- #1
- 10,877
- 422
Wald (p. 41) defines a geodesic as a curve whose tangent vector satisfies
[tex]T^a\nabla_aT^b=0[/tex] . . . . . (3.3.1)
Then he says that we could have defined it by requiring
[tex]T^a\nabla_aT^b=\alpha T^b[/tex] . . . . . (3.3.2)
instead, where [itex]\alpha[/itex] is "an arbitrary function on the curve", but we choose the former because a reparametrization can turn the second equation into the first anyway. He calls a parameter such that the first equation is satisified an "affine parameter".
I don't see how it's possible to get the first equation from the second. In fact it looks impossible, so I'm assuming that I've made a mistake somewhere. I prefer a coordinate indpendent notation, so I would write the second equation as
[tex](\nabla_TT)_{\gamma(t)}=\alpha(t)T_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
where [itex]\gamma:I\rightarrow M[/itex] is the curve, and T is an extension of the velocity vector field [itex]\dot\gamma(t):I\rightarrow TM[/itex] to a neighborhood of the curve. If we choose a frame [itex]\{E_i\}[/itex] such that [itex]\nabla_TE_i[/itex]=0 (a "parallel frame"), we get
[tex]\nabla_TT=T^i\nabla_{E_i}(V^jE_j)=T^iE_iT^jE_j=TT^jE_j[/tex]
so
[tex](\nabla_TT)_{\gamma(t)}=T_{\gamma(t)}T^jE_j|_{\gamma(t)}=\dot\gamma(t)T^jE_j|_{\gamma(t)}=(T^j\circ\gamma)'(t)E_j|_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
and
[tex]\alpha(t)T_{\gamma(t)}=\alpha(t)T^j(\gamma(t))E_j|{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
If we define [tex]x:I\rightarrow\mathbb R^n[/itex] by [itex]x^i(t)=V^i\circ\gamma(t)[/itex], the equation we started with turns into
[tex]x'(t)=\alpha(t)x(t)[/tex]
To reparametrize [itex]\gamma[/itex] is to replace it with [itex]\gamma\circ s[/itex] where s is a smooth strictly increasing function on I=[a,b] that preserves the endpoints of the interval. But we have
[tex]y'(t)=x'(s(t))s'(t)=\alpha(s(t))x(s(t))s'(t)=\alpha(s(t))y(t)s'(t)\neq 0[/tex]
I don't think it was my choice to use a parallel frame that messed something up. It just removed some extra terms. So what am I doing wrong?
[tex]T^a\nabla_aT^b=0[/tex] . . . . . (3.3.1)
Then he says that we could have defined it by requiring
[tex]T^a\nabla_aT^b=\alpha T^b[/tex] . . . . . (3.3.2)
instead, where [itex]\alpha[/itex] is "an arbitrary function on the curve", but we choose the former because a reparametrization can turn the second equation into the first anyway. He calls a parameter such that the first equation is satisified an "affine parameter".
I don't see how it's possible to get the first equation from the second. In fact it looks impossible, so I'm assuming that I've made a mistake somewhere. I prefer a coordinate indpendent notation, so I would write the second equation as
[tex](\nabla_TT)_{\gamma(t)}=\alpha(t)T_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
where [itex]\gamma:I\rightarrow M[/itex] is the curve, and T is an extension of the velocity vector field [itex]\dot\gamma(t):I\rightarrow TM[/itex] to a neighborhood of the curve. If we choose a frame [itex]\{E_i\}[/itex] such that [itex]\nabla_TE_i[/itex]=0 (a "parallel frame"), we get
[tex]\nabla_TT=T^i\nabla_{E_i}(V^jE_j)=T^iE_iT^jE_j=TT^jE_j[/tex]
so
[tex](\nabla_TT)_{\gamma(t)}=T_{\gamma(t)}T^jE_j|_{\gamma(t)}=\dot\gamma(t)T^jE_j|_{\gamma(t)}=(T^j\circ\gamma)'(t)E_j|_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
and
[tex]\alpha(t)T_{\gamma(t)}=\alpha(t)T^j(\gamma(t))E_j|{\gamma(t)}[/tex]
If we define [tex]x:I\rightarrow\mathbb R^n[/itex] by [itex]x^i(t)=V^i\circ\gamma(t)[/itex], the equation we started with turns into
[tex]x'(t)=\alpha(t)x(t)[/tex]
To reparametrize [itex]\gamma[/itex] is to replace it with [itex]\gamma\circ s[/itex] where s is a smooth strictly increasing function on I=[a,b] that preserves the endpoints of the interval. But we have
[tex]y'(t)=x'(s(t))s'(t)=\alpha(s(t))x(s(t))s'(t)=\alpha(s(t))y(t)s'(t)\neq 0[/tex]
I don't think it was my choice to use a parallel frame that messed something up. It just removed some extra terms. So what am I doing wrong?
Last edited: