5
$\begingroup$

Given a nowhere null curve $\gamma: I \rightarrow M$ in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$. (I is some open interval) Let $t_0 \in I$ arbitrary. Does a conformally equivalent metric $\hat{g}=e^{2\sigma} g$ and some $\epsilon >0$ exist, such that $\gamma \mid _{(t_0-\epsilon, t_0 + \epsilon)}$ is a geodesic in $(M,\hat{g})$?

$\gamma$ being a geodesic with respect to $(M, \hat{g})$ means

$$0=\hat{\nabla}_{\gamma'}\gamma'=\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'+ 2 \gamma' \cdot \gamma'(\sigma) - g(\gamma', \gamma') \cdot \operatorname{grad} \sigma,$$

where we used the transformation law for the Levi Civita connection under a conformal change of metrics. Now it feels there should be some $\sigma$ satisfying this equation locally, because we have very big freedom. However I am having difficulties carrying out the construction of $\sigma$ and I don't know of general fact that would give existence of a solution.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is $\sigma$? Is it a real-valued function on $M$? When you write $\sigma(\gamma')$, it makes me think not. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Dec 15 '16 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnHughes: I think the dot is supposed to represent the directional derivative of $\sigma$ in the direction $\gamma'$. It would be clearer to write $0=\hat{\nabla}_{\gamma'}\gamma'=\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'+ 2 (\gamma' \cdot \sigma)\gamma' - g(\gamma', \gamma') \cdot \operatorname{grad} \sigma$. $\endgroup$ – Jack Lee Dec 15 '16 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks -- that makes some sense. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Dec 15 '16 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, there was indeed a typo in the formular, but Jack Lee has got it right. $\sigma$ is a real-valued function on $M$. $\gamma'(\sigma)$ denotes the directional derivative of $\sigma$ in direction $\gamma'$. $\sigma(\gamma')$ was a typo and has no meaning. Thank you for clarifying this! $\endgroup$ – 761838257287 Dec 15 '16 at 21:38
1
$\begingroup$

Interesting question. The answer seems to be yes. (The problem with @JohnHughes's counterexample is that his curve $\gamma$ does not satisfy $\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'=0$ with respect to his original metric $g$. If my back-of-the envelope computation is correct, it should be $\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'=\frac12 \partial/\partial y$.)

Here's a sketch of a proof that it's always possible to conformally change the metric in a neighborhood of a point to make $\gamma$ a geodesic there. The proof comes in several steps. (Note that all of these constructions are merely local.)

Step 1. Choose local coordinates $(x^1,\dots,x^n)$ in which $\gamma(t) = (t,0,\dots,0)$. Because we're assuming $\gamma'(t)$ is never zero, this is possible by the rank theorem.

Step 2. Make a preliminary conformal change to $g$ to make $\gamma$ a unit-speed curve. In the coordinates above, $|\gamma'(t)|^2_g = g_{11}(t,0,\dots,0)$, so this can be accomplished by defining $\overline g = f g$, where $f(x^1,\dots,x^n) = 1/ g_{11}(x^1,0,\dots,0)$. Let's replace the original metric by $\overline {g}$.

Step 3. Now change $g$ again to make $\hat \nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'=0$. Write the coordinate representation of $\nabla_{\gamma'(t)}\gamma'(t)$ as $\sum_j a^j(t)\partial_j|_{\gamma(t)}$. Differentiating the equation $|\gamma'(t)|^2 \equiv 1$ shows that $\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'$ is orthogonal to $\gamma'$ along $\gamma$, which means that $$ \sum_j g_{1j}(t,0,\dots,0) a^j(t) \equiv 0.\tag{1} $$ Define a function $\sigma$ by $$ \sigma(x^1,\dots,x^n) = 1 + \sum_{i,j=1}^n g_{ij}(x^1,0,\dots,0) x^i a^j(x^1) = 1 + \sum_{i=2}^n\sum_{j=1}^n g_{ij}(x^1,0,\dots,0)x^i a^j(x^1) , $$ where the second equality follows from $(1)$, and set $\hat g = e^{2\sigma}g$. Note that along the image of $\gamma$, where $x^2=\dots =x^n=0$, we have $\sigma\equiv 1$, so $\gamma$ is still unit-speed with respect to $\hat\gamma$. Also along the image of $\gamma$, we have $\partial_i \sigma = \sum_j g_{ij}a^j$: for $i=1$, this follows by noting that $\partial_1\sigma=0$ since $\sigma=1$ there, and applying $(1)$; while for $i>1$, it follows by differentiating the formula for $\sigma$ and setting $x^2=\dots= x^n=0$. Therefore, $$ \operatorname{grad} \sigma = \sum_{i,k} g^{ik} \partial_i\sigma \partial_k = \sum_{i,j,k} g^{ik} g_{ij} a^j \partial_k =\sum_j a^j \partial_j = \nabla_{\gamma'}{\gamma'}. $$ Moreover, we also have $\gamma'(\sigma) = \partial\sigma/\partial x^1 = 0$ and $g(\gamma',\gamma') = 1$ along $\gamma$, so it follows from the OP's formula that $\hat \nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma' \equiv 0$. $\square$

