Arclength on a PseudoRiemann Manifold

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of path length in pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, particularly focusing on the integral representation of length and the implications of the sign in the metric. Participants explore the distinction between time-like and space-like paths and the interpretation of the metric's sign in relation to the integral's evaluation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the definition of path length in pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, particularly the use of a plus-minus sign in the integral.
  • Another participant questions the necessity of introducing imaginary lengths, suggesting that the sign under the square root can be adjusted to maintain real values.
  • A participant seeks clarification on whether the choice of sign in the integral is fixed or varies along the curve being evaluated.
  • One participant explains that the integral is defined along curves where the quantity under the square root maintains a consistent sign, leading to the concepts of proper time and proper length in relativity.
  • Another participant agrees with the notion that flipping the sign to ensure a positive square root implies taking the absolute value, expressing frustration over the Wikipedia wording.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the metric's sign in the integral or the clarity of the Wikipedia definition. Multiple viewpoints regarding the handling of imaginary lengths and the evaluation of the integral remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential ambiguities in definitions and interpretations related to pseudo-Riemannian geometry and the implications for path length calculations. Specific assumptions about the nature of curves and the behavior of the metric are not fully resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

[tex]\int_0^1\sqrt{g(y'(t), y'(t))} dt[/tex]

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