Gravitational Potential Energy & the Equivalence Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational potential energy in relation to the equivalence principle, exploring its implications and the challenges in localizing gravitational energy. Participants seek clarification on the equivalence principle and reference materials related to previous attempts to address these questions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion regarding the equivalence principle and its implications for the localization of gravitational potential energy.
  • One participant references a paper by Einstein discussing the mass-energy relationship in a two-body system, highlighting the gravitational energy term and its non-localizable nature.
  • Another participant explains that the equivalence principle allows for the gravitational field to vanish in a localized patch of spacetime, suggesting that if gravitational energy were localizable, it could not vanish through coordinate choice.
  • There is mention of pseudotensors in relation to gravitational energy, with a reference to Landau & Lifschitz provided as a common source in discussions of this topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express uncertainty about the equivalence principle and its implications, indicating that multiple competing views and interpretations remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of gravitational energy and the unresolved nature of how gravitational energy can be conceptualized within the framework of general relativity.

exmarine
Messages
241
Reaction score
11
TL;DR
2 questions about the MTW textbook section on why the energy of the gravitational field cannot be localized
First, in section 20.4, after listing all the things gravitational potential energy does not do, they say the equivalence principle forbids it being localized. I thought I understood the equivalence principle, but maybe I don’t. Any comments explaining that would be appreciated.

Second, they allude to previous attempts to “answer this question”. Who, what, where, and any links to reference material would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
exmarine said:
Second, they allude to previous attempts to “answer this question”. Who, what, where, and any links to reference material would be appreciated.
Hello. I have once read a Einstein's paper saying two body system e.g. the sun and the Earth has mass or energy/c^2 of
M+m-\frac{GMm}{c^2r}
for kinetic property and for gravitational effect to the third body far from them in the frame of reference where space time is almost flat in great distance from the bodies. The third term is gravitational energy which reduces total mass but we can not say how it is distributed in an absolute way. I should appreciate someone may tell where in the web the paper is.
 
exmarine said:
they say the equivalence principle forbids it being localized. I thought I understood the equivalence principle, but maybe I don’t. Any comments explaining that would be appreciated.

One way of stating the equivalence principle is that, by an appropriate choice of coordinates, you can always make "the gravitational field" vanish in a small, localized patch of spacetime. Making "the gravitational field" vanish means making any localized "energy stored in the gravitational field" vanish as well--but if "energy stored in the gravitational field" were something localizable, it would be impossible to make it vanish by any choice of coordinates. All other kinds of energy are contained in the stress-energy tensor, and you can't make the stress-energy tensor vanish just by choosing coordinates. So there can't be any localized "energy stored in the gravitational field", because if there were, it would have to be contained in something like the stress-energy tensor, which could not be made to vanish just by choosing coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72, exmarine, vanhees71 and 1 other person
exmarine said:
they allude to previous attempts to “answer this question”

They are alluding to the various pseudotensors described in the previous section. A reference to Landau & Lifschitz is given there; the pseudotensor they defined is the one most commonly encountered in discussions of this topic.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: exmarine and vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K