Undergrad Extrinsic Curvature Formulas in General Relativity: Are They Equivalent?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the discrepancies between two formulas for calculating extrinsic curvature in general relativity. One formula, derived from "Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach," yields a curvature expression of K = (x'y'' - x''y')/(x'^2 + y'^2)^(3/2), while the other from "Eric Possion, A Relativist's Toolkit" gives K = ∇α nα, resulting in a factor of 2 difference when applied to plane curves. Participants express confusion over the equivalence of these formulas and the role of the normal vector in curvature calculations. There is a suggestion that the formula K = dφ/ds is correct without the factor of 2, indicating a potential misunderstanding in the curvature definitions. The conversation highlights the complexity of curvature concepts in differential geometry and the need for clarity in their application.
craigthone
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
I know two kinds formulas to calculate extrinsic curvature. But I found they do not match.

One is from "Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach"##K=\frac{d\phi}{ds}## where ##Δ\phi## is the change in direction and ##Δs## is the change in length. For parametric form curve ##(x(t),y(t))## the extrinsic curvature is given by
$$K=\frac{x'y''-x''y'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}}$$
where ##'≡\frac{d}{dt}##

The extrinsic curvature formula in general relativity from "Eric Possion, A Relativist's Toolkit" is given by ##K=∇_\alpha n^\alpha##. For a plane curve ##(x(t),y(t))## in flat space, the outgoing unit normal vector is ##(n^x,n^y)=(\frac{y'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}},\frac{-x'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}})##, and the extrinsic curvature is
$$K=\partial_x n^x+\partial_y n^y=\frac{1}{x'} \partial_t n^x+\frac{1}{y'} \partial_t n^y=2\frac{x'y''-x''y'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}}$$

Is there anything wrong here? Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A google of the subject of curvature in differential geometry gave some rather complex results, but one of the more fundamental topics that came up was Gaussian curvature and principal curvatures. Maybe there is a simple solution to this one, but the google did not seem to yield any simple explanations.
 
The denominators are ##(x'^2+y'^2)^{3/2}## ratherthan ##\sqrt{(x'^2+y'^2)}##

craigthone said:
I know two kinds formulas to calculate extrinsic curvature. But I found they do not match.

One is from "Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach"##K=\frac{d\phi}{ds}## where ##Δ\phi## is the change in direction and ##Δs## is the change in length. For parametric form curve ##(x(t),y(t))## the extrinsic curvature is given by
$$K=\frac{x'y''-x''y'}{(x'^2+y'^2)^{3/2}}$$
where ##'≡\frac{d}{dt}##

The extrinsic curvature formula in general relativity from "Eric Possion, A Relativist's Toolkit" is given by ##K=∇_\alpha n^\alpha##. For a plane curve ##(x(t),y(t))## in flat space, the outgoing unit normal vector is ##(n^x,n^y)=(\frac{y'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}},\frac{-x'}{\sqrt{x'^2+y'^2}})##, and the extrinsic curvature is
$$K=\partial_x n^x+\partial_y n^y=\frac{1}{x'} \partial_t n^x+\frac{1}{y'} \partial_t n^y=2\frac{x'y''-x''y'}{(x'^2+y'^2)^{3/2}}$$

Is there anything wrong here? Thanks in advance!
 
For motion in a plane, ## |\frac{d \hat{N}}{ds}| ## could also be used to define the curvature, since ## \hat{N} ## is always perpendicular to ## \hat{T} ##. I was looking for a similar concept for a surface covering 3 dimensions, and I think it should be of the form ## \vec{N}_{ij} =\frac{\partial{N_i}}{\partial{x_j}} ##, but I couldn't find it in a google search. This would make ## d \hat{N}=\vec{N}_{ij} \cdot d \vec{s} ##, but I couldn't find it in this form. ## \\ ## Meanwhile, the derivatives in the second case are quite lengthy. If I get some free time, I may try to compute them and see if they match your first expression.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes craigthone
I worked the through the calculation in the second case, and got exactly what you did with the extra factor of 2. The next step is to see if ## K=d \phi/ds ## in the first expression is computed correctly...And a google of it shows the formula is correct for ## d \phi/ds ## without the 2. ## \\ ## Additional comment: It was my first instincts that this definition ## K= \nabla_{\alpha} n^{\alpha} ## is not precisely ## |\frac{d \hat{N}}{ds}| ##. It's good to see that there is a simple factor of 2 that connects them for the two dimensional case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes craigthone

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K