Does this theorem have a name?

  • Thread starter Thread starter techmologist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a theorem relating the integral of the cross product of the unit tangent and unit normal vectors over a curve C to the mean curvature of a surface S. The equation presented, which can be derived from Stokes' theorem, is expressed as the integral of the tangent and normal vectors equating to a function of the mean curvature. The mean curvature H is defined as half the trace of the second fundamental form, linking it to the divergence of the normal vector. The derivation clarifies the relationship between the geometry of the surface and the integrals involved. The theorem appears to be a known result, although its specific name is not identified.
techmologist
Messages
305
Reaction score
12
For a surface S bounded by a curve C,

\int_{C} \mathbf{t} \times \mathbf{n}ds = -2\int_{S} H \mathbf{n}da

t is the unit tangent to C, and n is the unit normal to the surface S. H is the mean curvature of S. It can be derived from Stokes' theorem, but it seems like the kind of result that might have been known earlier.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
For any constant vector c,

\mathbf{c} \cdot \int_C \mathbf{t} \times \mathbf{n} ds = \int_C (\mathbf{n} \times \mathbf{c}) \cdot \mathbf{t} ds =\int_S \nabla \times (\mathbf{n} \times \mathbf{c}) \cdot \mathbf{n}da

Using the vector identity

\nabla \times (\mathbf{a} \times \mathbf{b}) = \mathbf{b} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{a} - \mathbf{a} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{b} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{a} ) \mathbf{b} + (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{b} )\mathbf{a}

and the fact that c is constant, the above integral becomes

\int_S [\mathbf{c}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{n} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{n})\mathbf{c} ] \cdot \mathbf{n} da <br /> =<br /> \mathbf{c} \cdot \int_S (\nabla \mathbf{n} ) \cdot \mathbf{n} - (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{n }) \mathbf{n} da

The first term in the integrand is zero, since it is just the gradient of the length of the unit normal. Also, since the vector c was arbitrary, its dot product with the integral can be dropped:


\int_C \mathbf{t} \times \mathbf{n} ds = -\int_S (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{n} ) \mathbf{n} da

Depending on how you define the normal (outward or inward), div n = -2H up to a sign*. So that gives the result

\int_C \mathbf{t} \times \mathbf{n} ds = \int_S 2H \mathbf{n} da

I had an extra minus sign in the first post.


* The mean curvature H of a surface is equal to half the trace of the second fundamental form B: 2H = gjkbjk. The components of the second fundamental form can be defined as

b_{jk} = -\mathbf{x}_j \cdot \mathbf{n}_{,k} = -\mathbf{x}_j \cdot \mathbf{n}_{,k} = - n^i_{{ };k}\mathbf{x}_j \cdot \mathbf{x}_i = -n^i_{{ };k}g_{ij}

Multiplying both sides by the inverse of g_ij and then summing the diagonal elements gives

g^{jk}b_{jk} = - n^k_{{ };k} = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf{n}
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top