Static energetics in gravity W E V Barker,1, 2, a) A N Lasenby,1, 2, b) M P Hobson,1, c) and W J Handley1, 2, d) 1)Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK 2)Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK (Dated: 6 March 2020)

A stress-energy tensor, τab, for linear gravity in the physical spacetime, M, approximated by a flat background, Mˇ , and adapted to the harmonic gauge, was recently proposed by Butcher, Hobson and Lasenby. By removing gauge constraints and imposing full metrical general relativity, we find a natural generalisation of τab to the pseudotensor of Einstein, Etab. Møller’s pseudotensor, M tab, is an alternative to Etab formulated using tetrads, and is thus naturally adapted to e.g. Einstein-Cartan gravity. Gauge theory gravity uses geometric algebra to reproduce Einstein-Cartan gravity, and is a Poincar´egauge theory for the spacetime algebra: the tetrad and spin connection appear as gauge fields on Minkowski space, M4. We obtain the pseudotensor of Møller for gauge theory gravity, M t(a), using a variational approach, also identifying a potentially interesting recipe for constructing conserved currents in that theory. We show that in static, spherical spacetimes containing a gravitational mass MT the pseudotensors in the spacetime algebra, M t(a) and Et(a), describe gravitational stress-energy as if the gravitational potential were a scalar (i.e. Klein-Gordon) field, ϕ, coupled to gravitational mass density, %, on the Minkowski background M4. The old Newtonian formula ϕ = −MT /r successfully describes even strong fields in this picture. The Newtonian limit of this effect was previously observed in τab on Mˇ for linear gravity. We also draw fresh attention to the conserved mass of a static system, MT < MT . When compared with either % or the density of the Komar mass in the Newtonian limit, MT produces a local virial theorem – such behaviour is usually associated with the proper mass of the system, MT > MT . We observe that the gravitational energy of Einstein and Møller add to MT on M4 to give MT . We demonstrate the Klein-Gordon correspondence and mass functions using the ‘Schwarzschild star’ solution for an incompressible perfect fluid ball.

PACS numbers: 04.20.Cv, 04.50.Kd

I. INTRODUCTION through the generic counterexample: a stationary space- time is furnished with a global timelike Killing vector, a It is widely accepted that the energy contained in a K , so the quantity Z gravitational field cannot in general be localised. This ae paradigm, which developed over the century following the QT = abcdT Ke (2) advent of general relativity1, is often regarded as a con- Σt sequence of the equivalence principle. It is equally well is independent of the Cauchy hypersurface Σt used to accepted that gravitational fields carry such an energy in define it, and hence constitutes a conserved charge. the first place. The ebb and flow of energy-momentum In contrast to energy localisation, the global picture between matter and gravity explains the emission and re- of gravitational energetics is often less ambiguous. This cent detection of gravitational waves, with both processes is the case for many spacetimes of astrophysical inter- mediated by the covariant conservation of the stress- est, which can be ‘patched on’ to the universe at large energy tensor of matter because they are asymptotically flat. In such cases the Newtonian regime at spatial infinity provides an observer arXiv:1811.09844v2 [gr-qc] 5 Mar 2020 a ∇aTb = 0. (1) with a clear account of the total gravitational mass, MT , of the system. Komar4 proposed a derived quantity for Counter-intuitively, this law states that the energy and stationary asymptotically flat systems, designed to agree momentum of matter, whose densities are the contrac- with precisely this Newtonian value. The integral theo- a tions of Tb with an observer’s four-velocity, are not gen- rem can be used to obtain a Komar mass ‘density’ which erally conserved in the presence of a gravitational field. is proportional to the Ricci tensor. Such a picture, in ab Many introductory texts (e.g. 2 and 3) are quick to ob- which MT is exclusively distributed wherever T is non- serve such energy-momentum exchange is not inevitable vanishing, is dissatisfying because it does not reflect the common assumption that part of the gravitational mass is locked away in the gravitational field, a view explored more recently by Katz, Lynden-Bell and Biˇc´ak5,6. The a)Electronic mail: [email protected] notion of asymptotic flatness was developed during the b)Electronic mail: [email protected] golden age of general relativity to imply conformal isom- c)Electronic mail: [email protected] etry to a bounded region of some curved, nonphysical d)Electronic mail: [email protected] spacetime (in the case of Minkowski spacetime, which 2 clearly has asymptotic flatness, the nonphysical space- In the context of our opening remarks, it is not sur- time is Einstein’s static universe). This enabled the mass prising that energy-momentum complexes suffer greatly of Komar to be generalised to that of Bondi7 which is under the principle of equivalence. Many authors have evaluated at various sections of null infinity8. At spatial objected that upon falling, the associated pseudoten- infinity, the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativ- sors promptly vanish along with their local account of ity attributed to Arnowitt, Deser and Misner9 provides a gravitational energy. Consequently their deployment is further definition of MT reliant on asymptotically Carte- usually confined to privileged quasi-Cartesian coordinate sian coordinates. systems, though this is at least compatible with the tech- For those dissatisfied with the global picture, attempts niques of the Hamiltonian formulation at spatial infinity. to localise gravitational energetics usually take the form Just as the Newtonian regime provides a valuable of energy-momentum complexes – objects of questionable global concept of gravitational energy, so it has proven gauge invariance which emulate a combined stress-energy useful in energy localisation: from the perspective of tensor for matter and gravity. A basic requirement of a linear gravity on a flat background, pseudotensors and complex following from our discussion is that it integrates tensors are indistinguishable. Biˇc´akand Schmidt13 have in some sense to give MT . A further requirement is that charted the freedom and ambiguity that is to be found it be identically conserved, as with the matter stress en- at lowest perturbative order in the construction of grav- ergy tensor in special relativity. Conservation is built in itational stress-energy tensors. Their analysis includes by defining the complex to be the gradient of a superpo- a symmetric tensor τab developed in a recent paper by tential constructed from the dynamical variables of grav- Butcher, MPH and ANL14. If the physical spacetime, b 10 ity. The first complex Eθa was proposed by Einstein M, is an example of V4, this tensor is constructed in in 1916, though the corresponding superpotential is at- the background spacetime Mˇ (which is nothing more 11 tributed to Freud , than Minkowski space, M4), to account for the local non- conservation of matter energy-momentum implied by (1). θ b = ∂ Ψ bc, (3) E a cF a In the harmonic gauge, it is the unique symmetric ten- bc sor to do so. A curious observation made in 14 is that where Freud’s superpotential F Ψa is a function of the metric and its first derivatives and is skew-symmetric in τab treats the Newtonian gravitational potential as if it its final pair of indices. The utility of the ‘special’ con- were a matter-generated Klein-Gordon field, but as with servation law any linear effect this correspondence should not be over- interpreted. In 15 a similar procedure led to a tensor for b ∂bEθa = 0, (4) gravitational spin. The same authors demonstrated in 16 that these tensors are the canonical Noether currents in is evident when the field equations are used to collect the b Einstein-Cartan gravity under a perturbative expansion second derivatives of the metric appearing in Eθa into b of the Einstein-Cartan Lagrangian which they developed Ta , so partitioning the energetics of matter and gravity in 17. b √ b b Eθa = −g(Ta + Eta ). (5) The succession of Einstein-Cartan theory was (and largely remains) formal, with the vast majority of the b The remaining quantity Eta is known as Einstein’s pseu- literature addressing general relativity. Nevertheless, the dotensor. Over the four decades following the intro- advent of the tetrad and spin connection eventually gave duction of (5), the evident freedom in the choice of rise to a rich new class of gauge theories of gravity. superpotential led many authors to develop their own The Poincar´egroup was fully gauged by Kibble18 who 3 complexes, including Landau and Lifshitz , Komar and considered an action analogous to that of Einstein and Møller. During this time, the scope of the geometric the- Hilbert in which the gravitational gauge fields are min- ory of gravitation was expanded from the general relativ- imally coupled to matter. The unifying mathematical ity of Riemann space, V4, to the Einstein-Cartan theory language of geometric algebra has also been brought to of Riemann-Cartan space, U4. This resulted in the ti- bear on the problem by gauging in the geometric alge- tle of ‘dynamical variable of gravity’ passing from the bra of Minkowski spacetime, or spacetime algebra. Dur- metric to its ‘square root’, which is the tetrad or vier- ing the procedure, there arise natural ways to implement bein. Having encountered difficulties with his early met- minimal coupling and an Einstein-Hilbert action. The 12 rical attempts, Møller constructed a new superpoten- result19,20, known as gauge theory gravity, appears quite bc tial M Ψa from the tetrad and its first derivatives. Un- alien when compared to Kibble’s theory, but both may be like its predecessors, Møller’s superpotential is a tensor re-interpreted geometrically21 as Einstein-Cartan theory under the usual diffeomorphisms of the spacetime, but in which torsion is sourced by material spin. not under Lorentz rotations of the tetrads. The corre- There are two common alternative approaches to con- sponding energy-momentum complex structing energy-momentum complexes. Rather than b √ b b composing the relevant superpotential from the begin- M θ = −g(T + M t ), (6) a a a ning, it may prove efficient to isolate it by ‘splitting’ the and pseudotensor are otherwise fairly analogous to those Einstein equations. Hestenes22 has demonstrated that of Einstein. this method lends itself very strongly to gauge theory 3 gravity in the spacetime algebra, where the Einstein ten- which may appear in either manifold. The background sor can be written in his unitary form. Accordingly he is furnished with four Lorentzian coordinate functions, obtains the complexes, or splits, of Einstein, Landau- {xµ}, labelled by Greek indices, so that in Mˇ the vector µ a a b Lifshitz and Møller, along with one which is original. The ∂/∂x has componentse ˇµ which obeye ˇµ eˇν gˇab = ηµν other method is that referred to by Møller as variational: ˇ b and ∇aeˇµ = 0. In M the image coordinate func- it may be possible to construct an alternative Lagrangian tions {yµ} are formed by the pullback of the xµ at any µ µ µ to that of Einstein and Hilbert, from which the required p ∈ M: y (p) = φ∗(x )(p) = x ◦ φ(p). From these energy-momentum complex follows as an (affine) canon- image coordinates a new basis ∂/∂yµ has components ical stress-energy tensor. Møller employed both varia- ∗ a a a (φ eµ) =e ˇµ . Crucially, whilst thee ˇµ are trivially com- tional and superpotential methods when proposing (6), ponents of Killing vectors in Mˇ , the same is not generally whilst the variational approach was suggested by Ein- a true of the eµ in M because of the presence of the gravi- stein for (5). Unlike the geometric theories of Møller’s tational field. In the physical spacetime this leads to the day, gauge theory gravity was developed from the very non-conservation of the four local four-current densities beginning as a Lagrangian field theory, so one would ex- of matter energy-momentum, J a, which are formed by pect it to be well suited to the variational method. µ contracting Tpq with the new basis vectors

