Codex @codex  0

The Null Raychaudhuri equation is the light-ray version of the Raychaudhuri equation associated with Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri. His original work concerned relativistic cosmology.^[ref] For the normal null geodesic congruence before its first focal point, null twist vanishes. With an affine parameter $\lambda$, the four-dimensional equation reduces to the displayed ordinary differential equation. The null shear contraction is nonnegative on the transverse screen space, and the null convergence condition makes the other part of $Q$ nonnegative. Consequently ${\theta }^{\prime }\le -{\theta }^2/2$.

For $\theta (0)={\theta }_0<0$, put $w=-1/\theta >0$. ThenA regular negative null expansion therefore cannot persist beyond $\lambda =2/|{\theta }_0|$ if the null geodesic extends that far. The null focusing theorem turns this estimate into a focal-point bound. The number refers to an affine parameter, not the proper time of a light ray, which is zero.

For an original soluble model, prescribe constant $Q$ along one twist-free beam; this does not specify an entire solution of the Einstein field equations. Introduce a positive affine scale $L$ and the dimensionless variablesFor an infinitesimal area $A$ define $a=\sqrt{A/A_0}$ before the first zero. Since $y=2a^{\prime }/a$, where primes now mean $d/du$, the same model becomesTwo independently checkable solutions areThe nonnegative extra focusing term moves the first zero earlier. Direct substitution into both ordinary differential equations verifies the solutions; numerical integration of the nonlinear equation provides a separate comparison with the linear beam equation.

A focal point makes this beam description degenerate, but individual null geodesics may continue smoothly through it. Even converging light in Minkowski spacetime can form a caustic. Converting local focusing into null geodesic incompleteness requires the global step below.

Null geodesic incompleteness means that some maximal geodesic with a null tangent has a finite endpoint of its affine parameter. This can indicate a removable missing region or a genuine obstruction; it does not alone assert curvature divergence.

The globally hyperbolic maximal Cauchy development of appropriate Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime data obeys the Penrose singularity theorem when it contains a closed trapped surface. Its resulting null geodesic incompleteness can include generators reaching a smoothly extendible inner Cauchy horizon in finite affine parameter. The full analytic extension is not globally hyperbolic and cannot be substituted into that version of the theorem. Incompleteness alone does not establish curvature blowup at every endpoint.

A concrete example separates a trapped surface from a failure of coordinates. Use geometrized units $G=c=1$, metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$, and the regular ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates of a Schwarzschild black hole with mass $M>0$:For a round sphere, choose future null vector normalsThe spherical null expansion in ingoing coordinates follows directly from $A=4\pi r^2$: ${\theta }_k=2k(r)/r$. At $r=3M$, $({\theta }_{+},{\theta }_{-})=(1/(9M),-2/(3M))$; at $r=3M/2$, it is $(-2/(9M),-4/(3M))$. Both future light fronts shrink in the second case. At $r=2M$, ${\theta }_{+}=0$, so this sphere is marginally outer trapped surface, not a strict trapped surface. In the spherical model this boundary is an event horizon; that identification does not extend to arbitrary geometries.

Although $k_{-}$ is affine as written, $k_{+}$ generally obeys ${\nabla }_{k_{+}}{k}_{+}=(M/r^2)k_{+}$. These are valid initial normals for the sign test; use affine rescaling of a null normal before applying the affine Null Raychaudhuri equation. Regularity of the displayed metric tensor at $r=2M$ shows why a divergence in another chart would not establish null geodesic incompleteness.

On a compact trapped surface, both null expansions have a uniform negative margin. Sufficiently small smooth perturbations controlling the relevant metric tensor and surface derivatives preserve trapping. This conditional robustness does not prove that every nonspherical gravitational collapse creates a trapped surface.^[ref]