Coordinate transformation and multiplying with size of J

Click For Summary
When transforming coordinates in integrals, it is essential to multiply by the absolute value of the Jacobian, |J|, to account for changes in volume during the transformation. The Jacobian represents the scaling factor of the transformation, ensuring that the volume is preserved. In cases where the transformation maintains volume, |J| equals one. The concept can be visualized using a parallelopiped formed by vectors, where the volume is determined by the triple product, which relates to the determinant of the Jacobian. Understanding this relationship clarifies the necessity of including the Jacobian in coordinate transformations.
greisen
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am using the book "Advanced Engineering Mathematics" by Erwin Kreyszig where I am reading on the transformation of coordinates - when changing from \int f(x,y) to \int f(v(x,y),v(x,y) it is necessary to multiply with the size of the jacobian, |J| - I cannot find the proof in the book and I don't quite understand why one should multiply with this?
Any help or advise where to locate the proof in order to better understand the multiplication with the Jacobian.

Thanks in advance

Best
 
Physics news on Phys.org
if you google "Coordinate transformation multiple integrals", you get lots of hits :)
 
Hi,

So if I transform and the volume of the transform is preserved the size of |J| is one?
 
Yes. If you have a "parallelopiped" (3 d figure like a "tilted" retangle) formed from 3 vectors \vec{u}, \vec{v}, and \vec{w}, the volume is given by the length of the "triple" product \vec{u}\cdot(\vec{v}\times\vec{w}) which, in turn, can be calculated by the determinant having those vectors as rows. That's basically what the Jacobian is.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K