DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Conditions in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory Arxiv:2003.01815V2 [Gr-Qc] 5 Jun 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Conditions in General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory Arxiv:2003.01815V2 [Gr-Qc] 5 Jun 2020 Energy conditions in general relativity and quantum field theory Eleni-Alexandra Kontou∗ Department of Mathematics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom Department of Physics, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610, USA Ko Sanders y Dublin City University, School of Mathematical Sciences and Centre for Astrophysics and Relativity, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland June 8, 2020 Abstract This review summarizes the current status of the energy conditions in general relativity and quantum field theory. We provide a historical review and a summary of technical results and applications, complemented with a few new derivations and discussions. We pay special attention to the role of the equations of motion and to the relation between classical and quantum theories. Pointwise energy conditions were first introduced as physically reasonable restrictions on mat- ter in the context of general relativity. They aim to express e.g. the positivity of mass or the attractiveness of gravity. Perhaps more importantly, they have been used as assumptions in math- ematical relativity to prove singularity theorems and the non-existence of wormholes and similar exotic phenomena. However, the delicate balance between conceptual simplicity, general validity and strong results has faced serious challenges, because all pointwise energy conditions are sys- tematically violated by quantum fields and also by some rather simple classical fields. In response to these challenges, weaker statements were introduced, such as quantum energy inequalities and averaged energy conditions. These have a larger range of validity and may still suffice to prove at least some of the earlier results. One of these conditions, the achronal averaged null energy arXiv:2003.01815v2 [gr-qc] 5 Jun 2020 condition, has recently received increased attention. It is expected to be a universal property of the dynamics of all gravitating physical matter, even in the context of semiclassical or quantum gravity. ∗[email protected], [email protected] [email protected] 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Pointwise energy conditions 6 2.1 Overview of pointwise energy conditions . .8 2.2 On-shell and off-shell pointwise energy conditions . 12 2.3 Examples and counter-examples of pointwise energy conditions . 14 3 Quantum energy inequalities 17 3.1 Overview of quantum energy inequalities . 19 3.2 Examples of quantum energy inequalities . 21 3.3 Quantum energy inequalities and uncertainty relations . 25 4 Classical vs. quantum energy inequalities 28 4.1 Averaged energy conditions . 28 4.2 Quantization and classical limits . 31 4.3 Derivation of averaged energy conditions from quantum field theory . 34 5 Applications 37 5.1 Singularity theorems . 37 5.2 Black holes . 43 5.3 Restrictions on exotic spacetimes . 44 5.4 Cosmological applications . 47 6 Outlook 49 2 1 Introduction In general relativity, according to the famous quote by Wheeler, “Space tells matter how to move. Matter tells space how to curve” ([1] Sec. 1.1). This mutual influence is encoded in the combination of Einstein’s equation and the dynamical equations of the matter that is present. If one focuses solely on Einstein’s equation, however, without imposing any restrictions on the matter, any Lorentzian met- ric field on any manifold can be regarded as a solution. This may lead to surprising phenomena, such as wormholes, superluminal travel and closed timelike curves or other causality violations. The fact that these phenomena have never been observed then requires an explanation. The most common ex- planation is that such spacetimes typically require the presence of matter fields with exotic properties, such as negative energy densities. In the context of these exotic properties an important role is played by energy conditions. These are certain pointwise restrictions on the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the matter (or stress tensor for short), whose purpose is three-fold. Firstly, because Einstein’s equation involves no other proper- ties of matter than its stress tensor, energy conditions allow us to analyse the behaviour of gravitating systems without the need to specify the detailed behaviour of the matter. This method of bypassing a complicated, detailed analysis was the key step that allowed Penrose and Hawking to prove their singularity theorems [2, 3]. Secondly, energy conditions aim to capture common features of many different kinds of matter, thereby encoding an idea of “normal matter” that should be valid quite gen- erally. Thirdly, the energy conditions aim for a conceptually simple characterization. The positivity of the energy density, e.g., may be related to the stability of the system, at least in the naive sense that systems in classical mechanics are stable when the energy is bounded from below. The balance between these three purposes has been a persistent cause of tension. One would like to have an energy condition that is weak enough to be valid for as many types of matter as possible, ideally including all observed kinds of matter and possibly also other “physically reason- able” matter. At the same time, the condition should be strong enough to have physically interesting consequences in the context of general relativity, e.g. singularity theorems, the Area Theorem and Black Hole Topology Theorem, the Chronology Protection Conjecture or others. Balancing these two purposes is difficult enough by itself, but it gets even more complicated by the desire to maintain conceptual simplicity without getting lost in technical, mathematical conditions. As a result of this tension, a variety of energy conditions exist, each with their own notable strengths and weaknesses regarding their range of validity, important consequences and interpreta- tion. The lack of a single preferred energy condition is an important point of criticism [4, 5], espe- cially when the desire to prove strong results leads physicists to invoke energy conditions that appear ad hoc and tailored towards specific proofs. Historically, the first energy conditions were arguably introduced in such an ad hoc way [2, 3]. Even stronger criticisms are raised against the supposed gen- eral validity of energy conditions [6, 4]. The four pointwise energy conditions that are most widely used all admit counter-examples in the form of rather innocent looking classical scalar fields with non-minimal scalar curvature coupling. Although some counter-examples in the literature can be dis- missed as unphysical, e.g. because the field configurations involved do not satisfy Einstein’s equation, the problems do persist also for quite reasonable looking situations. Moreover, all pointwise energy conditions are necessarily violated by essentially any quantum field theory [7]. Finally, a criticism that has been raised at the conceptual level is the lack of a convincing derivation of energy conditions from deeper principles [5]. E.g., energy conditions seem by no means a necessary condition for a classical field theory to have a well-posed initial value formulation, even though they may enter as a useful method in the proof of such a property [8]. Attempted derivations from the Raychaudhuri equation are not convincing and we refer to Sec. 2.3 of [5] for a detailed criticism. A more plausible idea is to derive the energy conditions from global stability properties, but a recent attempt to do so requires the addition of an “improvement term” which seems unphysical and not covariant [9].1 1For a massive minimally coupled scalar field in two-dimensional Minkowski space the procedure of [9] yields a 3 Although quantum fields must violate all pointwise energy conditions, they do often satisfy quan- tum energy inequalities 2. These are lower bounds on a weighted average of components of the expectation value of the renormalized stress tensor [10, 11]. The average is usually taken along a timelike curve, which suffices to obtain a finite, but possibly negative, lower bound. The validity of a QEI shows that violations of some of the classical energy conditions must be restricted in duration and magnitude. For this reason they are widely regarded as an appropriate rebuttal to those critics who invoke the quantum violations to call the usefulness of the classical energy conditions into question. We will consider QEIs in the light of the same three purposes as for the pointwise energy condi- tions. The bounds that QEIs impose on the (expected, renormalized) stress tensor are weaker than the pointwise energy conditions. Although the derivation of e.g. a singularity theorem from a QEI has yet to be achieved, there is good evidence that they will suffice to prove interesting geometric conse- quences, see e.g. [12]. However, QEIs are not formulated as a single general condition, but rather as lower bounds that depend on the theory under consideration. This may be one reason why the term “quantum energy conditions”, instead of QEIs, is not in common use in the literature. Another reason for this discrepancy in terminology appears to be that the early literature on QEIs focused on their role as results that are to be proved, unlike the pointwise energy conditions, which first appeared as assumptions used to prove singularity theorems. In static spacetimes the validity of a QEI is closely related to the stability and thermodynamics of the system in question [13] and we note that the pres- ence of a lower bound for the energy density seems a more natural stability condition than insisting on the lower bound zero, which occurs in the pointwise energy conditions. This provides a conceptually clear motivation to consider QEIs. However, we note that the lower bound need not converge to zero in the long time limit, with the Casimir effect providing a particularly interesting counter-example [14, 15, 16]. The relation between QEIs and time-energy uncertainty relations, which is often alluded to in the literature, is potentially misleading and we stress that the derivation of QEIs neither assumes nor proves any time-energy uncertainty relation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Universal Thermodynamics in the Context of Dynamical Black Hole
    universe Article Universal Thermodynamics in the Context of Dynamical Black Hole Sudipto Bhattacharjee and Subenoy Chakraborty * Department of Mathematics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, West Bengal, India; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 27 April 2018; Accepted: 22 June 2018; Published: 1 July 2018 Abstract: The present work is a brief review of the development of dynamical black holes from the geometric point view. Furthermore, in this context, universal thermodynamics in the FLRW model has been analyzed using the notion of the Kodama vector. Finally, some general conclusions have been drawn. Keywords: dynamical black hole; trapped surfaces; universal thermodynamics; unified first law 1. Introduction A black hole is a region of space-time from which all future directed null geodesics fail to reach the future null infinity I+. More specifically, the black hole region B of the space-time manifold M is the set of all events P that do not belong to the causal past of future null infinity, i.e., B = M − J−(I+). (1) Here, J−(I+) denotes the causal past of I+, i.e., it is the set of all points that causally precede I+. The boundary of the black hole region is termed as the event horizon (H), H = ¶B = ¶(J−(I+)). (2) A cross-section of the horizon is a 2D surface H(S) obtained by intersecting the event horizon with a space-like hypersurface S. As event the horizon is a causal boundary, it must be a null hypersurface generated by null geodesics that have no future end points. In the black hole region, there are trapped surfaces that are closed 2-surfaces (S) such that both ingoing and outgoing congruences of null geodesics are orthogonal to S, and the expansion scalar is negative everywhere on S.
    [Show full text]
  • Semiclassical Gravity and Quantum De Sitter
    Semiclassical gravity and quantum de Sitter Neil Turok Perimeter Institute Work with J. Feldbrugge, J-L. Lehners, A. Di Tucci Credit: Pablo Carlos Budassi astonishing simplicity: just 5 numbers Measurement Error Expansion rate: 67.8±0.9 km s−1 Mpc−1 1% today (Temperature) 2.728 ± 0.004 K .1% (Age) 13.799 ±0.038 bn yrs .3% Baryon-entropy ratio 6±.1x10-10 1% energy Dark matter-baryon ratio 5.4± 0.1 2% Dark energy density 0.69±0.006 x critical 2% Scalar amplitude 4.6±0.006 x 10-5 1% geometry Scalar spectral index -.033±0.004 12% ns (scale invariant = 0) A dns 3 4 gw consistent +m 's; but Ωk , 1+ wDE , d ln k , δ , δ ..,r = A with zero ν s Nature has found a way to create a huge hierarchy of scales, apparently more economically than in any current theory A fascinating situation, demanding new ideas One of the most minimal is to revisit quantum cosmology The simplest of all cosmological models is de Sitter; interesting both for today’s dark energy and for inflation quantum cosmology reconsidered w/ S. Gielen 1510.00699, Phys. Rev. Le+. 117 (2016) 021301, 1612.0279, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 103510. w/ J. Feldbrugge J-L. Lehners, 1703.02076, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 103508, 1705.00192, Phys. Rev. Le+, 119 (2017) 171301, 1708.05104, Phys. Rev. D, in press (2017). w/A. Di Tucci, J. Feldbrugge and J-L. Lehners , in PreParaon (2017) Wheeler, Feynman, Quantum geometrodynamics De Wi, Teitelboim … sum over final 4-geometries 3-geometry (4) Σ1 gµν initial 3-geometry Σ0 fundamental object: Σ Σ ≡ 1 0 Feynman propagator 1 0 Basic object: phase space Lorentzian path integral 2 2 i 2 i (3) i j ADM : ds ≡ (−N + Ni N )dt + 2Nidtdx + hij dx dx Σ1 i (3) (3) i S 1 0 = DN DN Dh Dπ e ! ∫ ∫ ∫ ij ∫ ij Σ0 1 S = dt d 3x(π (3)h!(3) − N H i − NH) ∫0 ∫ ij ij i Basic references: C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems Revisited
    Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited Roland Steinbauer Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna Prague, October 2016 The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 1 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Overview Long-term project on Lorentzian geometry and general relativity with metrics of low regularity jointly with `theoretical branch' (Vienna & U.K.): Melanie Graf, James Grant, G¨untherH¨ormann,Mike Kunzinger, Clemens S¨amann,James Vickers `exact solutions branch' (Vienna & Prague): Jiˇr´ıPodolsk´y,Clemens S¨amann,Robert Svarcˇ The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 2 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Contents 1 The classical singularity theorems 2 Interlude: Low regularity in GR 3 The low regularity singularity theorems 4 Key issues of the proofs 5 Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 3 / 27 Classical singularity thms. Interlude: Low regularity in GR Low regularity singularity thms. Proofs Outlook Table of Contents 1 The classical singularity theorems 2 Interlude: Low regularity in GR 3 The low regularity singularity theorems 4 Key issues of the proofs 5 Outlook The Penrose and Hawking Singularity Theorems revisited 4 / 27 Theorem (Pattern singularity theorem [Senovilla, 98]) In a spacetime the following are incompatible (i) Energy condition (iii) Initial or boundary condition (ii) Causality condition (iv) Causal geodesic completeness (iii) initial condition ; causal geodesics start focussing (i) energy condition ; focussing goes on ; focal point (ii) causality condition ; no focal points way out: one causal geodesic has to be incomplete, i.e., : (iv) Classical singularity thms.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Semiclassical Gravity
    ANNALS OF PHYSICS 196, 296-M (1989) Notes on Semiclassical Gravity T. P. SINGH AND T. PADMANABHAN Theoretical Astrophvsics Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Horn; Bhabha Road, Bombay 400005, India Received March 31, 1989; revised July 6, 1989 In this paper we investigate the different possible ways of defining the semiclassical limit of quantum general relativity. We discuss the conditions under which the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor can act as the source for a semiclassical, c-number, gravitational field. The basic issues can be understood from the study of the semiclassical limit of a toy model, consisting of two interacting particles, which mimics the essential properties of quan- tum general relativity. We define and study the WKB semiclassical approximation and the gaussian semiclassical approximation for this model. We develop rules for Iinding the back- reaction of the quantum mode 4 on the classical mode Q. We argue that the back-reaction can be found using the phase of the wave-function which describes the dynamics of 4. We find that this back-reaction is obtainable from the expectation value of the hamiltonian if the dis- persion in this phase can be neglected. These results on the back-reaction are generalised to the semiclassical limit of the Wheeler-Dewitt equation. We conclude that the back-reaction in semiclassical gravity is ( Tlk) only when the dispersion in the phase of the matter wavefunc- tional can be neglected. This conclusion is highlighted with a minisuperspace example of a massless scalar field in a Robertson-Walker universe. We use the semiclassical theory to show that the minisuperspace approximation in quantum cosmology is valid only if the production of gravitons is negligible.
    [Show full text]
  • Unitarity Condition on Quantum Fields in Semiclassical Gravity Abstract
    KNUTH-26,March1995 Unitarity Condition on Quantum Fields in Semiclassical Gravity Sang Pyo Kim ∗ Department of Physics Kunsan National University Kunsan 573-701, Korea Abstract The condition for the unitarity of a quantum field is investigated in semiclas- sical gravity from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. It is found that the quantum field preserves unitarity asymptotically in the Lorentzian universe, but does not preserve unitarity completely in the Euclidean universe. In particular we obtain a very simple matter field equation in the basis of the generalized invariant of the matter field Hamiltonian whose asymptotic solution is found explicitly. Published in Physics Letters A 205, 359 (1995) Unitarity of quantum field theory in curved space-time has been a problem long debated but sill unsolved. In particular the issue has become an impassioned altercation with the discovery of the Hawking radiation [1] from black hole in relation to the information loss problem. Recently there has been a series of active and intensive investigations of quantum ∗E-mail : [email protected] 1 effects of matter field through dilaton gravity and resumption of unitarity and information loss problem (for a good review and references see [2]). In this letter we approach the unitarity problem and investigate the condition for the unitarity of a quantum field from the point of view of semiclassical gravity based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation [3]. By developing various methods [4–18] for semiclassical gravity and elaborating further the new asymptotic expansion method [19] for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, we derive the quantum field theory for a matter field from the Wheeler-DeWittt equation for the gravity coupled to the matter field, which is equivalent to a gravitational field equation and a matrix equation for the matter field through a definition of cosmological time.
    [Show full text]
  • Inflation Without Quantum Gravity
    Inflation without quantum gravity Tommi Markkanen, Syksy R¨as¨anen and Pyry Wahlman University of Helsinki, Department of Physics and Helsinki Institute of Physics P.O. Box 64, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: tommi dot markkanen at helsinki dot fi, syksy dot rasanen at iki dot fi, pyry dot wahlman at helsinki dot fi Abstract. It is sometimes argued that observation of tensor modes from inflation would provide the first evidence for quantum gravity. However, in the usual inflationary formalism, also the scalar modes involve quantised metric perturbations. We consider the issue in a semiclassical setup in which only matter is quantised, and spacetime is classical. We assume that the state collapses on a spacelike hypersurface, and find that the spectrum of scalar perturbations depends on the hypersurface. For reasonable choices, we can recover the usual inflationary predictions for scalar perturbations in minimally coupled single-field models. In models where non-minimal coupling to gravity is important and the field value is sub-Planckian, we do not get a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of scalar perturbations. As gravitational waves are only produced at second order, the tensor-to-scalar ratio is negligible. We conclude that detection of inflationary gravitational waves would indeed be needed to have observational evidence of quantisation of gravity. arXiv:1407.4691v2 [astro-ph.CO] 4 May 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Semiclassical inflation 3 2.1 Action and equations of motion 3 2.2 From homogeneity and isotropy to perturbations 6 3 Matching across the collapse 7 3.1 Hypersurface of collapse 7 3.2 Inflation models 10 4 Conclusions 13 1 Introduction Inflation and the quantisation of gravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Dissertation-Final.Pdf
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School The Eberly College of Science CORRELATIONS IN QUANTUM GRAVITY AND COSMOLOGY A Dissertation in Physics by Bekir Baytas © 2018 Bekir Baytas Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2018 The dissertation of Bekir Baytas was reviewed and approved∗ by the following: Sarah Shandera Assistant Professor of Physics Dissertation Advisor, Chair of Committee Eugenio Bianchi Assistant Professor of Physics Martin Bojowald Professor of Physics Donghui Jeong Assistant Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics Nitin Samarth Professor of Physics Head of the Department of Physics ∗Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii Abstract We study what kind of implications and inferences one can deduce by studying correlations which are realized in various physical systems. In particular, this thesis focuses on specific correlations in systems that are considered in quantum gravity (loop quantum gravity) and cosmology. In loop quantum gravity, a spin-network basis state, nodes of the graph describe un-entangled quantum regions of space, quantum polyhedra. We introduce Bell- network states and study correlations of quantum polyhedra in a dipole, a pentagram and a generic graph. We find that vector geometries, structures with neighboring polyhedra having adjacent faces glued back-to-back, arise from Bell-network states. The results present show clearly the role that entanglement plays in the gluing of neighboring quantum regions of space. We introduce a discrete quantum spin system in which canonical effective methods for background independent theories of quantum gravity can be tested with promising results. In particular, features of interacting dynamics are analyzed with an emphasis on homogeneous configurations and the dynamical building- up and stability of long-range correlations.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical and Semi-Classical Energy Conditions Arxiv:1702.05915V3 [Gr-Qc] 29 Mar 2017
