Energy-momentum density of point particle

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the energy-momentum tensor of a point particle, derived from the energy-momentum tensor of dust. It presents the four-velocity and the tensor formulation, incorporating a delta function to represent the localized nature of a point particle. The author expresses uncertainty about the mathematical consistency of this formulation and references previous discussions for further insights. There are mentions of challenges related to point masses and metrics in general relativity, suggesting that these issues may be less significant in special relativity. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in accurately describing the energy-momentum characteristics of point particles.
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.
 
In an inertial frame of reference (IFR), there are two fixed points, A and B, which share an entangled state $$ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0>_A|1>_B+|1>_A|0>_B) $$ At point A, a measurement is made. The state then collapses to $$ |a>_A|b>_B, \{a,b\}=\{0,1\} $$ We assume that A has the state ##|a>_A## and B has ##|b>_B## simultaneously, i.e., when their synchronized clocks both read time T However, in other inertial frames, due to the relativity of simultaneity, the moment when B has ##|b>_B##...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
853
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K