0

Let $M$ be a Riemannian surface with the metric $g$ defined by $g = dx^2 + a(x,y)^2 dy^2$, where $a$ is some smooth function.

Is it true that the curves given in the coordinates $(x,y)$ by $\gamma(t) = (t,y_0)$, where $y_0$ is fixed, are all geodesic with respect to the metric $g$?

I tried to solve $\nabla_{\dot \gamma} \dot \gamma = 0$, but I'm not sure how to proceed. I think that $\dot \gamma(t) = (1,0)$ for any $t$, so I don't see what it would mean to compute $\nabla_{(1,0)} (1,0)$...

Alphonse
  • 6,342
  • 1
  • 19
  • 48

1 Answers1

3

The covariant derivative is given in components by $(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}\dot{\gamma})^i = \sum_j\dot{\gamma}^j\partial_j\dot{\gamma}^i + \sum_{jk}\Gamma^i_{jk}\dot{\gamma}^j\dot{\gamma}^k$ where the $\Gamma$ are Christoffel symbols of the second kind. Using $\dot{\gamma} = (1,0)$ we get $(\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}\dot{\gamma})^i = \Gamma^i_{00}$.

Therefore, we just need to compute $\Gamma^i_{00} = \sum_m\frac{1}{2}g^{im}(2\partial_0 g_{m0} - \partial_m g_{00})$. Substituting the metric: $\Gamma^0_{00} = \Gamma^1_{00} = 0$ (because $g_{00}=1$ is constant) and the geodesic equation is satisfied.

To get some intuition, fix two points $(x_1,y_0)$, $(x_2,y_0)$. Consider the curves joining them. To compute their length you have to do an integral, which you can split as an integral over $x$ plus some non-negative term $T$. The integral over $x$ equals $|x_2-x_1|$ and therefore it is constant among our curves. The geodesics are the ones with minimal length, so they minimize $T$. The minimum of $T$ (which is zero) is achieved when the curve doesn't move in the $y$ direction. Thus, the $y=\text{constant}$ lines are geodesics.

coconut
  • 756
  • Thank you very much. Just one question: is it true that $\sum_j\dot{\gamma}^j\partial_j\dot{\gamma}^i = \ddot{\gamma_i}$? – Alphonse Jun 16 '17 at 11:44
  • Moreover, is there some intuition behind the fact that horizontal lines are geodesic? When $a \equiv 1$, this corresponds to the euclidean metric and we know that this is true. – Alphonse Jun 16 '17 at 12:24
  • 1
    @Alphonse $\sum_j\dot{\gamma}^j\partial_j\dot{\gamma}^i = \ddot{\gamma_i}$ is just the chain rule applied to $\dot{\gamma}$. I've modified the answer to include some intuition. – coconut Jun 16 '17 at 22:02