Arclength on a PseudoRiemann Manifold

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Tac-Tics
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arclength Manifold
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the definition of a path's length on a pseudo-Riemann manifold, specifically addressing the integral representation involving the metric g. The correct formulation for the length of a smooth function y from R to M, connecting points a and b, is given by the integral ∫_0^1√{|g(y'(t), y'(t))|} dt. This ensures that the integral yields real values for spacelike paths and imaginary values for timelike paths. The integral is defined for curves where the sign of the quantity under the square root remains consistent, leading to the terms "proper time" for timelike curves and "proper length" for spacelike curves.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of pseudo-Riemannian geometry
  • Familiarity with integrals and calculus
  • Knowledge of general relativity concepts
  • Proficiency in interpreting mathematical notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds
  • Learn about the implications of proper time and proper length in general relativity
  • Explore the mathematical foundations of integrals in differential geometry
  • Investigate the role of metrics in defining distances on manifolds
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students of general relativity seeking to deepen their understanding of path lengths in pseudo-Riemannian manifolds.

Tac-Tics
Messages
816
Reaction score
7
Wikipedia gives a confusing definition of a path's length and I would like some clarity.

Let M be a pseudo-Riemann manifold with metric g and let a and b be points in M.If y is a smooth function from R->M where y(0) = a and y(1) = b, then it's length is the integral

\int_0^1\sqrt{\pm g(y'(t), y'(t))} dt

Now, why they decided to put a plus-minus in there, I don't know, but it seems like they MEANT

\int_0^1\sqrt{|g(y'(t), y'(t))|} dt

Where |.| is the absolute value.

Now on the other hand, this definition of length doesn't distinguish between time-distance and space-distance. It seems like perhaps if we left off the sign-changing nonsense

\int_0^1\sqrt{g(y'(t), y'(t))} dt

We would get real-valued lengths for space-like paths and imaginary-valued lengths for time-like paths. That's just what my intuition suggests, though. How close would such a guess be to the reality of it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would you want it to be imaginary when you can define it to be real just by changing the sign under the square root? I mean, everything else in the theory is real, so why introduce a complex number unless you have to?
 
Fredrik said:
Why would you want it to be imaginary

I just want to know the correct interpretation. Is the plus-minus "fixed" at the start of the evaluation of the integral? Or is it chosen at evaluation of every infinitesimal segment (which would simply mean the absolute value)?
 
The integral is only defined along curves such that the quantity under the square root has the same sign everywhere on the curve. If it's negative, you flip the sign to make sure that you take the square root of a positive number. (So it's the first of the two options you suggested: It's fixed at the start of the evaluation). In relativity this means that the integral is defined for timelike curves and for spacelike curves, but not for any other curves. In the case of timelike curves, we call the result of the integration "proper time" and in the case of spacelike curves, we call it "proper length".

There may be generalizations of this that I'm not aware of. I learned this stuff in the context of general relativity.
 
Fredrik said:
If it's negative, you flip the sign to make sure that you take the square root of a positive number.

That sounds like you take the absolute value then (which is what I thought). I don't understand why they don't just word it as such on Wikipedia >____>

Thanks =-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K