A Weinberg's proof of ##{T^{\mu\nu}}_{,\nu}=0## for a perfect fluid

Kostik
Messages
274
Reaction score
32
TL;DR Summary
His proof is hard to follow, can someone help?
Weinberg ("Gravitation and Cosmology") defines the energy-momentum tensor ##T^{\mu\nu}## in equations (2.8.1)-(2.8.2). He proves $${T^{\mu\nu}}_{,\nu}=0$$ on page 44. But:

(1) Why does he have a minus sign at the very beginning; see the equation which starts $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}T^{\alpha i}(x,t) =$$ when there is no such minus sign in (2.8.2)?

(2) How does he do what looks like an integration by parts (third equality) when there is no integration?

What makes his work more confusing is that on pp. 43-44 he alternately uses the notation ##({\bf{x}}t)##, ##(x)##, ##(x,t)## and ##({\bf{x}},t)##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kostik said:
His proof is hard to follow, can someone help?
(1) Weinberg gets his negative sign by using the identity: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right)\equiv -\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{n}^{i}}\delta^3\left(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_{n}\right)$$
(2) This is just the product rule for differentiation written in the form:$$-u\left(t\right)\frac{\partial v\left(t\right)}{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(u\left(t\right)v\left(t\right)\right)+\frac{\partial u\left(t\right)}{\partial t}v\left(t\right)$$
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and Kostik
Of course; thanks. I think I have found another proof, but I should have seen this.
 
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