• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Physical motivation for the timelike Geodesic Equation of a massive particle

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

The most commom derivation I've seen of the geodesic equation of a massive particle is by the use of the Variational Principle. My problem is that i can't realize what the meaning of find a spacetime path (the geodesic) such that the proper time is extremized ( If the signature is (+,-,-,-) it should be a maximum as some textbooks say)

I understood that the action integral must be proportional to the line element $ds$ because we need that all the observers compute the same value of action to obtain the same equations of motion.

What I dont undertand is the physical meaning of finding  a maximim proper time instead a minimum, and what physical implications it leads to. If possible, make some analogy with flat Minkowski Spacetime instead a general curved Spacetime

asked Feb 6, 2020 in Theoretical Physics by Lil' Gravity (0 points) [ no revision ]

1 Answer

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Deriving the geodesic equation via the variational approach, you look for a curve at which the action is stationary, you do not check whether the stationary curve is maximum, minimum, or no extremum. If it is a maximum with one sign convention of the metric, it is a minimum with the opposite sign convention. So the issue "maximum or minimum" is not fundamental, but convention.

Whether the action has to be proportional to ds (why not some scalar function of ds?) is a different issue. Sometimes one can see expressions for (d\tau)^2 = ... or the -(d\tau)^2 = ..., with \tau the proper time; this again is convention. As different textbooks use different conventions and make corresponding statements, this may be confusing and one has to make sure to about the convention used in each text.

By what argument can it be said that the equation of motion of  a massive particle can be obtained by finding a curve that renders the proper time between given endpoints stationary?
By what argument can it be said in classical Lagrangian mechanics that the equation of motion is obtained by finding a curve that renders the integral of T-V along the path stationary (in many cases, at least)? Because it turns out that the Euler-Lagrange equations for this variational problem yield the correct Newtonian equations of motion.

In general relativity, a particle only under the influence of gravity is force free, and, with U the 4-velocity, its equation of motion is \nabla_U U = 0, with \nabla_U the covariant derivative in direction U. This corresponds to the Newtonian "acceleration = 0" for a particle under no forces.

Writing \nabla_U U = 0 in components, with U^a = dx^a/d\tau, one obtains the component version of the geodesic equation (\nabla_U U = 0 is the component-free version). In a second step one can identify (or verify) the geodesic equation as the Euler-Lagrange equation of the Lagrangian L = g_{ab}(dx^a/d\tau)(dx^b/d\tau).

answered Feb 7, 2020 by anonymous [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights