Mass/energy in general relativity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of mass in General Relativity (GR) and its distinction from traditional definitions. Participants emphasize that in modern physics, the term "mass" should refer solely to ordinary mass, eliminating outdated terms like "rest mass." The conversation highlights the complexities of measuring mass for macroscopic objects in curved spacetime, noting that gravitational energy does not contribute to mass in GR. Key definitions such as ADM, Bondi, and Komar masses are introduced as conserved quantities in specific spacetime conditions, underscoring the nuanced understanding required for mass in GR.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR) principles
  • Familiarity with mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²)
  • Knowledge of the stress-energy tensor in physics
  • Concepts of ADM, Bondi, and Komar masses
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definitions and applications of ADM, Bondi, and Komar masses in GR
  • Study the implications of gravitational potential energy on mass measurements
  • Explore the role of the stress-energy tensor in General Relativity
  • Investigate the concept of mass in non-asymptotically flat spacetimes
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of General Relativity, and anyone interested in the complexities of mass definitions and measurements in curved spacetime.

  • #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