- #1
gnieddu
- 24
- 1
Hi,
I'm trying to work out the logic behind a statement I found in the GR book I'm currently studying. It says that from the conservation equation [tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}=0[/tex], one could deduce the following two equations:
[tex](\varrho+p)\dot{u}^a = \nabla^ap - u^a\dot{p}[/tex]
[tex]\dot{\varrho} + (\varrho+p)\nabla_au^a = 0[/tex]
I've tried calculating [tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}[/tex] from:
[tex]T^{ab}=(\varrho+p)u^au^b - g^{ab}p[/tex]
and the best I could make out of it are the following two lines:
[tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}=(\varrho+p)\nabla_a(u^au^b) + [\nabla_a(\varrho+p)]u^au^b -g^{ab}\nabla_ap =[/tex]
[tex]=(\varrho+p)[u^b\nabla_au^a+u^a\nabla_au^b] + [\nabla_a(\varrho+p)]u^au^b - g^{ab}\nabla_ap[/tex]
Now I'm stuck here, and, what's worse, I'm not even sure these two lines are correct...
Thanks to whoever could provide some light here!
I'm trying to work out the logic behind a statement I found in the GR book I'm currently studying. It says that from the conservation equation [tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}=0[/tex], one could deduce the following two equations:
[tex](\varrho+p)\dot{u}^a = \nabla^ap - u^a\dot{p}[/tex]
[tex]\dot{\varrho} + (\varrho+p)\nabla_au^a = 0[/tex]
I've tried calculating [tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}[/tex] from:
[tex]T^{ab}=(\varrho+p)u^au^b - g^{ab}p[/tex]
and the best I could make out of it are the following two lines:
[tex]\nabla_aT^{ab}=(\varrho+p)\nabla_a(u^au^b) + [\nabla_a(\varrho+p)]u^au^b -g^{ab}\nabla_ap =[/tex]
[tex]=(\varrho+p)[u^b\nabla_au^a+u^a\nabla_au^b] + [\nabla_a(\varrho+p)]u^au^b - g^{ab}\nabla_ap[/tex]
Now I'm stuck here, and, what's worse, I'm not even sure these two lines are correct...
Thanks to whoever could provide some light here!