Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter selfAdjoint
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Gr
Click For Summary
Energy is not well defined in general relativity (GR), as asserted by Steve Carlip, due to the inclusion of gravitational potential energy, which can be transformed away in freely falling coordinate systems. This leads to the conclusion that either energy is zero everywhere or lacks a consistent definition across different frames. Alternatives for defining energy in GR include considering nonlocal definitions or scenarios where covariance breaks down, with flat spacetime being a potential candidate. The discussion also touches on the distinction between gravitational fields and spacetime curvature, emphasizing that gravitational potential energy is not a tensor quantity. Overall, the debate highlights the complexities of defining energy within the framework of general relativity.
  • #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
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
696
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
955
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K