Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mass in general relativity

In , mass encompasses not only the rest masses of particles but all contributions from , , , and stress that source the curvature of via the , where the stress-energy-momentum tensor T^{\mu\nu} plays the central role in coupling matter to geometry. Unlike the singular, observer-independent mass of Newtonian gravity, mass in lacks a unique definition and instead requires context-specific formulations, such as global measures for isolated systems or quasi-local expressions for finite regions, reflecting the theory's invariance and the absence of a fixed background. Key definitions include the , which quantifies the total energy of an isolated system in an asymptotically flat by evaluating a at spatial infinity using the formulation of . This , introduced in the canonical analysis of the theory, is positive for physically reasonable distributions satisfying the dominant , as proven by the positive theorem, and includes binding energies that can make it smaller than the sum of individual constituent . For stationary spacetimes admitting a timelike Killing , the Komar mass provides a conserved quantity derived from the covariant conservation laws, obtained as the (1/(4\pi)) \int_S *d\xi over a closed 2-surface, where \xi is the Killing 1-form and * denotes the Hodge dual, and it coincides with the ADM in asymptotically flat vacuum regions. Further distinctions arise between inertial mass, which resists acceleration and corresponds to the ADM mass in certain limits, and active gravitational mass, which generates the field and aligns with definitions like the Møller mass; these are generally unequal inside matter distributions but equalize in or under energy conditions such as the weak or dominant ones. For radiating systems, the Bondi mass accounts for loss via at null , decreasing monotonically as carries away mass-. Quasi-local masses, such as the Hawking or Bartnik masses, attempt to localize within finite boundaries without reference to , though they face challenges like gauge dependence and non-uniqueness. These concepts underpin phenomena like , where mass relates to and , and detection, where binary mergers reveal post-Newtonian corrections to mass motion.

Fundamental Concepts and Challenges

Core Concepts of Mass

In special relativity, the principle of mass-energy equivalence establishes that m and E are interchangeable, encapsulated by the relation E = mc^2, where c is the ; this arises from the relativistic energy-momentum relation for a particle at rest. This equivalence implies that any form of energy contributes to the inertial of a . In , this concept extends beyond point particles to fields and continuous distributions, where the stress-energy-momentum tensor T^{\mu\nu} serves as the fundamental source incorporating all forms of , momentum flux, and stresses, generalizing the role of as an energy contributor. The , G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}, link the geometry of —described by the G_{\mu\nu}, which encodes —directly to the stress-energy tensor T^{\mu\nu} as the source term, with G denoting the . Here, enters indirectly through the components of T^{\mu\nu}, such as the T^{00} term representing , which generates gravitational effects equivalent to those of rest in the Newtonian ; all forms of , including kinetic, potential, and energies, thus curve . In , conserved quantities like total emerge from applied to spacetime symmetries, particularly Killing vectors representing asymptotic time translations or spatial translations in stationary or asymptotically flat spacetimes. For matter fields, this yields a conserved P^\mu = \int T^{\mu\nu} \, d\Sigma_\nu integrated over a spacelike \Sigma, reflecting the invariance under these symmetries; however, the full requires accounting for the pseudotensor contributions from the . The Arnowitt-Deser-Misner () formalism provides a global notion of by defining the total four-momentum via a at spatial in asymptotically flat spacetimes, capturing the system's overall without local densities. In , the term "" typically denotes the total E of an as measured at infinity, encompassing not only the rest masses and internal energies of constituents but also the negative , which reduces the overall value compared to the sum of unbound parts. This binding contribution arises from the self-gravitational , making the total a measure of the system's irreducible energy content.

