Energy-momentum tensor and Friedmann Equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Friedmann equations from the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) while addressing issues related to the energy-momentum tensor and the treatment of terms involving the speed of light, \( c \). Participants explore the implications of different forms of the energy-momentum tensor in the context of cosmological models, specifically using the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the FRW metric and the EFE, calculating various components of the curvature tensors and expressing a desire to derive the Friedmann equations.
  • Participants discuss the form of the energy-momentum tensor, with some asserting it should be \( T_{\mu \nu} = \text{diag}(\rho c^2, p g_{ij}) \), while others suggest an alternative form involving \( (\rho + p)u_\mu u_\nu + pg_{\mu \nu} \).
  • There is a concern about a potential sign error in the calculations related to the energy-momentum tensor and its components.
  • One participant highlights the importance of maintaining consistent units when dealing with energy density and pressure, pointing out that adding quantities with different units is nonsensical.
  • Another participant emphasizes that \( \rho \) is defined as energy density, not mass density, which influences the formulation of the energy-momentum tensor.
  • A later reply introduces a contravariant energy-stress tensor in a Local Inertial Frame, suggesting a different approach to derive the Friedmann equations while keeping track of \( c \) terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct form of the energy-momentum tensor and the treatment of \( c \) in their equations. There is no consensus on the resolution of these issues, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential discrepancies in the treatment of \( c \) and the units of various terms, indicating that assumptions about the conventions used may lead to confusion or errors in calculations. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of definitions and mathematical formulations that are not fully resolved.

Diferansiyel
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I want to derive the Friedmann equations from Einstein Field Equations. However, I have a problem that stems from the energy-momentum tensor. I am also trying to keep track of ## c^2 ## terms.

FRW Metric:
$$ ds^2= -c^2dt^2 + a^2(t) \left( {\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2} + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2\theta d\phi^2} \right)$$

EFE:
$$ G_{\mu \nu} \equiv R_{\mu \nu }- \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} $$

I calculated metric dependent components which are Christoffel symbols, Riemann Curvature Tensor, Ricci Tensor & Scalar. What I've found is

$$ R_{tt} = -3 \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} $$

$$ R_{ii} = \dfrac{g_{ii}}{c^2a^2}( a \ddot{a} +2 \dot{a}^2 +2kc^2 ) $$

$$ R=g^{\mu \nu}R_{\mu \nu} = 6\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{ac^2}+ \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{ac}\right)^2 +\frac{k}{a^2}\right] $$

For time-time components I want to obtain:
$$ \boxed{\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3c^2} \rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2(t)}} $$
and for the space-space components:
$$ \boxed{\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a} + \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = -\frac{8 \pi G }{c^2}p - \frac{kc^2}{a^2(t)}} $$
here ## \rho ## is the energy density, not the mass density.

So in order to obtain the boxed equations, energy-momentum tensor ## T_{\mu \nu} ## must be ## diag(\rho c^2, p g_{ij}) ## . However from the expression ## T_{\mu \nu}=\left(\rho + \frac{p}{c^2}\right)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu} ## I can't get what I want for ## u^\alpha=(c,0,0,0) ## . Am I using wrong form of ## T_{\mu \nu} ## or 4-velocity ## u^\alpha ## ?

Thanks for your help,

K.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Diferansiyel said:
Hi everyone,

I want to derive the Friedmann equations from Einstein Field Equations. However, I have a problem that stems from the energy-momentum tensor. I am also trying to keep track of ## c^2 ## terms.

FRW Metric:
$$ ds^2= -c^2dt^2 + a^2(t) \left( {\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2} + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2\theta d\phi^2} \right)$$

EFE:
$$ G_{\mu \nu} \equiv R_{\mu \nu }- \frac{1}{2} R g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} $$

I calculated metric dependent components which are Christoffel symbols, Riemann Curvature Tensor, Ricci Tensor & Scalar. What I've found is

$$ R_{tt} = -3 \frac{\ddot{a}}{a} $$

$$ R_{ii} = \dfrac{g_{ii}}{c^2a^2}( a \ddot{a} +2 \dot{a}^2 +2kc^2 ) $$

$$ R=g^{\mu \nu}R_{\mu \nu} = 6\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{ac^2}+ \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{ac}\right)^2 +\frac{k}{a^2}\right] $$

For time-time components I want to obtain:
$$ \boxed{\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = \frac{8 \pi G}{3c^2} \rho - \frac{kc^2}{a^2(t)}} $$
and for the space-space components:
$$ \boxed{\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a} + \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2 = -\frac{8 \pi G }{c^2}p - \frac{kc^2}{a^2(t)}} $$
here ## \rho ## is the energy density, not the mass density.

