Tension in space in Newtonian gravity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of gravitational tension in Newtonian gravity, particularly in relation to pressure terms and their contribution to energy expressions. Participants explore the parallels between gravitational and electromagnetic energy distributions, as well as the implications for understanding gravitational interactions in dynamic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a model where the gravitational field between two masses creates a "pull" distributed across a plane, suggesting a negative pressure that integrates to give the force between the masses.
  • Another participant draws a comparison between the gravitational tension expression and the electrostatic energy density, noting similarities in their mathematical forms.
  • Concerns are raised about the factor of 1/2 in electromagnetic theory, which leads to the integral of tension being half the total force, questioning its applicability to gravity.
  • Discussion includes the behavior of pressure between like and unlike charges, highlighting the differences in gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.
  • A participant mentions a mathematical identity related to electrostatic potential energy and its implications for gravitational energy, suggesting that gravitational interactions do not change total energy in a volume.
  • Interest is expressed in extending the GR Komar energy pressure term to represent total energy in dynamic systems, such as circular orbits of masses.
  • A participant references a relevant paper on the self-energy of fields in Newtonian gravity, indicating ongoing exploration in this area.
  • There are mentions of external resources, such as Wikipedia, for further reading on Komar mass, though one participant indicates prior familiarity with the material.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of familiarity and understanding of the concepts discussed, with some proposing models and others questioning their implications. No consensus is reached on the interpretations or applications of the gravitational tension model.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of pressure and energy in gravitational contexts, as well as unresolved mathematical steps related to the integration of tension and energy expressions.

Jonathan Scott
Gold Member
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1,207
I've recently been looking at the way in which pressure terms contribute to the Komar expression for the total energy in GR and I've been trying to understand the Newtonian equivalent.

I found something which surprised me, and I'm wondering if it's well-known:

If you take a couple of masses and take an arbitrary plane between them perpendicular to the line between them, then in Newtonian theory there should be some sort of "pull" going on distributed across that plane in space, consisting of a negative pressure which when integrated over the whole area gives the force between the masses.

It turns out that there's a trivial model which gives the right result. Basically, it's the difference between the square of the total field and the squares of the separate fields of the two masses, but expressed as a separate product for each component (as in the pressure terms in the diagonal of the stress-energy tensor) rather than just the sum of those three terms.

That is, if the gravitational field from the first mass on its own would be g1 and that from the second would be g2, and the total field is g, we have the following expression for the pressure in each direction:

Tii = (1/4 \pi G) ( g2 - g12 - g22 ) = 1/(4 \pi G) ( 2 g1.g2 )

Geometrically, what this says is that you take the component of the field on each side of the plane in a direction perpendicular to the plane (using the same direction for both components) and multiply them together (and then multiply by 2).

Is this a known result?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm. Obviously not THAT well known.

I think it must be closely related to the way in which electromagnetic energy is assumed to be distributed in space, in that the "gravitational tension" expression above is very close to being the gravitational equivalent of the electrostatic energy density:

[tex]\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon_0 E^2[/tex]

A few more points about this relationship:

1. The factor of 1/2 for the electromagnetic case means that the integral of this tension expression over a plane is only half of the total force in that case. (In electromagnetic theory, this factor is required to avoid counting the potential energy of each pair of charges twice). It seems odd that it should be a half of the force.

2. The sign of this "pressure" behaves in an odd way, in that between two like charges it behaves in the same way as between two gravitational masses, showing a negative change in the pressure, and between two unlike charges it gives a positive change in pressure. (The term for the square of the field of each particle is also positive, even though an electric charge would repel itself but a gravitational source mass attracts itself).

3. Mathematically, there is a standard identity which says that the electrostatic potential energy is equal and opposite to the integral of the field energy in this form over a sufficiently large volume V of space:

[tex]\frac{\varepsilon_0}{2} \int_V \phi \, \nabla^2 \phi + (\nabla \phi)^2 \, dV \\ = \frac{\varepsilon_0}{2} \int_V \nabla (\phi \, \nabla \phi) \, dV \\ = \frac{\varepsilon_0}{2} \int_S \phi \, \mathbf{n}.(\nabla \phi) \, dS[/tex]

where the final expression becomes zero when the surface S of the volume is sufficiently far from sources so [itex]\phi[/itex] tends to zero.

However, this doesn't seem very useful when extended to gravity (with or without the factor of 1/2), because in that case it asserts that the total energy in a volume is unchanged by gravitational interactions. (There's a sense in which this is true, in that gravitational interactions convert energy between potential and kinetic, and it is only when some of the kinetic energy is removed from the system that the total energy changes, but it's not clear how this helps).

I'm interested in this area because I'm trying to understand whether it is possible to find a way to extend the GR Komar energy pressure term to provide a representation of the total energy in simple dynamic but stable situations such as masses going round one another in a circular orbit.
 
While I'm continuing to talk to myself, I'll just mention that I've now found a very interesting paper which is directly relevant to this area:

arXiv:gr-qc/9605011
CONSISTENTLY IMPLEMENTING THE FIELDS SELF-ENERGY IN NEWTONIAN GRAVITY by Domenico Giulini
 
I recently tried to read a little on Komar mass...Wikipedia has a description but as usual they launch into rather heavy duty mathematics...it might be useful to you however...
 
Naty1 said:
I recently tried to read a little on Komar mass...Wikipedia has a description but as usual they launch into rather heavy duty mathematics...it might be useful to you however...

Thanks, but I already know about that; Pervect, a previous mentor at PF, pointed me to that write-up a couple of years ago (and I think Pervect may have actually written it).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K