The equation of state of radiation

AI Thread Summary
The equation of state (EOS) of radiation, specifically for a photon gas, is established as P = 1/3 * energy density due to the isotropic pressure derived from momentum components. This factor of 1/3 arises from the relationship between pressure and energy density in a photon gas, where the average momentum contributes equally across three spatial dimensions. The EM stress tensor for radiation is traceless, leading to the identity for a perfect fluid, which confirms the isotropic nature of pressure in such a gas. Discussions also highlight the need for a detailed derivation of the energy-momentum tensor for radiation, which can be found in general relativity textbooks. Understanding these principles is crucial for analyzing the behavior of radiation around black holes.
micomaco86572
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
the EOS of radiation (photon gas surrounding a black hole)

Why does the EOS of radiation set to 1/3? Where does this come from?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Heuristic argument:

P = N * F/A
P = N * dp_x/dt / A
P = N * dp_x / (L / v_x) / A

And v^2 = v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2 = 3v_x^2 -> v = sqrt(3) v_x
We can make a similar argument for the components of momentum to get an overall factor of 3.

P = N/V * <pv> / 3

Then for a photon gas <pv> is the energy, so we have

P = Energy per particle * Number / Volume / 3 = energy density / 3

Another way I have seen it derived, is to take the EM Stress tensor, show that it must be traceless, and compare that with the general identity (for a perfect fluid)
T^{\mu}_{\mu} = -\rho + 3p
 
If there is a layer of photon gas surrounding a black hole‘s surface, will the pressure of this gas still be isotropic? In other words, the energy tensor is still
\begin{display}<br /> T^{\mu}_{\nu}=\left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \rho &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; -p &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -p &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -p \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br /> \end{display}
, isn't it? Or the g11 is not equal to g22,g33 any more?
 
Last edited:
I would think so, but I'm not terribly certain.
 
Does somebody know that which book gives the detail derivation of this formula—the energy-momentum tensor of radiation, namely
<br /> \begin{display}<br /> T^{\mu}_{\nu}=\left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> \rho &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; -p &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -p &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -p \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br /> \end{display}<br />
?
 
That is actually the form for any perfect fluid (i.e. one in which we can neglect viscosity and voritcity). Any GR textbook will have some amount of explanation about the derivation of this. I find 'Gravitation' by Hartle an excellent introductory textbook, but others will have this info also.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top