Coordinate transformations Spherical to Cartesian

AI Thread Summary
Transforming a vector from spherical to Cartesian coordinates requires knowledge of the angles theta and phi, which are derived from the Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). The original poster initially struggled to find these angles without knowing the endpoint of the vector. However, it was clarified that the Cartesian coordinates can indeed be used to calculate theta and phi. This realization helped the poster understand the relationship between the spherical and Cartesian systems. The discussion emphasizes the importance of recognizing how coordinate systems relate to one another in vector transformations.
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.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top