Understanding Geodesic Parametrization on a Sphere

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the parametrization of geodesics on a sphere, specifically using spherical coordinates and the implications of different Lagrangian formulations. Participants explore the conditions under which geodesics can be derived and the effects of parametrization choices on the resulting equations of motion.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the differential length element for a sphere and derives the Euler-Lagrange equations for the geodesic problem, expressing confidence in their derivations.
  • The same participant questions the implications of fixing the angle ##\theta## and the resulting condition that leads to ##\ddot{\phi} = 0##, suggesting that other parametrizations should also be valid.
  • Another participant argues that extremizing with Lagrangian ##L## is not equivalent to extremizing with ##L^2##, noting that using ##L^2## imposes additional conditions that lead to affinely parametrized geodesics.
  • A later reply reiterates the previous point about the distinction between the two Lagrangians and expresses appreciation for the clarification provided.
  • Another participant discusses the general form of the geodesic equation derived from a Lagrangian of a specific form, emphasizing the importance of the constancy of ##L## in obtaining the standard geodesic equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the two Lagrangian formulations and the implications of fixing certain parameters. There is no consensus on the validity of the parametrizations proposed by the first participant, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these choices.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the nature of the parametrizations and the conditions under which the geodesic equations hold are not fully explored. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the definitions of the Lagrangians used.

Jufa
Messages
101
Reaction score
15
Let us consider a sphere of a unit radius . Therefore, by choosing the canonical spherical coordinates ##\theta## and ##\phi## we have, for the differential length element:

$$dl = \sqrt{\dot{\theta}^2+sin^2(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2} $$

In order to find the geodesic we need to extremize the following:

$$ \int_{\lambda_0}^{\lambda_f} {\sqrt{\dot{\theta}^2+sin^2(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2}} d\lambda $$

We can do it so by imposing the Euler-Lagrange equations for the lagrangian ## L = \sqrt{\dot{\theta}^2+sin^2(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2} ## or equivalently, for the lagrangian ## L' = L^2 ##. These equations for L' look like:

$$ \ddot{\theta} +sin(\theta)cos(\theta)\dot{\phi}^2 = 0 $$

$$ \ddot{\phi}+ cot(\theta) \dot{\phi}\dot{\theta}=0 $$

I am pretty sure that I am right until here.
What does not make sense to me is the following:
Suppose you choose a curve in which ## \theta = \pi/2## i.e. both its first and second derivative vanish.
Then we get the following condition:

$$ \ddot{\phi} = 0 $$

But why does that happen? Once we have fixed the angle ## \theta## we have also fixed the curve (geodesic) and the only condition on ##\phi(\lambda)## should be that it is continuous and injective (i.e., it does not make ##\phi## go back and forth).
For example, the parametrization ##\phi(\lambda) = \frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi}## (which does not have a null second derivative) from ##\lambda_0 = 0## to ##\lambda_f =2 \pi## should be as valid as the parametrization ##\phi(\lambda) = \lambda## from ##\lambda_0 = 0## to ## \lambda_f = 2\pi ##.Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
To extremise with Lagrangian ##L## is not equivalent to extremising with ##L^2##. If you use ##L^2## it is the same as using ##L## with the additional requirement that ##L## is constant and doing so will therefore give you an affinely parametrised geodesic - ie, a geodesic with a constant length tangent. This coincides with the geodesic concept introduced by a connection.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jufa
Orodruin said:
To extremise with Lagrangian ##L## is not equivalent to extremising with ##L^2##. If you use ##L^2## it is the same as using ##L## with the additional requirement that ##L## is constant and doing so will therefore give you an affinely parametrised geodesic - ie, a geodesic with a constant length tangent. This coincides with the geodesic concept introduced by a connection.
Great answer. Many thanks.
 
It's worth going through the exercise. In general, if ##L## is a "lagrangian" of the form:

##L = \sqrt{g_{ij} \dfrac{dx^i}{d\lambda} \dfrac{dx^j}{d\lambda}}##

then extremizing the action gives:

##\dfrac{d}{d\lambda} (g_{i j} \dfrac{dx^j}{d\lambda}) - \dfrac{1}{2} (\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x^i} g_{kj}) \dfrac{dx^k}{d\lambda} \dfrac{dx^j}{d\lambda} = g_{ij} \dfrac{dx^j}{d\lambda} \dfrac{\frac{dL}{d\lambda}}{L}##

The additional requirement that ##L## is unchanging as a function of ##\lambda## gives the usual form of the geodesic equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K