Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of energy in the context of General Relativity (GR), particularly whether energy can be defined consistently within the framework of GR. Participants explore various perspectives on gravitational potential energy, the implications of coordinate transformations, and the relationship between energy and tensors in GR.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants, referencing Steve Carlip, assert that energy is not well defined in GR, particularly due to the inclusion of gravitational potential energy and the ability to switch to freely falling coordinate systems where this potential is zero.
  • Others argue that the assertion about freely falling coordinate systems is only true in uniform gravitational fields and that locally, the equivalence principle allows for transformations at any point.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of gravitational potential energy, with some stating it is not a tensor quantity and questioning the validity of arguments that treat energy as a sum of different types.
  • Some participants propose that energy in GR could be non-local, suggesting that energy definitions might only be meaningful within open sets rather than at specific points.
  • Concerns are raised about the necessity of associating energy with gravity, with some arguing that gravitational fields may not require an energy definition and that gravity is fundamentally a metrical construct.
  • Discussions also touch on the implications of the uncertainty principle and its relevance to GR, with differing opinions on whether quantum mechanical concepts can be integrated into GR.
  • Some participants highlight the distinction between Newtonian and modern relativistic concepts of gravity, emphasizing that the stress-energy tensor for gravity alone is zero in regions without matter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the definition and existence of energy in GR, with no consensus reached on the validity of the various claims and arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the discussion, such as the dependence on specific coordinate systems, the nature of gravitational potential energy, and the implications of spacetime curvature versus Newtonian concepts of gravity.

  • #121
Garth said:
An inertial frame is a freely falling coordinate system. In such a frame of reference particles do not suffer accelerations unless there are specific non-gravitational forces acting on them. Such a frame can only be defined for a sufficiently small region around its origin, otherwise tidal forces will be experienced.

The tidal forces aren't a problem, if they approach the Newtonian tidal forces in the limit as you go to infinity. The standard definition of energy and energy conservation in GR can deal with tidal forces that approach Newtonian tidal forces as one goes to infinity.

It does appear to me that the expansion of the universe is not something that can be dealt with in this (standard) manner, however. This problem can only be dealt with by dealing with sections of the universe small enough that the cosmological expansion isn't important over the timescale studied.

The overall insight is that GR does not in general conserve energy, it is an improper energy theorem, it conserves energy-momentum instead.
The principle of the conservation of energy-momentum is not a concatenation of the principle of the conservation of energy and principle of the conservation of momentum; energy-momentum is a geometric concept in its own right, invariant under Lorentz transformations.

Energy and momentum are frame dependent concepts; therefore it is necessary to define a frame of reference, a preferred frame. in order to restore the principle of the conservation of energy.

Garth

The notion of a preferred frame of course requires a rather fundamental re-write of GR - one which a certain author just happens to have done :-).

We'll see how this new theory works out when the Gravity probe B results get back.

Meanwhile, I have to say that it is quite possible that the universe is screwy enough that the standard GR notion of energy conservation is the correct one - something that works over human time and distance scales, but something that doesn't work over cosmological time and distance scales.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K