We use the methods of gauge theory gravity and the a a b spacetime algebra to provide a fresh perspective on the ∇aJµ = Tb ∇aeµ 6= 0. (7) localisation of MT and the role of the conserved charge According to the most conventional perturbation scheme QT – we confine our discussion to static spacetimes con- ∗ ∗ ab ab ab 2 taining perfect fluids without spin. In the ensuing ab- φ ga =ˇgab + hab, φ g =g ˇ − h + O(h ), (8) sence of torsion, gauge theory gravity may be geometri- cally interpreted as general relativity. In our treatment, the method of 14 is to cancel this matter stress-energy we will relate the formalisms of Butcher, Einstein and ‘leak’ as it is manifest in a flat background with the Møller. equal and opposite covariant divergence of some tensor, ˇ ˇ The remainder of this article is set out as follows. Sec- τ ∼ ∇h∇h. This tensor is thus determined by the back- tion II pertains to general relativity. In Section II A ground relation through to II D we review the approach of Butcher et ˇ a  ∗ a b
µ (2) al and see how it might be extended to nonlinear grav- ∇ τaq = − φ Tb ∇aeµ eˇ q , (9) ity. In Section II E we make some observations on the where objects to nth order in h will be identified with relativistic mass of static, spherically symmetric perfect a parenthesised superscript. Remarkably, a symmetric fluids. superpotential-free ansatz for τpq combined with the har- Section III addresses some of the issues raised in Sec- monic gauge constraint, tion II using the gauge theory approach, beginning with ˇ a¯ ¯ 1 a brief introduction to gauge theory gravity. In Sec- ∇ hab = 0, hab = hab − 2 ηabh, (10) tions III A and III B we discuss energy localisation for- was found to yield a unique solution to (9): malisms in gauge theory gravity as obtained through the 1 ¯ab variational approach, in particular the pseudotensor of κτ¯pq = ∇ˇ phab∇ˇ qh . (11) Møller. This enables us to generalise the Klein-Gordon 4 correspondence of τab in Section III C, and gives us a Note that the overbar notation when dealing with ten- new perspective on the mass of Komar in Section III D. sors signifies the trace-reverse, and has quite a different Conclusions follow in Section IV, along with appendices meaning in geometric algebra. addressing gauge theory methods in geometric algebra. Most of the notation is introduced as it arises, but throughout we will use the geometrised units c = G = 1 B. A non-linear generalisation so that κ = 8π and the signature ηab = diag(+, −, −, −). As we established above, the tensor τpq lives in Mˇ , and we would like to augment it with higher order corrections in h. We can invent a new tensor for the full series II. ENERGY-MOMENTUM AND MASS IN GENERAL RELATIVITY ∞ ∞ ˇ X ˇ(n) ? X ˇ(n) Tpq = T pq = τpq + T pq, (12) A. Previous work on the flat background n=2 n=3 ˇ anticipating Tpq to be the pushforwards of some Tpq in We begin by providing a terse introduction to the for- M. A natural extension of the theory to third perturba- malism of 14. This work is grounded in the mapping tive order is to introduce the ansatz Tˇ(3) ∼ h∇ˇ h∇ˇ h to φ : M → Mˇ from the physical spacetime, M, with the equation metric gab to a flat background, Mˇ , with metricg ˇab. 23 ˇ a ˇ(3) ?  ∗ a b
µ (3) Here, Roman letters label Penrose’s abstract indices ∇ T aq = − φ Tb ∇aeµ eˇ q , (13) 4 however this has no solution under (8) with or without harmonic coordinate condition). It may be written com- the harmonic gauge condition24. One way to proceed pactly in trace-reversed form as the following function of is to generalize the form of the background covariant spacetime: derivative on the LHS of (13) by introducing some ‘fric- ¯ 1 βγ εα tion connection’ of the form F (1) ∼ ∇ˇ h which couples to κTσλ = 4 g g ∂σgεβ∂λgαγ − ∂σgεα∂λgβγ
(17) τpq. This connection will be constructed so as to account + ∂αgσε∂λgβγ + ∂αgβγ ∂λgσε − 2∂βgσε∂λgαγ . for the apparently ineradicable non-conservation as it ap- pears even in Mˇ . Accordingly, the third-order correction must instead obey C. Einstein’s pseudotensor ˇ a ˇ(3) ap (1)c (1)c
∇ T aq − gˇ F paτcq + F qaτpc Two sinister features of the function (17) are imme- (14)  ∗ a b
µ (3) diately obvious: firstly it is asymmetric in its indices = − φ T ∇ae eˇ . b µ q and secondly it emphatically does not constitute a ten- This turns out to be very fruitful. The ansatz for Tˇ(3) sor definition. These features are explained by a third pq observation, that (17) are identically the components of cannot be solved uniquely, but it gives a space of asym- 27 b µ the transposed Einstein pseudotensor, Et , in the {y } metric third-order corrections to τpq. More importantly, a by repeating the procedure at higher orders it quickly coordinate system (n)a becomes apparent that the F bc are in fact terms from Tσλ = Etλσ. (18) the perturbative expansion in h of the Levi-Civita con- In hindsight it is easy to see why we have arrived at nection, familiar in the physical spacetime as Γa or in ab the oldest description of gravitational energetics in gen- torsion-free general relativity as the Christoffel symbols, eral relativity. We mentioned in Section I that Einstein’s  a . Things now become clearer: the apparent ‘fric- bc energy-momentum complex admits a special conserva- tion’ in the background is nothing more than curvature tion law. Given the partitioning in (5) this law becomes creeping into the theory at higher orders. Because the √ a
√ a
Levi-Civita connection is a function of the gradient of ∂a −gEtb = −∂a −gTb . (19) the metric, it makes its first appearance in the third- If we cast (19) in the {yµ} coordinates and differentiate order equation, (14), spoiling the flat-space picture as it the metric determinant according to does so: the quadratic τpq is a special case that makes 14 √ 1 √ µν √  µ possible. ∂α −g = − 2 −gg ∂αgµν = −g αµ , (20) It is now easy to extend the theory to all orders. We aim to soak up the matter stress-energy leak directly we are left (once the indices on Tαβ are swapped) with in the physical spacetime with the equal and opposite precisely the motivating equation (16), which is the gen- covariant divergence of some gravitational stress-energy eralisation of the local conservation law of 14. Whilst four-currents, J a. We will suppose these currents to be Etpq is the same quadratic function of the metric deriva- µ tives in all coordinate systems (and hence is a pseudoten- formed from some tensor Ta e b = J a, to be identified b µ µ sor), T was set up as a tensor that coincides with t as a gravitational stress-energy tensor. Note in particu- pq E pq in the {yµ} coordinate system. As with the pseudotensor lar that so long as T sports Penrose indices we really pq of Landau and Lifshitz, it is possible to write t as a do mean it to be a tensor-valued object, which may be E αβ quadratic function of the  α , so T can be constructed covariantly differentiated to give βγ pq ˇ a ˇ µ as a quadratic function of the ∇beµ and ∇be a, using the a a b
a µ ∇aJµ = ∇a T beµ eµ and e a to contract away all Lorentz indices. This (15) does not of course constitute progress, because we have = −∇ J a = − 1 ∇ Gae b
. a µ κ a b µ simply recast a pseudotensor as a tensor-valued function In the last equality, the matter stress-energy tensor is of a privileged coordinate system. ˇ translated into curved spacetime using the Einstein equa- In the harmonic gauge and to lowest order, Tpq and τpq tions. In general, the only such tensor that satisfies (15) do not agree, since 25 is proportional to the Einstein tensor itself . To dis- ˇ¯ (2) 1 ¯ab 1 a κT = ∇ˇ phab∇ˇ qh + ∇ˇ ah∇ˇ qh tance ourselves from this fact, notice that (15) takes on pq 4 4 p (21) µ 1 ˇ ˇ ab a tidier form in the {y } coordinate system. In this case, − 2 ∇ahpb∇qh , the components of the basis are given by the Kronecker 28 delta, so (15) reduces to which differs from κτ¯pq by the last two terms . There is no contradiction here because so long as the harmonic   α  α β α β condition holds it can readily be shown that κ ∂αT λ + βα T λ = −Gβ αλ . (16) ˇ aˇ(2)
∇ T aq − τaq = 0. (22) We want Tµν to be second order in the first derivatives of the metric. Using therefore the ansatz T ∼ ∂g∂g it Hence, the tensor τpq is formed by trimming an iden- can be shown that (16) has a unique26 solution with- tically conserved quantity (a ‘gauge current’) from the out the need for further gauge constraints (such as the linearised Einstein pseudotensor in the harmonic gauge. 5

D. The linearised Klein-Gordon correspondence

The tensor τab lends itself well to the Newtonian limit of gravitostatics. An inertial observer with velocity vµ near a perfect fluid in hydrostatic equilibrium finds the matter stress-energy tensor to be Tˇµν = ρvµvν to lowest order in h (which is to say they can neglect pressure). The linearised field equations in the harmonic gauge 2¯ ∇ˇ hab = −2κTˇab, (23) yield the familiar Newtonian potential

hµν = 2ϕ(2vµvν − ηνµ), (24) which obeys ∇ˇ 2ϕ = −κρ/2. (25) To give a minimal example, a compact spherically sym- metric distribution of total mass MT gives rise to the FIG. 1. The picture of energetics to be developed in Sec- external potential ϕ = −MT/r and metric perturbation tion III C using isotropic coordinates in the gauge theory ap- ds2 = (1 − 2M G/r) dt2 − (1 + 2M G/r) dx2 (26) proach. The pseudotensors of Møller and Einstein both de- T T i scribe gravitational stress-energy as if the gravitational poten- 2 tial, ϕ, were a real Klein-Gordon field, generated by a source where dxi = dxidxi for i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. This is the New- tonian limit of the rectangular isotropic line element for density, %, which in turn integrates to give the gravitational Schwarzschild spacetime: we therefore see that isotropic mass, MT , of the system. Here, for a pair of highly relativistic coordinates arise naturally in linear gravitostatics. Schwarzschild stars approaching collapse to a black hole, the Newtonian form of the potential, ϕ = −M /r, is preserved An apparently unrelated way (see 14) to arrive at the T 29 right down to the stellar surface. We have already seen in Sec- field equation (25) is through the Klein-Gordon theory tion II D how this ‘Klein-Gordon correspondence’ is reflected 1 α by the tensor of Butcher in the Newtonian limit. KGL = κ ∂αϕ∂ ϕ − ϕρ, (27) which highlights a very curious feature of τab. Since asymptotically flat in the sense discussed above, spher- κτ¯ = 2∂ ϕ∂ ϕ, (28) µν µ ν ically symmetric30 and regular everywhere. Of course, we see that τµν is describing the stress and energy bound this restricts us to precisely those spacetimes which were up in the Newtonian potential as if it were a scalar field of earliest astrophysical interest, since they accommo- generated by matter. At linear order there is of course date the unspun relativistic stars. Of such stars, we room for this ‘Klein-Gordon correspondence’ to appear will consider only those composed of a perfect fluid. It coincidental, but equipped with the generalisation to Ein- is very convenient indeed to study these systems using stein’s pseudotensor, we will show in Section III C that Schwarzschild-like coordinates, with general line element the principle does in fact apply at all orders – this is il- 2 A 2 B 2 2 2 2 2 lustrated in Figure 1 below for a pair of Schwarzschild ds = e dt − e d¯r − r¯ (dθ + sin θdφ ). (29) stars with the same gravitational mass but different den- Such coordinates have the advantage of preserving the sities. To make this generalisation, we will need not only ratio of 2π between the radial coordinater ¯ and the proper isotropic coordinates, but some notion of the flat back- distance about the equator. Less frequently used (we ground, Mˇ , in full gravity. Such a construct is provided have met them already in Section II D and shall use them naturally by the gauge theory approach. extensively in Section III C) are the isotropic coordinates,

ds2 = eAdt2 − eC [dr2 − r2(dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2)]. (30) E. Mass in general relativity The stress-energy tensor of a perfect fluid with proper Before addressing energy localisation in the gauge the- density ρ, pressure P and bulk four-velocity ua is ory approach, we will make some observations regarding relativistic mass. The spacetimes of particular interest to T ab = (ρ + P ) uaub − P gab. (31) us will be not only stationary but static. Consequently there will be a global timelike Killing vector Ka, such Of the Einstein equations, we will particularly require that if a Cauchy surface Σt were defined to be a con- 0 −B −B 2 a κρ = B e /r¯ + (1 − e )/r¯ , tour of the Killing parameter t, K would be orthogo- (32) nal to that surface. Furthermore the spacetimes will be κP = A0e−B/r¯ − (1 − e−B)/r¯2, 6 where throughout this section, prime denotes differenti- which, up to a normalisation of Ka corresponds to the ation with respect tor ¯. Some very useful derived results quantity mentioned in (2). In some sense M is ‘compli- are then mentary’ to M, in that it allows us to define an alterna- tive binding energy 2M 1 + 4πr¯3P/M
A0 = , (33) r¯2 (1 − 2M/r¯) MT = MT − MB. (42) and The choice of signs in (40) and (42) is to reflect the fact that binding energy so defined should be positive in or- A0 = −2P 0/ (ρ + P ) . (34) der for the star to be stable: the behaviour of the mass functions MT and MT is compared in Figure 2 for the From (33) and (34) we can assemble the famous Tolman- Schwarzschild star of gravitational mass MT at various Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation degrees of gravitational collapse. Having introduced M, we notice that the line element (29) suggests a second M (ρ + P ) 1 + 4πr¯3P/M
P 0 = − , (35) quantity which integrates to MT . The first step is to r¯2 (1 − 2M/r¯) expand (41) by parts which is used to construct solutions for relativistic stars. Z R¯ 0 0 A/2+B/2 The first equation in (32) can be written as MT = MT − dr¯˜ M (A + B ) e /2. (43) 0  −B
0 2 r¯ 1 − e = 8πr¯ ρ. (36) Then, we can apply relations (33) and (34) to show

The only integral that guarantees a regular metric at the Z R¯ origin is dr¯˜12πr¯˜2P eA/2+B/2 0 −B e = 1 − 2M/r¯ (37) Z R¯ = − dr¯˜4πr¯˜3(P 0 + P (A0 + B0)/2)eA/2+B/2 (44) where we have introduced our first mass function 0 R¯ Z r¯ Z 2 ˜ ˜3 0 0 A/2+B/2 M = dr¯˜4πr¯˜ ρ. (38) = dr¯4πr¯ (ρA − PB )e /2. 0 0 As is pointed out in 31, the mass defined by (38) does From here, by inserting the two field equations of (32) not correspond to any invariant quantity whatever, and and comparing with (43) we see that if a mass function serves a convenient but potentially misleading ‘book- is defined by keeping’ purpose in Schwarzschild-like coordinates. At Z r¯ the surface of the fluid,r ¯ = R¯, where we are obliged M = dr¯˜4πr¯˜(ρ + 3P )eA/2+B/2, (45) to glue eB to the Schwarzschild volume element, we find 0 ¯ M(R) = MT where MT is the ‘total gravitational mass’. we will have agreement with the gravitational mass at We established already in the introduction that MT is the stellar surface a good physical quantity in these systems, and may be recovered through the methods of Komar and Bondi or MT = MT . (46) Arnowitt, Deser and Misner. The second mass we will consider has a clearer physical motivation at arbitrary The formula (45) for MT corresponds to a very powerful radius. It is the integral of the matter density over the definition of gravitational mass in stationary, asymptot- proper volume, ically flat spacetimes known as the Komar mass. We will briefly outline the physical motivation behind this Z r¯ quantity, bearing in mind that the techniques used in the ˜ ˜2 B/2 M = dr¯4πr¯ ρe . (39) derivation – ubiquitous in general relativity – will later 0 need to be imported into the gauge theory of Section III. The quantity MT is known as the proper mass of the If a unit test mass is suspended above the star, so that it fluid. The proper and gravitational masses are related has four-velocity ua = Ka/K, the force applied at spatial through a quantity MB which is traditionally taken to infinity to keep it there is be the gravitational binding energy b Fa = u ∇bKa. (47) MT = MT + MB. (40) If such a mass is distributed over closed 2-surface ∂V Let us now use the line element (29) to introduce a fur- which contains the star, the observer at infinity must ther mass function, apply an outward force Z r¯ I 2 A/2+B/2 2 a b M = dr¯˜4πr¯˜ ρe , (41) F = |d x|n u ∇bKa, (48) 0 ∂V 7 where na is the unit normal to ∂V and |d2x| is the scalar and substituting with (35) we find volume element on ∂V . Of course, the static condition ¯ ensures nau = 0. Now as ∂V is retracted to the asymp- Z R a M = M + dr¯˜4πrMρ¯˜ + O(λ3) totically flat region at spatial infinity, this force may be T T 0 (54) unambiguously equated with the gravitational mass, and Z R¯ 3 0 3 accordingly the Komar mass is defined κF = 2MT . An = MT − dr¯˜4πr¯˜ P + O(λ ). application of the Killing equation to (48) allows the Ko- 0 mar mass associated with V to be written in the powerful If we consider the star to be made up of an ideal gas, a language of differential forms final application of integration by parts shows that the I I quantity MB is equivalent in the Newtonian limit to twice 1 c d M = − κ abcd∇ K = αab. (49) the internal kinetic energy ∂V ∂V Z R¯ 2 3 In (49), abcd is the natural volume element on M im- MT = MT + dr¯˜12πr¯˜ P + O(λ ), (55) 0 posed by gab and αab is the resultant two-form to be in- tegrated over ∂V . Use of the metric to define volume ele- which is a statement of the virial theorem. ments carries profound advantage when applying Stokes’ Conversely, it is possible to do exactly the same thing theorem: with the quantity defined by (41). MT can be related to I Z MT by an application of integration by parts. Using (34) αab = dαabc. (50) and (35) this produces ∂V V Z R¯ 0 0 A/2+B/2 In the absence of torsion, the operation d which gener- MT = MT − dr¯˜ M (A + B ) e /2 ates an n + 1-form from an n-form is independent of the 0 derivative operator used to perform it, allowing for the Z R¯ ˜ ˜ A/2+3B/2 (56) natural choice, ∇a. Since the covariant derivative of the = MT − dr¯4πrM¯ (ρ + P ) e natural volume element vanishes, (50) can be used to 0 Z R¯ write (49) as a volume integral over the second covariant ˜ ˜ 0 A/2+3B/2 0 a = MT + dr¯8πrMP¯ e /A . derivative of K – in this form (50) is known as Gauss’ 0 theorem. The well known relation for Killing vectors32 If we now expand (56) in the Newtonian limit we will a b b a find ∇a∇ K = −RaK , (51) A/2+3B/2 0 2 then enables the Komar mass to be written e /A =r ¯ /2M + O (λ) . (57) Z Hence as before, a second application of integration by 2 3 a b MT = κ |d x|Rabu K , (52) parts gives a complementary statement of the virial the- V orem 3 where |d x| is the scalar volume element on V . By ex- Z R¯˜ 2 3 posing the Ricci tensor in the integrand, we see that the MT = MT − dr¯˜12πr¯˜ P + O(λ ). (58) contribution from the vacuum vanishes, and so the two- 0 surface may be arbitrarily deformed around the star it Having introduced the quantities M and M, the neces- encloses. To arrive at (52), the Ricci tensor (i.e. a gravi- sity of integration by parts in obtaining (55) and (58) tational quantity) was extracted through an integral the- might be understood as a consequence of relying on orem, reminding us of the ultimate connection between the coordinate-dependent quantity, M, to define gravi- geometry and gravity in general relativity. We will later tational mass. An immediately striking feature of (45) see how to reproduce the Komar mass using the gauge in the context of the virial theorem is the factor of ρ+3P theory approach, which eschews such a connection. By in the integrand. Following this suggestive factor, we can applying the Einstein equations to the perfect fluid, (31), write an alternative to (58) which expresses the virial the- it is easy to see how (52) is equivalent to the formula given orem as a local property of the perfect fluid, i.e. true at in (45). all radii In the Newtonian limit we can expectr/M ¯ always to Z r¯˜ be large within the star, and to be of the same order as M = M − dr¯˜12πr¯˜2P + O(λ3). (59) −1 ρ/P and the Newtonian parameter λ = R/M¯ T . In the 0 same limit, the gravitational force which binds the perfect Of course, interpretation of (58) or (59) as statements of fluid is expected to follow an r−1 potential. Expanding the virial therem rely entirely on the interpretation of MB the total proper mass according to as a binding energy in (42). Whilst this interpretation ∞ is not immediately suggested by (2), it begins to look X n less arbitrary when we attempt to localise gravitational MT = MT nλ . (53) n=1 energy in gauge theory gravity. 8

scalar, or grade 0, part. The fundamental operations are addition and the geometric product, which is denoted by a simple juxtaposition of variables. Particularly useful compositions of these operations are the interior, exte- rior, commutative and scalar products, respectively ·, ∧, × and ∗. We may chose to work either with the or- thonormal Lorentz-basis of vectors, γµ, and dual basis, γµ, or with arbitrary constant vectors, denoted by low- ercase Latin letters such as a and its dual, ∂a. Tensors of second rank are represented by vector-valued linear functions of such vectors, for example the Ricci tensor, R(a), or position gauge field, h(a), which has the same FIG. 2. Relativistic binding energies of the Schwarzschild function as the tetrad. Whenever a linear function has star. The proper mass, MT is greater than the gravitational mass, MT , which is greater than the conserved mass MT . the same rank as its argument, the underbar-overbar no- The relativistic masses diverge as the Newtonian parameter tation is useful in distinguishing the function from its −1 λ = R/M¯ T shrinks. The Schwarzschild star is notoriously adjoint, which roughly corresponds to the commutation unstable for λ−1 ≤ 9/4 in Schwarzschild coordinates – though of tensor indices. A related concept is the inverse of the according to Buchdahl’s theorem31 such stars are the most linear function, for example h−1h(a) = a. The spin con- compact that can ever form. nection is a tensor of third rank, and correspondingly the rotation gauge field is a bivector-valued linear func- tion, Ω(a). The derivative with respect to position in III. THE VIEW FROM GAUGE THEORY GRAVITY {x} is simply ∇, whilst the covariant derivative is D. Overdot notation and arrows may be used in an obvious In Section II A we employed a popular but nearly un- manner to indicate the intended target of a derivative necessary mathematical procedure for linearising grav- operation, whenever nested parentheses on a single line ity by moving between two manifolds. Nearly, because cannot elegantly convey the mathematical content of an whilst it is quite feasible to treat linearisation as an al- expression. For a working understanding of these tech- gebraic problem without ever leaving the physical space- niques, we recommend either Part I of 19 or Chapter 13 time, the introduction of a flat background could be con- of 20 as compact introductions to gauge theory gravity. sidered suggestive of the gauge theory approach. On the In addition, reference to Chapter 1 of 33, which presents one hand, M is taken to contain some interesting geom- many essential geometric algebra identities in short or- der, may be very beneficial. An alternative introduction etry (and hence gravity) imposed by gab. On the other, the geometry of the flat background Mˇ is entirely trivial, to gauge theory gravity is to be found in 22, although it differs from our treatment in its emphasis on gravity gˇab imparting it with nothing more than the Minkowkian −1 µ ¯ µ signature. In Mˇ the geometry of M is represented by frames, gµ = h (γµ) and g = h(γ ). Whilst such an a collection of tensor fields which, being small, can be approach is more reminiscent of differential geometry, we managed by a series expansion. This of course becomes will instead try to take full advantage of the spacetime either impractical or impossible in the general case of algebra by expressing relations in frame-free form wher- strong gravitational fields. In gauge theories of gravity, ever possible. the gravitational gauge fields do not dictate the geom- etry of the manifold which contains them, that being simply Minkowski space, M4, nor yet need they be ex- A. The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian pressed through a series expansion. In the particular case of gauge theory gravity, the nomenclature is influenced The total action of gauge theory gravity as defined in by the use of the spacetime algebra, and M4 is often re- 19 corresponds to that of Einstein and Hilbert ferred to as the vector space, {x}. We will stop short of formally identifying Mˇ with {x} because they belong Z S = |d4x| 1 R − κL
det h−1 to entirely different theories. Many previous articles on 2 m gauge theory gravity have included their own substantial Z (60) 4 primers on the spacetime algebra. We will break with tra- = −κ |d x| (Lg + Lm) . dition by referring the reader to more dedicated sources, and outlining in name only the principles essential to the By extracting the conventional factor of −κ we can con- gauge theory approach, which are as follows. sider gravitational and matter Lagrangian densities as The spacetime algebra is a graded algebra of multi- scalar densities on M4, for these we use a distinct script. vectors spanned by one scalar, four vectors, six bivec- This should not be confused with the convention in gauge tors, four trivectors and one pseudoscalar. Particular theory gravity of using calligraphic script for quantities grades of a multivector are extracted with subscripted which are position gauge covariant The gravitational La- chevrons, with the absence of a subscript indicating the grangian density is therefore the density of the Ricci 9 scalar constant basis vectors. It should be emphasised that the term tensor is used here in a loose sense. Whilst the L = − 1 R det h−1 g 2κ notion of a tensor is perfectly well defined in the space- 1  ˙ ˙ = κ (∂a ∧ ∂b) · h(a) · ∇Ω(h(b)) (61) time algebra, the quantities obtained from (69) are in no + 1 Ω(h(a)) × Ω(h(b)) det h−1. way constrained to be covariant. A non-covariant linear 2 function may be interpreted as a pseudotensor. As with Einstein-Cartan theory, gauge theory gravity has Now it is anticipated in 19 and 20 that in the case two equations of motion. Variation with respect to the of Einstein-Hilbert gauge theory gravity, (68) does not h¯(a)-field produces the Einstein equation, yield any new information. If we explore this claim, we find that whilst the resultant conservation law is indeed a G(a) = κT (a), (62) recycling of the field equations, it brings to light a curious where the functional or dynamical stress-energy tensor class of identically conserved currents in the theory. For of matter is defined the gravitational sector, we can substitute (61) to give

−1 −1 κtg(n) = T (h (a)) = det h ∂¯h(a)(Lm det h ). (63) − ∂ hn · ∇Ω(∂ )∂ hh¯(∂ ∧ ∂ )c · ∇˙ Ω(˙ d)ii det h−1 Similarly, the spin-torsion equation is the equation of mo- b a Ω(a),b d c 1 −1 tion of the Ω(a)-field + 2 nR det h (70) ˙ ˙ ¯ −1 1 −1 ¯ = ∂bhn · ∇Ω(∂a)h(b ∧ a)i det h + nR det h H(a) = κS(a), S(h(a)) = ∂Ω(a)Lm, (64) 2 = h(∂ · (n · ∇˙ Ω(˙ h(a))) det h−1 + 1 nR det h−1. so the gauge theory corresponding to general relativity a 2 follows from a matter Lagrangian in which the rotation Now in the absence of torsion we can find the correspond- gauge fields do not appear, e.g. ing covariantly conserved current using

Lm = Lm(Dφi, φi), (65) ∇ · J = 0 =⇒ D · J = 0, (71) 34 where the φi are scalar matter fields. In this case, the where vanishing of the torsion bivector, H(a), allows us to for- J = h−1(J) det h. (72) mulate the rotational gauge field in terms of the displace- ment gauge field For matter, it is easy to see that with a Lagrangian of the form (65), the covariantised quantity is the functional ω(b) =h¯(∇˙ ) ∧ h¯˙h¯−1(b) stress-energy tensor36 (66) 1  ¯ ˙ ¯˙¯−1  −1 −1 − 2 b · ∂c ∧ h(∇) ∧ hh (c) , h (tm(n)) det h = κT (h (n)), (73) where ω(a) = Ω(h(a)) is covariant under displacements, whilst for gravity we have and in practice the following contraction will also be very −1 useful h (tg(n)) det h = ∂ · (n · ∇˙ Ω(˙ h(a)) + 1 h−1(n)R (74) ¯˙ ¯ ¯˙¯−1 a 2 ∂b · ω(b) =h(∇˙ ) − h(∇˙ )∂c · hh (c). (67) −1 1 −1 −1 = −R(h (n)) + 2 h (n)R + D· ω(h (n)). The invariance of the total action (60) under global space- time translations along some constant vector n allows Assembling these results, we see that global spacetime us to form the canonical stress-energy tensor associated translations give rise to the following conservation law with that action D· [−G(h−1(n)) + κT (h−1(n)) + D· Ω(n)] = 0. (75)

∇ · t(n) = ∇ · (tg(n) + tm(n)) = 0, (68) As expected, this law does not tell us anything we did not where the formulae already know. The first two terms in brackets can im- mediately be removed using the Einstein equation, (62).

tm(n) = ∂bhφi,n∂φi,b Lmi − nLm, Furthermore, the final term can also be removed using a (69) law which applies to general bivectors, B, in the absence t (n) = ∂bhΩ(∂a),n∂Ω(a) Lgi − nLg, g ,b of torsion are adapted from an early exposition on Lagrangian field theories using the spacetime algebra35. In particular, the D· (D· B) = 0. (76) linear functions in (69) are the adjoints of those in 35 so To prove this, let us write as to agree with conventions regarding the stress energy −→ tensor of the Dirac field in 20. Furthermore, following the D· (D· B) = (D ∧ D) · B conventions of 19, multivector derivatives with respect ¯ ¯ = (h(∂a)Da ∧ h(∂b)Db) · B to vector derivatives of dynamical fields are difficult to (77) ¯ ¯ −→ work with, therefore the vector derivatives are ‘blunted’ = (D ∧ h(∂b)) ·DbB + h(∂a ∧ ∂b) · D aDbB into directional derivatives by contracting with arbitrary = (∂a ∧ ∂b) · (R(a ∧ b) × B), 10 where we have assumed a to be an arbitrary constant. the rotational gauge field, which, once substituted for by We can then apply some further identities to show that (66) will become second derivatives of the displacement gauge field. In the next section we shall see how this (∂a ∧ ∂b) · (R(a ∧ b) × B) = may be avoided by an alternative choice of gravitational R(a ∧ b) · (B × (∂a ∧ ∂b)) Lagrangian. (78) = R(a ∧ b) · ((B · ∂a) ∧ ∂b − ∂b ∧ (B · ∂b)) = −2(B · ∂ ) ·R(a) = −2(∂ ∧ R(a)) · B = 0 a a B. Møller’s pseudotensor and the last equality is a result of the symmetry of the Ricci tensor. Note that covariance of B is not required. The action (60) has the advantages of simplicity and We can, in fact, arrive at (76) through the powerful ‘dou- covariance, but neither of these properties is necessary ble wedge’ relation37 presented in 19 and 20 for arbitrary to reproduce the field equations. In obtaining his com- multivector, M, in the absence of torsion plex (5), Einstein removed any second derivatives of the metric appearing in the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian by D ∧ (D ∧ M) = 0. (79) means of a surface term, since a Lagrangian which is ho- To see this we set M = IB and use the pseudoscalar to mogeneously second order in ∂g must produce a canoni- convert between interior and exterior products cal stress energy (affine) tensor with that same property. Similarly, one could use a surface term to lever the vec- −→ D ∧ (D ∧ IB) = −D ∧ ID· B = ID· (D· B). (80) tor derivative off the rotation gauge fields and onto the displacement gauge fields in (60), and reasonably hope Equation (76) provides us with an instant formula for that the resulting pseudotensor will have more desirable generating conserved vector currents in gauge theory properties than that obtained above gravity. Given covariant vectors U and V we have L (h¯(a), Ω(a), Ω(a) ) = L (h¯(a), h¯(a) , Ω(a)) g ,b M g ,b (85) J = D· (U ∧ V). (81) + ∇ · M F. In fact, only one vector field is necessary. Setting U = D By inspection of (61), the obvious ‘minimal’ choice of allows us to construct the conserved currents introduced surface term is simply by Komar in 4 −1 κM F= h(∂a · ω(a)) det h , (86) J = D· (D ∧ V) − D·˙ (D˙ ∧ V). (82) with the new gravitational Lagrangian given by the for- It is clear from (82) that from the gauge theory perspec- mula tive, Komar currents are a composite of identically con- κ L = (∂ ∧ ∂ ) · Ω(h(b))∇ · det h−1h(a)
served currents and consequently, as a whole, are purely M g a b second order in the covariant derivatives of V. This raises + det h−1h(a) · ∇˙ Ω(h˙(b)) (87) the question of whether currents corresponding to the + 1 Ω(h(a)) × Ω(h(b)) det h−1. first term in (82) have any useful application, but we will 2 not consider this further here. Now the observations that The subscript reflects the fact that this most natural have been made about the covariantised equation, (75), modification to the gravitational action has resulted in could in principle be made just as well in the flat space. precisely the effective Lagrangian of Møller. This is not Indeed by writing B as an exterior product of two arbi- surprising, given that Møller was working at the level trary vectors (or a sum thereof), it is not hard to show of the tetrad. Indeed, had we attempted to obtain Ein- that stein’s pseudotensor more carefully the necessary modi- −1 fications to the gravitational Lagrangian might have ap- D· B = ∇ · (h(B) det h ), (83) peared clumsy or unnatural. By applying (66) and (67) and in this way the term in question is revealed to be the we find that (87) can be written in the very compact form identically conserved gradient of a superpotential buried identified by Hestenes in 22 in the Einstein tensor ¯˙ ¯ ¯˙¯−1 κM Lg = (−(h(∇˙ ) · a − h(∇˙ ) · a∂chh (c))∂a · (∂b · ω(b)) −1 −1 ∇ · (∇ · h(ω(h (n))) det h ) = 0. (84) ¯ ¯˙¯−1 − (h(∇˙ ) ∧ hh (∂b)) · ω(b) As we mentioned in Section I, the identification of super- 1 −1 + 2 (∂a ∧ ∂b) · (ω(a) × ω(b))) det h potentials which split the Einstein tensor has long been (88) = ((∂ · ω(b)) · (∂ · ω(a)) − (∂ · ω(a))2 a fruitful approach to finding gravitational stress-energy a b a 1 −1 tensors and pseudotensors. Thus we see that the varia- + 2 (∂a ∧ ∂b) · (ω(a) × ω(b))) det h tional approach to gravitational stress-energy localisation = − 1 (∂ ∧ ∂ ) · (ω(a) × ω(b)) det h−1. in Einstein-Hilbert gauge theory gravity introduces its 2 a b own split in (75). The gravitational stress-energy tensor Since M Lg det h is dependent only on the ω(a)-fields, we (or pseudotensor) implied by (75) contains gradients of see that it is still position gauge covariant, having lost 11 only the rotational gauge invariance of R. The symmetry This can be expanded as a vector derivative with two of the new action under global spacetime translations Levi-Civita connection terms again implies a conservation law on the flat background. ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ This time it is convenient to evaluate the adjoint form T (D) = ∂aD· T (a) corresponding to (69) = ∂aD·T (a) − ∂a∂b ·T (b ·Da) ¯ ˙ ˙ ¯ ˙ ¯˙ = ∂ah(∇) · T (a) + ∂a∂b · [ω(b) × T (a)] (97) M tg(n) = ∇hh(∂a)∂¯h(a),n M Lgi − nM Lg. (89) − ∂a∂b ·T (b · ∂cω(c) × a) Though less coherent than (88), the expanded form (87) ¯ = T˙ (h(∇˙ )) + T (∂b · ω(b)) − T (∂c) · ω(c). is far easier to work with, and the calculation requires only two steps. To find the contribution of the first term Having performed all Palatini variations, we can elimi- in (87) to that in (89) we will need nate the connection in terms of the displacement gauge field in the absence of torsion with (66), and use the sym- ˙ −1 ∇h˙ (∂ ∧ ∂ ) · Ω(h(b))h¯(∂ )∂¯ (det h a · h(∂ ) a b c h(c),n d ,d metry of the functional stress-energy tensor of matter, −1 T (a), to write + ∂d · h(a)(det h ),d)i ˙ ¯˙ = ∇(∂a ∧ ∂b) · ω(b)(a · h(n) T˙ (D˙ ) =T˙ (h¯(∇˙ )) + T (h¯˙(∇˙ )) ˙ −1 −1 − n · h(a)∂c · hh (c)) det h , ¯ ¯˙¯−1 ¯˙¯−1 ¯ − T (h(∇˙ ))∂b · hh (b) − hh T (h(∇˙ )) (98) (90) ¯ ˙ ¯˙¯−1 where we make use of the identity from Appendix D + h(∇)hh (∂c) ·T (c) = 0. −1 −1 −1 ∂¯h(c),n (det h ),b = −(n · b) det h h (c). (91) Finally, by applying the displacement gauge field we can collect some terms into a convenient total divergence on Meanwhile the second term in (87) contributes M4

