The discussion revolves around the existence of non-perfect fluid stress-energy tensors (SET) in General Relativity (GR), specifically seeking examples from exact solutions of the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) that describe matter without resorting to vacuum solutions or pure radiation. Participants explore the nature of stress-energy tensors associated with solid matter and the implications of shear stresses.
Participants express differing views on the viability of certain models of imperfect fluids and their physical plausibility. While some agree that these models can represent solids, others question their adherence to energy conditions and stability. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of physically plausible non-perfect fluid SETs.
Participants mention various constraints and assumptions regarding the stability of configurations and the implications of shear stresses. There is a lack of consensus on whether certain models meet realistic energy conditions.
PeterDonis said:Sure it is, because the SET will only be diagonal in one particular coordinate chart--the standard Schwarzschild chart, with the center of the gravitating body at the origin. More precisely, the SET will only be diagonal in the family of coordinate charts including all possible choices of "zero points" for the angular coordinates. In other words, the spherical symmetry of the spacetime ensures that, *if* we choose a chart centered on the gravitating body (i.e., the gravitating body's center of mass is at the spatial origin), we can rotate the angular coordinates however we like and the SET will still be diagonal. Spherical symmetry only requires that the tangential stress be the same in all tangential directions; it does not require that the tangential stress be the same as the radial stress.
But if the tangential stress is *not* the same as the radial stress, then if we transform to any chart whose spatial origin is *not* at the center of mass of the gravitating body, there will be off-diagonal terms in the spatial part of the SET, indicating shear stress. One obvious way to construct such a chart is to spatially rotate the standard Schwarzschild chart about any point *other* than the origin, i.e., a "spatial rotation", as DaleSpam said (with the proviso that the axis of rotation can't pass through the CoM of the gravitating body). So perhaps a better way to say what DaleSpam was saying is that "shear stress" and "anisotropic pressure" are just two different ways of describing the same physics, using two different coordinate charts.
Note that changing charts does not change the fact that the *spacetime* is spherically symmetric. Spherical symmetry just means there are a set of 3 spacelike Killing vector fields with the appropriate commutation relations. It doesn't require the stress to be isotropic.
TrickyDicky said:Ok, you mean as long as the tangential stresses are exactly equal in the sphere one can keep the tensor diagonal, right?
PeterDonis said:Yes; there can only be two independent principal stresses (tangential and radial), not three. If all three are different, then you're right, the SET and the spacetime can't be spherically symmetric.
Ahh, ok. I haven't explored non spherical metrics much (not even the standard ones like Kerr), so I cannot comment much. I haven't heard of any solutions resembling your comments, but I don't know enough to claim that they don't exist.TrickyDicky said:Just trying to explore the consequences of relaxing staticity, like allowing the sphere to rotate(helped by its pressure anisotropy).
As long as λ and η don't violate the energy conditions then it is physically admissible.TrickyDicky said:The metric is perfectly admisible mathematically, I'm obviously referring to the physicality of the imperfect fluid SET for the reasons discussed in previous posts.
Sure it is. But I see that I am late responding. I will just "second" Peter Donis' comments.TrickyDicky said:And also it is not feasible to have shear and at the same time assume a spherically symmetric diagonal SET, as they do in the paper, thus my doubts.
It is more complicated. It has two free functions instead of just one.TrickyDicky said:Right, but I'm back to my previous concern, why is this imperfect fluid solution not preferred over the perfect fluid one then?
DaleSpam said:It is more complicated. It has two free functions instead of just one.