Finding Stress-Energy Tensor: General Rules & Variational Principle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on methods for deriving the components of the Stress-Energy tensor in General Relativity (GR). It emphasizes the importance of knowing the type of matter or fields present, as this influences the construction of the tensor. The Einstein Field Equation connects the Einstein tensor and the Stress-Energy tensor, allowing for derivation if the metric is known. The conversation highlights the necessity of finding the appropriate Lagrangian for the matter involved to derive the Stress-Energy tensor accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with the Einstein Field Equation
  • Knowledge of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Basic understanding of tensor calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Stress-Energy tensor for a perfect fluid
  • Learn how to construct Lagrangians for various fields in physics
  • Explore the relationship between the Einstein tensor and the Stress-Energy tensor
  • Investigate specific cases of matter fields and their corresponding field equations
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, physicists, and students in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on General Relativity and cosmology, will benefit from this discussion.

davidge
Messages
553
Reaction score
21
I wonder if there is a "general rule", a kind of "algorithm" for finding the components of the Stress-Energy tensor in for particular cases.
For the Einstein tensor, just by knowing the metric, one can find the components of it. What about the Stress-Energy tensor?

One way I thought of (and that is the way I have been encountering in books on GR) is using what we know about the scenario... to make approximations and then deriving the components.

Another way I thought of is by using variational principle. Would this require knowing the field that describes the matter in the situation we are considering, right? Is knowing the field too hard?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean exactly?How about the functional derivative of the matter action wrt the field?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
davidge said:
For the Einstein tensor, just by knowing the metric, one can find the components of it. What about the Stress-Energy tensor?

If you know the Einstein tensor, you know the stress-energy tensor, since the Einstein Field Equation equates the two.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
haushofer said:
What do you mean exactly?How about the functional derivative of the matter action wrt the field?
Excuse me if I'm not fully capable of expressing myself, this is due my lack of knowledge in English.
PeterDonis said:
If you know the Einstein tensor, you know the stress-energy tensor, since the Einstein Field Equation equates the two.
Ok, but how does one know it in a situation where there are no information about the metric (and thus about the Einstein tensor)?
 
davidge said:
how does one know it in a situation where there are no information about the metric

You have to know something about what kind of matter, energy, fields, etc. are present. For example, if you know a perfect fluid is present, you use the stress-energy tensor for a perfect fluid. (That's how the standard FRW solutions in cosmology are derived.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
davidge said:
I wonder if there is a "general rule", a kind of "algorithm" for finding the components of the Stress-Energy tensor in for particular cases. For the Einstein tensor, just by knowing the metric, one can find the components of it. What about the Stress-Energy tensor?

How about
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> T^{\mu \nu}<br /> \ =\<br /> \rho c^2\ \left( \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> u^{0} u^{0} &amp; u^{0} u^{1} &amp; u^{0} u^{2} &amp; u^{0} u^{3} \\<br /> u^{1} u^{0} &amp; u^{1} u^{1} &amp; u^{1} u^{2} &amp; u^{1} u^{3} \\<br /> u^{2} u^{0} &amp; u^{2} u^{1} &amp; u^{2} u^{2} &amp; u^{2} u^{3} \\<br /> u^{3} u^{0} &amp; u^{3} u^{1} &amp; u^{3} u^{2} &amp; u^{3} u^{3} \\<br /> \end{array} \right)<br /> \end{align*}
?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
That's the EM-tensor for dust.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
PeterDonis said:
You have to know something about what kind of matter, energy, fields, etc. are present
As I asked in the opening post, is it hard to know the exact field equations that describe the matter?
 
sweet springs said:
How about

As @haushofer pointed out, this is not a "general rule" for constructing a stress-energy tensor. It is a particular case: ##T_{\mu \nu} = \rho u_\mu u_\nu##, which describes a perfect fluid with zero pressure, rest energy density ##\rho##, and 4-velocity ##u_\mu##.
 
  • #10
davidge said:
is it hard to know the exact field equations that describe the matter?

Depends on the kind of matter and what approximations you want to use. The most general method is to find the Lagrangian that describes the matter (or whatever you want to call it--we don't usually call electromagnetic fields "matter", for example, but we know a Lagrangian for them), and then use that to derive field equations, equations of motion, stress-energy tensor, or whatever else you need. But there is no single way to find the Lagrangian; you just have to figure it out for each individual case you're interested in.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davidge
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
Depends on the kind of matter and what approximations you want to use. The most general method is to find the Lagrangian that describes the matter (or whatever you want to call it--we don't usually call electromagnetic fields "matter", for example, but we know a Lagrangian for them), and then use that to derive field equations, equations of motion, stress-energy tensor, or whatever else you need. But there is no single way to find the Lagrangian; you just have to figure it out for each individual case you're interested in.
Ah, cool.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K