Curvature and Geodesics in Space-Time: A Question on Photon Paths

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MeJennifer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curvature
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of photon paths in curved space-time, specifically addressing the concept of curvature in relation to null geodesics. Participants explore the implications of the arc length being zero for such paths and whether this affects the classification of geodesics as curved or not. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects of general relativity and differential geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how a path with an arc length of zero can be considered curved in space-time.
  • Others argue that the term "curved" is illustrative and may not apply to null geodesics in the same way as timelike geodesics.
  • A participant suggests that curvature cannot be determined from a single geodesic and requires multiple geodesics for analysis.
  • There is a discussion on the distinction between the spacetime interval and proper length, with some asserting that the interval being zero complicates the notion of curvature.
  • Some participants propose that the definition of curvature may need to be reconsidered to include null geodesics.
  • One participant draws an analogy with the surface of a sphere to illustrate how geodesics can indicate curvature, regardless of their length.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the question of curvature in a manifold cannot be resolved by examining a single geodesic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether null geodesics can be considered curved and how curvature should be defined in the context of general relativity. There is no consensus on these points, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of definitions and the context in which terms like "curved" are used. The discussion reveals limitations in understanding curvature based solely on the properties of individual geodesics.

MeJennifer
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
6
Consider a photon emitted at space-time event E1 and absorbed at space-time event E2 in curved space-time.

Since the arc length of the worldline between both events is 0 how can we, with validity, claim that such a path is curved in space-time?

Does it not seem to be more correct to claim that in curved space-time all geodesic worldlines are curved except for null geodesics?

Were is the error in my reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A geodesic is the closest concept (in general, differential geometry) to a "straight line". When paths are described as "curved", this is purely an illustrative term, attempting to convey an appropriate image to people with less experience of non-Euclidean geometry.

I think you've just (mis)taken something too seriously/literally, but if you need to discuss it further then I think you ought to state who makes the claim you mention, what context they wrote in, what definition they chose for "curved", and why you think null geodesics should be called less "curved" than other geodesics.
 
Last edited:
cesiumfrog said:
.. and why you think null geodesics should be called less "curved" than other geodesics.
A nul geodesic has an arc length of zero, how do you propose to define curvature for something that has zero length?
 
I believe this is covered somewhere in the first couple chapters of MWT.. though out of curiousity, how would you categorise a path that has null length (over any segment) and is not a geodesic?
 
MJ, the proper length is 0, but the spatial separation and temporal separation are not both 0, just equal in magnitude and opposite in sign.
 
Mentz114 said:
MJ, the proper length is 0, but the spatial separation and temporal separation are not both 0, just equal in magnitude and opposite in sign.
Right, but here we are dealing with events in curved space-time not some Lorentz variant slicing of space and time for a particular observer. This seems like simply avoiding rather than adressing the issue. Clearly only space-time vectors are invariant under Lorentz transformations.

cesiumfrog said:
...how would you categorise a path that has null length (over any segment) and is not a geodesic?
Good question, if I am not mistaken even Hawking and Ellis in "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" seem to avoid this particular, perhaps non-physical, case.
 
Last edited:
Since the arc length of the worldline between both events is 0 how can we, with validity, claim that such a path is curved in space-time?

Why not ? If it's a path it can be curved.

Does it not seem to be more correct to claim that in curved space-time all geodesic worldlines are curved except for null geodesics?
According to the adopted criterion for curvature, null geodesics can be curved.
You probably need to redefine curvature to satisfy this aesthetic urge.
That seems like simply avoiding rather than addressing the issue
I don't think it's an issue. Just nomeclature.
 
MeJennifer said:
Consider a photon emitted at space-time event E1 and absorbed at space-time event E2 in curved space-time.

Does it not seem to be more correct to claim that in curved space-time all geodesic worldlines are curved except for null geodesics?

Since the arc length of the worldline between both events is 0 how can we, with validity, claim that such a path is curved in space-time?[/quote]Always with the great questions MJ. :smile:

The length between the two events is a bad word to use in GR. Its the spacetime interval that is zero. In differential geometry one uses a distance function, which is a different function from the metric tensor. One uses this distance function to define closed sets, whether two points are "nearby" etc. For this reason also one can tell whether two points are close or far apart.

