Extrinsic Curvature Formulas in General Relativity: Are They Equivalent?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equivalence of different formulas for calculating extrinsic curvature in the context of general relativity and differential geometry. Participants explore various formulations, their derivations, and potential discrepancies in results.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two formulas for extrinsic curvature, noting a discrepancy between them: one from "Calculus: An Intuitive and Physical Approach" and another from "Eric Possion, A Relativist's Toolkit."
  • Another participant mentions the complexity of curvature topics in differential geometry, specifically referencing Gaussian curvature and principal curvatures, suggesting a search for simpler explanations.
  • A participant points out that the denominators in the extrinsic curvature formulas should be ##(x'^2+y'^2)^{3/2}## instead of ##\sqrt{(x'^2+y'^2)}##.
  • One participant proposes an alternative definition of curvature for motion in a plane and seeks a similar concept for surfaces in three dimensions, indicating difficulty in finding relevant information.
  • A later reply confirms the calculation in the second case matches the initial expression but notes an extra factor of 2, questioning the correctness of the first expression's computation of ##K=d \phi/ds##.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the equivalence of the definitions of curvature, specifically questioning the relationship between ##K=\nabla_{\alpha} n^{\alpha}## and ##|\frac{d \hat{N}}{ds}|##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the extrinsic curvature formulas, with some confirming calculations that lead to an extra factor of 2, while others question the correctness of the initial formula. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the equivalence of the definitions presented.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in the derivations of the curvature formulas, particularly concerning the correct form of the denominators and the implications of the factor of 2 in the calculations.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: craigthone

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K