Version 1
: Received: 11 March 2023 / Approved: 13 March 2023 / Online: 13 March 2023 (09:58:15 CET)
How to cite:
Gorard, J. Non-Vacuum Solutions, Gravitational Collapse and Discrete Singularity Theorems in Wolfram Model Systems. Preprints2023, 2023030226. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0226.v1
Gorard, J. Non-Vacuum Solutions, Gravitational Collapse and Discrete Singularity Theorems in Wolfram Model Systems. Preprints 2023, 2023030226. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0226.v1
Gorard, J. Non-Vacuum Solutions, Gravitational Collapse and Discrete Singularity Theorems in Wolfram Model Systems. Preprints2023, 2023030226. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0226.v1
APA Style
Gorard, J. (2023). Non-Vacuum Solutions, Gravitational Collapse and Discrete Singularity Theorems in Wolfram Model Systems. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0226.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Gorard, J. 2023 "Non-Vacuum Solutions, Gravitational Collapse and Discrete Singularity Theorems in Wolfram Model Systems" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202303.0226.v1
Abstract
The celebrated geodesic congruence equation of Raychaudhuri, together with the resulting singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking that it enabled, yield a highly general set of conditions under which a spacetime (or, more generically, a pseudo-Riemannian manifold) is expected to become geodesically incomplete. However, the proofs of these theorems traditionally depend upon a collection of assumptions about the continuum spacetime (and, in the physical case, the stress-energy distribution defined over it), including its global structure, its energy conditions, the existence of trapped null surfaces and the various volume/intersection properties of geodesic congruences, that are inherently difficult to translate to the case of discrete spacetime formalisms, such as causal set theory or the Wolfram model. Some, such as the discrete analog of Raychaudhuri's equation for the volumes of geodesic congruences, are subtle to formulate due to intrinsic differences in the behavior of discrete vs. continuous geodesics; for others, such as the definition of a trapped null surface, no appropriate translation is known for the general discrete case due to a lack of a priori coordinate information. It is therefore a non-trivial question to ask whether (and to what extent) there exist equivalently general conditions under which one expects discrete spacetimes to become geodesically incomplete, and how these conditions might differ from those in the continuum. This article builds upon previous work, in which the conformal and covariant Z4 (CCZ4) formulation of the Cauchy problem for the Einstein field equations, with constraint-violation damping, was defined in terms of Wolfram model evolution over discrete (spatial) hypergraphs for the case of vacuum spacetimes, and proceeds to consider a minimal extension to the non-vacuum case by introducing a massive scalar field distribution, defined in either spherical or axial symmetry. Under appropriate assumptions, this scalar field distribution admits a physical interpretation as a collapsing (and, in the axially-symmetric case, uniformly rotating) dust, and we are able to show, through a combination of rigorous mathematical analysis and explicit numerical simulation, that the resulting discrete spacetimes converge asymptotically to either non-rotating Schwarzschild black hole solutions or maximally-rotating (extremal) Kerr black hole solutions, respectively. Although the assumptions used in obtaining these preliminary results are very strong, they nevertheless offer hope that a more general, perhaps ultimately ``Penrose-like'', singularity theorem may be provable in the discrete spacetime case too.
Keywords
general relativity; singularity theorems; discrete spacetime
Subject
Physical Sciences, Mathematical Physics
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
