Past exam of the general relativity II course of the University of Oxford 2017 3 d Solution 2026-10-25
The assertion about every exterior radius is false for geodesics. A circular orbit here means an equatorial null geodesic at constant , rather than a genuinely radial trajectory. A zero of the radial effective potential alone gives a turning point, not necessarily a circular orbit. The radial geodesic equation must hold as well.
Write andFor an exterior circular null geodesic, the two conditions are , equivalently with fixed. One way to justify the derivative condition without dividing by is to use the radial Euler-Lagrange equation. At constant it givesTogether with , and the fixed conserved , this is precisely the double-root condition for .
NowSetting this to zero and using givesA nontrivial exterior null geodesic cannot have here: the second equation would force , and then every tangent component would vanish. ThereforeBoth equations, with the same constants , are required. They give the requested radius relations in terms of the conserved quantities, while showing why an arbitrary exterior radius is not permitted.
For a more explicit classification let be the impact parameter. The second relation gives with . Substituting into the first relation yieldsFor , gives the prograde equatorial circular Kerr photon orbit and the retrograde one. The two allowed exterior radii areBoth are strictly greater than in the subextremal range. Squaring the signed radius equation gives , but introduces an additional inner root and loses the sign distinguishing the two senses of rotation. At the two exterior radii coincide at the photon sphere , with .
For a direct counterexample to the all-radii claim take and . Choose and so that . The radial geodesic equation nevertheless givesIt is a turning point, not a circular orbit. Alternatively, constant- null directions exist throughout the exterior because the two angular-velocity roots of are real; almost all of their integral curves require acceleration and fail the radial geodesic equation. This distinction explains how an all-radii assertion can arise.
Finally, itself has the null geodesic generators of its Killing horizon, proportional to . They are a separate horizon case. On the horizon is normal to every tangent, so its contractions with and both vanish: for a generator tangent. Its affine parameter can be chosen by rescaling that tangent. The exterior calculation dividing by does not include it. The presence of these generators does not supply circular null geodesics at the intervening arbitrary exterior radii.
