Components of vector derivative

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of vector derivatives, specifically focusing on the components of a time-varying vector as presented in "Introduction to Mechanics" by K&K. Participants explore the approximations used for the parallel and perpendicular components of the vector increment, as well as the implications of using small angle approximations in the context of calculus and limits.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant explains the approximation for the parallel component of the vector increment, noting that it simplifies to the change in magnitude, ##\Delta A##, for small angles.
  • Another participant questions the necessity of using approximations when taking limits as ##\Delta t## approaches zero, suggesting that strict equality could be used instead.
  • Some participants propose that for small angles, the sine function can be approximated as its argument, leading to simpler calculations.
  • There is a suggestion that the derivation would be clearer in cases of pure rotation where the magnitude of the vector remains constant.
  • Several participants express the idea that the vectors can be considered approximately equal for very small time intervals.
  • One participant introduces an alternative method using the tangent function to derive the perpendicular component, claiming it to be exact and leading to a clearer understanding of the limits involved.
  • A later reply indicates satisfaction with the alternative method and questions the generality of avoiding approximations in physics derivations involving calculus.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and validity of approximations in the derivation process. Some agree on the utility of approximations for small angles, while others question their necessity and explore alternative exact methods. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to take in such derivations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence on small angle approximations and the implications of using limits in calculus. There is an acknowledgment of the potential for different methods to yield varying levels of clarity and precision in the derivation process.

PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
In the book "Introduction to Mechanics" by K&K, an increment of a generic time-varying vector is split into two components, ##\Delta \vec{A} _{\perp}## and ##\Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}##.
Their magnitudes are approximated by:
$$A \Delta \theta$$
and
$$\Delta A$$
respectively. (Where ##\Delta \theta## is the angle between ##\vec{A}(t)## and ##\vec{A}(t + \Delta t)##)

Now, I understand why the parallel component of the increment is approximated by ##\Delta A##, it's because:

$$|\Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}| = |\vec{A}(t + \Delta t)| cos(\Delta \theta) - |\vec{A}(t)| ≈ |\vec{A}(t + \Delta t)| - |\vec{A}(t)| = \Delta A$$

for small angles. However, I can't understand how the other approximation is obtained (when changes in magnitude and direction are occurring simultaneously, that is).

My second question:

To find the magnitudes of the derivatives of the vector components, we divide each of the expressions I mentioned above by ##\Delta t##, and we take the limit as ##\Delta t## approaches zero. Why did we have to approximate the magnitudes (using the small angle approximation) if we were going to take the limit as ##\Delta t## approaches 0 anyway? Would it make a difference if we were to use the actual equations with strict equality that hold for any angle, big or small, and then take the limit as ##\Delta t## approaches zero?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    12.2 KB · Views: 427
Physics news on Phys.org
For small angles the slope at sin(0) is one and so the sin(x) can be approximated as x.
 
jedishrfu said:
For small angles the slope at sin(0) is one and so the sin(x) can be approximated as x.

I understand. It's the ##A## part that's confusing me. Using simple trigonometry, the length of the opposite side is ##|\vec{A}(t + \Delta t)| sin(\Delta \theta)##.
But isn't ##A## the length of the initial vector? This is why I'm confused.
Had the derivation been for a case of pure rotation with no change in magnitude, it would've been clearer because the magnitude of the (vector) function would've been equal at both times.
 
Yes but aren't the vectors about equal for very small t.
 
jedishrfu said:
Yes but aren't the vectors about equal for very small t.

So what we're doing here is really coming up with approximations for a small change in time, not just change in angle. These approximations become exact when we take the derivative. Right?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
So what we're doing here is really coming up with approximations for a small change in time, not just change in angle. These approximations become exact when we take the derivative. Right?

There is another way to do it, if you're not happy with these approximations:

##\frac{\Delta \vec{A} _{\perp}}{A + \Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}} = tan\Delta \theta##

##\Delta \vec{A} _{\perp} = (A + \Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}) tan\Delta \theta##

This is exact. Now, if you take the limit, the first term on the RHS becomes ##A\frac{d\theta}{dt}## (since the limit of ##\frac{tan(\theta)}{\theta} = 1##.

And the limit of the second term is zero, as you have the product of small terms.

Maybe you can fill in the gaps and find an "exact" derivation for the parallel component.
 
A Δθ can be thought of as using the arc-length formula to approximate the tangential component.
 
PeroK said:
There is another way to do it, if you're not happy with these approximations:

##\frac{\Delta \vec{A} _{\perp}}{A + \Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}} = tan\Delta \theta##

##\Delta \vec{A} _{\perp} = (A + \Delta \vec{A}_{\parallel}) tan\Delta \theta##

This is exact. Now, if you take the limit, the first term on the RHS becomes ##A\frac{d\theta}{dt}## (since the limit of ##\frac{tan(\theta)}{\theta} = 1##.

And the limit of the second term is zero, as you have the product of small terms.

Maybe you can fill in the gaps and find an "exact" derivation for the parallel component.

Thanks. This is much better than the method using approximations. I found the limit for the parallel component. This was very helpful!
Is it always possible to avoid approximations in physics derivations that involve calculus (like the one above), or will I be forced to make approximations once in a while?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K