Gravitational Energy in GR: Energy Conservation Explained

david316
Messages
77
Reaction score
4
If you view free fall as an inertial frame and therefore items at "rest" on the Earth's surface are accelerating away from the centre of mass I do not understand how energy is conserved. Taking this view, relative to the free fall frame the items will be gaining velocity which implies that the kinetic energy will be increasing. Can someone explain to me why this wrong. Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
david316 said:
Taking this view, relative to the free fall frame the items will be gaining velocity which implies that the kinetic energy will be increasing.

Yes, that's true. Energy is frame-dependent. The items are gaining kinetic energy relative to the free-fall frame, but not relative to a frame that is fixed to the Earth.
 
That makes sense... I think. It makes a little sense to me if you consider there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe. Followup question, if I use E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and since velocity and hence momentum are increasing relative to freefall does that mean the mass of the item on Earth will be getting lighter.
 
david316 said:
if I use E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 and since velocity and hence momentum are increasing relative to freefall does that mean the mass of the item on Earth will be getting lighter.

No. Velocity increases in the freely falling frame, but so does energy. In a frame fixed to the Earth, velocity is zero and energy is constant. In both cases, ##m## remains constant.
 
That makes sense. Thanks a lot.
 
Note also that energy itself is a bit of a tricky concept in GR.

Locally, it is frame variant, as mentioned by Peter Donis (energy and momentum form a four-vector). However, locally at least it is conserved (stress energy tensor has no divergence).

Globally, it is not even defined in general, let alone conserved. This is due to the difficulty in adding different vectors in different locations in a curved space.

Here is a good overview of the issues.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
 
  • Like
Likes bcrowell
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top