1st stress-energy tensor component for an electric field

space-time
Messages
218
Reaction score
4
I have recently gone over the derivation of the stress energy momentum tensor elements for the special case of dust. This case just used a swarm of particles. Now that I understand that case, I am now trying to see if I can derive the components for an electric field. I just want you guys to please tell me if you agree with what I came up with thus far or if I'm off.

1st: I know the T00 component to be the relativistic energy density. The classical energy density of an electric field (which can be used to find the amount of energy stored in a capacitor) is:

nE = \frac{1}{2}\epsilonE2

where: \epsilon is the relative permeability of the material and E is the magnitude of the electric field.

Well, I noted that E=(KQ)/r2 where K is Coulomb's constant, Q is charge and r is the distance from the charge that is responsible for the electric field.

K and Q are invariants, but r is not invariant because r is a length and length can be contracted due to lorentz contraction.

r= r0/\gamma

r0 is the length that is seen in the electric field's rest frame of reference.
\gamma is the typical 1/\sqrt{1-(v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)}

Having said this, if r = r0/\gamma then

r2 = (r0)2 / \gamma2

Now going back to the formula for the magnitude of the electric field, the formula would change to:

E= (KQ) / ((r0)2 / \gamma2) = (KQ\gamma2)/ (r0)2

This would mean that E2 would be (K2Q2\gamma4)/ (r0)4

Finally going back to the energy density expression nE = \frac{1}{2}\epsilonE2 , this would change to:

nE = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon * (K2Q2\gamma4)/ (r0)4

Therefore my derived quantity for the energy density T00 = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon * (K2Q2\gamma4)/ (r0)4


What do you guys think? Am I right, a little off or way off base? If it is either of the latter two, then can you please explain where I went wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
space-time said:
1st: I know the T00 component to be the relativistic energy density. The classical energy density of an electric field (which can be used to find the amount of energy stored in a capacitor) is:

nE = \frac{1}{2}\epsilonE2

where: \epsilon is the relative permeability of the material and E is the magnitude of the electric field.
That is it, you are done. Remember that Maxwell's equations are already relativistic, so the classical energy density is the same as the relativistic energy density. There is no need to do any of the rest of the work that you did.

However, note, that is the energy density only in the frame where there is a pure electric field. In other frames there is also a magnetic field, and the energy density in other frames is ##1/2 (\epsilon_0 E^2 + B^2/\mu_0)##. In other frames, the relativistic correction does not come about due to some factor of γ but simply due to the presence of the B field in the other frames.
 
DaleSpam said:
That is it, you are done. Remember that Maxwell's equations are already relativistic, so the classical energy density is the same as the relativistic energy density. There is no need to do any of the rest of the work that you did.

However, note, that is the energy density only in the frame where there is a pure electric field. In other frames there is also a magnetic field, and the energy density in other frames is ##1/2 (\epsilon_0 E^2 + B^2/\mu_0)##. In other frames, the relativistic correction does not come about due to some factor of γ but simply due to the presence of the B field in the other frames.

Thank you for this information. I have not yet studied Maxwell's equations so I did not know that the energy density formula was already relativistic. I shall study them now.
 
bcrowell said:
There are also some other components besides T00. See section 10.6 of my SR book for a derivation: http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

Thank you for this source. I have a question about something I read in the book.

In section 10.6 you said that the energy density U for the electromagnetic field was:

U= (E2 + B2)/(8\piK) where K is Coulomb's constant.

K= 1/ (4\pi\epsilon0)

Therefore:

8\piK = (8\pi)/(4\pi\epsilon0)= 2/\epsilon0

This leads to the original expression for U to become:

U = (E2 + B2)/(2/\epsilon0)= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon0(E2 + B2)

This is slightly different from the energy density expression that I learned about just prior to this post:

U = \frac{1}{2}[ε0E2 + (B2/\mu0)]

Can you please explain where the discrepancy between the formulas comes in and why it is one and not the other?

Thank you.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...

Similar threads

Back
Top