What is the intuition behind the unit normal vector being the derivative of the unit tangent vector?
I've seen the math, but... It just doesn't make sense to me. How is the slope going to point perpendicular to the vector that is clearly a straight line not going in that direction?
calculus multivariable-calculus vector-analysis
add a comment |
I've seen the math, but... It just doesn't make sense to me. How is the slope going to point perpendicular to the vector that is clearly a straight line not going in that direction?
calculus multivariable-calculus vector-analysis
add a comment |
I've seen the math, but... It just doesn't make sense to me. How is the slope going to point perpendicular to the vector that is clearly a straight line not going in that direction?
calculus multivariable-calculus vector-analysis
I've seen the math, but... It just doesn't make sense to me. How is the slope going to point perpendicular to the vector that is clearly a straight line not going in that direction?
calculus multivariable-calculus vector-analysis
calculus multivariable-calculus vector-analysis
asked Sep 30 '13 at 21:38
David
562421
562421
add a comment |
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
Take some point $P_1 = C(s_1)$ on a curve $C$. Let $T_1$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now move a tiny distance along the curve, to get to the point $P_2 = C(s_2)$, and let $T_2$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now draw the vector $V = T_2 - T_1$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are very close together, $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be almost equal, and $V$ will be roughly perpendicular to both of them (because the triangle with sides $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be isosceles and very skinny). Here's a picture.
But, by the definition of derivative,
$$
frac{dT}{ds} = lim_{s_2 to s1} frac{T_2 - T_1}{s_2 - s_1}
$$
and this limit will also be roughly perpendicular to $T_1$.
add a comment |
The dot product of the unit tangent vector with itself is of course equal to 1.
$$ mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} = |mathbf{T}|^2 = 1^2 = 1. $$
Take the derivative of both sides, and remembering the product rule,
$$ frac{d}{ds} ( mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} ) = frac{d}{ds}(1) $$
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} + frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} cdot mathbf{T} = 0 $$
$$ 2 mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0 $$
or
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0. $$
That is to say, the derivative of the unit tangent vector is perpendicular to the unit tangent vector, i.e. it's a normal vector.
The essence of a derivative is the approximation of functions by linear equations: $mathbf{T} (s + delta s) approx mathbf{T} (s) + delta s mathbf{T}' (s) $.
Performing this vector addition tip-to-tale, the three vectors $mathbf{T} (s + delta s),space mathbf{T} (s) space text{and} space delta s mathbf{T}' (s)$ form the sides of an isosceles triangle with two legs of length 1 and an arbitrarily small base with length proportional to $delta s$. As $delta s$ goes to zero, the angle between the two legs goes to zero, and the base angles go to right angles.
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
add a comment |
The unit tangent vector gives the instantaneous velocity. But unless you go in a straight line forever, you will turn. Suppose you turn left. The unit tangent vector still points forward at any given moment, but it is turning left -- its derivative is leftward. The unit normal points left, to indicate the direction that the tangent is changing.
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
add a comment |
First of all, the unit normal vector $N$ is in general not the derivative of the unit tangent vector $T$. What is true is that the derivative of $T$ with respect to the arc length along the curve $s$ is a vector $T'(s)$ normal to $T(s)$ in the sense that $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, and if $T'(s) ne 0$, so that $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 0$, we can define the unit normal $N(s)$ by the equation
$N(s) = kappa^{-1}T'(s), tag{1}$
where
$kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert tag{2}$
is the magnitude of $T'(s)$. (1) is then equivalent to
$N(s) = kappa T'(s), tag{3}$
the way (1) is usually written; it is one of the Frenet-Serret formulas which are the standard differential geometric means of addressing the properties of curves in $Bbb R^3$. It is very important, in utilizing these formulas, to take derivatives with respect to $s$, the arc length of the curve $gamma(s)$ under consideration. Otherwise, though we will still have $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, since $T(s) cdot T(s)$ is constant, implying $T'(s) cdot T(s) = frac{1}{2}(T(s) cdot T(s))' = 0$, $kappa$ will not necessarily reflect the true rate of bending of the curve $gamma(s)$. This is perhaps most easily seen via the observation that, if $r$ is another parametrization of $gamma$, then along $gamma$, $frac{d}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{d}{ds}$. This means, for example, that
$frac{dT}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{dT}{ds} = frac{ds}{dr} kappa N; tag{4}$
if we accept $Vert frac{dT}{dr} Vert$ as the definition of curvature, it's value can vary extensively with the choice of $r$, and its geometrical meaning is obscured. Taking the curve parameter as arc length $s$ standardizes the definition of $kappa$ by isolating it from the somewhat arbitrary choices of possible parametrizations of $gamma$.
