1st stress-energy tensor component for an electric field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the stress-energy tensor components for an electric field, specifically focusing on the T00 component, which represents the relativistic energy density. Participants explore the relationship between classical and relativistic energy densities and the implications of Maxwell's equations on these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation for the T00 component, starting from the classical energy density of an electric field and incorporating Lorentz contraction effects on the distance variable.
  • Another participant argues that the classical energy density is already relativistic and that the additional derivation is unnecessary, noting that in different frames, the presence of a magnetic field alters the energy density expression.
  • A later reply acknowledges the clarification about Maxwell's equations being relativistic and expresses intent to study them further.
  • Some participants mention other components of the stress-energy tensor and refer to a specific section in a textbook for additional derivation.
  • A question is raised regarding a discrepancy between different expressions for the energy density of the electromagnetic field, prompting a request for clarification on the formulas presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the necessity of the derivation presented by the first participant, with some asserting that the classical energy density is sufficient while others explore the implications of relativistic corrections and different frames of reference. The discussion remains unresolved on the necessity of the additional derivation and the discrepancies in energy density formulas.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the invariance of certain quantities and the dependence on the specific frame of reference. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity on the definitions and contexts of the energy density expressions used.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers interested in the stress-energy tensor, electromagnetic theory, and the interplay between classical and relativistic physics.

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 = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]E2

where: [itex]\epsilon[/itex] 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/[itex]\gamma[/itex]

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

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

r2 = (r0)2 / [itex]\gamma[/itex]2

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

E= (KQ) / ((r0)2 / [itex]\gamma[/itex]2) = (KQ[itex]\gamma[/itex]2)/ (r0)2

This would mean that E2 would be (K2Q2[itex]\gamma[/itex]4)/ (r0)4

Finally going back to the energy density expression nE = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]E2 , this would change to:

nE = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex] * (K2Q2[itex]\gamma[/itex]4)/ (r0)4

Therefore my derived quantity for the energy density T00 = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex] * (K2Q2[itex]\gamma[/itex]4)/ (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 = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]E2

where: [itex]\epsilon[/itex] 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[itex]\pi[/itex]K) where K is Coulomb's constant.

K= 1/ (4[itex]\pi[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]0)

Therefore:

8[itex]\pi[/itex]K = (8[itex]\pi[/itex])/(4[itex]\pi[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]0)= 2/[itex]\epsilon[/itex]0

This leads to the original expression for U to become:

U = (E2 + B2)/(2/[itex]\epsilon[/itex]0)= [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][itex]\epsilon[/itex]0(E2 + B2)

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

U = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex][ε0E2 + (B2/[itex]\mu[/itex]0)]

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

Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K