So in order to obtain the boxed equations, energy-momentum tensor ## T_{\mu \nu} ## must be ## diag(\rho c^2, p g_{ij}) ## . However from the expression ## T_{\mu \nu}=\left(\rho + \frac{p}{c^2}\right)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu} ## I can't get what I want for ## u^\alpha=(c,0,0,0) ## . Am I using wrong form of ## T_{\mu \nu} ## or 4-velocity ## u^\alpha ## ?

Thanks for your help,

K.
The correct form of ## T_{\mu \nu} ## is certainly ## diag(\rho c^2, p g_{ij}) ## (though possibly with a negative sign somewhere depending upon the sign convention you're using), and that is the correct 4-velocity. My guess is that you've got a sign error.
 
Chalnoth said:
The correct form of ## T_{\mu \nu} ## is certainly ## diag(\rho c^2, p g_{ij}) ## (though possibly with a negative sign somewhere depending upon the sign convention you're using), and that is the correct 4-velocity. My guess is that you've got a sign error.
Thanks for the answer, I am using (-,+,+,+) convention. The problem is that for 00 component ## (\rho + p/c^2) \times c^2 + p(-c^2) ## does not give ##\rho c^2 ##
 
Diferansiyel said:
Thanks for the answer, I am using (-,+,+,+) convention. The problem is that for 00 component ## (\rho + p/c^2) \times c^2 + p(-c^2) ## does not give ##\rho c^2 ##
Doesn't it?

Edit: Ahh, you have a ##c^2## discrepancy. I believe it should be ## (\rho + p/c^2) \times c^2 + p(-1) ##. This is one reason why physicists usually leave off the factors of ##c##: being only unit conversion factors, they add no information and can cause errors.
 
Chalnoth said:
Doesn't it?

Edit: Ahh, you have a ##c^2## discrepancy. I believe it should be ## (\rho + p/c^2) \times c^2 + p(-1) ##. This is one reason why physicists usually leave off the factors of ##c##: being only unit conversion factors, they add no information and can cause errors.
Yes I agree with you, however in our case we kept ## c ## in any term, so we should also keep ## c ## in the metric.

The other possibility is that
$$ T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho + p)u_\mu u_\nu + pg_{\mu \nu} $$
by choosing the above expression as our energy-momentum tensor, then we can obtain the intended result.
 
Diferansiyel said:
Yes I agree with you, however in our case we kept ## c ## in any term, so we should also keep ## c ## in the metric.
Yes, but the fact that you've got that extra ##c^2## in there means that you made a mistake. Probably some conflict in the convention of where to place the factors of ##c##.

You can see that it's a mistake because it's not possible to add (or subtract) two parameters with different units. Imagine trying to add a position to a velocity, or a position to a time. It makes no sense.

In the above equations, ##\rho## has units of matter density, so ##\rho c^2## has units of energy density. The pressure ##p## also has units of energy density.

My guess is you made a mistake when raising/lowering the indices of the metric.

Diferansiyel said:
The other possibility is that
$$ T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho + p)u_\mu u_\nu + pg_{\mu \nu} $$
by choosing the above expression as our energy-momentum tensor, then we can obtain the intended result.
That only works if you use units where ##c=1##. With your convention of using units where ##c \neq 1##, you can't add a matter density to an energy density.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Diferansiyel
Chalnoth said:
Yes, but the fact that you've got that extra ##c^2## in there means that you made a mistake. Probably some conflict in the convention of where to place the factors of ##c##.

You can see that it's a mistake because it's not possible to add (or subtract) two parameters with different units. Imagine trying to add a position to a velocity, or a position to a time. It makes no sense.

In the above equations, ##\rho## has units of matter density, so ##\rho c^2## has units of energy density. The pressure ##p## also has units of energy density.

My guess is you made a mistake when raising/lowering the indices of the metric.That only works if you use units where ##c=1##. With your convention of using units where ##c \neq 1##, you can't add a matter density to an energy density.

I highlighted that "## \rho ## is the energy density, not the mass density" in my main post. Thus, there is no problem with ## T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho + p)u_\mu u_\nu + pg_{\mu \nu} ## . On the other hand, this time ## T_{00} ## is in the unit of energy density x c2 = mass density x c4 which is meaningless.
 
Diferansiyel said:
I highlighted that "## \rho ## is the energy density, not the mass density" in my main post. Thus, there is no problem with ## T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho + p)u_\mu u_\nu + pg_{\mu \nu} ## . On the other hand, this time ## T_{00} ## is in the unit of energy density x c2 = mass density x c4 which is meaningless.
With that convention, sure, that works fine.
 
