Energy-momentum density of point particle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the formulation of the energy-momentum tensor for a point particle in the context of special relativity and its potential inconsistencies in general relativity. Participants explore mathematical representations and transformations involving delta functions and four-vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formulation for the energy-momentum tensor of a point particle, suggesting it involves a delta function and a specific mathematical structure derived from the tensor for dust.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the mathematical consistency of the stress-energy tensor for a point particle, referencing previous discussions and inviting input from another member.
  • A third participant indicates agreement with the initial formulation, noting similarities with their own approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of point masses and metrics in general relativity, suggesting that issues may be less significant in special relativity.
  • One participant discusses the nature of the delta function in relation to four-vectors, comparing it to the four-current of a point charge and noting that certain formulations may not yield valid four-vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the mathematical formulation of the energy-momentum tensor for a point particle, with some expressing agreement on specific aspects while others raise concerns about consistency and applicability in different contexts.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the mathematical consistency of the stress-energy tensor for point particles, particularly in the context of general relativity versus special relativity. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the definitions and transformations used in the formulation.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K