Obstacles to Definition

In , the asserts that locally, the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from those of , implying no unique local distinction between gravitational and inertial mass. This , central to the theory, necessitates non-local definitions for mass, as any attempt to measure mass purely through local observations would conflate gravitational influences with inertial ones. Attempts to define a local for , such as through pseudo-tensors, encounter significant obstacles due to their coordinate dependence and lack of . The Landau-Lifshitz pseudo-tensor, for instance, provides an expression for gravitational energy-momentum in terms of the metric perturbation g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}, but it transforms non-tensorially under general coordinate changes, rendering it unsuitable for a coordinate-independent local . Positive energy theorems highlight further constraints on mass definitions, requiring specific conditions like non-negative to ensure the total mass is non-negative. The Schoen-Yau theorem, for example, proves that for asymptotically flat satisfying the dominant , the ADM mass is positive unless the spacetime is flat . These results underscore the need for global constraints to avoid negative or ill-defined local masses. In curved , is not conserved locally owing to the invariance of , which precludes a unique timelike Killing vector for defining conserved quantities everywhere; conservation holds only globally in stationary spacetimes or asymptotically. This non-local nature of complicates any local mass notion, as cannot be isolated without reference to the overall structure. A illustrative example is the , which describes the exterior geometry of a spherically symmetric, non-rotating :
ds^2 = -\left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right) dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2,
where M is a with dimensions of , interpretable as the total but not directly measurable through local experiments, as it emerges only from the global asymptotic behavior of the .

Quasi-Local Mass Definitions

Framework and Motivations

Quasi-local quantities in provide measures of physical attributes, such as , that are associated with finite regions of rather than the entire manifold or asymptotic boundaries. Specifically, quasi-local is defined on closed, orientable 2-surfaces, typically spacelike 2-spheres, embedded within the 4-dimensional , allowing for a localized without the divergences that plague global definitions reliant on . This localization is achieved by integrating geometric data intrinsic to the surface and its embedding, circumventing the non-locality issues of where contributions from distant regions cannot be isolated via local densities. The primary motivations for quasi-local mass stem from the limitations of global notions in realistic scenarios. In dynamical spacetimes, such as those featuring propagation or matter collapse, a finite-region mass measure is essential to track evolution without assuming asymptotic flatness. For horizons, particularly apparent horizons in time-dependent settings, quasi-local definitions enable the quantification of irreducible mass and support inequalities like the Penrose inequality. In simulations, these quantities facilitate monitoring of total and error estimation within computational domains during binary mergers or other evolutions. Mathematically, the framework centers on a 2-surface S in , equipped with its induced \sigma and extrinsic tensor K describing the , often relative to a spacelike or null directions. Quantities are computed via surface integrals of terms; for instance, the , an early quasi-local proposal, takes the form E = \frac{\sqrt{A}}{16\pi} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{16\pi} \int_S H^2 \, dA \right), where A is the area of S, and H is the of S in the ambient , which via the Gauss equation relates to the R of S, the norm |K|^2, and other data as \int_S (R - |K|^2 + \dots) \, dA. Desirable quasi-local masses are required to exhibit positivity (non-negative for physically admissible data) and monotonicity, such as non-decreasing under inverse , aligning with Bartnik's criteria for a robust definition that approximates the mass in limits. The origins of this framework trace to Roger Penrose's 1982 proposal, which emphasized quasi-local definitions for energy-momentum and in isolated systems, using twistor methods on 2-surfaces to yield gauge-invariant expressions.

Key Examples

One prominent quasi-local mass definition is the Hawking mass, introduced by in his analysis of gravitational radiation from isolated systems. For a spacelike 2-surface \Sigma with area A and null expansion scalars \theta_+ and \theta_- along the two null directions, the Hawking mass is given by m_H = \frac{\sqrt{A}}{16\pi} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{16\pi} \int_\Sigma \theta_+ \theta_- \, dA \right). This expression measures the deficit in the product of expansions relative to flat space, capturing gravitational effects locally. A key property is its monotonicity under the inverse for round spheres in certain spacetimes, where the mass increases along the flow, providing insight into mass conservation and positivity. The Liu-Yau mass refines quasi-local notions by incorporating a curvature via solutions to Jang's equation, addressing limitations in earlier definitions for non-round surfaces. For a 2-surface \Sigma in a spacelike , with H and the trace of the second fundamental form J from the Jang surface, the Liu-Yau is m_{LY} = \frac{1}{8\pi} \int_\Sigma (H - J) \, dA. This formulation ensures gauge invariance and positivity, with applications to apparent horizons where it bounds the enclosed positively. Other notable examples include the Geroch mass, which serves as a precursor in static spacetimes by using isometric embeddings into to define a positive quantity analogous to total energy, later extended dynamically through flows like inverse to handle time-dependent cases. The Dougan-Mason mass builds on spinorial methods, proposing a construction via self-dual 2-forms on the surface that yields positive energy for generic 2-surfaces bounding matter and gravitational fields. These definitions satisfy aspects of the quasi-local conjecture, such as the Hawking mass being non-negative for outer-trapped surfaces where both scalars are non-positive, ensuring physical consistency in contexts. For a round in , the expansions satisfy \int \theta_+ \theta_- \, dA = 16\pi, yielding m_H = 0, and similarly all these masses reduce to the classical zero value, confirming vanishing in flat .

