Trapped spheres as a model for nonspherical collapse (${\theta }_{+}=\frac{1-2M/r}{r},{\theta }_{-}=-\frac{2}{r}$)

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]