Deriving spherical unit vectors in terms of cartesian unit vectors

chipotleaway
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to find the azimuthal angle unit vector \vec{\phi} in the cartesian basis by taking the cross product of the radial and \vec{z} unit vectors.
\vec{z} \times \vec{r} = <0, 0, 1> \times <sin(\theta)cos(\phi), sin(\theta)sin(\phi), cos(\theta)> = <-sin(\theta)sin(\phi), sin(\theta)cos(\phi), 0)>

But the sin(\theta) shouldn't be there so we would have to multiply the cross product by 1/sin(\theta) to get the correct unit vector. But why do we need to do this if the magnitude is already one?

Also, how would you do this using trigonometry?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You don't actually divide by \sin\theta. Its just that the azimuthal unit vector relies completely on the xy plane and so you should set \theta=\frac \pi 2.
 
Thanks, that makes sense.I was following this .pdf
https://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm/materials/delsph.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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