Global and Asymptotic Mass Notions

Komar Mass

The Komar mass provides a conserved measure of total energy in stationary spacetimes admitting a timelike Killing vector field \xi^\mu. It is defined via a surface integral over a closed 2-surface S, such as a sphere at spatial infinity in asymptotically flat spacetimes, as M_K = \frac{1}{4\pi} \oint_S \star d\xi, where \star denotes the Hodge dual operator on the 2-form d\xi. An equivalent volume integral formulation, useful for computations involving matter or curvature, is M_K = -\frac{1}{8\pi} \int_V \nabla^\mu \xi^\nu R_{\mu\nu} \, dV, where the integration is over a spacelike hypersurface V with boundary S, and R_{\mu\nu} is the Ricci tensor. This definition arises naturally from the geometry of spacetimes with Killing symmetries and captures the gravitational contribution to the total mass. The derivation of the Komar mass stems from the Killing identity satisfied by the vector \xi_\nu: \nabla_\mu \nabla^\mu \xi_\nu = -R_{\nu\lambda} \xi^\lambda. Raising indices and considering the current J^\mu = -\nabla^\nu \nabla_\nu \xi^\mu = R^\mu{}_\nu \xi^\nu, the contracted Bianchi identity \nabla_\mu (R^\mu{}_\nu - \frac{1}{2} R g^\mu{}_\nu) = 0 implies \nabla_\mu R^\mu{}_\nu = \frac{1}{2} \nabla_\nu R. For a Killing vector, \xi^\nu \nabla_\nu R = 0 due to the , ensuring \nabla_\mu J^\mu = 0. Using Einstein's field equations R_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi (T_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} T g_{\mu\nu}), the current becomes J^\mu = 8\pi (T^\mu{}_\nu - \frac{1}{2} T \delta^\mu{}_\nu) \xi^\nu. The conservation of this current implies that the associated charge is independent of the of surface enclosing a given region, via applied to the 3-form \star J. In stationary spacetimes, the existence of the timelike Killing vector ensures time-independence, making the Komar mass a constant of the motion. An equivalent volume expression is M_K = 2 \int_V (T_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} T g_{\mu\nu}) n^\mu \xi^\nu \, dV, where n^\mu is the unit normal to V. In , asymptotically flat spacetimes, the Komar mass is conserved and provides a positive quantity under the , equaling the mass at spatial . For the , ds^2 = -\left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right) dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2M}{r}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2, the timelike Killing vector is \xi = \partial_t, and evaluating the surface at yields M_K = M. Similarly, in the describing a , the Komar mass associated with the timelike Killing vector is the total parameter M, while a separate Komar for the axial Killing vector gives the J. This highlights the Komar framework's ability to separate rotational contributions from the total energy in axisymmetric systems.

