Deriving the Navier-Stokes equation from energy-momentum tensor

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on deriving the Navier-Stokes equation from the energy-momentum tensor of a perfect fluid, exploring the implications of relativistic corrections and the role of various terms in the equations. The scope includes theoretical derivation and mathematical reasoning related to fluid dynamics in a relativistic context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid and derives a modified form of the Navier-Stokes equation that includes a term for \(\gamma^2p\), questioning its absence in the standard form.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on the origin of the \(\gamma\) term and requests a derivation to understand its implications better.
  • A participant explains that the \(\gamma^2\) coefficient arises from the relationship \(\rho = \gamma^2\rho_0\) and details their derivation of the conservation law leading to the modified equation.
  • One participant suggests that there may be a relativistic correction needed for the Euler equations, referencing a specific source for further reading.
  • Another participant posits that the absence of the \(\gamma^2p\) term in the Navier-Stokes equation can be attributed to applying a nonrelativistic limit where pressure \(p\) is much smaller than density \(\rho\), leading to an approximation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of the \(\gamma^2p\) term in the Navier-Stokes equation, with some suggesting it is significant in relativistic contexts while others argue it can be neglected under certain conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity and implications of the relativistic corrections.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the limits of pressure and density, as well as the conditions under which relativistic effects become significant. There are unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation process that may affect the conclusions drawn.

PhyPsy
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
The energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid is [itex]T^{ab}=(\rho_0+p)u^au^b-pg^{ab}[/itex] (using the +--- Minkowski metric).

Using the conservation law [itex]\partial_bT^{ab}=0[/itex], I'm coming up with [itex](\rho+\gamma^2p) [\frac{\partial\mathbb{u}}{{\partial}t}+ (\mathbb{u}\cdot\mathbb{\nabla})\mathbb{u}]= -{\nabla}p[/itex] instead of [itex]\rho[\frac{\partial\mathbb{u}}{{\partial}t}+ (\mathbb{u}\cdot\mathbb{\nabla})\mathbb{u}]= -{\nabla}p[/itex] (disregarding the body force part of the equation). Why is there a term for the part in brackets multiplied by [itex]\rho[/itex], but not for [itex]\gamma^2p[/itex]?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where did the gamma come from ? Can you post your derivation/scaned copy of it ?
 
[itex]u^a=\gamma(1,\mathbf{u})[/itex]
Keeping b constant and cycling a from x to z, I get [itex]\partial_tT^{at}= \partial_t[\gamma^2(\rho_0+p)\mathbf{u}][/itex]
[itex]\partial_xT^{ax}= \partial_x[\gamma^2(\rho_0+p)u_x\mathbf{u}]+\partial_xp[/itex]
[itex]\partial_yT^{ay}= \partial_y[\gamma^2(\rho_0+p)u_y\mathbf{u}]+\partial_yp[/itex]
[itex]\partial_zT^{az}= \partial_z[\gamma^2(\rho_0+p)u_z\mathbf{u}]+\partial_zp[/itex]
[itex]\rho=\gamma^2\rho_0[/itex], so that is why you see a [itex]\gamma^2[/itex] coefficient for p but not for [itex]\rho[/itex]. When I solve for [itex]\partial_bT^{tb}=0[/itex], I get [itex]\partial_t(\rho+\gamma^2p)+ \partial_x[(\rho+\gamma^2p)u_x]+ \partial_y[(\rho+\gamma^2p)u_y]+ \partial_z[(\rho+\gamma^2p)u_z]=0[/itex], so summing the four equations for [itex]T^{ab}[/itex] above and simplifying using [itex]\partial_bT^{tb}=0[/itex], I get [tex](\rho+\gamma^2p)\partial_t\mathbf{u}+ (\rho+\gamma^2p)u_x\partial_x\mathbf{u}+ (\rho+\gamma^2p)u_y\partial_y\mathbf{u}+ (\rho+\gamma^2p)u_z\partial_z\mathbf{u}+ {\nabla}p=\mathbf{0}[/tex]
This simplifies to what I put in the first post: [itex](\rho+\gamma^2p)[\partial_t\mathbf{u}+ (\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla})\mathbf{u}]= -\mathbf{\nabla}p[/itex]
 
There must be a specially relativistic correction to the Galilei invariant Euler equations. You may wish to check L&L <Fluid Mechanics>, pp. 505 to 508.
 
It looks like the reason the [itex]\gamma^2p[/itex] term is not in the Navier-Stokes equation is because a nonrelativistic limit is applied where [itex]p<<\rho[/itex], so [itex]\rho+\gamma^2p\approx\rho[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K