1

It is claimed here that a mark on a rod parallelly transported by an observer moving along a geodesic $\gamma(t)$ on a smooth manifold $M$ (with a metric $g$) will trace out a helix, instead of a geodesic.

I am failing to see this on a simple case: Specifically, say that $M=\mathcal{S}^2$ (the unit sphere) $g=d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2$ (the standard metric) and $\nabla$ is any metric-compatible connection with Torsion (for example, the one where a vector is to be parallel transported if the angle between the vector and the latitude is kept fixed during the navigation - see here)

Since $\nabla$ is Metric Compatible, a parallelly transported Fiber $T_pM \cong \mathbb{R}^2$ will be a rotation. If we then move along $\partial_{\phi}$, it seems that $\partial_{\theta}$ (i.e. the "rod") should be facing in the same direction the whole time (say towards the North pole).

If that's the case, how is a curve of the form $\theta=constant$ a helix?

Edit: After the wonderful reply by @Jackozee Hakkiuz, it is almost certainly the case that the wikipedia statement is incorrect/incomplete. For starters, helicity seems to occur only when we have at least 3 dimensions. Further assumptions may also be necessary, so if anyone knows the full generality in which a parallelly transported rod traces a helix, feel free to share it with us.

1 Answers1

1

The example doesn't work because the dimension is too low. Metric-compatible parallel transport maps "look like rotations" from the outside, so since parallel-transporting along your geodesics neccessarily fixes the velocity vector, that is enough to fix the whole tangent plane.

Consider $\mathbb R^3$ with the Euclidean metric and with Cartesian coordinates. If a connection is compatible with the metric, it needs to satisfy $$\Gamma^i_{jk} + \Gamma^k_{ji} = 0$$ Moreover, if we ask the coordinate lines to be geodesics, we get the additional restrictions $$\Gamma^i_{11}=\Gamma^i_{22}=\Gamma^i_{33}=0.$$ These two conditions allow $\Gamma^i_{jk}\neq 0$ only if $i,j,k$ are all different. For the connection to be flat, all components of the curvature tensor must vanish: $$R^s_{ljk}=\partial_k\Gamma^s_{jl}-\partial_j\Gamma^s_{kl}+\Gamma^s_{kr}\Gamma^r_{jl}-\Gamma^s_{jr}\Gamma^r_{kl}=0.$$ For simplicity, suppose the connection coefficients are constant, so that we only get the restriction $$\Gamma^s_{kr}\Gamma^r_{jl}=\Gamma^s_{jr}\Gamma^r_{kl}$$ This gets us down to one degree of freedom, say, $\Gamma^1_{23}=-\Gamma^3_{21}=A$. Now observe that the parallel transport of a vector $v$ along a curve $\gamma$ is given by $$\frac{dv^i}{dt} + \Gamma^i_{jk}\dot\gamma^jv^k=0.$$ In particular, note that the $\Gamma$ terms vanish if $\dot\gamma$ doesn't have $y$ component. Now, for a line $\gamma(t)=(a,t,c)$ parallel to the $y$ axis, we have $\dot\gamma=(0,1,0)$, so \begin{align} \frac{dv^1}{dt} &= -Av^3 \\ \frac{dv^2}{dt} &= 0 \\ \frac{dv^3}{dt} &= Av^1 \end{align} Whose solution is, you guessed, a helix!

Edit The main goal of this answer was to see that the statements in the wiki make some sense, at least in particular cases. Of course, this is just a particular space in which we can get a feel for what a helix looks like, but how would you detect "helicity" in an arbitrary manifold?. My guess would be that, in the general case, vectors which are parallel-transported using a connection with torsion will form helices when you compare them to the same vectors parallel-transported using the Levi-Civita connection, but proving this would need more work. Probably this would also work for nonzero curvature.

Jackozee Hakkiuz
  • 5,583
  • 1
  • 14
  • 35
  • This is an excellent answer @Jackozee Hakkiuz, thanks! To conclude though, it seems the aforementioned wikipedia statement is technically incorrect or at least incomplete. We need to further assume that the manifold (and thus the tangent space) is at least 3 dimensional. Do we need to make any other assumptions? – Pellenthor Aug 11 '23 at 12:10
  • 1
    Hi @Pellenthor. I added some commentary at the end of my post. Basically, my answer is: I don't know. Sorry if it is incomplete. Some day I will try to prove this. – Jackozee Hakkiuz Aug 12 '23 at 16:36
  • No this is great, thank you! My first thoughts are that every manifold is locally flat, so it seems that one can generally prove this at least locally, provided that we have access to at least 3 dimensions. This would also explain why curvature shouldn't affect things. – Pellenthor Aug 12 '23 at 16:56