Why ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## is called the pressure?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ccnu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pressure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the expression ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## in the context of the energy-momentum tensor and its association with pressure. Participants explore the conditions under which this expression can be considered equivalent to pressure, particularly in different reference frames and configurations, such as for perfect fluids.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that the absolute value of ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## is defined as pressure, with ##T_{\mu\nu}## being the energy-momentum tensor and ##n^\mu## a four-dimensional normal vector.
  • Another participant challenges this by providing a specific example involving a perfect fluid, suggesting that ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## does not necessarily equal pressure unless specific conditions are met, such as choosing ##n^{0}=0##.
  • A later reply acknowledges the condition of ##n^0 = 0## and clarifies that ##n^\mu## is a purely spatial vector.
  • Further contributions discuss the general form of the expression in different frames, highlighting the role of the fluid's 4-velocity and the need for consistent indexing in equations.
  • Another participant notes that while the integral of ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## over a closed surface relates to momentum change, there are examples where it does not represent pressure at a point, such as in the case of a dielectric slab influenced by a point charge.
  • Participants correct each other on the proper forms of the expressions and the implications of free indices in their equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## can be equated to pressure. There is no consensus on a definitive interpretation, as multiple competing views remain regarding the expression's validity in various scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include limitations related to the assumptions made about the reference frame and the nature of the vectors involved. The need for careful treatment of indices in mathematical expressions is also emphasized.

ccnu
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I read in the textbook which says that, according to the usual definition the absolute value of ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## is just the pressure. ##T_{\mu\nu}## is the energy-momentum tensor and ##n^\mu## is a four dimensional normal vector.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As given I don't see that this holds in general... For example take a perfect fluid for which it can be written in rest frame:
[itex]T_{\mu \nu} = diag( \rho, p , p , p )[/itex]
Then:
[itex]n^{\mu}T_{\mu \nu} = n^{0}T_{00} + n^{ii}T_{ii} = n^{0} \rho + (n^{11}+n^{22}+n^{33}) p[/itex]

Which doesn't have to be equal to the pressure... If though you choose [itex]n^{0}=0[/itex] (so it's not just any 4-dim unit vector) things can get better.

Can you give your reference?
 
Last edited:
ChrisVer said:
If though you choose [itex]n^{0}=0[/itex] (so it's not just any 4-dim unit vector) things can get better.

Oh~~ yes, I forgot to say that ##n^0 = 0##, and ##n^\mu## is pure spatial. Thanks a lot!:smile:
 
Chris, your LHS has a free index and your RHS does not.

In a general frame you would have
$$
n^\mu T_{\mu\nu} = n^\mu \left((\rho+p) u_\mu u_\nu - p g_{\mu\nu}\right)
= (\rho+p) u_\nu (n \cdot u) - p n_\nu,
$$
where u is the 4-velocity of the fluid.
 
ccnu said:
I read in the textbook which says that, according to the usual definition the absolute value of ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## is just the pressure. ##T_{\mu\nu}## is the energy-momentum tensor and ##n^\mu## is a four dimensional normal vector.
The association of ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## with the pressure at a point follows from the fact that its integral over a closed surface equals the rate of change of momentum within the closed surface.
There are simple examples where ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}## is NOT the pressure at a point on the surface. For instance the pressure on a dielectric slab due to a point charge a distance d from the slab is not ##n^\mu T_{\mu\nu}##.
 
Orodruin said:
Chris, your LHS has a free index and your RHS does not.

In a general frame you would have
$$
n^\mu T_{\mu\nu} = n^\mu \left((\rho+p) u_\mu u_\nu - p g_{\mu\nu}\right)
= (\rho+p) u_\nu (n \cdot u) - p n_\nu,
$$
where u is the 4-velocity of the fluid.

oops sorry... yes the correct form would have to be:
[itex]n^{i} T_{i \mu} \equiv n_{i} p[/itex]
 
ChrisVer said:
oops sorry... yes the correct form would have to be:
[itex]n^{i} T_{i \mu} \equiv n_{i} p[/itex]

[itex]n^{i} T_{i \mu} \equiv n_{\color{Red}\mu} p[/itex]

:smile:

Assuming ##n^0 = 0## and that we are in the rest frame of the fluid.
 
the n0 is zero
and also mu=i for the expression not to be zero...

For the rest frame yes, I just corrected the expression I gave in my previous post
 
Even if the expression is non-zero only for spatial ##\mu##, you must still have the same free indices on both sides of your equality. In your case you have i as a summation index on one side and as a free index on the other. I can guess what you mean because I know what you are aiming for, but formally it does not make sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
989