0

Two metrics $ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu$ and $d\tilde s^2 = \tilde g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu$ in the same coordinate system are said to be conformally related if ̃

$\tilde g_{\mu\nu} (x) = \psi(x)g_{\mu\nu}(x)$

for some positive function $\psi(x)$ of the coordinates.

I am trying to prove that if the curve $x^\mu(\lambda)$ is a null geodesic of the metric $ g_{\mu\nu}$ , it is also a null geodesic of the metric ̃$\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$ . (By this it's meant the same physical curve in the spacetime manifold M , with an affine curve parameter which is a suitable function of $\psi$, in general not coinciding with $\lambda$.) That is, conformal spaces share their null geodesics.

The following fact can be used:

whenever a curve $x^\mu(\omega)$ satisfies:

$\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\omega^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\nu\lambda}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\omega}\frac{dx^\lambda}{d\omega}=\phi \frac{dx^\mu}{d\omega}$

for some function $\phi$ on $M$ , it also describes a geodesic (obviously, in a non-affine parametrization) in the sense that there is a curve parameter $s = s(\omega)$, depending on the function $φ$, such that $x^\mu(\omega(s))$ viewed as function of $s$ satisfies the usual geodesic equation.

I have not been able to get to anything meaningful, how should I do this?

darkside
  • 605
  • 3
    It indeed remains a null-curve, but why would you expect it to remain a geodesic? – Moishe Kohan Oct 17 '23 at 07:35
  • @MoisheKohan I am sorry I don't share your intuition to answer that, the aim is to do an explicit computation and show that – darkside Oct 17 '23 at 07:48
  • @darkside I stand with Moishe. Two conformal metrics will share the same set of null curves, but not the same set of (parametrized) geodesics. – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 07:58
  • Then why don't you do an explicit computation starting with the flat Lorentzian metric $ds^2=dxdy$ on ${\mathbb R}^2$, where null-geodesics are vertical and horizontal straight lines. Then pick a generic function $\psi(x,y)$ and compute Christoffel symbols and geodesic equation for the conformal metric $\psi(x,y)dxdy$, as explained in the answers here. – Moishe Kohan Oct 17 '23 at 08:00
  • @Didier This is what the exercise says I am not inventing it, are you saying the exercise is wrong? – darkside Oct 17 '23 at 09:48
  • @darkside Never said you were inventing anything. This happens sometimes that exercises are wrong, yes. Maybe the author was thinking of "null-curves" instead of "null-geodesics". – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 09:52
  • @Didier could you take a look at the original text, maybe I am copying something wrongly? – darkside Oct 17 '23 at 10:01
  • @darkside The text says that the curve has to be reparametrized by a non-linear transformation in order to become a geodesic for the conformal metric. In the standard definition, a geodesic is a parametrized curve, not just its support curve. Hence the confusion. – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 10:04
  • @darkside In other words, a geodesic $c$ for $g$ is not a geodesic for $\tilde{g}$. But a suitable reparametrization $c\circ \varphi$ will be. – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 10:07
  • @Didier Did I omit that in my text? – darkside Oct 17 '23 at 10:08
  • @darkside No, you are right. But the title and the sentence in bold are, as they stand, false statements. This is what misleaded me (and presumambly Moishe too) – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 10:09

1 Answers1

1

Let us write $\psi = e^{2f}$, so that $\tilde{g} = e^{2f}g$. Let $\gamma$ be a null-geodesic for $g$. This means that $g(\gamma',\gamma') = 0$ and $\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma' = 0$.

By the formula derived in this answer, we have \begin{align} \tilde{\nabla}_{\gamma'}\gamma' &= \nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma' + df(\gamma') \gamma' + df(\gamma') \gamma' + g(\gamma',\gamma') \mathrm{grad}(f) \\ &= 0 + 2 df(\gamma') \gamma' +0 \\ &= 2df(\gamma') \gamma'. \end{align} Therefore, $\tilde{\nabla}_{\gamma'}{\gamma'} = 0$ if and only if $\gamma'$ is everywhere in the kernel of $df$. Hence, for a generic conformal metric $\tilde{g} = e^{2f}g$, $\gamma$ is not a geodesic for $\tilde{g}$, even though it is a null curve.

However, we can reparametrize $\gamma$ in order to produce a null-geodesic for $\tilde{g}$. Here is the trick: let $\varphi$ be any reparametrization of the interval of definition of $\gamma$ and consider $\tilde{\gamma} =\gamma\circ \varphi$. Then $\tilde{\gamma}' = \varphi'\cdot(\gamma'\circ \varphi)$. It is already a null-curve. Let us derive an equation on $\varphi$ in order for $\tilde{\gamma}$ to be a geodesic.

By the linearity of the Levi-Civita connection in the lower entry, it is sufficient that $\varphi$ is such that $$ \tilde{\nabla}_{\gamma'\circ \varphi} (\varphi'\cdot (\gamma'\circ \varphi)) = 0. $$ Note that \begin{align} \tilde{\nabla}_{\gamma'\circ \varphi} (\varphi'\cdot (\gamma'\circ \varphi)) &= \varphi''\cdot (\gamma'\circ \varphi) + \varphi' \tilde{\nabla}_{\gamma\circ\varphi}(\gamma \circ \varphi)\\ &= \varphi'' \cdot (\gamma'\circ \varphi) + \varphi' \cdot 2df(\gamma'\circ\varphi) (\gamma'\circ \varphi) \\ &= (\varphi'' + 2df(\gamma'\circ\varphi)\varphi')(\gamma'\circ \varphi), \end{align} so that it is sufficient to solve the differential equation $\varphi'' + 2df(\gamma'\circ \varphi) \varphi'= 0$, which can be done easily in coordinates.

Didier
  • 19,132
  • Why do I need to do this $\psi = e^{2f}$? It should be positive yes, but I don't see why is this an obliged step – darkside Oct 17 '23 at 17:03
  • @darkside No one forces you to do so. Sometimes, the formulas are nicer by using $\psi=e^{2f}$ instead of (Kozsul formula), sometimes they are nicer when using $\psi = u^{\frac{4}{n-2}}$ (Yamabe problem)... It really depends on the context. Here, you can translate the formula by replacing $f$ with $\frac{1}{2}\ln \psi$, but you will end up with something not so nice – Didier Oct 17 '23 at 17:07
  • I see, but I guess one has to know the solution already for that. My point is that you can't just look at the problem for the first time and figure out that will simplify things – darkside Oct 18 '23 at 05:17
  • @darkside There is no unique solution, and presumably the author was thinking about something else, more computationally involved (since they are using coordinates everuwhere) – Didier Oct 18 '23 at 08:46