Another point is that curvature cannot be determined by a single geodesic. One has to have more than one geodesic to determine if spacetime curvature is lurking somewhere nearby. That's about the best I can explain it at this time (i.e. off the top of my head).

Good luck

Pete
 
pmb_phy said:
The length between the two events is a bad word to use in GR. Its the spacetime interval that is zero.
I am happy to use any term that you like pmb_phy, but to me it seems that that does not explain anything. :smile:
So if the interval is zero, then how can this "path" be curved?

pmb_phy said:
In differential geometry one uses a distance function, which is a different function from the metric tensor. One uses this distance function to define closed sets, whether two points are "nearby" etc. For this reason also one can tell whether two points are close or far apart.
Yes, and so in my example of two space-time events of an emitted and absorbed photon, how far are those events apart in your opinion?

The distance between two events in space-time is Lorentz invariant right?
The arc length of the space-time path of an observer in space-time represents his proper time right?
The arc length of the space-time path between an emited and absorbed photon in space-time is zero right?

So how could some possibly claim that in curved space-time such a null geodesic is curved?

Obviously timelike geodesics are curved in curved spacetime since they have an arc length that is non zero.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
MeJennifer said:
I am happy to use any term that you like pmb_phy, but to me it seems that that does not explain anything. :smile:
So if the interval is zero, then how can this "path" be curved?


Yes, and so in my example of two space-time events of an emitted and absorbed photon, how far are those events apart in your opinion?

The distance between two events in space-time is Lorentz invariant right?
The arc length of the space-time path of an observer in space-time represents his proper time right?
The arc length of the space-time path between an emited and absorbed photon in space-time is zero right?

So how could some possibly claim that in curved space-time such a null geodesic is curved?

Obviously timelike geodesics are curved in curved spacetime since they have an arc length that is non zero.

One cannot say anything about the curvature of a manifold using only a single geodesic. This is clear even if you look at something much simpler, let's say the surface S_2 of a sphere embedded in ordinary 3-dimensional space (no problem with negative terms in the metric there!) .

what you are asking is the same as if someone would say :look, a geodesic from one pole to the other pole has a length of [itex]2 \pi R[/itex]. How can one conclude that this space is curved?

WHat would you answer to that question? Don't you agree that the geodesics are clearly curved in that case? Do you see that you are asking exactly the same question (it does not matter that in your question the spacetime interval is zero as opposed to a finite value in my example, the point is the same in both cases: giving a number for a single geodesic tells us nothing about curvature).

The answer is of course that to know about the curvature of a manifold, one must have more information than the "lenght" (or spacetime interval) of a single geodesic or curve. One possible way to learn about the curvature is to go through a closed path following 3 geodesics or more.
 
  • #11
MeJennifer said:
Sorry but this is a strawman argument. This is not a question related to knowing if a manifold is curved.

What I am asking is something entirely different:

Assume a curved space-time, how can we say that in that curved space-time a null geodesic is curved since its arc length is zero?

Looks like a very simple question to me.

So answer my even simpler question: on S_2, how can *you* say that a geodesic is curved? Can you answer that question? If not, maybe we should start by discussing *that* much simpler example before tackling a non-positive definite metric!
 
  • #12
nrqed said:
So answer my even simpler question: on S_2, how can *you* say that a geodesic is curved? Can you answer that question? If not, maybe we should start by discussing *that* much simpler example before tackling a non-positive definite metric!
Simple, geodesics follow the curvature of space-time so if space-time is curved then obviously the geodesics follow that curvature as well. But a path that has an arc length of zero, what is it supposed to follow that is curved?

