If Geodesic are light cone, how can be test particle trajectiories

In summary, null geodesics are the light cones, time-like geodesics are the paths of massive objects in free-fall, and space-like geodesics are lines of constant x^i.
  • #1
spocchio
20
0
I had this doubt studing GR, but let's consider SR for semplicity,
where [itex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}[/itex]the geodesics are
[itex]0=ds^2=dt^2-dr^2[/itex]
we obtain the constraint we obtain the constraint r=(+/-)t

So it is a well known light cone, but in SR we have that a (test?)particle can always move in a line described by r=vt with v<c

Where this come from? seems to me that geodesics are just light cone and not trajectories allowed by common test particles.

In particular, given the metric tensor and the initial conditions of a particle(speed and position) how can be derived the line he follows?

I know there questions are trivial, but for a new player as me, GR seems very subtle and elusive.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In general, geodesics are not necessarily light cones.

Consider the geodesic equation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solving_the_geodesic_equations&oldid=425732007

In flat space-time the equations are particularly easy: If we have [itex]x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3[/itex] as our coordinates then the a geodesic is defined by

[tex]\frac{d^2 x^0} {ds^2} = \frac{d^2 x^1}{ds^2} = \frac{d^2 x^2}{ds^2} = \frac{d^2 x^3} {ds^2} = 0[/tex]

The general form of the solution is that all the [itex]x^i[/itex] are linear functions of s. Note that this is a parametric curve, and s is a parameter - if you select a value of s, you select one particular point on the geodesic curve.

You can break down the complete set of geodesic solutions into several subcategories:

1) timelike geodeics. These are timelike paths that a particle might follow In non-parametric form, these curves are just objects moving with a constant velocity

2) null geodesics - the previously mentioned light cone

3) space-like geodesics. An example of a space-like geodesic would be lines of constant [itex]x^i[/itex]
 
  • #3
Your assumption is wrong: geodesic and light cones are not the same, but different concepts.
 
  • #4
Huh, what should be the different,

as I just understood, with the geodesics equation I have a first order differential equation that should give me a "line" in the manifold given an initial point and an initial vector (velocity).

As i understood light cones are given by imposing [itex]0=ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu[/itex] that means the length of the curve is
[itex]\int{ds^2}=0[/itex] and so,
what is the meaning of the integral??

that, as I notice just now, it depends only from the metric tensor!
how this integral is related to light cones (if it is..but I'm quite sure it is related)?
what is the meaning of the integral, if ds does not vanish?
 
  • #5
I'm not sure what your question is, spocchio.

Netheril's remark is correct. To oversimplify slightly, all light cones are geodsics (this isn't quite right, actually, but it's very close *), but not all geodesics are light cones.

* A light cone is actually a surface traced out by geodiesics, not a geodesic itself.

I don't really have the time to repeat myself, trying different words - you can reread my post, or maybe someone else can explain it more clearly.
 
  • #6
As Pervect has stated, it's necessary to distinguish between null geodesics, time-like geodesics and the space-like kind.

As we all know, null geodesics are massless and traveling at c, time-like geodesics are the paths of massive bodies in free-fall and their proper length is the time on the observers clocks.

[I started this post without reading Pervects post properly - but if a point is worth making, it's worth making twice].
 

1. How are geodesic paths related to light cones?

Geodesic paths describe the shortest distance between two points on a curved surface, while light cones represent the path of light in spacetime. In special relativity, light cones are also used to define the possible trajectories of objects with mass. Therefore, geodesic paths and light cones are connected through the concept of spacetime curvature.

2. Can we test particle trajectories using geodesic paths?

Yes, geodesic paths can be used to predict the trajectory of a particle in curved spacetime. This is because the shortest distance between two points on a curved surface is always along a geodesic path. By calculating the geodesic equation, we can determine the path that a test particle will follow in a given curved spacetime.

3. How do we determine if a particle is following a geodesic path?

We can determine if a particle is following a geodesic path by comparing its trajectory to the geodesic equation. If the particle's path matches the equation, then it is following a geodesic. However, it is important to note that in the presence of external forces, such as gravity, the particle's path may deviate from a geodesic.

4. Are geodesic paths only applicable in curved spacetime?

Yes, geodesic paths are a concept that is specific to curved spacetime. In flat spacetime, such as in Newtonian physics, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. However, in curved spacetime, the geometry is affected by the presence of mass and energy, causing geodesic paths to deviate from straight lines.

5. How can we use geodesic paths to study the effects of gravity?

Geodesic paths play an important role in understanding the effects of gravity in general relativity. By studying the paths of particles in the presence of massive objects, we can determine the curvature of spacetime and how it affects the motion of objects. This allows us to make predictions about the behavior of massive objects, such as planets and stars, in the presence of gravity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
929
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
531
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
4K
Back
Top