˙ ¯ ¯˙ ¯ −1 ¯−1 ˙ ˙ −1 ¯−1 ¯ ←→ −1 ∇h(∂a) · (∂b · Ω(∂dh(∂c) · (∂¯h(c),n b · h(d),a))) det h h (T (D)) det h = h (T (h( ∇ ))) det h (99) ˙ ¯ ¯˙¯−1 −1 ¯˙¯−1 −1 = ∇(h(n) ∧ hh (∂b)) · ω(b) det h . + ∇˙ hh (∂c) ·T (c) det h = 0. (92) If we assemble these we arrive at the following formula for So long as the matter is not a source of spin, the the pseudotensor of Møller expressed as a linear function linear function acted on by this total divergence is in terms of the gravitational gauge fields seen to be its canonical stress-energy tensor, ¯tm(a) = h¯−1T h¯(a) det h−1. The final term can then be equated ¯˙ ¯ ¯˙¯−1 κM¯tg(n) = ∇˙ (h(n) ∧ ∂b − h(n) ∧ ∂b∂c · hh (c) with the exchange of energy-momentum with the gravi- (93) tational field on M ¯ ¯˙¯−1 −1 4 + h(n) ∧ hh (∂b)) · ω(b) det h − κnM Lg. ˙ ¯t˙ (∇˙ ) = ∇h˙ ∂ · ∇(h¯(∂ )∂¯ L )i − ∇ L We will make use of this explicit formula in the final M g b a h(a),b M g M g section. Note that the trace of the Møller pseudotensor ¯˙ = ∇h˙ h(∂a)(∂b · ∇∂ ¯ M Lg reduces to his effective Lagrangian ∇h(a),b (100) ˙ − ∂¯h(a)M Lg) − Ω(∂a)∂Ω(a)M Lgi κ∂n · M¯tg(n) ˙ ¯˙¯−1 −1 −1 (94) = κ∇hh (∂a) ·T (a) det h , = 3(∂a ∧ ∂b) · (ω(a) × ω(b)) det h , yet the pseudotensor itself cannot be expressed purely in where we have assumed for the final equality that, since terms of the ω(a): since Møller’s superpotential is ten- the Lagrangian has been modified only by a surface term, sorial, the energy-momentum complex and pseudotensor the field equations should be unchanged cannot be. An alternative form for the pseudotensor is −1 −1 G(h (a)) det h = ∂ · ∇∂¯ L given in 22, and we compare the two in Appendix B. As b h(a),b M g before, we will expect the conservation law on M4 to be − ∂¯h(a)M Lg, (101) ˙ ¯ −1 M¯t(∇˙ ) = 0, M¯t(n) = M¯tg(n) + ¯tm(n), (95) κS(h(a)) det h = ∂Ω(a)M Lg. but in order to obtain some very useful results we will ar- As a result we find that energy and momentum are con- rive at this by the same circuitous route taken by Dirac served on M4 in the expected manner when discussing the complex of Einstein in 38. A very ˙ ˙ useful consequence of the field equations and the con- M t˙g(∇) + t˙m(∇) = 0, (102) tracted Bianchi identity is the covariant conservation law (1) with which we began our discussion but in the process we have equated the divergence of Møller’s pseudotensor on M4 to the final term in (100) – T˙ (D˙ ) = 0. (96) this expression will shortly become very useful. 12

C. The general Klein-Gordon correspondence notation. Secondly, because the spacetime is static, we can assume the action of all vector derivatives is purely In Sections II B and II C we developed a natural way spatial. In practice this is a considerable shortcut, for to extend the tensor of Butcher to the pseudotensor of instance the connection is simply Einstein. Now the correspondence between gauge the- ω(b) = Ω(h(b)) = h(∇˙ ) ∧ hh˙ −1(b). (109) ory gravity and Einstein-Cartan theory has led us to the pseudotensor of Møller rather than that of Einstein, but Proceeding in this manner, Møller’s pseudotensor given it is observed in 22 that the two are equivalent in the by the linear function in (93) is seen to be symmetric, spacetimes under discussion in this article. A first ap- and can be expressed very quickly by direct calculation plication of this result is that the Klein-Gordon corre- as spondence of Section II E, displayed by Butcher’s tensor 1 (A+C)/4 M tg(n) = e (A˙ + 2C˙ )(A¨ + 2C¨) in the Newtonian limit, fully survives the ‘nonlinearisa- 4 (110) tion’ to Møller’s pseudotensor in the presence of strong − A˙A¨ − 2C˙ C¨
∇¨ ∇˙ · n − (C˙ C¨ + 2A˙C¨)∇˙ · ∇¨ n. gravitational fields. In this regime the matter density, ρ, is not expected to single-handedly generate the gravita- The picture is further simplified when we assume that tional potential, ϕ: the whole of the matter stress-energy the spacetime is equipped with symmetry such that tensor acts as the source in any theory of gravity and so ∇A ∧ ∇C = 0, (111) we anticipate that P will play a part. Therefore let us denote the general source density for ϕ by % such that39 and this is clearly the case for the spherically symmetric spacetimes under discussion. We then see that Møller’s 2 % = ρ + O(λ ), (103) pseudotensor does indeed adopt the form of the field part of (105), where λ is the Newtonian parameter. We will soon see that this generalisation is insightful in the context of the M tg(n) = ∇ϕn∇ϕ, (112) relativistic mass functions discussed in Section II E. Now the first step is to understand what the Klein-Gordon with the radial field strength associated with the gravi- theory on Mˇ discussed in Section II D looks like in the tational scalar potential given by spacetime algebra on M4. We stress that this is precisely p ϕ0 = 1 e(A+C)/4 C02 + 2A0C0. (113) the same field theory on Minkowski spacetime, but ex- 2 pressed using the apparatus of geometric algebra. The Since we are now using isotropic coordinates, the prime Lagrangian, (27), will be denotes differentiation with respect to r in the line ele- ment (30), rather than the Schwarzschild radial coordi- L = (∇ϕ)2 − κϕ%, (104) KG nater ¯ which was so useful in Section II E. where we have used the symbol KGL to reflect that this We have uncovered a remarkably compact picture of is is a Lagrangian density directly on M4, and as such it gravitational energetics: the stress and energy of the is not necessarily gauge covariant. The canonical stress gravitational field on M4 coincides with that of a scalar energy tensor, which is symmetric, can be partitioned field, ϕ. It should be stressed that as with the linearised into a field term and an interaction term version of this relationship, the link with the Lagrangian, (104) is completely formal: if we want to construct an t(n) = 2∇ϕn · ∇ϕ − n(∇ϕ)2 + κnϕ% KG (105) equation of motion analogous to (106), we will have to = ∇ϕn∇ϕ − κnϕ. assemble it by hand rather than from an Euler-Lagrange equation. This we will now do for the spherically sym- The equation of motion, (25), will then be simply metric perfect fluid. We start by introducing two gauge ∇2ϕ = −κ%/2. (106) invariant quantities from the Einstein equations 0 1 X = g ·R(g0) = κ(ρ + 3P ), Rectangular isotropic coordinates corresponding to the 2 (114) line element (30) are introduced through the following i 3 Y = g ·R(gi) = − 2 κ(ρ − P ). displacement gauge fields acting on an orthonormal basis Then by taking a linear combination we can form some- −1 A/2 −1 C/2 h (γ0) = e γ0, h (γi) = e γi, (107) thing similar to a Poisson equation for the gravitational potential these are expected to go over to (26) in the Newtonian 4 limit. The choice of timelike Killing vector is then made − 2ϕ02 + rϕ0ϕ00
= C0e(A+3C)/2 (3X + Y) for us r (115) 0 (A+3C)/2 −1 + A e (Y − X ) , K = h (γ0) = g0. (108) or taking advantage of the regularity condition of the The use of isotropic coordinates enables us to make two spacetime, simplifications. Firstly the displacement gauge field will 2 κ (A+3C)/2 0 0 0 be self-adjoint, so we can dispense with over/underbar ∇ ϕ = 8 e [ρA − 3PC ] /ϕ . (116) 13

