Timeline for Doubt regarding stress-energy tensor definition
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2015 at 3:43 | vote | accept | Physics Llama | ||
| Feb 9, 2015 at 2:24 | comment | added | Timaeus | @PhysicsLlama I'm not seeing the example come up. I see it come up all the time though and it is unfortunate. Think of it as an energy density versus an energy and you should be fine. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 2:22 | comment | added | Physics Llama | Here's an example of the use in two different ways: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux In the section "General mathematical definition (transport)" they use the meaning used in the stress energy tensor, while in the section "General mathematical definition (surface integral)" they use the other meaning, the one I initially had in mind. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 2:16 | comment | added | Physics Llama | Ok, with your edited version it makes sense now. That's really a pity, I had no idea there was such an ambiguity; I always took flux to be the integral of the tensor field over the hypersurface, but apparently in this context, the flux is the tensor field that's being integrated over. Just a vocabulary confusion, I guess. Thanks very much! | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 1:22 | history | edited | Timaeus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3297 characters in body
|
| Feb 9, 2015 at 0:49 | comment | added | Timaeus | @PhysicsLlama A flux and a density are the same, when you have a piece of a surface, the amount of stuff that goes through a small piece of it is proportional to the size of the piece. That constant is the density/flux, and density and flux are not separate concepts. I'll edit my answer to be more clear. | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 0:30 | comment | added | Physics Llama | So the idea of flux that I had was incorrect? It's essentially a density? Also, how, precisely, is this kind of flux defined? Could you link me to some references? | |
| Feb 8, 2015 at 22:57 | history | answered | Timaeus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |