sign in sign up
<<
Home , John Archibald Wheeler

Local gravitational energy in higher dimensions arXiv:2001.08485 (accepted by CQG)

Jinzhao Wang (ETH)

It is essential to understand the nature of gravitational energy in , cosmology and quantum . It is reasonable to say that we do have a good grasp of the global energy defined for the whole , such as the ADM mass, whereas locally we only know how to characterise the matter energy via the stress tensor. The gravitational field itself carries energy, but it is tricky to locally describe it in general relativity. It is well know that the forbids a covariant stress tensor characterising the energy content of the gravitational field [1]. Nevertheless, there is no obstruction in giving nonlocal prescriptions and the quasilocal mass (QLM) is such an attempt. Over the past half-century, QLM is an ongoing research subject studied by both physicists and mathematicians [2–12]. Nevertheless, QLM is rarely studied in dimensions beyond four. Here we make an attempt to investigate the local gravitational energy in higher dimensions, through the lens of quasilocal mass proposals that can be reasonably generalised to higher dimensions. We find a new quantity W that characterize the local gravitational energy in all dimensions, which matches the well-known Bel-Robinson (BR) superensergy at four dimensions. As the gravitational energy density is an invalid notion, the small sphere limit is as local as one can probe about the gravitational energy. It also serves as an important guidance for a sound definition for QLM. Physically, the limit should be proportional to the stress tensor at leading order at the presence of matter or the Bel-Robinson superenergy Q0 in vacuum [2], which we define as 1 Q := Q(e , e , e , e ), with Q = C C e f + C C e f − g C C efg (1) 0 0 0 0 0 abcd aecf b d aedf b c 2 ab cefg d where e0 specifies a timelike direction in which the energy is measured, and C is the Weyl tensor. Note that the dimension of BR tensor is not the same as the dimension of energy density so we call it the superenergy. Since no gravitational energy density exists, the BR superenergy would be a very good substitute. The BR tensor is defined in a way similar to how the electromagnetic stress tensor is built from the electromagnetic tensor. In fact, using dimensional analysis, one can argue that in four dimensional vacuum any Lorentz invariant quasilocal mass expression for a small sphere must be proportional to Q0 at leading order [2]. This justifies the interpretation of Q0 as purely gravitational energy. It is also a useful tool in studying the dynamics of general relativity such as the nonlinear stability of the Minkowski spacetime [13]. It is natural to expect that the stress tensor T will be the leading order characterisation of quasilocal mass or any local gravitational energy in arbitrary dimensions. Furthermore, given that the BR superenergy uniquely generalises to higher dimensions [14], which we denote as Q, one should expect the QLM defined for higher dimensions to reproduce Q as well. In n = 4, there are many results concerning the small sphere limits of various QLM’s. Some notable results concern the Hawking mass by Horowitz and Schmidt [15], the Brown-York (BY) mass by Brown, Lau and York (BLY) [16], the Kijowski-Epp-Liu-Yau (KELY) mass by Yu [17] and the Wang-Yau (WY) mass by Chen, Wang and Yau 1 [18]. They all exactly agree upon the non-vacuum limit. In vacuum, these QLM’s give 90 Q0 in the small sphere limit via the lightcone cuts. We generalise these definitions to higher dimensions under appropriate assumptions and study their small-sphere behaviours. We find that in non-vacuum there is no surprise that the stress tensor shows up universally. However, in vacuum with n > 4, a new quantity W instead of the BR superenergy shows up in the local limit. It is defined using the electromagnetic decompositions {E,H,D} of the Weyl tensor, (6n2 − 20n + 8)E2 + 6(n − 3)H2 − 3D2 W := . (2) 36(n − 3)(n − 2)(n2 − 1) Our main results are the following:

Theorem 1. Let Sl be the family of surfaces shrinking towards p along lightcone cuts defined with respect to (p, e0) in a n-dimensional spacetime, the limits of the Hawking mass as l goes to 0 are 1. In non-vacuum,

−(n−1) Ωn−2 lim l MH (Sl) = T (e0, e0). (3) l→0 n − 1 2. In vacuum or the stress tensor T vanishes in an open set containing p,

−(n+1) lim l MH (Sl) = W. (4) l→0 2 where the tensors T, W,E,H,D are evaluated at p.

