How to Read Geodesic Equation: Vector, 3-D & EFE Solutions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation and application of the geodesic equation in the context of general relativity, particularly focusing on the nature of the 4-vector components, their representation in different coordinate systems, and the implications of solving the Einstein Field Equations (EFE) in a reduced spatial dimension. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and conceptual understanding of these equations, including their implications for motion in curved spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the components of the geodesic equation represent a 4-vector function of proper time, while others clarify that these components are functions of the parameter τ.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between the ith component of a vector and the second derivative of that component, with some arguing that the notation can be misleading.
  • Participants express confusion regarding the proper interpretation of the components of the 4-vector in different coordinate systems, such as spherical versus Cartesian coordinates.
  • One participant attempts to solve the EFE in a 3-dimensional spatial context, raising questions about the implications for geodesics and the nature of spacetime.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of reducing the dimensionality of spacetime, emphasizing that spacetime is inherently 4-dimensional.
  • There are inquiries about the relationship between the computed metric and the resulting equations of motion, including potential implications for physical phenomena like changes in orientation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of the geodesic equation and the dimensionality of spacetime. There is no consensus on whether it is appropriate to analyze the EFE in a 3-dimensional context, with some participants firmly asserting that spacetime must be treated as 4-dimensional.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the terminology used to describe the 4-vector components may lead to confusion, suggesting that alternative terms could be more appropriate. Additionally, there are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the mathematical formulations and the implications of those assumptions for physical interpretations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and researchers in physics and mathematics, particularly those focused on general relativity, differential geometry, and the mathematical foundations of spacetime theories.

jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
In the formula : ##\frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2}=-\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau}##

How is the ##x^\mu## understood : a 4-vector or the ##\mu##-st component simply ?

If it is a vector, how to write it in spherical coordinate with extra time dimension ?

Btw: why does one not solve EFE in 3 space timensions and then solve the geodesic equation with ##\tau\rightarrow t## ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jk22 said:
How is the understood

As a 4-vector function of ##\tau##, the proper time along the worldline. Then ##dx^\mu / d\tau## and ##d^2 x^\mu / d\tau^2## are 4-vectors giving the first and second derivatives of that 4-vector function with respect to ##\tau##. In other words, the equation you wrote is really four equations, one for each ##\mu = (0, 1, 2, 3)##.
 
Yes but the ith component of the second derivative of the vector is not the second derivative of the ith component, i.e. the ##\theta## component of ##\ddot{\vec{r}}## is not ##\ddot{\theta}## for example in spherical coordinates.

If one sees it 4 dimensionally then ##\vec{r}=r\vec{e}_r=r(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta)^T## is replaced by for example ##\vec{x}=r(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta\cosh\alpha,\cos\theta\sinh\alpha)^T## ?
 
jk22 said:
the ith component of the second derivative of the vector is not the second derivative of the ith component

No. That is not what is going on here. All four components are functions of the parameter ##\tau##. So the 4-vector ##x^\mu## is just 4 functions of ##\tau##; and the 4-vectors ##d x^\mu / d\tau## and ##d^2 x^\mu / d \tau^2## are just 4-tuples of the first and second derivatives of those 4 functions with respect to ##\tau##.
 
jk22 said:
##\vec{r}=r\vec{e}_r##

No, that is not what the 4-vector ##x^\mu## is. It is just 4 functions of ##\tau##. It is not a vector in the sense you appear to be thinking. In spherical coordinates the 4 functions would just be the 4 spherical coordinates as functions of ##\tau## instead of the 4 Cartesian coordinates as functions of ##\tau##.

Not all texts use the term "4-vector" in this context; perhaps that would be a better idea to avoid confusion. Unfortunately there is no other standard term for the thing that the notation ##x^\mu## denoting 4 functions of ##\tau## refers to. Possibly "4-tuple" would work.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72
I am confused, it it ##\frac{d(x^\mu)}{d\tau}## or ##\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau}\right)^\mu## ? It seems it lacks parentheses.

In fact I want to know what ##x^1## is : is it the 1st component of ##(ct,r,\theta,\phi)## or of ##(ct,r\cos(\phi)\sin(\theta),...)## ?
 
Last edited:
PeterDonis said:
As a 4-vector function of ##\tau##, the proper time along the worldline. Then ##dx^\mu / d\tau## and ##d^2 x^\mu / d\tau^2## are 4-vectors giving the first and second derivatives of that 4-vector function with respect to ##\tau##. In other words, the equation you wrote is really four equations, one for each ##\mu = (0, 1, 2, 3)##.
It's not four-vectors but four-vector components, and it's
$$u^{\mu} = \mathrm{d}_{\tau} x^{\mu}$$
but
$$a^{\mu} = \mathrm{D}_{\tau} u^{\mu} = \mathrm{d}_{\tau} u^{\mu} + {\Gamma^{\mu}}_{\nu \rho} u^{\nu} u^{\rho},$$
i.e., it's the covariant derivative of the vector components wrt. to the affine parameter ##\tau## (for massive particles usually one chooses ##\tau## to be the proper time, defined by the constraint ##g_{\mu \nu} u^{\mu} u^{\nu}=c^2##.
 
jk22 said:
I am confused, it it ##\frac{d(x^\mu)}{d\tau}## or ##\left(\frac{dx}{d\tau}\right)^\mu## ? It seems it lacks parentheses.

