Terilien
- 140
- 0
why do we define it that way? What properties make it the best possible choice for the gravitational field?
The discussion revolves around the properties and definitions of the energy-momentum tensor in the context of general relativity (GR) and its role in describing gravitational fields. Participants explore its necessity, its relationship to classical physics, and how it integrates with other forces and fields.
Participants express differing views on the completeness of the energy-momentum tensor in describing gravitational effects and the relationship between gravity and other forces. There is no consensus on the best way to conceptualize the total action of the system or the contributions of various fields.
Some assumptions regarding the definitions of fields and actions are not fully explored, and the implications of the energy-momentum tensor's formulation remain open to interpretation.
Einstein gave this as the reason for using this tensor - The stress-energy-momentum tensor gives the correct and complete description of mass and since mass is equivalent to energy if then follows that since we know that mass is the source of gravity it then follows that this tensor should be the source.Terilien said:why do we define it that way? What properties make it the best possible choice for the gravitational field?
smallphi said:In GR, gravity is described as curvature of the manifold, all other forces are captured by the energy momentum tensor.
robphy said:I think it is more correct to say that
"all [non-gravitational] 'matter fields' contribute to the gravitational field via the energy momentum tensor [via the Einstein Equations]",
however,
"the other forces (like electromagnetism) are captured by other field-equations (like the Maxwell Equations) that those fields satisfy".
So are you saying that electro-magnetism does not contribute to the stress-energy tensor?smallphi said:Yes