Gravitational Energy: Why Negative?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational energy being negative, as proposed by physicists like Hawking, suggesting that the total energy of the universe is zero when considering positive energy from matter and negative energy from gravitational fields. The complexity arises from the definitions and measurements of energy in General Relativity (GR), where gravitational energy is not captured by the energy-momentum tensor, which only accounts for matter. Instead, gravitational energy is described by the Einsteinian tensor, leading to challenges in defining energy for gravitational systems, particularly in dynamic scenarios. Questions are raised about the implications of negative energy, such as why it does not annihilate with positive energy and the nature of graviton energy. Ultimately, defining gravitational energy remains a nuanced and debated topic within cosmology.
ben_jamin
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I remember that someone (maybe Hawking) said the total energy of cosmology is zero: the matter hold the positive energy and gravational field possesses the negative energy. But I can't understand it, why the gravational field's energy is negative? As far as I understood, from the view of gauge field, all the fields should possesses the positive energy with the "positive" particle. If we consider the gravational field as the gauge field or it can be quantized, how to understand the negative?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Welcome to these Forums ben jamin!
why the gravational field's energy is negative?
It depends on how you define and measure energy in GR - neither is a trivial task.

On way to look at it is to consider an extended cloud of dust collapsing down under its own gravitational field. As the cloud condenses down the process accelerates; energy has been taken out of the field to give the dust particles kinetic energy and yet the gravitational field and the particles' mutual attraction has increased. Something that gets bigger the more you take out of it is negative - like my overdraft!

Garth
 
Usually we consider the energy in GR with the energy and momentum tensor T_\mu\nu, and we think it is positive whatever definition.(Einstein, Laudau or otherone) The different of their definition is for the conservation not for positive or negative energy.

And if you say the energy and momentum tensor T only gives the energy for the matter in the gravity not the curvature, so what's the meaning of energy of curvature? and how to calculate it. Another question: why the negative energy don't annihilate with the positive energy of matter? The related question, is the energy of graviton negative?
 
ben_jamin said:
Usually we consider the energy in GR with the energy and momentum tensor T_\mu\nu, and we think it is positive whatever definition.(Einstein, Laudau or otherone) The different of their definition is for the conservation not for positive or negative energy.

And if you say the energy and momentum tensor T only gives the energy for the matter in the gravity not the curvature, so what's the meaning of energy of curvature? and how to calculate it. Another question: why the negative energy don't annihilate with the positive energy of matter? The related question, is the energy of graviton negative?
"And if you say" I do say! Gravitational energy is not described by the energy-momentum tensor, that describes all energy, momentum and stress apart from that which is gravitational. The gravitational energy is described by the Einsteinian tensor and in one convention of defining the Riemannian there is a negative sign connecting the two:-

Rab - 1/2 gab = - 8.pi.G Tab

Defining the energy of a gravitational system is difficult and sometimes impossible, it is only possible for a static system at 'asymptotic flatness'. There are many posts on these Forums about the subject, you can search for "energy".

Garth
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top