Coordinate transformations Spherical to Cartesian

gaganaut
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I would like to transform a vector from Spherical to cartesian coordinate system. But the question is probably not that straight forward. :(

I have a vector say E = E_r~\hat{r}+E_{\theta}~\hat{\theta}+E_{\phi}~\hat{\phi}.

But I know only the cartesian coordinate from where it starts, say (x,y,z) and I do not know where it ends. So I am unable to find angles \theta and \phi for computing the transformation matrix R that transforms the vector E to cartesian system. This R is the usual matrix with sines and cosines of \theta and \phi and can be seen here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_fields_in_cylindrical_and_spherical_coordinates

So how do I go about it. Is there even a way to do this. Once again this is not a homework question and is for a small project that I am doing. There aren't any homeworks at this time of the year. :)

Appreciate any form of help.

Kedar
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What do you mean, you don't know where it ends?
Isn't the (r, theta, phi) system relative to (x, y, z)?
 
CompuChip said:
What do you mean, you don't know where it ends?
Isn't the (r, theta, phi) system relative to (x, y, z)?

May be I am missing something very simple here. But I do not know the (r,~\theta,~\phi) as well. I did try to do it that way though to start with.

All I know is the magnitudes in the \hat{r},~\hat{\theta} and \hat{\phi} directions and the starting point. And nothing else.

Can the (r,~\theta,~\phi) be found out from the magnitudes in the \hat{r},~\hat{\theta} and \hat{\phi} (E_r,~E_{\theta},~E_{\phi} as above)?

It can be really simple. But I cannot just think about it right.
 
Yes, you might be missing something or I might.
But aren't the coordinate values simply the coefficients of the unit vectors?
Like, in a Cartesian system you can write either (3, 0, -2) for the coordinates of a point, or you can describe it by a vector 3 \hat x + 0 \hat y - 2 \hat z.
When writing down a tuplet of numbers like (3, 0, -2), we are implicitly assuming that we have these three basis vectors \hat x, \hat y, \hat z and we are using them to fix our point.
 
CompuChip said:
Yes, you might be missing something or I might.
But aren't the coordinate values simply the coefficients of the unit vectors?
Like, in a Cartesian system you can write either (3, 0, -2) for the coordinates of a point, or you can describe it by a vector 3 \hat x + 0 \hat y - 2 \hat z.
When writing down a tuplet of numbers like (3, 0, -2), we are implicitly assuming that we have these three basis vectors \hat x, \hat y, \hat z and we are using them to fix our point.

Thanks Compuchip. I got your point. So stupid of me. The (x,y,z) can be used to find theta, phi. My bad.
 
You're welcome. We all get confused sometimes.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top