Surfaces and geodesics in General Relativity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a homework problem in General Relativity concerning null hypersurfaces defined by the function S(xc) and their relationship to geodesics. The task is to demonstrate that a curve, which intersects these hypersurfaces orthogonally, is a null geodesic and to derive the condition under which the geodesic equation simplifies to ka||bka = 0. Participants express confusion about starting the problem and seek guidance on proving the null geodesic property and deriving the geodesic equation. The conversation highlights the need for clarification on the mathematical relationships involved, particularly regarding the normal vector field and its implications for wave and ray interpretation. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexities of understanding geodesics in the context of General Relativity.
student85
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Hi all. This is one of the problems that I was asked to do for my General Relativity class. I know this may look a little long, but if anyone can help me out with ANYTHING about this problem, I will greatly appreciate it.

Homework Statement


Consider the family of hypersurfaces where each member is defined by the constancy of the function S(xc) over that hypersurface and further require that each hypersurface be a null hypersurface in the sense that its normal vector field, na = S|a , be a null vector field.
Let ¡ be a member of the family of curves that pierces each such hypersurface orthogonally, meaning that the tangent vector to ¡, say ka, is everywhere collinear with the vector na at the point of piercing. Show that ¡ is a null geodesic and find the condition on the relation between na and ka that allows the geodesic equation to be written in the simple form ka||bka = 0.
Interpret your results in terms of waves and rays.


Homework Equations


The geodesic equation: \ddot{x}e + \Gammaemb\dot{x}m \dot{x}b = 0


The Attempt at a Solution


By reading through the problem it is not very hard to get the hang of what it is saying, and it seems pretty clear that \Gamma must be a null surface. But I don't know where to get started in showing that it is a "null geodesic", and how to derive at the simple geodesic equation they give. I'm just very stuck here. If anyone can give me a little hint I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No relativists here? :S
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top