Diffrence between resolving vector to components and find projections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mohmmad Maaitah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Components Vector
AI Thread Summary
Resolving a vector into components involves expressing it as a sum of vectors along specified directions, while finding projections focuses solely on the relationship between two vectors. The components are dependent on the chosen coordinate system, meaning changes in one direction can affect the others. In contrast, projections are determined by the two vectors involved and remain unaffected by additional vectors. Understanding this distinction is crucial for applying the correct mathematical approach in physics problems. The discussion clarifies that projections and components serve different purposes in vector analysis.
Mohmmad Maaitah
Messages
90
Reaction score
20
Homework Statement
Resolve to components / Determine magnitude of projections
Relevant Equations
Dot product
I don't get what is the difference when I am asked to re-solve components and find projections to axes other than the Y and X
I know that the parallelogram works for the first one and the dot product for the second but what's the diffrence!
IMG_20230917_143410_282.jpg
1694950414012.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mohmmad Maaitah said:
Homework Statement: Resolve to components / Determine magnitude of projections
Relevant Equations: Dot product

I don't get what is the difference when I am asked to re-solve components and find projections to axes other than the Y and X
I know that the parallelogram works for the first one and the dot product for the second but what's the diffrence!
View attachment 332081View attachment 332082
If you resolve a vector ##\vec w## into components ##\vec u, \vec v## then ##\vec w=\vec u+\vec v##.
Those components will only be the projections of ##\vec w## onto ##\hat u, \hat v## if ##\vec u## and ##\vec v## are orthogonal.

Writing ##\vec u=u\hat u## etc. and ##\lambda=\hat u\cdot\hat v##,
##\vec w=u\hat u+v\hat v##
##\vec w\cdot\hat u=u+v\lambda##
etc., whence
##v=\frac{\vec w\cdot\hat v-\vec w\cdot\hat u\lambda}{1-\lambda^2}##.
 
Last edited:
haruspex said:
If you resolve a vector ##\vec w## into components ##\vec u, \vec v## then ##\vec w=\vec u+\vec v##.
Those components will only be the projections of ##\vec w## onto ##\hat u, \hat v## if ##\vec u## and ##\vec v## are orthogonal.

Writing ##\vec u=u\hat u## etc. and ##\lambda=\hat u\cdot\hat v##,
##\vec w=u\hat u+v\hat v##
##\vec w\cdot\hat u=u+v\lambda##
etc., whence
I still don't get the diffrence between projection and force component.
 
Mohmmad Maaitah said:
I still don't get the diffrence between projection and force component.
The projection of one vector on another depends only on those two vectors. It is unaffected by any other vectors under consideration.
If you are resolving into components then you need a set of directions to resolve into, ##\hat u_i##, and the coefficient to use in one direction depends on the whole set of directions. If you modify ##\hat u_1## then you may find the magnitude of the component in the ##\hat u_2## direction changes.
 
I get it thank you sir!
haruspex said:
The projection of one vector on another depends only on those two vectors. It is unaffected by any other vectors under consideration.
If you are resolving into components then you need a set of directions to resolve into, ##\hat u_i##, and the coefficient to use in one direction depends on the whole set of directions. If you modify ##\hat u_1## then you may find the magnitude of the component in the ##\hat u_2## direction changes.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top