr2 + r2 dσ 2 (29)
r
We will always be interested in the low-field limit, where M  r, which necessarily requires that
M (t, 0) = 0 for all t. Note that if a is nonzero at r = 0, then M (t, 0) = 0 follows directly from equation
(28). However, if a = 0 at r = 0, then M (t, 0) could possibly be nonzero for some value of t. Assuming
M  r is a sufficient condition to force a to be nonzero at r = 0.

3.1 Compatibility with Newtonian Physics

Here we compute several important properties about this metric and the physical interpretations of
both V and M . To physically interpret this metric, we will introduce the Einstein equation, but first,
we present a property that doesn’t require the Einstein equation, the proof of which can be found in
Appendix A.

Proposition 1 The function M (t, r) is the spacetime Hawking mass of the metric sphere, Σt,r , for any
given t and r.
8 A. R. Parry

This suggests that we should interpret M as the mass of the system. However, there is an even
stronger reason to do so, which we will investigate later. In order to prepare for that discussion, we need
some preliminary results first about the relationship between the metric and its stress-energy tensor. To
begin, consider this metric as a solution to the Einstein equation
G = 8πT, (30)
for some stress-energy tensor T . To facilitate our discussion, we will compute the Einstein curvature
tensor of this metric in certain directions. To that end, define the following unit vector fields.
r
−V 2M 1 1
νt = e ∂t νr = 1 − ∂r νθ = ∂θ νϕ = ∂ϕ (31)
r r r sin θ
Note that at every point, p ∈ N , except the coordinate singularities r = 0 and θ = ±π (that is, all points
where all the vector fields above are well defined), these vector fields form an orthonormal basis of Tp N
and hence are a frame field. The Einstein curvature tensor is defined as
1
G = Ric − Rg (32)
2
where Ric and R are the Ricci curvature tensor and the scalar curvature of the spacetime respectively.
Since both the Ricci curvature tensor and its trace R are present in this equation, we will need to know a
few results about the Ricci curvature in these coordinates. We have the following lemma and subsequent
corollary. While the proof of the corollary is short and is presented here, the proof of the lemma can be
found in Appendix A.
Lemma 2 The only nonzero components of the Ricci curvature tensor in the νη basis and the scalar
curvature are as follows.
    
2 2Vr 2M Vr M
1. Ric(νt , νt ) = Vrr + Vr + 1− + − Mr
r r r r
−1 −2
3Mt2
 
Vt Mt − Mtt 2M 2M
+ 1− − 2 2V 1 −
re2V r r e r
 −1/2
2Mt 2M
2. Ric(νt , νr ) = 2 V 1 −
r e r    
2 2M 2 Vr M
3. Ric(νr , νr ) = −(Vrr + Vr ) 1 − − + − Mr
r r2 r r
−1 −2
3Mt2
 
Vt Mt − Mtt 2M 2M
− 1 − + 1 −
re2V  r r2 e2V  r
1 M Vr 2M
4. Ric(νθ , νθ ) = Ric(νϕ , νϕ ) = 2 + Mr − 1−
 r r  r
 r
2V r 2M 2V r M 4Mr
5. R = −2 Vrr + Vr2 + 1− − − Mr + 2
r r r r r
−1 −2
6Mt2
 
2(Vt Mt − Mtt ) 2M 2M
− 1− + 2 2V 1 −
re2V r r e r
Corollary 3 The only nonzero components of the Einstein curvature tensor in the νη basis are as
follows.
2Mr
1. G(νt , νt ) =
r2  −1/2
2Mt 2M
2. G(νt , νr ) = 2 V 1 −
r e r 
2M 2Vr 2M
3. G(νr , νr ) = − 3 + 1−
r r r
4. G(νθ , νθ ) = G(ν
 ϕ ϕ, ν )     
2 Vr 2M M 1 Vr
= Vrr + Vr + 1− + − Mr +
r r r r2 r
 −1 2
 −2
Vt Mt − Mtt 2M 3Mt 2M
+ 1− − 2 2V 1−
re2V r r e r
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 9

Proof Since {νt , νr , νθ , νϕ } form an orthonormal basis everywhere,

R R
G(να , νβ ) = Ric(να , νβ ) − g(να , νβ ) = Ric(να , νβ ) − εαβ (33)
2 2
where α, β ∈ {t, r, θ, ϕ} and εαβ = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1). Note that this implies that

G(νϕ , νϕ ) = G(νθ , νθ ) (34)

We then use Lemma 2 to substitute in the values for Ric and R.

Next, we define the function µ(t, r) to be the energy density of an observer at p = (t, r) moving
through the slices with 4-velocity νt . In the context of the stress energy tensor T in equation (30), this
means
µ = T (νt , νt ). (35)
We now have enough information to prove the following proposition, which contains the promised
stronger reason for interpreting M as the mass inside each metric sphere.
Proposition 4 For a fixed t and r, M (t, r) is the flat integral of the energy density, µ(t, r), over the
ball Et,r of radius r at time t.

Proof By the Einstein equation (30), equation (35), and Corollary 3, we have that

G(νt , νt ) = 8πT (νt , νt )

Mr = 4πr2 µ (36)

dA = 4πr2 , where Σt,r is the sphere of radius r at time t, we have then that for a fixed t and
R
Since Σt,r
r,
Z r Z r Z
M (t, r) = 4πs2 µ(t, s) ds = µ(t, s) dA ds
0 0 Σt,s
Z r Z 2π Z π Z
= µ(t, s)s2 sin θ dθ dϕ ds = µ(t, s) dV0 , (37)
0 0 0 Et,r

where dV0 = s2 sin θ dθ dϕ ds is the flat volume form on the ball of radius s, and we have introduced s as
a dummy integrating variable in the “r” position. Thus M (t, r) is the flat volume integral of the energy
density over the ball of radius r.

Note that M is not the integral of the energy density with respect to the metric’s volume form,
dV = (1 − 2M/s)−1/2 s2 sin θ ds dθ dϕ, but rather the following is true.
Z r
2M (t, s)
M (t, r) = µ(t, s) 1 − dV. (38)
Et,r s

However, in the Newtonian limit, M  r, the above integral becomes approximately the integral of the
energy density with respect to the metric’s volume form over the ball Et,r of radius r. Thus referring to
M (t, r) as the mass inside the metric sphere of radius r at time t not only makes sense from a geometrical
point of view given the Hawking mass, but also from a physical point of view.
Furthermore, since the energy density is spherically symmetric and smooth at the origin, we must
have µr (t, 0) = 0 for all t. Thus for small r, µ is approximately constant and nonnegative. In fact, in
most typical cases, µ is strictly positive at r = 0. In the case when µ(t, 0) > 0, the above integral yields
for small r that Z r Z r
4πµ(t, 0) 3
M (t, r) = 4πs2 µ(t, s) ds ≈ 4πs2 µ(t, 0) ds = r . (39)
0 0 3
Thus the initial behavior of M near r = 0 is that of a cubic power function. In the case when µ(t, 0) = 0,
a Taylor expansion of µ near r = 0 yields that µ(t, r) is initially (i.e. near r = 0) a quadratic power
function. Then a similar computation to equation (39) yields that M (t, r) is initially a 5th power of r.
In either case, this implies that for all t

M (t, 0) = 0, Mr (t, 0) = 0, and Mrr (t, 0) = 0. (40)

10 A. R. Parry

This fact will be useful in proving Proposition 7 where we will need it to apply L’Hôpital’s rule.
Next we define the function P to be the pressure in the stress-energy tensor for an observer at (t, r),
that is, let
P = T (νr , νr ). (41)
Then we can use Corollary 3 and the Einstein equation (30) to prove the following proposition.
Proposition 5 In the Newtonian limit, where P = 0 and M  r, we have that ∆V = 4πµ, where ∆ is
the flat Laplacian on R3 .
Proof By the Einstein equation (30), equation (41), and Corollary 3, we have that
G(νr , νr ) = 8πT (νr , νr )
 −1
2M
r 2 Vr = 1 − M + 4πr3 P .


(42)
r
Note that in the Newtonian limit, where P = 0 and M  r, this equation is approximated by
r2 Vr = M. (43)
Also, the metric on the hypersurface, under these assumptions, is approximately the polar-areal metric
on R3 . Note that the Laplacian on R3 of a spherically symmetric function f is given by
∂2f
 
2 ∂f 1 ∂ 2 ∂f
∆f = + = 2 r (44)
∂r2 r ∂r r ∂r ∂r
1 ∂
Then applying the operator to (43) and using equation (36) yields
r2 ∂r
1 ∂ 1
∆V = 2 (r2 Vr ) = 2 Mr = 4πµ (45)
r ∂r r
Equation (45) is Poisson’s equation and is the defining equation of the gravitational potential in
Newtonian mechanics. Moreover, equation (43) reduces to Vr = M/r2 which yields the inverse square
law for Newtonian gravity. Then we can interpret V as the analogue in our scenario of the Newtonian
potential. The interpretation of M and V via Propositions 1, 4, and 5 are what we mean by saying that
the metric (29) is Newtonian compatible.

3.2 Other Useful Properties of this Metric

In this section, we produce two additional useful results which are readily obtainable with these coordi-
nates and metric functions. The first is the well-known result of the monotonicity of the Hawking mass in
spherical symmetry, which is made particularly straightforward using this form of the metric. It follows
almost immediately from Corollary 3.
Proposition 6 If the spacetime satisfies the dominant energy condition that G(X, Y ) ≥ 0 for all future-
pointing causal (i.e. timelike or null) vector fields, X and Y , then, whenever 2M (t, r) ≤ r, the Hawking
Mass, M (t, r), is monotonically increasing in any non-timelike direction for which the radial coordinate
increases.
Proof The vector field νt is the future-pointing timelike unit vector field in the t direction and the vector
fields νr + νt (future-pointing) and νr − νt (past-pointing) are null vector fields in the null directions
where the r coordinate increases. By Corollary 3, we have that
 1/2
2M Mt
(νr + νt )(M ) = Mr 1 − + V
r e
1/2 −1/2 !
r2
  
2M 2Mr 2Mt 2M
= 1− + 2 V 1−
2 r r2 r e r
1/2
r2
 
2M
= 1− (G(νt , νt ) + G(νt , νr ))
2 r
1/2
r2

2M
= 1− G(νt , νt + νr ) (46)
2 r
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 11

The last factor here is positive by the dominant energy condition since both νt and νt + νr are future-
pointing causal vector fields. Since r2 ≥ 0 and 2M ≤ r everywhere, it must be that (νr + νt )(M ) ≥ 0
everywhere as well. By the same corollary, we also have
 1/2
2M Mt
(νr − νt )(M ) = Mr 1 − − V
r e
1/2 −1/2 !
r2
  
2M 2Mr 2Mt 2M
= 1− − 2 V 1−
2 r r2 r e r
1/2
r2
 
2M
= 1− (G(νt , νt ) − G(νt , νr ))
2 r
1/2
r2

2M
= 1− G(νt , νt − νr ) (47)
2 r
The last factor here is positive by the dominant energy condition since νt − νr is also future-pointing
causal. Then, as before, it must be that (νr − νt )(M ) ≥ 0 everywhere. Since both (νr + νt )(M ) and (νr −
νt )(M ) are both nonnegative everywhere, any positive linear combination of the two is also nonnegative,
which is the desired result.

This next property will be useful later when we consider the Einstein-Klein-Gordon system. We define
the following functions, two of which have already been introduced in equations (35) and (41),

µ(t, r) = T (νt , νt ) ρ(t, r) = T (νt , νr ) (48a)

P (t, r) = T (νr , νr ) Q(t, r) = T (νθ , νθ ) = T (νϕ , νϕ ). (48b)

By the Einstein equation and Corollary 3, these functions account for all the nonzero components of
T in terms of the orthonormal frame {νt , νr , νθ , νϕ }. Then we have the following result which follows
directly from the required property of all stress-energy tensors that ∇g · T = 0, where ∇g · T denotes
the divergence of the tensor T with respect to the metric g. We will leave the lengthy proof of this
proposition to the appendix.
Proposition 7 Suppose that the metric is spherically symmetric and of the form in equation (29) and
that T is a suitable spherically symmetric tensor of the form in equation (48). Then solving the equation

∇g · T = 0 (49)

along with solving the ODEs obtained from (36) and (42), namely

Mr = 4πr2 µ (50)
 −1  
2M M
Vr = 1 − + 4πrP , (51)
r r2
for each value of t is equivalent to solving the entire Einstein equation.
In this proposition, the requirement that T is “suitable” refers to its having to come from some kind
of physical notion or some set of mathematical conditions that yield a physical-like stress-energy tensor
or, at least, a T for which the Einstein equation is solvable.

4 The Einstein-Klein-Gordon Equations

A good example of the usefulness of this choice of metric is in the evolution of the Einstein-Klein-Gordon
equations in spherical symmetry, which is the Einstein equation in the presence of a nontrivial scalar field.
In this paper, we will work specifically with a complex valued scalar field. Before we derive the spherically
symmetric Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations in this metric, we should note that several other references
including, but certainly not limited to, [4, 7, 8, 22, 26, 27, 30–32, 37, 39, 40] have written the Einstein-
Klein-Gordon equations in spherical symmetry using either the metric presented here or another form
of a general spherically symmetric metric. Moreover, scalar fields, spherically symmetric or not, have
been used as a sort of simple readily obtainable example to produce a nontrivial stress energy tensor,
12 A. R. Parry

although it is rarely given physical significance [43]. However, in the last couple decades or so, scalar fields
have been considered as a candidate for dark matter by many authors, usually under the name boson
stars, scalar field dark matter, Bose-Einstein condensates, or wave dark matter [7, 14, 15, 31, 32, 35–37].
These scalar fields are sometimes real and sometimes complex depending on the discussion. There are
sometimes several scalar fields bound gravitationally as in [7] and sometimes just a single scalar field as
in [15]. This relatively new and actively studied application of scalar fields makes the example presented
here even more relevant and useful. The treatment here most closely resembles the treatement given by
Bray [14, 15], although in his papers a real scalar field is usually considered and spherical symmetry is
not necessarily assumed. As such, we will reference his paper to make a few comparisons to the case of
a real valued scalar field.
Consider a spherically symmetric spacetime N with Lorentzian metric g as described in the previous
section. Let f : N → C be a spherically symmetric complex valued scalar field. Then the Einstein-Klein
Gordon equations in this case are
! !
2
df ⊗ df¯ + df¯ ⊗ df |df | 2
G = 8πµ0 − + |f | g (52)
Υ2 Υ2
2g f = Υ 2 f (53)

where µ0 is simply some constant that controls the scale of the system and is not to be confused with the
energy density µ(t, 0) at the central value. Actually, the above equations are the Einstein-Klein-Gordon
equations whether in spherical symmetry or not, but spherical symmetry is the general topic of this
paper and so we require it here as well. The value of µ0 is unimportant to the qualitative behavior of the
solutions and can be absorbed entirely into f , if desired. By contrast, the parameter Υ is a fundamental
constant to the equations upon which the qualitative behavior of the solutions depend. The real valued
version of these equations, that is, where f is a real valued scalar field or equivalently where f¯ = f , can
be found in the previously mentioned paper by Bray [15] and it is readily seen that the equations here
reduce to those in Bray’s paper under the assumption f¯ = f . Moreover, equations (52) and (53) are
the Euler-Lagrange equations of the action involving the scalar field given in Bray’s paper if the scalar
field is assumed to be complex valued instead of real valued (this follows the Lagrangian formulation
of general relativity given in an appendix in Wald’s book [43]). Note also that equations (30) and (52)
imply that the stress-energy tensor corresponding to a complex scalar field is given by
! !
2
df ⊗ df¯ + df¯ ⊗ df |df | 2
T = µ0 − + |f | g . (54)
Υ2 Υ2

With these equations, we will construct a system of PDEs which can be used to numerically evolve
the scalar field f and the metric from consistent initial data. Since in the previous section we have
already computed the components of the Einstein curvature tensor, in order to construct such a system
of PDEs, we need to compute the components of the stress energy tensor and the Laplacian in the metric
g. Before we do, we will define the function, p(t, r), by the equation
 −1/2
−V 2M
p = ft e 1− . (55)
r
This is done to make the resulting system of PDEs first order in time and results in a more convenient
choice than choosing only p = ft . We now have the following lemmas.
Lemma 8 For the stress energy tensor given in (54), the following are true.
!
  2 2
2 2M |fr | + |p|
1. T (νt , νt ) = µ0 |f | + 1 −
r Υ2
 
2µ0 2M
2. T (νt , νr ) = 2 1 − <(fr p̄)
Υ r !
  2 2
2 2M |fr | + |p|
3. T (νr , νr ) = µ0 − |f | + 1 −
r Υ2
!
  2 2
2 2M |fr | − |p|
4. T (νθ , νθ ) = T (νϕ , νϕ ) = −µ0 |f | + 1 −
r Υ2
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 13

The proof of this lemma is left to the appendix.

Lemma 9 The components of the Einstein equation in the νη directions result in the following PDEs.
!
  2 2
2 2M |fr | + |p|
Mr = 4πr2 µ0 |f | + 1 − (56)
r Υ2
3/2
8πr2 µ0 eV

2M
Mt = 1 − <(fr p̄) (57)
Υ2 r
−1 !!
   2 2
2M M 2 2M |fr | + |p|
Vr = 1 − − 4πrµ 0 |f | − 1 − (58)
r r2 r Υ2
" 2 −1
3Mt2
 
2V Vr 2M 2M Mtt
Vt Mt = −re Vrr + Vr2 + 1− − 2 2V 1− − 2V
r r r e r re
!#
        2 2
M 1 Vr 2M 2M 2 2M |fr | − |p|
+ − Mr + 1− + 8πµ0 1 − |f | + 1 −
r r2 r r r r Υ2
(59)

Proof This follows directly from the Einstein equation (30), Corollary 3, and Lemma 8. Equations
(56)-(59) follow from the (νt , νt ), (νt , νr ), (νr , νr ), and (νθ , νθ ) (or (νϕ , νϕ )) components of the Einstein
equation, respectively.

