Codex @codex  0

The product of the magnetic field with the velocity in this question is the three-dimensional cross product. Fix ${ϵ}_{123}=1$ and write $K^i{}_j={ϵ}^i{}_{kj}{B}^k$, so $K\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{v}$. In coordinates $y^0=t$, $y^i=x^i$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^3\times \mathbb{R}$, prescribe an affine connection by the following Christoffel symbols:with all other Christoffel symbols zero. These are smooth globally in the given Cartesian coordinates. The lower-index symmetry makes this a torsion-free connection. It is the geometrization of the Lorentz force by an affine connection; no condition on the curl of $\mathbf{E}$ or the divergence of $\mathbf{B}$ is required for this construction.

An affinely parametrized geodesic, with primes denoting differentiation with respect to $\lambda$, satisfiesOn the branch $t^{\prime }=c\ne 0$, use $t$ itself as an affine parameter. Dividing the spatial equation by $c^2$ givesConversely, each solution of this equation makes $\lambda =t$, $y(t)=(t,\mathbf{x}(t))$ an affinely parametrized geodesic of the constructed affine connection. Therefore its image is also an unparametrized geodesic. A general change of parameter adds a term proportional to the tangent in the geodesic equation, leaving the curve unchanged. The branch $t^{\prime }=0$ is not a trajectory with time as parameter.

For the metric realization, assume $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla U$ and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. Introduce the differential formThen $dF=(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B})d{x}^1\wedge d{x}^2\wedge d{x}^3=0$. The global Poincaré lemma on the contractible space ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ supplies a one-form $A=A_{i}d{x}^i$ with $dA=F$, equivalently a magnetic vector potential with $\nabla \times \mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$. An explicit radial-gauge potential for a divergence-free magnetic field isThis is the radial homotopy formula for a closed two-form and is smooth even at the origin. For a constant magnetic field it gives $\mathbf{A}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{x}$.

Consider the Eisenhart-Duval lift with the Lorentzian metricThe independent one-forms $d{x}^1,d{x}^2,d{x}^3,dt,du-2A_{i}d{x}^i-Udt$ exhibit three positive directions and a two-dimensional block with one positive and one negative direction. Thus the metric is nondegenerate, of signature $(4,1)$. Its coefficients do not depend on $u$, and $g_{uu}=0$, so $\xi ={\partial }_u$ is a null Killing vector field. Indeed $g_{Au}$ are constant, so ${\Gamma }^A{}_{Bu}=0$ for the Levi-Civita connection and $\xi$ is parallel.

The geodesic Lagrangian for an affine parameter $\lambda$ isThe cyclic coordinate $u$ gives the conserved quantity $p_u=\partial L/\partial u^{\prime }=t^{\prime }$. Work at a nonzero value of $p_u$ and rescale the affine parameter to set $t^{\prime }=1$. This is the essential step in the null Kaluza-Klein reduction of a stationary force: one fixes the momentum along the null isometry and projects its geodesics, rather than dividing by $g_{uu}$.

The spatial Euler-Lagrange equations, before setting $t^{\prime }=1$, areSince $t^{\prime \prime }=0$ and $F_{ij}{v}^j=-(\mathbf{B}\times \mathbf{v}{)}_i$, their reduction isEquivalently, after taking $t$ as the affine parameter, the term $\dot{u}$ is a total derivative and the reduced Lagrangian is $L_{\mathrm{red}}=\frac{1}{2}|\dot{\mathbf{x}}{|}^2-2\mathbf{A}\cdot \dot{\mathbf{x}}-U$. Its Euler-Lagrange equations give the same sign and factor two.

There is also an explicit converse using null geodesics. For any physical trajectory, setThis makes its five-dimensional tangent null. The conserved momentum of the cyclic coordinate $t$ becomesThe quantity in parentheses is conserved, because its derivative is $\dot{\mathbf{x}}\cdot (2\mathbf{B}\times \dot{\mathbf{x}})=0$. Hence the $t$ equation, as well as the spatial and $u$ Euler-Lagrange equations, is satisfied. Every trajectory admits a null geodesic lift with $p_u=1$, and every such lift projects to the required trajectory.

Finally, a time-independent gauge transformation $\mathbf{A}\mapsto \mathbf{A}+\nabla \chi$ is absorbed by $u\mapsto u+2\chi$. The one-form $du-2A_{i}d{x}^i-Udt$ and the five-dimensional metric are unchanged. These gauge transformations of an Eisenhart-Duval lift alter the reduced Lagrangian only by the total derivative $-2d\chi /dt$.

