Confusion about relativistic fluids

Marco Melo
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
According to Schutz book, in special relativity general fluids in the MCRF (Momentarily Commoving Reference Frame) are characterized by no bulk flow of the fluid element and no spatial momentum in the particles. The energy-momentum tensor elements T0i (flux of energy across i-surface) are not zero because, although there is no spatial momentum in the particles (no motion since we are in the MCRF), there is heat flow. But how can the other elements Ti0 (momentum density) be not null if the there isn’t particle motion inside the fluid element? Also, T_ij is not null either, so there is momentum flux across the boundaries even with no particle motion?
In the case of perfect fluids in the MCRF there isn’t heat flow and also there isn’t particle motion, so T0i is now zero. However the pressure, due to the random motion of particles is not zero.
Is this random motion not taken into account when it’s said that there isn’t particle motion in the MCRF? In order words, when it is said that motion doesn’t exist in the MCRF do they mean that CM motion or bulk motion only do not exist? So that the energy transfer (for non-perfect fluids) and pressure (for all fluids) are not due to particles transfer (since we are in the MCRF) but only collisions between particles in the fluid element with particles in its neighboring elements (in the case of non-perfect fluids)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Marco Melo said:
Also, T_ij is not null either, so there is momentum flux across the boundaries even with no particle motion?

Maybe they balance each other out, something like the "vector sum" being zero?
 
atyy said:
Maybe they balance each other out, something like the "vector sum" being zero?

I think that's wrong. It seems more like the fluid being at momentarily rest, but it could have an acceleration.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
5K
Back
Top