In fact I want to know what ##x^1## is : is it the 1st component of ##(ct,r,\theta,\phi)## or of ##(ct,r\cos(\phi)\sin(\theta),...)## ?
If you're working in spherical polar coordinates ##(ct,r,\theta,\phi)## then
$$
\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\mu}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}(ct)} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}r} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi} {\mathrm{d}\tau}
\right) \, ,
$$
so the answer to your question is ##x^1=r##.

If you're working in cartesian coordinates ##(ct,x,y,z)## then
$$
\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\mu}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}(ct)} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}x} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}y} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}z} {\mathrm{d}\tau}
\right) \, .
$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jk22
Let say it is like above. Then I tried to solve EFE in 3 spatial dimension only, with the unknown metric being spherically symmetric :
$$g_{ij}=diag(A(r),B(r),C(r)\sin^2\theta)$$

I got

##C(r)=\sqrt{2\beta+4r}##
##B(r)=\alpha C(r)##
##A(r)=\alpha C'(r)^2/C(r)##

Now is it a way to compute the geodesic for ##\dot{\theta}=\dot{\phi}=0 ## and to make the approximation for weak field (large r) being the Newton equation of motion ?

In doing in 3+0 dimensions then I thought that :

1) timelike loops are avoided
2) there is only one time and not coordinate vs. proper time
3) one can do find the transformation of coordinate from ##\mathbb{R}(3,0)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}(3,1)## s.t. the curved metric is obtained by scalar product of the basis vectors (exterior geometry like for surfaces but for a 3d space embedded in 4-spacetime and not 5-spacetime like in (3,1) metric.I would like to seek for courses that do that way (if it exists?).
 
  • #10
jk22 said:
Then I tried to solve EFE in 3 spatial dimension only

This makes no sense. Spacetime is 4-dimensional, not 3-dimensional.

Also, are you asking about the Einstein Field Equation, or the geodesic equation? They're not the same. Your OP in this thread asked about the geodesic equation along a timelike curve; but any timelike curve will have only one point in a spacelike 3-surface, so looking at "3 spatial dimensions" tells you nothing at all about the timelike curve except for a single point on it.

I suggest keeping this thread focused on the geodesic equation. If you want to ask questions about the EFE you should start a separate thread. But first think carefully about what "spacetime is 4-dimensional, not 3-dimensional" means.

jk22 said:
In doing in 3+0 dimensions then I thought that :

1) timelike loops are avoided

It's perfectly possible to have a spacelike 3-surface in a 4-dimensional spacetime that has closed timelike curves.

jk22 said:
there is only one time

No, there is no time in a spacelike 3-surface.

jk22 said:
one can do find the transformation of coordinate from s.t. the curved metric is obtained by scalar product of the basis vectors (exterior geometry like for surfaces but for a 3d space embedded in 4-spacetime and not 5-spacetime like in (3,1) metric.

You are very confused. (3, 1) spacetime is not embedded in anything; it's just a curved 4-dimensional manifold with (3, 1) signature. The curvature of (3, 1) spacetime is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Curvature has nothing to do with transformations of coordinates or scalar products of basis vectors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jk22
  • #11
DrGreg said:
If you're working in spherical polar coordinates ##(ct,r,\theta,\phi)## then
$$
\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\mu}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}(ct)} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}r} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi} {\mathrm{d}\tau}
\right) \, ,
$$
so the answer to your question is ##x^1=r##.

If you're working in cartesian coordinates ##(ct,x,y,z)## then
$$
\frac{\mathrm{d}x^\mu}{\mathrm{d}\tau} = \left(
\frac{\mathrm{d}(ct)} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}x} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}y} {\mathrm{d}\tau},
\frac{\mathrm{d}z} {\mathrm{d}\tau}
\right) \, .
$$

If this were the case then with the 3dimensional above computed metric we would get :

$$\ddot{\theta}=\frac{1}{2\beta+4r}\dot{\theta}\dot{r}-\sin\theta\cos\theta\dot{\phi}^2/\alpha$$

Would this mean a change of orientation of the ecliptic plane ?(i never heard of such a phenomenon)
 
  • #12
jk22 said:
with the 3dimensional above computed metric

Which, as I said, makes no sense. You should not be doing anything further with it; it will only mislead you even more than you are already misled.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
971
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K