How can the stress tensor be non-zero where there is no matter?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of how the stress tensor can be non-zero in regions of spacetime where there is no matter present. Participants explore the implications of this scenario within the context of general relativity, examining the relationship between curvature, the stress-energy tensor, and gravitational waves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that curvature arises from the stress tensor, questioning how curvature can exist without mass present.
  • Others argue that the Riemann curvature tensor can be non-zero in vacuum, despite the Einstein tensor being zero, indicating that curvature does not necessarily imply the presence of matter.
  • A later reply clarifies that gravitational waves are not relevant to the discussion of curvature in vacuum, emphasizing that gravitational waves emerge from perturbations in the metric.
  • One participant draws a parallel to electromagnetism, questioning how an electromagnetic field can exist without charges or currents, suggesting a similar principle may apply to gravity.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the concept of action at a distance and the propagation of gravitational effects, particularly in hypothetical scenarios where mass suddenly appears.
  • There is a discussion about the local conservation of energy-momentum and how certain hypothetical scenarios violate this principle in general relativity.
  • Participants note that the Einstein field equations enforce local conservation of stress-energy, which leads to questions about how mass influences curvature at different points in spacetime.
  • Some express uncertainty about the absence of an inverse square law in the field equations, questioning how matter at one point affects curvature at another point.
  • One participant mentions that understanding how Newtonian gravity emerges from the Einstein field equations requires a deeper study of general relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between curvature, the stress-energy tensor, and the implications of gravitational waves. Confusion persists about the mechanisms of gravity and the nature of curvature in the absence of matter.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of curvature and stress-energy in vacuum, as well as the implications of hypothetical scenarios that violate local conservation laws. The discussion highlights the complexity of deriving classical gravitational concepts from general relativity.

  • #31
Are we trying to find out how the universe physically behaves? We must first understand our assumptions in solving our math. Sure we can always see that one term is approximately zero and can fall out of an equation we must solve. But an understanding of what happens (or must exist) just outside a singularity source is all important to understanding any modeled universal behavior. Is coherency lost, or did it ever exist?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DoctorSatori said:
But an understanding of what happens (or must exist) just outside a singularity source is all important to understanding any modeled universal behavior
Not really. In fact, that is essentially the point of effective field theories. But you miss my point.

You incorrectly stated that zero is only mathematically used as a limit. This is false. Take any equation that is valid over some finite domain, such as F=ma. Rewrite it as F-ma=0. That quantity is 0, not as a limit, but over the entire domain of validity of the original formula.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Michael Price
  • #33
Dale said:
Not really. In fact, that is essentially the point of effective field theories. But you miss my point.

You incorrectly stated that zero is only mathematically used as a limit. This is false. Take any equation that is valid over some finite domain, such as F=ma. Rewrite it as F-ma=0. That quantity is 0, not as a limit, but over the entire domain of validity of the original formula.

And, perhaps, you miss my philosophical point: that our mathematical model of the universe is not our universe. Though math is the best language to get at an explicit truth of our universe, we need to understand that it is NOT our universe, but only a language invented to predict universal behavior.

Just as the universe we measure is not the implicit universe, the potential universe, but the explicit universe (the one we describe with our math), so the word LOVE is not the feeling, but a description of it.
 
  • #34
DoctorSatori said:
And, perhaps, you miss my philosophical point: that our mathematical model of the universe is not our universe. Though math is the best language to get at an explicit truth of our universe, we need to understand that it is NOT our universe, but only a language invented to predict universal behavior.

Just as the universe we measure is not the implicit universe, the potential universe, but the explicit universe (the one we describe with our math), so the word LOVE is not the feeling, but a description of it.
Which just shows what a load of bunk philosophy is.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #35
DoctorSatori said:
And, perhaps, you miss my philosophical point: that our mathematical model of the universe is not our universe.
Nobody disputes that our models are models. This has nothing to do with whether or not "zero exists in the universe", which doesn't strike me as a particularly clear statement of anything let alone an answerable question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Michael Price
  • #36
SamRoss said:
Summary: Curvature comes from the stress tensor so how can there be curvature when there is no mass?

