Geodesic in hyperbolic plane












0














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:
$Gamma_{22}^2gamma_2'(t)gamma_2'(t) neq 0$



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










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Mar 31 '17 at 16:58
















0














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:
$Gamma_{22}^2gamma_2'(t)gamma_2'(t) neq 0$



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










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Mar 31 '17 at 16:58














0












0








0


1





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:
$Gamma_{22}^2gamma_2'(t)gamma_2'(t) neq 0$



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










share|cite|improve this question













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:
$Gamma_{22}^2gamma_2'(t)gamma_2'(t) neq 0$



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







differential-geometry






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 31 '17 at 13:46









user291678

13510




13510








  • 1




    Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Mar 31 '17 at 16:58














  • 1




    Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Mar 31 '17 at 16:58








1




1




Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
– Ted Shifrin
Mar 31 '17 at 16:58




Perhaps the calculations on p. 92 of my differential geometry text will help.
– Ted Shifrin
Mar 31 '17 at 16:58










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














You can prove this without complicated calculation :



${ dx^2+dy^2over y^2 }geq {dy^2 over y^2}$ 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.






share|cite|improve this answer





























    2














    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






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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!
      – user291678
      Mar 31 '17 at 16:50












    • 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?
      – user291678
      Mar 31 '17 at 16:57










    • @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
      – Ted Shifrin
      Mar 31 '17 at 17:57










    • @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.
      – user291678
      Mar 31 '17 at 18:10










    • 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. :)
      – Ted Shifrin
      Mar 31 '17 at 18:28











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2211721%2fgeodesic-in-hyperbolic-plane%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    You can prove this without complicated calculation :



    ${ dx^2+dy^2over y^2 }geq {dy^2 over y^2}$ 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.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      3














      You can prove this without complicated calculation :



      ${ dx^2+dy^2over y^2 }geq {dy^2 over y^2}$ 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.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        3












        3








        3






        You can prove this without complicated calculation :



        ${ dx^2+dy^2over y^2 }geq {dy^2 over y^2}$ 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.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        You can prove this without complicated calculation :



        ${ dx^2+dy^2over y^2 }geq {dy^2 over y^2}$ 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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Apr 2 '17 at 5:42









        Thomas

        3,864510




        3,864510























            2














            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






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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!
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:50












            • 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?
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:57










            • @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 17:57










            • @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.
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:10










            • 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. :)
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:28
















            2














            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






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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!
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:50












            • 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?
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:57










            • @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 17:57










            • @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.
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:10










            • 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. :)
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:28














            2












            2








            2






            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






            share|cite|improve this answer














            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







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 27 '18 at 23:33

























            answered Mar 31 '17 at 14:45









            Jean Marie

            28.8k41949




            28.8k41949












            • 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!
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:50












            • 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?
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:57










            • @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 17:57










            • @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.
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:10










            • 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. :)
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:28


















            • 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!
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:50












            • 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?
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 16:57










            • @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 17:57










            • @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.
              – user291678
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:10










            • 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. :)
              – Ted Shifrin
              Mar 31 '17 at 18:28
















            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!
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 16:50






            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!
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 16:50














            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?
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 16:57




            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?
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 16:57












            @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Mar 31 '17 at 17:57




            @user291678: You need to reparametrize the vertical rays, but, yes, they're geodesics. See the reference I gave you above.
            – Ted Shifrin
            Mar 31 '17 at 17:57












            @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.
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 18:10




            @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.
            – user291678
            Mar 31 '17 at 18:10












            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. :)
            – Ted Shifrin
            Mar 31 '17 at 18:28




            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. :)
            – Ted Shifrin
            Mar 31 '17 at 18:28


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2211721%2fgeodesic-in-hyperbolic-plane%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Human spaceflight

            Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

            張江高科駅