Timelike Geodesic: Proving c^2 from $\ddot x^{\mu}$

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical derivation and understanding of concepts related to timelike geodesics in the context of general relativity. Participants explore the relationship between the geodesic equation and the normalization of proper time, as well as the process of contracting indices in the Einstein field equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the geodesic equation and claims that it leads to the normalization condition for proper time, stating that it can be shown that \(c^2 = g_{\mu \nu}(x) \frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau} \frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\tau}\).
  • Another participant argues that the second statement does not follow from the first, asserting that it is merely a normalization condition for the 4-velocity.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the contraction of indices in the Einstein field equations, specifically questioning the multiplication by the metric tensor.
  • Another participant confirms that the contraction involves multiplying both sides of the equation by the metric tensor \(g_{\mu\nu}\) and notes that the use of dummy indices does not affect the operation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the derivation of the normalization condition from the geodesic equation, with some participants asserting it follows while others contest this. The discussion on index contraction appears to reach a consensus on the method used.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of the geodesic equation and the normalization of proper time, as well as the specifics of index contraction in the context of the Einstein field equations.

barnflakes
Messages
156
Reaction score
4
My lecturer has written:

[itex]\ddot x^{\mu} + \Gamma^{\mu}{}_{\alpha \beta} \dot x^{\alpha} \dot x^{\beta} = 0[/itex] where differentiation is with respect to some path parameter [itex]\lambda[/itex].

If we choose [itex]\lambda[/itex] equal to proper time [itex]\tau[/itex] then it can be readily proved that

[itex]c^2 = g_{\mu \nu}(x) \frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau} \frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\tau}[/itex]

Only problem is I can't quite see how to go from the first to the second, can someone explain for me please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second does not follow from the first. The second is just a statement that proper time is normalized in such a way that the magnitude of the 4-velocity [itex]dx^{\mu} / d\tau[/itex] is c.
 
Ahar, thank you hamster, makes sense now.

My lecturer has written something like this:

[itex]R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = 0[/itex]

"Now contract indices on both sides:

[itex]R^{\mu}{}_{\mu} - \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu}{}_{\mu}R + \Lambda g^{\mu}{}_{\mu} = 0[/itex]

Can someone explain exactly what "contraction" he has done he? I assume he means multiplying by the metric tensor but I'm not sure exactly what metric tensor multiplication has gone on here?
 
It is just multiplying both sides by [itex]g_{\mu\nu}[/itex].
 
nicksauce said:
It is just multiplying both sides by [itex]g_{\mu\nu}[/itex].

I was just coming online to say don't bother replying I figured it out but you beat me to it haha, thank you.

I figured out it was just multiplying by [itex]g_{\mu\nu}[/itex] and then the fact you have nu's instead of mu's makes no difference since it's just a dummy index. Thanks anyway :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K