Contravariant components and spherical component of acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the components of acceleration in spherical coordinates and the confusion surrounding contravariant vectors. The original poster successfully derives acceleration components but encounters discrepancies when applying the contravariant vector definition. A suggestion is made to utilize covariant unit vectors to resolve the inconsistencies, leading to unique results. The conversation emphasizes the difference between coordinate basis vectors in Cartesian and spherical systems, noting that spherical coordinate vectors are not unit vectors. The importance of correctly applying vector definitions in different coordinate systems is highlighted.
world line
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello
i know how to derive the components of acceleration in other coordinates like spherical
start here :
http://up.iranblog.com/images/0mbwuclckbu51bxt8jfa.jpg
and at last we have :
http://up.iranblog.com/images/geotowiaxdya2s6ewxk.jpg

also , i know that acceleration is a contravariant vector :
http://up.iranblog.com/images/fl7eosq4cieeoc1kroy.gif
but when i use that definition i don't derive the above result for acceleration !?
and reach to a different results
so what is my mistake ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
world line said:
so what is my mistake ?

It is very difficult to find your mistake without seeing what you have done.
 
for example :
http://up.iranblog.com/images/90cm6lacnzsoxcju1v9.png
that it is different with the corresponding spherical component

if we use the covaraint unit vector the problem will be solved !
and both solution will have unique result
is it correct ?
 
world line said:
http://up.iranblog.com/images/fl7eosq4cieeoc1kroy.gif

This expression relates the components of a vector with respect to one coordinate basis to the components of the same vector with respect to a different coordinate basis. In general, coordinate basis vectors are not unit vectors. Standard Cartesian coordinate vectors are unit vectors, but spherical coordinate vectors are unit vectors.

world line said:
if we use the covaraint unit vector the problem will be solved !
and both solution will have unique result
is it correct ?

http://up.iranblog.com/images/geotowiaxdya2s6ewxk.jpg

is with respect to contravariant unit vectors.
 
Thank you
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top