Equations of Motion with Covariant Derivatives and Momentum Density

lokofer
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
If for the "geodesic" equation of motion we have the compact form:

\nabla _ u u =0 usign the "Covariant derivative"... as a generalization of Newton equation with F=0 (no force or potential) \frac{du}{ds}=0 where "u" is the 4-dimensional momentum...

My question is if we can put the Equation of motion \R _\mu \nu =0 as the "LIe derivative" or " Covariant derivative" or another Tensor, vector or similar involving the "momentum density" \pi _a b and the metric elements g_ ab
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the mass (invariant mass) is a constant, just multiply thorugh by m, and you have the covariant derivative of the energy-momentum 4 vector being 0.

I.e
\nabla_u u = 0 \Rightarrow \nabla_u (m u) = 0 \Rightarrow \nabla_u P = 0

In component notation
<br /> \nabla_u P^i = u^j \nabla_j P^i = 0<br />

which makes it clear this gives 4 equations, one for each component of the energy-momentum 4-vector.

The notation for the covariant derivative \nabla_a seems funny at first, but it's extremely useful. Let's say we have a scalar quantity x, and we want to find how fast it changes with time. With an ordinary derivative operator, we write dx/dt. With the covariant derivative operator, one writes \nabla_t x = t^a \nabla_a x, where t is a unit vector in the time direction. The covariant derivative operator actually generates a vector from the scalar. One must take the dot product of this vector with the direction one desires the derivative in order to get a scalar quantity. The reason for not doing a contraction automatically is that it can be ambiguous. Sometimes one sees the contracted covariant derivative written with a capital D to make the notation more simlar, but the math is the same.
 
Last edited:
-Thank you..by the way if we have the Lagrangian L= \sqrt (-g) R

can you split the Lagrangian into a "Kinetic" and a "potential" part?..

- And What would be the "Euler-Lagrange" equation for Einstein Lagrangian?..i think you have:

\sum_{i=1,2,3,0} \partial _ {x_i }( \frac{ \partial L}{ \partial g_ab} - \frac{ \partial L}{ \partial g_ab} or something similar.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Back
Top