You're on Earth. You throw a ball and watch its trajectory. It's curved. That's because the Earth is curving space-time at every point along the trajectory. But the Earth itself is not present along the trajectory - there is no matter along the trajectory (let's ignore the air and any radiation that might be present) - so how is it curving the space there? There's not supposed to be action at a distance. Does it have something to do with gravitational waves? If so (and perhaps even if not because I'm still curious), what part of the field equations point to the existence of gravitational waves?
My journal-published experiments (Saffman-Taylor Instabilities In The Radial Domain http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00191691#page-1) suggest that sine-wave troughs are inertial fields analogous to gravity wells. As the universe expands, it may be that something (some near-zero-mass particles) flow around these wells (unable to push them outward) taking the path of least resistance to expansion.
 
  • #37
DoctorSatori said:
My journal-published experiments (Saffman-Taylor Instabilities In The Radial Domain http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00191691#page-1) suggest that sine-wave troughs are inertial fields analogous to gravity wells. As the universe expands, it may be that something (some near-zero-mass particles) flow around these wells (unable to push them outward) taking the path of least resistance to expansion.
I can only see the first two pages of this paper since it's paywalled, but no such claim is made in the abstract and neither the references nor the papers citing this seem to suggest any work in that direction either.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
  • #38
PeterDonis said:
This is a Newtonian analysis, not a GR analysis.
Yes that's true. SamRoss was confused as to how curvature could exist at a point where there is no mass there, so I used the simplest example I could think of to show that a field extends beyond the immediate location of the field's source.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SamRoss
  • #39
DoctorSatori said:
And, perhaps, you miss my philosophical point: that our mathematical model of the universe is not our universe.
That is a completely non controversial point. I believe that only Max Tegemark might disagree, but as far as I know very few professional scientists take his idea seriously.

Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that your argument above was demonstrably wrong.

In any case, this forum is not for discussing philosophy, it is for discussing science as practiced by the professional scientific community.
 
  • #40
Ibix said:
I can only see the first two pages of this paper since it's paywalled, but no such claim is made in the abstract and neither the references nor the papers citing this seem to suggest any work in that direction either.
Dale said:
That is a completely non controversial point. I believe that only Max Tegemark might disagree, but as far as I know very few professional scientists take his idea seriously.

Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that your argument above was demonstrably wrong.

In any case, this forum is not for discussing philosophy, it is for discussing science as practiced by the professional scientific community.
The unsteady solution to the gravitational/density equation is found here (in a reference to my article): Chandrasekhar S (1961) Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability. London: Oxford University Press (if anyone is interested in running the experiment. The paper I cited is mine and S.G. Advani's (work done at University of Delaware). It gives both the solutions to the analogous Instability on an expanding radial boundary from a source and the experimental setup through which the experimental space of the radial expansion was observed. The mathematical basis of the complex solution is The General Energy Equation across the expanding boundary.

[BOOK] Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability
S Chandrasekhar - 2013 - books.google.com
Dr. Chandrasekhar's book received high praise when it first appeared in 1961 as part of
Oxford University Press' International Series of Monographs on Physics. Since then it has
been reprinted numerous times in its expensive hardcover format. This first lower-priced,
sturdy paperback edition will be welcomed by graduate physics students and scientists
familiar with Dr. Chandrasekhar's work, particularly in light of the resurgence of interest in
the Rayleigh-Bénard problem.

Gravitational Instability in an Expanding Universe. The expanding medium means that for any small density perturbation, there will be competition between its self-gravity which is attempting to increase the density, and the general expansion of the universe which decreases the density.
Gravitational Instability in an Expanding Universe

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bothun2/Bothun5_1_4.html
 
  • #41
Dale said:
That is a completely non controversial point. I believe that only Max Tegemark might disagree, but as far as I know very few professional scientists take his idea seriously.

Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that your argument above was demonstrably wrong.

In any case, this forum is not for discussing philosophy, it is for discussing science as practiced by the professional scientific community.

I am a member of the professional scientific community in that my research is published in juried journals. In case we forget before it was known as SCIENCE, it was called NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, which is the nature of the philosophy I refer to.
 
  • #42
DoctorSatori said:
my research is published in juried journals
And in any of your peer-reviewed reviewed publications or in any peer reviewed publications by other authors did you ever see the generic claim that zero “is only mathematically used as a limit”? If not then spare me the lecture on philosophy and the professional posturing.

When you make a mistake the best thing to do is to simply say “oops”, and learn from it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Michael Price

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
12K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K