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

Luai
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
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 this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top