Some Mathematical and Physical Errors of Wald on General Relativity

C. Y. Lo
Applied and Pure Research Institute
7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua, NH 03060
January, 2013
Abstract
In spite of including crucial errors, Walds book has become a standard reference, in part, because he made the same
mistakes as the 1993 Nobel Prize Committee for physics. He also has circumvented some errors of Misner, Thorne
and Wheeler, but he still fails to understand Einsteins equivalence principle. Moreover, he maintains the major com-
mon errors, the existence of dynamic and wave solutions for the Einstein equation, and thus also the claimed validity
of linearization for weak gravity and the perturbation approach. Another problem is that he failed to see the invalidity
of Einsteins covariance principle in physics. This is due to that in spite of his being additionally cautious, Wald was
often not able to tell the difference between mathematics and physics. Although his main errors have been shown in
the literature, some theorists may not have the mathematical background or the time to go though these. In this paper,
his errors are illustrated and explained in mathematics at the undergraduate level.
Key Words: Einsteins equivalence principle; dynamic solutions, principle of causality; mathematical analysis
04.20.-q, 04.20.Cv
Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greatest practitioners sometimes err.

-- S. Weinberg, Physics Today, November 2005.
1
1. Introduction
In celebrating a wonderful tradition, the installation of a new MIT president, I had a chance to talk to MIT President,
Dr. L. Rafael Reif. Since he asked the community, including MIT Alumni to help him to do a better job, I ven-
tured again to tell that in my 20 years of research on fundamental problems in physics, I discovered that there
are many problems in current theories of general relativity. He asked me to give him a report with details on
these.
In this endeavor, I also examined the MIT open course Phy. 8.962 and the chosen textbook [1] by Sean Carroll,
As expected, there still are major errors that started from the beginning of general relativity. For instance, as Gull-
strand [2, 3] pointed out in 1921, there is actually no dynamic solution for the non-linear Einstein equation,
G

= R

2
1
g

R = -T

, = 8/c
2
= 1.8610
-27
(1)
where g is the space-time metric, R is Ricci tensor, and T is the source, energy momentum tensor of matter [4].
Also is the gravitational constant in Newtonian theory, and c is the velocity of light in vacuum.
Carroll stated that he has often leaned heavily on the book of Wald [5] as a primary source since it has become a
standard reference in the field. Thus, I decided to publish another paper on general relativity to illustrate and explain
errors of Wald because this spreading of errors should be stopped as soon as possible. Previously, I have reported
problems on MIT open course, Phy. 8.033 to former MIT President Susan Hockfield, but that involved mainly the er-
rors of the Wheeler School [6].
The issue of whether the Einstein equation has far reaching consequences leads to answering issues such as
whether E = mc
2
is only conditionally valid, whether all the coupling constants have the same sign, and whether gen-
eral relativity is not applicable to microscopic phenomena as Penrose and Hawking claimed, etc. In fact, the mistakes
on the question of dynamic solutions are responsible for many subsequent absurd claims [7].
2. Equivalence of the Inert & the Gravitational Mass, and Einsteins Equivalence Principle
2
Wald [5] circumvented Einsteins equivalence principle, but claimed the equivalence of inert mass and the
gravitational mass due to Galileo and Newton as the equivalence principle, but the 1993 Nobel Prize Com-
mittee for Physics adapted this view. In so doing, Wald avoided criticizing the error of Misner, Thorne, and
Wheeler [6] because they have misidentified Einsteins equivalence principle of 1916 as the invalid 1911 as-
sumption of equivalence between acceleration and Newtonian gravity. However, this also exposed that Wald
does not understand Einsteins equivalence principle.
Einsteins equivalence principle is based on the then highly accurate experimental fact that the inert mass
and the gravitational mass can be considered the same although they are defined very differently. Then, he con-
sidered two space coordinate systems: an inertial system K and a system K that is uniformly accelerated with
respect to K. Then masses that are free from acceleration with respect to K, would have equal and parallel ac-
celeration with respect to K. They behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K is unaccelerated.
Einstein called the assumption of the complete physical equivalence of the systems of coordinates, K and K the
principle of equivalence. Einstein considered that this principle is evidently intimately connected with the
law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of the principle of
relativity to co-ordinate systems which are in non-uniform motion relatively to each other.
Nevertheless, Wald claimed This fact, known as the equivalence principle, is expressed in Newtonian the-
ory of gravitation by the statement that the gravitational force on a body is proportional to its inertial mass.
Thus Wald changed Einsteins equivalence principle completely, and reduced it to the level of Galileo and
Newton. Then, he omitted the Einstein-Minkowski condition completely that follows Einsteins equivalence
principle. Thus, Wald could avoid the obvious conflict between the Einstein-Minkowski condition and Ein-
steins covariance principle [7] that Wald subsequently heavily leaned on.
Moreover, he derived the bending of a light without going through the Einstein-Minkowski condition [4].
3
Then he omitted the justifications for the adaptation of Einsteins theory of measurement and thus avoided ap-
proving the invalid applications of Einstein with special relativity to justify his theory of measurement [8]. He
also avoided the issue of inconsistency with observed light bending from using Einsteins theory of measure-
ment. However, he still failed to achieve the consistency with Einsteins theory of measurement because the in-
terior solution and the exterior solution must be continuous at the surface of a massive ball. For the Schwarz-
schild gauge, this means as shown in his equation (6.2.10) [5] that the total mass
M = m(R) =

