This Mathematica notebook explains the derivation of the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor, a mathematical object used to describe the energy and momentum of a gravitational field in general relativity. Although not a true tensor, as it depends on the choice of coordinates and cannot be localized, the pseudotensor has useful properties such as being symmetric, having zero divergence in flat spacetime, and being conserved in asymptotically flat spacetime. The concept of the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor is introduced, which is a true tensor that combines energy, mass, momentum, and their fluxes and stresses. Derived from the action principle, the SEM tensor satisfies conservation law in flat spacetime. However, in curved spacetime, it is not conserved due to the presence of a gravitational field. A pseudotensor that locally has zero divergence is then found and corrected for curvature effects. The pseudotensor can be obtained in terms of second derivatives of the metric tensor, which characterizes the geometry of spacetime. It is constructed from the Einstein tensor, related to the Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar, which are in turn related to the Riemann tensor containing all information about spacetime curvature. A computer algebra system called xTensor is used to perform calculations and simplify expressions. Another way to obtain the pseudotensor is in terms of first derivatives of the metric tensor. This form is more convenient for some applications such as calculating gravitational radiation emitted by a system. The pseudotensor can also be obtained in terms of first derivatives of the metric density, a modified version of the metric tensor that includes a factor of
The Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor,
A complex concept to remember.
The stress-energy distribution
Is to the gravity contribution.
It's a mathematical tool,
To study the gravitational pool,
It helps us understand,
The space-time curvature at hand.
It's a subtle concept, not easy to grasp,
But it holds the key, to unlock the past,
Of our understanding, of the universe,
And the forces that govern it, diverse.
So let us honor Landau-Lifshitz,
By delving in their study which is
About gravity, and the laws involved,
And get this pseudotensor solved.
Anonymous
This Mathematica notebook is a detailed workout of the main part of [1] (the Book). The derivation of Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor is rightly considered as one of the hardest and most calculation-intensive parts of the Book. This is especially true for the calculation of the pseudotensor in terms of Christoffels (eq. LL96,8) and metric densities (eq. LL96,9)(LL
in front of the equation number means that the equation is from the Book). The Book chapter §96 starts with relatively simple expressions but very quickly they turn into a morass of indices through substitutions and decompositions. The calculation of the final formulae can proceed by several different paths with branching in different steps of the calculation chain. A somewhat different and quite original approach for finding a similar pseudotensor is pursued the J.L.Synge' s masterpiece [2], where a surprising shortcut avoids a large part of the tedium. In a subsequent post, I'll show evidence that Synge's pseudotensor is somewhat different than the Landau-Lifshitz (LL) pseudotensor despite the widespread opinion that they are just different derivations of the same pseudotensor.
Computations in this research field, although relatively uncomplicated, were not, until recently, amenable to computer algebra treatment because most tensor packages in general purpose programs, such as Mathematica and Maple, hadn't the full capability to work directly with indexed tensors (indicial notation) and most functions acted on components. This involved conversion of indexed tensors to matrices of components and operation with the matrices, which is computationally intensive and in many cases, not really required. On the other hand, tensor algebra in textbooks and papers is performed on indexed tensors, whose component structure in many cases is not known or not relevant for the problem at hand. More recent tensor packages, like Tensorial and xTensor for Mathematica, Riegeom for Maple, and itensor (indicial tensor) for Maxima allow direct manipulation of indexed tensors. The following exposition uses xTensor by José M.Martín - García at the xAct site and some of the accompanying packages. The software version used is Mathematica 11.0. The Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor example is a good test of xTensor as it clearly outlines its strong and weak points.
The simplification procedures in the package xTensor are automated to a very large degree and use the so-called "canonicalization", a process in which individual terms in a tensor sum are converted in some canonical form that makes them more uniform and non-reducible. On the other hand, automatism means less transparency. Therefore, when deriving LL96,8 and LL96,9 the automatic routine will be accompanied with somewhat less automatic and more transparent calculations.
