Proving Geodesic Pushed by Isometric Diffeomorphism

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CompuChip
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of geodesics under isometric diffeomorphisms between Riemannian manifolds. Participants explore the implications of such mappings on the characterization of geodesics, particularly focusing on the local length-minimizing property and the preservation of tangent vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that since isometric diffeomorphisms preserve distances, the image of a geodesic under such a mapping should also be a geodesic on the target manifold.
  • Another participant proposes that geodesics parallel transport their own tangent vectors, which could imply preservation under local isometries.
  • A different viewpoint raises concerns about the complexity of proving this using the Levi-Civita connections on the respective manifolds.
  • One participant expresses a preference for a proof based on the intuitive understanding of geodesics as minimal length curves rather than relying on more complex theorems.
  • Another participant agrees that the local length-minimizing property should hold under isometries, suggesting that this could be a straightforward proof approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the best approach to prove the preservation of geodesics under isometric diffeomorphisms. While there is some agreement on the importance of the local length-minimizing property, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the most effective proof method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity introduced by the different Levi-Civita connections and the distinction between local and global properties of isometries and geodesics.

CompuChip
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
4,305
Reaction score
49
Hello.

Suppose that \sigma: (M, g) \to (N, h) is an isometric diffeomorphism between two Riemannian manifolds M and N and let \gamma: [0, 1] \to M be a geodesic on M.
Because \sigma preserves distances, and geodesics are locally length minimizing, it is intuitively clear that \sigma_* \gamma = \sigma \circ \gamma is a geodesic on N, but I'm having some trouble proving this.
In particular, I don't see which characterization of geodesics is the most convenient (I suppose it is the locally length minimizing property; but I don't really see how to express that formally).
Any help is greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps the fact that geodesics parallel transport their own tangent vectors? The local isometry pretty much by definition does so, so geodesics are preserved.
 
That's definitely a possibility, but I think it's quite elaborate. It involves dealing with the two different Levi-Civita connections
\nabla^M_{\dot\gamma} \dot\gamma = \nabla^N_{(\sigma \circ \gamma)^\cdot} (\sigma \circ \gamma)^\cdot
with \nabla^{M,N} denoting the connection on the respective manifolds, and (\sigma \circ \gamma)^\cdot is the derivative w.r.t. t.

Since there is such an intuitive meaning to the statement (geodesics have to do with minimal length curves, and isometries are precisely those maps that preserve lengths) I was sort of hoping for a proof in that direction.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought that the latter is more difficult actually. Isometry is an intrinsically local concept, and finite lengths are not.
 
Your idea works. A geodesic minimizes length locally. Under an isometry this must be true in both manifolds because curve length is preserved.

I think it is instructive though to prove this directly from the definition of a geodesic rather than appeal to this difficult theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K