Equivalent statements of the weak energy condition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the weak energy condition in the context of general relativity, specifically examining its implications for perfect fluids and the relationships between energy density and pressure. Participants explore the equivalence of different statements of the weak energy condition and the mathematical representations involving timelike and lightlike vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant cites Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry, stating that the weak energy condition implies that for a perfect fluid, the conditions ρ ≥ 0 and (ρ + P) ≥ 0 must hold, but seeks clarification on how these conditions apply to any timelike vector.
  • Another participant proposes that any timelike vector can be expressed as a linear combination of a given timelike vector and a null vector, questioning the validity of this proposition and its relevance to the discussion.
  • A different participant challenges the initial proposition, arguing that it must be incorrect, as it implies that the difference between any two timelike vectors is a lightlike vector, which they assert is not true.
  • A subsequent reply refines the earlier statement, clarifying that any future-directed timelike vector can indeed be expressed as a linear combination of another future-directed timelike vector and a future-directed lightlike vector, emphasizing the importance of the "future-directed" condition.
  • Further mathematical details are provided, including specific expressions for coefficients in the linear combination, and the use of local inertial coordinate charts to illustrate the relationships between the vectors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proposition regarding the representation of timelike vectors, with some supporting the refined statement while others challenge the initial claim. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these representations on the weak energy condition.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the validity of the statements depends on the conditions of the vectors being future-directed and the specific coefficients used in the linear combinations. There is an acknowledgment of the limitations in generalizing the relationships between timelike vectors without these conditions.

hideelo
Messages
88
Reaction score
15
Im reading Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry section 4.2 where he claims the following as the weak energy condition:

Given a energy momentum tensor T and a timelike vector t then Tμν tμ tν ≥ 0.

He claims that for a perfect fluid this is equivalent to the statement that ρ ≥ 0 and (ρ+P) ≥ 0. Where ρ is the density and P the pressure

He shows this by first showing that if the timelike vector t was the velocity of the fluid (i.e. we were in the rest frame of the fluid) then the weak energy condition reduces to ρ ≥ 0. So far so good. Then he claims that for a lightlike vector l, Tμν lμ lν ≥ 0 implies that (ρ+P) ≥ 0. I see that. He then says that I should convince myself that these conditions on ρ and P therefore hold for any timelike vectors as a consequnce, I don't see how, can anyone explain it to me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider the following proposition: given any timelike vector ##t^\mu##, we can express any other timelike vector ##v^\mu## as a linear combination of ##t^\mu## and some null vector ##l^\mu## (which might be a different null vector for different ##v^\mu##). Is it true? And if it is, does it help in answering your question?
 
PeterDonis said:
Consider the following proposition: given any timelike vector ##t^\mu##, we can express any other timelike vector ##v^\mu## as a linear combination of ##t^\mu## and some null vector ##l^\mu## (which might be a different null vector for different ##v^\mu##). Is it true? And if it is, does it help in answering your question?

That's what I thought as well. However, If you think about it it must be wrong. If given some timelike vector tμ any other timelike vector vμ can be written as a sum of tμ and some lightlike vector lμ, flip that statement around and you get that the difference between any two timelike vectors is a lightlike vector, and that's not true
 
hideelo said:
If you think about it it must be wrong.

I stated it sloppily. The correct statement is that, given any future-directed timelike vector ##t##, any other future-directed timelike vector ##v## can be expressed as a linear combination, with positive coefficients (positive provided that ##v \neq t##), of ##t## and some future-directed lightlike vector ##l##. The "future directed" part is crucial.

hideelo said:
flip that statement around and you get that the difference between any two timelike vectors is a lightlike vector

No, because the second timelike vector has a positive coefficient in front of it, and both timelike vectors are future directed. So all you really get by flipping the statement around is that, by subtracting some particular coefficient times a timelike vector ##v## from another timelike vector ##t## (both being future-directed), you can get a lightlike vector. But given ##t## and ##u##, only one particular value for the coefficient will work. So it's much more specific than the statement that the difference between any two timelike vectors is lightlike (which is indeed false); that would amount to claiming that you can choose the coefficient arbitrarily, which is not the case.

To state things concretely: we have

$$
v = a t + b l
$$

where ##t## and ##v## are timelike and ##l## is null, ##a > 0## and ##b > 0##. Then we have

$$
\frac{1}{b} v - \frac{a}{b} t = l
$$

Furthermore, to obtain specific expressions for ##a## and ##b##, we can always choose a local inertial coordinate chart in which ##t = (u, 0, 0, 0)##, where ##u > 0##, and in which ##v = (w, x, 0, 0)##, where ##w > x > 0##. (This amounts to choosing a chart in which ##t## corresponds to the 4-momentum of an observer at rest, and the first spatial direction points along the direction of motion of ##v## with respect to ##t##.) Then, if we write ##l = (k, k, 0, 0)##, where ##k > 0## and ##|k|## can be chosen arbitrarily, we obviously have

$$
v = \frac{w - x}{u} t + \frac{x}{k} l
$$

This can be inverted to express ##l## in terms of ##t## and ##v##, but only with one particular set of coefficients.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K