A Gravitational Potential Energy & the Equivalence Principle

exmarine
Messages
241
Reaction score
11
TL;DR Summary
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
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top