R
dr r r
0
2
) ( 4 (2)
where (r) is the density of the mass. However, this also means that Einsteins theory of measurement is not
valid because as shown in his equation (6.2.11), it would require that.
M = m(R) =
1
]
1

R
dr
r
r m
r r
0
2 / 1
2
) ( 2
1 ) ( 4
(2)
Walds interpretation is that M is total proper mass. However, he failed to explain why the difference (M M)
does not contribute to gravity.
Apparently, Wald was unaware of that Einsteins equivalence principle plays a crucial role in deriving the
Maxwell-Newton Approximation (see Appendix) which is identical to the linearized equation with massive
sources in the harmonic gauge [9]. This derivation is necessary because the non-linear Einstein equation has
been found [10, 11] to be invalid for the dynamic case. However, Wald also has mistaken that the Einstein
equation had dynamic solutions. He failed to see that a mathematical equation may not necessarily have a valid
solution for physics, and thus he often claimed a solution for an equation without a necessary proof.
3. Weak Gravity, Gravitational Waves, and the Principle of Causality
According to Einstein [4], in general relativity weak sources would produce a weak field, i.e.,
g

, where

<< 1 (3)
4
and

is the flat metric when there is no source. For the static case, condition (3) is verified. However, for the
dynamic case, Gullstrand [2, 3] suspected that condition (3) may not be valid. According to the principle of
causality, condition (3) should be valid; but this is true only if the equation is valid in physics. Many theorists
failed to see this because they failed to see the difference between physics and mathematics clearly [7]. In other
words, condition (3) and whether the principle of causality is applicable need a rigorous proof.
Unfortunately, many believe that condition (3) is always valid for general relativity because Einstein has
produced accurate predictions for the static case. When the Einstein equation has a weak solution, an approxi-
mate weak solution can be derived through the approach of the field equation being linearized. The linearized
Einstein equation with the linearized harmonic gauge 0

is

T
2
1
where

2
1
and

(4)
Note that we have
G

= G

(1)
+ G

(2)
and

+
2
1
2
1
) 1 (
G (5)
The linearized vacuum Einstein equation is
0 ] [
) 1 ( ) 1 (

G (6)
Thus, as pointed out by Wald, in order to maintain a solution of the vacuum Einstein equation to second order
we must correct
(1)

by adding to it the term

(2)
,
where
(2)

satisfies
[ ] 0 ] [
) 2 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 (
+

G G , where

=
(1)

+
(2)

(7)
which is the correct form of eq. (4.4.52) in Walds book. (In Walds book, he did not distinguish

from
(1)

