Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Einstein’s equivalence principle for a collapsed star

  1. Mar 27, 2016 #1
    The Equivalence Principle says depicting gravity as a field associated with matter is equivalent to picturing it as twisting of space. Is there a space-twisting equivalent of a collapsed star as a shell of condensed matter with interior of intense gravitational field energy (found in the field description to satisfy the Einstein-GR equations)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2016 #2

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is not what the equivalence principle says. It says that that gravitational forces are locally indistinguishable from the inertial pseudo-forces that appear under uniform acceleration. The equivalence principle goes a long ways towards motivating general relativity's model of gravity being caused by the curvature of spacetime (not just space!), but does not itself refer to that curvature in any way.

    There is only one solution of the EFE for a static and spherically symmetrical mass distribution, and that is the Schwarzschild spacetime (and Kerr if the rotation is not negligible).
     
  4. Mar 27, 2016 #3
    Wikipedia on the strong equivalence principle says this “suggests that gravity is entirely geometrical by nature (that is, the metric alone determines the effect of gravity)”. My formulation is loose, but the question remains.

    The Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions are geometric warping of space with weak fields. Schwarzschild’s describes empty space outside a spherical distribution of matter; also it’s the first term in a weak field approximation. The Kerr solution includes rotation. Neither has an interior solution including matter. Kerr closed his remarkably short paper with "it would be desirable to calculate an interior solution to get more insight". The field solutions I’m concerned with have interior matter and ultra-strong field.
     
  5. Mar 27, 2016 #4

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't understand what you're describing here. Are you trying to describe a black hole? A neutron star? The words "a shell of condensed matter with interior of intense gravitational field energy" don't make sense to me.
     
  6. Mar 27, 2016 #5

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That's because, in the general case, there isn't a known closed-form expression for the interior of a body containing matter. The only known closed-form solution I'm aware of is for a sphere of constant density, which is highly unphysical. I can't find a quick online reference, but this solution is described in many GR texts, such as MTW.

    Numerically (i.e., without achieving a closed-form expression), interior solutions can indeed be calculated, but the calculations require a lot more computer power than existed anywhere in the world when Kerr published his paper (1963, IIRC). The key thing you need is some relationship between the pressure (and other stresses in the material) and the density; in the case of a perfect fluid, with isotropic pressure and no other stresses, this relationship is called the equation of state. This reduces the number of variables to the point where the calculation becomes solvable.
     
  7. Mar 27, 2016 #6

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Your formulation is so loose that it is incomprehensible to me.
    It isn't space, it is spacetime. The usual term is curve, not twist. By collapsed star do you mean a neutron star? The gravitational field energy is a frame-dependent thing that has limited applicability. It is only used to solve the EFE in special cases.

    With all of that it is hard to decipher what your question is. The wiki quote seems correct to me, but I don't see the relation to your question. Can you try to clarify?
     
  8. Mar 28, 2016 #7
    Of course choose a frame of reference in which gravitational field energy is well-defined and in which to solve the field equations. Then the types of stationary solutions available are not only those of Oppenheimer-Volkoff with monotonic density peaking at the centre, but also solutions with material density in a shell and field energy rising through it to intense levels in the interior. By “intense levels” of field, I mean relativistic levels with energy in mass terms comparable to matter densities, as in Cameron’s neutron star models. Star structure computed like A G Cameron (1959) for neutron equation-of-state and mass under the TOV limit (2.0 solar masses, avoiding worries about collapse on a ‘black hole’) can be found in the form of a matter-shell + field interior.

    The neutron EoS is not special, similar solutions exist for degenerate electron EoS (white dwarf stars) and probably exotic quark stars with neutron edges.

    My question is – under the Equivalence Principle in strong form (because the field is ultra-strong), is there an equivalent geometric (curved space-time) description for such shell/field stars? It’s a well-posed question, unless you deny that the Einstein GR equations in the chosen reference frame can be satisfied by such structures.
     
  9. Mar 28, 2016 #8

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This still doesn't make sense. Are you intending that there is a shell of material and vacuum inside it?

    Can you give a specific reference?

    I'm not sure why you bring in the EP here. The answer to the second clause of your question is that all of the solutions you are referencing are geometric descriptions; they're solutions to the Einstein Field Equation, and that's what a solution to the EFE is.
     
  10. Mar 28, 2016 #9

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Sounds like you just want the most general spherically symmetric metric. See equation 7.12 here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

    Yes, that is what is described by equation 7.12.
     
  11. Mar 29, 2016 #10
  12. Mar 29, 2016 #11
    Cameron’s and the preceding Oppenheimer papers of 1939 are field calculations using the GR differential equations. Fitting interior solutions to the exterior Schwarzschild solution (for empty space) does require some differential geometry, but they remain solutions of a field description.

    I’m setting a problem for the Equivalence concept – to come up with a geometric description of the shell neutron stars with intense field interiors. It clearly differs from the black-hole solution in that the matter remains in a compressed shell outside the Schwarzschild radius and the interior retains structure dominated by ultra-high gravitational field. A quite plausible configuration in GR (once one accepts that G-fields become repulsive at ultra-high intensity), our contribution is solving for different class of solutions from Cameron’s field solutions.
     
  13. Mar 29, 2016 #12

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Please provide a professional scientific reference for this.
     
  14. Mar 29, 2016 #13

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The word "field" has many different meanings in physics. One of them is "the spacetime metric", i.e., the geometry of spacetime. That's how the term is used in GR. We call the central equation of GR the Einstein Field Equation, but its solutions are spacetime geometries.

    Do you understand that the Einstein Field Equation is an equation in differential geometry?

    You still have not given a satisfactory description of what you are talking about here.
     
  15. Mar 30, 2016 #14
    Apart from proposals to explain large-scale structure of the universe (‘dark energy’) let me cite

    Borissova L.B. and Rabounski D.D..Field, Vacuum and the Mirror Universe. Moscow 2001; latest edn 2010 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264525205_Champs_Vide_et_Univers_Miroir [Broken], American research Press, 2010. ISBN, 978-1-59973-123-0
    S. S. Gershtein,A. A. Logunov,M. A. Mestvirishvili Repulsive Forces in the Field Theory of Gravity Theoretical and Mathematical Physics Nov. 2005,Volume 145(2) 1604-1618; also A. A. Logunov, The Theory of Gravity, Nauka, Moscow (2001)

    A repulsive regime for mega-gravity is of course conceivable on field theory, seeing the huge energy density as exerting a pressure; GR depicts gravitational energy as equivalent to a mass (negative, like binding energy; Cameron 1959) which repels material masses.

    Semantic points should not divert us – theoretical physics uses the GR field equations to model the LIGO gravitational wave pulse from an inferred inspiralling binary system of real masses losing gravitational field energy via travelling waves. Far from asking that of differential geometry, I posed the question: how does the Equivalence Principle apply to neutron star solutions with relativistic gravity-fields, which concretely have field-filled interiors with relatively little (neutron) matter? What is the space-time geometry description, and can it tell us whether the shell/field solutions are preferred to Cameron’s monotonic ones?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  16. Mar 30, 2016 #15

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    The first one is not in English, but the second one is also available on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505070

    It discusses an alternative theory of gravity with which I am not familiar and that does not seem to be widely accepted. However, even in that theory they give an effective metric in EQ 6 which answers your question.
     
  17. Mar 30, 2016 #16

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree. But that being the case, why do you keep insisting that "field" means something different from "geometry of spacetime", when in fact both words refer to exactly the same theoretical model?

    I have no idea what objects you are talking about here. Please give a specific reference that describes such objects, as has already been requested twice now (the links you have provided don't say anything about such objects). We can't possibly answer your question if we don't know what you are talking about.
     
  18. Mar 30, 2016 #17

    pervect

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's possible to present a fairly simple explanation of Einstein's field equations without even mentioning the principle of equivalence. While the principle of equivalence was helpful to Einstein in developing the field equations, it is not necessarily central in describing them. A good but very basic pedagogical paper on the geometrical approach to Einstein's equation is Baez & Bunn's "The Meaning of Einstein's Equation", available online at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html.

    Some highlights - only the most important points are mentioned, it would be best to read the entire paper.

    and, given these preliminaries, Einstein's field equations can be interpreted as implying the following:

    As noted in the appendix, though, this simplified interpretation is perhaps a bit over-simple. The actual math requires that one knows what the Riemann and Ricci tensors are, and more importantly, how they transform. The simplified presentation picks out one of the simplest possible cases, and assumes that one can transform a given physical situation into this particularly simple case. But it doesn't describe the needed transformation laws. That requires tensor calculus, and probably a bit of differential geometry, much more advanced topics than the rest of the paper.

    It's not entirely clear to me if the OP's description of the EFE's is the same as Baez & Bunn's description. There are two basic possibilities. The two theories predict the same experimental results, in which case they can be regarded as different interpretations of the same theory, or they don't, in which case they are different theories.

    I don't think there's enough information at this point to say for sure whether or not the OP is interpreting Einstein's equation differently, or is in fact using some theory of gravity that's not General Relativity.

    It's also not clear to me how to overcome the language difficulties, I am hoping that a simple presentation of the geometrical view in geometrical language will be of some help.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  19. Mar 30, 2016 #18

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    In the absence of any further specifics from the OP, this thread is closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Einstein’s equivalence principle for a collapsed star
  1. Equivalence principle (Replies: 41)

  2. Equivalence principle (Replies: 4)

Loading...