- #1

- 931

- 56

- I
- Thread starter kent davidge
- Start date

- #1

- 931

- 56

- #2

- 32,988

- 11,466

It might help if you gave some more context about why you are asking the question.

- #3

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

- #4

- 32,988

- 11,466

Yes; but I would expect these to be described as "vacuum" solutions, not "zero pressure" solutions.All metrics with Weyl curvature and no Ricci curvature have vanishing SET

These are only pressureless in one coordinate chart; in other coordinate charts they are not. Or, for a more physical description, they are only pressureless to comoving observers; they are not pressureless to non-comoving observers. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my previous post.there would be an infinite number of configurations of pressureless dust

- #5

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

But there is an invariant definition of a pressureless dust solution. See, for example, the criterion of contractions of the Einstein tensor given here:Yes; but I would expect these to be described as "vacuum" solutions, not "zero pressure" solutions.

These are only pressureless in one coordinate chart; in other coordinate charts they are not. Or, for a more physical description, they are only pressureless to comoving observers; they are not pressureless to non-comoving observers. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my previous post.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_solution#Dust_model

- #6

- 32,988

- 11,466

I'm not disputing that the solution has an invariant definition. I'm just pointing out, for the OP's benefit, that "pressureless" only correctly describes that solution with respect to comoving observers. That's because the OP did not ask specifically about "pressureless dust" solutions defined as you say; he asked about "pressure zero" solutions, and he probably does not realize the limitations of that description.there is an invariant definition of a pressureless dust solution

- #7

- 16,829

- 6,652

Even more trivially, it is true for

- #8

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

This case is not so obvious by that type of criteria, which is why I made a physical argument. One can sort of argue the SET is over constrained for a pressureless dust solution. You start with arbitrary symmetric tensor fields with 10 functional degrees of freedom. First, by coordinate invariance, they form equivalence classes leaving only 6. Then, vanishing divergence is 4 more conditions. But then 4 conditions need to be satisfied for a pressureless dust solution. Of course, vanishing divergence are differential conditions, which are weaker.Even more trivially, it is true foranydifferential equation for which a sufficient number of boundary conditions have not been specified.

I would be interested if you can add anything in this area.

- #9

martinbn

Science Advisor

- 2,128

- 704

- #10

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

I know that, but I am a little bothered by the counting argument I just gave. Is the flaw just that differential conditions are very weak?

- #11

martinbn

Science Advisor

- 2,128

- 704

Hm, not sure. Are these independent? What are the 4 conditions for dust?

- #12

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

See the earlier link I gave to Wikipedia.Hm, not sure. Are these independent? What are the 4 conditions for dust?

- #13

martinbn

Science Advisor

- 2,128

- 704

I guess what I am confused about is what 4 conditions need to be satisfied? The SET is ##T_{\mu\nu}=\rho u_\mu u_\nu##, why does this impose any restriction on the metric other than the EFE?See the earlier link I gave to Wikipedia.

- #14

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

I’m reasoning directly from the SET as a symmetric tensor field. 4 conditions are given on T itself.I guess what I am confused about is what 4 conditions need to be satisfied? The SET is ##T_{\mu\nu}=\rho u_\mu u_\nu##, why does this impose any restriction on the metric other than the EFE?

- #15

martinbn

Science Advisor

- 2,128

- 704

Oh, I see. But why do you say 4, the condition for no pressure should be 3 conditions, no?

- #16

PAllen

Science Advisor

- 8,270

- 1,524

I was looking at the conditions involvingOh, I see. But why do you say 4, the condition for no pressure should be 3 conditions, no?

- #17

martinbn

Science Advisor

- 2,128

- 704

When you say, that the differential conditions are weaker, do you mean that they can have many solutions. One differential equation for one unknown has infinitely many solutions, unless more information is specified, say boundary conditions.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 630

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 319

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 6K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 611

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K