A Can you numerically calculate the stress-energy tensor from the metric?

quickAndLucky
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
About 10 years ago I worked on a project where I took a mater distribution and numerically solved for spatial curvature. Can this be done in the opposite direction?

Can anybody point me to a resource that would allow me to calculate matter distributions when the metric is specified?

What are the tools used in numerical relativity today?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you literally mean to specify a metric and calculate the required stress-energy then it's trivial, just a lot of partial derivatives. As long as your metric is twice differentiable in each of the coordinates then you can grind your way through it analytically if you want. Any GR textbook will have the maths. Sean Carroll's lecture notes are free online and have the necessary (edit: even Wikipedia will do the job). Typically, though, the resulting stress-energy tensor isn't really plausible - negative energy densities and the like.

If you want a plausible stress-energy distribution then you end up having to write differential equations for the dynamics of the stress-energy and feed that into the Einstein field equations, and that isn't much different from what you did ten years ago. You wouldn't be specifying the metric so much as specifying the relationship between the metric and the stress-energy distribution and then solving the resulting differential equations.
 
  • Like
Likes quickAndLucky
Great thanks will have a look at Carrol. I'm specifically interested in metrics of closed spaces where boundary points are identified, like a cylinder or tourus. Any extra complications you think ill run into because of strange boundary conditions?
 
As far as I'm aware you are effectively applying periodic boundary conditions to a topologically simple spacetime. As long as you use coordinates where the repetition is easy to specify I don't see why there'd be a problem. I've given that all of five minutes' thought, though, so I wouldn't bet too heavily on it. Some searching on arXiv would probably be worthwhile.
 
  • Like
Likes quickAndLucky
quickAndLucky said:
About 10 years ago I worked on a project where I took a mater distribution and numerically solved for spatial curvature. Can this be done in the opposite direction?

Can anybody point me to a resource that would allow me to calculate matter distributions when the metric is specified?

What are the tools used in numerical relativity today?

From the metric g_uv, you calculate the Einstein tensor G_uv. This can be done analytically, though I suppose you could do it numerically. You might have noise issues from computing the second order partial derivateves numerically, though.

Then ## T_{uv} = \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G} G_{uv}## by Einstein's field equations.

For an analytical analysis, you can use programs such as GRTensor, Maxima, or Mathematica. Maxima is free, GRTensor requires the non-free Maple to run, and is showing it's age. I haven't use Mathematica's tensor packages, they should be well maintained, but I'm not sure what features they have.
 
  • Like
Likes quickAndLucky
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top