Why do strong fields complicate our understanding of singularities?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the complexities of calculating mass in strong gravitational fields, particularly in the context of singularities and the use of integrals involving the stress-energy tensor. Participants explore the implications of using different integrals, such as the Komar mass, and the challenges posed by singularities in various spacetime geometries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of using certain integrals for mass calculation in strong fields, suggesting that the integral of ##T_{00}## may not yield an invariant quantity due to its non-tensor nature.
  • Others propose that the Komar mass may provide a more reliable measure, especially in cases where the stress-energy tensor is zero, such as in black holes.
  • A participant illustrates the difference between the mass of an assembled planet and its dissassembled parts, emphasizing the role of gravitational binding energy, which is not captured by the integral of ##T^{00}##.
  • Concerns are raised about the singularity at ##r=0## in Schwarzschild spacetime, with some arguing that it complicates mass calculations, while others assert that for static, spherically symmetric objects, there is no singularity at that point.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of using invariant quantities for mass calculations, with differing opinions on whether the time component of a 4-vector suffices.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the relationship between the Komar mass and the integral of ##T^{00}##, questioning whether they are fundamentally different or if they can yield similar results under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to calculating mass in strong fields. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the use of different integrals and the implications of singularities.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific coordinate choices and the unresolved nature of how gravitational binding energy can be localized within the framework of general relativity.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
Spacetime always has Lorentzian signature, not Euclidean signature. I don't know what you're talking about here.
How do you know this for sure? Maybe there are regions that are Euclidean and small and haven't been discovered. Certainly Euclidean spacetime is used as a tool for path integration in QFT. The point of the question is to see why is the necessity for timelike Killing vectors in either the Komar mass, or the 4-vector gotten by integrating T over a 3-surface of constant time and radius less than some r. The Euclidean spacetime is a reductio ad absurdum to show that stationarity does not require a negative square norm Killing vector.
PeterDonis said:
The squared norm of a Killing vector field does not have to be negative. I have never claimed that it did. Indeed, I gave you regions of Schwarzschild spacetime in which the squared norm of the Killing vector field in question is zero or positive.

But in order for a spacetime to be stationary, it has to have a Killing vector field that is timelike, i.e., negative squared norm. And a spacetime has to be stationary for the Komar mass to be well-defined. That is by definition. Again, if you want details on the rationale for the definition, you're going to need to consult GR textbooks where the Komar mass and its rationale is discussed in detail. (Or you could look up Komar's original paper, I suppose.)
OK, you say this quite dogmatically. I don't see it at all. Stationary seems like it just requires a Killing vector in the direction we call time. It doesn't have to have negative squared norm as far as I could tell. Or maybe it does for the Komar integral, but not for the other integral of T.
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
iuvalclejan said:
How do you know this for sure?
Because spacetime includes spacelike, null, and timelike intervals. You need a Lorentzian signature for that.

iuvalclejan said:
Euclidean spacetime is used as a tool for path integration in QFT
As an intermediate mathematical tool, yes. But before extracting any physical observables, you always have to Wick rotate back to Lorentzian spacetime.

iuvalclejan said:
you say this quite dogmatically
No, I give the standard definition of a stationary spacetime that is in every GR textbook. If you don't like that standard definition, then you need to go convince all the textbook authors to change it. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #34
iuvalclejan said:
How do you know this for sure? Maybe there are regions that are Euclidean and small and haven't been discovered.
We don't know anything for sure. Everything Peter has said comes from a theory and various models that have proven extremely useful and accurate and have been verified with the best observations and experiments we can come up with. If there is some region of the universe that they don't apply, it isn't here and it isn't anywhere we've looked so far, barring perhaps some extreme conditions such as inside black holes and near the time of the big bang.

If you wish to go beyond standard GR and its associated models, then I wish you the best of luck.

Thread will remain closed since this conversation appears to be inherently about things which aren't supported by mainstream science.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K