Converting Coordinate Systems: Exploring the Force on a Semicircular Conductor

In summary: It is not about bases being independent, it is about the basis being constant. You could perfectly well choose an arbitrary point and express the result in the cylinder basis of that point, but that is just choosing a different fixed basis. In flat spaces, it is posible to do this without ever referencing a Cartesian coordinate system, but that seems rather tedious and unnecessary. Once you go on to curved spaces, integrals like this typically do not make sense at all.In summary, the problem statement is that we learned about different coordinate systems in classical mechanics and the problem that was given is that there is a force on a semicircular part of a conductor and it is not clear how to determine the force. The attempted solution is to
  • #1
pobro44
11
0
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known dana

Screenshot_30.png

I was revisiting University physics textbook and came across this problem. We learned new coordinate systems in classical mechanics classes so I wanted to see if I can apply this to the problem of force on semicircular part of the conductor

Homework Equations



Cartesian and cylindrical coordinates

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried using cylindrical coordinates. I rewrote radial vector (here marked by s unit vector…in a hurry I dropped the unit vector on second line) in cartesian coordinates and integrated. Result is correct.
IMG_20180628_232830_5130_2.png


However if I choose not to use conversion to cartesian coordinates and just integrate like this, putting the radial vector in front of integral (now marked with r unit vector) I get the following:

IMG_20180628_232830_5130.png
So, I have a force in radial direction. Makes sense, it is always directed perpendicular to the semircircle tangent. And it is obvious by symetry that x cartesian components cancel out leaving only y component. However, these 2 results should be the same. If they are, then we should be able to rewrite the cylindrical radial unit vector as 2/pi * y hat unit vector in cartesian coordinates. I may be missing something obvious or made an embarassing mistake, but I see no way to convert the result that way (eliminating pi in particular).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_30.png
    Screenshot_30.png
    94.1 KB · Views: 824
  • IMG_20180628_232830_5130_2.png
    IMG_20180628_232830_5130_2.png
    46.5 KB · Views: 512
  • IMG_20180628_232830_5130.png
    IMG_20180628_232830_5130.png
    10.5 KB · Views: 766
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
pobro44 said:
However if I choose not to use conversion to cartesian coordinates and just integrate like this, putting the radial vector in front of integral (now marked with r unit vector) I get the following:

View attachment 227450
It’s a bit hard to read others’ handwriting. Is that an ##\hat r## that you just took out of the integral? ##\hat r## varies over the integral, so that is an improper thing to do. As you said, by symmetry, only the y component survives. So then integrate just that component.
pobro44 said:
So, I have a force in radial direction. Makes sense,
How does that make sense when that should be the net force and there are infinite unique “radial direction”s?
 
  • Like
Likes pobro44 and Orodruin
  • #3
Nathanael said:
How does that make sense when that should be the net force and there are infinite unique “radial direction”s?
This is a point that cannot be underlined enough times. Without reference to a particular point, talking about a ”radial” direction is meaningless. Would that be the radial direction at the beginning of the half-circle or at the end (those are opposite) or maybe in the middle? It just does not have a well defined meaning to talk about the radial direction for a vector valued integral.
 
  • Like
Likes pobro44
  • #4
I think you chose a bad problem to practice cylindrical coordinates with.

See, the solution at the end depends only on ##\hat{j}##, this means if you worked your problem with cylindrical coordinates, at the end you will have more than one basis, which would look awful and without meaning. You will eventually write it back with Cartesian coordinates to have it written with one basis.

I actually understand why you chose cylindrical coordinates. Because we have half a circle, but the symmetry force you back to Cartesian coordinates. Funny right! (of course you can still write it in cylindrical coordinates, but it won't look elegant)

Orodruin said:
This is a point that cannot be underlined enough times. Without reference to a particular point, talking about a ”radial” direction is meaningless. Would that be the radial direction at the beginning of the half-circle or at the end (those are opposite) or maybe in the middle? It just does not have a well defined meaning to talk about the radial direction for a vector valued integral.

I think, if we are working with vectors inside an integral, the safest thing to do is to transform back to Cartesian coordinates. Since you are sure the bases are independent.
 
  • Like
Likes pobro44
  • #5
Phylosopher said:
I think, if we are working with vectors inside an integral, the safest thing to do is to transform back to Cartesian coordinates. Since you are sure the bases are independent.
It is not about bases being independent, it is about the basis being constant. You could perfectly well choose an arbitrary point and express the result in the cylinder basis of that point, but that is just choosing a different fixed basis. In flat spaces, it is posible to do this without ever referencing a Cartesian coordinate system, but that seems rather tedious and unnecessary. Once you go on to curved spaces, integrals like this typically do not make sense at all.
 
  • Like
Likes pobro44 and Phylosopher
  • #6
Thank you for all your answers. I believe I get it. I can't take radial unit vector outside the integral, cause it changes around path of integration, and it is obvious that it depends on the angle once I convert it to cartesian coordinates. Only cartesian unit vectors are safe to put in front of integral. Also, while the force is radial on every point of integration path, net force being radial is meaningless, just as although infitesimal part of area vector of a sphere is radial it would make little sense for area of whole sphere to be.
 

Related to Converting Coordinate Systems: Exploring the Force on a Semicircular Conductor

What is a "coordinate system conversion"?

A coordinate system conversion is the process of changing the coordinates of a point or set of points from one coordinate system to another. This is often necessary when working with data from different sources that use different coordinate systems.

Why is coordinate system conversion important?

Coordinate system conversion is important because different coordinate systems use different units and reference points, which can cause errors and inaccuracies when working with data. By converting all data to a common coordinate system, it ensures consistency and accuracy in analysis and visualization.

What are the common coordinate systems used in GIS?

The most common coordinate systems used in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) are latitude/longitude (also known as geographic coordinate system), UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator), and state plane coordinate systems. Other commonly used systems include Lambert Conformal Conic, Albers Equal Area Conic, and Web Mercator.

How is a coordinate system conversion done?

A coordinate system conversion can be done manually using mathematical formulas or through GIS software that has built-in conversion tools. The process involves identifying the source and target coordinate systems, understanding the parameters and units of each system, and applying the appropriate transformation method.

What are some challenges in coordinate system conversion?

Some challenges in coordinate system conversion include the potential for data loss or distortion during the transformation process, the need for accurate and up-to-date transformation parameters, and the potential for errors when converting between incompatible systems. It is important to carefully consider these challenges and use reliable methods and tools when performing coordinate system conversion.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
6
Views
960
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
578
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top