Theorem 2. Let Sl be the family of surfaces shrinking towards p along lightcone cuts defined with respect to (p, e0) in a n-dimensional spacetime, and assume the isometric embedding into the lightcone reference exists, the limits of the Brown-York mass as l goes to 0 are 1. In non-vacuum,

−(n−1) Ωn−2 lim l MBY (Sl) = T (e0, e0). (5) l→0 n − 1

2. In vacuum or the stress tensor T vanishes in an open set containing p,

−(n+1) lim l MBY (Sl) = W. (6) l→0

As noted by BLY [16], it is rather surprising that in four dimensions, both the Hawking mass and the BY mass yield the same vacuum limit as the two proposals are constructed from two totally different approaches. Here we choose the same lightcone reference as BLY, and we see that their small sphere limit agree in all dimensions. Our results suggest that the generalised Bel-Robinson superenergy Q, though unique, does not retain its gravitational energy interpretation beyond four dimensional spacetime. We also found similar results for a mroe refined QLM proposal, the Kijowski-Epp-Liu-Yau mass. It is surely not a coincidence that the same quantity appears in distinct proposals of QLMs. We believe that W somehow characterises the local gravitational energy content, perhaps in an elusive way. Through the rigourous mathematical tools of quasilocal mass, we give here a candidate for the gravitational energy, which is worth investigating further to clarify its physical meaning.

[1] Charles W Misner, Kip S Thorne, and , ( Press, 2017). [2] L´aszl´oB Szabados, “Quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum in general relativity,” Living reviews in rela- tivity 12, 4 (2009). [3] Stephen W Hawking, “Gravitational radiation in an expanding ,” Journal of Mathematical 9, 598–604 (1968). [4] Sean A Hayward, “Quasilocal gravitational energy,” D 49, 831 (1994). [5] , “Quasi-local mass and angular momentum in general relativity,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 381, 53–63 (1982). [6] J David Brown and James W York Jr, “Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action,” Physical Review D 47, 1407 (1993). [7] Jerzy Kijowski, “A simple derivation of canonical structure and quasi-local hamiltonians in general relativity,” General Relativity and Gravitation 29, 307–343 (1997). [8] Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu and Shing-Tung Yau, “Positivity of quasilocal mass,” Physical review letters 90, 231102 (2003). [9] Mu-Tao Wang and Shing-Tung Yau, “Quasilocal mass in general relativity,” Physical review letters 102, 021101 (2009). [10] Richard J Epp, “Angular momentum and an invariant quasilocal energy in general relativity,” Physical Review D 62, 124018 (2000). [11] Robert Bartnik, “New definition of quasilocal mass,” Physical review letters 62, 2346 (1989). [12] Raphael Bousso, Yasunori Nomura, and Grant N Remmen, “Outer entropy and quasilocal energy,” Physical Review D 99, 046002 (2019). [13] and Sergiu Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the (PMS-41) (Prince- ton University Press, 2014). [14] Jose MM Senovilla, “Super-energy tensors,” Classical and 17, 2799 (2000). [15] GT Horowitz and BG Schmidt, “Note on gravitational energy,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 381, 215–224 (1982). [16] J David Brown, SR Lau, and JW York, “Canonical quasilocal energy and small spheres,” Physical Review D 59, 064028 (1999). [17] Peng Peng Yu, “The limiting behavior of the liu-yau quasi-local energy,” .org/abs/0706.1081 (2007). [18] Po-Ning Chen, Mu-Tao Wang, and Shing-Tung Yau, “Evaluating small sphere limit of the wang–yau quasi-local energy,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 357, 731–774 (2018).