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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Weinberg's proof of the energy-momentum tensor identity $$T^{\mu\nu}_{,\nu}=0$$ is detailed in "Gravitation and Cosmology," specifically on page 44. The initial negative sign arises from the identity $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right) \equiv -\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{n}^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right)$$. The integration by parts-like operation is clarified as an application of the product rule for differentiation, demonstrating the relationship between the functions involved. The notation inconsistencies across pages 43-44 contribute to the confusion surrounding the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the energy-momentum tensor in general relativity
  • Familiarity with the Dirac delta function and its properties
  • Knowledge of differentiation and the product rule in calculus
  • Basic comprehension of notation in tensor calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Dirac delta function in the context of physics
  • Review the product rule for differentiation in advanced calculus
  • Examine other proofs of the energy-momentum tensor identity in general relativity
  • Explore Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology" for further insights on tensor notation
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and students studying general relativity, particularly those focusing on the energy-momentum tensor and its implications in cosmology.

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
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   Reactions: dextercioby and Kostik
Of course; thanks. I think I have found another proof, but I should have seen this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K