I Integration of energy-momentum pseudotensor for Kerr BH

  • Thread starter Thread starter anuttarasammyak
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Calculating the energy-momentum pseudotensor for a Schwarzschild black hole yields a mass value corresponding to the black hole's mass. However, performing a similar calculation for a Kerr black hole is complex and raises questions about obtaining both mass and angular momentum in the same way. The Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor's applicability to this problem is also uncertain without further clarification on the Schwarzschild method used. It is emphasized that the Schwarzschild black hole is a vacuum solution, meaning it lacks localized stress-energy, and the mass is a global property of spacetime. Caution is advised when interpreting results involving pseudotensors, as they do not provide a reliable measure of mass in this context.
anuttarasammyak
Gold Member
Messages
2,972
Reaction score
1,529
TL;DR
Integration of energy-momentum pseudotensor for Kerr BH
Once, I calculated the integral of the Einstein energy–momentum pseudotensor for a Schwarzschild black hole in the region outside the Schwarzschild surface and obtained the value m, corresponding to the mass of the black hole.

Performing the same calculation for a Kerr black hole would be quite laborious. May I expect to obtain the mass m and the angular momentum M in a similar manner? Is it also possible to obtain the same results using the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anuttarasammyak said:
Once, I calculated the integral of the Einstein energy–momentum pseudotensor for a Schwarzschild black hole in the region outside the Schwarzschild surface and obtained the value m, corresponding to the mass of the black hole.
How? This is not quite as straightforward as you seem to think.

anuttarasammyak said:
Performing the same calculation for a Kerr black hole would be quite laborious. May I expect to obtain the mass m and the angular momentum M in a similar manner?
I have no idea unless you explain how you did the Schwarzschild calculation.

anuttarasammyak said:
Is it also possible to obtain the same results using the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor?
Same answer as above.
 
From "general theory of relativity" by Dirac, as for Einstein pseudotensor,
(32.3)
where ##\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{}\ L## with
(26.3)
, we got the formula for Schwartzshild coordinates and metric given by
(18.6)
and integrated in volume outside the Schwartzshild surface, r > 2m as
(31.4)

I did it with a friend of mine online before websites become familiar. We were excited to see that BH has its energy all outside the Schwartzshild surface.

[EDIT] I deleted the equation images by the suggestion post #4.
 
Last edited:
anuttarasammyak said:
From "general theory of relativity" by Dirac, as for Einstein pseudotensor,
View attachment 367131
where ##\mathcal{L}=\sqrt{}\ L## with
View attachment 367132
, we got the formula for Schwartzshild coordinates and matrix given byView attachment 367134
and integrated in volume outside the Schwartzshild surface, r > 2m as
View attachment 367135
I did it with a friend of mine online before websites become familiar. We were excited to see that BH has its energy all outside the Schwartzshild surface.
Equations in images are not permitted here. Please use the PF LaTeX feature.
 
anuttarasammyak said:
We were excited to see that BH has its energy all outside the Schwartzshild surface.
This is not a correct claim. You need to be very, very careful interpreting anything involving pseudotensors. The Schwarzschild BH is vacuum; it has no stress-energy anywhere. The "mass" ##M## of the hole is a global, geometric property of the spacetime; it can't be located in any particular place or region.

There are invariant mass integrals that can be done for Schwarzschild spacetime (ADM mass, Bondi mass, Komar mass--though the latter involves more technicalities). But none of them involve pseudotensors.
 
Being material observers, we do not expand with the universe. Our ruler for measuring its increasing size does not expand either - its scale does not change. If I identify the ruler with a metric, then from my perspective it should be invariant both spatially and temporally. If it expanded with the universe, then its size measured with this ruler would be constant. Why then do we use a metric with the spatial scale expanding with the universe and constant temporal scale to measure the...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K