Energy and momentum conservation principle in general relativity
Two of the most popular definitions of the combined Energy and Momentum Conservation Principle (EMCP) are:
- the energy and momentum of a closed isolated system are conserved
- the stress - energy - momentum tensor of a closed isolated system is a constant quantity
The second definition is preferred in theoretical physics. The stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor,
where Λ is the Lagrange function and q is a generalised coordinate. EMCP requires that the SEM tensor is constant. Imagine the closed isolated system as a volume (Universe, black hole), enclosed by an impenetrable envelope such that no matter or radiation can pass through. The SEM tensor within the enclosed volume is constant: there is no tensor flow through the envelope. Tensor flow, or tensor divergence, is the sum of partial derivatives of tensor components with respect to coordinates (similar to vector divergence). From the equations of motion it follows that divergence should be zero according to LL32,4:
which is, of course, the EMCP. In the middle of the above equation the ordinary derivatives are given with the simpler comma notation. In a similar mood, covariant derivatives will be marked with semi-colons.
Presence of gravitation spoils this clear picture in several ways. Gravitation curves space. In curved space, tensor (and vector) flows are ill-defined because they change direction in each point. Parallel transfer, which is essential for definition of derivatives, is very complicated on curved paths. Derivatives are only obtained after making corrections for the curvature – one correction for each tensor index. These corrected derivatives are known as covariant derivatives. In curved space, ordinary derivatives are replaced by covariant ones:
But
Does this equation express the conservation of energy and momentum in curved space-time or, in other words, can it be turned to zero? The answer is emphatically NO and that' s why : Let
where
This condition is not, however, met in eq. LL96,1, where the additional term
Taking up the above analogy, the volume that contains the SEM tensor itself stretches, shrinks, and moves in every imaginable way. It cannot be bound in an envelope with zero volume. The spacetime itself generates tensor flows. Do what you want, you can’t just ignore or remove the second term. Failure to do so means nothing less than the startling conclusion: in the curved spacetime of general relativity, the EMCP is no longer valid. Whether this is real or apparent remains subject to interpretation. It is easy to see, however, that this result can be expected from what we know from elementary physics. In the heart of the concept of the energy conservation principle is the assumption that space is isotropic while the momentum conservation principle requires symmetric space. Both isotropy and symmetry are no longer assumed in curved spacetime. The energy and momentum conservation principles fail in principle. The very basis on which they are built sinks into a quicksand. Is there a way to salvage something?
In search of symmetry
Many efforts have been and are being made to sidetrack this important unsolvable problem. Landau-Lifshitz turned their attention to a couple of possible loopholes.
First, as pointed by Einstein, it is always possible to flatten the space (make it pseudo-Euclidean) in the neighbourhood of a point (locally), or, in other words, it is always possible to locally extinguish the field by, e.g., choosing such a frame that all first derivatives of the metric
becomes after eliminating the first derivatives of the metric and metric determinant:
so that the offending terms disappear; this means that the tiny volume around this point can be enclosed in an envelope into which EMCP is valid. In contravariant form it is:
Second, the above identity does not fix
DefTensor[η[i,k,l],M4,Antisymmetric[{2,3}]];
** DefTensor: Defining tensor η[i,k,l].
differentiate the above twice by k and l, equate to 0, canonicalize and check if true:(PD[-l]@PD[-k]@η[i,k,l] == 0) // ToCanonical
true
which proves the identity.
The possibility to locally fulfill EMCP gives the idea to find a SEM tensor that locally has a zero divergence and then correct it to make it valid globally, in curved spacetime. An inkling to the nature of this correction may be taken from the analogous case with the covariant derivatives. There all corrections contain Christoffel symbols which are composed from first derivatives of the metric tensor. The way to make the required SEM tensor is already obvious: it must be such antisymmetric expression that upon differentiation becomes a second derivative which is identically zero. When constructing it, we must throw out all first metric derivatives that would prevent the expression from turning to zero. To put
RHSEinstein = EinsteinCD[i, k] // EinsteinToRicci
Define Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar in terms of Riemann tensor
RicciToRiemann = RicciCD[i_, k_] :> metricg[i, m] metricg[k, p] metricg[l, n] RiemannCD[-l, -m, -n, -p];
RicciScalarToRiemann = RicciScalarCD[] :> metricg[l, n] metricg[m, p] RiemannCD[-l, -m, -n, -p];
Decompose the Einstein tensor as usual to Ricci tensor and Ricci scalar and then turn them to Riemann tensor using the above definitions. The Ricci tensor is substituted according to (LL92,9) and the scalar curvature according to (LL92,12) both in terms of the Riemann tensor.
