A Can Einstein Tensor be the Product of Two 4-Vectors?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores whether the Einstein tensor can be expressed as the product of two 4-vectors, similar to the stress-energy tensor (SET) for a perfect fluid with zero pressure, referred to as "dust." It is established that while the SET can be represented this way in a highly idealized scenario, introducing nonzero pressure complicates this representation. The relationship between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor is clarified, emphasizing that the elements of the Einstein tensor are proportional to those of the stress-energy tensor multiplied by a constant factor. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment that in this special case, the Einstein equation can be reduced to a vector equation. This highlights the mathematical intricacies involved in relating these tensors in general relativity.
empdee4
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
For particles of uniform mass and uniform momentum, stress-energy tensor can be written as product of two 4-vectors, can Einstein tensor be written in the same way?
In Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (p.139), stress-energy tensor for a single type of particles with uniform mass m and uniform momentum p (and E = p2 +m2) ½ ) can be written as a product of two 4-vectors,T(E,p) = (E,p)×(E,p)/[V(E2 – p2 )½ ]
Since Einstein equation is G = 8πGT, I am wondering if the left hand side, Einstein tensor, can also be written in the same way,
G(T,X) = (T,X)×(T,X)/[V (T2 – X2 )½ ]
If not, in what special case, or in what approximation, it can be expressed this way.
Thanks very much,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
empdee4 said:
In Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (p.139), stress-energy tensor for a single type of particles with uniform mass m and uniform momentum p (and E = p2 +m2) ½ ) can be written as a product of two 4-vectors
Basically this is the SET of a perfect fluid with zero pressure, usually called "dust" in the literature. But this is a highly idealized situation. As soon as you add nonzero pressure, the SET can no longer be expressed purely as a product of 4-vectors; see the very next page of MTW (equation 5.21).

empdee4 said:
Since Einstein equation is G = 8πGT, I am wondering if the left hand side, Einstein tensor, can also be written in the same way
Of course, just divide multiply ##T## by ##8 \pi##. That's what the equation says. But, as noted above, this is a highly idealized situation.
 
Last edited:
PeterDonis said:
Basically this is the SET of a perfect fluid with zero pressure, usually called "dust" in the literature. But this is a highly idealized situation. As soon as you add nonzero pressure, the SET can no longer be expressed purely as a product of 4-vectors; see the very next page of MTW (equation 5.21).Of course, just divide ##T## by ##8 \pi##. That's what the equation says. But, as noted above, this is a highly idealized situation.
Thanks very much for explanation.

Just not clear what T / 8π means.
 
empdee4 said:
Thanks very much for explanation.

Just not clear what T / 8π means.
It just means that each element of the Einstein tensor is equal to the equivalent element of the stress-energy tensor multiplied by ##8\pi G/c^4## (not divided - @PeterDonis made a typo). You still have a bunch of nasty simultaneous differential equations to solve to extract the metric tensor.
 
Ibix said:
It just means that each element of the Einstein tensor is equal to the equivalent element of the stress-energy tensor multiplied by ##8\pi G/c^4## (not divided - @PeterDonis made a typo).
Oops, yes. I've fixed the post now.
 
Thanks for clarification. Does it mean Einstein equation in this very special case can be reduced to a vector equation, as follows:

G = 8πGT
T
(E,p) = (E,p)×(E,p)/[V (E2 – p2 )½ ]
G(T,X) = (T,X)×(T,X)/[V (T2 – X2 )½ ]

Thus, Einstein equation becomes

(T,X)x(T,X)/[V(T–X2)1/2]
=8πG(E,p)×8πG(E,p)/[V8πG(E2–p2)½]

which can be reduced to a 4-vector equation,

(T,X) =8πG(E,p)

thanks very much
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K