text:
# Phase transitions in a ferrofluid at magnetic field induced microphase separation

## I Introduction

Ferrofluids are suspensions of ferromagnetic particles with a diameter of about $`10`$nm in a carrier fluid. The particles are stabilized against aggregation by coating with polymers for oily ferrofluids or with charged surfactant for aqueous ferrofluids. On macroscopic scales, ferrofluids can be described as super-paramagnetic liquids . The application of a magnetic field perpendicular to a thin layer induces microphase separation in a homogeneous aqueous or oily ferrofluid with no surfactant and leads to the formation of a periodic lattice of unbranched  or branched  concentrated phase columns. In thin layers of ferrofluid confined together with an immiscible non-magnetic liquid, the columns can merge into sheets , and at a higher field, the sheets evolve into a disordered labyrinthine structure . In pure ferrofluids and in ferrofluid emulsions, only the hexagonal phase of columns has been reported . Similar periodic structures have been observed in other physical systems such as Langmuir monolayers , magnetic garnet thin films , or type I superconductors , as discussed by Seul et al. . In all these systems, there is a spontaneous spatial modulation of an order parameter, which can be either the concentration or the magnetization of the particles, or a combination thereof. The period of the modulation is determined by the competition between long-range dipolar forces and short-range forces favoring constant density. It depends on the magnetic field and the thickness of the sample layer as discussed in a recent study on the aggregate size and spacing formed in a thin film of ferrofluid .

This paper concerns the thermodynamic stability and pattern formation in a suspension of ferromagnetic particles in a carrier fluid in the presence of a magnetic field applied perpendicular to the sample layer. We formulate models for thin films of these suspensions in which particle concentration and magnetization, determined by the degree of alignment of magnetic moments as well as particle concentration, are treated as independent variables. We discuss two possible models for the entropy of the fluid, the lattice gas model and the Carnahan-Starling model . Although the Carnahan-Starling model has already been used for magnetic fluids , it has not been used to describe transitions from a disordered to an ordered phase in ferrofluids. Our lattice model is essentially identical to that of Sano et al.  except that we consider the complete wave-number dependence of interactions rather than the infinite wavenumber limit appropriate to needle-like magnetic domains. Several previous studies, including those of Andelman et al. and Cebers, are based on Landau expansion of a lattice-gas model in the vicinity of the liquid-gas critical point present in the absence of the long-range part of the dipolar interactions. The free energies of these models are even-order expansion up to fourth order in the deviation of the local density (which includes the modulated and spatially uniform components) from the liquid-gas critical density. Our model free energy is in principle valid for arbitrary values of the spatially uniform part of the particle density. We place no restrictions on the spatially uniform components of the density, but we do expand the free energy in a power series in the spatially varying component of the density. The entropy of the lattice-gas model is invariant under $`(\varphi \frac{1}{2})(\varphi \frac{1}{2})`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the volume fraction of ferrofluid particles. The Carnahan-Starling entropy possesses no such symmetry. As a result, its phase diagram, as we shall see, is more asymmetric than that of the lattice-gas model, and its interesting features occur at $`\varphi <1/2`$. We investigate the phase diagrams of our model within mean-field theory in which modulated hexagonal and stripe phases are described by sine waves with wave numbers of a fixed magnitude. Our results are in qualitative agreement with those of Cebers and of Halsey but differ from them in detail, particularly in the low-density regions in which non-magnetic interactions are best described by the Carnahan-Starling free energy.

## II Helmoltz Free Energy

The magnetic particles are assumed to have a spherical ferromagnetic core of radius $`a`$, coated by a sheath of surfactant $`\delta `$. Due to steric hindrance, the particles cannot come closer than a distance $`d=2(a+\delta )`$. Each particle of ferrofluid is a magnetic single-domain of magnetic moment

$$m_0=\frac{4\pi }{3}a^3M_s\mu _0,$$
(1)
where $`M_s`$ is the saturation magnetization of the bulk material, and $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic permeability of the vacuum. The volume of the particles is $`v_0=\pi d^3/6`$. It is assumed that the suspension is monodisperse and that each particle carries the same magnetic moment. We define $`m(𝐫)`$ to be the ratio of the average magnetic moment divided by $`m_0`$, so that $`0m1`$, and $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ to be the volume fraction of the ferrofluid at point $`𝐫`$. We treat the particles as hard spheres, and we include only magnetic dipolar interaction beyond hard sphere repulsion.

The total free energy $`F`$ of the ferrofluid in a magnetic field breaks up into four main contributions: the free energy of independent magnetized particles in a magnetic field $`F_\mathrm{m}(m,\varphi )`$, the dipolar interaction energy $`E_{\mathrm{dip}}(m,\varphi )`$, the entropic contribution of the hard spheres fluid, and the energy cost associated with deviations of $`\varphi `$ from spatial uniformity $`F_{\mathrm{nu}}(\varphi )=k_BTLAd^2𝐫\left(\varphi \right)^2/(2v_0)`$. In this last term, $`L`$ is the thickness of the slab, and $`A`$ is a parameter with units of (length)2, independent of the magnetic field, which is related to the structure factor at low scattering angle .

We have used two different forms of the entropy: the entropy of a gas on a lattice, which has the following form per site

$$s(\varphi )=\varphi \mathrm{log}\varphi +(1\varphi )\mathrm{log}(1\varphi ),$$
(2)
and the entropy,

$$s(\varphi )=\varphi \left(\mathrm{log}\varphi +\varphi \frac{43\varphi }{(1+\varphi )^2}\right),$$
(3)
of a Carnahan-Startling fluid. In the absence of further interactions, the free energies $`k_BTs(\varphi )`$ of these models are convex, and their equilibrium stable phase is a single-phase fluid with spatially uniform $`\varphi `$. As can be seen from Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), the entropy of the lattice model is an even function of $`\varphi 0.5`$, whereas the entropy of the Carnahan-Starling fluid does not have this symmetry. The function $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ follows from a Langevin approach (see appendix A for the derivation of the function $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$):

$$\frac{F_\mathrm{m}}{k_BT}=\frac{L}{v_0}d^2𝐫\varphi \left(f_\mathrm{m}(m)mh\right),$$
(4)
with

$$f_\mathrm{m}(m)=m^1(m)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(^1(m)\right)}{^1(m)}\right),$$
(5)
with $`^1`$ denoting the inverse of the Langevin function. The second term in Eq. (4) is the energy of the dipoles in the magnetic field $`h`$, and the first term, the function $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ represents the rotational entropy of the dipoles. In Eq. (4), we have introduced

$$h=\frac{Hm_0}{k_BT}$$
(6)
which is a unitless measure of the external magnetic field $`H`$.

The dipolar interaction energy (in SI units) can be written generally as:

$$E_{\mathrm{dip}}=\frac{m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{8\pi \mu _0}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}m_\alpha ^im_\beta ^j\left(_i_j\frac{1}{|𝐫_\alpha 𝐫_\beta |}\right),$$
(7)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are Cartesian coordinates, and $`m_\alpha `$ (respectively $`m_\beta `$) is the dimensionless magnetic moment of the particle located at the point $`𝐫_\alpha `$ (respectively $`𝐫_\beta `$). Since $`𝐦_\alpha `$ represents an angular average of the dipole moment, it is directed along the $`z`$-axis, which is taken to be the direction of the applied magnetic field. In the following, we will assume that $`𝐦_\alpha =m_\alpha 𝐞_z`$ is independent of the $`z`$ coordinate. In a continuous description of the medium, which will be discussed in the next section, the local magnetization is

$$M(𝐫)=m_0m(𝐫)\frac{\varphi (𝐫)}{v_0},$$
(8)
where $`m(𝐫)`$ is the coarse-grained unitless magnetic moment at $`𝐫`$. Inserting this equation into the continuum limit of Eq. (7) gives

$$\frac{E_{\mathrm{dip}}}{k_BT}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }L}{2v_0}d^2𝐫d^2𝐫^{}\varphi (𝐫)\varphi (𝐫^{})m(𝐫)m(𝐫^{})g(𝐫,𝐫^{}),$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ is a measure of the dipole-dipole interaction:

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=24\lambda ,\mathrm{with}\lambda =\frac{m_0^2}{4\pi \mu _0d^3k_BT}=\frac{\mu _0M_s^24\pi a^6}{9d^3k_BT},$$
(10)
where $`\lambda `$ is the parameter introduced by Rosensweig . The 2D Fourier transform of the function $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ present in Eq. (9), is defined as

$$g(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}g(𝐪)e^{i\pi 𝐪(𝐫𝐫^{})}.$$
(11)
It depends only on $`q=|𝐪|`$, and it takes the form

$$g(q)=\frac{1}{qL}\left(1\mathrm{exp}(qL)\right)\frac{1}{3},$$
(12)
which can be interpreted as the dipolar part of the pair correlation function . The first term in Eq. (12), is the long range contribution of the interaction, which tends to $`1`$, the demagnetizing factor of a film, as $`q0`$, and to $`0`$ the demagnetizing factor of a needle as $`q\mathrm{}`$. The second term is the short range contribution, due to the local field induced by the surrounding magnetic dipoles. In this geometry where the applied magnetic field is perpendicular to the sample layer, the dipoles are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the plane the layer. The attraction between dipoles in the head-to-tail configuration no longer appears in Eq. (12) because of the integration over the thickness of the sample implicit in the derivation of Eq. (9). Note that $`g(q=0)=2/3`$ is positive. This means that the total free energy is always stable with respect to spatially uniform fluctuation in $`\varphi `$. When $`q\mathrm{}`$, $`g(q)`$ tends to the limit $`1/3`$ determined entirely by local fields. It is the fact that $`g(q)`$ becomes negative for $`qL`$ greater than a critical value that makes any transition from the spatially uniform state possible. Where it not for the negative local field term, there would be no equilibrium spatially modulated phases.