)
This equation does have a solution for the static case. However, detailed calculation shows that this equation
does not have a solution for the dynamic case [10, 11]. The fact that there is no solution for eq. (7) means also
that the Einstein equation does not have a bounded dynamic solution.
An independent supplementary convincing evidence for the absence of a bounded dynamic solution is, as
5
shown by Hu, Zhang & Ting [12], that gravitational radiation calculated would depend on the approach used.
This is also a manifestation that there is no bounded solution. A similar problem in approximation schemes such
as post-Newtonian approximation [2, 3] is that their validity is also only assumed.
4Illustrative Examples for the Nonexistence of Walds Equation
To illustrate Walds error, one can consider the example provided by Misner et al. [6]. They claimed that a
plane-wave solution is of the form as follows:
( )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
dz e dy e L dx dt c ds

+ (8)
where L = L(u), (u), u = ct x, and c is the light speed. Then, the Einstein equation G

= 0 becomes
2
2
2
0
d L d
L
du
du
_
+

,
(9)
Misner et al. [6] claimed that Eq. (9) has a bounded solution, compatible with a linearization of Einstein equation
(1). It has been shown that Misner et al. are incorrect and Eq. (9) does not have a physical solution that satisfies Ein-
steins requirement on weak gravity [13, 14]. In fact, L(u) is unbounded even for a very small (u).
On the other hand, from the linearization of the Einstein equation (the Maxwell-Newton approximation) in vac-
uum, Einstein [15] obtained a solution as follows:
2 2 2 2 2 2
) 2 1 ( ) 2 1 ( dz dy dx dt c ds + (10)
where is a bounded function of u (= ct x). Note that metric (10) is the linearization of metric (8) if = (u).
Thus, the problem of waves illustrates that the linearization may not be valid for the dynamic case when gravitational
waves are involved since eq. (9) does not have a weak wave solution.

In conclusion, due to confusion between mathematics and physics, Wald [5] made errors in mathematics at the
undergraduate level. The principle of causality requires the existence of a dynamic solution, but Wald did not see that
the Einstein equation can fail this requirement.
Another well-known counter example is the metric obtained by Bondi, Pirani, & Robinson [16] as follows:
( )
( )
( )
2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
cosh2
sinh2 cos2
2sinh2 sin2
d d
ds e d d u d d
d d

1
+
1
1
+
1
1

1
]
(11a)
where , and are functions of u ( ). It satisfies the differential equation (i.e., their Eq. [2.8]),
( )
2 2 2
2 sinh 2 u + (11b)
6
They claimed this is a wave from a distant source. (11b) implies cannot be a periodic function. The metric is irre-
ducibly unbounded because of the factor u
2
. Both eq. (9) and eq. (11b) are special cases of G = 0. However, lin-
earization of (11b) does not make sense since variable u is not bounded. Thus, they claim Einsteins notion of weak
gravity invalid because they do not understand the principle of causality adequately.
Moreover, when gravity is absent, it is necessary to have 0 2 sin 2 sinh . These would reduce (11a) to
( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2 2
ds d d u d d (11c)
However, this metric is not equivalent to the flat metric.

Thus, metric (11c) violates the principle of causality. Also it
is impossible to adjust metric (11a) to become equivalent to the flat metric.
This challenges the view that both Einsteins notion of weak gravity and his covariance principle are valid. These
conflicting views are supported respectively by the editorials of the Royal Society Proceedings A and the Physical
Review D; thus there is no general consensus. As the Royal Society correctly pointed out [17, 18], Einsteins notion
of weak gravity is inconsistent with his covariance principle. However, Einsteins covariance principle has been
proven invalid since counter examples have been found [19, 20].
There are other theorists who also ignore the principle of causality. For example, another plane wave, which is
intrinsically non-physical, is the metric accepted by Penrose [21] as follows:
2 2

i i
ds dudv Hdu dx dx + , where
( )
ij i j
H h u x x
(12)
where u ct z , v ct z + . However, there are arbitrary non-physical parameters (the choice of origin) that are unre-
lated to any physical causes. Being a mathematician, Penrose [21] over-looked the principle of causality.
The plane wave solution of Liu & Zhou [22], which satisfies the harmonic gauge, is as follows:
ds
2
= dt
2
dx
2
+ 2 F(dt - dx)
2
cosh 2(e
2
dy
2
+ e
2
dz
2
) 2sinh 2 dy dz. (13)
where = (u) and = (u). Moreover, F = F
P
+ H, where
F
P
=
1
2
(

2
+

2
cosh
2
2) [cosh2 (e
2
y
2
+ e
-2
z
2
) +2sinh 2 yz], (14)
and H satisfies the equation,
cosh 2 (e
-2
H,
22
+ e
2
H,
33
) 2sinh 2 H,
23
= 0. (15)
For the weak fields one has 1 >> , 1 << , but there is no weak approximation as claimed to be
ds
2
= dt
2
dx
2
(1 + 2 ) dy
2
(1 2 )dz
2
4dydz (16)
because F
p
is not bounded unless

and

are zero (i.e., no wave).