The Klein-Gordon equation and the fact that

1 p 
2g f = p ∂η |g|g ηω ∂ω f . (60)
|g|
yield the following lemma.
Lemma 10 The Klein-Gordon equation in this metric yields the following PDE.
 −1/2 r ! r !
V 2 2M 2fr 2M V 2M
pt = e −Υ f 1 − + 1− + ∂r e fr 1 − (61)
r r r r
p
Proof To compute the Laplacian, we will first need the quantity |g|. We have
s  −1  −1/2
p 2M 2 V 2M
|g| = e 2V 1− 4
r sin θ = e 1− r2 sin θ (62)
r r

Then since f = f (t, r) and g is diagonal, we have by equation (60)

r  −1/2 !
1 2M 2M
2g f = V 2 1− ∂t e V
1− 2 tt
r sin θ g ft
e r sin θ r r
 −1/2 !!
V 2M 2 rr
+ ∂r e 1− r sin θ g fr
r
r
1 2M
∂t −pr2 sin θ


= V 2 1−
e r sin θ r
r r !!
V 2M 2 V 2M
+ 2re 1− sin θ fr + r sin θ ∂r e fr 1 − (63)
r r

Then the Klein-Gordon equation (53) becomes

r   r r !
2 −V 2M 2fr 2M −V 2M 2M
Υ f = −pt e 1− + 1− +e 1− ∂r eV fr 1− (64)
r r r r r

Solving for pt yields the desired result.

14 A. R. Parry

Then rewrite (55) as r

V 2M
ft = pe 1− (65)
r
to yield an evolution equation for f .
The next lemma shows that T given in (54) is divergence free.
Lemma 11 Equation (53) implies that ∇g · T = 0, where T is given by (54).
This lemma’s proof is also included in the appendix. Now we can prove the following.
Lemma 12 If f , p, M , and V satisfy (56), (58), (61), and (65), then they also satisfy (57) and (59).

Proof By Lemma 10, equations (61) and (65) are equivalent to the Klein-Gordon equation (53) and
hence, by Lemma 11, imply that ∇g · T = 0, where T is given by (54). By equation (48) and Lemma 8,
equations (56) and (58) are simply equations (50) and (51) for the T given by (54). Then by Proposition 7,
f , p, M , and V also satisfy the entire Einstein equation in this metric and for this stress energy tensor.
By Lemma 9, this implies that f , p, M , and V satisfy equations (57) and (59).

Lemmas 9, 10, and 12 and equation (65) prove the following proposition.
Proposition 13 Solving the following PDEs for f (t, r), p(t, r), V (t, r), and M (t, r) with consistent
initial data is necessary and sufficient to solve the Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations (52) and (53) with
a metric of the form (29) on the same initial data.
!
  2 2
2 2M |fr | + |p|
Mr = 4πr2 µ0 |f | + 1 − (66a)
r Υ2
−1 !!
   2 2
2M M 2 2M |fr | + |p|
Vr = 1 − − 4πrµ0 |f | − 1 − (66b)
r r2 r Υ2
r
V 2M
ft = pe 1− (66c)
r
 −1/2 r ! r !
V 2 2M 2fr 2M V 2M
pt = e −Υ f 1 − + 1− + ∂r e fr 1 − (66d)
r r r r

Thus these equations are effectively the spherically symmetric Einstein-Klein-Gordon equations
(specifically though only in the metric (29)).

5 Applications and Conclusion

There are a great deal of applications to the collection of known results presented here. This is especially
true since, as stated before, spherical symmetry is usually the first testbed of any problem in general
relativity, whether it be in regards to more classical topics such as the spacetime in the presence of a star,
black holes, electromagnetism, and perfect fluids, or more recent ideas like dark matter or relativistic
fluids.
One particular application which is well tailored to the information presented here has already been
mentioned, namely, wave dark matter, that is, dark matter as a scalar field. The entire previous section
is essentially the basics of scalar fields in spherical symmetry and as such, it can be directly applied to
that problem. The author is currently working on this problem and of all the different coordinate systems
and metric functions that we have used, this Newtonian compatible choice yields by far the simplest
system of PDEs that we have come across that solve the spherically symmetric Einstein-Klein-Gordon
equations.
An important step in the study of wave dark matter is to make comparisons to observations, especially
in order to determine the value of the parameter Υ , the fundamental constant in the Einstein-Klein-
Gordon equations. Even showing the existence of some values of Υ that are consistent with observed
data would be an important contribution to the wave dark matter model. One of the best places to
start making these comparisons is with dwarf spheroidal galaxies, which are small, roughly spherically
symmetric, and dark matter dominated. The system (66) which solves the spherically symmetric Einstein-
Klein-Gordon equations is particularly useful in this regard. We hope to use these equations to generate
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 15

solutions whose mass distribution is similar to those observered in these dwarf spheroidal galaxies. The
ensuing comparison should help us get an initial estimate on the value of Υ .
This is just one of the many possible applications of spherical symmetry and the results surveyed in
this paper. With the importance of spherically symmetric spacetimes, there are sure to be many more
applications in the future. This paper is designed to be a stepping off point for these applications and
can serve as a refresher or a general reference for the seasoned researcher or a crash course for a graduate
student or someone using spherical symmetry in detail for the first time.

A Proofs

In this appendix, we present the proofs which were omitted in the above sections. Every proof of a proposition or lemma
from above will refer back to the number of the statement it is proving. We also introduce a new lemma here which is useful
for proving some of the above statements. We will present all of the proofs here in the order with which their corresponding
statements are given above.

Proof (Proof of Proposition 1) The Hawking mass of a metric sphere is defined as

r !
|Σt,r |
Z
1
mH (Σt,r ) = 1− g (H, H) dA (67)
16π 16π Σt,r

where |Σt,r | is the surface area of the metric sphere, H is the mean curvature vector of the sphere in the spacetime, and
dA is the volume element on the sphere [16, 25]. By the definition of our radial coordinate r, we have that |Σt,r | = 4πr2 ,
but it is also easily computed in this metric since
q p
dA = |dσ 2 | dθ dϕ = r4 sin2 θ dθ dϕ = r2 sin θ dθ dϕ, (68)

which yields that Z Z 2π Z π Z 2π

|Σt,r | = dA = r2 sin θ dθ dϕ = 2r2 dϕ = 4πr2 . (69)
Σt,r 0 0 0
To compute the mean curvature vector, H, we have that

H = γ jk II(∂j , ∂k ) (70)

where j, k ∈ {θ, ϕ}, γ is the metric on Σt,r (note that we have reused the variable γ here to refer to the metric on the
sphere and not to the metric on the t = constant hypersurfaces as we did in the section describing the framework of
numerical relativity), and II is the second fundamental form tensor, which sends a pair of vectors tangent to the sphere to
a vector normal to the sphere. It is defined as follows for all X, Y ∈ T Σt,r

II(X, Y ) = ∇X Y − 2 ∇X Y (71)

where ∇ is the covariant derivative operator on N and 2 ∇ is the induced covariant derivative operator on Σt,r . Since γ
is diagonal, we only need to concern ourselves with the diagonal components of this tensor in order to compute H. To
perform these computations, first note that the Christoffel symbols on the sphere in these coordinates have the following
property (note that a superscript of 2 will always denote that that quantity corresponds to the sphere, also for the following
computations, roman letters will denote subscripts in {θ, ϕ}, while Greek letters will denote subscripts ranging over all
four coordinates). Since both the radial and time directions are normal to the sphere,
1 `η 1 1
Γjk` = g (gjη,k + gkη,j − gjk,η ) = g `m (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = γ `m (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = 2 Γjk` . (72)
2 2 2
Thus we need not distinguish between the Christoffel symbols for the metric on the sphere and those on the entire manifold.
We have then that
II(∂j , ∂j ) = ∇j ∂j − 2 ∇j ∂j = Γjj η ∂η − 2 Γjj k ∂k = Γjj t ∂t + Γjj r ∂r . (73)
Then we need to compute the above Christoffel symbols. We have that

t 1 tη 1 1
Γθθ = g (gθη,θ + gθη,θ − gθθ,η ) = g tt (−gθθ,t ) = − 2V (−∂t (r2 )) = 0 (74a)
2 2 2e
   
r 1 1 1 2M 2M
Γθθ = g rη (gθη,θ + gθη,θ − gθθ,η ) = g rr (−gθθ,r ) = 1− (−∂r (r2 )) = −r 1 − (74b)
2 2 2 r r
1 tη 1 tt 1
Γϕϕt 2
= g (gϕη,ϕ + gϕη,ϕ − gϕϕ,η ) = g (−gϕϕ,t ) = − 2V (−∂t (r sin θ)) = 0 2
(74c)
2 2 2e
   
1 rη 1 rr 1 2M 2M
Γϕϕr = g (gϕη,ϕ + gϕη,ϕ − gϕϕ,η ) = g (−gϕϕ,r ) = 1− (−∂r (r2 sin2 θ)) = −r 1 − sin2 θ. (74d)
2 2 2 r r
Then we have that
 
2M
II(∂θ , ∂θ ) = Γθθ t ∂t + Γθθ r ∂r = −r 1 − ∂r (75)
r
 
2M
II(∂ϕ , ∂ϕ ) = Γϕϕt ∂t + Γϕϕr ∂r = −r 1 − sin2 θ ∂r . (76)
r
16 A. R. Parry

This makes (70) become  

2 2M
H = γ θθ II(∂θ , ∂θ ) + γ ϕϕ II(∂ϕ , ∂ϕ ) = − 1− ∂r . (77)
r r
Finally, we can compute the Hawking mass as follows.
r !
|Σt,r |
Z
1
mH (Σt,r ) = 1− g (H, H) dA
16π 16π Σt,r
s !
4πr2
Z      
1 2 2M 2 2M
= 1− g − 1− ∂r , − 1− ∂r dA
16π 16π Σt,r r r r r
Z 2π Z π  2 !
r 1 4 2M 2
= 1− 2
1 − g(∂ ,
r r ∂ )r sin θ dθ dϕ
2 16π 0 0 r r
 Z 2π Z π   
r 1 2M
= 1− 4 1− sin θ dθ dϕ
2 16π 0 0 r
mH (Σt,r ) = M (78)

To prove Lemma 2, we will utilize the following additional lemma.