In the above, the unit vector $N$ gives the direction of bending of the curve $gamma$, and the curvature $kappa$ gives its magnitude. Intuition can be developed for this, in terms of elementary physics, by imagining one driving in a car at a fairly high but constant rate of speed. If the vehicle is traveling at say, $100 ,text{km/hr}$, we can "unitize" this rate by defining a new distance measure, the umpla: $1 , text{umpla} = 100 , text{km}$; thus "unit speed" in umpla-units is
$100 , text{km/hr}$; quite rapid, actually. We imagine the car as turning while maintaining this speed; then the car is undergoing an acceleration in a direction perpendicular to its motion; the magnitude of this acceleration is $kappa$ and its direction is $N$. Now imagine, if you will, for any $s_0$ a circle of radius $kappa^{-1}(s_0)$ centered at $gamma(s_0) + kappa^{-1}(s_0)N(s_0)$, where we hold $s_0$ fixed. This circle touches the curve $gamma(s)$ at $gamma(s_0)$. A particle traveling at unit speed on such a circle has velocity vector $T(s_0)$ at $gamma(s_0)$ and will experience a centripetal acceleration, in the direction $N(s_0)$, given by the classic formula $frac{v^2}{r}$ with $v = 1$ and $r = kappa^{-1}(s_0)$, exactly the same as the acceleration $kappa N$ of $gamma$ at $s = s_0$; the greater $kappa(s_0)$ is, smaller $r$ will be, and vice versa; tight turns produce large such accelerations; you can almost feel yourself thrown against the door on a tight right.
add a comment |
An example from physics: gravity pulls Earth towards the sun, and the earth travels in a (vaguely) circular orbit. So, the attractive force acting on the earth is always a radial vector (pointing towards the center of the orbit), yet the velocity vector that Earth travels with is always tangent to the circle traced out by the orbit.
Force is related to acceleration, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
add a comment |
If you have a curve in $mathbb{R}^3$, you can translate each unit tangent vector to this curve so that its foot point starts at the origin in $mathbb{R}^3$.
When you view all of these unit tangent vectors with foot points now starting at the origin, the collection of head points produces a curve in $S^2$.
Now, let's say your curve in $mathbb{R}^3$ is $c(t)$ and that the unit tangent field to your curve is $T(t)$, that is, $$T(t) = frac{dot c(t)}{|dot c(t)|}.$$
Now, the vector $T'(t)$ is found by computing the velocity vector to the curve $T(t)in S^2$. Since the velocity vector to any curve that lives in $S^2$ must be tangent to $S^2$, we must have $T(t)$ and $T'(t)$ are perpendicular.
add a comment |
This can be very confusing. A simple explanation is as follows: The (principle) unit Normal vector (dT/dt) is always orthogonal to the curve and, therefore, also to the unit Tangent vector T, and is contained in the vector subspace defined by the two unit vectors T and N. The acceleration of a particle on a curve is partioned between the unit Tangent and the unit Normal vector. Thus, acceleration = kT + mN. For example, a stright line has k=0, and there is no acceleration in the normal direction. However, the unit Normal vector to the line is still well defined. The point is that the unit Normal vector is part of a coordinate system that may be used to define a component of acceleration.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510420%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-behind-the-unit-normal-vector-being-the-derivative-of-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Take some point $P_1 = C(s_1)$ on a curve $C$. Let $T_1$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now move a tiny distance along the curve, to get to the point $P_2 = C(s_2)$, and let $T_2$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now draw the vector $V = T_2 - T_1$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are very close together, $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be almost equal, and $V$ will be roughly perpendicular to both of them (because the triangle with sides $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be isosceles and very skinny). Here's a picture.
But, by the definition of derivative,
$$
frac{dT}{ds} = lim_{s_2 to s1} frac{T_2 - T_1}{s_2 - s_1}
$$
and this limit will also be roughly perpendicular to $T_1$.
add a comment |
Take some point $P_1 = C(s_1)$ on a curve $C$. Let $T_1$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now move a tiny distance along the curve, to get to the point $P_2 = C(s_2)$, and let $T_2$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now draw the vector $V = T_2 - T_1$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are very close together, $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be almost equal, and $V$ will be roughly perpendicular to both of them (because the triangle with sides $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be isosceles and very skinny). Here's a picture.
But, by the definition of derivative,
$$
frac{dT}{ds} = lim_{s_2 to s1} frac{T_2 - T_1}{s_2 - s_1}
$$
and this limit will also be roughly perpendicular to $T_1$.
add a comment |
Take some point $P_1 = C(s_1)$ on a curve $C$. Let $T_1$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now move a tiny distance along the curve, to get to the point $P_2 = C(s_2)$, and let $T_2$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now draw the vector $V = T_2 - T_1$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are very close together, $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be almost equal, and $V$ will be roughly perpendicular to both of them (because the triangle with sides $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be isosceles and very skinny). Here's a picture.
But, by the definition of derivative,
$$
frac{dT}{ds} = lim_{s_2 to s1} frac{T_2 - T_1}{s_2 - s_1}
$$
and this limit will also be roughly perpendicular to $T_1$.
