Go to previous page Go up Go to next page

4.3 On lists of criteria of reasonableness of the quasi-local quantities

In the literature there are various, more or less ad hoc, ‘lists of criteria of reasonableness’ of the quasi-local quantities (see for example [131Jump To The Next Citation Point111Jump To The Next Citation Point]). However, before discussing them, it seems useful to formulate first some general principles that any quasi-local quantity should satisfy.

4.3.1 General expectations

In non-gravitational physics the notions of conserved quantities are connected with symmetries of the system, and they are introduced through some systematic procedure in the Lagrangian and/or Hamiltonian formalism. In general relativity the total energy-momentum and angular momentum are 2-surface observables, thus we concentrate on them even at the quasi-local level. These facts motivate our three a priori expectations:

  1. The quasi-local quantities that are 2-surface observables should depend only on the 2-surface data, but they cannot depend e.g. on the way that the various geometric structures on S are extended off the 2-surface. There seems to be no a priori reason why the 2-surface would have to be restricted to have spherical topology. Thus, in the ideal case, the general construction of the quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum should work for any closed orientable spacelike 2-surface.
  2. It is desirable to derive the quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum as the charge integral (Lagrangian interpretation) and/or as the value of the Hamiltonian on the constraint surface in the phase space (Hamiltonian interpretation). If they are introduced in some other way, they should have a Lagrangian and/or Hamiltonian interpretation.
  3. These quantities should correspond to the ‘quasi-symmetries’ of the 2-surface. In particular, the quasi-local energy-momentum should be expected to be in the dual of the space of the ‘quasi-translations’, and the angular momentum in the dual of the space of the ‘quasi-rotations’.

To see that these conditions are non-trivial, let us consider the expressions based on the linkage integral (16View Equation). L [K] S does not satisfy the first part of Requirement 1. In fact, it depends on the derivative of the normal components of a K in the direction orthogonal to S for any value of the parameter a. Thus it depends not only on the geometry of S and the vector field Ka given on the 2-surface, but on the way in which Ka is extended off the 2-surface. Therefore, LS [K] is ‘less quasi-local’ than AS [w] or HS [c, m] introduced in Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2, respectively.

We will see that the Hawking energy satisfies Requirement 1, but not Requirements 2 and 3. The Komar integral (i.e. the linkage for a = 0) has the form of the charge integral of a superpotential: gf 8pGKS [K] := \~/ [aKb] 1eabcd S 2, i.e. it has a Lagrangian interpretation. The corresponding conserved Komar-current is defined by a 8pG K C [K] : a b [a b] = G bK + \~/ b \~/ K. However, its flux integral on some compact spacelike hypersurface with boundary S := @S cannot be a Hamiltonian on the ADM phase space in general. In fact, it is

integral H [K] := Ca [K] t dS = K S K a integral 1 gf ( 1 ) = (cN + caN a) dS + ----- va xabN b- DaN + ----N a dS. (35) S 8pG S 2N
Here c and c a are, respectively, the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints of the vacuum theory, a t is the future directed unit normal to S, a v is the outward directed unit normal to S in S, and N and a N are the lapse and shift part of a K, respectively, defined by Ka =: N ta + N a. Thus KH[K] is a well-defined function of the configuration and velocity variables (N, N a,hab) and (N ,N a,hab), respectively. However, since the velocity N a cannot be expressed by the canonical variables [39646], H[K] K can be written as a function on the ADM phase space only if the boundary conditions at @S ensure the vanishing of the integral of a vaN /N.

4.3.2 Pragmatic criteria

Since in certain special situations there are generally accepted definitions for the energy-momentum and angular momentum, it seems reasonable to expect that in these situations the quasi-local quantities reduce to them. One half of the pragmatic criteria is just this expectation, and the other is a list of some a priori requirements on the behaviour of the quasi-local quantities.

One such list for the energy-momentum and mass, based mostly on [131Jump To The Next Citation Point111Jump To The Next Citation Point] and the properties of the quasi-local energy-momentum of the matter fields of Section 2.2, might be the following:


The quasi-local energy-momentum P a S must be a future pointing nonspacelike vector (assuming that the matter fields satisfy the dominant energy condition on some S for which S = @S, and maybe some form of the convexity of S should be required) (‘positivity’).


a PS must be zero iff D(S) is flat, and null iff D(S) has a pp-wave geometry with pure radiation (‘rigidity’).


P a S must give the correct weak field limit.


P a S must reproduce the ADM, Bondi-Sachs and Abbott-Deser energy-momenta in the appropriate limits (‘correct large sphere behaviour’).


For small spheres a PS- must give the expected results (‘correct small sphere behaviour’):

  1. 4pr3T abtb 3 in non-vacuum and
  2. kr5Tabcdtt t b c d in vacuum for some positive constant k and the Bel-Robinson tensor abcd T.


For round spheres P a S must yield the ‘standard’ round sphere expression.


For marginally trapped surfaces the quasi-local mass mS must be the irreducible mass V~ ---------------- Area(S)/16pG2.