Finally the Gibbs free energy $`F`$ (for a chemical potential $`\mu `$) can be expressed in terms of dimensionless lengths using the length $`\sqrt{A}`$ and the transformations $`𝐫\sqrt{A}𝐫`$ and $`qq/\sqrt{A}`$. The resulting dimensionless free energy $`f=(Fv_0)/(k_BTAL)`$, is

$`f={\displaystyle d^2𝐫\left[\varphi (𝐫)\left(f_\mathrm{m}(m(𝐫))m(𝐫)h\mu \right)+s(\varphi (𝐫))+\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi (𝐫)\right)^2\right]}`$ (13)
$`+12\lambda {\displaystyle d^2𝐫d^2𝐫^{}g(𝐫,𝐫^{})\varphi (𝐫)\varphi (𝐫^{})m(𝐫)m(𝐫^{})},`$ (14)
where the Fourier transform of $`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is given by Eq. (12) with $`q`$ replaced by $`q/\sqrt{A}`$. Thus, $`g(q)`$ as a function of the dimensionless $`q`$ is a function of $`ql`$, where $`l=L/\sqrt{A}`$.

## III Determination of the Phase Diagram

We first look at a spatially uniform state of the ferrofluid. This state of the ferrofluid corresponds to a minimum of the total free energy $`f`$ at $`m=\overline{m}`$ and $`\varphi =\overline{\varphi }`$. It is obtained from the equations

$$\frac{f}{m}=0\mathrm{and}\frac{f}{\varphi }=0.$$
(15)
The first of these equations yields

$$\overline{m}=(h_e),\mathrm{with}h_e=h24\lambda g(0)\overline{\varphi }\overline{m}.$$
(16)
The second equation determining $`\overline{\varphi }`$ must in general be solved numerically. It can however be solved exactly for the lattice gas model. The result is

$$\overline{\varphi }=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\mu )h_e/\mathrm{sinh}(h_e)}.$$
(17)
Equations (16,17) reproduce the main results of the model of Sano et al.  and Cebers  for a spatially uniform ferrofluid, when $`g(0)`$ is replaced by $`g(q\mathrm{})`$ in Eq. (16). In our problem, however, $`g(0)`$ is always positive so that there is no instability toward the formation of coexisting homogeneous phases.

Spatially non-uniform configurations can be studied by expanding the free energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\varphi ,m)=f(\varphi ,m)f(\overline{\varphi },\overline{m})`$ in powers of $`\delta m=m(𝐫)\overline{m}`$ and $`\delta \varphi =\varphi (𝐫)\overline{\varphi }`$. The quadratic part of this free energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_{quad}`$ has a simple form in terms of the 2D Fourier transform $`\delta m(𝐪)`$ and $`\delta \varphi (𝐪)`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_{quad}=\frac{d^2𝐪}{(2\pi )^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}r_{11}|\delta m(𝐪)|^2+\frac{1}{2}r_{22}|\delta \varphi (𝐪)|^2+r_{12}\delta m(𝐪)\delta \varphi (𝐪)\right],$$
(18)
with

$$r=\left(\begin{array}{cc}24\lambda g(q)\overline{\varphi }^2+f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})\overline{\varphi }& 24\lambda g(q)\overline{m}\overline{\varphi }\\ 24\lambda g(q)\overline{m}\overline{\varphi }& 24\lambda g(q)\overline{m}^2+s^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\varphi })+q^2\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
The coefficient $`r_{22}`$ is the most important term determining at what values of $`\lambda `$ transitions occur, and it is worth investigating it in more detail. As already discussed, $`g(q)`$ decreases monotonically from $`2/3`$ to $`1/3`$ as $`q`$ increases from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`q^2`$ grows monotonically with $`q`$, $`24\lambda g(q)\overline{m}^2+q^2`$ has a minimum at $`q=q^{}`$. When $`q^{}l1`$, $`g(q)1/ql1/3`$, and $`q^{}`$ can be evaluated analytically:

$$q^{}=\left[\frac{12\lambda }{l}^2(h_e)\right]^{1/3}.$$
(20)
The only negative term in $`r_{22}`$ is $`\lambda /3`$ coming from the local field term in $`g(q)`$. Thus, we can write in general that

$$r_{22}(q^{})=8\overline{m}^2(\lambda _c\lambda ),$$
(21)
where

$$\lambda _c=\frac{1}{8\overline{m}^2}\left(3q^2+s^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\varphi })\right),$$
(22)
when $`q^{}l1`$. From this, we can see that the system becomes unstable to the formation of modulated phases as $`\lambda `$ grows.

The spatially uniform phase becomes globally unstable with respect to the formation of modulated phase when the determinant, $`J(q)=r_{11}(q)r_{22}(q)r_{12}^2(q)`$, of the matrix in Eq. (19) evaluated at its minimum over $`q`$ becomes negative. A significant simplification of the theory results when fluctuations in $`m`$ are effectively frozen out, which occurs at $`\overline{m}=1`$ when $`f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})=\mathrm{}`$. In this ideal limit, only $`\varphi `$ varies spatially in modulated states, and the stability of the uniform state is determined entirely by $`r_{22}(q)`$ rather than by $`J(q)`$. As long as $`r_{11}(q)>0`$, an effective theory in terms of $`\varphi _q`$ alone can be obtained by integrating over fluctuations in $`m`$. Removing $`m`$ will lead to renormalization of the coefficients of $`(\delta \varphi )^n`$ for all $`n`$, as shown in appendix B. The term with $`n=2`$ is the most important for the determination of the phase diagram. Its value in the effective theory is

$$r(q)=r_{22}(q)\frac{r_{12}^2(q)}{r_{11}(q)}r_{22}(q)\frac{(24\lambda g(q)\overline{m})^2\overline{\varphi }}{f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})},$$
(23)
where the later form is valid provided that $`f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})8\lambda \overline{\varphi }`$. The second term in this equation leads to a small shift in $`q^{}`$, the most unstable wavenumber from its value determined by $`r_{22}(q)`$ alone \[Eq. (20) for $`q^{}l1`$\] and to a small shift in $`\lambda _c`$, the critical value of $`\lambda `$. These shifts are small when $`\overline{m}`$ is sufficiently close to $`1`$. For instance, for $`\lambda =0.578`$, $`l=1000`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }=0.5`$, the second term is much smaller than the first by at least two orders of magnitude for $`h>14.2`$, which corresponds to $`\overline{m}>0.9`$. This is verified in particular at the critical field for the transition to the modulated phases, which occurs in this case at $`h=21.5`$ and $`\overline{m}=0.94`$.

For more general values of $`\lambda `$ however, $`r_{11}`$ can in fact become negative. Unlike $`r_{22}(q)`$, $`r_{11}(q)`$ has no stabilizing $`q^2`$ term in the current theory. As a result, it reaches its minimum value of $`(f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})8\lambda \overline{\varphi })\overline{\varphi }`$ at $`q=\mathrm{}`$. Thus if $`f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(\overline{m})<8\lambda \overline{\varphi }`$, $`r_{11}`$ is negative for a range of $`q`$ and $`J(q)`$ will be negative for $`r_{22}>0`$. This would indicate an instability toward a phase with very short wavelength modulations. Since our theory does not treat short wavelength physics in detail, we will consider only situations in which $`r_{11}`$ is positive. In this case, an effective theory in terms of $`\varphi _q`$ alone can be constructed by integrating over fluctuations in $`m`$.

