I'm trying to do excercise 4.8 in "Riemannian manifolds" by John Lee. (It's about showing that the geodesics of [itex]\mathbb R^n[/itex] are straight lines).(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The result I'm getting is that the definition of a geodesic implies the well-known identity 0=0, which isn't very useful. I must have made a mistake somewhere, but I don't see it.Edit:I do now. See my edit in #3.

Lemma 4.9 defines an operator that Lee writes as D_{t}, but I don't see the point of that t, so I'll just call it D. Lee defines a geodesic as a curve [itex]\gamma:I\rightarrow M[/itex] (where I is some intervale) such that [itex]D\dot\gamma(t)=0[/itex] for all t. The Euclidean connection is defined by [itex]\nabla_XY=XY^i\partial_i[/itex]. The velocity vector field along [itex]\gamma[/itex] is defined by [itex]\dot\gamma(t)=\gamma_*D_t[/itex], where D_{t}(not to be confused with the other D) is the operator that takes a function to its derivative at t. So the components of the velocity vector field in a coordinate system x are

[tex]\dot\gamma(t)x^i=\gamma_*Dx^i=D(x^i\circ\gamma)=(x^i\circ\gamma)'(t)[/tex]

Lee writes this as [itex]\dot\gamma^i(t)[/itex], so I will too. Note that since the manifold we're going to be dealing with is [itex]\mathbb R^n[/itex], we can take the coordinate system to be the identity map. The obvious definition [itex]\gamma^i=x^i\circ\gamma[/itex] implies that [itex]\gamma^i'(t)=\dot\gamma(t)[/itex].

Let V be an extension of [itex]\dot\gamma[/itex] to a neigborhood of the image of the curve. This means that we have [itex]V_{\gamma(t)}=\dot\gamma(t)[/itex].

[tex]0=D\dot\gamma(t)=\nabla_{\dot\gamma(t)} V=(\nabla_V V)_{\gamma(t)}=(VV^i\partial_i)_{\gamma(t)}=V_{\gamma(t)}V^i\partial_i|_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]

The vector is only zero if its components are, so this implies

[tex]0=V_{\gamma(t)}V^i=V^j(\gamma(t))\partial_j|_{\gamma(t)}V^i[/tex]

To continue we need to know that

[tex]V^i(\gamma(t))=V_{\gamma(t)}x^i=\dot\gamma(t)x^i=\dot\gamma^i(t)[/tex]

and that this implies that

[tex]V^i=\dot\gamma^i\circ\gamma^{-1}[/tex]

Let's continue with the main calculation. We have

[tex]0=V^j(\gamma(t))\partial_j|_{\gamma(t)}V^i=\dot\gamma^j(t)(V^i\circ x^{-1})_{,j}(x(\gamma(t))[/tex]

where ",j" means the partial derivative with respect to the jth variable. We choose x to be the identity map, so the above is

[tex]=\dot\gamma^j(t)(\dot\gamma^i\circ\gamma^{-1})_{,j}(\gamma(t))=\dot\gamma^j(t)\ddot\gamma^i(t)(\gamma^{-1})_{,j}(\gamma(t))=\ddot\gamma^i(t)(\gamma^{-1}\circ\gamma)'(t)=\ddot\gamma^i(t)\cdot 0=0[/tex]

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Geodesic implies the well-known identity 0=0

Loading...

Similar Threads - Geodesic implies known | Date |
---|---|

I Deduce Geodesics equation from Euler equations | Dec 7, 2017 |

I Metric tensor derived from a geodesic | Apr 17, 2017 |

I Meaning of the sign of the geodesic curvature | Nov 11, 2016 |

I Example of computing geodesics with 2D polar coordinates | Aug 6, 2016 |

Curvature implying Closedness in N dimensions | Jul 31, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**