ADM and Bondi Masses

The Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass provides a conserved total energy-momentum for asymptotically flat spacetimes, defined at spatial through the asymptotic behavior of the . In Cartesian coordinates, where the is expressed as g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu} with |h_{\mu\nu}| \sim 1/r, the ADM mass is given by M_{\rm ADM} = \frac{1}{16\pi} \lim_{r \to \infty} \int_{S_r} \left( \partial_j h_{ij} - \partial_i h_{jj} \right) n^i \, dA, where S_r is a coordinate of r, n^i is the outward unit normal, and indices are spatial with summation implied. This expression captures the total energy, including gravitational contributions, and is independent of the choice of asymptotically flat coordinates under suitable falloff conditions. Introduced by Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner in 1962, the serves as the total energy observable at spatial i^0 for isolated systems in . It generalizes the Newtonian total energy and, in the weak-field limit, reduces to M_{\rm ADM} = \int T^{00} \, d^3x, the integral of the over . Unlike the Komar mass, which relies on a timelike Killing vector for stationary spacetimes, the ADM mass applies to more general initial data sets without assuming stationarity. The positive mass theorem, proved by Schoen and Yau, asserts that M_{\rm ADM} \geq 0 for asymptotically flat initial data with nonnegative , with equality only for flat . The Bondi mass extends the ADM concept to null infinity \mathcal{I}^+, providing a time-dependent measure of in spacetimes with gravitational . Developed concurrently by Bondi, van der Burg, and Metzner in 1962, it is defined on outgoing null hypersurfaces using the Bondi-Sachs metric expansion, where the mass aspect function m(u,\theta,\phi) is determined from the asymptotic metric components. Specifically, the Bondi mass at u is M_B(u) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int m(u,\theta,\phi) \, d\Omega, with m the mass aspect on \mathcal{I}^+, incorporating gravitational contributions but evaluated without direct terms in the integral; the \sigma influences the evolution of m. In radiative spacetimes, the Bondi mass decreases due to energy carried away by , as quantified by the mass-loss formula \frac{dM_B}{du} = -\frac{1}{4\pi} \int |\dot{N}|^2 \, d\Omega, where \dot{N} is the time derivative of the news function, representing the . At late times, as settles, M_B(u) approaches the ADM mass from spatial infinity, linking the two notions for isolated systems. The positive mass theorem extends to Bondi mass in appropriate settings, ensuring nonnegativity and providing bounds on energy extraction via .

Limit Regimes and Approximations

Newtonian Limit

In the Newtonian limit of , the theory is considered in the regime of weak gravitational fields and slow motions relative to the , where the reduces to a form compatible with Newtonian . Specifically, the components are approximated as g_{00} \approx -(1 + 2\Phi/c^2) and g_{ij} \approx \delta_{ij} (1 - 2\Phi/c^2), with \Phi denoting the Newtonian satisfying |\Phi| \ll c^2. This setup ensures that the equations for test particles recover the Newtonian , \mathbf{a} = -\nabla \Phi, thereby demonstrating the compatibility of with classical in this regime. The Newtonian mass M_N is defined through the integral relation derived from , \nabla^2 \Phi = 4\pi [G](/page/G) \rho, where \rho is the . Integrating over a volume yields M_N = \frac{1}{4\pi [G](/page/G)} \int \nabla^2 \Phi \, d^3x = \int \rho \, d^3x, confirming that the total corresponds to the integrated rest at leading order. In general relativity, this connects to the , which in the Newtonian limit equals the Newtonian M_N plus higher-order contributions from gravitational self-interaction; however, the dominant term remains the total rest . This reduction validates as a natural extension of Newtonian theory, serving as the starting point for the post-Minkowskian expansion that incorporates weak-field effects beyond the strict Newtonian regime. For instance, in the case of a static, spherically symmetric source, the Schwarzschild parameter M matches the Newtonian in the far-field , where the approximates g_{00} \approx -(1 + 2GM/c^2 r).

