Proof: Curvature Zero -> Motion along a line

Click For Summary
A particle moving along a space curve with zero curvature implies its motion is linear. The discussion explores the mathematical proof, starting with the assumption that the curve is smooth, leading to the conclusion that the second derivative, r''(t), must be the zero vector. This indicates no acceleration or change in direction, confirming straight-line motion. The participant struggles with formalizing the transition from the derived conditions to the parameterized equation of a line. Ultimately, integrating the constant velocity r'(t) leads to the conclusion that r(t) is indeed a linear function, despite concerns about the formality of the argument.
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


K=\frac{||r'(t)\times r''(t)||}{(||r'(t)||)^3}
(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.

g'(t)h''(t) = h'(t)g''(t)
f'(t)h''(t) = h'(t)f''(t)
f'(t)g''(t) = g'(t)f''(t)

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.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

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
1K