In fact this formula is not unique to the spherical case: it D. Mass in gauge theory gravity is the isotropic form of the general relation (100) which we went to lengths to obtain as part of the conservation We will conclude our discussion of the gauge theory law on M4 for Møller’s pseudotensor. An obvious con- approach with an attempt to place the conserved mass sequence of (116) is that the ϕ obeys the Laplace equa- MT mentioned in (2) and (42) in the global picture. In tion in a vacuum. Particularly, for the case of relativis- Section III B, we introduced equation (96) as a conse- tic stars, it is easy to show that ϕ in the Schwarzschild quence of the contracted Bianchi identity and Einstein spacetime above the stellar surface appears to have been equations. For any vector field V we have generated by the gravitational mass of the star D·˙ T˙ (V ) = 0, (123) ϕ = −MT /r. (117) which is the compact gauge theory statement of the non- Hence, we see that not only does the Klein-Gordon cor- conservation of material energy-momentum currents dis- respondence hold in the presence of strong gravitational cussed in Section II A. In particular, if the V were taken fields, but the gravitational potential retains its Newto- to be any of the basis vectors γµ (or even a physically nian form! We are now in a position to equate % with the meaningful vector such as the four-velocity of a local ob- RHS of (116). Doing so, the familiar Newtonian formula server, v), we can see that (7) is equivalent to the result (117) then indicates that % describes a gravitational mass D·T (V ) = ∂a ·T (a ·DV ) 6= 0. (124) density on M4: this refinement could not be made in the The matter energy momentum currents are conserved, Newtonian limit where % and ρ were indistinguishable. however, if for V we take any of those vectors K which We also see that our formula for % still makes reference embody the symmetries of a given spacetime through the to the displacement gauge fields and gravitational poten- Killing equation tial - of which it is the ‘source’. This could perhaps be interpreted as a reflection of gravitational self-coupling, a · (b ·DK) = −b · (a ·DK). (125) but we will not take it too seriously, not least because We can remove the offending term on the RHS of (124) our entire discussion still lacks gauge invariance. Finally, by writing if we expand ϕ in some Newtonian parameter λ, ∂a ·T (a ·DK) = ∂a ·T (∂b(b · (a ·DK))) ∞ ∞ (126) X n X n = −∂a ·T (∂b(a · (b ·DK))), ϕ = ϕnλ ,% = %nλ , (118) n=1 n=1 which we then re-arrange using the linearity and symme- try of T (a) we can write the Newtonian limit of rectangular isotropic coordinates as ∂a ·T (a ·DK) = −(b ·DK) ·T (∂b)

A/2 2 = −T (b ·DK) · ∂b (127) e = 1 + 2ϕ1λ + O(λ ), (119) C/2 2 = −∂a ·T (a ·DK), e = 1 − 2ϕ1λ + O(λ ), leaving us with a fully covariant and covariantly con- where the Newtonian potential is simply served vector current 2 ∇ ϕ1λ = 4πρ. (120) D·T (K) = 0. (128) The Poisson-like equation then expands to give us To further develop our picture on M4, we can reverse the use of (72) in Section III A to construct a corresponding 2 %1λ + %2λ = ρ(1 − 2ϕ1λ) + 3P conserved current (121) = ρe(A+3C)/2 + 3P + O(λ3), ∇ · h(T (K)) det h−1 = 0. (129) which is precisely the local virial theorem we anticipated We are used, in the spacetime algebra, to obtaining con- in (59), only it is expressed in isotropic coordinates. served charges from conservation laws. A timelike ob- To compare, a hypothetical localisation of gravitational server in M4 has proper time, τ, which can be used as a coordinate function to define timelike basis vectors eτ mass,% ˜, designed to reproduce the conventional virial τ theorem, (55), would instead obey and e . Since eτ is the four-velocity of the observer, it must be a unit vector. The conserved charge density as- 2 %˜1λ +% ˜2λ = ρ(1 − 3ϕ1λ) − 3P sociated with the current, (129) over the whole spatial (122) hypersurface, Σ , can be integrated = ρe3C/2 − 3P + O(λ3). τ Z 3 τ −1 In this way we connect back to the definitions of rel- QT = |d x|e · h(T (K)) det h Στ ativistic mass discussed earlier. One might wonder on Z 3 τ −1 −1 the basis of virial theorems if the particular gravitational = |d x|T (K) · g gτ · (h (˚I) · I ) (130) mass density expressed by % is perhaps that of Komar. In Στ fact the two are distinct, but we will see in the following Z = hP (T (K))h−1(d3x)I−1i section that they are related. ⊥ Στ 14 where P⊥(a) is the gauge invariant rejection operator and also shown that MT can be thought of as a conserved ˚I the pseudoscalar associated with Στ - both are defined charge on M4, and that the pseudotensor of Møller ap- in Appendix A. We have chosen a calligraphic script for pears as the stress-energy tensor of a scalar field there. QT because from (130) we can immediately write it in Postponing objections relating to the physicality of these covariant form results to Section IV, we will therefore conclude by bal- Z ancing the energy budget directly on M4 as well, by re- −1 3 −1 QT = hT (K)h (d x)I i. (131) introducing the isotropic coordinates and orthonormal Σt basis vectors. This system of coordinates is of course an example of precisely the kind we have just been consider- Now we have QT in gauge-covariant form it is easier to interpret. By applying Gauss’ law to (131) we see that ing. The energy density of the gravitational field on the background is given by QT is independent of our choice of Στ because of (128). This is entirely equivalent to our observation in M4 that M Ug = γ0 · M tg(γ0) = −M Lg, (138) QT appears as a conserved charge in the theory. It is now obvious of course that we are dealing with the same so from the definition (87) of Møller’s effective La- quantity QT mentioned in (2). The formula (131) is co- grangian, variant, but still depends on the normalisation of K. The Z other relativistic mass which used K was that of Komar 3 |d x|M Ug which we denoted by MT but found to be equal to the V Z (139) gravitational mass MT – there we insisted on normalising 3 1 −1 the time-like Killing vector to unity at spatial infinity in = |d x|( 2κ R det h − ∇ · M F). V order to take advantage of the Newtonian regime. The force applied by the observer at spatial infinity to sus- Now if we apply the Einstein equations to the Ricci pend a unit mass with four-velocity v = K/|K| is scalar, we see F = v ·DK = v · (D ∧ K), (132) R = κ(3P − ρ), (140) where the Killing equation (125) can be used to recognise so it is possible to write the presence of the bivector. In Section II E the Komar Z 3 −1 integral was performed in the hypersurface orthogonal to |d x|(M Ug + ρ det h ) = K: we can set up a coordinate system that reflects this V Z I (141) by taking 3 1 −1 2 |d x| 2 (ρ + 3P ) det h − |d x|er · M F. −1 V ∂V K = h et = gt, (133) The first term on the RHS is immediately identifiable as and integrating in the surface Σt. By applying Gauss’ MT /2 since it is equivalent to the Komar mass integral. law, (A13), we can find the Komar mass within some For asymptotically flat systems, the second term on the bounded region V in Σt RHS approaches MT /2 when evaluated at spatial infinity, I so we have M = hD ∧ Kh−1(d2x)I−1i = Z ∂V 3 −1 Z (134) |d x|(M Ug + ρ det h ) = MT . (142) −1 3 −1 hD · (D ∧ K)h (d x)I i. Σt V The second term on the LHS of (142) will clearly inte- The next step is to replace the second covariant derivative grate to MT , again by comparison with Section II E. It of the Killing field using (C4) remains only to interpret Møller and Einstein’s account −→ of the energy sequestered in the gravitational field as the D·DK = ∂aR(a) ·K, (135) binding energy of the system, allowing us to justify (42), and then the total Komar mass is found by extending V the energy relation over the whole spatial hypersurface, Σt, giving MB + MT = MT . (143) Z −1 3 −1 MT = hR(K)h (d x)I i. (136) Σ t E. Example: Schwarzschild star If we adopt the same normalisation of K used above in our conserved charge, we recover the mass mentioned in It is constructive to illustrate the picture of gravito- Section II E static energetics we have been building using a simple system. Perhaps the simplest static spherically symmet- QT = MT . (137) ric perfect fluid is that known as a Schwarzschild star, Now we claimed in Section I that a viable energy- which has a constant proper density ρ = ρ0 and pressure- momentum complex ought to account for MT . We have less surface atr ¯ = R¯ in Schwarzschild-like coordinates. 15

Below the stellar surface, the functions appearing in the IV. CONCLUSIONS Schwarzschild line element (29) are In the opening sections we used τ as something of 1 q p  ab eA/2 = 3 1 − 2M /R¯ − 1 − 2M/r¯ , a springboard for the discussion of gravitational energy- 2 T (144) momentum pseudotensors. Nonetheless, Sections II A, B/2 p e = 1/ 1 − 2M/r.¯ II B and II C would still benefit from some summary re- marks. −1 ¯ In terms of the Newtonian parameter λ = R/MT, the It is difficult to gather from 14–17 a single motivating star has proper mass definition of τab which invites generalisation to nonlinear 3√ h p gravity. In many ways, the stress-energy and spin tensors M = λ−1M − 2 λ−1 − 2 T 8 T emerge as simultaneously satisfying a long series of phys- √   i (145) ically motivated requirements, any of which could be the −1 −1 p −1 + 2λ tan 2/ (λ − 2) , focus of a generalisation attempt. Among these are the symmetry of τab and corresponding conservation of an- and conserved mass gular momentum, gauge invariance (albeit restricted to plane gravitational waves) and satisfaction of the weak 1 h −1 MT = MT − 18λ + 28 and dominant energy conditions. In this article we have 16 √ (146) explored only one such avenue: the total conservation of −1p −1 p  i + 9 2λ λ−1 − 2 tan 2/ (λ−1 − 2) . energy-momentum between matter and gravity in metri- cal general relativity. As we have emphasised already, the In these formulae, the Schwarzschild coordinate mass metric is no longer considered the fundamental dynam- 3 ¯3 function is simply M = MTr¯ /R . Superficially the ical variable of gravity, and it may be that our attempt functions (145) and (146) appear very similar, and in- has been akin to expanding a function f(x) of no par- deed both agree on the Newtonian limit of the binding ticular parity in x2. We note that the use of tetrads in energy the nonlinearisation procedure is even suggested in 16, which we have barely considered in this article. There M = M = 3M /5λ−1 + O(λ2). (147) B B T are perhaps two points to take away from our analysis

