Geodesic Equation from conservation of energy-momentum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving equations related to the geodesic equation from the conservation of energy-momentum, specifically transitioning between various equations presented in a referenced paper. Participants explore the mathematical steps and concepts involved in this derivation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in deriving results from specific equations in the referenced paper, indicating a challenge in understanding the transitions between them.
  • Another participant discusses the definition of the stress-energy tensor and its relation to the functional differentiation of the action, mentioning the role of parallel propagators in the derivation.
  • A different participant questions the appearance of the Dirac delta function in the equations, suggesting that differentiating the action should yield different terms and expressing confusion over the derivation process.
  • One participant claims to have identified the source of the Dirac delta function, linking it to the formulation of the action in terms of a Lagrangian density, but still struggles with an expression preceding another equation.
  • Concerns are raised about a potential inconsistency in the referenced calculations, particularly regarding the assumption of parallel transport of certain variables along the curve, which is central to the proof being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivations and the presence of certain mathematical elements, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations and approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the derivations, including assumptions about parallel transport and the definitions used in the context of the equations, which may affect the conclusions drawn.

PLuz
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

While reading http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2011-7/fulltext.html reference I bumped into a result. Can anyone get from Eq.19.1 to Eq.19.3?

I've also been struggling to get from that equation to the one before 19.4 (which isn't numbered)...anyone?

Thank you very much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The stress-energy tensor is correctly defined as Tμν = 2 δL/δgμν. So as he says, "the particle’s energy-momentum tensor, obtained by functional differentiation of Sparticle with respect to gαβ(x)".

Well, calculus tells us for any A, δ√A = (1/2√A) δA, which explains the √ thing in the denominator. All that remains is to vary the argument, gμν(z)zμzν with respect to gαβ(x). (The z's are constant.)

He gives a hint: "the parallel propagators appear naturally by expressing gμν(z) as gαμ(z,x) gβν(z,x) gαβ(x)." When we vary this with respect to gαβ(x), all that happens is that the last factor drops out, and we are left with just the two parallel propagators in the numerator. (The z's are still there.)
 
Yes I agree with him and obviously with what you wrote. It's my mistake, I should have been more specific. What I don't understand is from where does de dirac delta appear? Because as you said from his definition of the action, differentiating we should only have the other terms, right?And the other equation?taking the the covariante derivative of Eq.19.3 should give us something like this:[tex]\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha \beta}=\int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{\sqrt(-g_{\mu \nu}\dot{z}^\mu \dot{z}^\nu)}g^{\alpha}_{\mu}g^{\beta}_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}(\dot{z}^\mu \dot{z}^\nu)\delta_{4}(x,z) + g^{\alpha}_{\mu}g^{\beta}_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}(\dot{z}^\mu \dot{z}^\nu) \nabla_{\beta}(\frac{1}{\sqrt(-g_{\mu \nu}\dot{z}^\mu \dot{z}^\nu)})\delta_{4}(x,z) d\lambda[/tex].

So the first term in the integral gives (ignoring the fraction) [tex]g^{\alpha}_{\mu}\dot{z}^\mu g^{\beta}_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}(\dot{z}^\nu)+ g^{\alpha}_{\mu} g^{\beta}_{\nu}\dot{z}^\nu \nabla_{\beta}(\dot{z}^\mu)[/tex]

I can argue that the tensor is symmetric in [itex]\alpha[/itex] and [itex]\beta[/itex] and in [itex]\mu[/itex] and [itex]\nu[/itex] (right?) and then I end up with
[tex]2\frac{D}{d \lambda}(g^{\alpha}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu})[/tex]

and there shouldn't be a [itex]2[/itex] there...

Does anybody see my mistake?
 
Last edited:
Finnaly I found from where the dirac delta comes from. One has to write the action in terms of a Lagrangian density. But I still can't get the expression before Eq.19.4...

Actually I believe there might be some inconsistency in the calculation done by Poisson. The fact that in the end he ends up with the derivative along the curve means that has used at some point [itex]g^\beta_\nu \dot{z}^\nu= \dot{z}^\beta[/itex] but that is only true if [itex]\dot{z}^\nu[/itex] is parallel transported along de curve which is the goal of the proof...Anyone?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K