Proof: Curvature Zero -> Motion along a line

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that if a particle moves along a space curve with zero curvature, its motion must be along a straight line. The subject area involves concepts from differential geometry and vector calculus, particularly focusing on curvature and motion along curves.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of curvature being zero and the relationship between the first and second derivatives of the curve's parametrization. There are attempts to derive the equation of a line from the conditions given by the curvature definition and the properties of derivatives.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the relationship between the derivatives, questioning whether the conclusions drawn are formal enough. There is an ongoing exploration of how to rigorously arrive at the parameterized equation of a line based on the established conditions.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of a need for formal rigor in the arguments presented, as well as the constraints of using specific mathematical identities and properties of vectors in the context of curvature and motion.

Thomas_
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Proof that, if a particle moves along a space curve with curvature 0, then its motion is a along a line.

Homework Equations


[tex]K=\frac{||r'(t)\times r''(t)||}{(||r'(t)||)^3}[/tex]
(curvature of a space curve)

The Attempt at a Solution


Assume the curve is smooth, so r'(t) cannot be the zero vector. The numerator must be 0. I evaluate the cross product (set it to 0), and get the following equations.

[tex]g'(t)h''(t) = h'(t)g''(t)[/tex]
[tex]f'(t)h''(t) = h'(t)f''(t)[/tex]
[tex]f'(t)g''(t) = g'(t)f''(t)[/tex]

Here I don't know what to do to get to the equation of a line.

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The easiest way to see this to take the curve parametrization so that |r'(t)|=1. If you differentiate r'(t).r'(t) you see that r'(t).r''(t)=0 (so r' and r'' are perpendicular). Curvature=0 tells you also that r'(t)xr''(t)=0 (so r' and r'' are parallel). What does that tell you about r''(t)?
 
Thank you very much for your answer.

That would mean that r''(t) is the 0-vector. Which means that there is no acceleration, no change of direction, motion should be straight.

However, my professor told me that this is not formal enough. I tried to arrive at a similar conclusion by using ||a x b|| = ||a|| ||b|| sin(theta).

Is there no way to formally arrive "back" at the parameterized equation of a line by using the result I already have?
 
If r''(t) is zero then r'(t) is a constant. So r'(t)=r'(0) for all t. Integrating r'(t) to get r(t) then gives you r(t)=r(0)+r'(0)*t, right? That isn't formal enough? It looks messy to try to argue starting with what you have to the conclusion r(t) is a line.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K