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

  • Thread starter Thread starter barnflakes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geodesic
barnflakes
Messages
156
Reaction score
4
My lecturer has written:

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

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

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

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 dx^{\mu} / d\tau is c.
 
Ahar, thank you hamster, makes sense now.

My lecturer has written something like this:

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

"Now contract indices on both sides:

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

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 g_{\mu\nu}.
 
nicksauce said:
It is just multiplying both sides by g_{\mu\nu}.

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 g_{\mu\nu} and then the fact you have nu's instead of mu's makes no difference since it's just a dummy index. Thanks anyway :)
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top