Post-Newtonian Extensions

The post-Newtonian (PN) formalism provides a perturbative expansion of in powers of v^2/c^2, where v is the typical of the and c is the , applicable to weakly gravitating, slowly moving sources such as those in the solar system or systems. This expansion yields approximate solutions to the for the in the near zone, where distances are much smaller than the wavelength of emitted gravitational radiation. The time-time component of the metric is expanded as g_{00} = -1 + 2U/c^2 - 2U^2/c^4 + \mathcal{O}(1/c^6), where U is the Newtonian incorporating matter densities and velocities, with higher-order terms accounting for relativistic like nonlinear interactions and stress-energy contributions. The spatial components follow similarly, with g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} (1 + 2U/c^2) + \mathcal{O}(1/c^4), ensuring with the weak-field while including 1PN . In the PN framework, the active gravitational mass extends the Newtonian rest mass by incorporating relativistic contributions from , energy, and internal stresses. It is defined as the volume integral M_\mathrm{PN} = \int \left( \rho + \frac{1}{2} \rho v^2 + \Pi + \rho U + \mathcal{O}(1/c^2) \right) d^3x, where \rho is the rest-mass , v the , \Pi the internal energy , and U the ; this expression is conserved at the 1PN order due to the in the PN stress-energy tensor. The Blanchet-Damour formalism, developed in the , refines this by expressing the PN mass as an integral of the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor, valid to higher orders (up to 3.5PN and beyond) and incorporating multipolar expansions for extended sources, which facilitates consistent treatment of generation and backreaction. This PN mass definition is crucial for applications in binary pulsar timing observations, where relativistic parameters including the total mass and individual component masses are fitted from measured orbital decay rates due to gravitational wave emission. For instance, in systems like PSR B1913+16, the observed \dot{P}_b (orbital period derivative) at the 2.5PN order constrains the PN masses to within approximately 0.2% accuracy, confirming general relativity predictions for energy loss and enabling tests of strong-field gravity. A representative example is the 1PN correction to Kepler's third law for quasi-circular orbits, where the orbital frequency satisfies \Omega^2 = (GM/r^3) [1 + (-3 + \nu) (GM/(r c^2)) + \mathcal{O}((GM/(r c^2))^2)], with \nu = \mu/M the symmetric mass ratio; this implies a relative period shift \delta P / P \sim (GM/(c^2 a)), where a is the semi-major axis, shifting the Newtonian relation by order unity times the PN small parameter.

Historical Development

Early Foundations

Prior to the development of , Newtonian gravity treated as the fundamental source of gravitational attraction, with the gravitational force between two bodies proportional to the product of their and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. In this framework, inertial , which determines resistance to acceleration, was empirically observed to equal gravitational , but its origin remained unexplained, prompting philosophical inquiries into the nature of . proposed in the late that inertial frames arise from the overall distribution of matter in the , suggesting that the inertia of a local body is induced by the distant , an idea that profoundly influenced Albert Einstein's thinking on the relational origins of and motion. Einstein's early work on general relativity grappled with coordinate invariance, as illustrated by his "hole argument" developed between 1913 and 1914, which demonstrated that diffeomorphism-invariant theories could lead to physically distinct yet mathematically equivalent descriptions of the same gravitational field in an empty region ("hole") of spacetime, underscoring the challenges in uniquely defining local physical quantities like mass without additional constraints. This issue foreshadowed the difficulties in localizing mass-energy in curved spacetime. In November 1915, Einstein finalized the field equations of general relativity, G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu}, where the Einstein tensor G_{\mu\nu} describes spacetime curvature and the stress-energy tensor T_{\mu\nu} encodes the distribution of mass, energy, momentum, and stress as the source of gravity. Shortly thereafter, in 1916, Karl Schwarzschild derived the first exact solution to these equations for a spherically symmetric, non-rotating mass, introducing the parameter M that corresponds to the total mass of the central body, marking the initial appearance of a quantifiable mass in a relativistic vacuum solution outside the source. Following the establishment of the field equations, Einstein turned to the problem of in 1917–1918, proposing the first energy-momentum pseudotensor to account for the energy of the itself, which is not captured by T_{\mu\nu} and transforms non-tensorially under coordinate changes, reflecting the non-local nature of energy in . In the 1920s and 1930s, advanced the understanding of total energy in static spacetimes by deriving expressions for the integrated energy-momentum, such as the Tolman mass, which combines matter and gravitational contributions for asymptotically flat configurations, providing a for conserved quantities in equilibrium systems. Concurrently, Peter G. Bergmann, working in the 1930s as Einstein's assistant, explored conservation laws in through formulations, emphasizing how symmetries generate conserved quantities akin to , though adapted to the diffeomorphism-invariant structure of the theory. These efforts laid the groundwork for addressing the elusive definition of mass beyond point-particle approximations.