    Classical and semi-classical energy conditions1 Prado Martin-Morunoa and Matt Visserb aDepartamento de F´ısica Te´orica I, Ciudad Universitaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, E-28040 Madrid, Spain bSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: The standard energy conditions of classical general relativity are (mostly) linear in the stress-energy tensor, and have clear physical interpretations in terms of geodesic focussing, but suffer the significant drawback that they are often violated by semi-classical quantum effects. In contrast, it is possible to develop non-standard energy conditions that are intrinsically non-linear in the stress-energy tensor, and which exhibit much better well-controlled behaviour when semi-classical quantum effects are introduced, at the cost of a less direct applicability to geodesic focussing. In this chapter we will first review the standard energy conditions and their various limitations. (Including the connection to the Hawking{Ellis type I, II, III, and IV classification of stress-energy tensors). We shall then turn to the averaged, nonlinear, and semi-classical energy conditions, and see how much can be done once semi-classical quantum effects are included. arXiv:1702.05915v3 [gr-qc] 29 Mar 2017 1Draft chapter, on which the related chapter of the book Wormholes, Warp Drives and Energy Conditions (to be published by Springer) will be based. Contents 1 Introduction1 2 Standard energy conditions2 2.1 The Hawking{Ellis type I | type IV classification4 2.2 Alternative canonical form8 2.3 Limitations of the standard energy conditions9 3 Averaged energy conditions 11 4 Nonlinear energy conditions 12 5 Semi-classical energy conditions 14 6 Discussion 16 1 Introduction The energy conditions, be they classical, semiclassical, or \fully quantum" are at heart purely phenomenological approaches to deciding what form of stress-energy is to be considered \physically reasonable".
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rays, Singularities, and All That
    Light Rays, Singularities, and All That Edward Witten School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA Abstract This article is an introduction to causal properties of General Relativity. Topics include the Raychaudhuri equation, singularity theorems of Penrose and Hawking, the black hole area theorem, topological censorship, and the Gao-Wald theorem. The article is based on lectures at the 2018 summer program Prospects in Theoretical Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, and also at the 2020 New Zealand Mathematical Research Institute summer school in Nelson, New Zealand. Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Causal Paths 4 3 Globally Hyperbolic Spacetimes 11 3.1 Definition . 11 3.2 Some Properties of Globally Hyperbolic Spacetimes . 15 3.3 More On Compactness . 18 3.4 Cauchy Horizons . 21 3.5 Causality Conditions . 23 3.6 Maximal Extensions . 24 4 Geodesics and Focal Points 25 4.1 The Riemannian Case . 25 4.2 Lorentz Signature Analog . 28 4.3 Raychaudhuri’s Equation . 31 4.4 Hawking’s Big Bang Singularity Theorem . 35 5 Null Geodesics and Penrose’s Theorem 37 5.1 Promptness . 37 5.2 Promptness And Focal Points . 40 5.3 More On The Boundary Of The Future . 46 1 5.4 The Null Raychaudhuri Equation . 47 5.5 Trapped Surfaces . 52 5.6 Penrose’s Theorem . 54 6 Black Holes 58 6.1 Cosmic Censorship . 58 6.2 The Black Hole Region . 60 6.3 The Horizon And Its Generators . 63 7 Some Additional Topics 66 7.1 Topological Censorship . 67 7.2 The Averaged Null Energy Condition .