High to everybody!

With just one and half year delay (sorry), here is a way to derive the Friedmann equations keeping track of the “c” term.

Starting point is the fully contravariant energy-stress tensor of a perfect fluid in a Local Inertial Frame:

(1) T_Hij = diag[ ρ * c^2, p, p, p ]

where Hij means “High ij indexes”, ρ is the mass density, p is the pressure of the fluid.

In the LIF the metric tensor is:

(2) g_Hij = g_Lij = diag[ +1, -1, -1, -1 ]

and the contravariant 4-velocity tensor is:

(3) u_Hi = d/dτ [ c*t, x, y, z ] = γ [ c, dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt ],

where τ is the proper time and γ the relativistic contraction factor.

So, if the fluid and the LIF are at rest:

(4) u_Hi = [ c, 0, 0, 0 ]

If we leave the LIF and enter a generic frame, the energy-stress tensor becomes:

(6) T_Hij = (ρ – p/c^2)*(u_H0)^2 + p*g_Hij

Note that eq.6 becomes eq.1 if u_Hi is as in eq.4 and g_Hij as in eq.2 .

Now, if the new reference frame is the Friedmann Walker Robertson one

the fully covariant metric tensor is:

(7) g_Lij = diag[ + c^2, - a^2/(1- k * x^2), - (a^2 * x^2), - (a^2 * x^2 * sinθ^2) ]

the fully contravariant metric tensor is:

(8) g_Hij = diag[ +1/c^2, - (1- k * x^2)/a^2, - 1/(a^2 * x^2), - 1/(a^2 * x^2 * sinθ^2) ]

and the contravariant 4-velocity tensor is:

(9) u_Hi = d/dτ [ t, x, θ, φ] = γ [ 1, dx/dt, dθ/dt, dφ/dt ]

So, if the fluid and the FWR frame are at rest:

(10) u_Hi = [ 1, 0, 0, 0 ]

Thus in the FRW frame, from eq.6, by eq.10 and eq.8, the fully contravariant energy-stress tensor is:

(11) T_Hij = diag[ + ρ, + p*(1- k * x^2)/a^2, + p/(a^2 * x^2), + p/(a^2 * x^2 * sinθ^2)]

The trick to remove the distorting effect of the metric on the fully contravariant energy-stress tensor as in eq.11 is to consider its Mixed indexes tensor. Since:

(12) T_Mij = T_Hik * g_Lkj

from eq.12, eq.11 and eq.7 we obtain:

(13) T_Mij = diag[ + ρ*c^2, - p, - p , -p ]

Therefore the Einstein Field Equations to be solved (keeping track of the “c” term) are:

(14) G_Mij = (8 π G/ c^4)*T_Mij

The mixed Einstein tensor G_Mij in eq.14 may be computed using the open source wxMaxima algebra system app by, for instance, the following (.wmx) program:

kill(all)$
dim: 4$
array(g,dim,dim)$
g[1,1]: c^2$
g[1,2]: 0$
g[1,3]: 0$
g[1,4]: 0$
g[2,1]: 0$
g[2,2]: -(a(t)^2)/(1-k*x^2)$
g[2,3]: 0$
g[2,4]: 0$
g[3,1]: 0$
g[3,2]: 0$
g[3,3]: -(a(t)*x)^2$
g[3,4]: 0$
g[4,1]: 0$
g[4,2]: 0$
g[4,3]: 0$
g[4,4]: -(a(t)*x*sin(theta))^2$
gg: genmatrix(g,dim,dim)$
kill(ctensor)$
load(ctensor)$
lg: gg$
cmetric(false) $
ct_coords: [t,x,theta,phi]$
christof(false)$
ricci(false)$
R: scurvature()$
einstein(true)$

The output is:
(15) G_M00 = 3*k / a^2 + 3*(da/dt)^2 / a^2
and
(16) G_M11 = k / a^2 + (da/dt)^2 / (c^2 * a^2) + 2 (d^2 a / dt^2) / (c^2 * a)

From eq.15, eq.14 and eq.13, we obtain the equations:
(17) 3*k / a^2 + 3*(da/dt)^2/ a^2 = (8 π G/ c^4)* ρ*c^2
and
(18) k / a^2 + (da/dt)^2 / (c^2 * a^2) + 2 (d^2 a / dt^2) / (c^2 * a) = - (8 π G/ c^4)* p

which are the basis for the deduction of the Friedmann equations by keeping track of the “c” term.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K