I'm studying some GR and my book says that in Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds geodesics may even maximize the path locally. That's what happen to the timelike geodesics, for example. My first question: Is this statement easy to prove? I mean, does it follow straightly from the locally minimizing property of geodesics in Riemannian manifolds? If yes, please explain it to me, otherwise suggest me some reference where I can found the proof.

It seems that those minimizing/maximizing properties depend upon the geodesics' causal structure (timelike, spacelike or null-like) and, in general, nothing can be said about those geodesic's properties without knowing its causal structure. Is this correct?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Crossposted to math.SE. Please do not crosspost. Also, hint: Observe that it is always possible to find a path in a small surrounding of a time-like geodesic (by winding a path around the "tube" around the time-like path) that is shorter in the Lorentzian metric than the time-like path. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Apr 27 '15 at 16:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ tackle this problem using calculus of variations, in the pseudo-Riemannian manifolds the second variation is negative for timelike curves (so geodesics are a local maximium) and in usual Riemannian geometry is positive (so a local minimium). In both case, setting the first variation of the length equal zero gives geodesic equation. $\endgroup$ – Héctor Apr 27 '15 at 16:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a related question here. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Apr 27 '15 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind, I'm not sure if I got it what you're saying, could you elaborate it a little more please? $\endgroup$ – Mr. K Apr 27 '15 at 20:04

First we sketch a proof that a timelike geodesic is a maximum of proper time. (We exclude saddle points for now.) Let $\gamma$ be a curve satisfying the geodesic equation, i.e. it is an extremum of proper time defined by $\tau[\gamma]:=\int\sqrt{-\langle\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma\rangle}\,\mathrm{d}t$. It is fairly simple to show that there always exists a curve $\mu$ for which $\tau[\mu]<\tau[\gamma]$, implying $\gamma$ is not a minimum. Construct along $\gamma$ a "tube" which is arbitrarily wide. Let $\mu$ be a curve which has the same start and end points as $\gamma$. Let $\mu$ be confined to the tube along $\gamma$. Now wind $\mu$ along the tube so that it is almost null, i.e. the curve's tangent approaches the null cone at every point on the tube. Thus we have constructed a curve with $\tau[\mu]$ arbitrarily close to zero, which can be made less than $\tau[\gamma]$.

This implies that a geodesic is not a minimum, but cannot determine that a timelike geodesic is not a saddle. However, this is not entirely true either. Here we quote Theorem 9.9.3 in [1]$^1$.

Let $\gamma$ be a smooth timelike curve connecting two points $p,q$. Then the necessary and sufficient condition that $\gamma$ locally maximize the proper time between $p$ and $q$ over smooth one parameter variations is that $\gamma$ be a geodesic with no point conjugate to $p$ between $p$ and $q$.

So a timelike geodesic is not necessarily a maximum of proper time. The study of geodesics does tie in to causal structure, Refs. [1] and [2] are highly recommended for this purpose.

Two standard references on causal structure are:

[1] R.M. Wald, General Relativity (1984).

[2] S.W. Hawking & G.F.R. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time (1973).

$^1$This is in turn quoted from Proposition 4.5.8 in [2], but I prefer [1]'s wording. Note that the full proof is found in [2].

  • $\begingroup$ I didn't understand it. In your first paragraph you're not using the supposition that $\gamma$ is a geodesic. Consequently, what you're proving is that doesn't exist a shortest timelike curve, since we can always find another timelike curve even shorter (arbitrarily close to zero), not that every timelike curve is shorter than a timelike geodesic. What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – Mr. K Apr 28 '15 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ @IberêKuntz The point I'm making is that a geodesic $\gamma$ is not a minimum of proper time, but rather a maximum (or a saddle, this depends on the causal structure). $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Apr 28 '15 at 20:45
  • $\begingroup$ Would you explain why the last equation in page 111 of Ref. [2] is possible? Note that the vector field $K^a$ is orthogonal to a timelike vector field. One can choose a tetrad and let the timelike vector field be one element of the tetrad, then $K^a=(0,K^1,K^2,K^3)$, so the last equation should always be positive (Hawking & Ellis used the mostly-plus convention). $\endgroup$ – Drake Marquis Nov 5 '18 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ @DrakeMarquis As far as I can tell, the only requirement on $K^a$ is that it is a vector field perpendicular to $\gamma$ that vanishes at its endpoints. So if $DW^a/\partial s\ne 0$ at $r$, then of course can construct such a vector field. (Just take it parallel to $DW^a/\partial s$ and scale it appropriately.) So we just have to answer why that derivative is not zero. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Nov 6 '18 at 2:59
  • $\begingroup$ If the derivative were zero, then $W^a$ and its derivative would be zero at $r$. But $W^a$ satisfies a homogenous second order ODE, so $W^a$ and $DW^a/\partial s$ vanishing at $r$ would mean $W^a\equiv 0$. This is a contradiction. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger Nov 6 '18 at 3:00

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.