Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
  1. Maxwell's equation for gravity has $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{B}_g~=~0,$$ see Gravitoelectromagnetism in analogy with the electrodynamics. What is the mass called that needs to make these equations symmetric in $\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{B}_g=\text{something}$? There are no magnetic monopoles so far but the electric charge is quantized anyway.

  2. My other question is: What is preventing the quantization of mass or is it considered quantized as built from elementary particles?

share|cite|improve this question
More on gravitoelectromagnetism: and links therein. – Qmechanic Sep 11 '13 at 16:35

The last part of the question (v4) is a duplicate of this and this Phys.SE questions and links therein. Here we will only address the first part of the question (v4).

The formalism of gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) is traditionally$^1$ derived from a weak field limit

$$\tag{1} g_{\mu\nu}~=~\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}, \qquad h_{\mu\nu}~\ll~ 1,$$

of General Relativity (GR), where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is a fixed background reference metric, usually taken to be the flat space Minkowski metric. Here the first row/column

$$\tag{2} h_{0\mu}~=~h_{\mu 0}~=~A_{\mu}$$

of the $h_{\mu\nu}$ tensor is identified with the GEM gauge $4$-potential $A_{\mu}$, see e.g. Ref. 1. The main point is that the GEM electric field $\vec{E}$, and the GEM magnetic field$\vec{B}$, i.e. the electric-magnetic field-strength $F_{\mu\nu}$, are defined from $A_{\mu}$ by standard formulas for EM in a fixed curved space, which implement the GEM no-magnetic monopole Maxwell equation

$$\tag{3} \vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{B}~=~0 $$

manifestly via a Bianchi identity a la this Phys.SE answer. Here we have implicitly assumed that the background metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ doesn't have singularities. In other words, a GEM magnetic monopole in a regular spacetime point of the background metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ would violate the weak field framework that GEM traditionally is derived from. On the other hand, it seems that GEM magnetic monopoles may be associated with e.g. NUT-type singularities in $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, see Ref. 3.


  1. B. Mashhoon, Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief Review, arXiv:gr-qc/0311030.

  2. R. Maartens and B.A. Bassett, Gravito-electromagnetism, arXiv:gr-qc/9704059.

  3. D. Momeni, M. Nouri-Zonoz, and R. Ramazani-Arani, Morgan-Morgan-NUT disk space via the Ehlers transformation, arXiv:gr-qc/0508036.


$^1$ Ref. 2 claims to have developed a fully covariant GEM formalism with magnetic monopoles (hat tip: Michael Brown).

share|cite|improve this answer
There is a fully covariant (and as far as I can tell fully non-linear) version of GEM, but what bearing this has on the question I don't know... – Michael Brown Sep 9 '13 at 12:16
@Michael Brown. Thanks. – Qmechanic Sep 9 '13 at 12:54
Thank you. Does it have a name so far, is it an energy .. In theory does it need to be extremely heavy or dense in analogy the magnetic monopole ? – Anonymous Sep 9 '13 at 15:37
I updated the answer. – Qmechanic Sep 10 '13 at 21:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.