Take some point $P_1 = C(s_1)$ on a curve $C$. Let $T_1$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now move a tiny distance along the curve, to get to the point $P_2 = C(s_2)$, and let $T_2$ be the unit tangent at this point. Now draw the vector $V = T_2 - T_1$. If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are very close together, $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be almost equal, and $V$ will be roughly perpendicular to both of them (because the triangle with sides $T_1$ and $T_2$ will be isosceles and very skinny). Here's a picture.
But, by the definition of derivative,
$$
frac{dT}{ds} = lim_{s_2 to s1} frac{T_2 - T_1}{s_2 - s_1}
$$
and this limit will also be roughly perpendicular to $T_1$.
edited Sep 29 '16 at 1:18
answered Oct 1 '13 at 12:31
bubba
30.1k33086
30.1k33086
add a comment |
add a comment |
The dot product of the unit tangent vector with itself is of course equal to 1.
$$ mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} = |mathbf{T}|^2 = 1^2 = 1. $$
Take the derivative of both sides, and remembering the product rule,
$$ frac{d}{ds} ( mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} ) = frac{d}{ds}(1) $$
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} + frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} cdot mathbf{T} = 0 $$
$$ 2 mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0 $$
or
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0. $$
That is to say, the derivative of the unit tangent vector is perpendicular to the unit tangent vector, i.e. it's a normal vector.
The essence of a derivative is the approximation of functions by linear equations: $mathbf{T} (s + delta s) approx mathbf{T} (s) + delta s mathbf{T}' (s) $.
Performing this vector addition tip-to-tale, the three vectors $mathbf{T} (s + delta s),space mathbf{T} (s) space text{and} space delta s mathbf{T}' (s)$ form the sides of an isosceles triangle with two legs of length 1 and an arbitrarily small base with length proportional to $delta s$. As $delta s$ goes to zero, the angle between the two legs goes to zero, and the base angles go to right angles.
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
add a comment |
The dot product of the unit tangent vector with itself is of course equal to 1.
$$ mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} = |mathbf{T}|^2 = 1^2 = 1. $$
Take the derivative of both sides, and remembering the product rule,
$$ frac{d}{ds} ( mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} ) = frac{d}{ds}(1) $$
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} + frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} cdot mathbf{T} = 0 $$
$$ 2 mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0 $$
or
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0. $$
That is to say, the derivative of the unit tangent vector is perpendicular to the unit tangent vector, i.e. it's a normal vector.
The essence of a derivative is the approximation of functions by linear equations: $mathbf{T} (s + delta s) approx mathbf{T} (s) + delta s mathbf{T}' (s) $.
Performing this vector addition tip-to-tale, the three vectors $mathbf{T} (s + delta s),space mathbf{T} (s) space text{and} space delta s mathbf{T}' (s)$ form the sides of an isosceles triangle with two legs of length 1 and an arbitrarily small base with length proportional to $delta s$. As $delta s$ goes to zero, the angle between the two legs goes to zero, and the base angles go to right angles.
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
add a comment |
The dot product of the unit tangent vector with itself is of course equal to 1.
$$ mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} = |mathbf{T}|^2 = 1^2 = 1. $$
Take the derivative of both sides, and remembering the product rule,
$$ frac{d}{ds} ( mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} ) = frac{d}{ds}(1) $$
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} + frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} cdot mathbf{T} = 0 $$
$$ 2 mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0 $$
or
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0. $$
That is to say, the derivative of the unit tangent vector is perpendicular to the unit tangent vector, i.e. it's a normal vector.
The essence of a derivative is the approximation of functions by linear equations: $mathbf{T} (s + delta s) approx mathbf{T} (s) + delta s mathbf{T}' (s) $.
Performing this vector addition tip-to-tale, the three vectors $mathbf{T} (s + delta s),space mathbf{T} (s) space text{and} space delta s mathbf{T}' (s)$ form the sides of an isosceles triangle with two legs of length 1 and an arbitrarily small base with length proportional to $delta s$. As $delta s$ goes to zero, the angle between the two legs goes to zero, and the base angles go to right angles.
The dot product of the unit tangent vector with itself is of course equal to 1.
$$ mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} = |mathbf{T}|^2 = 1^2 = 1. $$
Take the derivative of both sides, and remembering the product rule,
$$ frac{d}{ds} ( mathbf{T} cdot mathbf{T} ) = frac{d}{ds}(1) $$
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} + frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} cdot mathbf{T} = 0 $$
$$ 2 mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0 $$
or
$$ mathbf{T} cdot frac{d mathbf{T}}{ds} = 0. $$
That is to say, the derivative of the unit tangent vector is perpendicular to the unit tangent vector, i.e. it's a normal vector.
The essence of a derivative is the approximation of functions by linear equations: $mathbf{T} (s + delta s) approx mathbf{T} (s) + delta s mathbf{T}' (s) $.
