Stress-energy tensor for a single photon

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of the stress-energy tensor for a single photon within the framework of General Relativity (GR). Participants explore its transformation properties, particularly under Lorentz transformations, and the implications of treating a photon as a wave packet or null dust.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formulation of the stress-energy tensor for a photon and discusses its transformation properties, expressing concerns about its covariance under Lorentz transformations.
  • Another participant suggests discussing the stress-energy tensor of null dust instead of a single photon, proposing a relationship between energy and momentum (E=pc) that may yield consistent results.
  • A third participant references material from a special relativity book that discusses the stress-energy tensor of a plane wave, implying that it may provide insights relevant to the current discussion.
  • One participant contemplates treating the photon as a wave packet and transforming the Poynting flux, while expressing uncertainty about the consistency of the null dust approach.
  • A later reply proposes that the volume element transforms as a density of particles rather than as a coordinate volume, suggesting a resolution to the scaling issue encountered in transformations.
  • Another participant questions the classical or quantum nature of the quantity f in the stress-energy tensor formulation, highlighting the complexities of wavefunctions and the implications for conservation laws in the context of non-solution wave packets.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate formulation of the stress-energy tensor for a photon, with some advocating for the null dust perspective while others maintain the photon-specific approach. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views and interpretations present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the assumptions made in the formulation of the stress-energy tensor, particularly concerning the treatment of wavefunctions and the implications for conservation of energy-momentum. There is also mention of unresolved mathematical steps in the transformation process.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying General Relativity, quantum mechanics, or the properties of electromagnetic radiation, particularly in the context of stress-energy formulations and their implications in theoretical physics.

salvador_dali
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm trying to write down the stress-energy tensor for a single photon in GR, but I'm running into trouble with its transformation properties. I'll demonstrate what I do quickly and then illustrate the problem. Given a photon with wavevector p, we write

{\bf T} = \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 p}{p^0} f {\bf p \otimes p}

where

f = \int \mathrm{ d\tau} \delta^4({\bf x} - {\bf x'}(t))\delta^3({\bf p} - {\bf p'}) = \delta^3({\bf x} - {\bf x'}(\tau))\delta^3({\bf p} - {\bf p'})

which I think should be invariant even considering the nontrivial transformation properties of the Dirac distribution in curved space, although I actually have not been able to find a good reference for this (if anyone has one I would really appreciate it). So then we proceed immediately to

{T^{\mu \nu}} = \frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{p^0}\delta^3({\bf x} - {\bf x'}),

and then averaging over a spacetime volume,

{T^{\mu \nu}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}\Delta^3 x\Delta x^0}\int_{\Delta^3 x \Delta x^0} \sqrt{-g}{\mathrm d}^3 x{\mathrm d} x^0 \frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{p^0}\delta^3({\bf x} - {\bf x'}(\tau)),

\begin{equation}{T^{\mu \nu}} = \frac{1}{\Delta^3 x}\frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}{p^0}.\end{equation} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~(1)

So one can find this last expression all over the place, but I'm running into trouble with it even under Lorentz transformations, although it indeed looks covariant (d^3 x p^0 is invariant, and p \otimes p is a tensor). Here's a reduced example: suppose I'm in flat spacetime and I have two frames, A and B. In frame A I have a wavevector p_A = {p_A^0, p_A^1, 0, 0}. I construct T_A from p_A using equation (1):

{T^{\mu \nu}_A} = \frac{1}{\Delta^3 x}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> p^0_A &amp; p^1_A &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> p^1_A &amp; \frac{(p_A^1)^2}{p_A^0} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \end{array} \right]

Now I boost p_A -> p_B and T_A -> T_B as shown:

p_B^{\mu} = \Lambda^{\mu}_{~~\nu} p_A^{\nu} = ( \gamma p_A^0 - \beta \gamma p_A^1, -\beta \gamma p_A^0 + \gamma p_A^1,0,0 )

