How GR Resolves the Conservation of Momentum and Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of General Relativity (GR) for the conservation of energy and momentum, particularly in the context of curved spacetime and the role of Killing vector fields. Participants explore theoretical aspects, challenges in defining energy in GR, and the consequences of diffeomorphism invariance.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Noether's theorem connects energy conservation to time translational invariance and momentum conservation to space translational invariance, but question how this applies in curved spacetime.
  • There is a discussion on the existence of Killing vector fields in curved spacetime and their importance for defining conserved quantities like energy and momentum.
  • One participant argues that active diffeomorphisms can destroy Killing vector fields, leading to the conclusion that energy and momentum may lose their physical meaning in certain spacetimes.
  • Another participant counters that the presence of a Killing vector field is independent of the coordinate chart used, suggesting that diffeomorphism invariance does not negate the existence of conserved quantities.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of GR's diffeomorphism invariance for traditional physics, with references to Rovelli's work emphasizing the need for a new understanding of these concepts.
  • Participants discuss the challenge of defining energy in the context of black holes, noting that the stress-energy tensor (SET) describes local energy due to non-gravitational matter, but there is no local interpretation for gravitational energy itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of diffeomorphism invariance and the physical meaning of energy and momentum in GR. There is no consensus on how these concepts should be interpreted or whether they retain their traditional meanings in the framework of GR.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the presence of Killing vector fields for defining conserved quantities and the unresolved nature of energy interpretation in various spacetimes, particularly in relation to black holes.

  • #121
Haelfix said:
A conformal isometry is a diffeomorphism:
Psi: M --> M such that (Psi*G)uv = Omega^2 Guv provided omega is everwhere real and positive. The case Omega = 1 is just a regular isometry.

Can you give an example? I'm having a hard time imagining such a map. Is it possible to have a continuous family of such maps?

A conformal transformation (or Weyl rescaling):
Guv' = Omega^2 Guv

is NOT in general a diffeomorphism! If you don't take the pullback, then it won't be invariant.

But I'm looking for things which are not invariant. Is a round 2-sphere of radius A diffeomorphic to a round 2-sphere of radius B, or not?

I say it is. In patches, \varphi: (\theta, \phi) \mapsto (\theta, \phi), which is clearly differentiable, and poses no problems with the transition functions. But g_A is not the pullback of g_B along \varphi.

One does have \varphi^*(g_B) = (b^2/a^2) \, g_A, is that what you mean above? In this case, \varphi : A \rightarrow B, not \varphi : A \rightarrow A.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Haelfix said:
So I agree with most of your post, except the last part. I am a little uneasy with the terminology. Following Wald and Nakahara:

A conformal isometry is a diffeomorphism:
Psi: M --> M such that (Psi*G)uv = Omega^2 Guv provided omega is everwhere real and positive. The case Omega = 1 is just a regular isometry.

A conformal transformation (or Weyl rescaling):
Guv' = Omega^2 Guv

is NOT in general a diffeomorphism! If you don't take the pullback, then it won't be invariant.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
A Weyl rescaling is a conformal transformation of the metric, and all conformal transformations are diffeomorphisms (they are defined as the subgroup of diffeomorphisms that preserve the metric up to a scale, the conformal factor).
 
  • #123
TrickyDicky said:
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
A Weyl rescaling is a conformal transformation of the metric, and all conformal transformations are diffeomorphisms (they are defined as the subgroup of diffeomorphisms that preserve the metric up to a scale, the conformal factor).

Real quick, b/c I have to go. Yes. I did just change conventions from a few posts back, but that's b/c the definition of a conformal transformation differs between the texts I'm consulting and I just switched to Wald's convention. (Nakahara calls the former definition a conformal transformation, Wald calls the latter a conformal transformation). What's important is that they are distinct mathematical concepts. (scroll through a few pages in Wald as well)

http://books.google.com/books?id=9S...A#v=onepage&q=wald conformal isometry&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=cH...QHf78HeAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(See the example from the latter).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K