In constructing phase diagrams in the $`h\overline{\varphi }`$ plane, we have used the two models discussed above: model $`1`$ in which the fluctuations in $`m`$ are ignored, and model $`2`$ in which they are included. Both models treat only terms up to fourth order in $`\varphi _q`$. Our theory in terms of $`\varphi `$ only is very much in the spirit of the single order parameter theory of Cebers , except for the shifts discussed above in $`q^{}`$ and $`\lambda _c`$, which arise when fluctuations in $`m`$ are included. We assume for simplicity that modulated phases are described by Fourier components with reciprocal lattice vectors of the smallest possible magnitude. Higher Fourier components undoubtedly can become important particularly near the hexagonal-to-stripe transition. The effects of these higher Fourier components, which are best treated using real space ansatzes, will be treated elsewhere. The free energy of the different phases are

* The isotropic phase with Helmoltz free energy

$$f_{\mathrm{iso}}=12\lambda g(0)\overline{\varphi }^2\overline{m}^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}h_e}{h_e}\right)\overline{\varphi }+s(\overline{\varphi }),$$
(24)
* The stripe phase with a free energy

$$f_s=f_{\mathrm{iso}}+\frac{1}{4}r\varphi _q^2+u_s\varphi _q^4,$$
(25)
In model 1, the stripe phase corresponds to a modulation $`\delta \varphi (𝐫)=\varphi _q\mathrm{cos}(q^{}y)`$, and the coefficients in Eq. (25) are $`r=r_{22}(q^{})`$ and $`u_s=s^{(4)}(\overline{\varphi })/64`$. In model 2, the stripe phase is characterized by $`\delta \varphi (𝐫)=\varphi _q\mathrm{cos}(q^{}y)`$ and $`\delta m(𝐫)=m_q\mathrm{cos}(q^{}y)`$. The coefficients $`r=r(h,\overline{\varphi })`$ of Eq. (23) and $`u_s`$ of Eq. (B5) evaluated at $`q^{}`$ must be used.
* The hexagonal phase with a free energy

$$f_{\mathrm{hex}}=f_{\mathrm{iso}}+\frac{3}{4}r\varphi _q^2+v\varphi _q^3+u_h\varphi _q^4,$$
(26)
In model 1, the hexagonal phase corresponds to a modulation $`\delta \varphi (𝐫)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\varphi _q\mathrm{cos}(𝐪_i𝐫+\delta _i)`$ with $`|𝐪_i|=q^{}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}𝐪_i=0`$. The coefficients in Eq. (26) are $`r=r_{22}(q^{})`$, $`v=s^{(3)}(\overline{\varphi })/4`$ and $`u_h=15s^{(4)}(\overline{\varphi })/64`$. In model 2, the hexagonal phase corresponds to a modulation of this type for both $`\delta \varphi `$ and $`\delta m`$, and the coefficients $`r=r(q^{})`$, $`v`$ and $`u_h`$ are given by Eqs. (23),(B13) and (B14).

A few comments about the general properties of our models are useful. When $`v(h,\overline{\varphi })`$ is zero, the free energy of the stripe phase is lower than that of the hexagonal phase as can be seen by minimizing Eqs. (25) and (26) over $`\varphi _q`$. The energy density of the stripe phase at its minimum over $`\varphi _q`$ tends to zero as $`r^2`$ as $`r0`$ for $`r<0`$. Thus, at $`\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\varphi }_c`$ and $`h=h_c`$, determined by $`v(h_c,\overline{\varphi }_c)=0`$ and $`r(h_c,\overline{\varphi }_c)=0`$, there is a second-order mean-field transition from the isotropic to the stripe phase . When $`v(h,\overline{\varphi })`$ becomes nonzero, the hexagonal phase has lower free energy than the stripe phase at small but nonzero $`r`$. Thus, there will in general be a transition from the isotropic to the hexagonal phase away from $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$, and the isotropic, stripe, hexagonal, and stripe phases will meet at the point $`\overline{\varphi }=\overline{\varphi }_c`$, $`h=h_c`$. This is indeed the topology obtained in previous calculations. The lattice-gas entropy is invariant under $`\psi =(\varphi \frac{1}{2})\psi `$, and it, therefore, only has even order terms in a power series expansion in $`\psi `$ about $`\psi =0`$. Thus $`s^{(3)}(\overline{\varphi }=\frac{1}{2})=0`$, and the critical point in model 1 will occur at $`\overline{\varphi }_c=1/2`$. The Carnahan-Starling entropy has no reflection symmetry, and in model 1 $`s^{(3)}(\overline{\varphi }_c)=0`$ at $`\overline{\varphi }_c=0.1304`$. The non-entropic terms in the total free energy are not invariant under $`\psi \psi `$. The result is a slight asymmetry in the phase diagram for the Carnahan-Starling model about $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$. In model 2, $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$ and $`h_c`$ can only be determined by the numerical solution of $`v(h_c,\overline{\varphi }_c)=0`$ and $`r(h_c,\overline{\varphi }_c)=0`$. In our calculations, we find that this solution is in general close to the value obtained for model 1.

For a given value of the dipolar interaction parameter $`\lambda `$ and the thickness $`l`$, the critical point is characterized by a critical volume fraction $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$, and a critical field $`h_c`$. In model 1, $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$ depends on the entropy only, and is thus independent of the magnetic field, of $`\lambda `$ and of $`l`$. The critical field $`h_c`$ on the other hand, does depend on the value of $`\lambda `$ and $`l`$. In Fig. 1, the evolution of $`h_c`$ in model 1 is shown as a function of $`\lambda `$ for the lattice model in (a) and for the Carnahan-Starling model in (b). Both figures correspond to the choice of a finite thickness of the layer $`l=1000`$. The critical field $`h_c`$ changes slightly as a function of the thickness, in this regime of large thickness where $`q^{}l1`$. A critical field exists only when $`\lambda `$ is above a minimum value, which is $`0.57`$ in the case of the lattice model, and $`2.68`$ in the case of the Carnahan-Starling model. If $`\lambda `$ is smaller than these limits, there are no equilibrium modulated phases. Notice also that the critical field $`h_c`$ tends to a finite limiting value when $`\lambda `$ is arbitrary large, which is $`9.1`$ in the case of the lattice model, and $`11.32`$ for the Carnahan-Startling model. These lower bounds on the critical field are not zero, since there can be no modulated phases at zero field in this model as noted before.

Figure 2 presents phase diagrams obtained by minimizing the free energy for the different phases. In these diagrams, the spinodal line $`J(q^{})=0`$ is dashed, and the coexistence lines are solid. Figure 2a is the phase diagram for model 1 for $`\lambda =0.578`$ and $`l=1000`$ of a system with the lattice-gas entropy of Eq. (2), whereas Fig. 2b is the phase diagram for model 2, $`\lambda =3`$ and $`l=1000`$ of a system with the entropy of a Carnahan-Startling fluid , defined in Eq. (3). In the vicinity of the critical point all phases are present: the uniform phase (I) (liquid on one side and gas on the other side), the hexagonal phase (H) (direct hexagonal on one side and inverted hexagonal on the other) and the stripe phase (S). The diagram 2a has a lot in common with the one obtained by Andelman et al.  for Langmuir films and by Cebers for ferrofluids , with some important differences. In contrast to the phase diagram of Andelman et al., we find that at high values of the magnetic field (which corresponds to the magnitude of the electrostatic dipolar interaction in their case), a ferrofluid of volume fraction close to $`\overline{\varphi }_c=0.5`$ has always periodic order. The disappearance of the stripe and hexagonal phases in the phase diagram of Andelman et al. was due to the breakdown of the expansion of the free energy away from the critical point. In agreement with predictions by Halsey  and Cebers , we find that the stable ordered phase of a ferrofluid at low concentration should be the hexagonal phase at low magnetic field, and the stripe phase at higher magnetic field.

Figure 2b shows the phase diagram based on the Carnahan-Starling description of a liquid of hard spheres, which is more accurate than the lattice gas or the Van der Waals models. For this figure, a value of $`\lambda =3`$ was chosen. This is the estimated value for a monodisperse suspension of magnetite particles with $`M_s=446`$ kAm-1, $`a=7.4`$ nm and $`\delta =1`$ nm at room temperature. For these particles, $`h`$ is equal to one for a field of $`52`$ Gauss. The dimensionless length $`l`$ is estimated to be $`1000`$, which corresponds to a modulation period of $`1\mu `$m, for $`L=40\mu `$m and a magnetic field $`H=300`$ Gauss. This magnetic field is the theoretical critical magnetic field for microphase separation at a volume fraction of about $`1\%`$. As $`\lambda `$ is increased further, the phase diagram of figures 2a and 2b are shifted to lower fields and the modulated phases extend further away from $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$. Quantitative comparison between theory and experiments require an estimate of $`\lambda `$, which presuppose precise determination of particle size and low polydispersity, as $`\lambda `$ is proportional to the volume of the magnetic particles.

In our model, we have found that the hexagonal phase can coexist with the uniform phase and the hexagonal phase can coexist with the stripe phase, but the stripe phase cannot coexist with the uniform phase except at the critical point. The size of the coexistence regions of H+I and H+S have been found in our calculations to be small for both the lattice model and the Carnahan-Startling model (typically of the order of $`0.01\%`$ to $`0.1\%`$ in volume fraction in figures 2a and 2b). For higher values of $`\lambda `$ however, the width of the coexistence region of H+S becomes larger. In contrast, Refs.  and  find rather large coexistence regions for both H+S and H+I, whose origin can be traced to the use of a power-law expansion of the free energy near a critical point in terms of the uniform part of the particle volume fraction rather than the full free energy in terms of this variable.

## IV Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented a picture of the microphase separation and the formation of ordered phases in ferrofluids under a magnetic field using mean-field theory and a model of hard spheres for the non-dipolar interaction. Within these hypotheses, we have shown that the attractive part of the dipolar interaction due to the local field is responsible for the microphase separation. In our model, this microphase separation is not possible at zero magnetic field however large the value of $`\lambda `$, in agreement with numerical simulations on the dipolar hard sphere liquid by Stevens et al. . Of course this conclusion would be changed if a sufficiently strong isotropic attraction was added, as in the model of Sano et al. for instance .

We have introduced a theory for phase transitions in pure ferrofluids based on two order parameters. At sufficiently high field, where the fluctuations of the magnetic moment of the particles are small, an effective theory based only on the volume fraction as an order parameter may be constructed. At infinite magnetic field, the effective theory is identical to the theory based on a single order parameter. We have compared our approach with the work of Cebers  and found essentially good agreement, with some differences which have been discussed.

