Energy-stress tensor integration proof (from schutz ch.4)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a result related to the energy-stress tensor in the context of a bounded system, specifically using the identity T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0. Participants are exploring the implications of this identity for the time derivative of integrals involving the tensor components.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various approaches to manipulate the energy-stress tensor and its components, questioning the implications of the identity T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0. There are attempts to relate different components of the tensor and explore their physical meanings.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights and alternative perspectives on the problem, while others express uncertainty about their reasoning and the physical interpretation of the tensor components. The discussion is ongoing, with multiple lines of thought being explored without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the bounded nature of the system and the implications this has for the tensor components, as well as the potential challenges in interpreting the results of their manipulations. There is also mention of additional parts to the problem that may influence the current discussion.

Mmmm
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Use the identity [tex]T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0[/tex] to prove the following results for a bounded system (ie a system for which [tex]T^{\mu \nu} = 0[/tex]
outside a bounded region of space),

[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int T^{0\alpha}d^{3}x = 0[/tex]

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



The integral obviously gives 4 equations (one for each [tex]\alpha[/tex]) which must all be = 0.
I tried just working on the first and passing the partial derivative into the integral and writing [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t} T^{0 0} = -\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x} T^{0 1} +\frac{\partial}{\partial y} T^{0 2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z} T^{0 3} \right)[/tex]

This gives
[tex]- \int T^{0 i}_{,i}d^{3}x[/tex]

which doeesnt really seem to be getting me anywhere - also the same reasoning wouldn't work for the other equations because they must all be partially differentiated wrt t and this is only relevant for [tex]T^{0 0}[/tex] in [tex]T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0[/tex]

Another direction I thought of was to use Gauss' law but then there is no outward normal one-form and so maybe not...

There are another two parts to this question but I thought that if I had an idea of how to do the first part I could figure the others out by myself.

Thanks for any replies :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Since the system is bounded, why not use [itex]T^{0 \alpha}=T^{\alpha 0}[/itex]? Then [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}T^{0 \alpha}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}T^{\alpha 0}=T^{\alpha 0}_{,0}[/tex]...but what is this last quantity if [itex]T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0[/itex]? ;0)
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks, that is a nifty little trick.

So
[tex]T^{\mu \nu}_{ ,\nu} = 0[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow T^{\alpha 0}_{,0}= - \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x} T^{\alpha 1} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y} T^{\alpha 2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z} T^{\alpha 3} \right)[/tex]

or
[tex]T^{\alpha 0}_{,0}= - T^{\alpha i}_{,i}[/tex] where [itex]i = 1,2,3[/itex] and [itex]\alpha = 0,1,2,3.[/itex]

and so
[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \int T^{0 \alpha} d^{3}x = \int T^{\alpha i}_{,i} d^{3}x[/tex]

which can be written as
[tex]\int \int T^{\alpha 1} (x_{1}) - T^{\alpha 1} (x_{2}) dydz + \int \int T^{\alpha 2} (y_{1}) - T^{\alpha 2} (y_{2}) dxdz + \int \int T^{\alpha 3} (z_{1}) - T^{\alpha 3} (z_{2}) dxdy[/tex]

and I'm afraid that I have come to that dead end again - but this time all four equations are included which is nice... Is the last step right? why is this 0?
 
Well, what do the components [tex]T^{\alpha i}[/tex] represent physically?
 
Last edited:
gabbagabbahey said:
Well, what do the components [tex]T^{\alpha i}[/tex] represent physically?

The [itex]\alpha[/itex] momentum per second crossing a unit area of surface of constant [itex]x^{i}[/itex]

So does the " constant [itex]x^{i}[/itex] " mean that [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}[/itex], [itex]y_{1}=y_{2}[/itex] and [itex]z_{1}=z_{2}[/itex] and therefore the integrands in the above integrals are all zero and so the integrals are also zero?

I feel a bit like I'm clutching at straws here...
Is that right or am I just making stuff up? :D
 
Last edited:
I have managed to complete the proof of the second question (Tensor Virial Theorem) but it requires that

[tex]\int \left[T^{0k}x^{i}x^{j} \right] ^{x^{k}_2}_{x^{k}_1} d^{2}x = 0[/tex]

Which makes me rethink my previous post

I said that [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}[/itex] etc...

But the second proof made me realize that this doesn't really make sense... why should [itex]x_{1}=x_{2}[/itex]? these values are unrelated to [itex]T^{\alpha 1}[/itex]
What would make more sense (and satisfy both proofs) is that [itex]T^{\alpha 1} (x_{1}) = T^{\alpha 1}(x_{2}) = 0[/itex]
Then both
[tex]\left[T^{0k}x^{i}x^{j} \right] ^{x^{k}_2}_{x^{k}_1} = 0[/tex] (satisfying the second proof)
and
[tex]T^{\alpha 1} (x_{1}) - T^{\alpha 1} (x_{2}) = 0[/tex] (satisfying the first)

But I'm not sure why [itex]T^{\alpha 1} (x_{1}) = 0[/itex].
My logic says this is incorrect - if we have a constant x surface, then [itex]T^{\alpha 1}[/itex] doesn't depend on x and so [itex]T^{\alpha 1} (x_{1}) = T^{\alpha 1}(x_{2}) = T^{\alpha 1}[/itex] but not necessarily 0. So I have a problem with my second proof.

Am i thinking in the right direction anywhere here?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K