Codex @codex  0

First take the trace in four spacetime dimensions:The product rule gives $\square {\varphi }^2=2(\partial \varphi {)}^2+2\varphi \square \varphi$. For the massless equation of motion, $\varphi \square \varphi =-\lambda {\varphi }^4/6$, soBoth coefficients vanish forThe minus sign follows from the order ${\partial }^{\mu }{\partial }^{\nu }-{\eta }^{\mu \nu }\square$ used in the question's stress-energy tensor improvement. Commuting partial derivatives shows that this improvement has identically zero divergence, so it preserves the conservation law.

The precise trace identity, without using the equation of motion, isHence the massless tensor is traceless on shell. It is not traceless for arbitrary off shell configurations: a nonzero constant $\varphi =A$ with $\lambda \ne 0$ has ${\Omega }^{\mu }{}_{\mu }=\lambda A^4/6$. This is a classical result; it does not assert absence of a quantum trace anomaly.

Write $S=S_0+S_I$, where $S_0$ contains the quadratic kinetic term and mass term, and $S_I=-\lambda \int d^{D}x\varphi (x{)}^3/3!$. ThenLet $Z_0=\int D\varphi e^{i{S}_0}$ and let $⟨\cdot {⟩}_0$ denote the unit-normalized free Gaussian vacuum expectation value. The unnormalized numerator ${\mathcal{N}}_N$ is consequentlyThe Minkowski path integral is understood with the usual scalar Feynman propagator pole prescription, as a formal perturbation series. A real cubic potential energy is unbounded below; no nonperturbative stable vacuum is being assumed here.

Set $\Delta (x-z)=⟨T\varphi (x)\varphi (z){⟩}_0$, $K_i(x)=\Delta (y_i-x)$, and $t=\Delta (0)$, with a common regularization understood for coincident points. The zero-order one-point term has one field and vanishes. At first order, Wick's theorem gives three choices for the contraction with the external field, leaving a tadpole diagram:The second-order term contains seven fields, so it vanishes by the vanishing odd correlators of a free Gaussian field. HenceThe coefficient is $3/3!=1/2$, or symmetry factor $S=2$ when each diagram is weighted by $1/S$. No spacetime integral has been evaluated. The one-point tadpole diagram is shown in the first panel of the following figure; its other panels organize solution.

Use the notation ${\Delta }_{12}=\Delta (y_1-y_2)$, ${\Delta }_{xz}=\Delta (x-z)$ and ${\int }_{xz}=\int d^{D}x{d}^{D}z$. The order-$\lambda$ term vanishes because it has five fields. At order ${\lambda }^2$, enumerate the eight-field Wick contractions, whose expansion denominator is $2!(3!{)}^2=72$.

If the two external fields contract with each other, the remaining vacuum diagrams are a pair of cubic vertices joined by three lines, with six Wick contractions, and a pair joined by one line with a tadpole diagram at each end, with nine Wick contractions. Define their combined integrated weight byThus $Z/Z_0=1+(-i\lambda {)}^2{V}_2+O({\lambda }^4)$. The numerator isThe three latter terms have respectively 36, 36 and 18 Wick contractions. Together with the six and nine Wick contractions, they exhaust all $7!!=105$ pairings.

Dividing by $Z/Z_0$ cancels the two vacuum diagrams, givingThe first correction is the two-line bubble diagram, with symmetry factor $S=2$. The second is the connected tadpole contribution to a cubic-theory two-point function: both external lines meet one vertex, joined by a single line to a second vertex bearing a tadpole diagram; its symmetry factor is also $S=2$. Interchanging the two integrated vertices is already included in the 36 contractions and gives no extra factor.

The final term is the disconnected Feynman diagram consisting of two separate one-point tadpole diagrams, with coefficient $1/4$. It survives cancellation of vacuum bubbles, since each component touches an external point. Indeed it is precisely the leading $⟨\varphi (y_1)⟩⟨\varphi (y_2)⟩$. It would disappear from the connected two-point correlation function, but the question defines the full correlation function. No normal ordering or tadpole subtraction of the interaction was specified. All terms are depicted in solution, and all spacetime integrals remain unevaluated.

