Product of Tangent Vectors & Affine Parameter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of affine parameters in the context of tangent vectors, specifically addressing the conditions under which the product of tangent vectors can be normalized to ±1. Participants explore the implications of affine parameterization, particularly in relation to proper time and its applicability to different types of geodesics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a} \neq 0##, it is possible to choose an affine parameter such that ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a} = \pm 1##, suggesting that the choice of constants ##a## and ##b## allows for this normalization.
  • Others argue that proper time is commonly used to achieve ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a} = \pm 1## for time-like curves, indicating a specific relationship between affine parameters and curve length.
  • A later reply questions whether using an affine parameter of the form ##\tau + b## can still yield ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a} = \pm 1##, particularly in the context of null geodesics where proper time is zero.
  • Some participants clarify that while a change in the definition of proper time (e.g., ##\tau' = \tau + b##) does not affect the derivative relationship, it does not work for light-like curves, emphasizing that an affine parameter can still be found but cannot be based on proper time.
  • There is a question regarding whether a rescaling of proper time, such as ##\lambda = a\tau##, is permissible, indicating ongoing exploration of the implications of parameter choices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of affine parameters to various types of geodesics, particularly regarding the normalization of tangent vectors and the use of proper time. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the nature of affine parameterization.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions and assumptions surrounding affine parameters, particularly in relation to different types of curves (time-like vs. null) and the implications of parameter choices on the normalization of tangent vectors.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
If ##\sigma## is an affine paramter, then the only freedom of choice we have to specify another affine parameter is ##a\sigma+b##, a,b constants. [1]

For the tangent vector, ##\xi^{a}=dx^{a}/du##, along some curve parameterized by ##u##

My book says that ' if ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a}\neq 0##, then by suitable affine parameterization we can arrange such that ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a}=\pm1##,

Question:

What does it mean by some suitable affine parameterization? so say if ##\sigma## is a affine parameter and we do not have ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a}=\pm1##, is it saying that we can use [1] and carefully choose ##a## and ##b## such that this is the case?

I've often seen proper time used such that ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a}=\pm1## is the case.
Why is this?

Or Is this part of the definition of proper time, are there any other 'known' parameters for which ##\xi^{a}\xi_{a}=\pm1## or is the affine parameter for which this holds unique?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the point is that if ##\xi^a \xi_b \neq 0##, then you can pick ##a## such that ##\xi^a \xi_a = \pm 1## (##b## does not really enter into it, it is just a translation along the curve). The point is that this parametrises the curve using the curve length as parameter. In Minkowski space, for time-like curves, this means parametrising the curve with the proper time.
 
Orodruin said:
Yes, the point is that if ##\xi^a \xi_b \neq 0##, then you can pick ##a## such that ##\xi^a \xi_a = \pm 1## (##b## does not really enter into it, it is just a translation along the curve). The point is that this parametrises the curve using the curve length as parameter. In Minkowski space, for time-like curves, this means parametrising the curve with the proper time.

Ok. So if i use an affine parameter ##\tau+b## I Still achieve ##\xi^a \xi_a =\pm 1##?

For a null geodesic we can't use ##\tau## as it is always zero.
However am I correct in thinking that the paramter ##\tau+b## would be plausible?

Thanks.
 
binbagsss said:
Ok. So if i use an affine parameter ##\tau+b## I Still achieve ##\xi^a \xi_a =\pm 1##?

For a null geodesic we can't use ##\tau## as it is always zero.

Yes, if you have ##\tau' = \tau + b##, you would get ##d\tau'/d\tau = 1## and thus ##dx^\mu/d\tau = dx^\mu/d\tau'##. It is just a change of what you call "proper time equals zero".
However am I correct in thinking that the paramter ##\tau+b## would be plausible?

No, it would not be. Just by the same argumentation as above. You would still be trying to parameterise with the proper time, just with a different definition of proper time equal to zero. It does not work for light-like curves. You can still find an affine parameter, but it cannot be based on curve length (i.e., proper time).
 
Orodruin said:
Yes, if you have ##\tau' = \tau + b##, you would get ##d\tau'/d\tau = 1## and thus ##dx^\mu/d\tau = dx^\mu/d\tau'##. It is just a change of what you call "proper time equals zero".

No, it would not be. Just by the same argumentation as above. You would still be trying to parameterise with the proper time, just with a different definition of proper time equal to zero. It does not work for light-like curves. You can still find an affine parameter, but it cannot be based on curve length (i.e., proper time).

Is a re-scale of prper time ok, so ##\lambda=a\tau##?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K