Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,928 questions , 1,396 unanswered
4,846 answers , 20,597 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Non-locality of gravitational energy

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
240 views

Gravitational energy is non-local which is essentially because of the equivalence principle. The equivalence principle says that you can always transform your frame so that you feel like in a Minkowski space-time locally. Mathematically, there is no tensor-like definition for gravitational energy in General Relativity. All energy-momentum tensor for gravitational energy must be pseudo-tensor, namely frame-dependent tensor. About the non-locality of gravitational energy I have two questions:

  1. Where does the energy of gravitational waves come from which seems way local?
  2. How can the non-locality of gravitational energy be implemented in String theory where, for example, gravitons are simply zero modes of closed strings and strings are explicitly local (of course except for the resolution of strings which, as I see, is different from the non-locality of gravitational energy)?
asked Mar 1, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Wein Eld (195 points) [ no revision ]

I think this is a really really interesting question. I remember when I studied gravitational waves, it was shown (section 8.5) that one can in fact define an energy tensor for the gravitational wave, but it was only well-defined (read: gauge invariant) if one averages out its value over a region considerably larger than the wavelength of the wave. As those lecture notes point out this can be quite large: 

This might be a rather large region: the LIGO detector looks for waves with frequency around 100Hz, corresponding to a wavelength λ ∼ 3000km.

This then confronts us with a real puzzle: the theory can only define the energy of the wave in a region of 3000 km, while on a more physical level the LIGO detector is clearly interacting (and hence extracting energy) from the wave at a scale of a few kilometers. Does nature have a better way of defining energy than us? Looking foward to the answers here :)

@RubenVerresen Thanks for your comment.

I only can give a reference on a paper by L.D. Faddeev in a Russian journal: http://www.physics-online.ru/MessageFiles/7268/gravity-faddeev-ufn.pdf

It should be translated in the West, but I was too lazy to search.

EDIT: I found this reference: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1070/PU1982v025n03ABEH004517/pdf

http://mr.crossref.org/iPage?doi=10.1070%2FPU1982v025n03ABEH004517

http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=pu&paper_id=4517

Anyway, it is said that the gravitational energy is not localizable because there are many equivalent asymptotically flat metrics. Concerning the total energy (gravity+matter), it is proven to be positive (E. Witten and others). L.D. Fddeev uses an analogy with Classical Electrodynamics considering its proof "ideal". I have, however, a reservation about this. Briefly, if one manipulates variables formally and implies existence of physical solutions, then it looks OK.

@VladimirKalitvianski: Please also give a standard reference to the paper in English transcription, so that one can search for it?

I am not an expert in general relativity but can't one define a local energy-momentum tensor assuming an asymptotically flat universe. Isn't that enough?

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOverflo$\varnothing$
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...