A Gravitational Potential Energy & the Equivalence Principle

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational potential energy and its relationship to the equivalence principle, which states that gravitational fields cannot be localized. Participants express confusion about the implications of this principle, particularly regarding the localization of energy in gravitational fields. They reference Einstein's work on the mass-energy relationship in a two-body system and seek additional resources for further understanding. The conversation also touches on pseudotensors, with a specific mention of Landau & Lifschitz as a key reference for understanding these concepts. Overall, the thread seeks clarification on the nuances of gravitational energy and its theoretical implications.
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 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 exmarine and vanhees71
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K