A Going from Cauchy Stress Tensor to GR's Energy Momentum Tensor

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses the relationship between the Cauchy Stress Tensor and the Energy Momentum Tensor in the context of General Relativity (GR). Both tensors share the same SI units, as stress (force per unit area) equates to energy density (energy per unit volume) when analyzed dimensionally. It is clarified that Einstein did not start with the Cauchy Tensor for the field equations of GR; instead, the Cauchy tensor represents the spatial components of the energy-momentum tensor. The transformation between these tensors is not straightforward, as they operate in different dimensional contexts (3D vs. 4D). The discussion emphasizes that consistent solutions to Einstein's equations require simultaneous resolution of the equations of motion for matter.
Luai
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Is there a mathematical operation that transforms the Cauchy Stress Tensor to the Energy Momentum Tensor? If the former lives in 3D and latter lives in 4D, how come they have the same units?
  1. Why do the Cauchy Stress Tensor & the Energy Momentum Tensor have the same SI units? Shouldn't adding time as a dimension changes the Energy Momentum Tensor's units?
  2. Did Einstein start with the Cauchy Tensor when he started working on the right hand side of the field equations of GR?
  3. If so, What tensor operation(s) would transform the 3D Cauchy Tensor into the 4D Energy Momentum Tensor of GR?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
@Luai I have edited your post to remove the bold. There is no need to put an entire post in bold.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark, Vanadium 50 and Luai
Luai said:
Is there a mathematical operation that transforms the Cauchy Stress Tensor to the Energy Momentum Tensor?
No. They are two different tensors.

Luai said:
If the former lives in 3D and latter lives in 4D, how come they have the same units?
The units of stress are the same as the units of energy density. Stress is force per unit area. Energy density is energy per unit volume, i.e., (force x distance) / (area x distance), i.e., the same as force per unit area.

Luai said:
Shouldn't adding time as a dimension changes the Energy Momentum Tensor's units?
No. Why would it?

Luai said:
Did Einstein start with the Cauchy Tensor when he started working on the right hand side of the field equations of GR?
No.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and Luai
In relativistic physics, the "Cauchy stress tensor" form the space-space components of the energy-momentum tensor. The time-time component is the energy density and the time-space components are the momentum density (times ##c##).

The interesting thing with GR is that when you take the "mechanical energy momentum tensor" (ideal/viscous fluids, elastic bodies,...) on the right-hand side if you have a solution of the Einstein equations, due to the Bianchi identities the equations of motion for the matter, which is given by ##\vec{\nabla}_{\mu} T^{\mu \nu}=0## is automatically fulfilled, i.e., you can get a fully consistent solution of the Einstein equations only if you simultaneously solve the mechanics equations of motion for the matter.

A very nice treatment of all this can be found in

D. E. Soper, Classical Field Theory
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...