Modern Advances

In the mid-20th century, foundational definitions of mass emerged for specific spacetime symmetries and asymptotic behaviors. The Komar mass was introduced by Arthur Komar in 1959 as a associated with a timelike Killing vector in stationary spacetimes, providing a covariant expression for total energy. Building on methods, Richard Arnowitt, Stanley Deser, and Charles Misner defined the ADM mass in 1960 for asymptotically flat initial data surfaces, capturing the total energy at spatial infinity through surface integrals of the and extrinsic . Concurrently, , M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner developed the Bondi mass in 1962, extending asymptotic definitions to include radiative losses in isolated systems with . The 1970s and 1980s saw progress toward quasi-local notions and rigorous inequalities, addressing limitations of global definitions. Stephen Hawking's 1971 analysis of gravitational radiation in the presence of horizons laid groundwork for associating masses with compact surfaces like event horizons, emphasizing conservation properties in isolated systems. This evolved into broader quasi-local concepts, culminating in positive energy theorems that proved the non-negativity of and Bondi masses under physical conditions. and established the positive mass theorem in 1979 using techniques, demonstrating that the ADM mass is positive for asymptotically flat manifolds with non-negative matter , vanishing only for flat space. provided an alternative proof in 1981, further solidifying these results. Roger Penrose's 1982 review highlighted challenges in quasi-local energy definitions and proposed criteria for physically meaningful constructs, inspiring subsequent developments like the Liu-Yau quasi-local mass. In 2003, Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu and Shing-Tung Yau introduced a quasi-local mass based on isometric embeddings into flat space, proving its positivity via total mean curvature inequalities for physical spacetimes. From the 1990s onward, numerical relativity has relied on quasi-local masses for dynamic simulations, particularly the Hawking mass evaluated on apparent horizons to track black hole masses during mergers. Jonathan Thornburg's algorithms since 1996 have enabled efficient computation of these horizons in 3+1 evolutions, facilitating mass extraction in time-dependent scenarios. The 2015 LIGO detection of GW150914 validated post-Newtonian mass predictions for binary black holes, with extracted masses of approximately 36 and 29 solar masses aligning with inspiral models to within a few percent. In 2021, gravitational wave observations provided evidence confirming Hawking's black hole area theorem, showing that the total event horizon area does not decrease during mergers, further linking mass to horizon properties. Emerging research post-2010 addresses quasi-local masses in anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetimes, where boundary conditions alter asymptotic behaviors; for instance, extensions of Brown-York masses incorporate AdS reference metrics to ensure positivity. In gauge/gravity duality since the 2000s, holographic principles equate bulk gravitational masses to boundary CFT energies, as in the Ryu-Takayanagi formula linking black hole entropies to entanglement measures. Ongoing efforts explore mass alternatives in , such as , where discrete spectra replace classical notions; Ashtekar and collaborators have proposed area-quantized masses consistent with isolated horizon frameworks. These advances reveal persistent incompletenesses, particularly in defining unambiguous quasi-local masses for non-asymptotically flat or quantum regimes.

