Deduce Geodesics equation from Euler equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the geodesic equations from the Euler equations in the context of differential geometry. Participants explore the relationships between the components of the metric tensor and the derivatives of the velocity vector, focusing on the appearance of specific terms and factors in the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Euler equations and a function related to the metric tensor, seeking to derive the geodesic equations.
  • Another participant questions the derivation process, suggesting that the expected result should be directly obtainable from the Euler equations.
  • A participant attempts to clarify the relationship between the derivatives of the function and the metric tensor, noting the importance of index notation.
  • There is a discussion about the correct treatment of dummy indices in the context of partial derivatives, with one participant providing an illustrative example.
  • Another participant proposes a method to express the derivative of the function in terms of the metric tensor and velocity components, leading to a discussion about the validity of their approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of the Kronecker delta in non-Cartesian coordinates, with a participant emphasizing the need for proper tensor notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation steps and the appearance of specific factors in the equations. There is no consensus on the correct approach to obtaining the factor of 1/2 in the context of the Euler equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their derivations, including assumptions about coordinate systems and the treatment of indices in tensor calculus. The discussion remains focused on the mathematical intricacies without resolving the disagreements.

fab13
Messages
300
Reaction score
7
I am using from the following Euler equations :

$$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}-\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}\bigg(\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u'^{i}}\bigg) =0$$

with function ##f## is equal to :

$$f=g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{i}}{\text{d}s}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{j}}{\text{d}s}$$

and we have $$f=g_{ij} u'^{i}u'^{j}=1$$ (with ##u'^{i}=\dfrac{\text{d}u^{i}}{\text{d}s}##)

My issue is this :

starting from the expression of function ##f## and Euler equations, I would like to get :

$$\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+(\partial_{k}g_{ij}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk})u'^{j}u'^{k}=0$$

but I can't obtain it.

Finally, I should get the general form of geodesics equation, i.e :

$$g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+\Gamma_{ijk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$

For the moment, concerning this problem (which is about factor 1/2), IF I SUBTRACT INTENTIONALLY THE TERM ##\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}## to the expression ##\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})##, so I can write :

$$\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=$$

$$\dfrac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial u^{k}}u'^{j}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{k}}{\text{d}s}+g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=$$

$$\partial_{k} g_{ij} u'^{k}u'^{j}+g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=$$

$$g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+(\partial_{k}g_{ij}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk})u'^{j}u'^{k}=0$$

from which I deduce :

$$g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+\Gamma_{ijk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$

BUT I HAVE SUBTRACTED INTENTIONALLY THE TERM ##\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}## ,

Now I would like to know how this term( ##\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}## ) can be obtained from Euler equations , especially the factor ##\dfrac{1}{2}##), I think it comes from the following term of Euler equations :

$$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}$$

From my point of view, $$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}=\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$

and not $$\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$.

but I don't know to make appear ##\dfrac{1}{2}## factor.

If someone could help me to solve this little issue, Regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not understand the problem, this
fab13 said:
I would like to get :

$$\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+(\partial_{k}g_{ij}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk})u'^{j}u'^{k}=0$$
is what you should get directly from applying the EL equations. Can you write out what you get when you write down the EL equations?
 
@Orodruin : For the moment, I try to deduce Geodesics equations :

$$g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+\Gamma_{ijk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$

from the Euler equations ##\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}-\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}\bigg(\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u'^{i}}\bigg) =0##

taking :

$$f=g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{i}}{\text{d}s}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{j}}{\text{d}s}$$

with ##s## an affine parameter.

This demonstration is extracted from a book but it is not detailed : author starts from

$$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}-\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}\bigg(\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u'^{i}}\bigg) =0\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(eq1)$$

and, just after this definition, writes :

$$\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}=g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}+(\partial_{k}g_{ij}-\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk})u'^{j}u'^{k}=0\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(eq2)$$

without putting the steps between ##(eq1)## and ##(eq2)##.

So, I tried to find the different steps of this demo. First, I can write for the second term of Euler equations :

$$\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}\bigg(\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u'^{i}}\bigg)=\dfrac{\text{d}}{\text{d}s}(g_{ij}u'^{j})$$

$$=\dfrac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial u^{k}}u'^{j}\dfrac{\text{d}u^{k}}{\text{d}s}+g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}$$

$$=\partial_{k} g_{ij} u'^{k}u'^{j}+g_{ij}\dfrac{\text{d}u'^{j}}{\text{d}s}$$

And for the first term of Euler equations :

$$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u^{i}}=\dfrac{\partial g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}}{\partial u^{i}}=\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(eq3)$$

But ##eq(3)## is not equal to the expected second term on left hand side of equation ##(eq2)## (the one of the book) :

$$\dfrac{1}{2}\partial_{i}g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}$$

indeed, there is a factor ##\dfrac{1}{2}## which appears in ##eq(2)## that I can't get and I don't know how to find it.

If you could help me ...

Hoping you understand better.
 
I see what you are doing wrong. In the function ##f = g_{ij} \dot u^i \dot u^j## (I suggest using dots instead of primes for readability), the indices are both dummy indices (aka summation indices). It does not matter what you call these indices and you could just as well write ##f = g_{ab} \dot u^a \dot u^b## or with any other index names. In the derivative ##df/d\dot u^i##, the ##i## is not a dummy index or summation index. When you introduce your function ##f##, you should not introduce any dummy indices that are already used in the expression, hence
$$
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\dot u^i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial \dot u^i}(g_{ab} \dot u^a \dot u^b)
$$
is a correct way of writing it while
$$
\frac{\partial f}{\partial\dot u^i} = \frac{\partial}{\partial\dot u^i}(g_{ij} \dot u^i \dot u^j)
$$
is not. Also note that
$$
\frac{\partial\dot u^a}{\partial\dot u^i} = \delta^a_i,
$$
since it is equal to one if ##a = i## and zero otherwise.

As an illustration, consider the case of a two-dimensional manifold where ##f = g_{11} \dot u^1 \dot u^1 + 2g_{12} \dot u^1 \dot u^2 + g_{22} \dot u^2 \dot u^2##. It is here clear that
$$
\frac{\partial f}{\partial \dot u^1} = 2g_{11} \dot u^1 + 2 g_{12} \dot u^2 = 2 g_{1i} \dot u^i.
$$
A similar relation holds for ##\partial f/\partial\dot u^2##.
 
Great ! I think that I can write :

$$\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial u'^{i}}=\dfrac{\partial g_{jk}u'^{j}u'^{k}}{\partial u'^{i}}$$

$$=g_{jk}\bigg(\dfrac{\partial u'^{j}}{\partial u'^{i}}u'^{k}+u'^{j}\dfrac{\partial u'^{k}}{\partial u'^{i}}\bigg)$$

$$=g_{jk}(\delta_{ij}u'^{k}+\delta_{ik}u'^{j})$$

$$=2\,g_{jk}\,u'^{k}$$ since we count double by taking into account the inverting between ##j## and ##k## index.

Is it valid ? Thanks
 
Last edited:
Yes, apart from the fact that there is no such thing as ##\delta_{ik}## unless you are dealing with strictly Cartesian coordinates. In general coordinates, the Kronecker delta is a type (1,1) tensor and therefore has one covariant and one contravariant index, i.e., ##\delta^i_k##. The end result is correct though.

Edit: Well, that is a truth with modification. There is no tensor for which ##\delta_{ik}## are the components in all coordinate systems.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K