B To calculate the polar unit vectors using rotated coordinates

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter brotherbobby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polar Unit Vectors
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenge of deriving polar unit vectors from rotated Cartesian coordinates. The equations for rotated coordinates are provided, but the connection to polar coordinates is not straightforward. Attempts to manipulate the equations lead to contradictions, indicating that the derivation process is more complex than initially thought. A request for hints suggests focusing on specific angles to simplify the transition from Cartesian to polar coordinates. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the intricacies involved in this mathematical transformation.
brotherbobby
Messages
750
Reaction score
169
TL;DR Summary
To derive the polar unit vectors $$\boxed{\begin{align*}\hat{\rho}&=\cos\theta \;\hat{i}+\sin\theta \;{\hat j}\\

\hat{\phi}&=-\sin\theta \; \hat i+\cos\theta \; \hat j

\end{align*}}\quad\quad\large{\mathbf{(b)}}$$

using coordinates of a point under rotation : $$\begin{align*}x'&=\cos\theta \;x+\sin\theta \;y\\

y'&=-\sin\theta \; x+\cos\theta \; y

\end{align*}\quad\quad\large{\mathbf{(a)}}$$
1726582830959.png
We know that if cartesian coordinates ##(x,y)## (see figure alongside) are rotated to ##(x',y')## about the origin by an angle ##\theta## counter-clockwise as shown, the rotated coordinates are given by $$\begin{align*}x'&=\cos\theta \;x+\sin\theta \;y\\
y'&=-\sin\theta \; x+\cos\theta \; y
\end{align*}\quad\quad\large{\mathbf{(a)}}$$

##\small{\texttt{Can these (the above) be used to derive the (familiar) unit vectors using polar coordinates}}## :


1726582890040.png
$$\boxed{\begin{align*}\hat{\rho}&=\cos\theta \;\hat{i}+\sin\theta \;{\hat j}\\
\hat{\phi}&=-\sin\theta \; \hat i+\cos\theta \; \hat j
\end{align*}}\quad\quad\large{\mathbf{(b)}}$$ I ask because the equations look similar. However, as I show in my workings below, it is far from straightforward. Their (actual) derivation is quite different and doesn't use the rotated co-ordinates shown in ##\mathbf{(a)}## above.



Discussion : The way to go from ##\text{Fig. (2)}\rightarrow\text{Fig. (1)}## is to let ##\text{A}'\rightarrow\text{P}##. That would make ##y'=0\Rightarrow x\sin\theta=y\cos\theta## from ##\mathbf{(a)}## above. But this doesn't lead me anywhere towards deriving ##\mathbf{(b)}##.?

Can I use the equations of ##\mathbf{(a)}## to write ##x'\hat{i}'=\cos\theta x\hat i+\sin\theta y\hat j?## If so, then dividing throughout by ##x'##, we get : ##\hat{i}'=\frac{x}{x'}\cos\theta\hat i+\frac{y}{x'}\sin\theta \hat j##. This would imply ##\frac{x}{x'}=1=\frac{y}{x'}## which is clearly not true.

Request : A hint as to how to derive ##\mathbf{(b)}## from ##\mathbf{(a)}##.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In Fig.1 choose ##\theta## so that P is on x' axis then x',y' are ##\hat{\rho}##, ##\hat{\phi}##, with renaming ##\theta## with ##\phi##.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top