Stress-energy tensor definition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the stress-energy tensor in the context of general relativity, specifically focusing on the discrepancies in sign conventions for one of the pressure terms. Participants explore the implications of different metric signatures on these definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there are conflicting definitions of the stress-energy tensor with opposite signs for one of the pressure terms, suggesting this may be related to the chosen metric signature.
  • One participant mentions that the signature may not matter, citing a source that uses a positive sign, contrasting with others that use a negative sign.
  • Several participants discuss the role of the projection operator into the 3-space orthogonal to the four-velocity, indicating that the choice of metric affects the formulation of the tensor.
  • A participant provides a specific form of the stress-energy tensor and expresses a desire for further resources on the topic.
  • Another participant shares a link to an online treatment of relativistic fluid dynamics as a potential resource for further understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the choice of metric signature affects the definition of the stress-energy tensor, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the potential for confusion arising from different conventions in literature, but does not resolve the underlying issues related to the metric signature.

coleman123
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I have seen two definitions with oposite signs (for one of the pressure terms in the formula) all over the web and books. I suspect it is related to the chosen metric signature, but I found no references to that.

356740f8f11d77dff81db1909c9ae290.png


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdeg76LUcd16n0znzXd5G59OoHbjZqSiJj27xn9EB0zvzjwfmSTA.png


apj300078fd5.gif


General Relativity An Introduction for Physicists from M. P. HOBSON, G. P. EFSTATHIOU and A. N. LASENBY uses a negative sign.

Wald uses a positive sign..

And so on..

What's happening?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think the signature matters. Stephani uses a + sign like your first example. I always used this form so it looks as if H, E & L are in a minority.
 
The coefficient of P is a projection operator into the 3-space orthogonal to uμ. If you use ημν = (1, -1, -1, -1) it should be uμuν - ημν, while if you use ημν = (-1, 1, 1, 1) it should be uμuν + ημν.
 
Bill_K said:
The coefficient of P is a projection operator into the 3-space orthogonal to uμ. If you use ημν = (1, -1, -1, -1) it should be uμuν - ημν, while if you use ημν = (-1, 1, 1, 1) it should be uμuν + ημν.
I guess that sorts out the issue.
 
Bill_K said:
The coefficient of P is a projection operator into the 3-space orthogonal to uμ. If you use ημν = (1, -1, -1, -1) it should be uμuν - ημν, while if you use ημν = (-1, 1, 1, 1) it should be uμuν + ημν.

Thanks Bill. So the metric matters then. In the end I was just using:

Tμν=(ρ+P/c2)uμuν-sPgμν

where "s" is the sign corresponding to the time coordinate.

Where do I find more about this?

Thank you
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're looking for, but there's an online treatment of relativistic fluid dynamics http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2007-1&page=articlese6.html that's rather complete.
 
That's it. Thanks again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K