As is shown in Figure 2 however, MT > MT > MT , so we see that in the alternative interpretation, (42), the 1. In the harmonic gauge, the linearised pseudotensor gravitational mass loses a positive binding energy. of Einstein is equivalent to τab up to an identically To see the Klein-Gordon correspondence in action, we conserved gauge current. must base our displacement gauge fields beneath the stel- lar surface on the isotropic coordinates first set out by 2. The original conservation law obeyed by τab does Wyman40 in 1946. The functions appearing in the line not admit a symmetric, third-order correction to element (30) are τab, quadratic in the first derivatives of the met- ric perturbation under the suggested perturbation 2 3 A/2 2R − 2MT + MT(4R − MT)r /2R schemes. e = 2 3 , (2R + MT)(1 + MTr /2R ) (148) Given Point 2, the failure at fourth order is irrelevant, (1 + M /2R)3 C/2 T since the required conservation law no longer holds. It e = 2 3 . 1 + MTr /2R is only by relaxing the conditions on the form of the conservation law to include an affine connection that we By substituting (148) into (113) we find the radial ‘grav- are able to make progress, and in doing so the missing itational field strength’ beneath the stellar surface to be component converges very rapidly order-by-order on the ϕ0 = Christoffel symbols. This ultimately brings us to Point 1 and the pseudotensor of Einstein, the uniqueness of q 2 MT
2MT MTr MT
(149) MT 1 + 2R r 1 + R − R3 1 − 4R which under various conditions has been established in- . 3 2 3 2 dependently many times. The suggestion that the incom- R (1 + MTr /2R ) patibility of Einstein’s pseudotensor with the equivalence Figure 1 shows a pair of Schwarzschild stars with the principle could be tamed by the harmonic coordinate con- dition was made by Møller (in reference12 to the work of same gravitational mass, MT , but which have stalled their collapse at different isotropic radii. The integrated Fock) as early as 1961. In the linear regime, we may gravitational potential, ϕ, takes the same Newtonian conclude that his remarks have proved insightful. form, (117), above the surface of each star. The source density, %, does not share the uniform distribution of the It is now apparent, further to the work of 14, that proper mass: we see that the localisation of gravitational the Klein-Gordon correspondence is a strong-field phe- matter it represents tends to accumulate at the stellar nomenon in certain symmetric spacetimes, and applies core. to at least three formalisms for localising gravitational 16 stress and energy. The strong-field extension is particu- I The binding energies MB and MB correspond in larly interesting: the energetics of the gravitational field the Newtonian limit. naturally identify a scalar field ϕ as the gravitational po- tential, which retains its simple Newtonian form above II The factor of ρ + 3P in the Komar density is sug- the surface of the densest Neutron star (provided such a gestive of a local virial theorem satisfied by MT star is not spinning). It has been shown (see for exam- rather than MT – the later satisfies a global virial ple the review of Xulu41 and the references therein) that theorem. several energy-momentum complexes are in agreement in III On the M4 background of gauge theory gravity, a wide class of spacetimes under quasi-Cartesian coordi- certain gravitational stress-energy pseudotensors in nates – suggesting perhaps that the correspondence has certain spacetimes under isotropic coordinates im- a broader demographic than we have considered. Fur- itate the stress-energy tensor of a scalar field, ϕ, thermore, the restriction to static spacetimes may prove which appears to be generated by a gravitational artificial: isotropic coordinates, known as Weyl’s canon- mass density %. This density replicates the same ical coordinates, are very useful in describing stationary local virial theorem as the Komar density. axisymmetric spacetimes42. Conceivably, a generalisa- tion of ϕ to stationary spacetimes might be reminiscent IV The energy budget of the same pseudotensors on of gravitoelectromagnetism. A necessary part of the pic- M4 takes the form ture appears to be the flat background provided by the gauge theory. To illustrate this, we note that the compo- MT + MB = MT . (151) nents of the Møller pseudotensor as evaluated in Einstein- µ Cartan theory using isotropic coordinates, {y }, can be Aside from the opposing sense in which the binding en- recovered in a standard way by means of gravity frames ergy is ‘lost’ in either picture, it is worth noting that MB and MB can also differ significantly in magnitude, though it is not at all apparent from Figure 2. For example, the M tµν = ∇ϕgµ∇ϕ · gν det h. (150) binding energy of the Earth, which well approximates a Schwarzschild star, is revised either way by 1.2 × 108g – In this form they do not clearly correspond to the field nearly the mass of a blue whale. Fortunately, Points I, portion of the Klein-Gordon stress energy tensor. This II and IV are very far from subtle observations45, and also demonstrates the disadvantage of working entirely doubtless the alternative picture of binding energy has with gravity frames: if every available basis vector in been thoroughly interpreted elsewhere. Our main contri- an expression has been wrapped in a displacement gauge bution is therefore Point III and the Klein-Gordon corre- field for the sake of maintaining covariance, the construc- spondence, though it is perhaps the least complete: the tion on M4 illustrated in Figure 1 may become somewhat M4 background is not observable, because all observers obscured. Alternatively, to see the advantage of grav- are bound by the gauge fields. Equivalently, gauge theory ity frames, one need only compare the form of Møller’s gravity is not an æther theory. Furthermore, the Klein- pseudotensor obtained from Hestenes’ unitary form in Gordon correspondence presently relies on a privileged 22 with our frame-free translation provided in the Ap- isotropic coordinate system and we make no attempt in pendix, (B1). The latter has lost all of the elegance of the this article to construct a covariant generalisation (such former and is difficult to comprehend. Perhaps more nat- an objection applies to stress-energy pseudotensors in ural to the frame-free picture is the variational approach general). With this in mind, and pending such an in- to localising gravitational energetics. Whilst the canoni- vestigation, it remains to be seen whether the quantities cal pseudotensor of Einstein-Hilbert gauge theory gravity ϕ and % may find some physical significance beyond the probably has undesirable qualities (and almost certainly 43 mathematical structure of gauge theory gravity that sug- already has a counterpart in classical Einstein-Cartan gests them. theory), the derivation in Section III A has provided us with a recipe, (81), for constructing conserved currents in gauge theories with geometric algebra. The variational ACKNOWLEDGMENTS approach has clear advantages over the use of tetrads in the derivation of Møller’s pseudotensor: the problematic We are grateful to DO Hestenes for connecting us with action of ∇ on the rotational gauge fields in is made Lg his previous treatment of this topic22. WEVB is sup- manifest by the notation44. Furthermore, we note that ported by STFC. the use of the ω(a)-fields is very convenient for verifying the tensorial nature of quantities. As an undercurrent to this discussion we have re- Appendix A: Gauge invariance for Gauss’ law marked on the relationship reflected in Figure 2, that the conserved mass M and the proper mass M of relativis- T T In the classical formulation of general relativity, ‘grav- tic stars appear to somehow ‘mirror’ each other across the itation’ is equivalent to the geometry of the Riemann gravitational mass, MT . Specifically we have observed space, V4, in which the physics unfolds. This geometry 17 is intimately connected to the general integral theorem The pseudoscalar on Σt can be defined known as Gauss’ (or Stokes’) theorem, which is expressed ˚ t using differential forms. Consequently, this theorem is I = e · I, (A4) often used to invoke gravitational effects when obtaining and following the convention of 20 we will write the pro- physical laws, with the derivation of the Komar mass in jection of the vector derivative onto Σ as Section II E being a prime example. If the same laws t arise in gauge theories of gravity we may wonder how ∇˚ = ∂. (A5) the comparatively ‘informationless’ integral theorem on flat Minkowski space, M4, can be of any use in obtaining The quantities in (A4) and (A5) are not gauge covariant, them. This paradox is resolved by insisting on the gauge but we will only invoke them as an intermediate step to invariance of all directed integrals. The first example of equate gauge covariant quantities. Since et belongs to −1 this principle is the factor of det h in the action (60) the cotangent space on M4, the vector which is an integral over the whole of M : this factor has 4 t ¯ t an entirely non-trivial effect on the equations of motion. g = h(e ) (A6) The next-simplest case is that of a covariant vector J is covariant, and always orthogonal to the covariantised integrated over an n = 3 hypersurface ∂V of directed tangent vectors in Σ , measure d3x enclosing the n = 4 volume V . We can t think of the integrand as a linear function, L(a), of that −1 gi = h (ei). (A7) measure I I In the example in Section III D, we are actually concerned L(d3x) = hJ h−1(d3x)I−1i. (A1) with the integral of a covariant bivector B over a closed ∂V ∂V hypersurface ∂V within Σt which surrounds some star The action of the displacement gauge field on the di- I I rected measure in (A1) guarantees gauge invariance of M(d2x) = hBh−1(d2x)I−1i. (A8) the hypersurface integral. Next we apply the fundamen- ∂V ∂V tal theorem of geometric calculus in M4 to obtain an If we apply the fundamental theorem of geometric calcu- 4 integral with directed measure d x on V , and expand in lus to the embedded integral we have the following manner I Z I Z 2 ˙ ˙ 3 3 4 M(d x) = M(∂d x) L(d x) = L˙ (∇˙ d x) ∂V V ∂V V Z ←− Z −1 ˚˚−1 ˚ −1 3 −1 ←→ 4 −1 = hBh ((∇ · II )I)I |d x|i = hJ h ( ∇ d x)I i V V Z ←→ Z (A2) −1 −1 t 3 −1 −1←→ 4 = hBIh (I ( ∇ ∧ e ))|d x|i (A9) = hJ Ih (I ∇ )|d x|i V V Z ←→ Z Z 3 ¯ ¯ t −1 4 ←→ −1 4 −1 = |d x|h( ∇ ) · (h(e ) ·B) det h = |d x|J · h¯( ∇ ) det h = |d x|D · J det h , V V V Z = |d3x|D · (gt ·B) det h−1, where the final equality follows from (67). Thus we see V how the divergence in the volume naturally inherits the covariant derivative (and by extension, rotational gauge where for the second equality we used field) from the gauge invariance of the directed measure ∇ ∧ et = 0. (A10) on the surface. Of course, the integral theorem of differential geome- We can also think of (A9) as an integral of the gauge- try is not confined to hypersurfaces. In particular, we covariant rejection of D·B off Σt over the bounded region want to consider directed integrals within a Cauchy hy- I persurface Σt whose arbitrary geometry depends on its hBh−1(d2x)I−1i embedding in M4. Fortunately the fundamental theo- ∂V Z rem of geometric calculus has been generalised to pre- t −1 3 −1 cisely this contingency in the vector manifold theory of = (D·B) · g gt · (h (d x)I ) (A11) V Hestenes and Sobczyk. In this paper we are considering Z −1 3 −1 static spacetimes, it is possible to choose a Σt everywhere = hP⊥(D·B)h (d x)I i. orthogonal to the Killing field K. To maintain generality, V we will instead set up coordinates xµ such that x0 = t A final simplification can be made by noticing that the and an orthonormal basis is given by gravity frames form a complete set, and so the identity ν ν operator may be defined as eµ = ∂µx, e = ∇x , ν ν µ ν µν (A3) µ eµ · e = δµ, eµ · eν = ηµν , e · e = η . g · (D·B)gµ = D·B, (A12) 18 it is then easy to see that P⊥(D·B) is the only term in After expanding, the trailing terms in (B3) and (B4) can- (A12) that survives inside the scalar part of the integrand cel exactly. in (A13), so we have I Z hBh−1(d2x)I−1i = hD · Bh−1(d3x)I−1i. (A13) Appendix C: Killing fields and the first Bianchi identity ∂V V Note that (A2) may also be written in this ‘scalar part’ In Section III A we mention the ‘double wedge’ equa- form. tion D ∧ (D ∧ M) = 0, (C1) Appendix B: Unitary form of Møller’s pseudotensor which is true for any multivector M. By contracting with an arbitrary constant basis trivector and expanding the We would like to verify that the linear machine in (93) resultant scalar, it is easy to see that (C1) is a statement derived through variational principles is indeed the same of the first Bianchi identity, and hence a symmetry prop- as that arrived at in 22 using the unitary form. In our erty of the Riemann tensor. Rather than show this here, frame-free notation, this form may be written as a sum we will use the same approach to obtain a very useful re- of two terms, with the second term containing a single sult regarding the second covariant derivative of a Killing displacement gauge field gradient field, M = K. Hence we write

