Partial Derivatives of Position Vector

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical properties of the position vector \(\vec{r} = \vec{r}(q_1,\ldots,q_n)\) and the validity of the equation \(\frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_i} \cdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_j} = \delta_{ij}\). It is established that this equation holds true only in orthonormal coordinate systems, where the metric tensor is represented by the Kronecker delta \(\delta_{ij}\). In non-orthonormal systems, the derivatives become arbitrary functions, and the equation must be modified to \(\frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q^i} \cdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q^j} = g_{ij}(q)\). The discussion also emphasizes that position vectors are typically expressed in rectangular coordinates, with generalized coordinates serving as parameters.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial derivatives in vector calculus
  • Familiarity with orthonormal and non-orthonormal coordinate systems
  • Knowledge of metric tensors and their properties
  • Basic concepts of Euclidean space and position vectors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of metric tensors in various coordinate systems
  • Learn about the implications of coordinate transformations in vector calculus
  • Explore the relationship between generalized coordinates and position vectors
  • Investigate the application of Kronecker delta in physics and engineering contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers who are working with vector calculus, coordinate transformations, and dynamics in Euclidean spaces will benefit from this discussion.

cjellison
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Let [itex]\vec{r} = \vec{r}(q_1,\ldots,q_n)[/itex].

Is the following ALWAYS true?

[tex] \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_i} \cdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_j} = \delta_{ij}[/tex]

Edit: Perhaps I should ask if it is zero when [itex]i \neq j[/itex] rather than saying that it is [itex]1[/itex] when [itex]i = j[/itex]

I guess I am wondering if this statement is true ONLY IF we have an orthonormal coordinate system. Does this hold for nonorthonormal coordinate systems? Does it hold if our vectors are not normalized (I would think not)?

Also, when we have a position vector...do we always treat it in rectangular coordinates and then express each of the coordinates in terms of our generalized coordinates. Let me clarify...for 3D, we have [itex]\vec{r} = (x,y,z)[/itex]. Do we always express x, y, and z in terms of our generalized coordinates (for example [itex]x = r \cos \theta \sin \phi[/itex])? It seems like we do. I am wondering if we ever think of [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] strictly in terms of the q---so, [itex]\vec{r} = (q_1,\ldots,q_N)[/itex]. I believe that the answer is no...since [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] must have proper units...and our generalized coordinates might not have this "feature".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
cjellison said:
Let [itex]\vec{r} = \vec{r}(q_1,\ldots,q_n)[/itex].
Is the following ALWAYS true?
[tex] \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_i} \cdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q_j} = \delta_{ij}[/tex]

Let's stick to simple point dynamics in the Euclidian space [tex]R^n[/tex].Writing [itex]\vec{r} = \vec{r}(q^1,\ldots,q^n)[/itex] means you have taken into account an change of coordinate.An arbitrary one.A priori
[tex]\vec{r} = \vec{r}(x^1,x^2,\ldots,x^n)[/tex] ,where i assumed that the basis in the vector space [tex]R^n[/tex] is orthormal,which means that the metric tensor associated with these coordinates is nothing else than the Kronecker delta [tex]\delta_{ij}[/tex].If your change of coordinates is arbitrary,then the derivatives you mentioned are arbitrary functions,and more,the new basis for the same Euclidian space is not orthonormal anymore.It's just formed by "n"linear independent vectors,which can,in principle,be normalized.Since the new base is not orthogonal,this means the new metric tensor is not constant and equal to the unit matrix (as before the general change of coordinates),but has [tex]\frac{n^2-n}{2}[/tex] independent components.Written properly,your equation should have stated:
[tex] \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q^i} \cdot \frac{\partial \vec{r}}{\partial q^j} = g_{ij}(q)[/tex]

I believe i answered your question.

cjellison said:
Also, when we have a position vector...do we always treat it in rectangular coordinates and then express each of the coordinates in terms of our generalized coordinates. Let me clarify...for 3D, we have [itex]\vec{r} = (x,y,z)[/itex]. Do we always express x, y, and z in terms of our generalized coordinates (for example [itex]x = r \cos \theta \sin \phi[/itex])? It seems like we do. I am wondering if we ever think of [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] strictly in terms of the q---so, [itex]\vec{r} = (q_1,\ldots,q_N)[/itex]. I believe that the answer is no...since [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] must have proper units...and our generalized coordinates might not have this "feature".

If we are in an Euclidian space,calculations are simplified by chosing the canonical basis formed by three (generally "n") normalized ans reciprocal orthogonal vectors and label the coordinates by "x","y","z" or whatever.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
772
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K