I Proving Effects of Stress-Energy Tensor on Curvature

VladZH
Messages
56
Reaction score
1
Hi everyone. Could you help me to find the way to prove some things?
1)Changing of body velocity or reference frame don't contribute to spacetime curvature
2)On the contrary the change of body mass causes the change of curvature in local spacetime

I use the assumption that if we have the same tensor in the right part of Einstein field equation the curvature remains the same and changes othwerwise
$$R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda =
{8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$

My suggestion is:
1) Let a body with some velocity has stress-energy tensor ##T##. Then in another reference frame let the body stress-energy tensor be ##T'##. As stress-energy tensor is invariant we should get the same tensor but different coordiantes when changing velocity or reference frame . Will it be the proof if I manage to find ##\Lambda## from the following equation and show that it is a linear transformation
$$T_{\mu' \nu'}'={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\mu'} {\Lambda^{\nu}}_{\nu'} T_{\mu \nu}.$$
2) Let a body be stationary and has some mass. Its stress-energy tensor is ##T##. Then we change the mass of a body and get ##T'## for its stress-energy tensor. So we should have ##T \neq T'##. Can I use the previous equation here to prove this?

Can this work? Or I need to use the Riemann tensor and Richi scalar in the left part Einstein field equation?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VladZH said:
Hi everyone. Could you help me to find the way to prove some things?
1)Changing of body velocity or reference frame don't contribute to spacetime curvature
2)On the contrary the change of body mass causes the change of curvature in local spacetime

I use the assumption that if we have the same tensor in the right part of Einstein field equation the curvature remains the same and changes othwerwise
$$R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda =
{8 \pi G \over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$$

My suggestion is:
1) Let a body with some velocity has stress-energy tensor ##T##. Then in another reference frame let the body stress-energy tensor be ##T'##. As stress-energy tensor is invariant we should get the same tensor but different coordiantes when changing velocity or reference frame . Will it be the proof if I manage to find ##\Lambda## from the following equation and show that it is a linear transformation
$$T_{\mu' \nu'}'={\Lambda^{\mu}}_{\mu'} {\Lambda^{\nu}}_{\nu'} T_{\mu \nu}.$$

All tensors are covariant, so the Riemann tensor (which is what I assume you mean by the space-time curvature tensor) is covariant just because it's a tensor, and so by defintion it's covariant. (I think you mean covariant rather than what you wrote, which is invariant).

This may or may not be what you mean when you say "Changing of body velocity or reference frame don't contribute to spacetime curvature". But I'm not quite sure what this English-language statement above means, it seems to me you need to decide for yourself if the more mathemmatical statement yous make (which are clear and unambiguous) are equivalent to the fuzzy and not-so-clear English language statements you make.
2) Let a body be stationary and has some mass. Its stress-energy tensor is ##T##. Then we change the mass of a body and get ##T'## for its stress-energy tensor.

The question you need to ask yourself, and perhaps do a bit of research on, is this. Is the mass of a body a tensor? In this context, it's important to distinguish tensors from pseudotensors.

I'll give you a hint without a lengthly justification. The answer is basically "no", we don't have a "mass tensor".
 
pervect said:
All tensors are covariant, so the Riemann tensor (which is what I assume you mean by the space-time curvature tensor) is covariant just because it's a tensor, and so by defintion it's covariant. (I think you mean covariant rather than what you wrote, which is invariant).
I'm talking about covariance. I'm talking about the main property of tensors - invariance under coordinate transformation.
pervect said:
This may or may not be what you mean when you say "Changing of body velocity or reference frame don't contribute to spacetime curvature". But I'm not quite sure what this English-language statement above means, it seems to me you need to decide for yourself if the more mathemmatical statement yous make (which are clear and unambiguous) are equivalent to the fuzzy and not-so-clear English language statements you make.
Saying "Changing of body velocity or reference frame don't contribute to spacetime curvature" I mean the following:
Stress-energy tensor components are different momenta. They, in turn, include components of 4-vector as here
$$T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf x},t) = \gamma m v^\alpha v^\beta$$
1)The change of ##v^\alpha## leads to the change of some coordinates of the tensor ##T##.
I make an assumtion here: if ##T## becomes a new tensor ##T'## then it affects the Riemann tensor in the left part of Einstein field equation. But as we know change of frame reference shouldn't change the curvature that is Riemann tensor in the left part.
2) The change of ##m## similarly affects ##T## components. So I want to show here that changing of ##m## -> changing of ##T## i. e gives us a new ##T'##-> changing of ##R##, i.e gives us a new ##R'##
 
VladZH said:
I'm talking about covariance.
Sorry. I'm not talking about covariance
 
VladZH said:
Sorry. I'm not talking about covariance
VladZH said:
I'm talking about the main property of tensors - invariance under coordinate transformation.
Then you are, simply put, wrong. The main point about tensor equations is that they are covariant under coordinate transformations. If you will, tensors themselves are invariant objects without any reference to any coordinate system, but once you start looking at their components and coordinate transformations, it is all about how the components transform. And they do transform and hence are not invariant. Changing coordinate (i.e., changing reference frame) does change the components of a tensor. However, it does not change the values of invariants such as the scalar curvature.
 
Orodruin said:
Then you are, simply put, wrong. The main point about tensor equations is that they are covariant under coordinate transformations. If you will, tensors themselves are invariant objects without any reference to any coordinate system, but once you start looking at their components and coordinate transformations, it is all about how the components transform. And they do transform and hence are not invariant. Changing coordinate (i.e., changing reference frame) does change the components of a tensor. However, it does not change the values of invariants such as the scalar curvature.
Ok, I see my approach is wrong. What are the approches to show that change of mass affects the curvature and change of velocity does not? How can we use Einstein field equation here?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
Back
Top