In order to apply our model to real ferrofluids, some knowledge of the stabilization interaction in ferrofluids due to the surfactant is needed. The modeling of this non-dipolar part of the interaction might require more than a repulsive hard core, and this will modify the condition of microphase separation and the characteristic length of the ordered phases. Thermodynamic measurements found evidence for a critical liquid-gas transition in ferrofluids, but the precise form of the non-dipolar interaction is still not clear in these experiments . Once the details of this interaction are known, the next step towards a better comparison with experiments will introduce polydispersity in the model, which is of importance in the context of microphase separation.

The authors gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions with A. G. Yodh, M. Islam. We thank A. Cebers for a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the MRSEC program under grant NSF DMR00-79909. D. Lacoste received support by a grant from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

## A Derivation of the function $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$

Let $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ be the free energy per magnetized particle to produce a magnetic moment $`m`$. The one particle partition function is

$$Z(h)=\frac{1}{4\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{exp}(h\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(h)}{h},$$
(A1)
where $`h`$ has been defined in Eq. (6). We define $`m`$ to be the angular average of the magnetic moment over all possible orientations, so that $`m=(h)`$. The free energy associated with the partition function $`Z(h)`$ is $`g(h)=k_BT\mathrm{log}(Z(h))`$. The function $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ is the Legendre transform of $`g(h)`$ with respect to $`m`$: $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)=g(h)+mh`$. This implies

$$f_\mathrm{m}(m)=m^1(m)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(^1(m)\right)}{^1(m)}\right),$$
(A2)
which is the result of Eq. (5). Therefore by construction $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ has the property that $`f_\mathrm{m}/m=h=^1(m)`$. Close to $`m=0`$ the following Taylor expansion is useful

$$f_\mathrm{m}(m)=\frac{3}{2}m^2+\frac{9}{20}m^4+o(m^6).$$
(A3)
Widom et al. have used the complete power series of the function $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ . In general $`m`$ is not close to $`0`$, and Eq. (A3) can not be used but fortunately it is possible to calculate all the derivatives of $`f_\mathrm{m}(m)`$ analytically: For instance,

$$f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }(m)=\frac{^1(m)}{m}=\frac{^1(m)^2}{^1(m)^2+^1(m)^2\mathrm{coth}^2(^1(m))1}.$$
(A4)
In the limit where $`m1`$ which corresponds to complete alignment of the magnetic moment in the field, it is interesting to note that $`h1/(1m)`$ and $`f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime }1/(1m)^2`$.

## B Effective free energy of the stripe and hexagonal phases

In this appendix, we give the expression of the free energy of the hexagonal and stripe phase as function of $`m_q`$ and $`\varphi _q`$, which are the amplitude of the spatial modulation of the two order parameters $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ and $`m(𝐫)`$. The results take a simple form when two assumptions are made: it is assumed that the coefficient of the $`m_q^2`$ term $`r_{11}`$ is strictly positive, and that the spatial modulation of $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ and $`m(𝐫)`$ are in phase with each other. With these assumptions, we derive the effective theory for $`\varphi `$ only, when the fluctuations of $`m`$ have been integrated. Up to fourth order in $`\varphi _q`$ and third order in $`m_q`$, the free energy of the stripe phase is

$$f_s=f_{\mathrm{iso}}+\frac{1}{2}r_{11}m_q^2+\frac{1}{2}r_{22}\varphi _q^2+r_{12}m_q\varphi _q+u_1\varphi _qm_q^3+u_2m_q^2\varphi _q^2+u_3\varphi _q^4.$$
(B1)
The coefficients of the quadratic part have already been defined in Eq. (19), the other coefficients are

$`u_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime \prime }(\overline{m})`$ (B2)
$`u_2=3\lambda g(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\lambda g(2q^{})`$ (B3)
$`u_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}s^{(4)}(\overline{\varphi }).`$ (B4)
Minimizing $`f_s`$ with respect to $`m_q`$ and reporting into the result into Eq. (B1), one obtains the free energy of Eq. (25), which contains the renormalized coefficients $`r`$ and $`u_s`$. The coefficient $`r`$ has been defined in Eq. (23), and $`u_s`$ is

$$u_s=u_2t^2u_1t^3+u_3,$$
(B5)
with $`t=r_{12}/r_{11}`$. The free energy at its minimum is $`(f_s)_{min}=4r^2/u_s`$.

For the hexagonal phase, the same procedure results in the free energy

$`f_h=f_{\mathrm{iso}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}r_{11}m_q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}r_{22}\varphi _q^2+3r_{12}m_q\varphi _q+15u_1\varphi _qm_q^3+\stackrel{~}{u_2}m_q^2\varphi _q^2+15u_3\varphi _q^4`$ (B6)
$`+v_1m_q^2\varphi _q+v_2m_q\varphi _q^2+v_3m_q^3+v_4\varphi _q^4,`$ (B7)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{u_2}=18\lambda \left(3g(0)+g(\sqrt{3}q^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g(2q^{})+g(q^{})\right)`$ (B8)
$`v_1={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime \prime }(\overline{m})+36\lambda \overline{\varphi }g(q^{})`$ (B9)
$`v_2=36\lambda \overline{m}g(q^{})`$ (B10)
$`v_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}f_\mathrm{m}^{\prime \prime \prime }(\overline{m})`$ (B11)
$`v_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}s^{(3)}(\overline{\varphi }).`$ (B12)
The renormalized expression of the free energy of the hexagonal phase has been given in Eq. (26) in terms of the renormalized coefficients $`r,v`$ and $`u_h`$, with

$`v=v_4+v_1t^2v_2tv_3t^3,`$ (B13)
$`u_h=15u_1t^3+15u_3+{\displaystyle \frac{2v_1v_2t}{3r_{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_2^2}{6r_{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3v_3^2t^3}{2r_{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2v_3t^3v_1}{r_{11}}}+t^2\stackrel{~}{u_2}{\displaystyle \frac{v_3v_2t^2}{r_{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2v_1^2t^2}{3r_{11}}}.`$ (B14)
In the limit $`m1`$, the renormalized coefficients $`r,u_h,v`$ tend to the value that these coefficients take in the simpler theory where the only order parameter is $`\varphi `$. Indeed since $`t(m1)^2`$, $`rr_{22}(m1)^2`$, $`vv_4(m1)^2`$, $`u_h15u_3(m1)^2`$ and $`u_su_3(m1)^3`$. Note that Eq. (B13) implies that the critical volume fraction $`\overline{\varphi }_c`$ which is the solution of the equation $`v=r=0`$ is now dependent on the magnetic field. In the limit of very high field, the critical point should be identical to the critical point of the theory with $`\varphi `$ only as order parameter.

In general, we have found that the phase diagram constructed from this effective theory is not very different from the phase diagram constructed with the theory based on a single order parameter. In the limit of infinite field, this effective theory becomes identical to the theory with a single order parameter (model 1).


format: text

text:
# The Meaning of Einstein’s Equation

## 1 Introduction

General relativity explains gravity as the curvature of spacetime. It’s all about geometry. The basic equation of general relativity is called Einstein’s equation. In units where $`c=8\pi G=1`$, it says

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=T_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(1)
It looks simple, but what does it mean? Unfortunately, the beautiful geometrical meaning of this equation is a bit hard to find in most treatments of relativity. There are many nice popularizations that explain the philosophy behind relativity and the idea of curved spacetime, but most of them don’t get around to explaining Einstein’s equation and showing how to work out its consequences. There are also more technical introductions which explain Einstein’s equation in detail — but here the geometry is often hidden under piles of tensor calculus.

This is a pity, because in fact there is an easy way to express the whole content of Einstein’s equation in plain English. In fact, after a suitable prelude, one can summarize it in a single sentence! One needs a lot of mathematics to derive all the consequences of this sentence, but it is still worth seeing — and we can work out some of its consequences quite easily.

In what follows, we start by outlining some differences between special and general relativity. Next we give a verbal formulation of Einstein’s equation. Then we derive a few of its consequences concerning tidal forces, gravitational waves, gravitational collapse, and the big bang cosmology. In the last section we explain why our verbal formulation is equivalent to the usual one in terms of tensors. This article is mainly aimed at those who teach relativity, but except for the last section, we have tried to make it accessible to students, as a sketch of how the subject might be introduced. We conclude with a bibliography of sources to help teach the subject.

## 2 Preliminaries

Before stating Einstein’s equation, we need a little preparation. We assume the reader is somewhat familiar with special relativity — otherwise general relativity will be too hard. But there are some big differences between special and general relativity, which can cause immense confusion if neglected.

In special relativity, we cannot talk about absolute velocities, but only relative velocities. For example, we cannot sensibly ask if a particle is at rest, only whether it is at rest relative to another. The reason is that in this theory, velocities are described as vectors in 4-dimensional spacetime. Switching to a different inertial coordinate system can change which way these vectors point relative to our coordinate axes, but not whether two of them point the same way.

In general relativity, we cannot even talk about relative velocities, except for two particles at the same point of spacetime — that is, at the same place at the same instant. The reason is that in general relativity, we take very seriously the notion that a vector is a little arrow sitting at a particular point in spacetime. To compare vectors at different points of spacetime, we must carry one over to the other. The process of carrying a vector along a path without turning or stretching it is called ‘parallel transport’. When spacetime is curved, the result of parallel transport from one point to another depends on the path taken! In fact, this is the very definition of what it means for spacetime to be curved. Thus it is ambiguous to ask whether two particles have the same velocity vector unless they are at the same point of spacetime.

