Converting a unit vector from cartesian to cylindrical

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conversion of a unit vector from Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates, specifically focusing on the mathematical approach and definitions involved in this transformation. Participants explore the implications of using direction vectors versus position vectors in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about converting the unit vector p = (0,1,0) to cylindrical coordinates and expresses uncertainty about the process.
  • Another participant suggests using sine and cosine definitions and offers to provide a visual aid.
  • A later reply clarifies that the vector in question is a direction vector, which may influence the conversion approach.
  • Some participants assert that the mathematical treatment of vectors does not change based on their classification as direction or position vectors.
  • One participant proposes that the cylindrical coordinates for the vector could be (1, π/2, 0) but questions the simplicity of this result.
  • Another participant confirms that the proposed coordinates are correct and suggests that a transformation matrix is not necessary for this conversion.
  • A participant asks whether a transformation matrix is needed for a more general point in Cartesian coordinates, to which another participant responds affirmatively that the simpler method is sufficient.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical approach for converting the specific vector and the validity of the simpler method without a transformation matrix. However, there is some discussion regarding the necessity of transformation matrices for more general cases, indicating that multiple views remain on this aspect.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of vectors and their classifications may not be fully explored, and the discussion does not resolve whether transformation matrices are necessary for all cases of conversion.

vector_problems
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help with a vector question that I have.

If I have a unit vector defined in cartesian co-ordinates as p= (0,1,0) how would I go about converting this vector to a cylindrical geometry.

I understand that I will probably need to use p_r=sqrt(px^2+py^2) and p_theta=arctan(py/px) but also want to convert the vector to a cylindrical geometry and i don't think it can be as simple as this

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You need to use the sine and cosine definitions. I'll draw a picture.
 
thank you
 
Look at the definitions, and see if you can figure out what to do. If not, post back and we'll take it from there.
 

Attachments

  • unit_vector_definition.png
    unit_vector_definition.png
    4.1 KB · Views: 871
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
By the way, welcome to physics forums vector problems.
 
thank you very much for the welcome :)

just to clarify in case this changes things. The vector i am working with is a direction vector rather than a position vector. i.e. it describes the orientation of a particle with preferred orientation (0,1,0).

Will the same theory apply, thanks for the help. This is really outside my wheel house
 
Yea, it doesn't matter, as far as math is concerned, a vector is a vector. And you're welcome for the welcome. The definition I provided in the image holds true for any position on that circle.
 
from the picture it would seem that p_polar=(r,theta,z)=(1,pi/2/0) but this just seems too simple.

I would have thought i would have needed to use some sort of transformation matrix to transform from cartesian to polar e.g. p_r=cos(theta)p_x+sin(theta)p_y, p_theta=-sin(theta)p_x+cos(theta)p_y but is this instead only for a flow with multiple components.

Thanks again
 
You can use a transformation matrix, but it's also equivalent to a system of equations relating the coordinates. Since y is independent of x as well as for z in any order, the matrix is unnecessary. Also, what you have is correct. (1,pi/2,0) is the correct set of coordinates for (0,1,0).
 
  • #10
so if i had a more general point in cartesian co-ordinates; p_cart=(px,py,pz) to express this in a cylindrical geometry do I just do p_polar=(sqrt(px^2+py^2),arctan(py/px),pz) or will I need a transformation matrix in this case

thanks
 
  • #11
nope, that's good.
 
  • #12
ok that's great, thank you very much for your help
 
  • #13
No problemo, Glad to help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K