Differences between an axial vector, a pseudo vector and a bivector?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swapnil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axial Vector
Click For Summary
Axial vectors and pseudo-vectors are often considered synonymous, as both are dual to bivectors. A bivector represents a "directed area," akin to how a vector signifies a "directed length." In three dimensions, a directed area can be expressed through its normal vector, leading to the concept of pseudo-vectors. Additionally, a "directed volume" corresponds to pseudoscalars, which can be represented by a single number. The relationship between vectors, pseudo-vectors, and bivectors is nuanced, with A × B yielding a pseudo-vector that is dual to the bivector A ∧ B, representing the oriented parallelogram formed by vectors A and B.
Swapnil
Messages
459
Reaction score
6
What is the difference between an axial vector, a psudo vector and a bivector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Axial vector and pseudo-vector seem to mean the same thing, and are dual to bivectors.

A bivector is a "directed area". (similar to how a vector is a "directed length") In three dimensions, a directed area can be represented by its normal vector (i.e. it's "axis"): that's where pseudovectors come from.

Similarly, in three dimensions, a "directed volume" can be represented by a number: that's where pseudoscalars come from.
 
Last edited:
So, if
\vec{C} = \vec{A}\times\vec{B}

then C would be a psudo vector and it would also be a bivector since its magnitude is equal to the area of the parallogram spanned by A and B?
 
Almost: A \times B is the (pseudo)vector that is dual to the bivector A \wedge B.

A \times B is merely the properly oriented vector that is perpendicular to the oriented parallelogram with sides A and B. Roughly speaking, A \wedge B is that oriented parallelogram.

(But only roughly speaking -- the picture isn't quite that nice. For example, (A + B) \wedge B = A \wedge B)
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K