PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

2026-10-15T19:30:44Z

Published from the Principia Machina source

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 15 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Why gravity has no local energy}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Why gravity has no local energy}}
			{{Noether's theorems map}}

	''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Applications/General relativity and the energy question\|General relativity and the energy question]].''		''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Applications/General relativity and the energy question\|General relativity and the energy question]].''
Line 109:		Line 110:
	''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the		''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the
	counterpart page named above.''		counterpart page named above.''

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

2026-09-10T13:29:55Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:29, 10 September 2026
(No difference)

NT>NoetherVolumeBuild: Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-30)

2026-09-10T00:00:00Z

Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-30)

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Why gravity has no local energy}}

''Mathematical counterpart: [[Noether's theorems/Applications/General relativity and the energy question|General relativity and the energy question]].''

This is the question Noether's paper was written to answer. The answer is not that
gravitational energy is hard to define. It is that the thing being looked for does
not exist, and there is a rule saying exactly when it will not.

== The problem as it stood in 1918 ==

Every other field theory says how much energy sits in each small region. Gravity
does not.

The quantity general relativity offers for the job behaves badly. Change your
coordinate labels and it changes. Pick any point you like and there are labels
making it zero there. A quantity you can make vanish by relabelling is not telling
you how much of anything is present.

For three years this was read as unfinished business. The theory was young, the
formalism unsettled, and somebody would eventually write down the right
expression.

== The rule ==

Noether's answer is a rule with two sides, and both sides are needed.

'''A conservation law is empty exactly when the symmetry it came from sits inside
a symmetry you can dial differently at every point.'''

Empty here means the sense on
[[Noether's theorems/Explainers/A conservation law that is only wearing the costume|the
costume page]]: the conserved quantity is assembled out of the equations of motion,
so saying it is conserved reports nothing the equations had not already said.

Now apply it. Energy conservation comes from the symmetry "shift everything in
time". General relativity lets you relabel spacetime however you like, differently
here than there — and shifting everything in time is one such relabelling.

So the symmetry sits inside a local one. The rule fires. The energy relations are
empty, and no better expression is coming, because there is nothing to find.

== The other side of the rule, which is the important half ==

A rule that always said "empty" would explain nothing.

Noether checks the other direction herself, in a footnote. Ordinary mechanics, and
special relativity: their energy theorems are '''genuine'''. Neither theory has a
local symmetry, so there is nothing for the global one to hide inside, and the
condition fails.

'''That is what makes this an explanation rather than a restatement of the
difficulty.''' The rule separates the cases, and it puts gravity on one side and
everything else on the other for a stated reason.

== Two misreadings ==

'''"Gravity is the reason."''' It is not. The rule is about symmetries, and any
theory meeting the condition behaves this way. Noether proves the point by
building a local symmetry out of a logarithm — a construction with no physics in it
whatsoever — and showing the empty energy relations appear exactly as the rule
requires. Gravity satisfies a condition; it does not cause one.

'''"General relativity has no energy."''' Also not. For an isolated system — a
star with empty space stretching away in all directions — a total energy can be
defined by watching how spacetime behaves far away, and it is meaningful and
measurable. What is unavailable is the local statement: this much here, that much
there.

The distinction is the one from
[[Noether's theorems/Explainers/A flowing quantity and a standing total|the flow
and total page]]. Usually the total follows from the local statement. Here the
local statement fails and a total survives by a different route entirely.

== And a second, unrelated problem ==

Even where a spacetime does have a symmetry, most spacetimes have very few, and a
realistic one has none at all. That is the situation on
[[Noether's theorems/Explainers/Symmetries of a curved space|the curved space
page]].

Keep the two apart. No symmetry is a shortage. A symmetry swallowed by a local one
is a surplus. General relativity manages both, and describing either as "energy is
a problem in general relativity" flattens two different facts into one vague one.

== What the offending quantity actually is ==

It has a name — a pseudotensor — and the name records the complaint rather than
explaining it.

A proper physical quantity in general relativity has to behave in a definite way
when you change coordinate labels. Everybody must agree about it, even while
describing it in different words. That is what being a tensor means, and the
matter side of Einstein's equations satisfies it.

The gravitational energy expression does not. Relabel and it changes, and not in
the disciplined way a real quantity changes. Two observers using different labels
will not merely describe the same energy differently; they will disagree about
whether there is any.

For a while this looked like a construction that had come out slightly wrong.
Several people proposed alternatives — Einstein, Lorentz, Weyl and Hilbert each
had one — and Klein's 1918 paper showed that all of them followed from a single
identity and differed only in which term had been absorbed where.

'''That was the clue.''' A quantity that can be shuffled about that freely, with
no principle selecting one version, is not a quantity that has a value. It took
the criterion on this page to turn that suspicion into a proof.

''No mathematics is used on this page. The mathematical treatment is on the
counterpart page named above.''

Noether's theorems/Explainers/Why gravity has no local energy - Revision history

PMA Publisher: Published from the Principia Machina source

BFP Rauch: 1 revision imported

NT>NoetherVolumeBuild: Noether theorems volume, initial import (B-30)