Is the Energy Stress Tensor of Dust Always Zero Inside a Moving Cloud?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy stress tensor of a moving cloud of dust, specifically whether the spatial components of this tensor are always zero inside the cloud. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and mathematical formulations related to the stress-energy tensor in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that inside a moving cloud of dust, the net energy and momentum flow should cancel out, leading to the conclusion that all spatial components of the energy-stress tensor should be zero.
  • Another participant counters that the stress-energy tensor components vanish only for comoving observers, suggesting that the original reasoning may not hold in all frames.
  • A detailed mathematical transformation of the stress-energy tensor under a Lorentz boost is presented, showing that the spatial components are not zero in the moving frame, particularly highlighting nonzero values for certain components.
  • A later reply acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the definition of the stress-energy tensor and admits that the initial reasoning was flawed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus. There are competing views regarding the behavior of the energy stress tensor in different frames, and the discussion reflects uncertainty about the implications of the definitions and transformations involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the definitions of the stress-energy tensor and the conditions under which certain components are considered to be zero. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the choice of reference frame.

epovo
Messages
114
Reaction score
21
If a large cloud of dust of constant ρ is moving with a given ##\vec v ## in some frame, then at any given time and position inside the cloud there should not be no net energy or i-momentum flow on any surface of constant ##x^i ## (i=1,2,3) because the particles coming in cancels those going out off the opposite side of the volume element. So all the spatial ##T^{ij}## components of the energy-stress tensor should be zero. Is my reasoning correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the definition of the stressfensor of a dust it is clear that those components vanish for comoving observers. So i'd say your condition is only satisfied by those observers.
 
The stress-energy density of the dust in it's rest frame is
$$T_{ij} = \begin {bmatrix} \rho & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end {bmatrix} $$

To change frames to one where the dust is moving, we perform a Lorentz boost on ##T_{ij}##

$$T'_{uv} = T_{ij} \, \Lambda^i{}_u \Lambda^j{}_v$$

Letting ##\beta = ||v||/c## and ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}## for a Lorentz boost in the ##x^1## direction we can write:

$$\Lambda = \begin {bmatrix} \gamma & -\beta \gamma & 0 & 0 \\ -\beta \gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end {bmatrix} $$

So we get that the only nonzero components are

$$T'_{00} = \Lambda^0{}_0 \, \Lambda^0{}_0 \,T_{00} = \gamma^2 \, \rho \quad T'_{01} = T'_{10} = \Lambda^0{}_0 \, \Lambda^0{}_1 \, T_{00} = -\beta \gamma^2 \rho \quad T'_{11} = \Lambda^0{}_1 \, \Lambda^0{}_1 \, T_{00} = \beta^2 \gamma^2 \rho $$

i.e.

$$T'_{ij} = \begin {bmatrix} \gamma^2 \rho & -\beta \gamma^2 \rho & 0 & 0 \\ -\beta \gamma^2 \rho & \beta^2 \gamma^2 \rho & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end {bmatrix} $$

So no, all the spatial components of ##T'_{ij}## are not zero, in particular ##T'_{11}## which is what I think you mean by "spatial component"(?) is nonzero in the example where v points in the ##x^1## direction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: epovo
Okay. Thank you very much. I think that my interpretation of the definition of the stress energy tensor was wrong. I assumed that the flow of α-momentum across a surface of constant ##x^β## meant the net flow of the α-momentum in an element of volume in the β direction. That was an unwarranted assumption, so the reasoning in my original post is invalid.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
863
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K