Solving Geodesic Eq.: Mysterious Conservation Eq. (Sec. 5.4 Carroll)

In summary, Carroll says that the constant ##\epsilon=-g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}## is constant along the path. This follows from the geodesic equation and the fact that one possible Lagrangian (the most convenient) for the geodesic equation is L=\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}.
  • #1
George Keeling
Gold Member
180
41
TL;DR Summary
Mysterious alternative 4-velocity conservation equation "from geodesic equation". Normal equation being ##U_\nu U^\nu=-1##
I'm still on section 5.4 of Carroll's book on Schwarzschild geodesics

Carroll says "In addition, we always have another constant of the motion for geodesics: the geodesic equation (together with metric compatibility) implies that the quantity $$
\epsilon=-g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}
$$is constant along the path."

I don't see how that comes from the geodesic equation. But it is very similar to ##U_\nu U^\nu=-1## which comes from the metric equation:$$
-d\tau^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu\Rightarrow-1=g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\tau}=g_{\mu\nu}U^\mu U^\nu=U_\nu U^\nu
$$So ##\epsilon## is just a constant of proportionality between the affine parameter ##\lambda## and the proper time ##\tau##.

What have I missed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
He is treating both null geodesics and timelike geodesics. For timelike geodesics you can take ##\lambda = \tau## and get ##\epsilon = 1##, but not for null geodesics. For null geodesics, ##\epsilon = 0##.
 
  • Like
Likes George Keeling
  • #3
It's only valid for affine parameters ##\lambda##, but you can show that you always can parametrize geodesics with affine parameters.
 
  • Like
Likes George Keeling
  • #4
@vanhees71 and @Orodruin are right and I forgot to explicitly say that for null paths ##d\tau=0##. So both variants of the equation are correct with ##\epsilon = 1, \epsilon = 0## for timelike and null paths and they still follow from the metric equation. In full:$$
-d\tau^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu\Rightarrow-\frac{d\tau^2}{d\lambda^2}=g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}
$$Timelike: ##\lambda=\tau## $$
-1=g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\tau}
$$Null: ##d\tau=0##$$
0=g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}
$$
I still don't need the geodesic equation to get to these!
 
  • #5
This also follows from the fact that one possible Lagrangian (afaik the most convenient one) for the geodesic equation is
$$L=\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x}^{\mu} \dot{x}^{\nu}.$$
Since this is not explicitly dependent on the world-line parameter ##\lambda## (derivatives wrt. ##\lambda## are denoted with a dot), the corresponding "Hamliltonian" is again ##L## itself, i.e., ##L=\text{const}## in this form of the action principle for geodesics you get automatically a parametrization with an affine parameter. For timelike (spacelike) geodesics you can simply set ##L=\pm 1## and for lightlike ones ##L=0##.

The Euler-Lagrange equations are the usual geodesic equations for an affine parametrization,
$$\mathrm{D}_{\lambda} x^{\mu}=\ddot{x}^{\mu} + {\Gamma^{\mu}}_{\nu \rho} \dot{x}^{\nu} \dot{x}^{\rho}$$
with
$$\Gamma_{\mu \nu \rho}=\frac{1}{2} (\partial_{\nu} g_{\mu \rho} + \partial_{\rho} g_{\mu \nu} -\partial_{\mu} g_{\nu \rho}), \quad {\Gamma^{\sigma}}_{\nu \rho} =g^{\mu \sigma} \Gamma_{\mu \nu \rho}.$$
 
Back
Top