Performing this vector addition tip-to-tale, the three vectors $mathbf{T} (s + delta s),space mathbf{T} (s) space text{and} space delta s mathbf{T}' (s)$ form the sides of an isosceles triangle with two legs of length 1 and an arbitrarily small base with length proportional to $delta s$. As $delta s$ goes to zero, the angle between the two legs goes to zero, and the base angles go to right angles.
edited Oct 1 '13 at 1:34
answered Sep 30 '13 at 22:31
David H
21.4k24391
21.4k24391
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
add a comment |
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
See, I understand that. I could go through the math, but I want to be able to visually see or verify this, which I'm having a hard time doing (probably because I might be conceptually wrong in what I think a derivative in this case is).
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:47
1
1
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@David H: $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 1$ in general; instead, we have the curvature $kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert$.
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 0:50
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@RobertLewis Wow, of course. I must have the dumb.
– David H
Oct 1 '13 at 1:23
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
@David H: s'all good, we caught that grouder!
– Robert Lewis
Oct 1 '13 at 1:32
add a comment |
The unit tangent vector gives the instantaneous velocity. But unless you go in a straight line forever, you will turn. Suppose you turn left. The unit tangent vector still points forward at any given moment, but it is turning left -- its derivative is leftward. The unit normal points left, to indicate the direction that the tangent is changing.
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
add a comment |
The unit tangent vector gives the instantaneous velocity. But unless you go in a straight line forever, you will turn. Suppose you turn left. The unit tangent vector still points forward at any given moment, but it is turning left -- its derivative is leftward. The unit normal points left, to indicate the direction that the tangent is changing.
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
add a comment |
The unit tangent vector gives the instantaneous velocity. But unless you go in a straight line forever, you will turn. Suppose you turn left. The unit tangent vector still points forward at any given moment, but it is turning left -- its derivative is leftward. The unit normal points left, to indicate the direction that the tangent is changing.
The unit tangent vector gives the instantaneous velocity. But unless you go in a straight line forever, you will turn. Suppose you turn left. The unit tangent vector still points forward at any given moment, but it is turning left -- its derivative is leftward. The unit normal points left, to indicate the direction that the tangent is changing.
answered Sep 30 '13 at 21:40
vadim123
75.5k897189
75.5k897189
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
add a comment |
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
If you do go in a straight line forever, then what happens? Is our unit normal vector still the derivative? I believe so... So you wouldn't be turning left or right, which means the tangent isn't changing, but what would happen? Is another way to think about this the fact that the unit normal is the double derivative of our vector function, which tends to show the concavity. In this case, the concavity is showing the general trend, which is that the graph is going left or right? I still don't quite see it. If we were to treat our first derivative as a new vector function, that seems to break.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 21:46
1
1
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@David No. In the case of straight-line motion, the unit tangent vector is a constant vector, so its derivative is the zero vector.
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:02
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@DavidH, indeed. Then, the unit tangent vector on non-straight-line motion would definitely not be a constant vector. If we were to treat our unit tangent vector as our vector function of interest, then wouldn't the derivative of it be a tangent vector, which is tangent to it? Or, perhaps, I'm thinking of the tangent vector incorrectly.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 22:11
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
@David See the answer I just submitted. Does that help?
– David H
Sep 30 '13 at 22:34
add a comment |
First of all, the unit normal vector $N$ is in general not the derivative of the unit tangent vector $T$. What is true is that the derivative of $T$ with respect to the arc length along the curve $s$ is a vector $T'(s)$ normal to $T(s)$ in the sense that $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, and if $T'(s) ne 0$, so that $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 0$, we can define the unit normal $N(s)$ by the equation
$N(s) = kappa^{-1}T'(s), tag{1}$
where
$kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert tag{2}$
is the magnitude of $T'(s)$. (1) is then equivalent to
$N(s) = kappa T'(s), tag{3}$
the way (1) is usually written; it is one of the Frenet-Serret formulas which are the standard differential geometric means of addressing the properties of curves in $Bbb R^3$. It is very important, in utilizing these formulas, to take derivatives with respect to $s$, the arc length of the curve $gamma(s)$ under consideration. Otherwise, though we will still have $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, since $T(s) cdot T(s)$ is constant, implying $T'(s) cdot T(s) = frac{1}{2}(T(s) cdot T(s))' = 0$, $kappa$ will not necessarily reflect the true rate of bending of the curve $gamma(s)$. This is perhaps most easily seen via the observation that, if $r$ is another parametrization of $gamma$, then along $gamma$, $frac{d}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{d}{ds}$. This means, for example, that
$frac{dT}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{dT}{ds} = frac{ds}{dr} kappa N; tag{4}$
if we accept $Vert frac{dT}{dr} Vert$ as the definition of curvature, it's value can vary extensively with the choice of $r$, and its geometrical meaning is obscured. Taking the curve parameter as arc length $s$ standardizes the definition of $kappa$ by isolating it from the somewhat arbitrary choices of possible parametrizations of $gamma$.
