0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to show that $\gamma(t) = (0,t)$ is a geodesic in the hyperbolic plane, that is for $\mathbb{R}^2$ equipped with the metric $g_{11}=g_{22} = \frac{1}{y^2}$, $g_{12}=0$.

The way I was trying to do this was by computing the associated Christoffel symbols and then show that $\gamma$ satisfies the geodesic equation. The Christoffel symbols I computed are: $\Gamma_{11}^1 = \Gamma_{12}^2 = \Gamma_{22}^1 = 0$, $\Gamma_{11}^2 = \frac{1}{y}$, $\Gamma_{12}^1 = \Gamma_{22}^2 = \frac{-1}{y}$.

Clearly $\gamma'(t) = (0,1), \gamma''(t) = (0,0)$, so for the second geodesic equation I believe reduces to: $\Gamma_{22}^2\gamma_2'(t)\gamma_2'(t) \neq 0$

I'm sure there's just a sign error or something in there but I can't spot it at all.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

You can prove this without complicated calculation :

${ dx^2+dy^2\over y^2 }\geq {dy^2 \over y^2}$ implies that given two point on the vertical line $x=0$ and a path $c(t)=(x(t),y(t))$ between these two points, the length of this path is greater that the length of the path $d(t)=(0,y(t))$, which contains the vertical segment between these points. This segment is therefore the unique shortest path between these points, and is a geodesic.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I don't understand how, from the generic second geodesic equation

$$\ddot{y}+\Gamma_{11}^2(\dot{x})^2+\Gamma_{12}^2(\dot{x})^2(\dot{y})^2+\Gamma_{21}^2(\dot{x})^2(\dot{y})^2+\Gamma_{22}^2(\dot{y})^2=0$$

you obtain this single term ; in this equation, the central terms vanish and it remains:

$$\ddot{y}=\tfrac{(\dot{x})^2}{y}-\tfrac{(\dot{y})^2}{y}$$

(Take also a look at (https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/91113))


I take this opportunity to explain a simple physical model that I have never seen explained very clearly.

This model provides the geodesics of $\mathbb{H}$ , i.e., the half circles orthogonal to the real axis as optical shortest paths in a medium with a variable optical index: $n=\tfrac{1}{y}$ at point $(x,y)$ (this index is thus constant along horizontal lines).

Question: What is the trajectory followed by a light ray starting in $(x_0,y_0)$ with an incidence angle $i_0$ with respect to a vertical reference (see figure below) ?

Solution : Let us consider $\mathbb{H}$ as a ''stratified medium'' with an infinity of infinitesimal diopters separating medias with respective indices $\dfrac{1}{y+dy}$ and $\dfrac{1}{y}$. For such a diopter, the Snell's refraction law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law) gives :

$$\tag{1}\dfrac{1}{y+dy}\sin{(i+di)}=\dfrac{1}{y}\sin{(i)} \ \iff \ \sin{(i+di)}=\left(1+\dfrac{dy}{y}\right)\sin{(i)}.$$

Let us expand the LHS of (1) up to the first order:

$$\sin(i)+\cos{(i)} di=\sin{(i)}+\dfrac{dy}{y}\sin(i).$$

$$\dfrac{\cos{(i)}}{\sin{(i)}} di=\dfrac{dy}{y}.$$

This differential equation can be integrated as follows:

$$\ln(\sin{(i)})=\ln(y)+K.$$

Let $K=-\ln(R)$. The previous relationship is equivalent to:

$\sin{(i)}=\dfrac{y}{R} \ $ with initial conditions $\sin{(i_0)}=\dfrac{y_0}{R}$ giving

$$R=\dfrac{y_0}{\sin(i_0)}.$$

Out of which, finally, we get $y=R \sin{i}$ : it's, as awaited, a circular arc with radius $R$ centered on the $x$ axis.

Remark 1: It is interesting to see that this law $n=\tfrac{1}{y}$ is a kind of "potential" with respect to the law $d=\tfrac{1}{y^2}$ expressing the hyperbolic distance to the $x$ axis.

Remark 2: We have not considered specifically here the particular case of the vertical lines.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ the reason, I believe the equation reduced to one term was that all others vanished. Either because the Christoffel symbol was 0 or because $\gamma'' = 0$. Thanks for the extensive explanation on the intuition behind these geodesics, I'm sure it will help my visualisation in the future. I'd also love to know where/what my mistake is! $\endgroup$ – user291678 Mar 31 '17 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ The equation you give $\ddot{y}=\tfrac{(\dot{x})^2}{y}-\tfrac{(\dot{y})^2}{y}$ is of course true, but I have a specific curve I wish to check is a geodesic. Namely $(x(t),y(t)) = (0,t)$, it was substituting into the equation you've given which gave me the single non-zero term. So surely this then says that $(0,t)$ is in fact not a geodesic? $\endgroup$ – user291678 Mar 31 '17 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Mar 31 '17 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ @TedShifrin the reference you provided was useful in my understanding! I think I am getting confused because of the question itself. It explicitly asked to show that $\gamma(t) = (0,t)$ is a geodesic, so I assumed all that needed to be done was to essentially plug it into the geodesic equation and show that they do vanish. $\endgroup$ – user291678 Mar 31 '17 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Most texts will call it a pre-geodesic if the curve (reparametrized appropriately) becomes a geodesic. Some of us are a bit sloppier. They should have just described it as a vertical ray in words. :) $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Mar 31 '17 at 18:28

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.