It is hard to imagine the curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime, but it is easy to see it in a 2-dimensional surface, like a sphere. The sphere fits nicely in 3-dimensional flat Euclidean space, so we can visualize vectors on the sphere as ‘tangent vectors’. If we parallel transport a tangent vector from the north pole to the equator by going straight down a meridian, we get a different result than if we go down another meridian and then along the equator:

Because of this analogy, in general relativity vectors are usually called ‘tangent vectors’. However, it is important not to take this analogy too seriously. Our curved spacetime need not be embedded in some higher-dimensional flat spacetime for us to understand its curvature, or the concept of tangent vector. The mathematics of tensor calculus is designed to let us handle these concepts ‘intrinsically’ — i.e., working solely within the 4-dimensional spacetime in which we find ourselves. This is one reason tensor calculus is so important in general relativity.

Now, in special relativity we can think of an inertial coordinate system, or ‘inertial frame’, as being defined by a field of clocks, all at rest relative to each other. In general relativity this makes no sense, since we can only unambiguously define the relative velocity of two clocks if they are at the same location. Thus the concept of inertial frame, so important in special relativity, is banned from general relativity!

If we are willing to put up with limited accuracy, we can still talk about the relative velocity of two particles in the limit where they are very close, since curvature effects will then be very small. In this approximate sense, we can talk about a ‘local’ inertial coordinate system. However, we must remember that this notion makes perfect sense only in the limit where the region of spacetime covered by the coordinate system goes to zero in size.

Einstein’s equation can be expressed as a statement about the relative acceleration of very close test particles in free fall. Let us clarify these terms a bit. A ‘test particle’ is an idealized point particle with energy and momentum so small that its effects on spacetime curvature are negligible. A particle is said to be in ‘free fall’ when its motion is affected by no forces except gravity. In general relativity, a test particle in free fall will trace out a ‘geodesic’. This means that its velocity vector is parallel transported along the curve it traces out in spacetime. A geodesic is the closest thing there is to a straight line in curved spacetime.

Again, all this is easier to visualize in 2d space rather than 4d spacetime. A person walking on a sphere ‘following their nose’ will trace out a geodesic — that is, a great circle. Suppose two people stand side-by-side on the equator and start walking north, both following geodesics. Though they start out walking parallel to each other, the distance between them will gradually start to shrink, until finally they bump into each other at the north pole. If they didn’t understand the curved geometry of the sphere, they might think a ‘force’ was pulling them together.

Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a ‘force’, but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. If you toss a ball, it follows a parabolic path. This is far from being a geodesic in space: space is curved by the Earth’s gravitational field, but it is certainly not so curved as all that! The point is that while the ball moves a short distance in space, it moves an enormous distance in time, since one second equals about 300,000 kilometers in units where $`c=1`$. This allows a slight amount of spacetime curvature to have a noticeable effect.

## 3 Einstein’s Equation

To state Einstein’s equation in simple English, we need to consider a round ball of test particles that are all initially at rest relative to each other. As we have seen, this is a sensible notion only in the limit where the ball is very small. If we start with such a ball of particles, it will, to second order in time, become an ellipsoid as time passes. This should not be too surprising, because any linear transformation applied to a ball gives an ellipsoid, and as the saying goes, “everything is linear to first order”. Here we get a bit more: the relative velocity of the particles starts out being zero, so to first order in time the ball does not change shape at all: the change is a second-order effect.

Let $`V(t)`$ be the volume of the ball after a proper time $`t`$ has elapsed, as measured by the particle at the center of the ball. Then Einstein’s equation says:

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{flow}\mathrm{of}t\mathrm{momentum}\mathrm{in}t\mathrm{direction}+\hfill \\ \mathrm{flow}\mathrm{of}x\mathrm{momentum}\mathrm{in}x\mathrm{direction}+\hfill \\ \mathrm{flow}\mathrm{of}y\mathrm{momentum}\mathrm{in}y\mathrm{direction}+\hfill \\ \mathrm{flow}\mathrm{of}z\mathrm{momentum}\mathrm{in}z\mathrm{direction}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

where these flows are measured at the center of the ball at time zero, using local inertial coordinates. These flows are the diagonal components of a $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`T`$ called the ‘stress-energy tensor’. The components $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ of this matrix say how much momentum in the $`\alpha `$ direction is flowing in the $`\beta `$ direction through a given point of spacetime, where $`\alpha ,\beta =t,x,y,z`$. The flow of $`t`$-momentum in the $`t`$-direction is just the energy density, often denoted $`\rho `$. The flow of $`x`$-momentum in the $`x`$-direction is the ‘pressure in the $`x`$ direction’ denoted $`P_x`$, and similarly for $`y`$ and $`z`$. It takes a while to figure out why pressure is really the flow of momentum, but it is eminently worth doing. Most texts explain this fact by considering the example of an ideal gas.

In any event, we may summarize Einstein’s equation as follows:

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +P_x+P_y+P_z).$$
(2)
This equation says that positive energy density and positive pressure curve spacetime in a way that makes a freely falling ball of point particles tend to shrink. Since $`E=mc^2`$ and we are working in units where $`c=1`$, ordinary mass density counts as a form of energy density. Thus a massive object will make a swarm of freely falling particles at rest around it start to shrink. In short: gravity attracts.

We promised to state Einstein’s equation in plain English, but have not done so yet. Here it is:

> Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of the ball, plus the pressure in the $`x`$ direction at that point, plus the pressure in the $`y`$ direction, plus the pressure in the $`z`$ direction.

One way to prove this is by using the Raychaudhuri equation, discussions of which can be found in the textbooks by Wald and by Ciufolini and Wheeler cited in the bibliography. But an elementary proof can also be given starting from first principles, as we will show in the final section of this article.

The reader who already knows some general relativity may be somewhat skeptical that all of Einstein’s equation is encapsulated in this formulation. After all, Einstein’s equation in its usual tensorial form is really a bunch of equations: the left and right sides of equation (1) are $`4\times 4`$ matrices. It is hard to believe that the single equation (2) captures all that information. It does, though, as long as we include one bit of fine print: in order to get the full content of the Einstein equation from equation (2), we must consider small balls with all possible initial velocities — i.e., balls that begin at rest in all possible local inertial reference frames.

Before we begin, it is worth noting an even simpler formulation of Einstein’s equation that applies when the pressure is the same in every direction:

> Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of the ball plus three times the pressure at that point.

This version is only sufficient for ‘isotropic’ situations: that is, those in which all directions look the same in some local inertial reference frame. But, since the simplest models of cosmology treat the universe as isotropic — at least approximately, on large enough distance scales — this is all we shall need to derive an equation describing the big bang!

## 4 Some Consequences

The formulation of Einstein’s equation we have given is certainly not the best for most applications of general relativity. For example, in 1915 Einstein used general relativity to correctly compute the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury and also the deflection of starlight by the Sun’s gravitational field. Both these calculations would be very hard starting from equation (2); they really call for the full apparatus of tensor calculus.

However, we can easily use our formulation of Einstein’s equation to get a qualitative — and sometimes even quantitative — understanding of some consequences of general relativity. We have already seen that it explains how gravity attracts. We sketch a few other consequences below. These include Newton’s inverse-square force law, which holds in the limit of weak gravitational fields and small velocities, and also the equations governing the big bang cosmology.

#### Tidal Forces, Gravitational Waves

We begin with some qualitative consequences of Einstein’s equation. Let $`V(t)`$ be the volume of a small ball of test particles in free fall that are initially at rest relative to each other. In the vacuum there is no energy density or pressure, so $`\ddot{V}|_{t=0}=0`$, but the curvature of spacetime can still distort the ball. For example, suppose you drop a small ball of instant coffee when making coffee in the morning. The grains of coffee closer to the earth accelerate towards it a bit more, causing the ball to start stretching in the vertical direction. However, as the grains all accelerate towards the center of the earth, the ball also starts being squashed in the two horizontal directions. Einstein’s equation says that if we treat the coffee grains as test particles, these two effects cancel each other when we calculate the second derivative of the ball’s volume, leaving us with $`\ddot{V}|_{t=0}=0`$. It is a fun exercise to check this using Newton’s theory of gravity!

This stretching/squashing of a ball of falling coffee grains is an example of what people call ‘tidal forces’. As the name suggests, another example is the tendency for the ocean to be stretched in one direction and squashed in the other two by the gravitational pull of the moon.

Gravitational waves are another example of how spacetime can be curved even in the vacuum. General relativity predicts that when any heavy object wiggles, it sends out ripples of spacetime curvature which propagate at the speed of light. This is far from obvious starting from our formulation of Einstein’s equation! It also predicts that as one of these ripples of curvature passes by, our small ball of initially test particles will be stretched in one transverse direction while being squashed in the other transverse direction. From what we have already said, these effects must precisely cancel when we compute $`\ddot{V}|_{t=0}`$.

Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel prize in 1993 for careful observations of a binary neutron star which is slowly spiraling down, just as general relativity predicts it should, as it loses energy by emitting gravitational radiation. Gravitational waves have not been directly observed, but there are a number of projects underway to detect them. For example, the LIGO project will bounce a laser between hanging mirrors in an L-shaped detector, to see how one leg of the detector is stretched while the other is squashed. Both legs are 4 kilometers long, and the detector is designed to be sensitive to a $`10^{18}`$-meter change in length of the arms.

#### Gravitational Collapse

Another remarkable feature of Einstein’s equation is the pressure term: it says that not only energy density but also pressure causes gravitational attraction. This may seem to violate our intuition that pressure makes matter want to expand! Here, however, we are talking about gravitational effects of pressure, which are undetectably small in everyday circumstances. To see this, let’s restore the factors of $`c`$. Also, let’s remember that in ordinary circumstances most of the energy is in the form of rest energy, so we can write the energy density $`\rho `$ as $`\rho _mc^2`$, where $`\rho _m`$ is the ordinary mass density:

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=4\pi G(\rho _m+\frac{1}{c^2}(P_x+P_y+P_z)).$$

On the human scale all of the terms on the right are small, since $`G`$ is very small. (Gravity is a weak force!) Furthermore, the pressure terms are much smaller than the mass density term, since they are divided by an extra factor of $`c^2`$.

There are a number of important situations in which $`\rho `$ does not dominate over $`P`$. In a neutron star, for example, which is held up by the degeneracy pressure of the neutronium it consists of, pressure and energy density contribute comparably to the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation. Moreover, above a mass of about 2 solar masses a nonrotating neutron star will inevitably collapse to form a black hole, thanks in part to the gravitational attraction caused by pressure. In fact, any object of mass $`M`$ will form a black hole if it is compressed to a radius smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, $`R=2GM/c^2`$.

#### Newton’s Inverse-Square Force Law

A basic test of general relativity is to check that it reduces to good old Newtonian gravity in the limit where gravitational effects are weak and velocities are small compared to the speed of light. To do this, we can use our formulation of Einstein’s equation to derive Newton’s inverse-square force law for a planet with mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$. Since we can only do this when gravitational effects are weak, we must assume that the planet’s radius is much greater than its Schwarzschild radius: $`RM`$ in units where $`c=8\pi G=1`$. Then the curvature of space – as opposed to spacetime – is small. To keep things simple, we make a couple of additional assumptions: the planet has uniform density $`\rho `$, and the pressure is negligible.

We want to derive the familiar Newtonian result

$$a=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$

giving the radial gravitational acceleration $`a`$ of a test particle at distance $`r`$ from the planet’s center, with $`r>R`$ of course.

To do this, let $`S`$ be a sphere of radius $`r`$ centered on the planet. Fill the interior of the sphere with test particles, all of which are initially at rest relative to the planet. At first, this might seem like an illegal thing to do: we know that notions like ‘at rest’ only make sense in an infinitesimal neighborhood, and $`r`$ is not infinitesimal. But because space is nearly flat for weak gravitational fields, we can get away with this.

We can’t apply our formulation of Einstein’s equation directly to $`S`$, but we can apply it to any infinitesimal sphere within $`S`$. In the picture below, the solid black circle represents the planet, and the dashed circle is $`S`$. The interior of $`S`$ has been divided up into many tiny spheres filled with test particles. Green spheres are initially inside the planet, and red spheres are outside.

Suppose we pick a tiny green sphere that lies within the planet’s volume, a distance less than $`R`$ from the center. Our formulation of Einstein’s equation tells us that the fractional change in volume of this sphere will be

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}\rho \text{(inside the planet).}$$

On the other hand, as we saw in our discussion of tidal effects, spheres outside the planet’s volume will be distorted in shape by tidal effects, but remain unchanged in volume. So, any little red sphere that lies outside the planet will undergo no change in volume at all:

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=0\text{(outside the planet).}$$

Thus, after a short time $`\delta t`$ has elapsed, the test particles will be distributed like this:

Because the volume occupied by the spheres of particles within the planet went down, the whole big sphere of test particles had to shrink. Now consider the following question: what is the change in volume of the large sphere of test particles? All the little green spheres shrank by the same fractional amount:

$$\frac{\delta V}{V}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}\right)(\delta t)^2=\frac{1}{4}\rho (\delta t)^2,$$

to leading order in $`\delta t`$, while all the little red spheres underwent no change in volume. So, if $`V_P`$ stands for the volume occupied by the test particles that were initially inside the planet, and $`V_S`$ stands for the volume of the big sphere $`S`$, then the overall change in volume is

$`\delta V_S`$ $`=`$ $`\delta V_P`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{V}}\right)V_P`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho (\delta t)^2V_P`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}M(\delta t)^2.`$
We can also express $`\delta V_S`$ in terms of the change in the sphere’s radius, $`\delta r`$:

$$\delta V_S=4\pi r^2\delta r.$$

Setting the two expressions for $`\delta V_S`$ equal, we see

$$\delta r=\frac{M}{16\pi r^2}(\delta t)^2.$$

But the change in radius $`\delta r`$ is just the radial displacement of a test particle on the outer edge of the sphere, so $`\delta r=\frac{1}{2}a(\delta t)^2`$ where $`a`$ is the radial acceleration of this particle. Plugging this into the above equation, we obtain

$$a=\frac{M}{8\pi r^2}.$$

We’ve been working all along in units in which $`8\pi G=1`$. Switching back to conventional units, we obtain

$$a=\frac{GM}{r^2}$$

just as Newton said.

#### The Big Bang

We can also derive some basic facts about the big bang cosmology. Let us assume the universe is not only expanding but also homogeneous and isotropic. The expansion of the universe is vouched for by the redshifts of distant galaxies. The other assumptions also seem to be approximately correct, at least when we average over small-scale inhomogeneities such as stars and galaxies. For simplicity, we will imagine the universe is homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales.

An observer at any point in such a universe would see all objects receding from her. Suppose that, at some time $`t=0`$, she identifies a small ball $`B`$ of test particles centered on her. Suppose this ball expands with the universe, remaining spherical as time passes because the universe is isotropic. Let $`R(t)`$ stand for the radius of this ball as a function of time. The Einstein equation will give us an equation of motion for $`R(t)`$. In other words, it will say how the expansion rate of the universe changes with time.

It is tempting to apply equation (2) to the ball $`B`$, but we must take care. This equation applies to a ball of particles that are initially at rest relative to one another — that is, one whose radius is not changing at $`t=0`$. However, the ball $`B`$ is expanding at $`t=0`$. Thus, to apply our formulation of Einstein’s equation, we must introduce a second small ball of test particles that are at rest relative to each other at $`t=0`$.

Let us call this second ball $`B^{}`$, and call its radius as a function of time $`r(t)`$. Since the particles in this ball begin at rest relative to one another, we have

$$\dot{r}(0)=0.$$

To keep things simple, let us also assume that at $`t=0`$ both balls have the exact same size:

$$r(0)=R(0).$$

Equation (2) applies to the ball $`B^{}`$, since the particles in this ball are initially at rest relative to each other. Since the volume of this ball is proportional to $`r^3`$, and since $`\dot{r}=0`$ at $`t=0`$, the left-hand side of equation (2) is simply

$$\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{3\ddot{r}}{r}|_{t=0}.$$

Since we are assuming the universe is isotropic, we know that the various components of pressure are equal: $`P_x=P_y=P_z=P`$. Einstein’s equation (2) thus says that

$$\frac{3\ddot{r}}{r}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +3P).$$

We would much prefer to rewrite this expression in terms of $`R`$ rather than $`r`$. Fortunately, we can do this. At $`t=0`$, the two spheres have the same radius: $`r(0)=R(0)`$. Furthermore, the second derivatives are the same: $`\ddot{r}(0)=\ddot{R}(0)`$. This follows from the equivalence principle, which says that, at any given location, particles in free fall do not accelerate with respect to each other. At the moment $`t=0`$, each test particle on the surface of the ball $`B`$ is right next to a corresponding test particle in $`B^{}`$. Since they are not accelerating with respect to each other, the observer at the origin must see both particles accelerating in the same way, so $`\ddot{r}(0)=\ddot{R}(0)`$. It follows that we can replace $`r`$ with $`R`$ in the above equation, obtaining

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +3P).$$

We derived this equation for a very small ball, but in fact it applies to a ball of any size. This is because, in a homogeneous expanding universe, the balls of all radii must be expanding at the same fractional rate. In other words, $`\ddot{R}/R`$ is independent of the radius $`R`$, although it can depend on time. Also, there is nothing special in this equation about the moment $`t=0`$, so the equation must apply at all times. In summary, therefore, the basic equation describing the big bang cosmology is

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +3P),$$
(3)
where the density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`P`$ can depend on time but not on position. Here we can imagine $`R`$ to be the separation between any two ‘galaxies’.

To go further, we must make more assumptions about the nature of the matter filling the universe. One simple model is a universe filled with pressureless matter. Until recently, this was thought to be an accurate model of our universe. Setting $`P=0`$, we obtain

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{\rho }{2}.$$

If the energy density of the universe is mainly due to the mass in galaxies, ‘conservation of galaxies’ implies that $`\rho R^3=k`$ for some constant $`k`$. This gives

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{k}{2R^3}$$

or

$$\ddot{R}=\frac{k}{6R^2}.$$

Amusingly, this is the same as the equation of motion for a particle in an attractive $`1/R^2`$ force field. In other words, the equation governing this simplified cosmology is the same as the Newtonian equation for what happens when you throw a ball vertically upwards from the earth! This is a nice example of the unity of physics. Since “whatever goes up must come down — unless it exceeds escape velocity,” the solutions of this equation look roughly like this:

So, the universe started out with a big bang! It will expand forever if its current rate of expansion is sufficiently high compared to its current density, but it will recollapse in a ‘big crunch’ otherwise.