In the above, the unit vector $N$ gives the direction of bending of the curve $gamma$, and the curvature $kappa$ gives its magnitude. Intuition can be developed for this, in terms of elementary physics, by imagining one driving in a car at a fairly high but constant rate of speed. If the vehicle is traveling at say, $100 ,text{km/hr}$, we can "unitize" this rate by defining a new distance measure, the umpla: $1 , text{umpla} = 100 , text{km}$; thus "unit speed" in umpla-units is
$100 , text{km/hr}$; quite rapid, actually. We imagine the car as turning while maintaining this speed; then the car is undergoing an acceleration in a direction perpendicular to its motion; the magnitude of this acceleration is $kappa$ and its direction is $N$. Now imagine, if you will, for any $s_0$ a circle of radius $kappa^{-1}(s_0)$ centered at $gamma(s_0) + kappa^{-1}(s_0)N(s_0)$, where we hold $s_0$ fixed. This circle touches the curve $gamma(s)$ at $gamma(s_0)$. A particle traveling at unit speed on such a circle has velocity vector $T(s_0)$ at $gamma(s_0)$ and will experience a centripetal acceleration, in the direction $N(s_0)$, given by the classic formula $frac{v^2}{r}$ with $v = 1$ and $r = kappa^{-1}(s_0)$, exactly the same as the acceleration $kappa N$ of $gamma$ at $s = s_0$; the greater $kappa(s_0)$ is, smaller $r$ will be, and vice versa; tight turns produce large such accelerations; you can almost feel yourself thrown against the door on a tight right.
add a comment |
First of all, the unit normal vector $N$ is in general not the derivative of the unit tangent vector $T$. What is true is that the derivative of $T$ with respect to the arc length along the curve $s$ is a vector $T'(s)$ normal to $T(s)$ in the sense that $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, and if $T'(s) ne 0$, so that $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 0$, we can define the unit normal $N(s)$ by the equation
$N(s) = kappa^{-1}T'(s), tag{1}$
where
$kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert tag{2}$
is the magnitude of $T'(s)$. (1) is then equivalent to
$N(s) = kappa T'(s), tag{3}$
the way (1) is usually written; it is one of the Frenet-Serret formulas which are the standard differential geometric means of addressing the properties of curves in $Bbb R^3$. It is very important, in utilizing these formulas, to take derivatives with respect to $s$, the arc length of the curve $gamma(s)$ under consideration. Otherwise, though we will still have $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, since $T(s) cdot T(s)$ is constant, implying $T'(s) cdot T(s) = frac{1}{2}(T(s) cdot T(s))' = 0$, $kappa$ will not necessarily reflect the true rate of bending of the curve $gamma(s)$. This is perhaps most easily seen via the observation that, if $r$ is another parametrization of $gamma$, then along $gamma$, $frac{d}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{d}{ds}$. This means, for example, that
$frac{dT}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{dT}{ds} = frac{ds}{dr} kappa N; tag{4}$
if we accept $Vert frac{dT}{dr} Vert$ as the definition of curvature, it's value can vary extensively with the choice of $r$, and its geometrical meaning is obscured. Taking the curve parameter as arc length $s$ standardizes the definition of $kappa$ by isolating it from the somewhat arbitrary choices of possible parametrizations of $gamma$.
In the above, the unit vector $N$ gives the direction of bending of the curve $gamma$, and the curvature $kappa$ gives its magnitude. Intuition can be developed for this, in terms of elementary physics, by imagining one driving in a car at a fairly high but constant rate of speed. If the vehicle is traveling at say, $100 ,text{km/hr}$, we can "unitize" this rate by defining a new distance measure, the umpla: $1 , text{umpla} = 100 , text{km}$; thus "unit speed" in umpla-units is
$100 , text{km/hr}$; quite rapid, actually. We imagine the car as turning while maintaining this speed; then the car is undergoing an acceleration in a direction perpendicular to its motion; the magnitude of this acceleration is $kappa$ and its direction is $N$. Now imagine, if you will, for any $s_0$ a circle of radius $kappa^{-1}(s_0)$ centered at $gamma(s_0) + kappa^{-1}(s_0)N(s_0)$, where we hold $s_0$ fixed. This circle touches the curve $gamma(s)$ at $gamma(s_0)$. A particle traveling at unit speed on such a circle has velocity vector $T(s_0)$ at $gamma(s_0)$ and will experience a centripetal acceleration, in the direction $N(s_0)$, given by the classic formula $frac{v^2}{r}$ with $v = 1$ and $r = kappa^{-1}(s_0)$, exactly the same as the acceleration $kappa N$ of $gamma$ at $s = s_0$; the greater $kappa(s_0)$ is, smaller $r$ will be, and vice versa; tight turns produce large such accelerations; you can almost feel yourself thrown against the door on a tight right.