Lemma 14 For all η ∈ {t, r, θ, ϕ}, let νη be as defined by equation (31). Then the following are true.
1. For all η ∈ {t, r, θ, ϕ}, Ric(νη , νη ) = g(νη , νη )g ηη Ricηη .
X
2. R = g(νη , νη ) Ric(νη , νη )
η

Proof Since {νη } is a frame field, we have that

Ric(νt , νt ) = e−2V Ric(∂t , ∂t ) = −g tt Rictt = g(νt , νt )g tt Rictt . (79)

By similar arguments, we have that for all η ∈ {t, r, θ, ϕ},

Ric(νη , νη ) = g(νη , νη )g ηη Ricηη (80)

which proves 1.
To prove 2, we use the first result and find that since g is diagonal and g(νη , νη ) = ±1, we have that
X X X Ric(νη , νη ) X
R= g ηω Ricηω = g ηη Ricηη = = g(νη , νη ) Ric(νη , νη ). (81)
ηω η η
g(νη , νη ) η

Fact 2 also follows from a well understood more general property of frame fields and traces of tensors.

With this, we prove Lemma 2.

Proof (Proof of Lemma 2) In this proof, all indices range over the coordinates {t, r, θ, ϕ}. By Lemma 14 and the well
known formula for the components of the Riemann curvature tensor, R, in terms of the Christoffel symbols

Rjk` m = Γj` m,k − Γk`m,j + Γj` s Γksm − Γk`s Γjsm . (82)

Since Ricjk = Rj`k ` , we have that

 
Ric(νt , νt ) = g(νt , νt )g tt Rictt = e−2V Γtt k,k − Γktk,t + Γtt s Γksk − Γkts Γts k (83a)
r r
2M 2M  k 
Ric(νt , νr ) = e−V 1 − Rictr = e−V 1 − Γtr ,k − Γkrk,t + Γtr s Γksk − Γkrs Γts k (83b)
r r
   
rr 2M 2M  k 
Ric(νr , νr ) = g(νr , νr )g Ricrr = 1 − Ricrr = 1 − Γrr ,k − Γkrk,r + Γrrs Γksk − Γkrs Γrsk (83c)
r r
1 1  
Ric(νθ , νθ ) = g(νθ , νθ )g θθ Ricθθ = 2 Ricθθ = 2 Γθθk,k − Γkθk,θ + Γθθs Γksk − Γkθs Γθsk (83d)
r r
ϕϕ 1 1  
Ric(νϕ , νϕ ) = g(νϕ , νϕ )g Ricϕϕ = 2 2
Ricϕϕ = 2 2
Γϕϕk,k − Γkϕ k,ϕ + Γϕϕs Γksk − Γkϕ s Γϕs k . (83e)
r sin θ r sin θ
Then to compute these, we need the Christoffel symbols. Recall that the formula for the Christoffel symbols in terms of
the metric components is the following

1 `m
Γjk` = g (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) (84)
2
Using (84) and the fact that g is diagonal, we have that

1 tm 1 1
Γjkt = g (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = g tt (gjt,k + gkt,j − gjk,t ) = − 2V (gjt,k + gkt,j − gjk,t ) (85a)
2 2 2e
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 17
 
1 rm 1 1 2M
Γjkr = g (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = g rr (gjr,k + gkr,j − gjk,r ) = 1− (gjr,k + gkr,j − gjk,r ) (85b)
2 2 2 r
1 θm 1 1
Γjkθ = g (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = g θθ (gjθ,k + gkθ,j − gjk,θ ) = (gjθ,k + gkθ,j − gjk,θ ) (85c)
2 2 2r2
1 1
Γjkϕ = g ϕm (gjm,k + gkm,j − gjk,m ) = g ϕϕ (gjϕ,k + gkϕ,j − gjk,ϕ )
2 2
1 1
= 2 (gjϕ,k + gkϕ,j − gjk,ϕ ) = 2 (gjϕ,k + gkϕ,j ). (85d)
2r sin2 θ 2r sin2 θ

The last line is due to the fact that none of the metric components depend on ϕ. To help compute these quantities, it
would be useful to note the following.

gtt,t = ∂t (−e2V ) = −2Vt e2V gtt,θ = ∂θ (−e2V ) = 0

2V 2V
gtt,r = ∂r (−e ) = −2Vr e gtt,ϕ = ∂ϕ (−e2V ) = 0 (86a)
2M −1 2M −2 2Mt 2M −1
       
grr,t = ∂t 1 − = 1− grr,θ = ∂θ 1 − =0
r r r r
 −1  −2    −1
2M 2M 2Mr 2M 2M
grr,r = ∂r 1 − = 1− − 2 grr,ϕ = ∂ϕ 1 − =0 (86b)
r r r r r
gθθ,t = ∂t (r2 ) = 0 gθθ,θ = ∂θ (r2 ) = 0
2
gθθ,r = ∂r (r ) = 2r gθθ,ϕ = ∂ϕ (r2 ) = 0 (86c)
2 2 2 2 2
gϕϕ,t = ∂t (r sin θ) = 0 gϕϕ,θ = ∂θ (r sin θ) = 2r sin θ cos θ
gϕϕ,r = ∂r (r2 sin2 θ) = 2r sin2 θ gϕϕ,ϕ = ∂ϕ r2 sin2 θ = 0. (86d)

All the other metric components are 0. Next, if  

2M
Φ= 1− , (87)
r
then, using (85) and (86), it is a series of straightforward algebra computations to obtain the following values of the
Christoffel symbols. For brevity, we only include the nonzero Christoffel symbols.

Mt −2
Γtt t = Vt Γtr t = Γrt t = Vr Γrrt = Φ (88a)
re2V
 
Mt −1 Mr M
Γtt r = Vr e2V Φ Γtr r = Γrt r = Φ Γrrr = Φ−1 − 2
r r r
Γθθ r = −rΦ Γϕϕr = −rΦ sin2 θ (88b)
1
Γrθ θ = Γθr θ = Γϕϕθ = − sin θ cos θ (88c)
r
1 cos θ
Γrϕ ϕ ϕ
= Γϕr = Γθϕ ϕ = Γϕθ ϕ = (88d)
r sin θ

Using (88), we can now continue the computations started in (83).

 
Ric(νt , νt ) = e−2V Γtt k,k − Γktk,t + Γtt s Γksk − Γkts Γts k
(  !  !
2M −1 2M −1
    
−2V 2V 2M Mt Mt
=e ∂t Vt + ∂r Vr e 1− − ∂t Vt − ∂t 1− + Vt Vt + 1−
r r r r r
   −1   !
2M 2M Mr M 2
+ Vr e2V 1 − Vr + 1 − − 2 +
r r r r r
  2  −2 )
2M M 2M
− Vt2 − 2Vr2 e2V 1 − − 2t 1 −
r r r
(      
2M 2M 2M 2Mr
= e−2V Vrr e2V 1 − + 2Vr2 e2V 1 − + Vr e2V 2
−
r r r r
 −1 2  −2  −1
Mtt 2M 2M 2M Vt Mt 2M
− 1− − 2t 1 − + 1−
r r r r r r
2Vr e2V
     
2 2V 2M 2V Mr M 2M
+ Vr e 1− + Vr e − 2 + 1−
r r r r r
  2  −2 )
2M M 2M
− 2Vr2 e2V 1 − − 2t 1 −
r r r
2M −1 3Mt2 2M −2
        
2Vr 2M Vr M Vt Mt − Mtt
Ric(νt , νt ) = Vrr + Vr2 + 1− + − Mr + 2V
1− − 2 2V 1−
r r r r re r r e r
(89)
18 A. R. Parry

r
2M  k 
Ric(νt , νr ) = e−V 1− Γtr ,k − Γkrk,t + Γtr s Γksk − Γkrs Γts k
r
(  !
2M −1
r 
−V 2M Mt
=e 1− ∂t (Vr ) + ∂r 1− − ∂t (Vr )
r r r
!  !
2M −1 Mr 2M −1
   
M Mt
− ∂t 1− − 2 + Vr Vt + 1−
r r r r r
   −1  −1   !
1 Mt 2M 2M Mr M 2
− 2∂t + 1− Vr + 1 − − 2 +
r r r r r r r
 −1  −2  )
2Mt Vr 2M Mt 2M Mr M
− Vr Vt − 1− − 1− − 2
r r r r r r
(  )
2M −1
r       
2M 1 2M 1 2M 2Mt
= e−V 1 − ∂r ∂t − ln 1 − − ∂t ∂r − ln 1 − + 2 1−
r 2 r 2 r r r
 −1/2
2Mt 2M
Ric(νt , νr ) = 2 V 1 − (90)
r e r
 
2M 
Ric(νr , νr ) = 1− Γrrk,k − Γkrk,r + Γrrs Γksk − Γkrs Γrsk
r
(  ! !
2M −2 2M −1 Mr
    
