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.