Energy-Momentum Tensor Algebra

  • #1
1,728
13

Homework Statement



(a) Show acceleration is perpendicular to velocity
(b)Show the following relations
(c) Show the continuity equation
(d) Show if P = 0 geodesics obey:

tensor3.png


Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution




Part (a)

[tex]U_{\mu}A^{\mu} = U_{\mu}U^v \left[ \partial_v U^{\mu} + \Gamma_{v\epsilon}^{\mu} U^{\epsilon} \right] [/tex]
[tex] = \delta_\mu^{v} \left[ \partial_v U^{\mu} + \Gamma_{v\epsilon}^{\mu} U^{\epsilon} \right] [/tex]
[tex] = \partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} + \Gamma_{\mu \epsilon}^{\mu} U^{\epsilon} [/tex]
[tex] = \partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} + \Gamma_{\mu mu}^{\mu} U^{\mu} [/tex]
[tex] = \partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} + \left[ \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu \mu} (\partial_{\mu} g_{\mu \mu} + \partial_{\mu} g_{\mu \mu} - \partial_\mu g_{\mu\mu} ) \right] U^{\mu}[/tex]
[tex] = -\partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} - g^{\mu\mu} \partial_{\mu} g_{\mu\mu} V^{\mu}[/tex]


How do I show it equals 0?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
Your second step is not correct. ##U_\mu U^\nu \neq \delta^\nu_\mu##.
 
  • #3
1,728
13
Your second step is not correct. ##U_\mu U^\nu \neq \delta^\nu_\mu##.
Why is that wrong? I thought it is normalized such that ##U_\nu U^\nu = -1##.
 
  • #4
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
Yes, which does not imply ##U_\mu U^\nu = \delta^\nu_\mu##. In fact, if it was true, then ##U_\nu U^\nu = \delta^\nu_\nu = 4##.
 
  • #5
1,728
13
Yes, which does not imply ##U_\mu U^\nu = \delta^\nu_\mu##. In fact, if it was true, then ##U_\nu U^\nu = \delta^\nu_\nu = 4##.
Then ##U_\mu U^\nu = -\frac{\delta_\mu^\nu}{4}## to make it work? Even then, I don't see how ##
= -\frac{ \left( \partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} + g^{\mu\mu} \partial_{\mu} g_{\mu\mu} V^{\mu} \right) }{4} ## equals to 0..
 
  • #6
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
Then ##U_\mu U^\nu = -\frac{\delta_\mu^\nu}{4}## to make it work? Even then, I don't see how ##
= -\frac{ \left( \partial_{\mu} U^{\mu} + g^{\mu\mu} \partial_{\mu} g_{\mu\mu} V^{\mu} \right) }{4} ## equals to 0..
No, you still cannot draw this conclusion and you will have to find another way around. Think of a 4-velocity in SR and express it in the rest frame: ##U^\mu = (1,0,0,0)##. Now, obviously, ##U_2 U^2 = 0##, which would not be true if ##U_\mu U^\nu = - \delta^\nu_\mu/4##. Clearly the only non-zero component of this tensor is the 00 component. This has a straight forward generalisation to GR.

I suggest you instead try to think of how you wokld prove this in SR and try to generalise the result to GR.
 
  • #7
1,728
13
No, you still cannot draw this conclusion and you will have to find another way around. Think of a 4-velocity in SR and express it in the rest frame: ##U^\mu = (1,0,0,0)##. Now, obviously, ##U_2 U^2 = 0##, which would not be true if ##U_\mu U^\nu = - \delta^\nu_\mu/4##. Clearly the only non-zero component of this tensor is the 00 component. This has a straight forward generalisation to GR.

I suggest you instead try to think of how you wokld prove this in SR and try to generalise the result to GR.
I can do it in SR, but that's not the point of this exercise. I need to work with the form I'm given: ##U_\mu A^\mu = U_\mu U^v\nabla_v U^\mu## and show it is equal to 0..
 
  • #8
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
I can do it in SR, but that's not the point of this exercise.
My point is that you can do it exactly in the same way in GR, with some generalisations required due to no longer having simply ##U^\nu \partial_\nu##, but instead having ##U^\nu \nabla_\nu##. This is why I suggest that you first recall how you do it in SR.
 
  • #9
1,728
13
My point is that you can do it exactly in the same way in GR, with some generalisations required due to no longer having simply ##U^\nu \partial_\nu##, but instead having ##U^\nu \nabla_\nu##. This is why I suggest that you first recall how you do it in SR.
Ok, let's try it here.

The 4-velocity is given by ##U = \gamma(c, \vec v)##. In the rest frame, ##U' = c(1,0)##.
The 4-acceleration is given by ##\frac{dU}{d\tau}##. In rest frame, ##A' = (0,\vec a_0)##.

Using invariance, ##U \cdot A = U' \cdot A' = 0##.
 
  • #10
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
Ok, that is cheating a bit. You have essentially used that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U## when writing it down in the rest frame in order to show that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U##.

How about instead trying to show it using the definition of the 4-acceleration, i.e., show that
$$
U \cdot A = U \cdot \frac{dU}{d\tau} = 0?
$$
 
  • Like
Likes unscientific
  • #11
1,728
13
Ok, that is cheating a bit. You have essentially used that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U## when writing it down in the rest frame in order to show that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U##.

How about instead trying to show it using the definition of the 4-acceleration, i.e., show that
$$
U \cdot A = U \cdot \frac{dU}{d\tau} = 0?
$$
[tex] \frac{d}{d\tau} (U \cdot U) = \frac{d}{d\tau}( -1) = 0[/tex]
 
  • #12
1,728
13
I think I got a quick way to show it:

Ok, that is cheating a bit. You have essentially used that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U## when writing it down in the rest frame in order to show that ##A## is orthogonal to ##U##.

How about instead trying to show it using the definition of the 4-acceleration, i.e., show that
$$
U \cdot A = U \cdot \frac{dU}{d\tau} = 0?
$$
[tex] \frac{D}{D \tau} (U \cdot U) = 0 [/tex]
[tex] 2U \cdot \frac{D}{D\tau} U = 0 [/tex]
[tex]U_\mu U^{\alpha} \nabla_{\alpha} U^{\mu} = 0 [/tex]
 
  • #13
1,728
13
...
$$
I tried to do part (c), but I feel like I'm missing something:

[tex] \nabla_\mu \left[ (\rho + P) U^\mu U^v + g^{\mu v} P \right] = 0 [/tex]

Using ##\nabla_\mu g^{\mu v} = 0## and ##\nabla_\mu U^\mu = 0##:

[tex] \nabla_\mu \left[ (\rho + P) U^\mu U^v \right] + g^{\mu v} \nabla_\mu P = 0 [/tex]

[tex] U^\mu U^v\nabla_\mu (\rho + P) + (\rho + P)U^\mu \nabla_\mu U^v + g^{\mu v} \nabla_\mu P = 0 [/tex]

Multiplying ##U_v## throughout on the left to cancel out the middle term:

[tex] U^\mu (U_v U^v)\nabla_\mu (\rho + P) + g^{\mu v}U_v \nabla_\mu P = 0 [/tex]

[tex] -U^\mu \nabla_\mu (\rho + P) + g^{\mu v}U_v \nabla_\mu P = 0 [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,829
6,650
Who says ##\nabla_\mu U^\mu =0##? If this was true there would not be much sense in having such a term in the expression you are supposed to derive (and if you assume it you are going to miss this term). Apart from that it looks like you are done already.
 

Related Threads on Energy-Momentum Tensor Algebra

Replies
0
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
560
Replies
4
Views
829
Replies
1
Views
863
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Top