add a comment |
First of all, the unit normal vector $N$ is in general not the derivative of the unit tangent vector $T$. What is true is that the derivative of $T$ with respect to the arc length along the curve $s$ is a vector $T'(s)$ normal to $T(s)$ in the sense that $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, and if $T'(s) ne 0$, so that $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 0$, we can define the unit normal $N(s)$ by the equation
$N(s) = kappa^{-1}T'(s), tag{1}$
where
$kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert tag{2}$
is the magnitude of $T'(s)$. (1) is then equivalent to
$N(s) = kappa T'(s), tag{3}$
the way (1) is usually written; it is one of the Frenet-Serret formulas which are the standard differential geometric means of addressing the properties of curves in $Bbb R^3$. It is very important, in utilizing these formulas, to take derivatives with respect to $s$, the arc length of the curve $gamma(s)$ under consideration. Otherwise, though we will still have $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, since $T(s) cdot T(s)$ is constant, implying $T'(s) cdot T(s) = frac{1}{2}(T(s) cdot T(s))' = 0$, $kappa$ will not necessarily reflect the true rate of bending of the curve $gamma(s)$. This is perhaps most easily seen via the observation that, if $r$ is another parametrization of $gamma$, then along $gamma$, $frac{d}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{d}{ds}$. This means, for example, that
$frac{dT}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{dT}{ds} = frac{ds}{dr} kappa N; tag{4}$
if we accept $Vert frac{dT}{dr} Vert$ as the definition of curvature, it's value can vary extensively with the choice of $r$, and its geometrical meaning is obscured. Taking the curve parameter as arc length $s$ standardizes the definition of $kappa$ by isolating it from the somewhat arbitrary choices of possible parametrizations of $gamma$.
In the above, the unit vector $N$ gives the direction of bending of the curve $gamma$, and the curvature $kappa$ gives its magnitude. Intuition can be developed for this, in terms of elementary physics, by imagining one driving in a car at a fairly high but constant rate of speed. If the vehicle is traveling at say, $100 ,text{km/hr}$, we can "unitize" this rate by defining a new distance measure, the umpla: $1 , text{umpla} = 100 , text{km}$; thus "unit speed" in umpla-units is
$100 , text{km/hr}$; quite rapid, actually. We imagine the car as turning while maintaining this speed; then the car is undergoing an acceleration in a direction perpendicular to its motion; the magnitude of this acceleration is $kappa$ and its direction is $N$. Now imagine, if you will, for any $s_0$ a circle of radius $kappa^{-1}(s_0)$ centered at $gamma(s_0) + kappa^{-1}(s_0)N(s_0)$, where we hold $s_0$ fixed. This circle touches the curve $gamma(s)$ at $gamma(s_0)$. A particle traveling at unit speed on such a circle has velocity vector $T(s_0)$ at $gamma(s_0)$ and will experience a centripetal acceleration, in the direction $N(s_0)$, given by the classic formula $frac{v^2}{r}$ with $v = 1$ and $r = kappa^{-1}(s_0)$, exactly the same as the acceleration $kappa N$ of $gamma$ at $s = s_0$; the greater $kappa(s_0)$ is, smaller $r$ will be, and vice versa; tight turns produce large such accelerations; you can almost feel yourself thrown against the door on a tight right.
First of all, the unit normal vector $N$ is in general not the derivative of the unit tangent vector $T$. What is true is that the derivative of $T$ with respect to the arc length along the curve $s$ is a vector $T'(s)$ normal to $T(s)$ in the sense that $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, and if $T'(s) ne 0$, so that $Vert T'(s) Vert ne 0$, we can define the unit normal $N(s)$ by the equation
$N(s) = kappa^{-1}T'(s), tag{1}$
where
$kappa = Vert T'(s) Vert tag{2}$
is the magnitude of $T'(s)$. (1) is then equivalent to
$N(s) = kappa T'(s), tag{3}$
the way (1) is usually written; it is one of the Frenet-Serret formulas which are the standard differential geometric means of addressing the properties of curves in $Bbb R^3$. It is very important, in utilizing these formulas, to take derivatives with respect to $s$, the arc length of the curve $gamma(s)$ under consideration. Otherwise, though we will still have $T'(s) cdot T(s) = 0$, since $T(s) cdot T(s)$ is constant, implying $T'(s) cdot T(s) = frac{1}{2}(T(s) cdot T(s))' = 0$, $kappa$ will not necessarily reflect the true rate of bending of the curve $gamma(s)$. This is perhaps most easily seen via the observation that, if $r$ is another parametrization of $gamma$, then along $gamma$, $frac{d}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{d}{ds}$. This means, for example, that
$frac{dT}{dr} = frac{ds}{dr} frac{dT}{ds} = frac{ds}{dr} kappa N; tag{4}$
if we accept $Vert frac{dT}{dr} Vert$ as the definition of curvature, it's value can vary extensively with the choice of $r$, and its geometrical meaning is obscured. Taking the curve parameter as arc length $s$ standardizes the definition of $kappa$ by isolating it from the somewhat arbitrary choices of possible parametrizations of $gamma$.
