Complex components of stress-energy tensor

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the evaluation of the stress-energy tensor components for a Klein-Gordon complex scalar field, specifically addressing the concern that not all components are real. The tensor is defined by the equation Tab = ½(∂aΦ* ∂bΦ + ∂aΦ ∂bΦ*) - ½gab(gcd ∂cΦ* ∂dΦ + V(|Φ|2)). Participants confirm that due to the symmetry of the tensor (T_{ab} = T_{ba}), all components must indeed be real, even when indices a and b differ. The necessity of using covariant derivatives in curved spacetime is also emphasized, although local inertial coordinates simplify the evaluation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Klein-Gordon equation
  • Familiarity with stress-energy tensor concepts
  • Knowledge of covariant derivatives in general relativity
  • Basic principles of complex scalar fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the stress-energy tensor for various fields
  • Learn about the implications of symmetry in tensors
  • Investigate the use of covariant derivatives in curved spacetime
  • Explore local inertial frames and their properties in general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in general relativity and field theory, as well as researchers working on simulations involving scalar fields and stress-energy tensors.

xpet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi All,
I am evaluating the components of the stress-energy tensor for a (Klein-Gordon) complex scalar field. The ultimate aim is to use these in evolving the scalar field using the Klein-Gordon equations, coupled to Einstein's equations for evolving the geometric part. The tensor is given by
Tab = ½(∂aΦ* ∂bΦ + ∂aΦ ∂bΦ*) - ½gab(gcdcΦ* ∂dΦ + V(|Φ|2))
All indices run from 0 to 3, and Φ* is the complex conjugate of Φ.
Now, evaluating the components of this stress-energy tensor, not all components the stress-energy tensor are real. In particular, when indices a and b are different. I just need to confirm if this observation is correct. The reason being that, part of the simulation code I will use seems to expect a stress-energy tensor with all real components.

Any help and insights will be appreciated.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xpet said:
evaluating the components of this stress-energy tensor, not all components the stress-energy tensor are real.

They should be. If they aren't, there's a mistake somewhere.

xpet said:
In particular, when indices a and b are different.

Note that the stress-energy tensor is symmetric, so ##T_{ab} = T_{ba}##. The formula you wrote down should make that easy to prove; but it also should make it easy to see that this symmetry ensures that all of the components are real.

(Another way to see that all the components must be real is to work in local inertial coordinates, where the metric is the Minkowski metric and all of the terms with a and b being different vanish.)

Also note that, in a general curved spacetime, you should be using covariant derivatives, not partial derivatives. (But if you use local inertial coordinates, they are the same.)
 
Thanks for the reply. I am re-doing the calculations again for the components, to see if I get them to be real. Just one correction though: My point about different indices was meant to refer to c and d. Basically, the non-real contributions will come from #gcdc Φ*∂dΦ#
Yes, I'm aware of the symmetry of the tensor, and of the need for replacing the partial derivatives with covariant derivatives in curved spacetimes. I will get back with feedback.
 
Last edited:
xpet said:
My point about different indices was meant to refer to c and d.

But in a local inertial frame, where the metric is Minkowski, there are no terms where c and d are different. And even in the general case, the metric is symmetric, so terms with different c and d occur in pairs with c and d swapped. If you work it out, you should find that those things imply that all of the stress-energy components are real.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K