How to prove the radius of curvature at any point on a line?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the radius of curvature at any point on a magnetic field line, represented by the equation ρ = B^3 / [B x (B · ∇) B]. Participants express confusion about how to start the proof, particularly regarding the relationship between scalars and vectors in the equation. A suggestion is made to begin with the mathematical definition of the radius of curvature, which is essential for solving the problem. The conversation also highlights the need for basic vector calculus knowledge and the relevance of the textbook "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths for understanding the concepts involved. Understanding the tangent vector of the field line is emphasized as a crucial step in the proof process.
catheee
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
In a magnetic field, field lines are curves to which the magnetic induction B is everywhere tangetial. By evaluating dB/ds where s is the distance measured along a field line, prove that the radius of curvature at any point on a line is given by

density symbol-->p= B^3 / [ B x( B * del) B]

where do i start with this?? I have absolutely no idea. please help with start with a direction to go.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi catheee, welcome to PF!:smile:

This forum supports \LaTeX, which allows you to write equations in a clear manner...

catheee said:
density symbol-->p= B^3 / [ B x( B * del) B]

\rho=\frac{B^3}{\textbf{B}\times(\textbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla})\textbf{B}}

^^^Is this what you mean?

where do i start with this??

A good place to start might be with the (mathematical) definition of radius of curvature for a general curve...what equation(s) do you have for that?
 
yes! that's the equation I have, but its the only equation I was given and I was told to solve it, I don't see anything about the radius of curvature equation in the textbook I have. So, what you're saying is that I should get the radius of curvation equation and then use it to solve the problem?

btw, thanks for answering my question!
 
catheee said:
yes! that's the equation I have,
Really?!:bugeye:

\textbf{B}\times(\textbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{\nabla})\textbf{B} is a vector whereas \rho and B^3 are both scalars...how exactly does one divide a scalar by a vector to produce another scalar?!
but its the only equation I was given and I was told to solve it, I don't see anything about the radius of curvature equation in the textbook I have.
Out of curiosity, what textbook is this problem from? It might be easier to see what they expect you to do if I scan through the text quickly.

So, what you're saying is that I should get the radius of curvation equation and then use it to solve the problem?

btw, thanks for answering my question!

Of course! How on Earth would you find what the radius of curvature for a certain curve is without knowing the definition of 'radius of curvature'? Surely, basic vector calculus is a prerequisite for studying whatever course this text is for?
 
im using introduction to electrodynamics by griffiths 3rd edition.
oh and sorry about double posting i didnt know that that was against the rules.
:)
im looking up the def of radius of curvature but it doesn't look like any of the equations would apply to this problem. Ughh
 
catheee said:
im using introduction to electrodynamics by griffiths 3rd edition.

I am familiar with that text, but it won't be of much help for this problem.
im looking up the def of radius of curvature but it doesn't look like any of the equations would apply to this problem. Ughh

Okay, if I gave you the equation of some parameterized curve \textbf{r}(u)=x(u)\hat{x}+y(u)\hat{y}+z(u)\hat{z}, could you calculate the radius of curvature? Could you calculate the (unnormalized) tangent vector?

If so, then let \textbf{r}(u) describe one of your field lines...what does the fact that \textbf{B}\left(\textbf{r}(u)\right) is tangent to \textbf{r}(u) tell you?
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top