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.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top