Reconciling units for the Einstein and Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the reconciliation of units for the Einstein and Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensors in the context of general relativity. Participants explore the implications of different conventions and definitions used by the authors, particularly regarding the conservation equations and the units of energy-momentum density.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the Einstein pseudotensor and the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor both imply conservation equations that suggest their respective quantities represent energy-momentum density, but questions how they can have the same interpretation given potential differences in units.
  • Another participant suggests that the compatibility of the expressions depends on the conventions adopted, particularly whether the determinant of the metric, ##g##, is considered dimensionless, which could allow for consistent units between the pseudotensors.
  • A later reply emphasizes that while conventions may differ, the metric's definition is clear, and points out specific differences between Dirac's and Landau-Lifshitz's approaches, such as their treatment of constants and the Ricci tensor, although these do not affect the derivation of the pseudotensors.
  • One participant proposes starting with a case where all coordinates have dimensions of length, suggesting that this leads to a dimensionless metric determinant, before exploring more complex coordinate systems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of conventions and definitions, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain regarding the reconciliation of units for the pseudotensors.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made about the metric and the definitions of the quantities involved, which may affect the interpretation of the pseudotensors' units.

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kostik

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
628
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K