Geodesic in 2D Space: Understanding the Statement

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the statement regarding timelike geodesics in a specific 2D space defined by the metric ds² = (1/u²)(-du² + dv²). The user struggles to derive the geodesic equation u² = v² + av + b using the Euler-Lagrange equations. They initially apply the equations but find it challenging to connect the results to the statement. A suggested approach involves simplifying the Lagrangian to show that it does not depend on v, leading to a differential equation that reveals the desired solution. Ultimately, the user confirms their understanding after following this guidance.
vidi
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am having trouble understanding how the following statement (taken from some old notes) is true:

>For a 2 dimensional space such that ds^2=\frac{1}{u^2}(-du^2+dv^2)
the timelike geodesics are given by u^2=v^2+av+b where a,b are constants.




Homework Equations


Euler-Lagrange, Normalisation condition


The Attempt at a Solution



When I see "geodesics" I jump to the Euler-Lagrange equations. They give me
\frac{d}{d\lambda}(-2\frac{\dot u}{u^2})=(-\dot u^2+\dot v^2)(-\frac{2}{u^3})\\<br /> \implies \frac{\ddot u}{u^2}-2\frac{\dot u^2}{u^3}=\frac{1}{u^3}(-\dot u^2+\dot v^2)\\<br /> \implies u\ddot u-\dot u^2-\dot v^2=0
and
\frac{d}{d\lambda}(2\frac{\dot v}{u^2})=0\\<br /> \implies \dot v=cu^2
where c is some constant.

Timelike implies \dot x^a\dot x_a=-1 where I have adopted the (-+++) signature.

I can't for the life of me see how the statement results from these. Would someone mind explaining? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do not expand the Euler-Lagrange equations. But do a trick like this:

The Lagrangian is:

L = \frac{1}{u}\sqrt{\left(\frac{dv}{du}\right)^2-1}= \frac{1}{u}\sqrt{v&#039;^2-1}

Now you see this doesn't depend on $v$. The Euler Lagrange equations then give:

0=\frac{\partial L}{\partial v}=\frac{d}{du}\frac{\partial L}{\partial v&#039;} \Longrightarrow \frac{\partial L}{\partial v&#039;}=C

Now calculate \frac{\partial L}{\partial v&#039;} from the Lagrangian and put it equal to the constant C. This will lead to a differential equation which gives the solution you were looking for.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Thaakisfox, I've got it now!
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top