Stress-energy tensor for electromagnetic field with interaction term

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the stress-energy tensor (SET) for a specific Lagrangian involving electromagnetic fields and current interactions in curved spacetime. The initial attempt resulted in a SET that diverges from standard textbook expressions, particularly in the last term, which includes a factor of two that is not present in Greiner's formulation. The user expresses discomfort with their derivation process, particularly regarding the symmetry of the derivatives of the metric tensor used in the calculations. They reference an alternative expression for the metric derivative that is symmetric but still leads to a different SET than expected. The overall confusion stems from the discrepancies between their results and established literature, prompting a request for clarification on the calculations.
maykot
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
First of all, I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or at the "Special & General Relativity" sub-forum, if I posted at the wrong place please move it.

Homework Statement


I encountered this problem working in my master's degree.
I need to find the stress-energy tensor of the following lagrangian:
\mathcal{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F^{\alpha\beta}F_{\alpha\beta} - j^{\alpha}A_{\alpha}

Where: F_{\alpha\beta}=\partial _{\alpha} A_{\beta} - \partial _{\beta} A_{\alpha}

Also, I'm working in curved space-time with the (+---) sign convention.

Homework Equations


T^{\mu\nu} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} = 2 \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}-g^{\mu\nu} \mathcal{L}
\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}} = \delta ^{\mu}_{\alpha} \delta ^{\nu} _{\beta}


The Attempt at a Solution


I raised the indices of all the tensors in the lagrangian (F_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\alpha\rho} g_{\beta\sigma}F^{\rho\sigma}, A_{\alpha}=g_{\alpha\rho} A^{\rho}), considered all of the contravariant tensors constant with respect to g_{\mu\nu} and then used the definition of the SET above and the formula above for the derivatives of the metric, resulting in:
T^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{4} g^{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta} + g_{\alpha\beta} F^{\mu\alpha} F^{\beta\nu} + g^{\mu\nu}j_{\alpha} A^{\alpha} - 2j^{\mu} A^{\nu}

The problem is this is not the usual expression found in textbooks. Greiner, in his book Field Quantization, for instance, uses the Belinfante-Rosenfeld method to improve the canonical SET and finds:
T^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{4} g^{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta} + g_{\alpha\beta} F^{\mu\alpha} F^{\beta\nu} + g^{\mu\nu}j_{\alpha} A^{\alpha} - j^{\mu} A^{\nu}
The only difference being the absence of the factor two in the last term.

Besides that, I cannot help but feel uncomfortable with the procedure I used to get to the SET.
Take the last term for example, making the following change in the lagrangian: j^{\alpha}A_{\alpha}=j_{\alpha}A^{\alpha}, the last term in the SET goes from -2j^{\mu} A^{\nu} to -2j^{\nu} A^{\mu}.
Since this could in principle be done for any pair of vector fields this would imply that: A^{\mu} B^{\nu}=A^{\nu} B^{\mu} for any A and B, which is not true.
I am not sure what is wrong with my calculations, if someone could help me pointing it out I would be very grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I traced the problem back to the expression \frac{\partial g_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}} = \delta ^{\mu}_{\alpha} \delta ^{\nu} _{\beta}. It is not symmetric under \mu \to \nu nor \alpha \to \beta.
This is the expression I've always used to derive the energy momentum tensor, but I found an expression in this article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491603002033, page 365, equation 235.
\frac{\partial g^{\mu\nu}}{\partial g_{\kappa\lambda}} = -\frac{1}{2} (g^{\mu\kappa} g^{\nu\lambda}+g^{\mu\lambda} g^{\nu\kappa})
Using:
\frac{\partial \delta^{\mu}_{\nu}}{\partial g_{\kappa\lambda}} = \frac{\partial (g^{\mu\sigma}g_{\sigma\nu})}{\partial g_{\kappa\lambda}}=0
It implies that:
\frac{\partial g_{\alpha\beta}}{\partial g_{\mu\nu}} = \frac{1}{2} (\delta^{\mu}_{\alpha} \delta^{\nu}_{\beta} + \delta^{\mu}_{\beta} \delta^{\nu}_{\alpha})
Which is indeed symmetric under \mu \to \nu and \alpha \to \beta but has the strange property that:
\frac{\partial g_{12}}{\partial g_{12}} = \frac{1}{2}
And gives the following expression for the SET:
T^{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{4} g^{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta} + g_{\alpha\beta} F^{\mu\alpha} F^{\beta\nu} + g^{\mu\nu}j_{\alpha} A^{\alpha} - (j^{\mu} A^{\nu} + j^{\nu} A^{\mu})
That is a bit better in relation to my original SET because it is at least explicitly symmetric, but still different from the expression from Greiner's book.
I'm getting more and more confused here.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top