I think you know what I am talking about, but it seems you rather want to avoid this discussion. Perhaps because you are confused by it too? :wink:

Note: something when wrong in posting my prior message, but nrqed quoted the gist of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
MeJennifer said:
I am happy to use any term that you like pmb_phy, but to me it seems that that does not explain anything. :smile:
So if the interval is zero, then how can this "path" be curved?
A path being curved doesn't have a lot of meaning to me. If the path is a geodesic in embedded in a 2-D surface then the geodesics (of which there are many) will form a helix. This curve is the "straightest possible" curve. In fact this surface has no intrinsic curvature so the path can't be said to be curved in the Riemann sense (as in embedded).
Yes, and so in my example of two space-time events of an emitted and absorbed photon, how far are those events apart in your opinion?
Sorry but when speaking in terms of GR the term "far apart" has no meaning to me.
The distance between two events in space-time is Lorentz invariant right?
Yes.
The arc length of the space-time path of an observer in space-time represents his proper time right?
If you mean "spacetime interval" instead of "arc length" then you're right. Otherwise you'll have to define "arc length" for me.
The arc length of the space-time path between an emited and absorbed photon in space-time is zero right?
What is arc-length?
[quote[
So how could some possibly claim that in curved space-time such a null geodesic is curved?
[/quote]Got me. I never said nor thought of them as being of such.
Obviously timelike geodesics are curved in curved spacetime since they have an arc length that is non zero.
Perhaps its obvious to you, but not to me.

Pete
 
  • #14
MeJennifer said:
Consider a photon emitted at space-time event E1 and absorbed at space-time event E2 in curved space-time.

Since the arc length of the worldline between both events is 0 how can we, with validity, claim that such a path is curved in space-time?

Does it not seem to be more correct to claim that in curved space-time all geodesic worldlines are curved except for null geodesics?

Were is the error in my reasoning?

As suggested by some of the earlier posts,...

there are two different notions of curvature implied by your question:
worldline-curvature (geodesic curvature, 4-acceleration) and spacetime-curvature (Riemann curvature).

The Riemann curvature of a spacetime determines the deviation from flatness, which also determines which spacetime paths are geodesic and which are not.

The geodesic curvature of a spacetime path determines the deviation of that path from being geodesic. [A noninertial observer [with nonzero 4-acceleration] has a nongeodesic timelike path.] (This should not be confused with "geodesic deviation", which describes the behavior of a family of nearby geodesics.)

So, given a spacetime [with or without spacetime-curvature], its geodesics are those paths with zero worldline-curvature. What is important for a geodesic is that its tangent-vector is parallel-transported... When there is a metric available, the norm of this tangent-vector is used to classify the type of geodesic (spacelike, timelike, or null)... and can be used to characterize geodesics in terms of extremal (or stationary) values of arc-lengths.

possibly useful:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Physics/8-962Spring2002/940ABFC4-1A26-483C-992A-DDCD48D1F272/0/gr2_2.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
robphy said:
As suggested by some of the earlier posts,...

there are two different notions of curvature implied by your question:
worldline-curvature (geodesic curvature, 4-acceleration) and spacetime-curvature (Riemann curvature).

The Riemann curvature of a spacetime determines the deviation from flatness, which also determines which spacetime paths are geodesic and which are not.
So non-geodesics have curvature? That makes sense now that I think of it. I didn't know how to phrase that. Thanks Rob.

Pete
 
  • #16
pmb_phy said:
So non-geodesics have curvature? That makes sense now that I think of it. I didn't know how to phrase that. Thanks Rob.

Pete

Non-geodesic paths have nonzero worldline-curvature (somewhere along the path).
 
  • #17
MeJennifer said:
Since the arc length of the worldline between both events is 0 how can we, with validity, claim that such a path is curved in space-time?

We use an affine parameter.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Notion of parallel worldlines in curved geometry
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Mechanics behind curved time causing gravitation/geodesics
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
Undergrad Does Light Travel the Shortest Path in Curved Space-Time Around a Neutron Star?
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
6K
Graduate Minimal property of Spacelike geodesics in GR/curved spacetime?
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
Undergrad How to Measure Speed of Light & Is It Constant?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Detection of red-shifted photons near an event horizon
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad Teaching Minkowski diagrams effectively
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate Does gravitational time dilation imply spacetime curvature?
  • · Replies 230 ·
8
Replies
230
Views
22K
Undergrad Are Tidal Forces Curvature of Space?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad Geodesics in Curved Spacetime: What is the Significance of the ct Increment?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K