GR Point Masses: Seeking Help from Relativists

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter humanino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Point
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Einstein's equation in general relativity (GR) concerning point masses as sources of gravity. Participants explore the complexities of defining gravitational energy and the challenges posed by the nonlinearity of Einstein's equations, particularly in relation to point masses and their treatment in GR.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the statement that Einstein’s equation does not allow point masses as sources, seeking clarification on the implications of nonlinearity in GR.
  • One participant notes that while defining energy at a point in GR is feasible, the lack of a quasi-local definition of energy remains a significant issue.
  • Another participant suggests that point masses might be treated as black holes if the background spacetime is not fixed, indicating a potential interpretation of the original statement.
  • It is mentioned that the nonlinearity of Einstein's equations prevents the addition of solutions, contrasting with Newtonian gravity where extended masses can be treated as multiple point sources.
  • References to external sources, such as works by Laszlo Szabados and Poisson, are provided to support various viewpoints and further explore the topic.
  • Some participants acknowledge the complexity of the discussion and express gratitude for the references and insights shared by others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some acknowledging the challenges of defining gravitational energy and the implications of nonlinearity, while others propose different interpretations regarding the treatment of point masses and black holes. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the definitions of gravitational energy and the treatment of point masses, particularly concerning the assumptions about fixed versus dynamic backgrounds in spacetime.

humanino
Messages
2,538
Reaction score
8
Dear relativists,

I have problems trying to understand the following statement in Forces from Connes' geometry
2.2 said:
Einstein’s equation is nonlinear and therefore does not allow point masses as source
I would appreciate if somebody with a better understanding of GR could elaborate. I know there is no proper general local definition of gravitational energy but I always had difficulties on this aspect.

Thanks in advance for your comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer to your question is subtle, and it's too late here for me to come up with a convincing explanation. Nonetheless, this claim

humanino said:
I know there is no proper general local definition of gravitational energy

does deserve comment. There's no difficulty with defining energy at a point in general relativity, just as there's no difficulty in defining global energy; it's the notion of a quasi-local definition of energy which GR seems to lack, i.e., energy in an extended but finite region of spacetime.

Laszlo Szabados has many good papers on the ArXiv on this subject.
 
Apparently it's somewhat possible: Poisson, http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-6/ .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shoehorn said:
energy in an extended but finite region of spacetime.
Yes, that seems more accurate even to me :smile:
Thanks for the comment

atyy said:
Apparently it's somewhat possible: Poisson, http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-6/ .
I am not too sure, here he deals with point masses on a background fixed spacetime. Intuitively, I would guess, if one does not fix the background, then point masses will be black holes in GR. Maybe that is what the author meant. But black holes are "allowed", at least several authors in the past have tried to describe fundamental particles as "sort of" black holes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not that you can't have a point source for gravity (theoretically) but that with non-linear equations you can't "add" solutions. That is you cannot treat an extended mass as being a "bunch of point sources" as you could with Newton's theory.
 
HallsofIvy said:
It is not that you can't have a point source for gravity (theoretically) but that with non-linear equations you can't "add" solutions. That is you cannot treat an extended mass as being a "bunch of point sources" as you could with Newton's theory.
Ah, yes, sure, that definitely makes sense of the sentence. Thank you very much.
 
George Jones said:
Read Stingray's comments in

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111148

and maybe the first page of the reference that Stingray gives in post #10.

Thanks a lot (and to Stingray too !) for this reference. :smile:
Even the MTW does not go into those considerations.
 
humanino said:
I am not too sure, here he deals with point masses on a background fixed spacetime. Intuitively, I would guess, if one does not fix the background, then point masses will be black holes in GR. Maybe that is what the author meant. But black holes are "allowed", at least several authors in the past have tried to describe fundamental particles as "sort of" black holes.

Yes, he deals with a point mass as a black hole, and the point mass does perturb the background. However, reading Stingray's comments, there is no "source" here, since everything is a vacuum solution.
 
  • #10
atyy said:
Yes, he deals with a point mass as a black hole, and the point mass does perturb the background. However, reading Stingray's comments, there is no "source" here, since everything is a vacuum solution.
I understand. Stingray's comment address my question exactly. I downloaded the reference he provided Phys. Rev. D 36, 1017 (1987).
 
  • #11

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
5K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
927
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K