Recent content by Question69

I am not really against these sorts of things physicists do, I think the philosophy of physics is a really interesting field of study.

I am not sure why so many people think there is anything wrong with energy not being conserved, it wouldn't be magic how it isn't.Does Inflation theory require the usage of pseudotensors to work or something of the sort?

I should have been more specific, by "do" I mean: Should we just admit there is no meaning in using pseudotensors? I also believe it makes no sense.

I apologize for the misuse of language. However this seems pretty vexing to me, what should we do? Does this conundrum in any way affect the underlying physics of anything? For example in Inflation theory Guth makes use of this "cancelling" between energies too when it comes to the inflaton...

https://cosmo.nyu.edu/andrei/physicsII/ET.pdf

Oh alright.In the meanwhile I have checked Tyron's original quantum fluctuation paper but he doesn't seem to give motivation for the usages of the pseudotensors.

Would it be positive and also increasing?

The total energy.

Right, but wouldn't this too depend on your set of preferred coordinates?

Right, thanks for the insight.Would you say the Hamiltonian formulation suffers from the same problem?

Right, but then why do they think this is physically meaningful?

Well if you inject pseudo-tensors into general relativity in the case of a non-stationary spacetime don't you end up with energy = 0 defined for some picked coordinate systems? At least that's how I've understood it. From a brief search on Wikipedia on how they are installed in GR.

For pseudotensors in the sense that it is arbitrary where you define 0, and Relativity is perceived best under tensors.

This would mean giving up concepts like positive or negative energy(which Vilenkin uses), and one can argue it's not physically meaningful.(like with the pseudotensors)

For reference: