How can a machine be created to produce energy in GR?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Antiphon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Gr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of energy in General Relativity (GR), particularly the challenges of defining and conserving energy globally. Participants explore the implications of energy being "poorly defined" in GR and propose the idea of creating a machine that could theoretically produce energy, questioning the foundational principles of energy conservation in the context of GR.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while energy conservation in GR is complex, it does not imply that energy cannot be conserved in some form.
  • Others argue that energy cannot be defined as a simple volume integral in GR, indicating that energy conservation is local rather than global.
  • A participant expresses confusion over the counterintuitive nature of local conservation not leading to global conservation, suggesting that a proper integration method might still be undiscovered.
  • Another participant counters that the conserved current density related to Noether's theorem cannot be integrated over a volume in a mathematically valid way, emphasizing the need for surface integrals instead.
  • There is a proposal for deriving surface integrals from first principles like Noether's theorem rather than seeking a volume integral for energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of energy conservation in GR. Multiple competing views exist regarding the definitions and implications of energy conservation, with some suggesting potential avenues for exploration while others firmly reject certain approaches.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions of energy in GR, particularly concerning the integration methods and the relationship to Noether's theorem. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity and subtleties involved in these concepts.

Antiphon
Messages
1,685
Reaction score
4
there's a good thread over here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=613210

I don't want to derail it. But if energy is "poorly defined" globally in GR as explained in that thread then let's exploit it. Let's devise a "machine" that creates energy.

I pose this in such a provocative way to underscore the point- its not enough in todays physics to say that global energy conservation isn't well defined. We should either lead this notion into a contradiction or start figuring out how to manufacture energy with it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Energy in GR can no more be described as a precise quantity simply obtained by integrating some explicit field along the space-like 3D surface we consider. This does not mean that there is no conservation of energy. But it takes a more subtle, complex form.
In particular we can roughly define the mass inside a sphere with size r, as r times the integral of the intrinsic Riemannian curvature of space through this sphere. As this is computed from the surface only and not from the inside, it is not possible to modify it by purely local processes : it is necessary to do something that can affect the surface. Thus if you take a large sphere away from the system you consider, you can only increase your local energy by bringing it from far away.
 
The problem is that energy as a volume integral cannot be defined in GR. You cannot create something that isn't defined ;-)

Energy is conserved locally i.e. there is a covariantly conserved energy-momentum tensor i.e. conserved energy-momentum density.
 
Good answers thanks.

But it sure seems counterintuitive that a locally conserved quantity isn't globally conserved.

If I understand the replies, it may in fact be globally conserved but we haven't figured out a proper integration method for it yet.
 
Antiphon said:
... it may in fact be globally conserved but we haven't figured out a proper integration method for it yet.
Definitly not.

The conserved current density related to Noether's theorem would have to be integrated over a volume - which is not possible mathematically and covariantly with a tensor density!

On the other hand the surface integrals which have been constructed for non-local definitions of a "mass" or "energy" cannot be related to Noether's theorem.

So what would help is the derivation of the surface integrals from a first principle like Noether's theorem, not the search for a volume integral.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-4/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
14K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
44K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 382 ·
13
Replies
382
Views
43K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K