Decomposition of the acceleration vector

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the decomposition of the acceleration vector in three-dimensional space, specifically addressing the relationship between standard basis vectors and alternative decompositions into tangential and normal components. Participants explore the implications of these decompositions in the context of both planar and three-dimensional motion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that a basis for any 3-dimensional vector space must consist of three vectors, questioning the validity of decomposing acceleration into only two components (tangential and normal).
  • Another participant agrees that two components are insufficient to specify a 3D vector, but notes the need for more context from the source material.
  • A participant illustrates the challenge of identifying a third unit vector in a circular motion scenario, suggesting that it cannot be drawn.
  • It is proposed that the decomposition into tangential and one normal component is valid for plane motion, where two components suffice, but that a general 3D trajectory may require two normal components.
  • A participant suggests the binormal vector as a potential third component in the context of 3D motion.
  • Another participant introduces the Frenet-Serret frame, explaining that it provides an orthonormal basis field for 3D curves, which includes the tangent, normal, and binormal vectors.
  • One participant emphasizes that at any instant, the velocity and acceleration vectors lie in a unique plane, which changes over time, particularly in non-linear trajectories like helical motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that two components are insufficient to fully describe a 3D vector, but there is no consensus on the necessity or identification of a third component. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of different decompositions in various motion contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and contexts of the decompositions discussed, particularly in relation to planar versus three-dimensional motion. The discussion highlights the complexity of representing motion in different trajectories.

Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
A basis for any 3-dimensional vector space must have 3 vectors in it.

So the acceleration of any object in [itex]ℝ^{3}[/itex] can be decomposed into the standard basis vectors for [itex]ℝ^{3}[/itex].

However, I have seen another decomposition, namely, into the tangential and normal (centripetal) acceleration vectors. This set contains only two vectors. This seems to contradict the fact that at least three vectors are necessary to span [itex]ℝ^{3}[/itex].

Either I am missing a vector, or something is terribly wrong. All insight is appreciated.

EDIT: The decomposition I am referring to is [tex]a = \frac{dv}{dt}T + κ||v||^{2}N[/tex]

where [itex]κ[/itex] is the curvature of the path.

Thanks!

BiP
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Tangent and normal to what?

Two components are not enough to specify a 3D vector, so you're right, but it's hard to give any more information than that without reading your source material.
 
Bipolarity said:
Either I am missing a vector, or something is terribly wrong.

Draw a circle on a sheet of paper. Mark one point on the perimeter of the circle. At it, draw the radial unit vector that points away from the center of the circle. Draw the tangential unit vector.

Now, what is the third, "missing", unit vector? (Hint: you can't draw it. :wink:)
 
The decomposition in tangential and one normal works for plane motion. In this case the acceleration is always in the plane of the trajectory and two components are sufficient.
For a general, 3D trajectory, there are two "normal" components. One example of this will be the helical motion.

See "osculating" and "rectifying" planes.
 
Is it the binormal vector?

BiP
 
Hi Bip! When dealing with ##\mathbb{R}^{3}## we can also use the Frenet-Serret frame which is what you speak of. Let ##\gamma:J\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{3}## be a regular curve parametrized by arc-length. The unit tangent ##\dot{\gamma}##, the unit normal ##n = \frac{\ddot{\gamma}}{\left \| \ddot{\gamma} \right \|}##, and the unit binormal ##b = \dot{\gamma}\times n## form an orthonormal basis field for ##\mathbb{R}^{3}##; such a basis field is also called a frame field.
 
At any instant in time, the object has an arbitrary velocity vector and an arbitrary acceleration vector.

Those two vectors always lie in a plane (and in the general case the two vectors define a unique plane), so in that sense the motion at that any instant in time can be entirely described in that plane.

But that plane has nothing to do with basis vectors for space, and in general the plane is different at every different instant in time (imagine a point traveling aling a helix, for example).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K