Stress-energy tensor and pressure

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the stress-energy tensor, particularly in relation to pressure in the context of relativistic physics. Participants explore the connections between the components of the stress-energy tensor and classical concepts of pressure, as well as the implications of these interpretations in different physical scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the stress-energy tensor is a 16-component object, with specific components representing energy density and momentum density currents, questioning how these relate to classical pressure.
  • Another participant asserts that in the rest frame of a body, the stress-energy tensor can be viewed as a generalization of the classical stress tensor, with implications for how pressure is defined in relativistic contexts.
  • A participant highlights that solids can support shear stresses, while ideal fluids can be represented by a diagonal stress tensor, leading to a single scalar pressure.
  • There is a discussion about momentum transport in a rod under pressure, with a participant suggesting that T^{11} can be interpreted as the flow of momentum in a specific direction.
  • One participant reflects on the contributions of momentum traveling in opposite directions to the momentum current, indicating a need for further contemplation on these currents.
  • Another participant provides a formula relating the stress-energy tensor component T^{11} to the momentum contained in a volume element, suggesting a connection to pressure through the flow of momentum across an area.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the stress-energy tensor components and their relationship to classical pressure. There is no consensus on how these concepts align, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of pressure and momentum, as well as the conditions under which the stress-energy tensor is applied. Some mathematical steps and relationships remain unexplored or unclear.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
I learned that stress-energy tensor is defined in first place to be a 16-component object [tex]T^{\mu\nu}[/tex], where the first row [tex]T^{0\nu}[/tex] tells the energy density current, and the three other rows [tex]T^{i\nu}[/tex] tell the momentum density currents.

The Carrol introduces a stress-energy tensor where off diagonal terms are zero, and [tex]T^{00}[/tex] and [tex]T^{ii}[/tex] (the same value for all i=1,2,3) have some fixed values. He then merely says, that "we can choose to call [tex]T^{ii}[/tex] the pressure". Okey, does this have anything to do with earlier pressure concept that we know from elementary physics? If it does, how do you justify that, because it doesn't seem very obvious to me. Those diagonal terms in the first place were supposed to be components momentum currents, and I don't see how they could be interpreted as pressure.

(This question continues were discussion in "photon gas and relativity" lead, but I didn't want to spoil the original topic with my own problems more.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The short answer is that in the rest frame of the body, [itex]T^{ij}[/itex] is equivalent to the classical stress tensor for i,j = 1..3 Or equivalently, the relativistic stress-energy tensor is the relativistic generalization of the classical stress tensor.

Solids can support "shear stresses", simpler ideal fluid models will have a diagonal stress tensor, and hence can be summarized by a single scalar, P, which is the pressure of the fluid.

If you consider a rod under pressure, it does transport momentum across the rod. You can consider T^11 to be the "flow" of x momentum in the x direction, for example (though I find this not very intuitive).

See for instance http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/Sec12.html

The current wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stress-energy_tensor&oldid=131240365
also covers this and seems fairly sane.

If you have MTW, see pg 131-132, especially box 5.1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just realized, that [tex]p_1[/tex] momentum traveling in [tex]x_1[/tex]-direction, and [tex]-p_1[/tex] momentum traveling in [tex]-x_1[/tex]-direction, give a contribution to the momentum current with the same sign. :biggrin: Okey, I'll have to think more about those currents...
 
As Stefan Waner says (in the link provided by pervect)

[tex]T^{11}=\frac{\Delta p^1}{\Delta v}[/tex]

where [itex]\Delta p^1[/itex] is the x component of the momentum contained in a 3-volume element with normal vector pointing in x direction i. e. [itex]\Delta v = \Delta t \Delta y \Delta z[/itex]. If an observer sits there for time [itex]\Delta t[/itex], he will see the fluid crossing the perpendicular area [itex]\Delta y \Delta z[/itex] carrying x-momentum [itex]\Delta p^1[/itex]. Recall that in 4D spacetime, 3-volume elements are parts of hypersurfaces, hence have normal 4-vectors to them. So we get

[tex]T^{11}=\frac{\Delta p^x}{\Delta t \Delta y \Delta z }=\frac{F^x}{\Delta y \Delta z}= pressure[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K