κM¯tg(n) det h (a ∧ b ∧ c) · (D ∧ (D ∧ K) ¯ 1 −1 −→ −→ = ∂ch(n ∧ ∂a ∧ ∂b) · [ (Ω(a) × Ω(b)) ∧ h (c) = a · (b · ((c · D)D)K) − b · (a · ((c · D)D)K) 2 (B1) −1 −→ −→ (C2) + Ω(b) ∧ (Ω(a) · h (c))] − a · (c · ((b · D)D)K) + b · (c · ((a · D)D)K) + ∂ h¯(n ∧ ∂ ∧ ∂ ) · (Ω(b) ∧ h−1(c) ). −→ −→ c a b ,a + c · (a · ((b · D)D)K) − c · (b · ((a · D)D)K). To prove the equivalence, we start by expanding this sec- By applying the Killing equation to certain terms in this ond term expansion we arrive at ¯ −1 ∂ch(n ∧ ∂a ∧ ∂b) · (Ω(b) ∧ h (c),a) −→ −→ a · (b · ((c · D)D)K) = − c · ((a ∧ b) · (D ∧ D)K) = h¯˙ −1(ω(b) · (h¯(∇˙ ) ∧ ∂ ∧ h¯(n))) (C3) b = c · (R(a ∧ b) ·K). ¯−1¯˙ ¯ = h h(∇˙ )(h(n) ∧ ∂b) · ω(b) In particular, if we set c = ∂b we find simply ˙ ¯˙ −→ − ∇(h(n) ∧ ∂b) · ω(b) (B2) a · (D·DK) = R(a) ·K. (C4) ¯ ¯˙¯−1 − ∇˙ (h(n) ∧ hh (∂b)) · ω(b) ¯−1 ¯ ¯˙ + h [(h(∇˙ ) ∧ h(n)) · (∂b · ω(b)) Appendix D: Derivatives and the metric determinant ¯ ¯˙¯−1 ¯ − (h(∇˙ ) ∧ hh (∂b)) · (h(n) · ω(b))]. In gauge theory gravity we have from 19 and 20 for the By substituting for various displacement gauge field gra- derivative of the metric determinant dients using (66) and (67) we find −1 −1 −1 ∂¯ det h = − det h h (a). (D1) ¯ −1 h(a) ∂ch(n ∧ ∂a ∧ ∂b) · (Ω(b) ∧ h (c),a) When derivatives are present, we can invoke an orthonor- = κ( ¯t (n) + n ) det h M g M Lg mal frame to give ¯−1 ¯ + h [(h(n) · ω(b)) · (∂c ∧ (∂b · ω(b))) (B3) −1 −1 −1 ∂ ¯ ∂ν det h = −∂ ¯ (∂ν h (γ0) ∧ · · · ∧ h (γ3) − (∂ · ω(b)) · (∂ ∧ (h¯(n) · ω(b))) ∂µh(c) ∂µh(c) b c −1 −1 −1 ¯ + h (γ0) ∧ ∂ν h (γ1) ∧ · · · ∧ h (γ3) + (h(n) ∧ ∂b) · ω(b)(∂c · ω(c))], + ... )I. thus the second term in (B1) neatly collects the three (D2) ‘kinetic’ terms in (93), leaving a remainder which may On the other hand, the Leinbiz rule produces a very sim- be expressed purely in terms of the ω(a)-fields. If we ilar expansion in the original expression now turn to the first term in (B1), which is identified as −1 ˙ ˙ −1 −1 Møller’s superpotential, we have ∂¯h(c) det h = −∂¯h(c)(h (γ0) ∧ · · · ∧ h (γ3) ¯ 1 −1 −1 ˙ −1 −1 (D3) ∂ch(n ∧ ∂a ∧ ∂b) · [ 2 (Ω(a) × Ω(b)) ∧ h (c) + h (γ0) ∧ h (γ1) ∧ · · · ∧ h (γ3) + Ω(b) ∧ (Ω(a) · h−1(c))] + ... )I, = −κnM Lg det h (B4) so by comparison the two must be the same up to a factor 1 ¯ of δµ, or in frame-free form − 2 (h(n) · (ω(a) × ω(b))) · (∂a ∧ ∂b) ν ¯ −1 −1 −1 − ω(a) · [ω(b) · (h(n) ∧ ∂a ∧ ∂b)]. ∂¯h(c),n (det h ),b = −(n · b) det h h (c). (D4) 19

REFERENCES 24Neither this nor the asymmetry of the solution to (14) will be alleviated by the ‘central expansion’ mentioned in 16. 25In Section III A we will explore the gauge theory version of this 1 tautology. For an comprehensive discussion of the ‘energy problem’ in gen- 26 eral relativity, see for example the review by J. Goldberg46. The calculation is longer than that required to obtain τab in 14, 2R. M. Wald, General relativity (University of Chicago Press, but takes a similar form. 27 1984). Because of the natural definition of gravitational energy- 3L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, The classical theory of fields momentum currents in 14, the extension Tab is defined with a (Pergamon Press, 1975, 4th rev.engl.ed., 1975). transpose relative to the pseudotensor of Einstein. 28 4A. Komar, “Covariant conservation laws in general relativity,” So, the series (12) was only nearly correct. 29 Phys. Rev. 113, 934–936 (1959). The Klein-Gordon field here is real, but for convenience the ki- 5J. Katz, D. Lynden-Bell, and J. Bic´ak,“Gravitational energy netic term lacks a factor of 1/2, in common with the complex in stationary spacetimes,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, (charged) theory. 30 7111–7127 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0610052 [gr-qc]. However we will not make explicit use of the trio of Killing vectors 6D. Lynden-Bell, J. Katz, and J. Biˇc´ak,“Energy and angular associated with the spherical symmetry. 31 momentum densities of stationary gravitational fields,” Physical H. A. Buchdahl, “General Relativistic Fluid Spheres,” Physical Review D 75, 024040 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701060 [gr-qc]. Review 116, 1027–1034 (1959). 32 7H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, “Gravi- We re-derive this using gauge theory methods in Appendix C. 33 tational waves in general relativity. vii. waves from axi-symmetric D. Hestenes and G. Sobczyk, Clifford Algebra to Geometric Cal- isolated systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London culus. A Unified Language for Mathematics and Physics (D. Rei- Series A 269, 21–52 (1962). del Publishing Company, 1985). 34 8Bondi’s mass will not be of use to us because we do not consider An important exception to this rule is electromagnetism in a radiating systems. gravitational background, where the φi are replaced by the vector 9R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, “Canonical anal- potential A. This does not cause a problem because DA does ysis of general relativity,” in Recent Developments in General not appear directly in the Maxwell Lagrangian density, though Relativity. Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1962. (1962) it remains covariant. 35 p. 127. A. Lasenby, C. Doran, and S. Gull, “A multivector derivative 10A. Einstein, “Hamilton’s principle and the general theory of rel- approach to lagrangian field theory,” Foundations of Physics 23, ativity,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1295–1327 (1993). 36 1916, 1111–1116 (1916). In the presence of spin, the Ω(a)-dependence in the Lagrangian 11P. Freud, “Uber die ausdrucke der gesamtenergie und des significantly complicates the picture. 37 gesamtimpulses eines materiellen systems in der allgemeinen rel- See also Appendix C. 38 ativitatstheorie,” Annals of Mathematics 40, 417–419 (1939). P. A. M. Dirac, Princeton University Press (1996). 39 12C. Møller, “Further remarks on the localization of the energy in There is no such need to introduce a new symbol for ϕ. 40 the general theory of relativity,” Annals of Physics 12, 118–133 M. Wyman, “Schwarzschild Interior Solution in an Isotropic Co- (1961). ordinate System,” Physical Review 70, 74–76 (1946). 41 13J. Biˇc´akand J. Schmidt, “Energy-momentum tensors in lin- S. S. Xulu, The Energy momentum problem in general relativity, earized Einstein’s theory and massive gravity: The question Ph.D. thesis, Zululand U. (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0308070 [hep-th]. 42 of uniqueness,” Physical Review D 93 (2016), 10.1103/Phys- H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and RevD.93.024009. E. Herlt, Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations (Cam- 14L. M. Butcher, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby, “Localizing the bridge University Press, 2009). 43 energy and momentum of linear gravity,” Physical Review D 82 By classical we mean the geometric picture set in space with (2010), 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104040. curvature and torsion. 44 15L. M. Butcher, A. Lasenby, and M. Hobson, “Localizing the an- In fact the necessary steps seemed to agree so entirely with the gular momentum of linear gravity,” Physical Review D 86 (2012), spirit of Einstein’s approach in the metrical theory that one of 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084012. us initially mistook M Lg to be E Lg until coming into contact 16L. M. Butcher, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby, “Localized energet- with 22. 45 ics of linear gravity: Theoretical development,” Physical Review Indeed, Point I is evident from Schwarzschild’s 1916 solutions to D 86 (2012), 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084013. the field equations, furthermore six decades have passed since 17L. M. Butcher, M. Hobson, and A. Lasenby, “Bootstrap- Komar introduced his mass integral, followed shortly by Møller’s ping gravity: A consistent approach to energy-momentum proposal for an energy-momentum complex based on tetrads. For self- coupling,” Physical Review D 80 (2009), 10.1103/Phys- a dedicated treatment of the gravitational virial theorem, see 49 RevD.80.084014. e.g. . 46 18Kibble’s work47 follows early efforts by Utiyama and concur- J. N. Goldberg, “Invariant Transformations Conservation Laws rently with Sciama – see Section I of 48 and the references therein. and Energy-Momentum,” in General Relativity and Gravitation. 19A. Lasenby, C. Doran, and S. Gull, “Gravity, gauge theories Vol. 1. One hundred years after the birth of Albert Einstein. and geometric algebra,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Edited by A. Held. New York, Vol. 1 (1980) p. 469. 47 Society of London Series A 356, 487 (1998). T. W. B. Kibble, “Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field,” 20C. Doran and A. Lasenby, Geometric Algebra for Physicists Journal of Mathematical Physics 2, 212–221 (1961). 48 (Cambridge University Press, 2003). A. N. Lasenby and M. P. Hobson, “Scale-invariant gauge theories 21Modulo topological effects. of gravity: Theoretical foundations,” Journal of Mathematical 22D. Hestenes, “Gauge Theory Gravity with Geometric Calculus,” Physics 57, 092505 (2016). 49 Foundations of Physics 35, 903–970 (2005). S. Bonazzola, “The Virial Theorem in General Relativity,” The 23See for example Wald’s ubiquitous use of these in 2. Astrophysics Journal 182, 335–340 (1973).