    [Show full text]
  • Singularities, Black Holes, and Cosmic Censorship: a Tribute to Roger Penrose
    Foundations of Physics (2021) 51:42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00432-1 INVITED REVIEW Singularities, Black Holes, and Cosmic Censorship: A Tribute to Roger Penrose Klaas Landsman1 Received: 8 January 2021 / Accepted: 25 January 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract In the light of his recent (and fully deserved) Nobel Prize, this pedagogical paper draws attention to a fundamental tension that drove Penrose’s work on general rela- tivity. His 1965 singularity theorem (for which he got the prize) does not in fact imply the existence of black holes (even if its assumptions are met). Similarly, his versatile defnition of a singular space–time does not match the generally accepted defnition of a black hole (derived from his concept of null infnity). To overcome this, Penrose launched his cosmic censorship conjecture(s), whose evolution we discuss. In particular, we review both his own (mature) formulation and its later, inequivalent reformulation in the PDE literature. As a compromise, one might say that in “generic” or “physically reasonable” space–times, weak cosmic censorship postulates the appearance and stability of event horizons, whereas strong cosmic censorship asks for the instability and ensuing disappearance of Cauchy horizons. As an encore, an “Appendix” by Erik Curiel reviews the early history of the defni- tion of a black hole. Keywords General relativity · Roger Penrose · Black holes · Ccosmic censorship * Klaas Landsman [email protected] 1 Department of Mathematics, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 42 Page 2 of 38 Foundations of Physics (2021) 51:42 Conformal diagram [146, p. 208, Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Hole Formation and Stability: a Mathematical Investigation
    BULLETIN (New Series) OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 55, Number 1, January 2018, Pages 1–30 http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/bull/1592 Article electronically published on September 25, 2017 BLACK HOLE FORMATION AND STABILITY: A MATHEMATICAL INVESTIGATION LYDIA BIERI Abstract. The dynamics of the Einstein equations feature the formation of black holes. These are related to the presence of trapped surfaces in the spacetime manifold. The mathematical study of these phenomena has gained momentum since D. Christodoulou’s breakthrough result proving that, in the regime of pure general relativity, trapped surfaces form through the focusing of gravitational waves. (The latter were observed for the first time in 2015 by Advanced LIGO.) The proof combines new ideas from geometric analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, and it introduces new methods to solve large data problems. These methods have many applications beyond general relativity. D. Christodoulou’s result was generalized by S. Klainerman and I. Rodnianski, and more recently by these authors and J. Luk. Here, we investigate the dynamics of the Einstein equations, focusing on these works. Finally, we address the question of stability of black holes and what has been known so far, involving recent works of many contributors. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Mathematical general relativity 3 3. Gravitational radiation 12 4. The formation of closed trapped surfaces 14 5. Stability of black holes 25 6. Cosmic censorship 26 Acknowledgments 27 About the author 27 References 27 1. Introduction The Einstein equations exhibit singularities that are hidden behind event hori- zons of black holes. A black hole is a region of spacetime that cannot be ob- served from infinity.
    [Show full text]
  • SEMICLASSICAL GRAVITY and ASTROPHYSICS Arundhati Dasgupta, Lethbridge, CCGRRA-16 WHY PROBE SEMICLASSICAL GRAVITY at ALL
    SEMICLASSICAL GRAVITY AND ASTROPHYSICS arundhati dasgupta, lethbridge, CCGRRA-16 WHY PROBE SEMICLASSICAL GRAVITY AT ALL quantum gravity is important at Planck scales Semi classical gravity is important, as Hawking estimated for primordial black holes of radius using coherent states I showed that instabilities can happen due to semi classical corrections for black holes with horizon radius of the order of WHY COHERENT STATES useful semiclassical states in any quantum theory expectation values of the operators are closest to their classical values fluctuations about the classical value are controlled, usually by `standard deviation’ parameter as in a Gaussian, and what can be termed as `semi-classical’ parameter. in SHM coherent states expectation values of operators are exact, but not so in non-abelian coherent states LQG: THE QUANTUM GRAVITY THEORY WHERE COHERENT STATES CAN BE DEFINED based on work by mathematician Hall. coherent states are defined as the Kernel of transformation from real Hilbert space to the Segal-Bergman representation. S e & # 1 h A = Pexp$ Adx! I I −1 e ( ) $ ∫ ! Pe = − Tr[T h e * E h e ] % e " a ∫ EXPECTATION VALUES OF OPERATORS Coherent State in the holonomy representation The expectation values of the momentum operator non-polynomial corrections CORRECTIONS TO THE HOLONOMY GEOMETRIC INTERPRETATION Lemaitre metric does not cancel when corrected The corrected metric does not transform to the Schwarzschild metric WHAT DOES THIS `EXTRA TERM’ MEAN It is a `strain’ on the space-time fabric. Can LIGO detect such changes from the classical metric? This is a linearized perturbation over a Schwarzschild metric, and would contribute to `even’ mode of a spherical gravity wave, though cannot be anticipated in the polynomial linearized mode expansion unstatic-unspherical semiclassical correction THE STRAIN MAGNITUDE A.
    [Show full text]