In Minkowski spacetime, the dilation field $\xi =t{\partial }_t+x{\partial }_x+y{\partial }_y+z{\partial }_z$ has ${\partial }_a{\xi }^c={\delta }_a^c$, so ${\mathcal{L}}_{\xi }\eta =2\eta$ and $\psi =2$. On $t>0$, take $\varphi =-\log t$, for which $\xi (\varphi )=-1$. Part (b) gives the explicit Lorentzian metricwith the requested Killing vector field components. The restriction $t>0$ makes the logarithm smooth and the conformal factor nonzero.

Use geometrized units $G=c=1$ and metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$. Put $f=1-2M/r$ in the Schwarzschild metric. The Schwarzschild tortoise coordinate satisfies $d{r}_{\ast }/dr=f^{-1}$, soSubstituting $dt=dv-f^{-1}dr$ gives the ingoing Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates:The radial metric tensor has determinant $-1$ and inverse components $g^{vv}=0$, $g^{vr}=1$, $g^{rr}=f$. Thus it is nondegenerate and analytic at $r=2M$. The same expression defines a Lorentzian metric for every $r>0$, extending the exterior across the future Schwarzschild event horizon into the black hole. It does not include the other exterior or the white hole of the full Kruskal spacetime. At $r=0$, the Kretschmann scalar $R_{abcd}{R}^{abcd}=48M^2/r^6$ diverges, so this is a curvature singularity, not a removable coordinate singularity.

Use spatial indices $i,j=1,2,3$, set ${\varphi }_i={\partial }_i\varphi$, and assume $\varphi$ is smooth. The inverse metric has $g^{tt}=-c^{-2}{e}^{-2\varphi /c^2}$ and $g^{ij}={\delta }^{ij}$. The Christoffel symbols of the Levi-Civita connection follow from ${\Gamma }^{\alpha }{}_{\beta \gamma }=g^{\alpha \delta }({\partial }_{\beta }{g}_{\gamma \delta }+{\partial }_{\gamma }{g}_{\beta \delta }-{\partial }_{\delta }{g}_{\beta \gamma })/2$:All other components vanish. Although $g_{tt}=-c^2-2\varphi +O(c^{-2})$ diverges, its affine connection has a smooth limit on compact subsets:This is the Newtonian connection from an exponential lapse. It is torsion-free, and its geodesic equation, using $t$ as an affine parameter when $\dot{t}\ne 0$, is $d^2{x}^i/d{t}^2=-{\partial }_i\varphi$. Thus $\varphi$ has the role of a Newtonian gravitational potential. There is no finite limiting nondegenerate Lorentzian metric in these fixed coordinates; $-g(c)/c^2$ tends to $d{t}^2$, a rank-one tensor. The limiting connection preserves $dt$ and the contravariant spatial tensor with components $h^{ij}={\delta }^{ij}$, $h^{t\mu }=0$, which describe the degenerate temporal/spatial structures of this limit.

Choose signature $(-,+,+,+)$, with $e^0$ timelike. The orthonormal coframe in spacetime reconstructs the Lorentzian metric asBecause $A$ and $B$ are nowhere zero on the domain, the coframe is invertible and the metric nondegenerate; either sign of each function is allowed. In retarded and advanced null coordinates $u=t-z$, $v=t+z$ the metric is $-dudv+A(u{)}^{2}d{x}^2+B(u{)}^{2}d{y}^2$, a diagonal example of Rosen coordinates for a plane gravitational wave. Multiplication by $-1$ would give the opposite overall signature convention; all subsequent signs here use the displayed one.

An inertial frame is a nonrotating frame in which all force-free test bodies follow straight trajectories with constant velocity. The qualification “all” matters: a specially chosen coordinate system can make one accelerated trajectory look straight without making the frame inertial. In practice, approximately isolated test bodies and gyroscopes help identify inertial motion; identifying the relevant forces and calibrating instruments are part of testing the theory. The definition does not select a privileged state of uniform rest.

In its usual coordinate formulation, Newtonian mechanics states $m\ddot{\mathbf{x}}=\mathbf{F}$ in an inertial frame. A Galilean transformation, $t^{\prime }=t+b$, ${\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }=R\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{V}t+\mathbf{a}$ with constant orthogonal $R$ and constant $\mathbf{V}$, maps the class of inertial frames to itself. It preserves zero acceleration; a time-dependent translation generally does not. In the translating frame ${\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }=\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{a}(t)$, the same physical law reads $m{\ddot{\mathbf{x}}}^{\prime }=\mathbf{F}-m\ddot{\mathbf{a}}$. The extra fictitious force records the frame's acceleration, rather than a new interaction.

It is possible to state Newtonian mechanics without mentioning an inertial frame explicitly. On Galilean spacetime, let $u$ be a trajectory tangent normalized by the absolute time covector, $t_a{u}^a=1$. Thenuses an affine connection to define acceleration. The free-particle equation is ${\nabla }_{u}u=0$. This formulation removes a chosen coordinate frame but retains the geometric distinction between inertial motion and accelerated motion. Omitting both the inertial frame language and all equivalent inertial structure would leave the law unable to specify which trajectories count as unforced.