2M Mt M
= 1− ∂t 1− + ∂r 1− − 2
r re2V r r r r
 −1   !
2M Mr M
− ∂r Vr − ∂r 1− − 2
r r r
−2
Mt2 2M −3
    
1 Vt Mt 2M
− 2∂r + 2V 1 − + 2 2V 1−
r re r r e r
2M −1 Mr 2M −2 Mr M 2
        
2 M
+ Vr + 1− − 2 + 1− − 2
r r r r r r r
2  −3  −2  2 )
2M 2M 2 2M M r M
− Vr2 − 2 2V t
1− − 2 − 1− − 2
r e r r r r r
  (  −2  −2
2M Mtt 2M 2Vt Mt 2M
= 1− 1− − 1−
r re2V r re2V r
−3
2 2M −2
  
4Mt 2M 2 Vt Mt
+ 2 2V 1− − Vrr + 2 + 2V 1 −
r e r r re r
)
Mt2 2M −3 2M −1 Mr
     
2 2 2 M
− 2 2V 1 − − Vr − 2 + Vr + 1− − 2
r e r r r r r r
2M −1 3Mt2 2M −2
        
2M 2 Vr M Vt Mt − Mtt
Ric(νr , νr ) = −(Vrr + Vr2 ) 1 − − + − M r − 1 − + 1 −
r r2 r r re2V r r2 e2V r
(91)

1  k 
Ric(νθ , νθ ) = Γθθ ,k − Γkθk,θ + Γθθs Γksk − Γkθs Γθsk
r2
(        
1 2M cos θ 2M 2
= ∂ r −r 1 − − ∂ θ − r 1 − Vr +
r2 r sin θ r r
)
cos2 θ
   
Mr M 2M
−r − 2 +2 1− −
r r r sin2 θ
(       
1 2M 2M 2Mr 1 2M 2
= − 1 − − r − + 2
− r 1 − V r +
r2 r r2 r sin θ r r
)
cos2 θ
   
M Mr 2M
+r − +2 1− −
r2 r r sin2 θ
(
sin2 θ
 
1 2M M 1 2M
= − 2
+ − + M r + 2
− rV r 1 −
r2 sin θ r r sin θ r
)
cos2 θ
   
2M 2M
−2 1− +2 1− −
r r sin2 θ
   
1 M Vr 2M
Ric(νθ , νθ ) = + Mr − 1− (92)
r2 r r r
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 19

1  
Ric(νϕ , νϕ ) = 2
Γϕϕk,k − Γkϕ k,ϕ + Γϕϕs Γksk − Γkϕ s Γϕs k
r2 sin θ
(   
1 2M
= 2 2
∂r −r sin2 θ 1 − + ∂θ (− sin θ cos θ)
r sin θ r
    
2M 2 Mr M
− r sin2 θ 1 − Vr + − r sin2 θ − 2 − cos2 θ
r r r r
  )
2M
+ 2 sin2 θ 1 − + 2 cos2 θ
r
(    
1 2 2M 2 2M 2Mr
= − sin θ 1 − − r sin θ − − cos2 θ + sin2 θ
r2 sin2 θ r r2 r
    
2M 2 M Mr
− r sin2 θ 1 − Vr + + r sin2 θ − − cos2 θ
r r r2 r
  )
2M
+ 2 sin2 θ 1 − + 2 cos2 θ
r
      
1 2M M 2M 2M 2M
= 2
− + Mr − rVr 1 − −2 1− +2 1−
r r r r r r
   
1 M Vr 2M
Ric(νϕ , νϕ ) = + Mr − 1− = Ric(νθ , νθ ). (93)
r2 r r r

These are the only nonzero components of the Ricci curvature tensor since

1 1
Ric(νt , νθ ) = Rictθ = V Rtkθk
reV re
1  
= V Γtθ k,k − Γkθ k,t + Γtθ s Γksk − Γkθ s Γts k
re
1  
= V −Γrθ r,t − Γθθ θ,t − Γϕθ ϕ,t − Γkθ r Γtr k − Γkθ θ Γtθ k − Γkθ ϕ Γtϕ k
re
1  
= V −Γθθ r Γtr θ − Γrθ θ Γtθ r − Γϕθ ϕ Γtϕ ϕ
re
=0 (94)

1 1
Ric(νt , νϕ ) = Rictϕ = R k
r sin θeV r sin θeV tkϕ
1  
= Γtϕ k,k − Γkϕk,t + Γtϕ s Γksk − Γkϕs Γts k
r sin θeV
1  
= −Γrϕr,t − Γθϕ θ,t − Γϕϕϕ,t − Γkϕr Γtr k − Γkϕθ Γtθ k − Γkϕϕ Γtϕ k
r sin θeV
1  
= −Γϕϕr Γtr ϕ − Γϕϕθ Γtθ ϕ − Γrϕϕ Γtϕ r − Γθϕ ϕ Γtϕ θ
r sin θeV
=0 (95)

r r
1 2M 1 2M
Ric(νr , νθ ) = 1− Ricrθ = 1− Rrkθk
r r r r
r
1 2M  
= 1− Γrθ k,k − Γkθ k,r + Γrθ s Γksk − Γkθ s Γrsk
r r
r
1 2M
= 1− (Γrθ θ,θ − Γrθ r,r − Γθθ θ,r − Γϕθ ϕ,r + Γrθ θ Γrθ r
r r
+ Γrθ θ Γθθ θ + Γrθ θ Γϕθϕ − Γrθ s Γrsr − Γθθ s Γrsθ − Γϕθ s Γrsϕ )
r  
1 2M cos θ
= 1− − Γrθ θ Γrθ r − Γθθ r Γrrθ − Γϕθ ϕ Γrϕϕ
r r r sin θ
r  
1 2M cos θ cos θ
= 1− −
r r r sin θ r sin θ
=0 (96)

r r
1 2M 1 2M
Ric(νr , νϕ ) = 1− Ricrϕ = 1− Rrkϕk
r sin θ r r sin θ r
r
1 2M  
= 1− Γrϕk,k − Γkϕk,r + Γrϕs Γksk − Γkϕs Γrsk
r sin θ r
20 A. R. Parry

r
1 2M
= 1− (Γrϕϕ,ϕ − Γrϕr,r − Γθϕ θ,r − Γϕϕϕ,r + Γrϕϕ Γrϕr
r sin θ r
+ Γrϕϕ Γθϕ θ + Γrϕϕ Γϕϕϕ − Γrϕs Γrsr − Γθϕ s Γrsθ − Γϕϕs Γrsϕ )
r
1 2M  
= 1− −Γrϕϕ Γrϕr − Γθϕ ϕ Γrϕθ − Γϕϕr Γrrϕ − Γϕϕθ Γrθ ϕ
r sin θ r
=0 (97)

1 1
Ric(νθ , νϕ ) = Ricθϕ = 2 R k
r2 sin θ r sin θ θkϕ
1  
= 2 Γθϕ k,k − Γkϕk,θ + Γθϕ s Γksk − Γkϕs Γθs k
r sin θ
1
= 2 (Γ ϕ − Γrϕr,θ − Γθϕ θ,θ − Γϕϕϕ,θ + Γθϕ ϕ Γrϕr
r sin θ θϕ ,ϕ
+ Γθϕ ϕ Γθϕ θ + Γθϕ ϕ Γϕϕϕ − Γkϕr Γθr k − Γkϕθ Γθθ k − Γkϕϕ Γθϕ k )
1  
= 2 −Γθϕ r Γθr θ − Γrϕθ Γθθ r − Γϕϕϕ Γθϕ ϕ
r sin θ
=0 (98)

The other components are 0 by the symmetry of the Ricci curvature tensor. To get the last statement, we note that by
equation (93) and Lemma 14-2, we have that
X
R= g(νη , νη ) Ric(νη , νη ) = − Ric(νt , νt ) + Ric(νr , νr ) + 2 Ric(νθ , νθ ). (99)
η

From here, it is a matter of algebra and the statements above to get the desired equation for R.

Next, we prove Proposition 7.

Proof (Proof of Proposition 7)

In solving equations (49), (50), and (51), we already solve the equations resulting from two of the components of the
Einstein equation, namely (50) and (51), which we reprint here for convenience.

Mr = 4πr2 µ (100)
2M −1 M
   
Vr = 1 − + 4πrP (101)
r r2
In order to show that solving these two equations coupled with ∇g · T = 0 is sufficient to solve the entire Einstein equation,
we must show that if these equations hold, so do the other components of the Einstein equation. To do so, we first need
to write down the other components of the Einstein equation. Recall that the above equations come from the νt , νt and
νr , νr components of the Einstein equation. Thus we only have the νt , νr and νθ , νθ components left to compute (the νϕ , νϕ
component is identical to νθ , νθ component). Then, by Corollary 3 and equation (48), we have the following.

G(νt , νr ) = 8πT (νt , νr )

r
2M
Mt = 4πr2 eV ρ 1− (102)
r
and

G(νθ , νθ ) = 8πT (νθ , νθ )

     
Vr 2M M 1 Vr
8πQ = Vrr + Vr2 + 1− + − Mr +
r r r r2 r
−1 2 2M −2
  
Vt Mt − Mtt 2M 3Mt
+ 1− − 2 2V 1 − (103)
re2V r r e r
Next we compute what ∇g · T = 0 means in terms of the functions µ, P , ρ, and Q. In what follows, the summing indices
run through the set {t, r, θ, ϕ} and we will use the Einstein summation convention wherever it applies, while specifically
denoting any other summations of a different form. First, we define

εk = g(νk , νk ) (104)

for all k ∈ {t, r, θ, ϕ}. Then we can write the divergence of T as follows.
X
∇g · T = εk (∇νk T )(νk , ∂j ) dxj
k

= −(∇νt T )(νt , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νr T )(νr , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νθ T )(νθ , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νϕ T )(νϕ , ∂j ) dxj (105)

We will simplify each of these four terms individually. By equations (88), (31), and (48), we have that

(∇νt T )(νt , ∂k ) dxk = e−2V (∇t T )(∂t , ∂k ) dxk

h i
= e−2V ∂t (T (∂t , ∂k )) − Γtt m T (∂m , ∂k ) − Γtkm T (∂t , ∂m ) dxk
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 21

h
= e−2V ∂t (T (∂t , ∂t )) dt + ∂t (T (∂t , ∂r )) dr − 2Γtt t T (∂t , ∂t ) dt − 2Γtt r T (∂t , ∂r ) dt
i
− (Γtt t + Γtr r )T (∂t , ∂r ) dr − Γtr t T (∂t , ∂t ) dr − Γtt r T (∂r , ∂r ) dr
" r !
−2V 2V 2V 2V 3V 2M
=e 2Vt e µ + e µt − 2Vt e µ − 2ρVr e 1− dt
r

2M −1/2 2M −1/2 eV ρMt 2M −3/2

     
+ Vt eV ρ 1 − + e V ρt 1 − + 1−
r r r r
 −1 !  −1/2 ! #
Mt 2M V 2M 2V 2V
− Vt + 1− e ρ 1− − Vr e µ − Vr e P dr
r r r
! !
2M −1/2
r  
k V 2M −V
(∇νt T )(νt , ∂k ) dx = µt − 2ρVr e 1− dt + ρt e 1− − Vr (µ + P ) dr (106)
r r

Next, we have
 
2M
(∇νr T )(νr , ∂k ) dxk = 1− (∇r T )(∂r , ∂k ) dxk
r
 
2M h i
= 1− ∂r (T (∂r , ∂k )) − Γrrm T (∂m , ∂k ) − Γrkm T (∂r , ∂m ) dxk
r
 
2M h
= 1− ∂r (T (∂r , ∂t )) dt + ∂r (T (∂r , ∂r )) dr
r
− Γrr + Γrt t T (∂t , ∂r ) dt − 2Γrrt T (∂t , ∂r ) dr
r


i
− 2Γrrr T (∂r , ∂r ) dr − Γrrt T (∂t , ∂t ) dt − Γrt r T (∂r , ∂r ) dt
"
2M −3/2 Mr
    
2M M
= 1− ρeV 1 − − 2
r r r r
−1/2
2M −1/2
  
2M
+ ρVr eV 1 − + ρr eV 1 −
r r
 −2  −2
µMt 2M P Mt 2M
− 1− − 1−
r r r r
 −1/2 " −1   #!
2M 2M Mr M
− ρeV 1 − 1− − 2 + Vr dt
r r r r

2M −1 2M −2 Mr
     
M
+ Pr 1 − + 2P 1 − − 2
r r r r
 −5/2  −2  ! #
2ρMt 2M 2M Mr M
− 1 − − 2P 1 − − dr
reV r r r r2
! !
2M −1 2M −3/2
r    
2M Mt 2ρMt
(∇νr T )(νr , ∂k ) dxk = ρr eV 1 − − 1− (µ + P ) dt + Pr − 1 − dr (107)
r r r reV r

Thirdly,
1
(∇νθ T )(νθ , ∂k ) dxk = (∇θ T )(∂θ , ∂k ) dxk
r2
1h i
= 2
∂θ (T (∂θ , ∂k )) − Γθθm T (∂m , ∂k ) − Γθkm T (∂θ , ∂m ) dxk
r
1h i
= − Γθθr T (∂r , ∂t ) dt − Γθθr T (∂r , ∂r ) dr − Γθrθ T (∂θ , ∂θ ) dr
r2
" r #
1 V 2M
= rρe 1− dt + rP dr − rQ dr
r2 r
r
ρeV 2M P −Q
(∇νθ T )(νθ , ∂k ) dxk = 1− dt + dr (108)
r r r
Lastly, we have that
1
(∇νϕ T )(νϕ , ∂k ) dxk = (∇ϕ T )(∂ϕ , ∂k ) dxk
r2 sin2 θ
1 h i
= 2 ∂ϕ (T (∂ϕ , ∂k )) − Γϕϕm T (∂m , ∂k ) − Γϕkm T (∂ϕ , ∂m ) dxk
r sin2 θ
1 h
= 2 2
− Γϕϕr T (∂r , ∂t ) dt − Γϕϕr T (∂r , ∂r ) dr − Γϕϕθ T (∂θ , ∂θ ) dθ
r sin θ
i
− Γϕrϕ T (∂ϕ , ∂ϕ ) dr − Γϕθϕ T (∂ϕ , ∂ϕ ) dθ
22 A. R. Parry

r
1 h 2M
= 2 2
rρeV sin2 θ 1− dt + r sin2 θP dr
r sin θ r
i
+ r2 Q sin θ cos θ dθ − rQ sin2 θ dr − r2 Q cos θ sin θ dθ
r
ρeV 2M P −Q
= 1− dt + dr
r r r
k k
(∇νϕ T )(νϕ , ∂k ) dx = (∇νθ T )(νθ , ∂k ) dx (109)
Then equation (105) becomes
∇g · T = −(∇νt T )(νt , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νr T )(νr , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νθ T )(νθ , ∂j ) dxj + (∇νϕ T )(νϕ , ∂j ) dxj
!
2M −1
r   r  
2M 1 2M Mt
= − µt + 2ρeV 1 − Vr + + ρr eV 1 − − 1− (µ + P ) dt
r r r r r
−1/2 !
2M −3/2
  
2M 2ρMt 2(P − Q)
+ − ρt e−V 1 − + Vr (µ + P ) + Pr − 1 − + dr (110)
r reV r r

Then ∇g · T = 0 yields the following two equations

2M −1
r   r  
2M 1 2M Mt
µt = 2ρeV 1 − Vr + + ρr eV 1 − − 1− (µ + P ) (111a)
r r r r r
r    −1
2M 2(P − Q) 2ρMt 2M
ρt = eV 1 − Vr (µ + P ) + Pr + − 1− (111b)
r r r r
We are now ready to show that solving ∇g · T = 0 along with solving equations (100) and (101) on each t = constant
slice also solves the remaining two unique nonzero components of the Einstein equation, (102) and (103). We will show
first that (100), (101), and (111) implies that (102) holds as well. To do this, we first need to show that (100) and (102)
are compatible, that is, given these equations, Mrt = Mtr . Differentiating (100) with respect to t yields,
∂t Mr = ∂t 4πr2 µ

Mrt = 4πr2 µt (112)

while differentiating (102) with respect to r yields,
r !
2M
∂r Mt = ∂r 4πr2 eV ρ 1 −
r
" #
2M −1/2 Mr
r r r   
2M 2M 2M M
Mtr = 4π 2reV ρ 1 − + r2 Vr eV ρ 1 − + r 2 eV ρr 1 − − r 2 eV ρ 1 − − 2
r r r r r r
"  −1  −1/2 #
Mt 2M 2M
= 4πr2 µt + 1− (µ + P ) − 4πrρeV 1 − (µ + P )
r r r
= 4πr2 µt (113)
where in the next to last line we made substitutions using equations (100), (101), and (111a) and the last line used (102).
Thus if ∇g · T = 0, (100) and (102) are compatible, that is, Mtr = Mrt everywhere the equations are defined, namely,
wherever r 6= 0. However, by using L’Hôpital’s rule on the equations above coupled with the fact from equation (40) that
at r = 0, M = Mr = Mrr = 0 for all t, the equation Mtr = Mrt still holds at the central value r = 0. This implies that
there exists a function M (t, r) which satisfies both (100) and (101) everywhere, which of course is the metric function we
seek.
As per our hypothesis, if for all values of t, we have solved (100) with the initial condition M = 0 at r = 0, we will
obtain some function M ∗ (t, r) which satisfies (100) everywhere. Then we have that
Mr∗ = Mr (114)
everywhere, where M is the function that satisfies both (100) and (101). This implies that
M ∗ (t, r) = M (t, r) + f (t) (115)
for some smooth function f (t). However, we also have that M ∗ (t, 0) = M (t, 0) = 0 for all t, which implies that f (t) ≡ 0.
Hence M ∗ (t, r) = M (t, r) and the function we obtain by integrating (100) with compatible initial conditions necessarily
also satisfies (102).
Finally, we use equations (100), (101), (111), and (102) (since the first three imply equation (102)) to show that (103)
is automatically satisfied. In order to do this, we will have to compute Vrr and Mtt . They are
r !
2M
∂t Mt = ∂t 4πr2 eV ρ 1 −
r
" #
2M −1/2
r r
eV ρMt
 
