Energy-momentum density of point particle

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I'm using a following notation. (v^1,v^2,v^3) is the usual velocity vector, and

<br /> (u^0,u^1,u^2,u^3) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-|v|^2/c^2}}(c,v^1,v^2,v^3)<br />

is the four velocity.

So a energy-momentum tensor of dust is

<br /> T^{\mu\nu} = \rho_0 u^{\mu} u^{\nu} = \frac{\rho_0}{1-|v|^2/c^2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}<br /> c^2 &amp; cv^1 &amp; cv^2 &amp; cv^3 \\<br /> cv^1 &amp; v^1 v^1 &amp; v^1 v^2 &amp; v^1 v^3 \\<br /> cv^2 &amp; v^2 v^1 &amp; v^2 v^2 &amp; v^2 v^3 \\<br /> cv^3 &amp; v^3 v^1 &amp; v^2 v^3 &amp; v^3 v^3 \\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

My first though was, that a energy-momentum tensor of a point particle would be this multiplied with a delta function, but after some struggling with the transformations of the delta function, I concluded that the result is, nontrivially

<br /> T^{\mu\nu} = m_0 \delta^3(x-x(t)) \sqrt{1-|v|^2/c^2} u^{\mu} u^{\nu}<br /> = \frac{m_0\delta^3(x-x(t))}{\sqrt{1-|v|^2/c^2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}<br /> c^2 &amp; cv^1 &amp; cv^2 &amp; cv^3 \\<br /> cv^1 &amp; v^1 v^1 &amp; v^1 v^2 &amp; v^1 v^3 \\<br /> cv^2 &amp; v^2 v^1 &amp; v^2 v^2 &amp; v^2 v^3 \\<br /> cv^3 &amp; v^3 v^1 &amp; v^2 v^3 &amp; v^3 v^3 \\<br /> \end{array}\right]<br />

Is this correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure whether or not there is a totally mathematically consistent formulation of the stress-energy tensor of a point particle or not. See for instance Stingray's comments (and more importantly his references) in the old thread

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=111148

If stingray is around, maybe he could comment in more detail.
 
This looks the same as what I got.

In that post, I initially used inertial motion along the x-axix, Y means \gamma and (x) means \otimes.
 
Last edited:
It seems there are some problems with point masses and metrics in general relativity, if I understood stingray's comments correctly. In special relativity that can probably be ignored.

My derivation went through the fact that

<br /> \delta^3(x-x(t))(c,v)^{\mu}<br />

is a four vector, like a four current of a point charge, and for example

<br /> \delta^3(x-x(t)) u^{\mu}<br />

is not. Good to see that George Jones got the same factors in a different way.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top