#### The Cosmological Constant

The simplified big bang model just described is inaccurate for the very early history of the universe, when the pressure of radiation was important. Moreover, recent observations seem to indicate that it is seriously inaccurate even in the present epoch. First of all, it seems that much of the energy density is not accounted for by known forms of matter. Still more shocking, it seems that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating rather than slowing down! One possibility is that the energy density and pressure are nonzero even for the vacuum. For the vacuum to not pick out a preferred notion of ‘rest’, its stress-energy tensor must be proportional to the metric. In local inertial coordinates this means that the stress-energy tensor of the vacuum must be

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is called the ‘cosmological constant’. This amounts to giving empty space an energy density equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and pressure equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so that $`\rho +3P`$ for the vacuum is $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here pressure effects dominate because there are more dimensions of space than of time! If we add this cosmological constant term to equation (3), we get

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho +3P2\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(4)
where $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ are the energy density and pressure due to matter. If we treat matter as we did before, this gives

$$\frac{3\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{k}{2R^3}+\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Thus, once the universe expands sufficiently, the cosmological constant becomes more important than the energy density of matter in determining the fate of the universe. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, a roughly exponential expansion will then ensue. This seems to be happening in our universe now.

#### Spatial Curvature

We have emphasized that gravity is due not just to the curvature of space, but of spacetime. In our verbal formulation of Einstein’s equation, this shows up in the fact that we consider particles moving forwards in time and study how their paths deviate in the space directions. However, Einstein’s equation also gives information about the curvature of space. To illustrate this, it is easiest to consider not an expanding universe but a static one.

When Einstein first tried to use general relativity to construct a model of the entire universe, he assumed that the universe must be static — although he is said to have later described this as “his greatest blunder”. As we did in the previous section, Einstein considered a universe containing ordinary matter with density $`\rho `$, no pressure, and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Such a universe can be static — the galaxies can remain at rest with respect to each other — only if the right-hand side of equation (4) is zero. In such a universe, the cosmological constant and the density must be carefully ‘tuned’ so that $`\rho =2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is tempting to conclude that spacetime in this model is just the good old flat Minkowski spacetime of special relativity. In other words, one might guess that there are no gravitational effects at all. After all, the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation was tuned to be zero. This would be a mistake, however. It is instructive to see why.

Remember that equation (2) contains all the information in Einstein’s equation only if we consider all possible small balls. In all of the cosmological applications so far, we have applied the equation only to balls whose centers were at rest with respect to the local matter. It turns out that only for such balls is the right-hand side of equation (2) zero in the Einstein static universe.

To see this, consider a small ball of test particles, initially at rest relative to each other, that is moving with respect to the matter in the universe. In the local rest frame of such a ball, the right-hand side of equation (2) is nonzero. For one thing, the pressure due to the matter no longer vanishes. Remember that pressure is the flux of momentum. In the frame of our moving sphere, matter is flowing by. Also, the energy density goes up, both because the matter has kinetic energy in this frame and because of Lorentz contraction. The end result, as the reader can verify, is that the right-hand side of equation (2) is negative for such a moving sphere. In short, although a stationary ball of test particles remains unchanged in the Einstein static universe, our moving ball shrinks!

This has a nice geometric interpretation: the geometry in this model has spatial curvature. As we noted in section 2, on a positively curved surface such as a sphere, initially parallel lines converge towards one another. The same thing happens in the three-dimensional space of the Einstein static universe. In fact, the geometry of space in this model is that of a 3-sphere. This picture illustrates what happens:

One dimension is suppressed in this picture, so the two-dimensional spherical surface shown represents the three-dimensional universe. The small shaded circle on the surface represents our tiny sphere of test particles, which starts at the equator and moves north. The sides of the sphere approach each other along the dashed geodesics, so the sphere shrinks in the transverse direction, although its diameter in the direction of motion does not change.

As an exercise, the reader who wants to test his understanding can fill in the mathematical details in this picture and determine the radius of the Einstein static universe in terms of the density. Here are step-by-step instructions:

* Imagine an observer moving at speed $`v`$ through a cloud of stationary particles of density $`\rho `$. Use special relativity to determine the energy density and pressure in the observer’s rest frame. Assume for simplicity that the observer is moving fairly slowly, so keep only the lowest-order nonvanishing term in a power series in $`v`$.
* Apply equation (2) to a sphere in this frame, including the contribution due to the cosmological constant (which is the same in all reference frames). You should find that the volume of the sphere decreases with $`\ddot{V}/V\rho v^2`$ to leading order in $`v`$.
* Suppose that space in this universe has the geometry of a large 3-sphere of radius $`R_U`$. Show that the radii in the directions transverse to the motion start to shrink at a rate given by $`(\ddot{R}/R)|_{t=0}=v^2/R_U^2`$. (If, like most people, you are better at visualizing 2-spheres than 3-spheres, do this step by considering a small circle moving on a 2-sphere, as shown above, rather than a small sphere moving on a 3-sphere. The result is the same.)
* Since our little sphere is shrinking in two dimensions, its volume changes at a rate $`\ddot{V}/V=2\ddot{R}/R`$. Use Einstein’s equation to relate the radius $`R_U`$ of the universe to the density $`\rho `$.

The final answer is $`R_U=\sqrt{2/\rho }`$. As you can confirm in standard textbooks, this is correct.

Spatial curvature like this shows up in the expanding cosmological models described earlier in this section as well. In principle, the curvature radius can be found from our formulation of Einstein’s equation by similar reasoning in these expanding models. In fact, however, such a calculation is extremely messy. Here the apparatus of tensor calculus comes to our rescue.

## 5 The Mathematical Details

To see why equation (2) is equivalent to the usual formulation of Einstein’s equation, we need a bit of tensor calculus. In particular, we need to understand the Riemann curvature tensor and the geodesic deviation equation. For a detailed explanation of these, the reader must turn to some of the texts in the bibliography. Here we briefly sketch the main ideas.

When spacetime is curved, the result of parallel transport depends on the path taken. To quantify this notion, pick two vectors $`u`$ and $`v`$ at a point $`p`$ in spacetime. In the limit where $`ϵ0`$, we can approximately speak of a ‘parallelogram’ with sides $`ϵu`$ and $`ϵv`$. Take another vector $`w`$ at $`p`$ and parallel transport it first along $`ϵv`$ and then along $`ϵu`$ to the opposite corner of this parallelogram. The result is some vector $`w_1`$. Alternatively, parallel transport $`w`$ first along $`ϵu`$ and then along $`ϵv`$. The result is a slightly different vector, $`w_2`$:

The limit

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{w_2w_1}{ϵ^2}=R(u,v)w$$
(5)
is well-defined, and it measures the curvature of spacetime at the point $`p`$. In local coordinates we can write it as

$$R(u,v)w=R_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha u^\beta v^\gamma w^\delta ,$$

where as usual we sum over repeated indices. The quantity $`R_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha `$ is called the ‘Riemann curvature tensor’.

We can use this tensor to compute the relative acceleration of nearby particles in free fall if they are initially at rest relative to one another. Consider two freely falling particles at nearby points $`p`$ and $`q`$. Let $`v`$ be the velocity of the particle at $`p`$, and let $`ϵu`$ be the vector from $`p`$ to $`q`$. Since the two particles start out at rest relative to one other, the velocity of the particle at $`q`$ is obtained by parallel transporting $`v`$ along $`ϵu`$.

Now let us wait a short while. Both particles trace out geodesics as time passes, and at time $`ϵ`$ they will be at new points, say $`p^{}`$ and $`q^{}`$. The point $`p^{}`$ is displaced from $`p`$ by an amount $`ϵv`$, so we get a little parallelogram, exactly as in the definition of the Riemann curvature:

Next let us compute the new relative velocity of the two particles. To compare vectors we must carry one to another using parallel transport. Let $`v_1`$ be the vector we get by taking the velocity vector of the particle at $`p^{}`$ and parallel transporting it to $`q^{}`$ along the top edge of our parallelogram. Let $`v_2`$ be the velocity of the particle at $`q^{}`$. The difference $`v_2v_1`$ is the new relative velocity. Here is a picture of the whole situation:

The vector $`v`$ is depicted as shorter than $`ϵv`$ for purely artistic reasons.

