Find Geodesics in Dynamic Ellis Orbits Metric

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding geodesics in the dynamic Ellis orbits metric, specifically the metric given by ##ds^2=-dt^2+dp^2+(5p^2+4t^2)d\phi^2##. Participants explore various methods for solving the geodesic equations, including the geodesic Lagrangian method, and consider the implications of the metric's properties on these methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the possibility of finding geodesics analytically in the given metric.
  • Another participant questions the applicability of techniques discussed in a previous thread on geodesics.
  • Several participants reference the Wikipedia article on Ellis Wormholes to clarify the metric in question.
  • It is noted that ##\partial_\phi## is a Killing field, which may provide a conserved quantity useful for simplifying the geodesic equations.
  • Participants discuss the geodesic Lagrangian method and its potential advantages over brute force methods, particularly due to the metric's structure.
  • There is uncertainty about the existence of Killing fields for ##t## and ##p##, which complicates the analysis.
  • One participant expresses a desire to find a way to integrate geodesics exactly rather than using numerical methods like Euler or Runge-Kutta.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of integrating certain differential equations exactly, emphasizing the need to analyze the equations themselves.
  • Discussion includes whether the Lagrangian method is applicable to both timelike and null geodesics, with some technical complications noted for the latter.
  • Participants debate the merits of different approaches to solving the geodesic equations, with suggestions to experiment with various methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of previous techniques and the effectiveness of various methods for finding geodesics. No consensus is reached on the best approach or the solvability of the equations involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the geodesic equations due to the specific form of the metric and the presence of only one function of the coordinates. There is also mention of the potential for certain Christoffel symbols to vanish, affecting the analysis.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying general relativity, particularly in the context of wormhole metrics and geodesic calculations.

  • #91
I'm sure you have written it down. But where did it enter your differential equations? What would be different about them if the LHS was not zero? Or to put it another way, if you had used ##\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{L}\pm 1## instead?

I don't see why the substitution wouldn't work, as long as you understand that you've introduced a third angular coordinate that isn't an angle in spacetime in any meaningful sense. I just suspect that inserting you null/timelike/spacelike constraint will be messy.

I'd be very doubtful of anything passing through the origin, but that's an issue with the spacetime not the maths.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Ibix said:
I'm sure you have written it down. But where did it enter your differential equations? What would be different about them if the LHS was not zero? Or to put it another way, if you had used ##\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{L}\pm 1## instead?

I don't see why the substitution wouldn't work, as long as you understand that you've introduced a third angular coordinate that isn't an angle in spacetime in any meaningful sense. I just suspect that inserting you null/timelike/spacelike constraint will be messy.

I'd be very doubtful of anything passing through the origin, but that's an issue with the spacetime not the maths.

Ibix said:
I'm sure you have written it down. But where did it enter your differential equations? What would be different about them if the LHS was not zero? Or to put it another way, if you had used ##\mathcal{L}'=\mathcal{L}\pm 1## instead?

I don't see why the substitution wouldn't work, as long as you understand that you've introduced a third angular coordinate that isn't an angle in spacetime in any meaningful sense. I just suspect that inserting you null/timelike/spacelike constraint will be messy.

I'd be very doubtful of anything passing through the origin, but that's an issue with the spacetime not the maths.
Actually, I was wrong about substituting the trig functions yielding the desired result. Honestly I feel like ##t^2+p^2=f(\lambda)## might be as far as I can get in terms of anything exact. But that is probably enough. By the way, what do you mean by LHS?
 
  • #93
Onyx said:
By the way, what do you mean by LHS?
Left Hand Side. It's a completely standard abbreviation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K