Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been reading the excelent review from Eric Poisson found here. While studying it I stumbled in a proof that I can't make... I can't find a way to go from Eq.(19.3) to the one before Eq.(19.4) (which is unnumbered).

I've been able to do some progress (which I present below), but can't get the right answer... Please somebody help me. It's getting really frustating...

Thank you

Given the energy-momentum tensor$$T^{\alpha\beta}\left(x\right)=m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\left(x,z\right)g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\left(x,z\right)\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda,}$$

one can take it's divergence\begin{alignedat}{1}\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha\beta} & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda}=\\ & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda+m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda.}} \end{alignedat}

But using Eq.13.3 of the reference one finds that the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor is also given by\begin{alignedat}{1}\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha\beta} & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda}=\\ & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda-m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\nu}\left[\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda,}} \end{alignedat}

Which means that$$m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda=-m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\nu}\left[\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda,}}$$

so it must be zero (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Then, using Eqs.(5.14) and (13.3), the divergence of the energy-momentum tensor is simply\begin{alignedat}{1}\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha\beta} & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda}=\\ & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{D}{d\lambda}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda}+\\ & \,\,\,+m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}\dot{z}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\beta}\left[g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\nu}\right]\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda.} \end{alignedat}

If what I've done is correct then comparing with the reference's result the last term must be zero. Can anyone think why?

I thought that, since the covariant derivative is taken in the point $x$ then $g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}\dot{z}^{\nu}$ is zero but then, what forbids $g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\nu}\nabla_{\beta}\dot{z}^{\mu}$ to be equally zero?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I will abuse notation a little, but I hope you don't find it terrible. After all, I only abuse notation: not children!

Trick 1: Parametrize by Proper Length. We will pick for our affine parameter $\lambda=s$ the proper length. Then the stress energy tensor becomes $$\tag{1}T^{\alpha\beta}(x)=m\int_{\gamma}u^{\alpha} u^{\beta}\frac{\delta^{(4)}\bigl(x,z(s)\bigr)}{\sqrt{|g|}}\,\mathrm{d}s$$ where $u^{\alpha}=\mathrm{d}x^{\alpha}/\mathrm{d}s$ and $g=\det{g_{\mu\nu}}$.

Trick 2: Covariant Derivative Trick. We can write $$\nabla_{\mu}f^{\mu}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\partial_{\mu}(\sqrt{|g|}f^{\mu})$$ for arbitrary $f^{\mu}$.

Exercise: Using Poisson's notation (13.2), we have $$\delta(x,x') = \frac{\delta^{(4)}(x-x')}{\sqrt{|g|}} = \frac{\delta^{(4)}(x-x')}{\sqrt{|g'|}}$$ and thus using our Covariant Derivative trick, find $$\nabla_{\mu}\delta(x,x')=???$$

This will tell you that $$\int u^{\alpha}u^{\beta}\nabla_{\alpha}\delta(x,x')\,\mathrm{d}s = \mbox{boundary terms}$$ and thus we can ignore it.

Remark 1. You are in error writing \begin{alignedat}{1}\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha\beta} & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda}=\\ & =m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)d\lambda-m{\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\nabla_{\nu}\left[\delta_{4}\left(x,z\right)\right]d\lambda,}} \end{alignedat} This should have been a simple application of the product rule. That is, the minus sign should be a plus sign.

Remark 2. Why should we expect the right hand side of $\nabla_{\beta}T^{\alpha\beta}=0$? Well, because using Einstein's field equation it's $\nabla_{\beta}G^{\alpha\beta}$ and this is identically zero.

This is why we set $$\tag{2}m\int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\beta}\left[\frac{g^{\alpha}{}_{\mu}g^{\beta}{}_{\nu}\dot{z}^{\mu}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}}\right]\delta\bigl(x,z\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}\lambda=0.$$ ...which is precisely the geodesic equation for a point particle as discussed in Poisson's article section 3.

Edit We can rewrite (2) since ${g^{\alpha}}_{\beta}={\delta^{\alpha}}_{\beta}$ is the Kronecker delta. So $$\tag{3}m\int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\nu}\left[\frac{\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\nu}}{\sqrt{-g_{\alpha\beta}\dot{z}^{\alpha}\dot{z}^{\beta}}}\right]\delta\bigl(x,z\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}\lambda=0.$$ But if we pick the arclength as the parameter, this becomes simply $$\tag{4}m\int_{\gamma}\nabla_{\nu}(u^{\alpha}u^{\nu})\delta\bigl(x,z\bigr)\,\mathrm{d}\lambda=0.$$ Great, but really is $$\tag{5}\nabla_{\nu}(u^{\alpha}u^{\nu})=0?$$ Lets recall for a geodesic using arclength parametrization we have $$u_{\mu}u^{\mu}=1\implies u_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}u^{\mu}=0.$$ Thus (5), when contracted by a non-negative vector (say $u_{\alpha}$) becomes \begin{alignedat}{1}u_{\alpha}\nabla_{\nu}(u^{\alpha}u^{\nu}) &= u_{\alpha}\underbrace{u^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}u^{\alpha}}_{=0} + \underbrace{u_{\alpha}u^{\alpha}}_{=1}\nabla_{\nu}u^{\nu}\\ &=\nabla_{\nu}u^{\nu}\end{alignedat} But this is a continuity-type equation (and if you use trick 2, it really resembles electromagnetism's continuity equation!).

Now we can go back, and by inspection we find $$\nabla_{\nu}(u^{\alpha}u^{\nu})=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mbox{Geodesic}\\ \mbox{Equation}\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}\mbox{Continuity}\\ \mbox{Equation}\end{array}\right).$$ This is, of course, $\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}$. Why should we expect it to be zero?

Well, if the Einstein field equations hold, then $$G^{\mu\nu}-\kappa T^{\mu\nu}=0$$ and moreover $$\nabla_{\mu}(G^{\mu\nu}-\kappa T^{\mu\nu})=0.$$ However, $\nabla_{\mu}G^{\mu\nu}=0$ identically thanks to geometry.

share|improve this answer
    
Oh I'm sorry I wrote my equations wrong. I copy pasted them and forgot to edit. I wasn't understanding what you meant by product rule since I've done it in the first divergence. It was because the second time I took the divergence I wrote the equation wrong. I believe that what you did is more rigorous but what I did at the very least isn't wrong. I find the same equation you did in the end but my problem is to figure how come that is the geodesic equation... Thank you for your time –  PML Oct 11 '12 at 8:25
    
@PML: I've updated my post with reasoning I was taught as far as "conservation law for point particle gives the geodesic equation". It answers your question, using a few tricks and slightly different notation; the short answer is: continuity type equation + geodesic equation = that last equation you've got. –  Alex Nelson Oct 11 '12 at 13:44
    
Thank you for your time and explaination. To tie things up: after your very nice presentation you basically say that the expression before Eq.(19.4), which is unnumbered, in Poisson review misses the continuity equation, right? –  PML Oct 11 '12 at 14:16
    
Right, which is why it appears as "bonus parts" which --- unless explained as a continuity equation --- seems problematical. Extra Point: when you include the electromagnetic field coupled to the point particle, you get the Lorentz force for free from the conservation of the stress-energy tensor. This miracle should be worked out by the reader! –  Alex Nelson Oct 11 '12 at 16:04
    
This is indeed excinting and really appears out of nowhere! Was that result known?I'm going to try to work out the details of what you're saying. –  PML Oct 11 '12 at 16:18
show 4 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.