Geodesic Deviation Equation Solved

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geodesic deviation equation in the context of General Relativity (GR). Participants are analyzing a specific equation involving tangent and normal vectors, exploring the implications of certain mathematical manipulations and the conditions under which certain terms may equal zero.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation involving tangent vector \( T \) and normal vector \( N \), questioning the transition from one line to another and the implications of a term being zero.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the definitions of \( T \) and \( N \), suggesting that the term in parentheses might relate to the geodesic equation.
  • Some participants propose using the product rule to analyze the terms, but there is disagreement on whether this leads to a simplification or returns to the original equation.
  • A participant explains that \( T \) and \( N \) represent tangent and normal vectors, respectively, and discusses the geodesic equation in terms of the absolute derivative of a vector along a path.
  • There is a reiteration of the geodesic equation and its relationship to the expression involving the derivative of \( T^\mu \), with a claim that if \( T^\mu \) is parallel transported, the derivative equals zero.
  • Another participant acknowledges a misreading of an earlier post, indicating the complexity of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various interpretations of the equations and concepts involved, with no clear consensus on the implications of the manipulations or the conditions under which certain terms are zero. Multiple competing views remain regarding the application of the product rule and the definitions of the vectors involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the vectors \( T \) and \( N \), and the mathematical steps leading to the conclusion that \( \nabla_\beta \left(\frac{D T^\alpha}{D\lambda}\right) = 0 \) are not fully established. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of mathematical reasoning and conceptual understanding within the framework of General Relativity.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
Taken from my lecturer's notes on GR:

GR9.png


I'm trying to understand what goes on from 2nd to 3rd line:

[tex]N^\beta \nabla_\beta (T^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha) - N^\beta \nabla_\beta T^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha = -T^\beta \nabla_\beta N^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha[/tex]

Using commutator relation ## T^v \nabla_v N^\alpha = N^v\nabla_v T^\alpha ## we swap the 'N' for the 'T' in the last term of the second line:

[tex]N^\beta \nabla_\beta (T^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha) - T^\beta \nabla_\beta N^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha = -T^\beta \nabla_\beta N^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha[/tex]

[tex]N^\beta \nabla_\beta \left(\frac{D T^\alpha}{D\lambda}\right) - T^\beta \nabla_\beta N^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha = -T^\beta \nabla_\beta N^\mu \nabla_\mu T^\alpha[/tex]This means that ## \nabla_\beta \left(\frac{D T^\alpha}{D\lambda}\right) = 0 ##. Why is this so?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
May I ask what is T and N?
Nevertheless, it looks like the thing you have in the parenthesis [itex](T^a \nabla_a T^b)[/itex] should be the geodesic equation?
 
Use the product rule on the second term of the second line.
 
George Jones said:
Use the product rule on the second term of the second line.

That would just take me back to the first line.
 
ChrisVer said:
May I ask what is T and N?
Nevertheless, it looks like the thing you have in the parenthesis [itex](T^a \nabla_a T^b)[/itex] should be the geodesic equation?

##T## and ##N## are tangent vectors and normal vectors correspondingly, with ##T## describing movement along a geodesic and ##N## describing movement from one geodesic to another.

I thought the geodesic equation is ##\frac{d^2x^\beta}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\beta _{\mu v} \frac{d x^\mu}{d\tau} \frac{d x^v}{d\tau} ##?

I reduced the term in the brackets to ## \nabla_\beta \left(\frac{D T^\alpha}{D\lambda}\right) ##. I'm trying to understand why it is zero.
 
The geodesic equation by writting [itex]U^a = \frac{dx^a}{d \tau}[/itex] (the velocity vector/ is it tangent to the trajectory??) can be written in the form : [itex]U^a D_a U^b=0[/itex] (that's why that expression even though I didn't know what it stands for reminded me of the geodesics equation)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: unscientific
ChrisVer said:
The geodesic equation by writting [itex]U^a = \frac{dx^a}{d \tau}[/itex] (the velocity vector/ is it tangent to the trajectory??) can be written in the form : [itex]U^a D_a U^b=0[/itex] (that's why that expression even though I didn't know what it stands for reminded me of the geodesics equation)

For a curve on space-time ##x^\alpha = x^\alpha (\lambda)##, we define the absolute derivative of a vector ##V^\mu## along that path to be expression ## \frac{D V^\mu}{D\lambda} = T^\alpha \nabla_\alpha V^\mu ##. For ##V^\mu = T^\mu##, we get ## \frac{D T^\mu}{D\lambda} = T^\alpha \nabla_\alpha T^\mu ##

If the vector ##T^\mu## is parallely transported along the path, ##\frac{D T^\mu}{D\lambda} =0 ##. This is obviously true for the tangent vector ##T^\alpha## ,so ##\frac{D T^\alpha}{D\lambda} =0 ##

Using ## T^\alpha = \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\lambda} ## and expanding, it simply gives the geodesic equation:

[tex]\frac{d^2 x^\alpha}{d \lambda^2} + \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu v} \frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^v}{d\lambda} = 0[/tex]
 
Last edited:
unscientific said:
That would just take me back to the first line.

Oops, I misread your first post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K