2M 2M
Mtt = 4πr2 Vt eV ρ 1 − + e V ρt 1 − − 1−
r r r r
" r  −1/2 #
2M ρMt 2M
= Vt Mt + 4πr2 eV ρt 1 − − 1− (116)
r r r
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 23

and
" #
2M −1 M
 
∂ r Vr = ∂ r 1− + 4πrP
r r2
−2 
2M −1 Mr
      
2M Mr M M 2M
Vrr =2 1− − 2 + 4πrP + 1 − − + 4πP + 4πrP r
r r r r2 r r2 r3
  −1    −1
Vr 1 2M M Vr 2M
= 2 + 2 1− Mr − − + 4π 1 − (2P + rPr ) (117)
r r r r r r

Making these substitutions into (103) yields

   
2M Vr M
8πQ = 4π(2P + rPr ) + Vr2 1 − + Mr −
r r r
"  #
2M −1/2 2M −3/2 3Mt2 2M −2
    
4πr ρMt
− V ρt 1 − − 1− − 2 2V 1−
e r r r r e r
   
M Vr M
= 4π(2P + rPr ) + Vr + 4πrP + Mr −
r2 r r
"  −1/2 −3/2 #
2M −3/2
  
4πr 2M ρMt 2M 12πρMt
− V ρt 1 − − 1− − 1 −
e r r r eV r
 −3/2
8πρMt 2M
= 4π(2P + rPr ) + 4πrVr (P + µ) − 1−
eV r
2M −3/2
   
2(P − Q) 8πρMt
− 4πr Vr (µ + P ) + Pr + + V
1−
r e r
= 8πQ (118)

where the last two lines follow from using (111b). Thus so long as equation (111) holds, equations (100), (101), and
(102) imply equation (103). Since equations (111), (100), and (101) imply equation (102) and equation (111) follows from
∇g · T = 0, we have that solving ∇g · T = 0 and solving equations (100) and (101) at each time t also solves the entire
Einstein equation, which was the desired result.

The proof of Lemma 8 follows.

Proof (Proof of Lemma 8) Recall equation (54). Then to compute the components of T , we first have that
r
2M
df = ft dt + fr dr = peV 1− dt + fr dr (119)
r
r
2M
df¯ = f¯t dt + f¯r dr = p̄eV 1 − dt + f¯r dr. (120)
r

Then, since g is diagonal, this implies that

r r !
2 2M 2M
|df | = g(df, df¯) = g pe V
1− dt + fr dr, p̄eV 1− dt + f¯r dr
r r
 
2M
= e2V 1 − pp̄ g(dt, dt) + fr f¯r g(dr, dr)
r
 
2M 
= 1− |fr |2 − |p|2 . (121)
r

With these facts, we now compute the quantities in question and do so in the same order as they were presented. Thus we
have the following.
" # !
2M |fr |2 − |p|2

2 ¯ 2
T (νt , νt ) = µ0 df (νt )df (νt ) − 1− + |f | g(νt , νt )
Υ2 r Υ2
!
2M |fr |2 + |p|2
 
= µ0 |f |2 + 1 − . (122)
r Υ2

Next, because νη is an everywhere orthonormal basis,

" # !
|fr |2 − |p|2

1  2M 2
df (νt )df¯(νr ) + df¯(νt )df (νr ) −

T (νt , νr ) = µ0 1− + |f | g(νt , νr )
Υ2 r Υ2
 
2µ0 2M
= 2 1− <(fr p̄). (123)
Υ r
24 A. R. Parry
" # !
2M |fr |2 − |p|2

2 ¯ 2
T (νr , νr ) = µ0 df (ν r )df (ν r ) − 1 − + |f | g(ν ,
r rν )
Υ2 r Υ2
!
2M |fr |2 + |p|2
 
= µ0 − |f |2 + 1 − . (124)
r Υ2

" # !
2M |fr |2 − |p|2

2 ¯ 2
T (νθ , νθ ) = µ0 df (νθ )df (νθ ) − 1− + |f | g(νθ , νθ )
Υ2 r Υ2
!
2M |fr |2 − |p|2
 
= −µ0 |f |2 + 1 − . (125)
r Υ2

Finally,
" # !
2M |fr |2 − |p|2

2 ¯ 2
T (νϕ , νϕ ) = µ0 df (νϕ )df (νϕ ) − 1− + |f | g(νϕ , νϕ )
Υ2 r Υ2
!
2M |fr |2 − |p|2
 
= −µ0 |f |2 + 1 − (126)
r Υ2

so that T (νϕ , νϕ ) = T (νθ , νθ ).

Finally, we prove Lemma 11.

Proof (Proof of Lemma 11) By equation (48) and Lemma 8, we have that
!
|fr |2 + |p|2
 
2M
µ = µ0 |f |2 + 1− (127a)
r Υ2
 
2µ0 2M
ρ= 1−
<(fr p̄) (127b)
Υ2 r
!
2M |fr |2 + |p|2
 
P = µ0 − |f |2 + 1 − (127c)
r Υ2
!
2M |fr |2 − |p|2
 
Q = −µ0 |f |2 + 1 − (127d)
r Υ2

We know from a previous proof that ∇g · T = 0 is equivalent to equation (111). Moreover, by (55) and Lemma 10, we have
that (53) is equivalent to (61) and (65). Thus it suffices to show that given (127), equations (61) and (65) imply equation
(111).
We will start with (111a). On one hand, the left hand side is equal to differentiating (127a) with respect to t.
" !#
|fr |2 + |p|2
 
2M
µt = ∂t µ0 |f |2 + 1−
r Υ2
" !  #
2Mt |fr |2 + |p|2 2M frt f¯r + fr f¯rt + pt p̄ + pp̄t

¯ ¯
= µ0 ft f + f ft − + 1−
r Υ2 r Υ2
" r  !
2M pt 2M
µt = µ0 p̄ f eV 1 − + 2 1−
r Υ r
! !
2Mt |fr |2 + |p|2
r 
¯ V 2M p̄t 2M
+ p fe 1− + 2 1− −
r Υ r r Υ2
 q   q 
  f¯r ∂r peV 1 − 2M r
+ f r ∂ r p̄eV 1 − 2M
r
#
2M
+ 1− (128a)
r Υ2

On the other hand, we substitute (127) into (111a).

r     
2M 2µ0 2M 1
µt = 2eV 1− 1 − <(f r p̄) V r +
r Υ2 r r
!
|fr |2 + |p|2
    r
2µ0 2M 2M 2Mt µ0
+ ∂r 1− <(fr p̄) eV 1 − −
Υ2 r r r Υ2
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 25

" r r #
2fr eV

µ0 2M 2M 2M
= p̄ 1− fr Vr eV 1 − + 1−
Υ2 r r r r
 " r
¯ V
r #
µ0 2M 2M 2fr e 2M
+p 2 1− f¯r Vr eV 1 − + 1−
Υ r r r r
3/2 !
V
2Mt µ0 |fr | + |p|22

µ0 Vr e 2M ¯
+ 1 − f r p̄ + p f r −
Υ2 r r Υ2
r " #
µ0 eV
   
2M ¯ 2M 2M ¯ ¯
+ 1 − (f r p̄ + pf )∂
r r 1 − + 1 − (f rr p̄ + p f rr + f p̄
r r + p f
r r )
Υ2 r r r
" r ! r #
2fr eV

µ0 2M 2M 2M
µt = p̄ 2 1 − ∂ r fr e V 1 − + 1−
Υ r r r r
" ! # !
¯ 2Mt µ0 |fr |2 + |p|2
r r
µ0

2M 2M 2fr e V 2M
+p 2 1− ∂r f¯r eV 1 − + 1− −
Υ r r r r r Υ2
 " r ! r !#
µ0 2M 2M 2M
+ 2 1− f¯r ∂r peV 1 − + fr ∂r p̄eV 1 − (128b)
Υ r r r

Setting (128a) equal to (128b), we obtain

! !
2M −1/2 2M −1/2
   
p̄ Υ 2 f eV 1− + pt + p Υ 2 f¯eV 1 − + p̄t
r r
" ! # " ! #
2f¯r eV
r r r r
2M 2fr e V 2M 2M 2M
= p̄ ∂r fr e V 1 − + 1− + p ∂r f¯r eV 1 − + 1−
r r r r r r

" ! !#
2M −1/2
  r r
2fr 2M 2M
0 = p̄ −pt + eV −Υ 2 f 1− + 1− + ∂r fr eV 1 −
r r r r
" −1/2 ! !#
¯
 r r
2M 2fr 2M 2M
+ p −p̄t + eV −Υ 2 f¯ 1 − + 1− + ∂r f¯r eV 1 − (128c)
r r r r

Note that, since V and M are real valued, the second term above is the complex conjugate of the first term. Then by (61)
equation (128c) holds.
Next, we consider (111b). We first differentiate (127b) with respect to t. Using equation (65), this yields
   
2µ0 2M
ρ t = ∂t 2
1− <(fr p̄)
Υ r
   
µ0 4Mt 2M
frt p̄ + f¯rt p + fr p̄t + f¯r pt


= 2 − <(fr p̄) + 1 −
Υ r r
(  " r ! r ! #)
µ0 4Mt 2M 2 V 2M 2 V 2M ¯
= 2 − <(fr p̄) + 1 − ∂r |p| e 1− + |p| ∂r e 1− + fr p̄t + fr pt (129a)
Υ r r r r