References

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
    [2101.12570] On the Meaning of Various Mass Definitions for ... - arXiv
    Jan 28, 2021 · In this paper I consider eight masses and show that some of them correspond to the active gravitational mass while the others correspond to the inertial mass.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] The Meaning of Einstein's Equation - arXiv
    Jun 12, 2015 · Since E = mc2 and we are working in units where c = 1, ordinary mass density counts as a form of energy density. Thus a massive object will ...Missing: mc² extension<|control11|><|separator|>
  4. [4]
    [PDF] The Mass of the Gravitational Field - arXiv
    Jan 10, 2019 · In general relativity, the mass of the electromagnetic field clearly plays the gravitational role. In Newtonian gravity, the gravitational field ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Noether's Theorems and Energy in General Relativity - arXiv
    Mar 31, 2021 · This paper has three main aims: first, to give a pedagogical introduction to Noether's two theorems and their implications for energy ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Gravitational Energy - arXiv
    Oct 20, 2005 · Here we show how to calculate gravitational energy in any static and stationary spacetime with isolated sources with a set of observers at rest.
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Equivalence Principle - arXiv
    Apr 12, 2000 · When stated in it's weaker form, it implies that objects of different mass fall at the same rate of acceleration in a uniform gravity field, and ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] arXiv:gr-qc/9809040v2 2 Apr 1999
    Pseudoten- sors are not covariant objects; they inherently depend on the reference frame, and thus by their very nature can- not provide a truly physical local ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] On Tensorial Concomitants and the Non-Existence of a Gravitational ...
    Feb 22, 2012 · It follows that gravitational energy, such as it is in general relativity, is necessarily non-local. Along the way, I prove a result of some ...
  10. [10]
    On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein's theory
    May 12, 1999 · Plain TeX, 7 pages, English translation of the original paper by K. Schwarzschild. Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist ...
  11. [11]
    Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in General ...
    Jun 19, 2009 · The present status of the quasi-local mass, energy-momentum and angular-momentum constructions in general relativity is reviewed.
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Quasi-Local Mass in General Relativity
    More importantly, a good definition of quasi-local mass should help us to control the dynamics of the gravitational field. Hopefully, this may be used to ...
  13. [13]
    [2401.05128] An Overview of Bartnik's Quasi-Local Mass - arXiv
    Jan 10, 2024 · This article provides a concise introduction to Bartnik's quasi-local mass, and surveys a selection of results pertaining to the understanding of it.Missing: criteria monotonicity<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    Quasi-local mass and angular momentum in general relativity
    A new approach to defining energy-momentum and angular momentum in general relativity is presented which avoids some of the difficulties of previous ...
  15. [15]
    [gr-qc/0405109] The Dynamics of General Relativity - arXiv
    May 19, 2004 · Authors:R. Arnowitt (Syracuse Univ.), S. Deser (Brandeis Univ.), C. W. Misner (Princeton Univ.) View a PDF of the paper titled The Dynamics of ...Missing: mass | Show results with:mass
  16. [16]
    Proof of the positive mass theorem. II
    The positive mass theorem states that for a nontrivial isolated physical system, the total energy, which includes contributions from both matter and gravit.
  17. [17]
    Gravitational waves in general relativity, VII. Waves from axi ...
    This paper is divided into four parts. In part A, some general considerations about gravitational radiation are followed by a treatment of the scalar wave ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and ...
    Apr 26, 2006 · The article reviews the current status of a theoretical approach to the problem of the emis- sion of gravitational waves by isolated systems in ...
  19. [19]
    4. Gravitation - Lecture Notes on General Relativity - S. Carroll
    With the normalization fixed by comparison with the Newtonian limit, we can present Einstein's equations for general relativity: Equation 4.52, (4.52). These ...
  20. [20]
    The Operational Meaning of Total Energy of Isolated Systems in ...
    Oct 9, 1997 · In the Newtonian limit, the ADM energy in the rest frame of the system does yield the Newtonian mass. But, as we see from the Carlotto–Schoen ...
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Post-newtonian generation of gravitational waves - Numdam
    for the space-time metric within D~ a weak-field-slow-motion (or post-Newtonian) expansion. Let g~~ (x'~) denote the components of the inner metric in. a ...Missing: g00 | Show results with:g00
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Mach's Principle: the original Einstein's considerations (1907-12)
    This suggests that the entire inertia of a mass point is an effect of the presence of all other masses, which is based on a kind of interaction with the latter ...
  24. [24]
    New Perspectives on the Hole Argument | Foundations of Physics
    Mar 18, 2020 · Einstein formulated various versions of the hole argument in 1913–1914 ... Argument and Einstein's Struggle with the Meaning of Coordinates ...
  25. [25]
    On the Use of the Energy-Momentum Principle in General Relativity
    The primary purpose of this article is to obtain from the general relativity form of the energy-momentum principle certain new consequences.Missing: spacetimes 1920s