RHSEinstein /. RicciToRiemann;
Energy = % //. RicciScalarToRiemann // Expand
Define Riemann tensor as second metric derivatives and Christoffel symbols (first metric derivatives) according to LL92, 1.
RiemannSecondDerivatives = RiemannCD[-i_, -k_, -l_, -m_] :> 1/2 (-PD[-m][PD[-k][metricg[-i, -l]]] + PD[-l][PD[-k][metricg[-i, -m]]] + PD[-m][PD[-i][metricg[-k, -l]]] - PD[-l][PD[-i][metricg[-k, -m]]]) + metricg[-r, -q] (ChristoffelCD[r, -k, -l] ChristoffelCD[ q, -i, -m] - ChristoffelCD[r, -k, -m] ChristoffelCD[q, -i, -l]);
Express the curvature part of the Einstein equations (the Einstein tensor) as second metric derivatives and Christoffels
EnergyTensor = Energy /. RiemannSecondDerivatives // ToCanonical
In the locality first-order derivatives disappear (this means that the Christoffel-containing terms also disappear) which leaves only terms with second-order derivatives (step 1 elimination of first-order derivatives)
% /. {ChristoffelCD[l_, -m_, -n_] -> 0}
Now the dummy indices are shuffled in such a way that the covariant tensors all become
The expression in parenthesis can be abbreviated as a 6-rank tensor
and according to the well-known formula from calculus, the differentiation can be distributed over the product:
The second term in the right-hand side disappears, because it contains first-order metric derivatives (step 2 elimination of first-order derivatives), and
With the help of (LL86, 7):
(LL83, 10):
A property of the Kronecker symbol is
l and m are dummy indices in the whole expression (when it is doubly differentiated) which allows exchanging their places
The calculus formula for differentiation of a product (in reverse):
The distributive property of the differentiation operator, collection of
Once more the calculus formula for differentiation of a product in reverse and substitutions of
This leads to (LL96, 2) for
It is easy to check (LL96, 4)
To summarize, the final expression for the SEM tensor in the special point as a result of the above transformations is:
For the following discussion we need this expression somewhat rearranged. Namely, the constant
The quantity in the braces corresponds to
and is antisymmetric for indices k, l while the quantity under the brackets corresponds to (LL96,3)
Note that first order derivatives we eliminated at two steps.
and
etaikl = PD[-m][-Detmetricg[]*(metricg[i, k]*
metricg[l, m] - metricg[i, l]*metricg[k, m])];
Simplification[PD[-l]@PD[-k]@etaikl] == 0
true
Finally, let's prove that
gTik = PD[-l][
PD[-m][-Detmetricg[] (metricg[i, k] metricg[l, m] -
metricg[i, l] metricg[k, m])]];
ToCanonical[Antisymmetrize[gTik]] == 0
true
Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor in canonical form
The nice and pliable SEM tensor obtained above whose divergence disappears automatically just by dint of symmetry (or, more precisely, antisymmetry) so that it fulfills EMCP, does not work outside the very small flat locality of the point that we chose. Remember that in its derivation above we threw out first derivatives of the metric tensor at a few steps. First derivatives usually combine to form connections (Christoffel symbols) and these last are directly connected to curvature. So we may expect that outside our flat neighborhood first derivatives will reappear to play a prominent role as corrections for curvature in the same way as they act in covariant derivatives. We have every reason to expect, then, that
I'll first decompose the Christoffels in the Einstein tensor into first metric derivatives
EnergyInMetric = EnergyTensor // ChristoffelToGradMetric
EnergyInMetric = % // ToCanonical
Enter the antisymmetric form which was enclosed in the parenthesis of the pseudotensor in the special point (
AntisymTerm = -Detmetricg[](metricg[i, k] metricg[l, m] - metricg[i, l] metricg[k, m]);
First differentiation by ,m gives
DifAntiSym = PD[-m][-Detmetricg[] AntisymTerm]//ToCanonical
The second differentiation gives 6 terms with second derivatives which are the same as those derived in the decomposition of Einstein tensor. Note also that the metric determinants
DifDifAntiSym = -1/Detmetricg[] PD[-l][DifAntiSym] // ToCanonical
The final pseudotensor is obtained by the formula
LLCanonical = (DifDifAntiSym - EnergyInMetric) // ToCanonical
Substracting the 14 terms with first derivatives in Einstein tensor from the 20 such terms in the antisymmetric expression gives the 16 terms in the canonical LL pseudotensor. As expected, all second derivatives cancel. Because the canonical form is important for the subsequent derivations, we will number the individual terms and colour them with the help of the module ExpressionManipulation in xAct
LLCanonical = % // ColorTerms
Simplification is very efficient : out of the 103 terms in the original expanded and unsimplified expression, only 16 very similar terms are left in the canonical form. Each term consists of 4 contravariant metric tensors and 2 first derivatives of covariant metrics. Note that the second metric derivatives cancel completely; this is to be expected since the second derivatives in
As said above, the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor is symmetric for the free indices i and k but this is not evident from the canonical form. The symmetry can be checked by antisymmetrizing
ToCanonical[Antisymmetrize[LLCanonical, {i, k}]] == 0
true
This proves that the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor is symmetric; however, it remains pseudotensor in the sense that it changes with change of coordinates, it changes from place to place, or, in other words, it cannot be localized. This is because the canonical form contains ordinary partial derivatives (commas) instead of covariant derivatives (semi-colons). Ordinary derivatives depend on coordinates unlike covariant derivatives which are invariant. If a combination can be found in which all derivatives are covariant then the pseudotensor will turn to tensor. I am aware of one such attempt, by Babak & Grishchuk [5] which remains controversial [6] (to be detailed in a subsequent post).
Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor in Christoffels (LL96,8)
Several generations of theoretical physics students (and many of their professors) have repeatedly given up in their efforts to derive the above formula. Newer books and textbooks when citing the LL pseudotensor and, specifically formula LL96,8, never give its derivation apart from, sometimes, mentioning that it is obtained after some technical work. For example, Moshe Carmeli in his textbook based on lectures that the author read in the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Stony Brook, NY and in Ben Gurion University, Israel, relegated derivations of LL96,8 and the formula for ...after a rather lengthy calculation, we find the following expression for
. Here, we'll first derive LL96,8 following the LL way with a somewhat less automated use of xTensor to show the intermediate calculations, then derive LL96,8 from the canonical pseudotensor in a fully automated way and checking that formulae derived by the two ways are identical. Last, we'll check that LL96,8 in the form given in the Book is identical to the formulae derived by us.
The shortest path to obtain the LL pseudotensor in terms of Christoffels is to start from LL96,2
Now it's time to use xTensor but before we do it is necessary to make a couple of adjustments in order to avoid its automatic canonicalisation which could prevent us from seeing the intermediate calculations. First, instead of treating
DefTensor[g[i, k], {M4}, Symmetric[{1, 2}], PrintAs -> "g"];
** DefTensor: Defining tensor g[i,k].
Above we defined an ordinary symmetric
lambdaiklm = -1/2 g (g[i, k] g[l, m] - g[i, l] g[k, m]);
and expressed
FirstPD = PD[-m][lambdaiklm] // ToCanonical
we obtained 6 terms with 3 multipliers each (excluding the coefficients). Thus, if nothing is cancelled, we expect 18 terms after the second differentiation by
SecondPD = PD[-l][FirstPD] // ToCanonical
These are 15 terms, so canonicalisation has effectively cancelled 3 terms (those without the coefficient
SecondPD //. MakeRule[{PD[-l][g[i, k]], - g[k, m] ChristoffelCD[i, -m, -l] - g[i, m] ChristoffelCD[k, -m, -l]}];
% //. MakeRule[{PD[-l][g], 2 g ChristoffelCD[p, -l, -p]}]
$
Now divide to
hikll = %/(-g) // ToCanonical
These are 16 terms with single derivatives and 4 terms with double derivatives (the bottom row).
Further, for the decomposition of the Einstein tensor
Gik = RicciCD[i, k] - 1/2 g[i, k] RicciScalarCD[];
RicciDown = RicciCD[i_, k_] :> g[i, l] g[k, m] RicciCD[-l, -m];
RicciScalarDown = RicciScalarCD[] :> g[l, m] RicciCD[-l, -m];
RicciToChristoffel =
MakeRule[{RicciCD[-i, -k],
PD[-l][ChristoffelCD[l, -i, -k]] -
PD[-k][ChristoffelCD[l, -i, -l]] +
ChristoffelCD[l, -i, -k] ChristoffelCD[m, -l, -m] -
ChristoffelCD[m, -i, -l] ChristoffelCD[l, -k, -m]}];
Gik /. {RicciDown, RicciScalarDown};
Gik = % /. RicciToChristoffel // ToCanonical
Note that the bottom rows of
tik = (hikll - Gik) // ToCanonical
This is the expression for
Obtaining LL96,8 from the canonical pseudotensor (the one with lower metric derivatives) is rather straightforward and automatic with the function GradMetricToChristoffel. This function is nothing more that an inbuilt formula
PseudoInChristoffels = LLCanonical // GradMetricToChristoffel
Next, we'll canonicalise (simplify) the above expression with the function ToCanonical and then use function ColorTerms from subpackage ExpressionManipulation in xAct to colorise and number terms.
FromCanonical = PseudoInChristoffels // ToCanonical // ColorTerms
Visual comparison between the LL pseudotensor obtained by the way given in the Book and the one obtained from the canonical pseudotensor shows that they are identical even down to the term ordering. But we can use the machine to check it.
(tik - FromCanonical) == 0
true
We proved that the pseudotensors obtained by two different ways are identical but we still have not proven that these are identical to LL96,8 as printed in the Book. For this purpose, we'll manually enter LL96,8 exactly as in the Book:
ManualEnter = (-(ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -n])/ 2 - (ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -n]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -p])/2 + ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -m]*ChristoffelCD[p, -n, -p])*metricg[i, l]* metricg[k, m] + ((ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -n] + ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -n]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -p] - 2*ChristoffelCD[n, -l, -m]*ChristoffelCD[p, -n, -p])* metricg[i, k]*metricg[l, m])/ 2 + ((-(ChristoffelCD[k, -n, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -l, -m]) + ChristoffelCD[k, -m, -n]*ChristoffelCD[p, -l, -p] + ChristoffelCD[k, -l, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -n] - ChristoffelCD[k, -l, -m]*ChristoffelCD[p, -n, -p])* metricg[i, l]*metricg[m, n])/ 2 + ((-(ChristoffelCD[i, -n, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -l, -m]) + ChristoffelCD[i, -m, -n]*ChristoffelCD[p, -l, -p] + ChristoffelCD[i, -l, -p]*ChristoffelCD[p, -m, -n] - ChristoffelCD[i, -l, -m]*ChristoffelCD[p, -n, -p])* metricg[k, l]*metricg[m, n])/ 2 + ((ChristoffelCD[i, -l, -n]*ChristoffelCD[k, -m, -p] - ChristoffelCD[i, -l, -m]*ChristoffelCD[k, -n, -p])* metricg[l, m]*metricg[n, p])/2
If the automatically found pseudotensor is identical to the manually entered one, the difference between the two should be zero.
ToCanonical[PseudoInChristoffels - ManualEnter] == 0
true
Yes, they are identical.
Another way to prove the manually entered LL96,8 is to transform it to the canonical form with the xTensor routine ChristoffelToGradMetric, simplify it with the tensorial simplification (contractions, correct re-indexing), expand it and then subtract the automatically obtained canonical pseudotensor. The result should be again zero.
ManualEnter // ChristoffelToGradMetric // Simplification // Expand;
Simplification[% - LLCanonical] == 0
true
Correct again for both manual and automatic.
All this proves that the pseudotensor in Christoffels that we obtained automatically with GradMetricToChristoffel in principle can be made the same as LL96,8 by rearranging the dummy indexes individually in the 16 terms so that the metric combinations with equal indexes could be factored in the same terms as in LL96,8. However, xTensor automatically re-indexes with the default index combinations putting the Christoffel indices in front of the metric tensors and I could not find a way to switch this off. Correspondingly, the index ordering begins at the Christoffel symbols and metric tensors take the later dummies. So the custom indexing and then collecting has to be done manually as I have done in previous chapters. This is done below and it is easy to see that if we factor by metric tensors, we shall come exactly to LL96,8.
Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor in metric densities (LL96,9)
The most used form of the LL pseudotensor is the one derived in terms of metric densities, or, what some authors call "gothic g metric" because this metric density is defined as
If there is some more difficult formula than LL96,8, it is LL96,9. I know of only one attempt to derive it, or more accurately, to derive the Einstein tensor in
First we need to define the tensor
DefTensor[\[GothicG][i, k], {M4}, Symmetric[{1, 2}]];
** DefTensor: Defining tensor \[GothicG][i,k].
In order to show more intermediate calculations, we'll again use a general symmetric tensor and a scalar instead of metric tensor and its determinant.
g[] LLCanonical //. MakeRule[{metricg[-i, -k], g[-i, -k]}];
It is most important to transform all
Reversing this chain, we have the needed transform
Substituting this transform in the canonical pseudotensor multiplied by
% //. MakeRule[{g[i, k] PD[-l][g[-i, -k]], g[-i, -k] PD[-l][\[GothicG][i, k]]/Sqrt[-g[]]}] // ToCanonical
The 16 term of the canonical pseudotensor are preserved but the substitution is acting in about half of them. Now we'll make the more frequent transform
From the above we have in reverse
However, there is a problem in this transform. The derivative
Raw substitution of this transform is
% //. MakeRule[{g[i, k] PD[-l][g[-i, -m]], 1/2 delta[k, -m] g[-i, -n] PD[-l][\[GothicG][i, n]]/Sqrt[-g[]] - g[-i, -m] PD[-l][\[GothicG][i, k]]/Sqrt[-g[]]}]
Canonicalising this longish and awkward-looking expression with possible 46 terms gives a surprisingly regular expression with only 14 terms (2 terms less than the canonical LL pseudotensor)
% // ToCanonical
Because instead of metric we put a regular symmetric tensor, expressions of the type
GothicMetric = % //. MakeRule[{g[-m, -p] g[m, n], delta[n, -p]}] // ToCanonical
Looks like this is it. These are 10 terms like in LL96,9 and their structure looks the same. To check this, we'll manually enter LL96,9 exactly in the form given in the Book.
ManualLLDensity = -1/2 (PD[-l][\[GothicG][i, k]] PD[-m][\[GothicG][l, m]] - PD[-l][\[GothicG][i, l]] PD[-m][\[GothicG][k, m]] + 1/2 metricg[i, k] metricg[-l, -m] PD[-p][\[GothicG][l, n]] PD[-n][\[GothicG][p, m]] - metricg[i, l] metricg[-m, -n] PD[-p][\[GothicG][k, n]] PD[-l][\[GothicG][m, p]] - metricg[k, l] metricg[-m, -n] PD[-p][\[GothicG][i, n]] PD[-l][\[GothicG][m, p]] + metricg[-l, -m] metricg[n, p] PD[-n][\[GothicG][i, l]] PD[-p][\[GothicG][k, m]] + 1/8 (2 metricg[i, l] metricg[k, m] -metricg[i, k] metricg[l, m]) (2 metricg[-n, -p] metricg[-q, -r] - metricg[-p, -q] metricg[-n, -r]) PD[-l][\[GothicG][n, r]] PD[-m][\[GothicG][p, q]])
To emphasize the structure, I'll number and colorize terms with ColorTerms
ManualLLDensity // Expand;
% // ColorTerms
If the manually entered pseudotensor is equal to the one obtained here, then their difference should be zero.
ToCanonical[ManualLLDensity - GothicMetric] == 0
true
This proves that the
Let's check if the substitution
ToCanonical[ManualLLDensity //. {\[GothicG][i_, k_] -> Sqrt[Detmetricg[]] metricg[i, k]}] == ToCanonical[Detmetricg[] LLCanonical]
true
This is a proof that the
Metric density and metric determinant and why they are important
So, why is this fashion to have metric density derivatives instead of just metric or Christoffel derivatives? Why the gothic metric form of the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor is the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor and the other forms are ignored by the literature? And why this insistence to put
No, this is not because the metric density form is shorter (10 vs 16 terms) although this makes sense in terms of paper economy. The reason is more important, and, in short, it is the need for the pseudotensor (as well as the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor) to be integrated over the curved spacetime. As we know, all (pseudo)tensors discussed here contain coordinate derivatives in various forms and in order to calculate those over some space (star, black hole, Universe, etc.) we have to integrate by volume or area. This is especially important for the SEM (pseudo)tensor whose conservation laws are in integral form. For example, formula 95,1 in Landau-Lifshitz [1] includes the integral
The key here is the volume element. As we know, in the flat 3-dimensional (Euclidean) space the elementary volume
Passing to the 4-dimensional flat spacetime of Special Relativity (Minkowski spacetime), its metric is
Let's transform the tensor
Let the new curvilinear coordinates are
(new coordinates are above). By the product rule of determinants, the determinant of the product of
The following determinants are involved:
The above substitutions allows us to continue the chain of calculations
So,
Its volume is determined by the scalar triple product (in the 3-dimensional case) of its sides
Thus, the volume of the 3-dimensional parallelepiped is finally some
This allows to generalise the volume in 4-dimensions as a
Further generalisation using vectors and tensors is to represent the elementary volume determinant through the Levi-Civita symbol
Let's see how Levi-Civita symbol (tensor) changes upon change of coordinates from Gallilean
This proves that multiplication of the volume element by
The product of the Jacobian with a scalar, vector or tensor makes the respective scalar, vector or tensor density which is usually written with gothic version of the respective letter. The power of the Jacobian is called weight
Let
A nearly similar result is obtained for tensors. The integral
Physical quantities are of two main kinds, e.g. field of acceleration is the intensity of some condition at a point, and momentum is the quantity of something in a volume. The latter kind are naturally expressed as so much per unit mesh
. Hence intensity is naturally described by a tensor, and quantity by a tensor density. That's why we find action
in a large region is independent of the coordinates. In short, tensor analysis (except in the degenerate case of invariants) deals with things located at a point and not spread over a large region; that is why we usually have to use densities instead of quantities.

Alternatively we can express a physical quantity of the second kind as so much per unit natural volume
; it is then represented by a tensor. From the physical point of view it is perhaps as rational to express it in this way, as to express it by a tensor density so much per unit mesh
. But analytically this is a somewhat hybrid procedure, because we seem to be employing simultaneously two systems of coordinates, the one openly for measuring the physical quantity, the other (a natural system) implicitly for measuring the volume containing it. It cannot be considered wrong in a physical sense to represent quantities of the second kind by tensors; but the analysis exposes our sub-conscious reference to
In any kind of space-time it is possible to choose coordinates such that
Turning our attention to metric tensor
Now this is interesting. It follows that
In this respect, metric densities act very similar to metric tensors. Furthermore, it can be directly proven that
I'll start with
Now I'll use the proof template for
In conclusion, this post gave the complete derivation of the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor in its various forms: in metrics, in Christoffel symbols, and in metric densities. It also explained why the metric densities formulation (Gothic metric) is preferred. The exposition was directed exclusively towards the computational technicalities and nothing was said about the physical meaning of these forms. Such physical considerations, and also a comparison of the LL pseudotensor with the closely related Synge's and Fock pseudotensors will be included in the next post.
Citation
This preprint can be cited as: Antonov, Lyudmil. Landau-Lifshitz stress-energy pseudotensor. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27292.36483/2
Work in progress
ReplyDelete