The linearized equation for a dynamic case has been illustrated as incompatible with the non-linear Einstein equa-
tion, which has no bounded dynamic solutions. Thus, Eq. (9), Eq. (11b), and Eq. (13) serve as good simple examples
7
that can be shown through explicit calculation that linearization of the Einstein equation is not valid. Also, metric
(12) suggests that the cause of having no physical solution would be due to inadequate source terms [10, 12, 23].
5. The so-called Space-time Singularity Theorems, Positive Mass Theorem, and E = mc
2
A surprising conclusion, from the investigation of the Einstein equation, is that the space-time singularity theo-
rems of Penrose and Hawking are actually irrelevant to physics. This is so because their theorems have a common
implicit assumption that all the couplings have the same sign. However, from the investigation of dynamic solutions,
such an assumption is necessarily invalid in physics [9, 10]. These theorems were accepted because Penrose won the
arguments against a well-known Russian scientist E. M. Lifshitz who claimed, with the same set of assumptions, that
there is no space-time singularity [24]. However, the problem is not the mathematics in the theorems, but the earlier
historical errors in mathematics and physics.
As Pauli [25] pointed out, in principle general relativity can have different signs for their coupling constants.
The fact that nobody questioned the assumption of unique sign for all coupling, is probably due to the unverified
speculation of formula E = mc
2
being generally true. This formula comes from special relativity, and the conversion
of some mass to various combinations of energy is verified by the fission and fusion in nuclear physics. However, the
conversion of a single type of energy to mass actually has never been verified [7].
Einstein and theorists have shown that the photons can be converted into mass thorough absorption [26]. This
conversion is supported by the fact that the 0 meson can be decayed into two photons. Thus, it was claimed that the
electromagnetic energy can be converted into mass because they failed to see that the photons must have non-electro-
magnetic energy. When Einstein proposed the notion of photons, he had not conceived general relativity yet. Thus,
understandably he neglected the gravitational component of light. However, after general relativity, a light ray con-
sists of a gravitational component is natural because the electron has a mass. Besides, the electromagnetic energy-
momentum tensor has a zero trace, but the energy-momentum tensor of massive matter has a non-zero trace. In fact,
Einstein failed to show the general validity of E = mc
2
in spite of several years effort [27]. Experimentally, in contrast
of Einsteins claim, E = mc
2
is not always valid because a piece of heated up metal has reduced weight [28].
Although the Einstein equation does not have a dynamic solution, physically the dynamic solution must exist
for a rectified equation. A problem of the Einstein equation is that it does not include the gravitational energy-stress
tensor of its gravitational waves in the source and thus the principle of causality is violated. Since a gravitational
wave carried energy-momentum and the source of gravity is the energy-stress tensors, as Hogarth [29] pointed out,
the presence of a non-zero energy-momentum in the source is necessary for a gravitational wave. Thus, to fit the
Hulse-Taylor data of the binary pulsar, it is necessary to modify the Einstein equation [10] to
8
[ ]

