MHB Coordinate transformation derivatives

topsquark
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
MHB
Messages
2,020
Reaction score
843
I've had to hit my books to help someone else. Ugh.

Say we have the coordinate transformation \bf{x}' = \bf{x} + \epsilon \bf{q}, where \epsilon is constant. (And small if you like.) Then obviously
d \bf{x}' = d \bf{x} + \epsilon d \bf{q}.

How do we find \frac{d}{d \bf{x}'}?

I'm missing something simple here, I'm sure of it.

-Dan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps I'm getting lost in notation, topsquark. I'm not sure I understand your question. :confused:

Let us assume that $\mathbf{x}', \mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{q}$ are in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Therefore we have that $d \mathbf{x}' = \text{rot } \mathbf{x}' = \nabla \times \mathbf{x}'$.

What are you trying to compute? :confused:
 
Fantini said:
Perhaps I'm getting lost in notation, topsquark. I'm not sure I understand your question. :confused:

Let us assume that $\mathbf{x}', \mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{q}$ are in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Therefore we have that $d \mathbf{x}' = \text{rot } \mathbf{x}' = \nabla \times \mathbf{x}'$.

What are you trying to compute? :confused:
Simple example then. Say we have
x = e^t

Then
dx = e^t dt

Formally we have
\frac{d}{dx} = e^{-t} \frac{d}{dt}

I'm looking for something along those lines. Basically I am trying to simplify the operator
\frac{\partial }{ \partial ( \bf{x} + \epsilon \bf{q} )}

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
Say we have
x = e^t

Then
dx = e^t dt

Formally we have
\frac{d}{dx} = e^{-t} \frac{d}{dt}
This is something I don't agree with. You seem to be saying that $dx = e^t dt$ implies $\frac{1}{dx} = e^{-t} \frac{1}{dt}$.
 
topsquark said:
dx = e^t dt

Formally we have
\frac{d}{dx} = e^{-t} \frac{d}{dt}

$$\frac{d}{dx}$$ what do you mean by that ?

we know that $$\frac{d}{dx} ( f(x) ) = f'(x) $$
 
Are you looking for how derivatives transform under infinitesimal transformations?
 
Fantini said:
This is something I don't agree with. You seem to be saying that $dx = e^t dt$ implies $\frac{1}{dx} = e^{-t} \frac{1}{dt}$.
Not quite.
dx = e^t dt \implies \frac{d}{dx} = \frac{d}{e^t dt} = e^{-t} \frac{d}{dt}

And I did say "formally." (Wasntme) I understand there are technical issues with this "derivation." It's a substitution technique I was taught when solving Euler differential equations.

-Dan

- - - Updated - - -

Jester said:
Are you looking for how derivatives transform under infinitesimal transformations?
Originally yes. But certainly there is an approach to simplify the operator in the "macroscopic" case?

-Dan
 
So if you're transforming from $(t,x,u) \rightarrow (t'x',u')$ where $t$ and $x$ are the independent variables and $u$ the dependent variable, you could use Jacobians.
 
Sounds indeed as if you refer to the Jacobian matrix, which in this case is the identity matrix.

Assuming you mean that $$\frac d {d\mathbf x'} = \left(\frac \partial{\partial x_1'}, ..., \frac \partial{\partial x_n'}\right)$$, that would be the same as $$\frac d {d\mathbf x}$$
 
  • #10
Not what I meant. Suppose that

$\bar{t}=t+T(t,x,u)\varepsilon + O(\varepsilon^{2}),$
$\bar{x}=x+X(t,x,u)\varepsilon + O(\varepsilon^{2}),\;\;\;(1)$
$\bar{u}=u+U(t,x,u)\varepsilon + O(\varepsilon^{2}),$

and I wish to calculate $\displaystyle \dfrac{\partial \bar{u}}{\partial \bar{t}}$ then an easy way is to use Jacobians. I.e.

$\displaystyle \dfrac{\partial \bar{u}}{\partial \bar{t}} = \dfrac{\partial(\bar{u},\bar{x})}{\partial(\bar{t},\bar{x})} = \dfrac{\partial(\bar{u},\bar{x})}{\partial(t,x)} / \dfrac{\partial(\bar{t},\bar{x})}{\partial(t,x)}\;\;\;(2)$.

Now insert the transformations (1) into (2) and expand. The nice thing about (2) is that it is easy to calculate. Furthermore, a Taylor expansion for small $\varepsilon$ is also fairly straight forward (if this is what topsquark was thinking)
 
  • #11
Ah. I sort of assumed $\mathbf q$ was a constant.
I guess I shouldn't have, since you did refer to $d\mathbf q$, suggesting $\mathbf q$ depends on $\mathbf x$.
 
  • #12
To all that mentioned Jacobians: (sighs) Yup. That's what I was looking for. I thought it would be something simple!

Thanks to all!

-Dan
 
Back
Top