On the other hand, we substitute (127) into (111b), to obtain

r "  
2M 2µ0 Vr 2M
ρt = e V
1− 2
1− (|fr |2 + |p|2 )
r Υ r
! #
2M |fr |2 + |p|2 4µ0 |fr |2
  
2 2M 4µ0 Mt
+ µ0 ∂r − |f | + 1 − + 1− − <(fr p̄)
r Υ2 rΥ 2 r rΥ 2
( " ! !#
2M −1/2
  r   r
µ0 2M ¯ V 2M V 2 2fr 2M
= 2 1− fr ∂ r fr e 1− +e −Υ f 1 − + 1−
Υ r r r r r
" ! −1/2 !#
2f¯r
r  r
2M 2M 2M
+ fr ∂r f¯r eV 1 − + eV −Υ 2 f¯ 1 − + 1−
r r r r
r ! r !)
2M 2M 4µ0 Mt
+ |p|2 ∂r eV 1 − + ∂r |p|2 eV 1 − − <(fr p̄) (129b)
r r rΥ 2

Equating (129a) and (129b) yields

" ! !#
2M −1/2
  r r
2fr 2M 2M
0 = f¯r − pt + eV −Υ 2 f 1 − + 1− + ∂r fr eV 1 −
r r r r
" −1/2 ! !#
¯
 r r
2M 2fr 2M 2M
+ fr − p̄t + eV −Υ 2 f¯ 1 − + 1− + ∂r f¯r eV 1 − (129c)
r r r r
26 A. R. Parry

As before, since M and V are real valued, the second term above is the complex conjugate of the first term. Then by
equation (61), equation (129c) holds. Then equations (61) and (65) imply equation (111) holds, which completes the proof.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Hubert Bray and Andrew Goetz for several extremely useful discus-
sions on this topic. He also gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation grant # DMS-1007063.

References

[1] Miguel Alcubierre, Introduction to 3 + 1 Numerical Relativity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.
[2] Miguel Alcubierre, Gabrielle Allen, Bernd Brügmann, Edward Seidel, and Wai-Mo Suen, Towards an Understanding
of the Stability Properties of the 3 + 1 Evolution Equations in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D 62 (November 2000),
124011, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.124011.
[3] Richard Arnowitt, Stanley Deser, and Charles W. Misner, Republication of: The dynamics of general relativity, General
Relativity and Gravitation 40 (2008), no. 9, 1997–2027, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-008-0661-1
(English).
[4] Jayashree Balakrishna, Edward Seidel, and Wai-Mo Suen, Dynamical Evolution of Boson Stars. II. Excited States
and Self-interacting Fields, Phys. Rev. D 58 (September 1998), 104004, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevD.58.104004.
[5] T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations, Phys. Rev. D 59 (January
1999), no. 2, 024007, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810065.
[6] Thomas W. Baumgarte and Stuart L. Shapiro, Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer,
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[7] A. Bernal, J. Barranco, D. Alic, and C. Palenzuela, Multistate Boson Stars, Phys. Rev. D 81 (February 2010), no. 4,
044031, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2435.
[8] A. Bernal, T. Matos, and D. Núñez, Flat Central Density Profiles from Scalar Field Dark Matter Halos, Revista
Mexicana de Astronomı́a y Astrofı́sica 44 (2008), 149–160, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303455v3.
[9] G. D. Birkhoff, Relativity and Modern Physics, Harvard University Press, 1923.
[10] C. Bona, T. Ledvinka, and C. Palenzuela, 3+1 Covariant Suite of Numerical Relativity Evolution Systems, Phys.
Rev. D 66 (October 2002), no. 8, 084013.
[11] C. Bona, T. Ledvinka, C. Palenzuela, and M. Žáček, General-covariant Evolution Formalism for Numerical Relativity,
Phys. Rev. D 67 (May 2003), no. 10, 104005.
[12] C. Bona and J. Massó, Hyperbolic Evolution System for Numerical Relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (February 1992),
1097–1099.
[13] S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon, P. Grandclément, and J. Novak, Constrained scheme for the Einstein equations based
on the Dirac gauge and spherical coordinates, Phys. Rev. D 70 (November 2004), no. 10, 104007, available at http:
//arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307082.
[14] H. Bray, On Wave Dark Matter, Shells in Elliptical Galaxies, and the Axioms of General Relativity, [arXiv:1212.5745
[physics.gen-ph]] (December 2012), available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5745.
[15] , On Dark Matter, Spiral Galaxies, and the Axioms of General Relativity, AMS Contemporary Mathematics
599 (2013), 1–64, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4016.
[16] Hubert Bray, Sean Hayward, Marc Mars, and Walter Simon, Generalized Inverse Mean Curvature Flows in Space-
time, Communications in Mathematical Physics 272 (2007), 119–138, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00220-007-0203-9.
[17] K.A. Bronnikov and V.N. Melnikov, The Birkhoff Theorem in Multidimensional Gravity, General Relativity and
Gravitation 27 (1995), no. 5, 465–474 (English).
[18] Kirill A. Bronnikov and Sergei G. Rubin, Black Holes, Cosmology and Extra Dimensions, World Scientific, Hackensack,
2013.
[19] Matthew W. Choptuik, UT Austin PHY387N Lecture Notes, 1998.
[20] Isabel Cordero-Carrion, Jose Maria Ibenez, and Juan Antonio Morales-Lladosa, Maximal Slicings in Spherical Sym-
metry: Local Existence and Construction, J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011), no. 112501.
[21] S Deser and A V Ryzhov, Curvature Invariants of Static Spherically Symmetric Geometries, Classical and Quantum
Gravity 22 (2005), no. 16, 3315.
[22] Marcelo Gleiser and Richard Watkins, Gravitational Stability of Scalar Matter, Nuclear Physics B 319 (1989), no. 3,
733–746, available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321389906275.
[23] Éric Gourgoulhon, 3 + 1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Relativity, Springer, Berlin, 2012.
[24] Øyvind Grøn and Steinar Johannesen, Conformally flat spherically symmetric spacetimes, The European Physical
Journal Plus 128 (2013), no. 8, 1–15 (English).
[25] S.W. Hawking, Gravitational Radiation in an Expanding Universe, J. Math. Phys. 9 (1968), 598–604.
[26] Scott H. Hawley and Mathew W. Choptuik, Boson Stars Driven to the Brink of Black Hole Formation, Phys. Rev.
D 62 (October 2000), 104024, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.104024.
[27] Scott H. Hawley and Matthew W. Choptuik, Numerical Evidence for “Multiscalar Stars”, Phys. Rev. D 67 (January
2003), 024010, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.024010.
[28] J. M. Heinzle, N. Röhr, and C. Uggla, Dynamical systems approach to relativistic spherically symmetric static perfect
fluid models, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (November 2003), 4567–4586, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/
gr-qc/0304012.
[29] J. T. Jebsen, On the general spherically symmetric solutions of einstein’s gravitational equations in vacuo, General Rel-
ativity and Gravitation 37 (2005), no. 12, 2253–2259, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-005-0168-y
(English).
[30] C. W. Lai and M. W. Choptuik, Final Fate of Subcritical Evolutions of Boson Stars, [arXiv:0709.0324 [gr-qc]] (2007),
available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0324.
A Survey of Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes 27

[31] J.-W. Lee, Is Dark Matter a BEC or Scalar Field?, Journal of the Korean Physical Society 54 (2009), no. 6, 2622,
available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1442.
[32] J.-W. Lee and I.-G. Koh, Galactic Halos as Boson Stars, Phys. Rev. D 53 (February 1996), 2236–2239, available at
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.53.2236.
[33] K. Martel and E. Poisson, Regular coordinate systems for Schwarzschild and other spherical spacetimes, American
Journal of Physics 69 (April 2001), 476–480, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0001069.
[34] Sergey Mashchenko, Alison Sills, and H. M. Couchman, Constraining Global Properties of the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal
Galaxy, The Astrophysical Journal 640 (2006), no. 1, 252, available at http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/640/i=1/
a=252.
[35] Tonatiuh Matos and L Arturo Ureña-López, Quintessence and Scalar Dark Matter in the Universe, Classical and
Quantum Gravity 17 (2000), no. 13, L75, available at http://stacks.iop.org/0264-9381/17/i=13/a=101.
[36] Tonatiuh Matos and L.Ãrturo Ureña-López, Further Analysis of a Cosmological Model with Quintessence and Scalar
Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001Feb), 063506, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.63.
063506.
[37] Tonatiuh Matos, Alberto Vázquez-González, and Juan Magaña, ϕ2 as dark matter, Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 393 (2009), no. 4, 1359–1369, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.
13957.x.
[38] J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On massive neutron cores, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939Feb), 374–381.
[39] Edward Seidel and Wai-Mo Suen, Dynamical Evolution of Boson Stars: Perturbing the Ground State, Phys. Rev. D
42 (July 1990), 384–403, available at http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.384.
[40] R. Sharma, S. Karmakar, and S. Mukherjee, Boson Star and Dark Matter, [arXiv:0812.3470 [gr-qc]] (December 2008),
available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3470.
[41] Masaru Shibata and Takashi Nakamura, Evolution of three-dimensional gravitational waves: Harmonic slicing case,
Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995Nov), 5428–5444.
[42] Richard C. Tolman, Static solutions of einstein’s field equations for spheres of fluid, Phys. Rev. 55 (1939Feb), 364–
373.
[43] Robert M. Wald, General Relativity, The Univeristy of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.