Velocity with respect to arclength is a unit tangent vector?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of arclength parameterization in relation to velocity vectors, specifically questioning why velocity with respect to arclength is considered a unit tangent vector. Participants explore the implications of parameterizing motion by arclength versus other parameters, such as time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why velocity parameterized by arclength is always a unit tangent vector, despite understanding the mathematical proof provided by their professor.
  • Another participant suggests that the definition of velocity with respect to arclength is crucial, noting that in one dimension, velocity is the rate of change of displacement, but this may not apply straightforwardly in higher dimensions.
  • A participant explains that when a path is parameterized by time, the velocity vector is tangent to the path, and when parameterized by arclength, the velocity has a magnitude of 1, raising concerns about the terminology used for "velocity."
  • One participant seeks clarification on the transition from discussing velocity in terms of time to arclength, questioning the reasoning behind the magnitude being 1 when using arclength as the parameter.
  • Another participant states that the magnitude of velocity indicates how fast a point is moving along the path, relating it to the relationship between ds and dt.
  • A later post references classical differential geometry, implying that the concept discussed is foundational in that field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the concept, indicating that there is no consensus on the intuitive explanation for why velocity with respect to arclength is a unit tangent vector. Multiple viewpoints and interpretations are present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of definitions and the dimensional context when discussing velocity and arclength, suggesting that assumptions about motion in one dimension may not directly translate to higher dimensions.

Aldnoahz
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Hi all,

I have long had this unsolved question about arclength parameterization in my head and I just can't bend my head around it. I seem not to be able to understand why velocity with arclength as the parameter is automatically a unit tangent vector. My professor proved in class that

s(s) = s = ∫ ||v(s)|| ds with lower and upper bound so and s1

He said that by fundamental theorem of calculus, ds/ds = 1 = ||v(s)||, so the velocity vector with respect to arclength s is always a unit tangent vector.

I understand the mathematical proof the professor did but I really need an intuitive explanation. I have thought about this situation where velocity is represented by distance in one dimension, but it seems that it is not always the case that V(s) will be unit speed. Then why is it the case when velocity is parameterized in terms of arclength so that the speed automatically becomes 1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aldnoahz said:
where velocity is represented by distance in one dimension, but it seems that it is not always the case that V(s) will be unit speed. Then why is it the case when velocity is parameterized in terms of arclength so that the speed automatically becomes 1?

i do not know but how you define velocity with respect to arc length becomes important
if you are looking at a length -one dimension then the rate of change of displacement will be velocity...the length taken is of some curve but perhaps now one has to forget about the curve- i.e. a two dimensional displacement.
the observer does not know he is moving on a curve...its my common sense response... may be wrong!
 
Suppose the path was parameterized by the variable t=time. As an object moves along a path, its velocity vector is always tangent to the path it is following. Also, the distance, ds, that it covers in time dt, on the path is instantaneously proportional to the magnitude of the velocity vector.
Now suppose that the path is parameterized by the arc length, s, so the "velocity" with respect to s has magnitude 1. My only concern is that it seems like a strange thing to call a velocity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: drvrm
Hi FactChekcer, I don't seem to understand the logic leap you made between
Also, the distance, ds, that it covers in time dt, on the path is instantaneously proportional to the magnitude of the velocity vector.
and
Now suppose that the path is parameterized by the arc length, s, so the "velocity" with respect to s has magnitude 1.

What I want to understand is what happens when you set arclength as the parameter and why
so the "velocity" with respect to s has magnitude 1.
 
At any point along the curve, the magnitude of velocity is telling you how fast the point is moving in the direction of the path, adding to s(t). So |v(t)| = ds/dt
 
Aldnoahz said:
I have long had this unsolved question about arclength parameterization in my head and I just can't bend my head around it. I seem not to be able to understand why velocity with arclength as the parameter is automatically a unit tangent vector.
That is one of the basic tenets of classical differential geometry (start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K