T^{\mu \nu}_B = \Lambda^{\mu}_{~~\mu&#039;} \Lambda^{\nu}_{~~\nu&#039;} T^{\mu&#039; \nu&#039;}_A = \frac{1}{\Delta^3 x}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \gamma^2\frac{(p_A^0-\beta p_A^1)^2}{p_A^0} &amp; \gamma^2\frac{(\beta p_A^0 - p_A^1)(\beta p_A^1-p_A^0)}{p_A^0} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> \gamma^2\frac{(\beta p_A^0 - p_A^1)(\beta p_A^1-p_A^0)}{p_A^0} &amp; \gamma^2 \frac{(-\beta p_A^0 +p_A^1)^2}{p_A^0} &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \end{array} \right]

Whereas constructing T_B with p_B via equation 1 we get a slightly different matrix T'_B, which I won't reproduce here because I'm typing too much. At any rate, for each non-zero element we have

T&#039;_B/T_B = \frac{p_A^0}{(p_A^0-\beta \gamma p_A^1)}.

This seems to imply that the wavevector should be picking up a scale factor beyond what it gets through the Lorentz transformation, but this makes no sense to me. The factor appears to be the difference between p_A^0 and p_B^0, but always evaluating the p^0 in the "original" frame doesn't seem very covariant to me.

Anyhoo, if anybody sees a flaw in what I've done so far or has related insight I'd be very glad to hear it. I also tried setting up T for a single (non-photon) particle using T = rho u \otimes u, with a Dirac distribution definition of rho, but that ultimately brought me back to equation 1 (which doesn't seem consistent with this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=178692 ...)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Being a classical theory, I'd rather talk about the stress energy tensor of a null dust than a single photon.
I did that already in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=681172#post4323336

I would expect that E=pc, so I think you might have the same result I did - perhaps you make to make this substitution to make the results come out the same.

You should find that everything scales as the doppler factor^2, which should be (1+v/c)/(1-v/c).
 
I think pervect has it right. Some material in section 10.6 of my SR book http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ may also be helpful. (There's an example where I do the stress-energy tensor of a plane wave.)
 
Thanks pervect and bcrowell for your thoughts; it does seem sensible to treat the photon as a wave packet and then transform the Poynting flux; that may be what I do. However, I'm still not sure that I think the situation for null dust is fully consistent -- I can set p_A^0 = p_A^1 = E and recover pervect's result (without loss of generality, in fact), but I still encounter the issue where if I transform the individual wave vector and then rebuild the stress tensor in the boosted frame (B) I get a different answer than I do by transforming the tensor from the unboosted frame (A). Without associating the energy of the null dust with a lengthscale/timescale via e.g. a frequency in which case we don't need an additional factor when transforming the four-momentum, I still think we should be able to reconcile the two transformation methods... but I really have no idea how.
 
Actually, I think I've figured it out (this may be what you were suggesting this whole time):

Basically, the 1/d^3 x transforms as a density of particles rather than as a coordinate volume. This is required by the invariance of p^0 d^3 x, and can be shown instructively by observing the change of the separation of two particles under a Lorentz transformation. However, for two frames in which the spacetime volume elements are fixed, this implies a scale factor properly associated with each four-momentum:

p_B^{\mu} = \frac{p_A^0}{p_B^0} \frac{\mathrm{d}x_B^{\mu}}{\mathrm{d}x_A^{\nu}}p_A^{\nu}

So the formula of the stress tensor remains the same as (1), with the p^{\mu} no longer representing simply the Lorentz boosts of the four-momenta. This neatly recovers the anomalous factor I had found before.
 
Last edited:
In #1, what quantity is f supposed to represent? Is it supposed to be something classical? Something quantum-mechanical? In quantum-mechanics, you don't express a wavefuction as a function of *both* position and momentum; the two representations are complementary but separate (they're Fourier transforms of each other). There is also the issue that the photon doesn't actually have a wavefunction in the usual technical sense.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a propagating pointlike wave packet is not a solution of Maxwell's equations, or of any other wave equation. (It would violate the diffraction limit.) If you write down a wave that is not a solution of Maxwell's equations, then the stress-energy tensor is in general not going to be divergenceless, which violates conservation of energy-momentum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
976
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K