) ( ) (
2
1
g t m T R g R G (17)
where t(g) is the energy-stress tensor for gravity. For radiation, the tensor t(g) is equivalent to Ein-
steins notion of the gravitational energy-stress. However, his notion is a pseudo-tensor and can become zero
by choosing a suitable coordinate system, but the energy-momentum of a radiation cannot be zero, and thus must be
a tensor [10].
It is crucial to note that the new tensor necessarily has a different sign for its coupling. Thus, the implicit as-
sumption of Penrose and Hawking is proven necessarily invalid. Note that the absence of a dynamic solution and the
presence of space-time singularities are related to the same invalid assumption. It is the long standing bias and errors
in mathematics that some theorists accepted one but rejected the other. Now, clearly the space-time singularity theo-
rems dramatically illustrate that what could an applied mathematician do without the proper guidance of physics.
Other victims are the positive mass theorem of Yau [30] and the positive energy theorem of Witten [31] because they
used the same invalid implicit assumption as Hawking and Penrose.
6. Discussions and Conclusions
Einstein was the major architect or foundation builder of three great theories of modern physics, namely:
special relativity, quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, he was also the source of oversight in
each theory [7]. In special relativity, he failed to see that E = mc
2
is only conditionally valid. In quantum theory,
he failed to recognize that photons must include non-electromagnetic energy [32]. In general relativity, his prin-
ciple of covariance and theory of measurement are invalid [8, 33]. However, related criticisms of Whitehead
[34] and Zhou [35] were ignored. The lack of examples to illustrate his equivalence principle makes it possible
to have popular misinterpretations and confusions in physics [36].
Some theorists such as Carroll [1] claimed General relativity is the most beautiful physical theory ever invent-
ed. This reaffirms that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. He probably simply regurgitates what he heard in Cal-
tech, where Thorne [23] erroneously claimed his students opinion, that Einstein neglected the tidal force as Ein-
steins, although Einstein explicitly pointed it out as wrong [37]. In addition to that analysis shows clearly that there
are no bounded wave-solutions; there are many necessarily unbound wave. Thus, it is a puzzle how the experts
never reexamine the hand-waving proofs for such a long time. A problem of the Wheeler School and her associates
is that they seldom read papers that are written by outsiders and thus their errors would continue regardless.
However, now it is clearly an incomplete theory that remains to be explored. In terms of physics, a basic prob-
lem is that just as in Maxwells classical electromagnetism [38], there is also no radiation reaction force in general
relativity. Although an accelerated massive particle would create radiation [24], the metric elements in the geodesic
9
equation are created by particles other than the test particle [4]. (Thus, Carrolls [1] tendency, to think of general rela-
tivity as a field, would be valid.) Another problem is the exact field equation for the dynamic case. Because of the
misinterpretation of E = mc
2
, the study of gravitational effects of electromagnetism is clearly inadequate [7]. The dis-
covery of the charge-mass interaction is a good beginning since the need for Einsteins unification is confirmed.
Unfortunately, these potentially great developments have been blocked because of the inadequacy of the theo-
rists in mathematics and historical inadequacy in physics. Half of the book of Wald [4] dealt with advanced topics,
but they are actually at most unverified speculations. It is obvious that there is no perturbation approach since there is
no bounded dynamic solution. The misunderstanding on the notion of gauge invariance [39] persistently presented by
C. N. Yang [40, 41] was probably responsible for prolonging the incorrect acceptance of Einsteins covariance princi-
ple after it has been found to be invalid through explicit examples [33].
Historically, in the US, the Wheeler School has been responsible for recognizing the importance of general rela-
tivity. It is hoped that they are able to continue their efforts after rectifying their mistakes. A lesson to be learned is
that nothing can damage sciences more than biased authority worship. Currently, the Einstein equation is served as
guidance for the research in string theory. It would be a great disservice to the string theorists if the problem in the
Einstein equation is withheld from them. It seems to me that the string theory, if correct, must be able to include the
experimentally verified charge-mass interaction, newly discovered from an analysis of general relativity [7, 28]. It is
hoped this paper would help theorists to look at unsolved problems squarely.
Acknowledgments
This paper is dedicated to MIT Institute Professor P. Morrison for his enlightenment on general relativity for
more than 15 years. Special thanks are to Sharon Holcombe for valuable suggestions. This work is supported in part
by Innotec Design, Inc., USA and the Chan Foundation, Hong Kong.
Appendix: The Question of Dynamic Solutions and the Maxwell-Newton Approximation
A problem in general relativity [10] is that, for a dynamic case, there is no bounded solution,
|g
ab
(x, y, z, t)|< constant, (A1)
for the Einstein equation, where gab is the space-time metric, over the entirety of Cartesian space-time [4]. In fact, eq.
(A1) is also a necessary implicit assumption in calculating Einstein's radiation formula [42] and the light bending
[23]. Thus, it is useless even if a dynamic solution could be unbounded. One might argue that requirement (A1) vio-
lates the covariance principle. However, this is not a problem because the covariant principle is proven to be invalid
10
in physics as P. Y. Zhou pointed out [33].
Moreover, Einstein's notion of weak gravity requires that the deviation of a space-time metric element from the
flat metric should be much smaller than one, if the strength of the isolated gravitational source is not too strong [4].
This is also in agreement with the principle of causality. However, although such a requirement can be satisfied for
the static case, it fails for a dynamic case [10].
The question of valid dynamic solutions was raised by Gullstrand [2] the chairman of Nobel Prize Committee
for Physics (1922-1929). He challenged Einstein and also Hilbert who approved Einsteins calculations [43]. Appar-
ently Hilbert was unaware of the need of a bounded dynamic solution for the perturbation approach to this issue.
However, Hilbert, being an excellent mathematician, did not participate in the subsequent efforts for the defense of
Einsteins claim. This is a good indication that Gullstrand is right. Nevertheless, some theorists such as Misner,
Thorne and Wheeler [6] and Christodoulou & Klainerman [44], etc. who failed to see this, tried very hard to prove
otherwise; but their efforts have been proven as futile in 1995 [10, 45].
The failure of producing a dynamic solution would cast a strong doubt to the validity of the linearized equation
that produces many effects including the gravitational waves. In fact, for the case that the source is an electromagnet-
ic plane wave, the linearized equation actually does not have a bounded solution [46].
Nevertheless, when the sources are massive, some of such results from the linearized equation have been veri-
fied by observation. Thus, there must be a way to justify the linearized equation, independently. Such an investiga-
tion has led additionally to a modified Einstein equation that would have dynamic solutions. To this end, Einstein's
equivalence principle [9] is needed, and thus this principle, though rejected by the 1993 Nobel Prize Committee for
Physics implicitly [47], is crucial in general relativity. As a result, it becomes even clearer that the non-existence of a
bounded dynamic solution for massive sources is due to a violation of the principle of causality [13].
A1. Gravitational Waves and the Einstein Equation of 1915
Relativity requires the existence of gravitational waves because physical influence must be propagated with a fi-
nite speed [48]. Thus, the existence of the gravitational wave is also a physical requirement for a valid field equation.
To this end, let us consider the Einstein equation of 1915 [4]. Einstein believed that his equation satisfied this require-
ment since its linearized "approximation" gives a wave solution.
The linearized equation with massive sources [4] is the Maxwell-Newton Approximation [10],

2
1

c

c

ab
= -T(m)
ab
, (A2)
where
ab = ab (1/2) ab , ab = gab - ab , =
cd
cd , and ab is the flat metric. Eq. (A2) has a mathematical struc-
ture similar to that of Maxwell's equations. A solution of eq. (A2) is
11

ab
(x
i
,t) =

2

1
R
T
ab
[y
i
, (t - R)] d
3
y, where R
2
= ( )

3
1
2
i
i i
y x (A3)
Note that the Schwarzschild solution, after a gauge transformation, can also be approximated by (A3). Solution (A3)
would represent a wave if Tab has a dynamical dependency on time t' (= t - R). Thus, the theoretical existence of grav-
itational waves seems to be assured as a certainty as believed [25, 42, 49].
However, for non-linear equations, the physical second order terms can be crucial for the mathematical existence
of bounded solutions. For Einstein equation (1), the Cauchy initial condition is restricted by four constraints since
there is no second order time derivatives in Gat (a = x, y, z, t) [42]. This suggests that Einstein equation (1) and eq.
(A1) may not be compatible for a dynamic problem. Einstein discovered that his equation does not admit a propagat-
ing wave solution [50, 51]. Recently, it has been shown that the linearization procedure is not generally valid in math-
ematics [10, 52] because a non-linear equation may not have bounded solutions. Thus, it is necessary to justify wave
solution (A3) independently.
A2. The Weak Gravity of Massive Matter and Einstein Equation of the 1995 Update
For a massive source, the linear equation (A2), as a first order approximation, is supported by experiments [10,
39]. However, for the dynamic case, the Einstein equation is clearly invalid.
It will be shown that eq. (A2) can be derived from Einsteins equivalence principle. Based on this principle, the
equation of motion for a neutral particle is the geodesic equation. In comparison with Newton's second law, one ob-
tains that the Newtonian potential of gravity is approximately c
2
gtt/2. Then, in accord with the Poisson equation and
special relativity, the most general equation for the first order approximation of gab

is,

1
2

c

c

ab
=
2

[T(m)
ab
+

T
(m)
ab
], (A4a)
where

T
(m) =
cd
T(m)
cd
, = 8Kc
-2

, and + = 1, (A4b)
where and are constants since Newton's theory is not gauge invariant.
Then, according to Riemannian geometry [42], the exact equation would be
R
ab
+ X
(2)
ab
=
2

[T(m)
ab
+ T(m)g
ab
], where T(m) = g
cd
T(m)
cd
(A5a)
and X
(2)
ab is an unknown tensor of second order in K, if R ab consists of no net sum of first order other than the term
(1/2)
c

c
ab . This requires that the sum
12

1
2

c
[
b

ac
+
a

bc
] +
1
2

a

b
, (A5b)
must be of second order. To this end, let us consider eq. (A4a), and obtain

1
2

c

c
(
a

ab
) =
2

[
a
T(m)
ab
+
b

T
(m)] . (A6a)
From
c
T(m)cb = 0, it is clear that K
c
T(m)cb is of second order but Kb

T
(m) is not. However, one may obtain a
second order term by a suitable linear combination of
c
cb and b . From (A6a), one has

1
2

c

c
(
a

ab
+ C
b
) =
2

[
a
T(m)
ab
+ ( + 4C + C)
b

T
(m)] . (A6b)
Thus, simply choosing the harmonic coordinates (i.e., (
a

ab

b
/2 0), can lead to inconsistency. It follows eqs.
(A5b) and (A6b) that, for the other terms to be of second order, one must have C = -1/2, = 2, and = -1. Thus, the
first order approximation eq. (A4a) becomes,

1
2

c

c

ab
= [T(m)
ab
-
1
2

T (m)
ab
] . (A7)
which is equivalent to eq. (A2a), has been determined to be the field equation of massive matter. This derivation is
independent of the exact form of equation (A5a). The implicit gauge condition is that the flat metric ab is the asymp-
totic limit. Eq. (A7) is compatible with the equivalence principle as demonstrated by Einstein in his calculation of the
bending of light. Thus, the derivation is self-consistent.
Einstein obtained the same values for and by considering eq. (A5a) after assuming X
(2)
ab = 0 [43]. His equation
(A2) could also be "derived" from a linear equation more general than eq. (A2a), if one regards the gravitational field
as a spin 2 field coupled to the energy-stress tensor [48, 49]. However, in such a "proof", the existence of bounded
dynamic solutions for eq. (A2) must be invalidly assumed.
An advantage of the approach of considering eq. (A4) and eq. (A5b) is that the over simplification X
(2)
ab = 0 is not
needed. Then, it is possible to obtain from eq. (A5a) an equation different from eq. (A2),
G
ab
R
ab

1
2
g
ab
R = - [T(m)
ab
Y
(1)
ab
], (A8)
where
-Y
(1)
ab
= X
(2)
ab
-
1
2
g
ab
{ X
(2)
cd
g
cd
}.
13
The conservation law
c
T(m)cb = 0 and
c
Gcb 0 implies also
a
Y
(1)
ab = 0. If Y
(1)
ab is identified as the gravita-
tional energy tensor of t(g)ab, Einstein equation of the 1995 update [10] is reaffirmed. Note that eq. (A2a) is the first
order approximation of eq. (A8) but may not be of eq. (A2). Note, however, that in Einsteins initial consideration,
t(g)ab is a pseudo-tensor. It has been shown that it must be a tensor [10].
References:
1. Carroll, Sean. An Introduction to General Relativity: Spacetime and Geometry (San Francisco., Addison Wesley,
2003).
2. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 16, No. 8 (1921).
3. A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astr. Fys. 17, No. 3 (1922).
4. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press 1954).
5. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
6. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
7. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 23 (2), 258-267 (2010).
8. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
9. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 12 (3), 508-526 (Sept. 1999).
10. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 455, 421-428 (1995); Editor S. Chandrasekhar suggests and approves the Appendix.
11. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 13 (4), 527-539 (December, 2000).
12. N. Hu, D.-H. Zhang, & H.-G. Ding, Acta Phys. Sinica, 30 (8), 1003-1010 (Aug. 1981).
13. C. Y, Lo, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215 (2006).
14. C. Y. Lo, in Proc. of 18th Annual Natural Philosophy Alliance Conf., Vol. 8, 354-362, Univ. of Maryland, USA.
6-9 July, 2011.
15. A. Einstein, Sitzungsberi, Preuss, Acad. Wis. 1918, 1: 154 (1918).
16. H. Bondi, F. A. E. Pirani, & I. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533 (1959).
17. C. Y. Lo, International Meeting on Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory, Imperial College, London, Sept.
12-15, 2008; Bull. of Pure and App. Sci., 29D (2), 81-104 (2010).
18. Pring F, The Royal Society, Board Member's Comments (Jan. 8, 2007).
19. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).
20. C. Y. Lo, Bull. of Pure and App. Sci., 27D (1), 1-15 (2008).
14
21. R. Penrose, Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1), 215-220 (1965).
22. Liu H. Y., & Zhou, P.-Y.: Scientia Sincia (Series A) 1985, XXVIII (6) 628-637.
23. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 10, 424 (1997).
24. K. S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton, New York, 1994), p. 105
25. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon Press, London, 1971).
26. H. C. Ohanian, Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius (Norton, New York, 2008).
27. Einstein's Miraculous Year edited and introduced by John Stachel, Princeton Univ. Press (1998), p. 118.
28. C. Y. Lo, GJSFR Vol. 12 Issue 7 (Ver. 1.0) (Sept. 2012).
29. J. E. Hogarth, 1953 Ph. D. Thesis, Dept. of Math., University of London.
30. R. Schoen & S.-T. Yau, Commun. Math. Phys. 79, 231-260 (1981).
31. E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys., 80, 381-402 (1981).
32. C. Y. Lo, Completing Einsteins Proof of E = mc
2
, Progress in Phys., Vol. 4, 14-18 (2006).
33. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays, 23 (3), 491-499 (Sept. 2010).
34. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1962).
35. Zhou Pei-yuan, Further Experiments to Test Einsteins Theory of Gravitation, Proc. of International Sympo-
sium on Experimental Gravitational Physics (Guangzhou, 3-8 Aug. 1987), 110-116 (World Sci., Singapore).
36. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (2), 73-88 (2007).
37. J. Norton, What was Einsteins Principle of Equivalence? in Einsteins Studies Vol.1: Einstein and the Histo-
ry of General Relativity, Eds. D. Howard & J. Stachel (Birkhuser, Boston, 1989).
38. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962).
39. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
40. C. N. Yang & R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954);
41. Ron Shaw, Ph. D. thesis, Cambridge University (1955).
42. S. Weinberg, "Gravitation and Cosmology" (John Wiley, New York, 1972), pp. 69, 251-273.
43. A. Pais, 'Subtle is the Lord ...' (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).
44. D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space (Princeton
University Press, 1993).
45. C. Y. Lo, GJSFR Vol. 12 Issue 4 (Ver. 1.0) (June 2012).
46. C. Y. Lo, David P. Chan, and Richard C. Y. Hui, Phys. Essays 15 (1), 77-86 (March 2002).
47. The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1993).
15
48. H. A. Lorentz, Proc. K. Ak. Amsterdam 8, 603 (1900).
49. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, "Gravitation and SpaceTime" (Norton, New York, 1994).
50. M. Born, "The Born-Einstein Letters" (Walker, New York, 1968), p.125.
51. A. Einstein & N. Rosen, J. Franklin Inst. 223, 43 (1937).
52. C. Y. Lo, in Proc. 7th Marcel Grossmann Meeting On Gen. Relat., 525 (World Sci., 1996).
16