Cartesian to Polar form.... Is it just a transformation of the plane?

In summary, the conversation discusses how graphs of the same equation can look different on the Cartesian plane and the polar grid due to a transformation of the grids. The speaker envisions this transformation as wrapping the x-axis around the pole and squishing it down to a single point, while all other points on the plane warp around the center to create the polar graph. They also mention that this transformation affects the equation of a line, causing it to form a circle. However, another participant points out that this intuition is not entirely valid and suggests a more consistent way of translating coordinates. The conversation also mentions the similarity between a cardioid and a sine curve wrapped around a circle, and how an animation could better demonstrate this concept. The conversation ends with one
  • #1
srfriggen
307
7
TL;DR Summary
I am trying to get a better intuition for graphing in polar form and would appreciate any insight
Hello,

Today I started to think about why graphs, of the same equation, look different on the Cartesian plane vs. the polar grid. I have this visualization where every point on the cartesian plane gets mapped to a point on the polar grid through a transformation of the grids themselves.

Imagine the line y = 2, graphed in rectangular, for example. This, of course, is a circle in polar (r = 2) and I envision that as a transformation where the x-axis gets looped in on itself and squished down to a single point (the pole). While this is happening all of the other points in the plane warp around the center, giving us the polar graph we all know. This, in turn, affects the line by wrapping it in on itself so that it forms a circle.

Would love to hear whether this intuition is valid
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think it's mostly not valid. Why does y=2 become r=2 and not ##\theta=2##?

The consistent way of translating coordinates is y=2 becomes ##r\sin(\theta)=2## which has the exact same graph (a horizontal line).
 
  • #3
I'll try to be more clear. If you want the equation, of a line, to look like a line in polar, then you have to use the conversion, as you said. What I'm talking about is, if on the x / y-axis you represent angles on the x-axis, and distance from zero on the y-axis (per usual), then the equation y = 2 and r = 2 will make a different shape, but both have the same inputs and outputs.

Think about the rectangular graph of a cardioid. It is a sine curve, on the x/y, with one zero between 0 and 2pi. y = 2+2sin(theta), for example. That same equation, in polar (just replace y with r) yields a shape that is different but still maintains a key feature which is it only has one zero from 0 to 2pi.

Every point on the rectangular graph has a 1-1 correspondence with a point on the polar graph.

The polar shape of the function y = 2 + 2sin(theta) can be thought of as wrapping that sinusoidal curve around the polar axis. If you do it the right way you'll get the cardioid shape and all of the other points will line up as well, while the x-axis shrinks to a single point.

I really wish I knew how to make an animation of what I'm talking about. I've attached a drawing. The black line is the x-axis which gets squished to the zero point of the pole. The blue line is a line y = a, where a is some constant.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-12-05 at 5.15.50 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-12-05 at 5.15.50 PM.png
    5.9 KB · Views: 147
  • #4
I understand. I guess just to start
Every point on the rectangular graph has a 1-1 correspondence with a point on the polar graph.

This isn't true, since ##x## and ##x+2\pi## get mapped to the same point.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #5
Ah yes, very true.

But do you get what I'm saying about how a cardioid is like a sine curve that's wrapped in a circle?
 
  • #6
I think this would be more clear, to us and perhaps to you, if you separated the ideas of a coordinate system and transformations. Normally people wouldn't consider a change from y=2 to r=2 as a change in the coordinate system, they would think of that as an operation (or operator) that changes a function. Of course there are lots of similarities, so you're not wrong. But you are using language that isn't standard. For example: when you say y=2 transformed to polar coordinates, I think of y=r⋅sin(Θ)=2, same function, same shpe, etc. just a different description with different coordinates.
 
  • #7
Hi Dave,

Thank you for your reply. It seems you do visually get what I'm saying... another example could be how the curve y = 2+2sin(x) , if wrapped around on itself, would form a cardioid.

Can you help to polish up my thoughts? I feel like a simple animation (like a 3blue1brown style animation) would get to the heart of what I'm envisioning. I just can't get it into words (I don't have the same vocabulary as you do).
 
  • #9
Why the skeptical face?
 

FAQ: Cartesian to Polar form.... Is it just a transformation of the plane?

What is the difference between Cartesian and Polar form?

Cartesian form is a way of representing a point on a plane using its x and y coordinates. Polar form, on the other hand, represents a point using its distance from the origin and its angle from the positive x-axis.

How do you convert from Cartesian to Polar form?

To convert from Cartesian to Polar form, you can use the following formulas:
r = √(x² + y²)
θ = tan⁻¹(y/x)
Where r is the distance from the origin and θ is the angle from the positive x-axis.

Can you convert any point from Cartesian to Polar form?

Yes, any point on a plane can be represented in both Cartesian and Polar form. However, some points may have negative coordinates in Cartesian form, which may result in a negative angle in Polar form.

Is converting from Cartesian to Polar form just a transformation of the plane?

Yes, converting from Cartesian to Polar form is simply a transformation of the coordinate system on the plane. It does not change the actual location or properties of the point.

What are the advantages of using Polar form over Cartesian form?

Polar form is often used in situations where the distance from the origin and the angle from the positive x-axis are more relevant than the x and y coordinates. It is also useful in representing complex numbers and in certain mathematical calculations, such as integration and differentiation in polar coordinates.

Similar threads

I Plotting polar equations and scale invariance
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Cartesian Space vs. Euclidean Space
Replies
10
Views
463
I Expressing any given point on plane with one unique number
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Describing a position vector with polar coordinates.
Replies
7
Views
7K
B Invariant under rotation: Banal, obvious, or noteworthy?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Geodesic path in 2 dimensions?
Replies
25
Views
2K
What is Cartesian Coordinates & Formulas?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Lewis H Ryder: Cartesian to Polar Coord Transformations
Replies
2
Views
1K
A Electric and magnetic field lines in a plane wave of finite extent
Replies
1
Views
520
Show proof of point C in the given problem that involves Polar equation
Replies
3
Views
581

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top