Why is the Reissner-Nordstrom Metric Not Considered a Vacuum Solution?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gentsagree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Schwarzschild
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the Reissner-Nordström metric and why it is not classified as a vacuum solution, in contrast to the Schwarzschild metric. Participants explore the implications of gravitational and electromagnetic fields in the context of general relativity, focusing on the roles of stress-energy tensors in these metrics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Schwarzschild metric is considered a vacuum solution due to the absence of a stress-energy tensor in the region outside the event horizon.
  • Others argue that the Reissner-Nordström metric, while describing the spacetime around a charged object, contains a non-zero stress-energy tensor due to the energy stored in the electric field.
  • A participant questions whether the gravitational field outside the Schwarzschild radius can be compared to the electromagnetic field outside the Reissner-Nordström horizon, suggesting both are accounted for by the geometry of space rather than a stress-energy tensor.
  • One participant explains that the gravitational field felt outside a black hole is due to a non-zero stress-energy tensor from the mass that collapsed to form the black hole, which is located in the past light cone of the observer.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the collapse of a charged object leaves behind stress-energy in the electric field, while an uncharged object does not, linking this to the equivalence principle.
  • There is a question raised about why the collapse of a charged object results in stress-energy, while that of an uncharged object does not, indicating a need for further clarification on this point.
  • One participant reiterates that electromagnetism cannot be modeled solely by spacetime curvature, contrasting it with gravity, which can be represented as such.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the classification of the Reissner-Nordström metric as a vacuum solution, with some asserting it is not due to the presence of stress-energy from the electromagnetic field, while others explore the implications of gravitational fields in similar contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of stress-energy contributions from charged versus uncharged objects.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the relationship between electromagnetic fields and spacetime curvature, as well as the implications of the equivalence principle in the context of stress-energy tensors.

gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
The Schwarzschild metric describes spacetime around a spherically symmetric neutral object and, as such, it is considered as a vacuum solution, with zero contribution from the energy-momentum tensor that otherwise influences the space in the region 0<r<2GM.

The Schwarzschild metric can be analytically extended to cover the region beyond the horizon, obviously, but this remains a vacuum solution.

I was wondering why the Reissner-Nostrom metric, being the solution AROUND a spherically symmetric charged object, is not considered a vacuum solution as well.

What I mean is: aren't the actions of the gravitational field and of the electromagnetic field qualitatively the same? If the electromagnetic field can be "felt" outside the horizon (so that the metric outside r_{+} is influenced by it), shouldn't it be the same for the gravitational field of the pointlike mass at the origin of the Schwarzschild solution, thus causing the latter to be influenced by some non-vanishing stress-energy tensor?

In the same way "there's no mass" outside the Schwarzschild radius, there is no charge outside r_{+}.

I'm sure I'm mistaken somewhere, but can't see why.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I remember correctly, there is no charge outside r+ but there is an electric field. The stress-energy tensor ( from the Einstein tensor) is not zero but is the same as that of the field of a point charge.
 
It makes sense, there is no charge, but only electromagnetic field. So, would you say that in the comparison with the Schwarzschild solution, outside the horizon there is no mass but only gravitational field? And this gravitational field is accounted for by the geometry of the space rather than by the stress energy tensor?
 
gentsagree said:
I was wondering why the Reissner-Nostrom metric, being the solution AROUND a spherically symmetric charged object, is not considered a vacuum solution as well.

Because it isn't one. :wink: There is a non-zero stress-energy tensor present everywhere in the R-N metric, because there is energy stored in the electric field.

gentsagree said:
In the same way "there's no mass" outside the Schwarzschild radius, there is no charge outside r_{+}.

This is true, and there is in fact an important sense in which the electric field in the R-N metric *does* "work the same" as gravity in the Schwarzschild metric. The basic principle is that the "field" that is felt at a given event in spacetime is entirely due to the presence of a "source" for that field somewhere in the past light cone of the given event.

Take the gravity case first. A real Schwarzschild black hole will not have existed forever; it will have been formed by the collapse of some massive object at some time in the past. That means that there *is* a region of non-zero stress-energy tensor in the spacetime; it's just far in the past, from the viewpoint of someone who is outside the black hole long after it forms. This region of non-zero stress-energy tensor is the "source" for the hole's gravity; at any given event outside the hole's horizon, the gravity that is felt is due, ultimately, to the "source" (non-zero stress-energy tensor inside the collapsing mass) in the past light cone of that event. This means, of course, that the "source" of the hole's gravity, as it is felt outside the horizon, is not actually coming from inside the horizon; it is coming from a region of spacetime outside the horizon, but far in the past, from the massive object that collapsed to form the hole, during the period *before* its collapsed formed the horizon and created the hole.

Now suppose the collapsing object in the far past was charged. Then, in the past light cone of a given event outside the resulting R-N black hole, there will not only be a region of non-zero stress-energy tensor (which is the source of the hole's gravity); there will also be a region of non-zero charge density, which is the source of the hole's electric field. The field felt at the given event is entirely due to that non-zero charge density in the past light cone of the event; it is not coming from inside the horizon, any more than the hole's gravity is coming from inside the horizon.

The difference in the charged case is that there is energy stored in the electric field even after the original charged object has collapsed. In other words, the collapse of a charged object leaves behind stress-energy, stored in the electric field, whereas the collapse of an uncharged object leaves no stress-energy behind. Ultimately, the reason for this is the equivalence principle: different objects can "fall" with different accelerations in an electric field, but all objects fall with the same acceleration due to gravity. So gravity can be modeled entirely as the curvature of spacetime, but electromagnetism cannot. That's why the spacetime of an uncharged hole is vacuum, but the spacetime of a charged hole is not.
 
Thank you PeterDonis for the very exhaustive answer.
 
PeterDonis said:
The difference in the charged case is that there is energy stored in the electric field even after the original charged object has collapsed. In other words, the collapse of a charged object leaves behind stress-energy, stored in the electric field, whereas the collapse of an uncharged object leaves no stress-energy behind. Ultimately, the reason for this is the equivalence principle: different objects can "fall" with different accelerations in an electric field, but all objects fall with the same acceleration due to gravity. So gravity can be modeled entirely as the curvature of spacetime, but electromagnetism cannot. That's why the spacetime of an uncharged hole is vacuum, but the spacetime of a charged hole is not.

There is one thing I am unsure of. Why does the collapse of a charged object leave stress energy, whereas the other doesn't? If the answer is somehow encoded in your comparison with the equivalence principle, then I did not get it. :S
 
Last edited:
gentsagree said:
Why does the collepse of a charged object leave stress energy, whereas the other doesn't?

Because electromagnetism can't be viewed as due to spacetime curvature alone, whereas gravity can. Spacetime curvature can be present in a vacuum, where there is no stress-energy; but electromagnetism can't. If there is an electromagnetic field present, it must store a non-zero amount of stress-energy everywhere it is present. The EM field of a charged black hole is present everywhere in the spacetime, so the non-zero stress-energy stored in it is also present everywhere.
 
Awesome, thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K