This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.
Whether the geodesic equation is dependent on EFE?
To
Michael C Price (
talk·contribs): You said "GE is independent of EFE." and provided a reference. Although many people say that they are independent, none-the-less they are not. See
Post-Newtonian expansion which has an external link to "ON THE MOTION OF PARTICLES IN GENERAL
RELATIVITY THEORY" by
Albert Einstein and
Leopold Infeld. Basically, each elementary particle is viewed as a (possibly charged) (possibly rotating) black-hole — a gravitational monopole. The ability to match these local solutions to the surrounding metric field, without introducing gravitational dipoles and thus negative energy, uniquely determines the motion of the particles.
JRSpriggs (
talk)
21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
That shows that disturbances in the metric are determined by the EFEs, as we would expect, but says nothing about actual particles. I think most physicists would concede that particles are more than just metric distortions, despite Einstein's love of the idea. -- cheers,
Michael C. Pricetalk21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Einstein field equations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The term Einstein field equations (in the title and in the article) should be capitalized, as "Einstein Field Equations", if it is to be considered a name. Otherwise it should be written as "Einstein's field equations". Either way, as it is it does not seem correct.
Could somebody fix this, or explain why I am wrong? Aleck, Smart (
talk)
14:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's anything wrong with "Einstein field equations". Compare with "Lorentz transformation". Check the litrerature:
I agree with DVdm. In this form it is preceded by the definite article ("the Einstein field equations"), and I don't see what might feel incorrect with this. The form of standard descriptive phrases like this without capitalization and without the possessive form seems to be the modern norm for "named" concepts in physics. —
Quondum16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
"The existence of a cosmological constant is thus equivalent to the existence of a non-zero vacuum energy." Strictly speaking, this is invalid, or at least the argument given is incomplete: one cannot draw the conclusion of equivalence from only one component of the stress–energy tensor. One needs to work from some constraint on the form that the vacuum energy stress–energy tensor takes to reach the conclusion given, for example that this tensor is the same in every frame of reference, thus allowing one to deduce the other components of the tensor. I do not have a reference to hand to complete the stated logic. —
Quondum16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Vacuum is understood to be the state of maximum symmetry. This is only possible if
This is not obvious to the reader of this article; indeed, "vacuum energy" is undefined in this article: a reader should not need to follow a link and read another article to determine this key fact. So a statement to the effect of what you have just said would be needed in this article. —
Quondum22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
This edit seems to suggest that "energy density" does not have the same units as "pressure". This kind of thing is easy for me to get wrong (kinda fiddly), but I am failing to make sense of this. The way I figure it, a quantity called "energy density" has the SI unit J⋅m−3, and a quantity called "pressure" has the SI unit N⋅m−2 = J⋅m−3, which is the same unit. I am aware that the components of the tensor corresponding to these quantities might have other units by convention, but here we are talking about SI quantities, not tensor components. I'd be glad to have an error on my part pointed out, but for the moment I am just not getting it. The way I see it, the units of Λ (either m–2 or s–2) affects the exponent of c on the very right, but we will always have ρvac = –pvac without any other constant factors. —
Quondum20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I guess the article is missing something to indicate which convention of units is in use for each tensor. There are enough variations to make my head spin. —
Quondum22:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
With the adjustment from κ = 8πG/c4 to κ = 8πG/c2 (which, to be sure, I like since it is the same as Einstein's original choice), the footnote [6], which is intended to refer to the other common definition, is now out of sync. Since I am not familiar with how the units of the tensor components are chosen in common use, I cannot update this with any confidence. Could someone take a look at this? —
Quondum00:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Note that the article says "The EFE is a tensor equation relating a set of symmetric 4 × 4 tensors. Each tensor has 10 independent components. The four Bianchi identities reduce the number of independent equations from 10 to 6." -
DVdm (
talk)
14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)reply
See
Riemann curvature tensor#Symmetries and identities. If you take the covariant divergence of the Einstein field equations, the right-hand side becomes zero by virtue of the conservation of energy and momentum. The Bianchi identities make the left-hand side reduce to zero also, giving four identities.
I find the leading sentence grates - "In the general theory of relativity, the Einstein field equations (EFE; also known as Einstein's equations) relate the geometry of spacetime to the distribution of matter within it.[1]". The equations do _not_ do this. They relate the geometry of spacetime to the distribution and motion of energy-momentum. I suggest that some way is found to make the lead correct while perhaps not scaring people off with terms like "stress-energy tensor" so early.
Elroch (
talk)
14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Article issues and classification
The article is tagged as having "unsourced statements from October 2014" and "too technical from May 2021". The
criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. There is far too much unsourced content. Criteria #4 states, "The article is reasonably well-written.". The article needs to be reassessed.
External links
There are seven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Is the value for the gravitational constant too accurate?
In the section on mathematical form, the Einstein Gravitational constant is given a value accurate to 13 significant digits:
κ = 2.076647442844 × 10-43 N-1
This is a question (not a statement of certain fact), but to the best of my understanding Newton's gravitational constant G is known only to 5-6 significant digits: please see NIST's "Newtonian constant of gravitation" page:
What I know - and this has been true for many years now - is that Newton's G is known to 5-6 digits because Gravity is much weaker than other forces, and in a terrestrial lab experiment this is the best that can be done.
Another reference (
[5]) sheds light on the latest science. Measurements from gravitational waves show that the speed of light and the speed of GW is the same - to 15 significant digits. I am guessing that this latter fact confused the original author who thought that G was also known to such accuracy, but so sorry...
So just asking what is the reference for the higher accuracy? It is unreferenced as it stands.
All the reliable sources I can find point to G having a 5-6 digit certainty, while the speed of GW vs c makes sense to be accurate down to 15 digits, since measuring the presence of a GW is much easier than measuring its exact strength. Measuring the exact strength of gravity would be difficult to do on Earth because of interference from large objects like mountains and the Moon, so it makes sense that it only has 5-6 significant digits.
My personal opinion is that changing the value of Einstein’s gravitational constant as listed in the article to only include this many digits is a good idea - we don’t actually know that is has that value because we don’t know what G is exactly.
OverzealousAutocorrect (
talk)
18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
By definition, The right-hand value is known with infinite precision:
Therefore, the relative uncertainty in the values of and is exactly equal. It is well-known and well-documented that is very hard to determine, which is expressed in the CODATA uncertainty. Just look at the table captioned "Recommended values for G" in
Gravitational constant § Modern value. The high precision with which is presented here, which is not reflected in its presentation in reliable sources,* is therefore totally unwarranted. --
Lambiam06:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
*As presented in reliable sources, we find, for example, 2.077 × 10−43 N−1,[6]2.08 × 10−43 N−1,[7] and, in the
cgs system, 2.07 × 10−48cm−1 g−1 sec2 [sic].[8]