It follows that over this passage of time, the average relative acceleration of the two particles is $`a=(v_2v_1)/ϵ`$. By equation (5),

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{v_2v_1}{ϵ^2}=R(u,v)v,$$

so

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{a}{ϵ}=R(u,v)v.$$

This is called the ‘geodesic deviation equation’. From the definition of the Riemann curvature it is easy to see that $`R(u,v)w=R(v,u)w`$, so we can also write this equation as

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\frac{a^\alpha }{ϵ}=R_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha v^\beta u^\gamma v^\delta .$$
(6)
Using this equation we can work out the second time derivative of the volume $`V(t)`$ of a small ball of test particles that start out at rest relative to each other. As we mentioned earlier, to second order in time the ball changes to an ellipsoid. Furthermore, since the ball starts out at rest, the principal axes of this ellipsoid don’t rotate initially. We can therefore adopt local inertial coordinates in which, to second order in $`t`$, the center of the ball is at rest and the three principal axes of the ellipsoid are aligned with the three spatial coordinates. Let $`r^j(t)`$ represent the radius of the $`j`$th axis of the ellipsoid as a function of time. If the ball’s initial radius is $`ϵ`$, then

$$r^j(t)=ϵ+\frac{1}{2}a^jt^2+O(t^3),$$

or in other words,

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\ddot{r}^j}{r^j}=\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{a^j}{ϵ}.$$

Here the acceleration $`a^j`$ is given by equation (6), with $`u`$ being a unit vector in the $`j`$th coordinate direction and $`v`$ being the velocity of the ball, which is a unit vector in the time direction. In other words,

$$\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\ddot{r}^j(t)}{r^j(t)}=R_{\beta j\delta }^jv^\beta v^\delta =R_{tjt}^j.$$

No sum over $`j`$ is implied in the above expression.

Since the volume of our ball is proportional to the product of the radii, $`\ddot{V}/V_j\ddot{r}^j/r^j`$ as $`t0`$, so

$$\underset{V0}{lim}\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=R_{t\alpha t}^\alpha ,$$

where now a sum over $`\alpha `$ is implied. The sum over $`\alpha `$ can range over all four coordinates, not just the three spatial ones, since the symmetries of the Riemann tensor demand that $`R_{ttt}^t=0`$.

The right-hand side is minus the time-time component of the ‘Ricci tensor’

$$R_{\beta \delta }=R_{\beta \alpha \delta }^\alpha .$$

That is,

$$\underset{V0}{lim}\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=R_{tt}$$
(7)
in local inertial coordinates where the ball starts out at rest.

In short, the Ricci tensor says how our ball of freely falling test particles starts changing in volume. The Ricci tensor only captures some of the information in the Riemann curvature tensor. The rest is captured by something called the ‘Weyl tensor’, which says how any such ball starts changing in shape. The Weyl tensor describes tidal forces, gravitational waves and the like.

Now, Einstein’s equation in its usual form says

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=T_{\alpha \beta }.$$

Here the right side is the stress-energy tensor, while the left side, the ‘Einstein tensor’, is just an abbreviation for a quantity constructed from the Ricci tensor:

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R_\gamma ^\gamma .$$

Thus Einstein’s equation really says

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }R_\gamma ^\gamma =T_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(8)
This implies

$$R_\alpha ^\alpha \frac{1}{2}g_\alpha ^\alpha R_\gamma ^\gamma =T_\alpha ^\alpha ,$$

but $`g_\alpha ^\alpha =4`$, so

$$R_\alpha ^\alpha =T_\alpha ^\alpha .$$

Plugging this in equation (8), we get

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=T_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta }T_\gamma ^\gamma .$$
(9)
This is equivalent version of Einstein’s equation, but with the roles of $`R`$ and $`T`$ switched! The good thing about this version is that it gives a formula for the Ricci tensor, which has a simple geometrical meaning.

Equation (9) will be true if any one component holds in all local inertial coordinate systems. This is a bit like the observation that all of Maxwell’s equations are contained in Gauss’s law and $`B=0`$. Of course, this is only true if we know how the fields transform under change of coordinates. Here we assume that the transformation laws are known. Given this, Einstein’s equation is equivalent to the fact that

$$R_{tt}=T_{tt}\frac{1}{2}g_{tt}T_\gamma ^\gamma $$
(10)
in every local inertial coordinate system about every point. In such coordinates we have

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
so $`g_{tt}=1`$ and

$$T_\gamma ^\gamma =T_{tt}+T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}.$$

Equation (10) thus says that

$$R_{tt}=\frac{1}{2}(T_{tt}+T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}).$$

By equation (7), this is equivalent to

$$\underset{V0}{lim}\frac{\ddot{V}}{V}|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}(T_{tt}+T_{xx}+T_{yy}+T_{zz}).$$

As promised, this is the simple, tensor-calculus-free formulation of Einstein’s equation.

## 6 Bibliography

### Websites

There is a lot of material on general relativity available online, including many books, such as this:

Lecture Notes on General Relativity, S. M. Carroll, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

The free online journal Living Reviews in Relativity is an excellent way to learn more about many aspects of relativity. One can access it at:

Living Reviews in Relativity, http://www.livingreviews.org

Part of learning relativity is working one’s way through certain classic confusions. The most common are dealt with in the “Relativity and Cosmology” section of this site:

Frequently Asked Questions in Physics, edited by D. Koks http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

### Nontechnical Books

Before diving into the details of general relativity, it is good to get oriented by reading some less technical books. Here are four excellent ones written by leading experts on the subject:

General Relativity from A to B, R. Geroch (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981).

Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy, K. S. Thorne (W. W. Norton, New York, 1995).

Gravity from the Ground Up: An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity, B. F. Schutz (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003).

Space, Time, and Gravity: the Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes, R. M. Wald (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992).

### Special Relativity

Before delving into general relativity in a more technical way, one must get up to speed on special relativity. Here are two excellent texts for this:

Introduction to Special Relativity, W. Rindler (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991).

Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, E. F. Taylor and J. A. Wheeler (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1992).

### Introductory Texts

When one is ready to tackle the details of general relativity, it is probably good to start with one of these textbooks:

Introducing Einstein’s Relativity, R. A. D’Inverno (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992).

Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein’s General Relativity, J. B. Hartle (Addison-Wesley, New York, 2002).

Introduction to General Relativity, L. Hughston and K. P. Tod (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).

A First Course in General Relativity, B. F. Schutz (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).

General Relativity: An Introduction to the Theory of the Gravitational Field, H. Stephani (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990).

### More Comprehensive Texts

To become a expert on general relativity, one really must tackle these classic texts:

Gravitation, C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler (W. H. Freeman, New York, 1973).

General Relativity, R. M. Wald (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).

Along with these textbooks, you’ll want to do lots of problems! This book is a useful supplement:

Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation, A. Lightman and R. H. Price (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1975).

### Experimental Tests

The experimental support for general relativity up to the early 1990s is summarized in:

Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Revised Edition, C. M. Will (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).

A more up-to-date treatment of the subject can be found in:

“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” C. M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity 4, 4 (2001). Available online at: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4

### Differential Geometry

The serious student of general relativity will experience a constant need to learn more tensor calculus — or in modern terminology, ‘differential geometry’. Some of this can be found in the texts listed above, but it is also good to read mathematics texts. Here are a few:

Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity, J. C. Baez and J. P. Muniain (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).

An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry, W. M. Boothby (Academic Press, New York, 1986).

Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity, B. O’Neill (Academic Press, New York, 1983).

### Specific Topics

The references above are about general relativity as a whole. Here are some suggested starting points for some of the particular topics touched on in this article.

##### The meaning of Einstein’s equation.

Feynman gives a quite different approach to this in:

The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation, R. P. Feynman et al. (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 2002).

His approach focuses on the curvature of space rather than the curvature of spacetime.

##### The Raychaudhuri equation.

This equation, which is closely related to our formulation of Einstein’s equation, is treated in some standard textbooks, including the one by Wald mentioned above. A detailed discussion can be found in

Gravitation and Inertia, I. Ciufolini and J. A. Wheeler (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1995).

##### Gravitational waves.

Here are two nontechnical descriptions of the binary pulsar work for which Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel Prize:

“The Binary Pulsar: Gravity Waves Exist,” C. M. Will, Mercury, Nov-Dec 1987, p. 162.

“Gravitational Waves from an Orbiting Pulsar,” J. M. Weisberg, J. H. Taylor, and L. A. Fowler, Scientific American, Oct 1981, p. 74.

Here is a review article on the ongoing efforts to directly detect gravitational waves:

“Detection of Gravitational Waves,” J. Lu, D. G. Blair, and C. Zhao, Reports on Progress in Physics, 63, 1317-1427 (2000).

Some present and future experiments to detect gravitational radiation are described here:

LIGO Laboratory Home Page, http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

The Virgo Project, http://www.virgo.infn.it/

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/

##### Black holes.

Astrophysical evidence that black holes exist is summarized in:

“Evidence for Black Holes,” M. C. Begelman, Science, 300, 1898-1903 (2003).

A less technical discussion of the particular case of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy can be found here:

The Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy, F. Melia (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2003).

##### Cosmology.

There are lots of good popular books on cosmology. Since the subject is changing rapidly, pick one that is up to date. At the time of this writing, we recommend:

The Extravagant Universe: Exploding Stars, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Cosmos, R. P. Kirshner (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2002).

A good online source of cosmological information is:

Ned Wright’s Cosmology Tutorial, http://www.astro.ucla.edu/$``$wright/cosmolog.htm

The following cosmology textbooks are arranged in increasing order of technical difficulty:

Cosmology: The Science of the Universe, 2nd ed., E. Harrison (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).

Cosmology: a First Course, M. Lachièze-Rey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995).

Principles of Physical Cosmology, P. J. E. Peebles (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993).

The Early Universe, E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner (Addison–Wesley, New York, 1990).

The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime, S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975).

## Acknowledgment

E.F.B. is supported by National Science Foundation grant 0233969.