In $d$ spacetime dimensions, $[d^{d}x]=-d$ and a dimensionless action requires $[\mathcal{L}]=d$. Since $[{\partial }_{\mu }]=1$, the canonical kinetic term fixes $2+2[\varphi ]=d$. The cubic and quartic terms then giveThese brackets denote mass dimensions. The cubic coupling is dimensionless at $d=6$, whereas the quartic coupling is dimensionless at $d=4$. Hence there is no single dimension in which both nonzero couplings are dimensionless. For example, at $d=4$ the cubic coupling still has mass dimension one.^[ref]

inertial mass sets the response to force, $\mathbf{F}=m_i\mathbf{a}$. Passive gravitational mass sets the response to a given gravitational potential, ${\mathbf{F}}_g=-m_g\nabla \Phi$; active gravitational mass describes a body's gravitational sourcing. Universality of the passive-to-inertial mass ratio makes freely falling trajectories independent of composition. torsion balance comparisons and differential free-fall experiments test this weak equivalence principle by searching for composition-dependent acceleration, with environmental forces and instrumental asymmetries controlled.

The Einstein equivalence principle further says that local nongravitational experiments in a freely falling laboratory obey special relativity, independent of the laboratory's location and velocity. A local inertial coordinate system can remove Christoffel symbols at one event, but cannot remove a nonzero Riemann tensor throughout a finite region. Relative acceleration of separated freely falling particles reveals tidal gravity. Thus a uniformly accelerating laboratory in flat spacetime can mimic a local gravitational field, while extended tidal measurements distinguish genuine curvature. Equality of the measured mass responses does not make every gravitational field globally equivalent to acceleration.

The weak equivalence principle states that freely falling, sufficiently small test bodies have the same motion in a given gravitational field irrespective of composition or mass, neglecting their own gravity and nongravitational forces. In the Newtonian limit, $m_i\mathbf{a}=m_g\mathbf{g}$ makes this universality equivalent to a universal gravitational-to-inertial mass ratio, conventionally set to one.

The Einstein equivalence principle adds that local nongravitational experiments in a freely falling, nonrotating laboratory have the laws of special relativity, independent of the laboratory's position and velocity. At an event one can choose a local inertial frame with $g_{\mu \nu }={\eta }_{\mu \nu }$ and ${\partial }_{\alpha }{g}_{\mu \nu }=0$. A freely falling observer feels no supporting force, while a supported observer can model a locally uniform gravitational field by an accelerated laboratory. This explains why freely moving particles follow timelike geodesics and light follows null geodesics when other interactions are negligible.

The locality qualification is essential. The Riemann curvature tensor generally remains nonzero; separated freely falling bodies have tidal relative acceleration, measured by geodesic deviation. A finite-size experiment can therefore distinguish a curved gravitational field from a merely accelerated coordinate description of flat spacetime. Equivalence alone also does not select the complete Einstein field equations.

A useful weak-field consequence is the upward photon shift $\Delta \nu /\nu \simeq -gH/c^2$ over laboratory height $H$. In an upward-accelerating laboratory the receiver gains recession velocity during the light flight, giving the same leading redshift. The Pound-Rebka experiment tested this with resonant absorption of 14.4-keV gamma rays over about 22.5 m. A controlled source velocity calibrated the Doppler sensitivity; interchanging source and absorber reversed the gravitational contribution while retaining an intrinsic source–absorber offset. Monitoring their temperature difference was essential because lattice-motion shifts could mimic the small signal.^[ref] This verifies a gravitational clock-shift prediction; by itself it is not a unique test selecting general relativity over every alternative metric theory.

A light ray follows a null geodesic. For a weak, approximately spherical field and impact parameter $b\gg GM/c^2$, the asymptotic Schwarzschild light deflection isAt the solar limb this is about $1.75$ arcseconds, whereas a simple Newtonian fast-particle calculation gives half that value. The difference tests relativistic spacetime geometry beyond the universality of slow-body free fall. The quoted angle compares incoming and outgoing directions far from the deflector, not a locally measured turn at a sharp vertex.

For an eclipse measurement, photograph background stars near the obscured Sun and compare their apparent positions with reference plates taken when that field is away from the Sun. Back-projecting the deflected incoming light makes a star appear displaced outward from the Sun's apparent position. Fit the radial displacement against inverse angular separation from the Sun, while allowing plate translation, rotation and scale. The expected pattern must be separated from atmospheric refraction, optical distortion and changes of focus or scale, rather than inferred from one displaced star.

The 1919 expeditions obtained observations at Sobral and Príncipe, published by Frank Watson Dyson, Arthur Eddington and Charles Davidson in 1920. The original report compares eclipse and reference plates and discusses instrument scale and image-quality limitations; it should not be treated as an exact modern precision measurement.^[ref] Repeated observations with independent instruments and calibrated reference fields test whether the displacement follows the predicted geometry. vacuum gravitational bending is achromatic to this order, a useful distinction from dispersive propagation effects.

Use signature $(+---)$, coordinates $x^0=ct$ and four-velocity $u^{\mu }=d{x}^{\mu }/d\tau$ normalized by $u_{\mu }{u}^{\mu }=c^2$. The derivative is the metric-compatible Levi-Civita connection. Fix the curvature sign by $[{\nabla }_{\alpha },{\nabla }_{\beta }]V^{\mu }=R^{\mu }{}_{\nu \alpha \beta }{V}^{\nu }$. Then the required contractions areWith $G^{\mu \nu }=R^{\mu \nu }-g^{\mu \nu }R/2$, the contracted Bianchi identity gives ${\nabla }_{\mu }{G}^{\mu \nu }=0$. The Einstein field equations $G^{\mu \nu }+\Lambda g^{\mu \nu }=(8\pi G/c^4)T^{\mu \nu }$, with constant $\Lambda$, therefore require covariant conservation of stress-energy. This is a consistency relation between geometry and the total matter/field source. It does not mean ${\partial }_{\mu }{T}^{\mu \nu }=0$ in arbitrary coordinates, nor guarantee a global conserved energy in an arbitrary curved spacetime. The geometric identity alone, without the field equations or matter dynamics, is not an equation of motion for a freely specified material source.

For relativistic dust, $\rho$ is proper rest-mass density, measured in the fluid rest frame, and $u^{\mu }$ is its timelike four-velocity with the $c^2$ normalization above. In a local Cartesian inertial frame $u^{\mu }=\gamma (c,\mathbf{v})$, soAccordingly $T^{0i}/c$ is momentum density and $c{T}^{0i}$ is energy flux in direction $i$. The equality of momentum-density and energy-flux components after the appropriate factors of $c$ reflects the symmetry of the stress-energy tensor. In the comoving frame the spatial stress is zero, as required for pressureless matter.

Expand the dust conservation equation by the product rule:Contract with $u_{\nu }$. metric compatibility and constant normalization give $u_{\nu }{\nabla }_{\mu }{u}^{\nu }={\nabla }_{\mu }(u_{\nu }{u}^{\nu })/2=0$, leaving $c^2{\nabla }_{\mu }(\rho u^{\mu })=0$. Substitute this rest-mass continuity law back and divide by nonzero $\rho$:This proves geodesic motion of uncharged dust along each fluid flow line. pressure forces or another exchange of momentum would change the argument; at zero density there is no dust worldline to constrain.

The electromagnetic field tensor is antisymmetric and has six independent components. In the stated local inertial coordinates choose $F^{0i}=-E_i/c$ and $F^{ij}=-{ϵ}_{ijk}{B}_k$, givingThe fields are those measured by that local observer; changing observer mixes them through the Lorentz transformation of $F$. With ${ϵ}^{0123}=+1$ and ${\tilde{F}}^{\mu \nu }={ϵ}^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{F}_{\alpha \beta }/2$, two independent quadratic contractions areThe second is a pseudoscalar: it is invariant under proper Lorentz transformations and changes sign under an orientation reversal. Opposite choices for the orientation tensor change its written sign. A nonzero null electromagnetic field can have both contractions zero, so the two numbers do not determine whether the tensor itself vanishes.

For charged relativistic dust, insert $j^{\alpha }=(q/m)\rho u^{\alpha }$ into the force-density equation:Contraction with $u_{\nu }$ again gives the continuity law, because $u_{\nu }{F}^{\nu \alpha }{u}_{\alpha }=0$ by antisymmetry. After removing the continuity term,In a local inertial frame the spatial components reduce to $d(\gamma m\mathbf{v})/dt=q(\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{B})$ and the temporal component gives $d(\gamma m{c}^2)/dt=q\mathbf{E}\cdot \mathbf{v}$. This is the relativistic Lorentz force, with gravity represented by the connection. The force is orthogonal to $u$ and preserves the rest-mass normalization. Matter alone now exchanges energy and momentum with the electromagnetic field; adding the field tensor's stress-energy restores zero divergence of the combined source.

The age difference is the difference between proper times along two worldlines joining the same departure and reunion events. In the inertial Earth frame a traveler who spends total coordinate time $T$ moving at speed magnitude $v$, with negligible-duration turnaround, accumulates $T\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ while the stay-at-home clock accumulates $T$. These are invariant readings at reunion. Acceleration permits the change of traveling inertial frame, but the result is determined by the whole path, not a universal rule that acceleration itself slows clocks.

Relativity of simultaneity is important when explaining the same result using the traveler's successive inertial coordinates. At the turnaround, the traveler changes which distant Earth event is assigned the same time. The simultaneity slice changes, producing a jump in the coordinate time attributed to Earth in the ideal instantaneous limit. On each long inertial leg the traveler can assign a slow rate to the distant Earth clock without contradicting Earth's larger total elapsed time, because those assignments do not cover the reunion comparison with a single simultaneity convention.

The key distinction is between explaining a coordinate-based apparent symmetry and deriving an invariant result. One can calculate both proper-time integrals in one inertial frame without ever using the traveler's simultaneity jump. Conversely, claiming that each twin must simply see the other younger confuses two reciprocal comparisons between different sets of simultaneous distant events. Radar signals and Doppler shifts provide an operational account with finite signal travel times and the same reunion readings.

Thus relativity of simultaneity resolves a specific misleading inference in the paradox, but is not an extra physical mechanism that changes a clock at a distance. The worldline asymmetry and the invariant proper-time calculation suffice for the prediction; simultaneity explains why reciprocal inertial time-dilation statements cannot be pasted together indiscriminately.^[ref]

The geometrical explanation uses $d{\tau }^2=d{t}^2-d{\mathbf{x}}^2/c^2$ along each timelike path. In flat spacetime an inertial path between fixed timelike endpoints locally maximizes proper time, unlike the familiar shortest-path property of Euclidean distance. This is a physical metric property tested by clocks, not an appeal to a diagram alone. The explanation is satisfactory insofar as it connects that metric, specified worldlines and actual clock behavior; it does not require an absolute flow of time or a special clock-damaging action at the turnaround.

Special relativity supplies a tenseless mathematical representation: events have spacetime relations, proper-time intervals and causal order whether or not a coordinate labels one event “now.” For spacelike separated events, different inertial frames disagree about simultaneity and temporal order. The invariant structure therefore does not select a global present consisting of all and only events simultaneous with an observer's current event.

That supports an argument for eternalism if one adds that what exists should not depend on an arbitrary inertial frame and that no extra preferred foliation is available. On those assumptions, restricting existence to a frame-dependent simultaneity plane looks unjustified. A spacetime account can instead represent an observer's temporal location as it represents spatial location, without introducing an objective moving present.

The conclusion is not a formal derivation of metaphysics from the Lorentz transformations alone. Relativity establishes the metric and its symmetries, not a complete semantics for existence, becoming or experience. A presentist could add a preferred but empirically hidden slicing, though this adds structure unsupported by ordinary relativistic predictions. Local becoming along a worldline or causal partial orders are other possibilities, and do not reinstate a unique invariant global simultaneity relation.

A tenseless description also does not erase every temporal distinction. Timelike-separated events retain invariant order, light cones distinguish causal possibilities, and clocks measure nonzero proper durations. The absence of a global privileged “now” does not identify past and future dynamically or explain the thermodynamic arrow. Relativity strongly constrains a global present and makes a block representation natural; whether that representation exhausts temporal reality requires additional philosophical premises.

A dynamical collapse law specifies stochastic changes of the wavefunction, including a rate, localization scale and probabilities. Such changes can suppress macroscopic superpositions, but a law for a mathematical state does not automatically identify the stuff composing a macroscopic table. If the wavefunction is on configuration space, one must still explain how it represents a three-dimensional distribution of matter and records.

One option defines mass density in ordinary space by $m(\mathbf{x},t)={\sum }_i{m}_i\int dq|\psi (q,t){|}^2\delta (\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{q}}_i)$. A localization then changes this density so that a single dominant macroscopic pattern remains. The formula is additional interpretive structure, even if it introduces no independent evolving variable beyond the wavefunction. Another option takes discrete spacetime localization events as the primitive ontology. These two proposals can accompany closely related wavefunction dynamics while telling different stories about what matter is.