In the above, the unit vector $N$ gives the direction of bending of the curve $gamma$, and the curvature $kappa$ gives its magnitude. Intuition can be developed for this, in terms of elementary physics, by imagining one driving in a car at a fairly high but constant rate of speed. If the vehicle is traveling at say, $100 ,text{km/hr}$, we can "unitize" this rate by defining a new distance measure, the umpla: $1 , text{umpla} = 100 , text{km}$; thus "unit speed" in umpla-units is
$100 , text{km/hr}$; quite rapid, actually. We imagine the car as turning while maintaining this speed; then the car is undergoing an acceleration in a direction perpendicular to its motion; the magnitude of this acceleration is $kappa$ and its direction is $N$. Now imagine, if you will, for any $s_0$ a circle of radius $kappa^{-1}(s_0)$ centered at $gamma(s_0) + kappa^{-1}(s_0)N(s_0)$, where we hold $s_0$ fixed. This circle touches the curve $gamma(s)$ at $gamma(s_0)$. A particle traveling at unit speed on such a circle has velocity vector $T(s_0)$ at $gamma(s_0)$ and will experience a centripetal acceleration, in the direction $N(s_0)$, given by the classic formula $frac{v^2}{r}$ with $v = 1$ and $r = kappa^{-1}(s_0)$, exactly the same as the acceleration $kappa N$ of $gamma$ at $s = s_0$; the greater $kappa(s_0)$ is, smaller $r$ will be, and vice versa; tight turns produce large such accelerations; you can almost feel yourself thrown against the door on a tight right.
answered Oct 1 '13 at 6:38
Robert Lewis
43.9k22963
43.9k22963
add a comment |
add a comment |
An example from physics: gravity pulls Earth towards the sun, and the earth travels in a (vaguely) circular orbit. So, the attractive force acting on the earth is always a radial vector (pointing towards the center of the orbit), yet the velocity vector that Earth travels with is always tangent to the circle traced out by the orbit.
Force is related to acceleration, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
add a comment |
An example from physics: gravity pulls Earth towards the sun, and the earth travels in a (vaguely) circular orbit. So, the attractive force acting on the earth is always a radial vector (pointing towards the center of the orbit), yet the velocity vector that Earth travels with is always tangent to the circle traced out by the orbit.
Force is related to acceleration, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
add a comment |
An example from physics: gravity pulls Earth towards the sun, and the earth travels in a (vaguely) circular orbit. So, the attractive force acting on the earth is always a radial vector (pointing towards the center of the orbit), yet the velocity vector that Earth travels with is always tangent to the circle traced out by the orbit.
Force is related to acceleration, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
An example from physics: gravity pulls Earth towards the sun, and the earth travels in a (vaguely) circular orbit. So, the attractive force acting on the earth is always a radial vector (pointing towards the center of the orbit), yet the velocity vector that Earth travels with is always tangent to the circle traced out by the orbit.
Force is related to acceleration, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity.
answered Sep 30 '13 at 23:01
Thomas Belulovich
3,1711415
3,1711415
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
add a comment |
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Ah, and we could generalize this for all curves such that if it isn't perfectly circular, then we are still going towards any one direction at one time (it just so happens that the unit normal vector won't always go towards the origin in a non-perfectly circular orbit... perhaps). Why is this different from derivatives in calc 1 though, where we're used to derivatives explicitly being slope? I feel as though it's odd that we'd come across this.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:04
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
Actually, is it the fact that we're dealing with vectors, and vectors could be anywhere we want them to be, so the derivative is still the slope, but that doesn't necessarily have to look anything like what the tangent looks like. They're different functions, related to one another through the slope. In vectors, it just so happens that the slope of our tangent vector will always be orthogonal to the tangent vector. Yes? If not, then our slope of the tangent vector is orthogonal to the original function we are worried about.
– David
Sep 30 '13 at 23:06
add a comment |
If you have a curve in $mathbb{R}^3$, you can translate each unit tangent vector to this curve so that its foot point starts at the origin in $mathbb{R}^3$.
When you view all of these unit tangent vectors with foot points now starting at the origin, the collection of head points produces a curve in $S^2$.
Now, let's say your curve in $mathbb{R}^3$ is $c(t)$ and that the unit tangent field to your curve is $T(t)$, that is, $$T(t) = frac{dot c(t)}{|dot c(t)|}.$$
Now, the vector $T'(t)$ is found by computing the velocity vector to the curve $T(t)in S^2$. Since the velocity vector to any curve that lives in $S^2$ must be tangent to $S^2$, we must have $T(t)$ and $T'(t)$ are perpendicular.
add a comment |
If you have a curve in $mathbb{R}^3$, you can translate each unit tangent vector to this curve so that its foot point starts at the origin in $mathbb{R}^3$.
