Professional Documents
Culture Documents
You want to
reach another point somewhere along the circumference. What is the shortest path you can
take to get there, travelling only on the surface of the cone?
That is, measures your displacement from the axis and measures your angular
displacement about the axis.
The first task is to find the expression for a small element of length in cylindrical polars. This
is only a little more complicated than the expression in Cartesian coordinates, which is
from Pythagoras’ theorem. We need a similar expression in terms of the differentials and
. This could be done properly using the chain rule and lots of partial derivatives, but a
geometrical argument is quicker.
We can move in three orthogonal directions: a small distance in the direction, quantified by
; a small distance away from or towards the axis, quantified by ; a small distance around
the axis, quantified by .
It’s only this last differential that looks different. It measures the distance traversed along an
infinitesimal circular arc around the axis. Using these three differentials we conclude that
The angle measures the opening of the cone. This relation allows us to write everything
in in terms of and its derivatives:
Since
hence
where primed is the derivative of with respect to . Hence the total length of the path is
To find the smallest value of this integral, we can use the Beltrami identity, derived from
the Euler-Lagrange equation, which says that the function that minimises this integral satisfies
the differential equation
where is a constant. After tidying everything up, this gives us the result
This first-order differential equation is separable, and can be directly integrated after
rearrangement:
Here, is another constant to be determined by the endpoints of the path. This integral can be
solved using the substitution
Since secant is an even function, we can dispense with the minus sign inside its argument.
Multiplying both sides by allows us to substitute back into the equation:
Before we start celebrating, let’s find values for the constants and .
To make our result simpler, let’s say our starting point has coordinates
That is, we start and end at the same radius, the radius of the cone’s base, but our start and
endpoints subtend a total angle . We are always free to jiggle our coordinate axes so that
this is true, since the cone is axially symmetric about the axis.
You’ll notice I’ve defined the endpoint as having angular coordinate , where is a
non-negative integer. I’ve included this extra additive term for fun (!) so that we can stipulate
how many times we want to circumvent the cone before reaching the endpoint.
So, our start- and end-point constraints give us the two equations
The first equation gives us an equation for :
By equating the arguments of the two secants, we can find the appropriate value of :
We substitute these constants back into our equation for and flip over the secant, giving us
That’s more like it! This equation describes how our distance from the axis varies with angle as
we wander around the cone. The name for the path parametrised by this expression is
the geodesic.
Rather than sketching a graph of versus , I’m going to show plots of a bird’s-eye view of the
cone. This basically shows the shortest path’s projection (or shadow if you like) on the xy plane,
by looking down the axis.
First, let’s see how the geodesic changes as the cone’s opening angle varies.
This is a bit more interesting. As the cone becomes flatter and flatter, the geodesic takes you
closer and closer to the vertex of the cone. There is a particular value of for which the
geodesic is simply two straight lines – one joins the start-point to the vertex and the other the
vertex to the endpoint.
This is not to say that the geodesic does not exist. It’s just that below a particular value of , the
geodesic always comprises two straight lines taking you right through the vertex. When this is
the case, is no longer differentiable with respect to for the following reason.
As you travel along one these geodesics that takes you straight through the vertex, your axial
displacement decreases, decreases, decreases, reaches zero and then immediately starts
increasing – the gradient of is not defined here. Since we cannot integrate what is not
defined, our equation no longer makes sense and gives us negative / infinite values of . But
we can just throw away these solutions!
Here’s something a bit more interesting. The picture below shows the geodesics for the same
start- and endpoints, but with different values of , the number of times you wrap around the
cone.
As you can
see, the greater the number of turns, the closer the geodesic takes you to the vertex. The
maximum number of turns shown here is 4; above this, our equation blows up again. The
reason is quite intuitive. If you wanted to go around the cone, say, 100 times, there is no point in
tracing out some beautiful conical helix with 100 turns; it is quickest to make a beeline straight
for the top of the cone where it is narrowest, pirouette 100 times on the cone’s point and then
head straight towards the endpoint. There is no differentiable function of which can describe
this path, which is why our equation fails above a certain number of turns.
It’s useful to know when our equation won’t work, ie when the geodesic involves passing
straight through the vertex. Consider again the equation for as a function of :
This equation will give nonsensical values of if the denominator is less than or equal to
zero. So sensible values are only given if the argument of the cosine function is less than :