There might be a more efficient way to do this, but this was the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, your proof is easy to follow and helps me a lot. For your initial back-of-the-envelope calculation: Using the Koszul formula, it seems that $\nabla _{\gamma'} \gamma' = \frac{1}{2t} \cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial y}$. But setting aside the exact value, we can agree that the suggested curve is not parallel with respect to $\nabla$. This also follows from the fact, that it is not a unit speed curve, which is easier to check. On an unrelated note: I'm a big fan of your "Smooth Manifolds" book, it sure has helped a lot of students. $\endgroup$ – 761838257287 Jan 9 '17 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel -- Thanks! I'm glad it's been helpful. $\endgroup$ – Jack Lee Jan 9 '17 at 14:53
0
$\begingroup$

Following Jack Lee's interpretation, I think that the answer is "no".

Let's look at the case where $M$ is the upper half-plane, and the metric at location $(x, y)$ is given, in the standard basis, by

\begin{align} g(x, y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & y \end{bmatrix} \end{align}

And let's also look at the path $$ \gamma(t) = (t, t) $$

Suppose that there were a scaling function $\sigma$ on the plane that made $\gamma$ into a geodesic.

Since $\gamma'$ is constant, the first term in $$ 0=\nabla_{\gamma'}\gamma'+ 2 (\gamma') \cdot \gamma'(\sigma) - g(\gamma', \gamma') \cdot \operatorname{grad} \sigma $$ is zero [NB: Per the comments, this is in doubt]. The second term is just twice the directional derivative of $\sigma$ in the direction $[1, 1]^t$, times the vector $[1, 1]^t$. The $g$ part of the third term is $1 + t^2$, and the gradient is ... well, the gradient.

But this gives us something of the form $$ c \begin{bmatrix}1\\1 \end{bmatrix} = (1+t^2) \operatorname{grad} \sigma $$ which tells us that the two components of the gradient must be equal. So $\sigma$ is constant on the lines where $x + y = c$, hence we can write $$ \sigma(x, y) = f(x + y) $$ for some function $f$. Now $$ \operatorname{grad} \sigma (x, y) = \begin{bmatrix} f'(x+ y) \\ f'(x+ y)\end{bmatrix} $$ and so our equation becomes \begin{align} 2 (\gamma' \cdot \sigma) \begin{bmatrix}1\\1 \end{bmatrix} &= (1+t^2) \operatorname{grad} \sigma \\ 2 (2f'(t+ t)) \begin{bmatrix}1\\1 \end{bmatrix} &= (1+t^2) \begin{bmatrix} f'(t+ t) \\ f'(t+ t)\end{bmatrix} \end{align}

That seems to say that $4 = 1 + t^2$ (or that $f$ is constant). The first is false, so $f$ must be constant ... but a constant $f$ does not make this path a geodesic.

I've probably screwed up somewhere obvious, but ... that's what I've got.

Post-comment addition

As mentioned, the claim about the directional derivative of $\gamma'$ is in doubt...but the rest of the analysis shows that this directional derivative, if it's not zero, must be in the $[1, 1]$ direction.

So the question becomes: if you're walking home, and slogging through the mud in a non-optimal way, and someone alters the muddiness in a way that's constant along lines orthogonal to your path, can your route become optimal? I don't see how it could, but that's not a proof that it cannot.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there an easy way to see that $\nabla _{\gamma'} \gamma'=0$ in your example? For the Levi-Civita connection of the standard flat metric that would be obvious, but for your altered metric I don't see it immediately. I will think more about your example during the next days, thank you for your answer already! $\endgroup$ – 761838257287 Dec 15 '16 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ To be honest, I thought it denoted the ordinary gradient in the $\gamma'$ direction. (As I said, I surely made some stupid mistake...) I'm more familiar with explicit everything-in-coordinates diff'l geometry. :( $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Dec 15 '16 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.