When you view all of these unit tangent vectors with foot points now starting at the origin, the collection of head points produces a curve in $S^2$.
Now, let's say your curve in $mathbb{R}^3$ is $c(t)$ and that the unit tangent field to your curve is $T(t)$, that is, $$T(t) = frac{dot c(t)}{|dot c(t)|}.$$
Now, the vector $T'(t)$ is found by computing the velocity vector to the curve $T(t)in S^2$. Since the velocity vector to any curve that lives in $S^2$ must be tangent to $S^2$, we must have $T(t)$ and $T'(t)$ are perpendicular.
add a comment |
If you have a curve in $mathbb{R}^3$, you can translate each unit tangent vector to this curve so that its foot point starts at the origin in $mathbb{R}^3$.
When you view all of these unit tangent vectors with foot points now starting at the origin, the collection of head points produces a curve in $S^2$.
Now, let's say your curve in $mathbb{R}^3$ is $c(t)$ and that the unit tangent field to your curve is $T(t)$, that is, $$T(t) = frac{dot c(t)}{|dot c(t)|}.$$
Now, the vector $T'(t)$ is found by computing the velocity vector to the curve $T(t)in S^2$. Since the velocity vector to any curve that lives in $S^2$ must be tangent to $S^2$, we must have $T(t)$ and $T'(t)$ are perpendicular.
If you have a curve in $mathbb{R}^3$, you can translate each unit tangent vector to this curve so that its foot point starts at the origin in $mathbb{R}^3$.
When you view all of these unit tangent vectors with foot points now starting at the origin, the collection of head points produces a curve in $S^2$.
Now, let's say your curve in $mathbb{R}^3$ is $c(t)$ and that the unit tangent field to your curve is $T(t)$, that is, $$T(t) = frac{dot c(t)}{|dot c(t)|}.$$
Now, the vector $T'(t)$ is found by computing the velocity vector to the curve $T(t)in S^2$. Since the velocity vector to any curve that lives in $S^2$ must be tangent to $S^2$, we must have $T(t)$ and $T'(t)$ are perpendicular.
answered Apr 22 '17 at 17:58
lessthanepsilon
515
515
add a comment |
add a comment |
This can be very confusing. A simple explanation is as follows: The (principle) unit Normal vector (dT/dt) is always orthogonal to the curve and, therefore, also to the unit Tangent vector T, and is contained in the vector subspace defined by the two unit vectors T and N. The acceleration of a particle on a curve is partioned between the unit Tangent and the unit Normal vector. Thus, acceleration = kT + mN. For example, a stright line has k=0, and there is no acceleration in the normal direction. However, the unit Normal vector to the line is still well defined. The point is that the unit Normal vector is part of a coordinate system that may be used to define a component of acceleration.
add a comment |
This can be very confusing. A simple explanation is as follows: The (principle) unit Normal vector (dT/dt) is always orthogonal to the curve and, therefore, also to the unit Tangent vector T, and is contained in the vector subspace defined by the two unit vectors T and N. The acceleration of a particle on a curve is partioned between the unit Tangent and the unit Normal vector. Thus, acceleration = kT + mN. For example, a stright line has k=0, and there is no acceleration in the normal direction. However, the unit Normal vector to the line is still well defined. The point is that the unit Normal vector is part of a coordinate system that may be used to define a component of acceleration.
add a comment |
This can be very confusing. A simple explanation is as follows: The (principle) unit Normal vector (dT/dt) is always orthogonal to the curve and, therefore, also to the unit Tangent vector T, and is contained in the vector subspace defined by the two unit vectors T and N. The acceleration of a particle on a curve is partioned between the unit Tangent and the unit Normal vector. Thus, acceleration = kT + mN. For example, a stright line has k=0, and there is no acceleration in the normal direction. However, the unit Normal vector to the line is still well defined. The point is that the unit Normal vector is part of a coordinate system that may be used to define a component of acceleration.
This can be very confusing. A simple explanation is as follows: The (principle) unit Normal vector (dT/dt) is always orthogonal to the curve and, therefore, also to the unit Tangent vector T, and is contained in the vector subspace defined by the two unit vectors T and N. The acceleration of a particle on a curve is partioned between the unit Tangent and the unit Normal vector. Thus, acceleration = kT + mN. For example, a stright line has k=0, and there is no acceleration in the normal direction. However, the unit Normal vector to the line is still well defined. The point is that the unit Normal vector is part of a coordinate system that may be used to define a component of acceleration.
answered Dec 2 '18 at 15:59
Harald Trasti
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510420%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-behind-the-unit-normal-vector-being-the-derivative-of-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown