Talk:Einstein field equations

message: To : You said "GE is independent of EFE." and provided a reference. Although many people say that they are independent, none-the-less they are not. See Post-Newtonian expansion which has an external link to "ON THE MOTION OF PARTICLES IN GENERAL
RELATIVITY THEORY" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld. Basically, each elementary particle is viewed as a (possibly charged) (possibly rotating) black-hole — a gravitational monopole. The ability to match these local solutions to the surrounding metric field, without introducing gravitational dipoles and thus negative energy, uniquely determines the motion of the particles. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That shows that disturbances in the metric are determined by the EFEs, as we would expect, but says nothing about actual particles.  I think most physicists would concede that particles are more than just metric distortions, despite Einstein's love of the idea. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my understanding work like A Rigorous Derivation of Gravitational Self-force (Gralla, Wald) classically settles this in favour of dependence. Virtual Neutrino (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether the geodesic equation is dependent on EFE? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Einstein field equations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621005940/http://www.black-holes.org/relativity6.html to http://www.black-holes.org/relativity6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: seems to suggest that "energy density" does not have the same units as "pressure".  This kind of thing is easy for me to get wrong (kinda fiddly), but I am failing to make sense of this.  The way I figure it, a quantity called "energy density" has the SI unit J⋅m, and a quantity called "pressure" has the SI unit N⋅m = J⋅m, which is the same unit.  I am aware that the components of the tensor corresponding to these quantities might have other units by convention, but here we are talking about SI quantities, not tensor components.  I'd be glad to have an error on my part pointed out, but for the moment I am just not getting it.  The way I see it, the units of  (either m or s) affects the exponent of  on the very right, but we will always have  without any other constant factors.  —Quondum 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not notice "energy density". I assumed that ρ referred to density of relativitistic mass as it does at stress-energy tensor#Stress–energy of a fluid in equilibrium. JRSpriggs (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the article is missing something to indicate which convention of units is in use for each tensor.  There are enough variations to make my head spin.  —Quondum 22:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: (by JRSpriggs)  —Quondum 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fix units of pressure" 

message: I find the leading sentence grates - "In the general theory of relativity, the Einstein field equations (EFE; also known as Einstein's equations) relate the geometry of spacetime to the distribution of matter within it.[1]". The equations do _not_ do this. They relate the geometry of spacetime to the distribution and motion of energy-momentum.  I suggest that some way is found to make the lead correct while perhaps not scaring people off with  terms like "stress-energy tensor" so early. Elroch (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading sentence is misleadingly oversimplified 

message: :The article is tagged as having "unsourced statements from October 2014" and "too technical from May 2021". The criteria #1 states;  There is far too much unsourced content. Criteria #4 states, "". The article needs to be reassessed.
===External links===
:There are seven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . -- Otr500 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues and classification 

message: :There are seven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . -- Otr500 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The quoted paper by Einstein is from 1916, but the equation includes the cosmological constant, which Einstein only introduced in his 1917 paper (https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1917SPAW.......142E). I do not know how referencing works on wikipedia, so I do not want to add the source myself. 145.107.121.33 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of Einstein's paper after "The Einstein field equations (EFE) may be written in the form:"