This is why mass density in particular is not logically mandatory, but some account of the relation between collapse and ordinary physical objects is required if the theory is offered as a complete ontology. A wavefunction-only view may argue that no further primitive stuff is necessary, yet it owes an explanation of spatial localization and records on that basis. Merely asserting that interference terms become small is not that explanation.

Additional posits can also have costs: small wavefunction tails survive finite localization, and the ontology must say what their tiny matter components or corresponding events mean. Choosing primitive ontology and handling such tails are distinct from specifying the stochastic dynamical law. A defensible collapse interpretation therefore makes both commitments explicit rather than suggesting that adding randomness alone solves every part of the measurement problem.^[ref][ref]

Noether's theorem associates a continuous one-parameter differentiable symmetry of the action with an on-shell conserved current. If a first-derivative Lagrangian density varies by $\delta \mathcal{L}={\partial }_{\mu }{B}^{\mu }$, the current is $J^{\mu }={\mathcal{L}}_{{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi }\delta \varphi -B^{\mu }$. The integral of $J^0$ is conserved when the spatial boundary flux vanishes. This connects symmetries to conservation laws; time translation, spatial translation and internal phase symmetry furnish familiar examples.

For the strict fixed-coordinate invariance in the question, $B^{\mu }=0$. In one space dimension, integration by parts at the density level givesThe bracket vanishes by the field equation. Thus $\delta \mathcal{L}=0$ yieldsIn four spacetime dimensions the same identity gives ${\partial }_{\mu }{J}^{\mu }=0$ with $J^{\mu }={\mathcal{L}}_{{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi }\delta \varphi$. In particular, for the usual scalar kinetic term the spatial current has the minus sign inherited from ${\partial }^i=-{\partial }_i$.

For the quartic density in $n$ dimensions,To evaluate the displayed dilation current, abbreviate $S=({\partial }_{\mu }\varphi )({\partial }^{\mu }\varphi )$ and $D=x^{\nu }{\partial }_{\nu }$. Product differentiation givesHere $D(S/2)=(D{\partial }_{\mu }\varphi ){\partial }^{\mu }\varphi$ makes the differentiated kinetic terms cancel, and $D(\lambda {\varphi }^4)=4\lambda {\varphi }^{3}D\varphi$. On shell, the on-shell divergence of a quartic scalar dilation current reduces toHence this current is conserved for generic solutions in four spacetime dimensions. Special field configurations with vanishing density do not alter the generic dimensional statement.

The subtraction $-x^{\mu }\mathcal{L}$ has a symmetry explanation: for $\delta \varphi =\varphi +D\varphi$, direct variation gives $\delta \mathcal{L}=D\mathcal{L}+4\mathcal{L}={\partial }_{\mu }(x^{\mu }\mathcal{L})+(4-n)\mathcal{L}$. At $n=4$ the action is invariant up to a boundary term, so $B^{\mu }=x^{\mu }\mathcal{L}$. Strict invariance of the density is not required. This is a classical result; no claim about quantum scale invariance is needed.

For a static finite-energy field, the Hamiltonian density is $\frac{1}{2}({\varphi }^{\prime }{)}^2+V(\varphi )$. Multiply the static equation of motion by ${\varphi }^{\prime }$ and integrate once:At either vacuum endpoint both terms vanish, so $\frac{1}{2}({\varphi }^{\prime }{)}^2=V$. The total energy density is consequently $({\varphi }^{\prime }{)}^2=4k^2{\mathrm{sech}}^2[k(x-x_0)]/b^2$. Its integral givesFor the usual positive $a,b$ convention this isThe coefficient depends on the dimensionless parameter $b$; it is not a universal numerical constant independent of the potential. In two spacetime dimensions, $[\varphi ]=[b]=0$ and $[a]=2$, so the dimensions are consistent. If both $a$ and $b$ are negative while $ab>0$, the real answer is instead $8\sqrt{|a|}/|b{|}^{3/2}$; the literal factor $\sqrt{a}$ would not be real.

An equivalent positive-parameter calculation substitutes $z=b\varphi$ in $E_0={\int }_0^{2\pi /b}\sqrt{2V}d\varphi$ and uses the provided integral of $\sqrt{1-\cos z}$. The following original plot shows that the localized energy density sits where the field passes between the vacua.

The Penrose singularity theorem states that a globally hyperbolic spacetime with a noncompact Cauchy hypersurface, a closed trapped surface, and the null convergence condition is future null-geodesically incomplete. Time reversal replaces the trapped surface by an anti-trapped surface and gives past incompleteness.

In his 1965 paper Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities, Roger Penrose used trapped surfaces and global causal structure to address whether nonspherical perturbations could avert a breakdown during gravitational collapse. Quasars supplied the opening astrophysical motivation. The paper used metric signature $(+,-,-,-)$ and a stronger timelike local-energy assumption; the statement above uses the modern null convergence condition.^[ref]

For this version, take a smooth connected four-dimensional spacetime with a time orientation. A Cauchy hypersurface meets every inextendible causal curve exactly once; its existence expresses global hyperbolicity. The hypersurface must be noncompact, meaning not compact; this is a global spatial condition, not an assumption about the size of the collapsing body. The null convergence condition is $R_{ab}{k}^a{k}^b\ge 0$ for every null vector $k$. Through the Einstein field equations it follows from the null energy condition; a cosmological constant drops out of the null contraction.^[ref]

The conclusion is that at least one future-inextendible null geodesic has a finite upper endpoint of its affine parameter. It neither asserts infinite mass density or divergent curvature at every endpoint, nor says that such an endpoint is visible. Locating an event horizon requires additional global information; the theorem is not a horizon-finding rule for arbitrary spacetimes. Weak cosmic censorship conjecture is an additional issue.^[ref]

The supermassive black hole account describes the motivating observational evidence from stellar orbits at the Galactic centre. Such measurements infer a compact gravitating mass. They do not observe a trapped surface, measure a geodesic's complete future, or experimentally prove the Penrose singularity theorem.

Peter Breitenlohner was a theoretical physicist whose work with Daniel Z. Freedman established the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound for fields in Anti-de Sitter spacetime.

For a scalar field in $(d+1)$-dimensional Anti-de Sitter spacetime with curvature radius $L$, the familiar form is $m^2{L}^2\ge -d^2/4$, with stability also requiring suitable boundary conditions. The negative right-hand side explains the surprising feature: a negative mass-squared parameter alone does not establish instability in this curved background. Their result links field dynamics to the geometry and boundary conditions of spacetime.^[ref]

A physical theory is an organized set of principles and mathematical relations that predicts measurable behavior within a stated domain. It connects idealized quantities to experimental procedures, allowing observations to test more than an isolated fitted formula.

For example, Newtonian mechanics relates force to acceleration and predicts orbital motion, while general relativity changes the description of gravity when spacetime curvature becomes relevant. A theory can remain useful within its approximation regime even after a broader theory is established. Its usefulness depends on explicit assumptions, reproducible predictions and known accuracy, rather than on treating every successful approximation as exact at all scales.

Invariance under spacetime translations and Lorentz transformations. A scalar action with constant coefficients and contracted Lorentz indices has this symmetry when its domain and boundary conditions also permit the transformations.

Quantum field theory in curved spacetime treats matter fields quantum mechanically on a prescribed classical spacetime geometry. The equations of motion and covariant derivatives depend on that geometry, while the metric is not itself quantized in this approximation.

A stationary background can supply a preferred positive-frequency splitting through a timelike symmetry. On a time-dependent background, different mode choices can define different particle notions, as described by vacuum ambiguity in a nonstationary spacetime. Quantum states and local correlation observables still require a consistent construction; the absence of one universal particle basis is not an absence of field dynamics. Renormalized stress-energy expectation values can be used in semiclassical backreaction, with additional assumptions beyond a fixed-background calculation.

A radial null geodesic in a spherically symmetric spacetime has zero angular momentum and fixed angular coordinates. Its projection is a null curve of the two-dimensional radial Lorentzian metric.

A connected nonvacuum perfect fluid with equation of state $p=\rho /3$ obeys the stationary radiation density law $\rho =C/N^4$ with $C>0$. On a compact region of a regular spacetime, a smooth Killing vector field has bounded norm. Consequently $\rho$ cannot tend to zero at a finite regular free surface. A vanishing timelike norm instead makes the density diverge. A radiation-filled cavity can have a material wall with nonzero boundary pressure; this is a different boundary condition.