I Affine parameter and non-geodesic null curves

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the characteristics of a specific non-geodesic null curve in flat spacetime, defined by a parametric equation involving a positive constant R. It is established that this curve remains null, satisfying the conditions for both the first and second derivatives with respect to any monotonic reparametrization. The conversation explores whether an affine parameter can be defined for non-geodesic null curves, noting that existing criteria for affine parameters in timelike, spacelike, and null geodesic cases may not apply. A proposed solution suggests that the time coordinate in the reference frame can serve as an affine parameter due to the symmetry in the Euclidean length over uniform intervals. The discussion concludes with the acknowledgment of the unique challenges presented by non-geodesic null curves.
JimWhoKnew
Messages
234
Reaction score
124
TL;DR
Is there a sensible way to define an affine parameter for non-geodesic null curves?
Consider the curve (thanks to SE) in flat spacetime, given in Cartesian coordinates by$$x^μ(λ)=\left(λ , R\cos\frac{\lambda⁡}{R} , R\sin\frac{\lambda}{⁡R} ,0\right)$$where ##~R~## is a positive constant. At each point$$\dot x^\mu \dot x_\mu=0$$so it is a null curve but not a geodesic (not a straight line). It also satisfies$$\ddot x^\mu \dot x_\mu=0 \quad .$$If I got the calculation right, it turns out that for any reparametrization ##~\lambda'~## , where ##~\lambda'(\lambda)~## is an arbitrary monotonic function, ##~\dot x^\mu \dot x_\mu=\ddot x^\mu \dot x_\mu=0~## holds in this particular case (dots here w.r.t. ##~\lambda'~##).

Is there a sensible way in which we can define an affine parameter for non-geodesic null curves like this, such that certain parametrizations are affine while others are not?

Edit: (We have criteria for parameters to "be affine" in the cases of timelike/spacelike curves and null geodesics. Is the non-geodesic null curve an exception?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
For the particular example in OP, I think that the time coordinate ##~t~## of the specific reference frame can be regarded as an affine parameter. Because of the symmetry (the Euclidean length traced in each uniform interval ##~\Delta t~## is the same).
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
9K