The same distinction applies to special relativity. Einstein's original presentation uses a class of inertial frames and calibrated rods, clocks and light signals.^[ref] A geometric presentation instead uses Minkowski spacetime, its Lorentzian metric and its Levi-Civita connection. A free massive particle obeys ${\nabla }_{u}u=0$, now with proper time parametrization and $g(u,u)=-c^2$. There is no preferred inertial rest frame, but there is a distinguished family of inertial trajectories and a physical Minkowski interval.

Accelerating coordinates are allowed in special relativity. They produce nonzero connection coefficients even though the Riemann curvature tensor remains zero. General relativity is needed when spacetime curvature and dynamical gravitation matter, not merely because the chosen observer accelerates. Thus neither theory requires a particular inertial frame in its coordinate-free statement; each still needs the structure that determines inertial motion.

There are two distinct explanatory questions. One asks why a proposed system of equations has a particular dynamical symmetry. The other asks why the common spacetime geometry is the right geometry for the behavior of physical rods, clocks and fields. A geometric account and a dynamical account give different directions of explanation, and their merits cannot be decided by a change of notation alone.

For the geometric account, Minkowski spacetime has a fixed Lorentzian metric; its spacetime isometries form the Poincaré group. If the matter equations use that metric tensor and no additional symmetry-breaking background structure, with couplings and boundary assumptions appropriate to the transformation, these spacetime isometries take solutions into solutions. For example, the Klein-Gordon equationin metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$ is invariant under the Poincaré group. This provides one common reason for the same transformation rules appearing in many laws. An individual solution, such as a particular plane wave, need not possess every symmetry of the equation.

Geometry alone is insufficient unless the assumed coupling to geometry is included. In the covariant equation with a preferred timelike vector,the fixed timelike $n$ selects a preferred rest frame. All the quantities can be transformed consistently under a coordinate transformation, but boosts that change $n$ are not symmetries with the physical background fixed. Thus general covariance, tensor notation and the mere presence of the Minkowski metric do not by themselves establish Einstein's principle of relativity.

A dynamical account instead starts with the common invariance of the actual interactions and asks why their composite rods and clocks measure a common interval. If their equations and suitable equilibrium solutions transform consistently under Lorentz transformations, their moving configurations can exhibit length contraction and their periodic processes time dilation. This is the explanatory strategy defended by Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley, who deny that merely redescribing these effects geometrically supplies their microscopic explanation.^[ref] Such an account must still explain why independent interactions have the same relevant symmetry and why a particular clock is a good clock; it cannot simply infer those facts from the word “dynamics”.

The positions therefore need not disagree about experimental predictions. The geometric presentation makes a shared constraint explicit and permits economical deductions. The constructive presentation investigates why material systems realize that constraint. Defining geometry from universal dynamical behavior is a substantive proposal; deriving behavior from geometry also requires substantive matter-coupling assumptions. Neither direction is made compulsory by the formal equivalence of the descriptions.

A radial null geodesic in a spherically symmetric spacetime has zero angular momentum and fixed angular coordinates. Its projection is a null curve of the two-dimensional radial Lorentzian metric.

A spacetime metric is the Lorentzian metric on a spacetime. It determines proper time along timelike paths and the null directions that describe local light propagation.

For a Lorentzian metric and timelike $v=dx/du$, put $L=\sqrt{-g(v,v)}>0$ and $\mathcal{L}=L^2/2$. The Euler-Lagrange equations of $\mathcal{L}$ give ${\nabla }_{v}v=0$, while those of $L$ give ${\nabla }_{v}v=(\dot{L}/L)v$. Taking $ds/du=L$ removes the latter tangential acceleration and gives a unit timelike tangent. Thus the two actions have the same geodesic images; the quadratic action singles out an affine parameter. They do not have the same solutions for an arbitrary fixed parameter: $t=u^2$, $\mathbf{x}=0$, $u>0$, in Minkowski spacetime solves the length equation but not the energy equation. Null curves are excluded since $L=0$.

A wave map is a harmonic map with Lorentzian domain: a critical point of the action obtained by contracting the pullback target metric with the domain Lorentzian metric. For target sphere $S^2$ in Euclidean space and $\square =-{\partial }_t^2+\Delta$, its extrinsic equation is $\square \varphi =\varphi (|{\varphi }_t{|}^2-|\nabla \varphi {|}^2)$, subject to $|\varphi |=1$. The derivative contractions are null forms for wave equations. Wave map Cauchy data must include a tangent initial velocity.