1
$\begingroup$

I can't find the answer to the following question. Consider matter fields in General Relativity, assume it to be a perfect fluid. Then its equation of state is, by definition:

$$ w=\frac{p}{\rho} = \frac{T_{ii}}{T_{00}} $$

and typically $w$ can range from -1 to 1 when energy conditions are assumed. I have troubles to understand how this definition relates (or does not) relate to a microscopic derivation of the equation of state.

In particular, lets take a simple example. It is well known in GR that a massless scalar field, has a stress energy tensor such that its (GR) equation of state is $w=1$, ie stiff matter.

However, microscopically, a massless scalar field cannot be anything else than a massless ideal Bose gas, that must therefore obey $P= \rho/3$.

Where is (are?) the contradictions? Is it because we consider perfect fluids in GR? or because the thermodynamical pressure/energy are simply not defined in the same way in the two approaches?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ If I am not mistaken $T_{ii} = 3p$ (in the rest frame of the matter). $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 6, 2016 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ AFAIK gravity has not been quantized consistently, only effective field theories are used in cosmology. Scalars belong to a quantum mechanical frame, and GR is a different frame, until it is quantized consistently. I am in no position to answer your question, but in general it should not be surprising if inconsistencies do appear due to mixing two frameworks. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Jan 6, 2016 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ @SebastianRiese: I think the formula given for $w$ in the question implicitly assumes no summation over $i$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 6, 2016 at 20:31

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I think this is just due to the distinction between how scalar field are used in cosmology (where they are assumed to depend only on time) and the more general solutions (superpositions of plane waves, with spatial dependence) that would correspond to a massless Bose gas.

The stress-energy tensor for a massless scalar field is $$ T_{ab} = \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab} \nabla_c \phi \nabla^c \phi. $$ Now, if we're talking about some kind of quintessence field or a scalar to drive inflation, then we usually assume that $\phi$ depends only on some cosmic clock coordinate $t$, which is timelike. The stress-energy tensor then becomes $$ T_{tt} = T_{xx} = T_{yy} = T_{zz} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{\phi}^2 $$ and so we can identify $\rho = P$. Hence, $w = 1$ under this assumption.

However, if we allow $\phi$ to have behavior that's any more complicated than this, then the stress-energy tensor has a much more complicated form, and can't be interpreted as a perfect fluid any more. Even a simple plane-wave solution can't be interpreted as a perfect fluid any more: if $\phi = f(x - t)$, then we have $$ \nabla_\mu \phi = (-f', f', 0, 0). $$ This then leads to the fact that $\nabla_c \phi \nabla^c \phi = 0$ (which makes sense, since the propagation direction is a null direction.) Thus, we have $$ T_{tt} = T_{xx} = -T_{tx} = (f')^2, $$ which is not in the form of an isotropic perfect fluid: there are off-diagonal components, and the pressure is anisotropic.

Hopefully this convinces you that at the very least, you shouldn't expect a general solution for a massless scalar field to have $w = 1$. It's much more involved to show rigorously how you actually do get the equation of state for a Bose gas ($P = \rho/3$) if you take a general superposition of plane waves. If I have time later, I'll come back and add this in; however, here's a hand-waving sketch that will hopefully convince you:

First, we suppose that the stress-energy of a superposition of plane waves is equal to the sum of the stress-energy of each plane wave. This is not obvious, since the stress-energy is quadratic in $\phi$, not linear; but I believe it follows if you use a basis for your plane-wave solutions that has some nice orthogonality properties (like monochromatic plane waves, for example), and if you average over sufficiently large spatial volumes.

Next, we assume that our Bose gas is isotropic. This means that for every contribution to $T_{ab}$ from a wave traveling in the $+x$-direction, there will be a plane wave of equal amplitude traveling in the $-x$-direction as well. It's not too hard to see that the off-diagonal contribution from a plane wave of the form $e^{i(t-x)}$ will be exactly cancelled by the off-diagonal contribution from a plane wave of the form $e^{i(t+x)}$. (Try putting $\phi = f(t+x)$ in the plane wave derivation above and see what happens.)

Thus, each monochromatic plane wave contributes a certain amount of energy density to the stress-energy tensor, and the same amount of pressure to one of the space-space components. But if we assume that we have an isotropic distribution of plane waves, then there will be equal contributions to the $xx$-, $yy$-, and $zz$-components of $T_{ab}$. For all three of these directions, the plane waves that contributed to them will have contributed that same amount to $T_{tt}$. Thus, we must have $T_{tt} = 3 T_{xx} = 3 T_{yy} = 3 T_{zz}$, or $P = \rho/3$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Michael, thank you for the answer. I quite agree with you, and I know how to derive the 1/3 from statistical physics. But then I could reformulate the question in this way: what is the microscopic state of a Bose gas that could correspond to the cosmological fluid? Ie. can an homogeneous scalar field be described as some superposition of scalar plane waves (= particles), or is it true that the background value of a field does NOT have a particle-like description? In particular, a cosmological scalar field is indeed homogeneous and isotropic. Following your last argument, you should get 1/3. $\endgroup$
    – Jip
    Commented Jan 11, 2016 at 10:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Jip: If we're really talking about a massless scalar ($V = 0$), then the solution in flat spacetime would be $\phi = C_1 t + C_2$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are constants. In other words, the field is entirely in its spatial zero-modes (I'm not sure how, or if, this state can be interpreted as a particle state.) You're correct that this state does not have $P = \rho/3$, but $\vec{k} = 0$ is the only mode in $k$-space with this property; and when we average over $k$-space in some suitable way, this special mode has measure zero and doesn't affect the averaging. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2016 at 18:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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