
#1
Nov2612, 06:03 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
P: 7,438

Browsing through the "New Springerlink", I came across
Gravity, the Inside Story It's got some interesting, though nonclassical, points about gravity. The author starts out with an argument about the inevitability of horizons. The really interesting stuff happens when the author writes expressions for the entorpy S_matter and S_grav, the entropy of the matter fields and the horizons  and derives Einstein's equations as a low order approximation to the maxmization of entropy, There's also some higher order terms which make the theory depart from the simple action of GR. 



#2
Nov2712, 12:47 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,500

The link, http://download.springer.com/static/...4bbdd&ext=.pdf , is broken.




#3
Nov2712, 01:46 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
P: 7,438





#4
Nov2712, 06:48 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,081

Gravity  the inside story
The link works now. This paper has been around for a while and I'm glad you brought it to my attention again. It seems impossible to define energy conservation globally in GR, but does the requirement δ[S_{matter} + S_{grav}] = extremum mean we have global entropy conservation ? If you'll allow some latitude in my expression.




#5
Nov2712, 03:34 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
P: 7,438

Because entropy is a scalar density, we might have a possibility of avoiding the usual parallel transport issues. (My one reservation here is that entropy also has a representation as a 4vector, by the numberflux density, and the vector representation should have the parallel transport issues  so perhaps I'm being overly optimistic and overlooking something in arguing that the scalar density form avoids the issue). But lets suppose that treating entropy in it's scalar density form gets rid of the parallel transport issue for now. (The idea being that parallel transport rotates vectors, but numbers don't rotate , so we don't get the path dependency issues when we parallel tranpsort numbers and add them together). We still have the problem of the relativity of simultaneity. Conceptually, we can count the total number of states for any given definition of "now", but unless entropy is constant with time, as we choose different notions of "now" we'll get different numbers for the total number of states / total entropy of the universe "now". So if one now has the hot tea and the cold tea unmixed, and the other now has them mixed and at the equilibrium temperature, the entropy should be different. So it's not terribly clear why we demand that the change in entropy is zero, I have to agree. Except that it yields equations that look like they might be correct, or at least interesting. A sub point here is that S_grav and S_mat are both integrals over d^4x, so setting the change to zero doesn't involve any transport issues, it all appears to be local. But I have to agree it's not clear why we set the change to zero,. 



#6
Nov2812, 10:39 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,081

I understand what you're saying. I find entropy difficult in the GR context. If we want to count microstates say in a gas ( collection of partcles), can the states be expressed in terms of the worldlines (which are not observer dependent) of all the involved pieces and some kind of spatial slicing ? Unless the worldlines are dependent on internal states this looks impossible.
I need to think about this for a year or so. 



#7
Nov2812, 11:52 AM

Mentor
P: 6,040

The author, Padmanabhan, writes about related issues in the last chapter of his 2010 book, "Gravitation: Foundations and Frontiers",
http://www.amazon.com/GravitationFo...ef=pd_sim_b_12 Interesting stuff. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
So, where to from here? (weird story inside)  Relationships  9  
Gravity inside the Earth  General Physics  54  
gravity inside the earth  Classical Physics  32  
Gravity inside the Earth  Earth  12  
Gravity inside a solid sphere.  Introductory Physics Homework  12 