A Reconciling units for the Einstein and Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensors

Kostik
Messages
269
Reaction score
32
TL;DR Summary
Examining a discrepancy in the energy-momentum conservation law expressed using the Einstein(-Dirac) and Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensors
The Einstein (or Einstein-Dirac) pseudotensor ##{t_\mu}^\nu## satisfies
$$\left[ \sqrt{-g}({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu) \right]_{,\nu}=0$$ (see Dirac, "General Theory of Relativity", eq. 31.2)). Similarly, the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor ##t^{\mu\nu}## satisfies
$$\left[ (-g)(t^{\mu\nu} + T^{\mu\nu}) \right]_{,\nu}=0$$ (see L-L, "Classical Theory of Fields" 4th Ed., eq. (96.10)).

In both cases, the authors deduce that the conservation equation implies that the quantity in square brackets represents the density of total energy and momentum of the matter-energy fields plus the gravitational field (curvature of space).

But surely the quantities in square brackets have different units. How can they both be energy-momentum density?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That depends very much on the conventions that one adopts. You need to look carefully into each author's conventions. They may not be the same or even compatible.

One possible convention is that ##g## is dimensionless. Then ##t## and ##T## could have the same units and both author's expressions would be consistent and compatible. However, that may not be the case, in which case the different authors will ascribe different units to the various quantities.
 
Dale said:
That depends very much on the conventions that one adopts. You need to look carefully into each author's conventions. They may not be the same or even compatible.

One possible convention is that ##g## is dimensionless. Then ##t## and ##T## could have the same units and both author's expressions would be consistent and compatible. However, that may not be the case, in which case the different authors will ascribe different units to the various quantities.
I don't think that's the issue. There is no ambiguity in the metric ##ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu##. There are some differences between Dirac and L-L; for example, Dirac assumes ##G=c=1## while L-L carries these constants throughout. Also, Dirac's Ricci tensor is the opposite of L-L's. But none of these enter into the derivation of their pseudo-tensors.
 
Why don't you start with the familiar case that all
$$x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3$$
have dimension of length. All the metric tensor components, thus its determinant g also, are dimensionless.
Then you may investigate more general case, e.g., cylindrical or polar type coordinates, if you wish.
 
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...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top