Mass/energy in general relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of mass and energy in the context of general relativity (GR) and special relativity (SR). Participants explore the definitions and implications of mass, particularly in relation to macroscopic objects and the effects of gravity, as well as the terminology used in modern physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the term "rest mass" is unnecessary in modern physics, suggesting that simply referring to it as "mass" is sufficient.
  • Others contend that there are complexities in defining mass for macroscopic objects in GR, particularly due to the lack of gravitational energy contributions to mass calculations.
  • A participant highlights that while mass is affected by gravity, gravity does not contribute to mass, with binding energy in atoms contributing instead.
  • There is a discussion on whether different definitions of mass are needed in GR, especially for observers near objects with significant curvature.
  • Some participants mention specific mass definitions such as ADM, Bondi, and Komar masses, noting their conservation properties in different spacetime conditions.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential confusion caused by terminology and the implications of various mass definitions on understanding physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of using the term "rest mass" versus "mass." There is no consensus on whether gravitational energy contributes to mass or if different definitions of mass are required in GR, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that not all solutions of Einstein's equations are asymptotically flat, which complicates the definition of mass in GR. There are also unresolved questions regarding the conservation of energy in GR and how it relates to mass definitions.

  • #31
PAllen said:
the surface integral formulation of Komar mass is unaffected, in principle, by the interior - keep the metric on the surface and out to infinity the same, changing the interior at will, and the Komar mass is unchanged.

Yes, I agree with this.

PAllen said:
Your own analysis can be taken to support this - there is really no valid integration volume for the komar mass.

I agree that just looking at the volume integral, without trying to work out if/how it is related to the surface integral, makes it seem obvious that, formally, the volume integral should be zero for any vacuum spacetime--and since this clearly doesn't make sense for Schwarzschild spacetime, that would seem to indicate that the volume integral is invalid for this spacetime. I also agree that trying to finesse this for the maximally extended spacetime by taking limits in order to deal with the fact that the Killing vector field is null at the origin of Kruskal coordinates might not be valid.

What confuses me somewhat is the fact that the source you linked to, which is specifically about black holes, doesn't appear to mention any of this when it writes down the Komar volume and surface integrals, and then just blithely says that the Komar energy of Schwarzschild spacetime is ##M##. That makes me wonder whether there is some subtle point that I'm missing, that makes it OK to take the volume integral in Schwarzschild spacetime and somehow has it work out to be ##M## instead of zero.

PAllen said:
in the eternal BH spacetime (rather than a post collapse BH), one is required to perform the Komar surface integral for both exteriors in opposite sense, getting M and -M, for total of zero.

I had thought of this as well--in fact it would actually make a kind of sense if the two exterior regions were connected, since the "direction" of the timelike KVF is opposite in the two exterior regions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K