Momentum density in curvilinear coordinates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation for momentum density in curvilinear coordinates, expressed as M_i = √g ρ v_i, where M_i is momentum density, ρ is mass density, v_i is velocity, and g is the determinant of the metric tensor. The inclusion of √g is explained as necessary for transforming the volume element correctly between Cartesian and curvilinear coordinates, ensuring proper covariant descriptions. The Levi-Civita symbol is discussed as a tool for defining volume elements, but it is noted that it is not a general tensor, which complicates transformations. A correction is made regarding the mass element equation, emphasizing that the mass density must be included in the expression for momentum density. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of the corrected equations and their implications for understanding fluid dynamics in curvilinear coordinates.
daxowax
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In an article on theoretical fluid dynamics I recently came across the following equation:

$$M_i = \sqrt{g} \rho v_i$$

where ##M_i## denotes momentum density, ##v_i## velocity, ##\rho## the mass density and g is the determinant of the metric tensor. It is probably quite obvious, but I do not get why you have to put the ##\sqrt{g}## in there. Aren't both densities related to the same volume form? I would appreciate any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let ##\vec{b}_i## (##i \in \{1,2,3 \}##) denote any basis of ##\mathbb{R}^3## (it can also be a basis defined locally by generalized coordinates) and ##\vec{e}_i## arbitrary Cartesian coordinates. Further define the coordinates of the position vector as
$$\vec{x}=\tilde{x}^i \vec{b}_i=x^j \vec{e}_j.$$
Now we need a manifestly covariant description of the volume element. In Cartesian coordinates we simply have
$$\mathrm{d}V=\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}=\mathrm{d} x^1 \mathrm{d} x^2 \mathrm{d} x^3.$$
The trick is to rewrite this as
$$\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}=\Delta_{jkl} \mathrm{d} x^j \mathrm{d} x^k \mathrm{d} x^l,$$
where ##\Delta_{jkl}## is the Levi-Civita symbol, which is totally antisymmetric under interchange of its indices and ##\Delta_{123}=1##.

Unfortunately the Levi-Civita symbol is not a general tensor, because defining the transformation matrix between the general and the Cartesial coordinates as
$${T^j}_k=\frac{\partial x^j}{\partial \tilde{x}_k}$$
we have
$$\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}=\Delta_{jkl} {T^{j}}_{j'} {T^{k}}_{k'} {T^{l}}_{l'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{j'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{k'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{l'}=\det \hat{T} \mathrm{d} \Delta_{j'k'l'} \tilde{x}^{j'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{k'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{l'},$$
i.e., you get the Jacobian of the transformation in addition, as it must be for the proper transformation of the volume element. I assume that this determinant is positive (i.e., that the orientation of the basis ##\vec{b}_j## is the same as that of the Cartesian basis ##\vec{e}_j##, which you can always get by choosing the right order of the basis vectors).

Now we have a Euclidean space, i.e., there is the scalar product. In Cartesian components it's simply represented by ##\delta_{jk}##, i.e., you have for any two vectors ##\vec{x}## and ##\vec{y}##
$$\vec{x} \cdot \vec{y} = \delta_{jk} x^j y^k=\delta_{jk} {T^{j}}_{j'} {T^{k}}_{k'} \tilde{x}^j \tilde{y}^k := g_{j'k'} \tilde{x}^j \tilde{y}^k.$$
In matrix-vector notation you thus have
$$\hat{g}=\hat{T}^t \hat{T} \; \Rightarrow g=\det{\hat{g}}=(\det \hat{T})^2.$$
So you can write the volume element as
$$\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x}=\det T \Delta_{j'k'l'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{j'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{k'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{l'} = \sqrt{g} \Delta_{j'k'l'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{j'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{k'} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^{l'}.$$
Since for Cartesian coordinates ##g_{jk}=\delta_{jk}## we can define the Levi-Civita tensor components as an invariant tensor via
$$\epsilon_{jkl}=\sqrt{g} \Delta_{jkl}.$$
Then the general covariant definition of the volume element in terms of the position-vector components reads
$$\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} =\epsilon_{jkl} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^j \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^k \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^l.$$
Now if you have a scalar density (like mass density ##\rho(\vec{x})## in non-relativistic fluid dynamics), a mass element in a small volume around ##\vec{x}## is given by [corrected according to #3]
$$\mathrm{d} m=\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \rho(\vec{x})=\sqrt{g} \rho \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3.$$
For the mass-current-density then you have [corrected according to #3]
$$\mathrm{d} m v^i= \sqrt{g} \rho v^i \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3.$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes daxowax and dextercioby
Thank you a lot for this elaborate answer! It helped me very much to understand these calculations. In the second last equation, you wrote
vanhees71 said:
$$\mathrm{d} m=\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \rho(\vec{x})=\sqrt{g} \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3.$$

I believe this was a typing error, and it should be $$ \mathrm{d} m=\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \rho(\vec{x})=\sqrt{g} \rho \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3$$Therefore, the last equation should say $$\mathrm{d} m v^i= \sqrt{g} \rho v^i \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3$$ Since ##\mathrm{d} m v^i## is the momentum of a fluid parcel and momentum density (or mass-current-density) ##M_i## is defined via ##\mathrm{d} m v^i = M_i \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^1 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^2 \mathrm{d} \tilde{x}^3##, by comparing the equations we get $$M_i = \sqrt{g} \rho v^i$$ Please correct me if I'm wrong!
 
Sure, I'll correct the typos in the original posting too!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top