A Weinberg's proof of ##{T^{\mu\nu}}_{,\nu}=0## for a perfect fluid

Kostik
Messages
269
Reaction score
32
TL;DR Summary
His proof is hard to follow, can someone help?
Weinberg ("Gravitation and Cosmology") defines the energy-momentum tensor ##T^{\mu\nu}## in equations (2.8.1)-(2.8.2). He proves $${T^{\mu\nu}}_{,\nu}=0$$ on page 44. But:

(1) Why does he have a minus sign at the very beginning; see the equation which starts $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}T^{\alpha i}(x,t) =$$ when there is no such minus sign in (2.8.2)?

(2) How does he do what looks like an integration by parts (third equality) when there is no integration?

What makes his work more confusing is that on pp. 43-44 he alternately uses the notation ##({\bf{x}}t)##, ##(x)##, ##(x,t)## and ##({\bf{x}},t)##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kostik said:
His proof is hard to follow, can someone help?
(1) Weinberg gets his negative sign by using the identity: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right)\equiv -\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{n}^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right)$$
(2) This is just the product rule for differentiation written in the form:$$-u\left(t\right)\frac{\partial v\left(t\right)}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(u\left(t\right)v\left(t\right)\right)+\frac{\partial u\left(t\right)}{\partial t}v\left(t\right)$$
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and Kostik
Of course; thanks. I think I have found another proof, but I should have seen this.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top