Given two Riemannian manifolds $(M, g_1)$ and $(N, g_2)$, and geodesic curves $\gamma(t)$ in $M$ and $\chi(t)$ in $N$. Is the curve $\Gamma(t) = (\gamma(t),\chi(t))$ a geodesic in the product manifold $(M \times N, g_1 + g_2)$ ? Is it a geodesic if we now consider the product manifold $(M \times N, \alpha g_1 + \beta g_2)$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are two positive (or zero) scalar constants ?

$$ $$

EDIT: Although I feel it should be the case (geodesic), could you tell me if my counter-example is right:

Let's say $g_1$ is euclidean, and $g_2$ is not. I am interested in whether $\nabla_{\dot\Gamma}\dot\Gamma$ has only components along $\dot\Gamma$ (ie., $\Gamma$ is autoparallel). Let's call the Levi-Civita connections on $M$ and $N$, respectively $\nabla^1$ and $\nabla^2$. Since $g_1$ is euclidean, $\nabla^1_{\dot\gamma}\dot\gamma=0$. Projecting $\nabla_{\dot\Gamma}\dot\Gamma$ on $\dot\Gamma^\perp$ (to check whether its perp component is $0$), I get $\nabla^{(\pi)}_{\dot \Gamma}\dot\Gamma = (0, \nabla^2_{\dot\chi}\dot\chi - \frac{g_2(\nabla^2_{\dot\chi}\dot\chi,\dot\chi)}{g_1(\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma)+g_2(\dot\chi,\dot\chi)}\dot\chi)$. This second term isn't expected to be zero, right? Since $\chi$ is geodesic, only $\nabla^2_{\dot\chi}\dot\chi - \frac{g_2(\nabla^2_{\dot\chi}\dot\chi,\dot\chi)}{g_2(\dot\chi,\dot\chi)}\dot\chi)$ is zero...


  • $\begingroup$ Since $\chi(t)$ is a geodesic, $\nabla^2_{\dot{\chi(t)}}\dot{\chi(t)} = 0$, so yes, $(\gamma, \chi)$ is a geodesic. In fact $\nabla_{\dot{\chi}} \dot{\chi} = 0$ is the definition of being a geodesic. Your curve $\Gamma$ is also a geodesic with the metric $ag_1 + bg_2$. To see this, note that if $\gamma$ is a geodesic of $g_1$, it's also a geodesic of $ag_1$ for any $a$. Now just use the argument for $g_1 + g_2$. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Dec 14 '12 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ I thought geodesics were when the second fundamental form $\nabla_{\dot\Gamma}\dot\Gamma - \nabla^{(\pi)}_{\dot\Gamma}\dot\Gamma$ vanished (with $\pi$ the projection on the tangent space)... what is the difference then ? $\endgroup$ – WhitAngl Dec 14 '12 at 1:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When the second fundamental form vanishes, you have a totally geodesic submanifold. Certainly a 1-d totally geodesic submanifold is a (portion of a) geodesic, but there are many more examples. For example, $\mathbb{R}^2\subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ (usual embedding) is a totally geodesic submanifold. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Dec 14 '12 at 1:11
  • $\begingroup$ Give me some time to work out your actual proposed counterexample, and I'll get back to you. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Dec 14 '12 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! if you're right with the definition of the geodesic, then I understand why it should be zero. But I thought geodesics were 1d autoparallel submanifolds, and that by definition their second fundamental form vanished since the second fundamental form measures a curvature... $\endgroup$ – WhitAngl Dec 14 '12 at 1:15

The key fact is the condition that $\gamma$ is a geodesic is strictly stronger than the condition that the image of $\gamma$ is totally geodesic.

This is clear from the equations - saying $\gamma$ is a geodesic means $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}} \dot{\gamma} = 0$ while the image of $\gamma$ being totally geodesic means $$\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}} \dot{\gamma} - \frac{g(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}\dot{\gamma}, \dot{\gamma} )}{g(\dot{\gamma}, \dot{\gamma})}\dot{\gamma} = 0.$$

If the image of $\gamma$ is totally geodesic it does follow that by reparamaterizing $\gamma$, it does become a geodesic.

Now, suppose $\Gamma = (\gamma_1(t), \gamma_2(t))$. If $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are both geodesics (meaning $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}_i} \dot{\gamma}_i = 0$ for $i = 1,2$), then by your above equations, $\Gamma$ is a geodesic.

On the other hand, if $\gamma_1$ is a geodesic and $\gamma_2$ merely has totally geodesic image, then $\Gamma = (\gamma_1(t), \gamma_2(t))$ need not be totally geodesic. Your equations show exactly why you shouldn't expect it to be, but here's a concrete counterexample.

Consider $M_1 = M_2 = \mathbb{R}$. Let $\gamma_1(t) = t$ and let $\gamma_2 = t^3$. Then $\gamma_1$ is a geodesic and the image of $\gamma_2$ is totally geodesic because there is no normal direction at all. (If this is too trivial, take $M_1 = M_2 = \mathbb{R}^2$, $\gamma_1(t) = (t,0)$ and $\gamma_2(t) = (t^3, 0)$ - the rest of the argument will work in either case). Then in $M_1\times M_2$, the image of $\Gamma(t) = (\gamma_1(t), \gamma_2(t))$ is the graph of a cubic polynomial, so is NOT a straight line, so is not a geodesic at all. Nor is the subset totally geodesic.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks! However I don't seize the difference between geodesic and totally geodesic in this case (wiki tells me "Totally geodesic submanifold is a submanifold such that all geodesics in the submanifold are also geodesics of the surrounding manifold" which doesn't really help me). Does totally geodesic mean that the curve is a geodesic with non constant speed (like in your $t^3$ example) ? $\endgroup$ – WhitAngl Dec 14 '12 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ (the reason I don't understand wiki's definition in this context is that I have a 1D submanifold, and if all geodesics in this 1D submanifolds are also geodesics in the surrounding manifold, then I am under the impression that my 1D submanifold is a geodesic in the surrounding manifold) $\endgroup$ – WhitAngl Dec 14 '12 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the image of a curve $c$ is totally geodesic, then $c$ itself is almost a geodesic - it may not have constant speed. Thus, after suitable reparameterization, it will be a geodesic. That is the only difference between a geodesic and a curve with totally geodesic image. $\endgroup$ – Jason DeVito Dec 14 '12 at 23:02

The connection of Levi Civita $\widetilde{\nabla}$ of product $M\times N$ is given by $\widetilde{\nabla}=\nabla^1+\nabla^2$ where $\nabla^1$ is the connection of Levi Civita of $M$ and $\nabla^2$ is the connection of Levi Civita of $N$ such that if $X=(X_1,X_2)$ and $Y=(Y_1,Y_2)$ are tangent fields on $M\times N$, then $\widetilde{\nabla}_XY=\nabla^1_{X_1}Y_1+\nabla^2_{X_2}Y_2$. Consequente, se $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are geodesics of $M$ and $N$ respectively, it follows that $\nabla_{\gamma_1^{\prime}}^1\gamma_1^{\prime}=0$ and $\nabla_{\gamma_2^{\prime}}^2\gamma_1^{\prime}=0$. Hence, if $\gamma=(\gamma_1,\gamma_2)$, we obtain $$\widetilde{\nabla}_{\gamma^{\prime}}\gamma^{\prime}=\nabla_{\gamma_1^{\prime}}^1\gamma_1^{\prime}+\nabla_{\gamma_2^{\prime}}^2\gamma_2^{\prime}=0.$$ Therefore $\gamma$ is a geodesic of $M\times N$.


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.