I Solving Spherically Symmetric Static Star Equations of Motion

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the equation \((\rho + p) \frac{d\Phi}{dr} = -\frac{dp}{dr}\) from the conservation equation \(T^{\alpha\beta}_{\,\,\,\,;\beta} = 0\) for a spherically symmetric static star. The user struggles with the fact that the only non-vanishing component for \(\alpha = r\) leads to a contradiction, resulting in \(\frac{dp}{dr} = 0\). They realize the oversight of neglecting the other \(\beta\) components in their calculations. The user expresses embarrassment over the mistake and thanks another participant for their assistance. The discussion highlights the importance of considering all relevant components in tensor equations.
epovo
Messages
114
Reaction score
21
TL;DR
Help with getting the result in Schutz
Hi guys,
I can't seem to be able to get to
$$ (\rho + p) \frac {d\Phi} {dr} = - \frac {dp} {dr} $$
from
$$T^{\alpha\beta}_{\,\,\,\,;\beta} = 0$$
the only one of these 4 equations (in the case of a spherically symmetric static star) that does not identically vanish is that for ##\alpha=r##

Because ##T^{\alpha\beta}## is diagonal, that means ##T^{rr}_{\,\,\,\,;r}=0##.
We know that ##T^{rr}=p e^{-2\Lambda}## and that ##\Gamma^r_{\mu r} = \Lambda_{,r}##. So,

$$T^{rr}_{\,\,\,\,;r}=T^{rr}_{\,\,\,\,,r} + 2 \Gamma^r_{\mu r} T^{\mu r} = p_{,r}e^{-2\Lambda} - 2 p e^{-2\Lambda}\Lambda_{,r} + 2 \Lambda_{,r}p e^{-2\Lambda}=0 $$

And I get simply

$$ \frac {dp} {dr} = 0 $$
... which makes no sense! where did I go wrong? This is going to be embarrassing....
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Silly me! I don't know how I could have omitted the rest of the ##\beta##-components.
Thank you @PeterDonis
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...