Item 1.7 is motivated by the expectation that the quasi-local mass associated with the apparent horizon of a black hole (i.e. the outermost marginally trapped surface in a spacelike slice) be just the irreducible mass [131Jump To The Next Citation Point111Jump To The Next Citation Point]. Usually, mS is expected to be monotonic in some appropriate sense [111Jump To The Next Citation Point]. For example, if S1 = @S for some achronal (and hence spacelike or null) hypersurface S in which S2 is a spacelike closed 2-surface and the dominant energy condition is satisfied on S, then mS1 > mS2 seems to be a reasonable expectation [131Jump To The Next Citation Point]. (But see also the next Section 4.3.3.) On the other hand, in contrast to the energy-momentum and angular momentum of the matter fields on the Minkowski spacetime, the additivity of the energy-momentum (and angular momentum) is not expected. In fact, if S1 and S2 are two connected 2-surfaces, then, for example, the corresponding quasi-local energy-momenta would belong to different vector spaces, namely to the dual of the space of the quasi-translations of the first and of the second 2-surface, respectively. Thus, even if we consider the disjoint union S1 U S2 to surround a single physical system, then we can add the energy-momentum of the first to that of the second only if there is some physically/geometrically distinguished rule defining an isomorphism between the different vector spaces of the quasi-translations. Such an isomorphism would be provided for example by some naturally chosen globally defined flat background. However, as we discussed in Section 3.1.1, general relativity itself does not provide any background: The use of such a background contradicts the complete diffeomorphism invariance of the theory. Nevertheless, the quasi-local mass and the length of the quasi-local Pauli-Lubanski spin of different surfaces can be compared, because they are scalar quantities.

Similarly, any reasonable quasi-local angular momentum expression ab JS-- may be expected to satisfy the following:


J ab S must give zero for round spheres.


For 2-surfaces with zero quasi-local mass the Pauli-Lubanski spin should be proportional to the (null) energy-momentum 4-vector a PS.


JSab must give the correct weak field limit.


J ab S must reproduce the generally accepted spatial angular momentum at the spatial infinity, and in stationary spacetimes it should reduce to the ‘standard’ expression at the null infinity as well (‘correct large sphere behaviour’).


For small spheres the anti-self-dual part of JaSb, defined with respect to the centre of the small sphere (the ‘vertex’ in Section 4.2.2) is expected to give 4pr3T tc(reD(AtB)D') 3 cd in non-vacuum and 5 c de F(A B)F' Cr Tcdeft tt (re t ) in vacuum for some constant C (‘correct small sphere behaviour’).

Since there is no generally accepted definition for the angular momentum at null infinity, we cannot expect anything definite there in non-stationary spacetimes. Similarly, there are inequivalent suggestions for the centre-of-mass at the spatial infinity (see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4).

4.3.3 Incompatibility of certain ‘natural’ expectations

As Eardley noted in [131Jump To The Next Citation Point], probably no quasi-local energy definition exists which would satisfy all of his criteria. In fact, it is easy to see that this is the case. Namely, any quasi-local energy definition which reduces to the ‘standard’ expression for round spheres cannot be monotonic, as the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker or the _O_M,m spacetimes show explicitly. The points where the monotonicity breaks down are the extremal (maximal or minimal) surfaces, which represent event horizon in the spacetime. Thus one may argue that since the event horizon hides a portion of spacetime, we cannot know the details of the physical state of the matter + gravity system behind the horizon. Hence, in particular, the monotonicity of the quasi-local mass may be expected to break down at the event horizon. However, although for stationary systems (or at the moment of time symmetry of a time-symmetric system) the event horizon corresponds to an apparent horizon (or to an extremal surface, respectively), for general non-stationary systems the concepts of the event and apparent horizons deviate. Thus the causal argument above does not seem possible to be formulated in the hypersurface S of Section 4.3.2. Actually, the root of the non-monotonicity is the fact that the quasi-local energy is a 2-surface observable in the sense of Expectation 1 in Section 4.3.1 above. This does not mean, of course, that in certain restricted situations the monotonicity (‘local monotonicity’) could not be proven. This local monotonicity may be based, for example, on Lie dragging of the 2-surface along some special spacetime vector field.

On the other hand, in the literature sometimes the positivity and the monotonicity requirements are confused, and there is an ‘argument’ that the quasi-local gravitational energy cannot be positive definite, because the total energy of the closed universes must be zero. However, this argument is based on the implicit assumption that the quasi-local energy is associated with a compact three dimensional domain, which, together with the positive definiteness requirement would, in fact, imply the monotonicity and a positive total energy for the closed universe. If, on the other hand, the quasi-local energy-momentum is associated with 2-surfaces, then the energy may be positive definite and not monotonic. The standard round sphere energy expression (26View Equation) in the closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime, or, more generally, the Dougan-Mason energy-momentum (see Section 8.2.3) are such examples.

  Go to previous page Go up Go to next page