I Variation of perfect fluid and Lie derivative

TAKEDA Hiroki
Messages
4
Reaction score
2
In Hawking-Ellis Book(1973) "The large scale structure of space-time" p69-p70, they derive the energy-momentum tensor for perfect fluid by lagrangian formulation. They imply if ##D## is a sufficiently small compact region, one can represent a congruence by a diffeomorphism ##\gamma: [a,b]\times N\rightarrow D## where ##[a,b]## is some closed interval of ##R^1## and ##N## is some 3-dimensional manifold with boundary. The tangent vector of ##\gamma## is ##W=(\partial/\partial t)_{\gamma}##. The Lagrangian is taken to be $$L=-\rho(1+\epsilon)$$ and the action ##I## is required to be stationary when the flow lines are varied and ##\rho## is adjusted to keep ##j^a## conserved where ##\rho## is a function and ##\epsilon## is the elastic potential as a function of ##\rho##. A variation of the flow lines is a differentiable map ##\alpha: (-\delta, \delta)\times[a, b]\times N\rightarrow D## such that $$\alpha(0, [a,b],N)=\gamma([a,b],N).$$ They say "Then it follows that $$\Delta W=L_{K}W$$ where the vector ##K## is ##K=(\partial/\partial u)_{\alpha}##."
I'm curious this equation is correct. I guess ##\Delta W## means its components is ##(\partial W^i/\partial u)|_{u=0}## in their book. However r.h.s components are calculated as follows.$$(L_{K}W)^i=\frac{\partial W^i}{\partial x^j}K^j-\frac{\partial K^i}{\partial x^j}W^j=\frac{\partial W^i}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial K^i}{\partial t}$$ So I wonder $$(\Delta W)^i=\frac{\partial W^i}{\partial u}\neq (L_{K}W)^i=\frac{\partial W^i}{\partial u}-\frac{\partial K^i}{\partial t}.$$ ##(\partial K^i/\partial t)=0?## Will you tell me where I am wrong?
This pdf file is Eur. Phys. J. H paper by S. Hawking. See page 19. But I'm sorry my notation is little different.
https://epjti.epj.org/images/stories/news/2014/10.1140--epjh--e2014-50013-6.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
Physics news on Phys.org
I read it as follows:

## \Delta W \stackrel{p.17}{=} \pi (\left. \frac{\partial}{\partial u} \alpha \right|_{u=0}) \stackrel{p.19}{=} \pi(\left. K_\alpha \right|_{u=0}) ## is the variation vector of the vector field ##W## in direction of ##K_\alpha##, the variation of flow lines in direction ##K_\alpha= \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial u} \right)_\alpha ## at the point ##u=0##. Isn't this exactly the definition of the Lie derivative of ##W## along ##K## at this point? So ##"##It then follows that ##\Delta W = L_KW\,"## is more a summary of the specific set-up of the example rather than a conclusion form previous statements. The conclusions come next (p.20).
 
Thank you for your reply.

I see.. This equation is a definition rather than a derivation.
But I have a question. This paper is written more precisely by using bundle than Hawking-Ellis Book(1973). In the book, they denote ##\partial\Psi_{(i)}(u,r)/\partial u)|_{u=0}## by ##\Delta\Psi_{(i)}## where ##\Psi_{(i)}(u,r)## is a one-parameter family of fields, ##u## is a variation parameter and ##r## is a point of spacetime. The concept of bundle is not used. In this case, can I also understand ##\Delta W=L_{K}W## is exactly the definition of the Lie derivative of ##W## along ##K## at the point? And can both (r.h.s.) and (l.h.s.) components be ##(\partial W^i/\partial u)##? Sorry I'm confused.
 
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. As soon as you have a (tangent) vector field all over the manifold, you also have vector bundles or even tensor bundles. It is a matter of viewpoint and language, not of a discrepancy regarding the manifold. To me the equation ##\Delta W = L_KW## is what variation calculus is all about, only expressed in terms of certain vector fields, ##W## and ##K##.

The "missing" direction ##K## in ##\Delta W## is hidden in the definition of the variation vector (field) ##\Delta## of the vector field ## W## (p.17) which uses the direction ##\left. K\right|_{u=0} = \left. \left( \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\right) \circ \alpha \right) \right|_{u=0}## and the variation ##\alpha \, : \, \alpha(0,t,q)=\gamma(t,q) ## for ##t \in [a,b]\; , \;q \in N\,## by defining ##\Delta W = \pi \left( \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\right|_{u=0} \gamma(t,q) \right)##.

Perhaps
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pantheon-derivatives-part-ii/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pantheon-derivatives-part-iv/
can help you to clarify the picture. It is only an overview and not especially about variations but is has some examples.
 
Thanks a lot.
So Why is the (l.h.s) component ##(\partial W^i/\partial u)##, though (r.h.s.) component is ##(\partial W^i/\partial u)-(\partial K^i/\partial t)## ?? I want you to explain without using the projection ##\pi## because I'm not familiar with the bundle. In the following calculation, this relation ##(\partial W^i/\partial u)=(L_{K}W)^i=W^i{}_{;j}K^j-K^i{}_{;j}W^j## is used. But ##(L_{K}W)^i## is also expressed as ##(L_{K}W)^i=(\partial W^i/\partial u)-(\partial K^i/\partial t)##. Is this a contradiction?
 
Last edited:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top