Do non-orthogonal coordinate systems mean dependent coordinates?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gmmaro
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In non-orthogonal coordinate systems, changing one coordinate can indeed affect another due to the dependency of unit vectors. Unlike orthogonal systems, where unit vectors are perpendicular, non-orthogonal unit vectors can have components along each other's directions. This means that moving in the direction of one unit vector may inadvertently change another coordinate. The local nature of vectors in curvilinear coordinates, such as plane polar coordinates, further emphasizes this dependency, as unit vectors vary with position.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of non-orthogonal coordinate systems
  • Familiarity with unit vectors and their properties
  • Knowledge of curvilinear coordinates, specifically plane polar coordinates
  • Basic concepts of tangent spaces in differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of non-orthogonal coordinate systems in detail
  • Learn about the implications of unit vector dependency in curvilinear coordinates
  • Explore the concept of tangent spaces and their significance in geometry
  • Investigate the differences between Euclidean and non-Euclidean manifolds
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers working with coordinate systems, particularly those involved in fields like differential geometry and mechanics where non-orthogonal coordinates are prevalent.

gmmaro
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
In non-orthogonal coordinate systems, can we say that changing a coordinate could result in changing another coordinate? That is, the coordinates are dependent on each other.

As I understood, non-orthogonal systems will have unit vectors (which are defined to point in the direction of increasing corresponding coordinates) not orthogonal to each other. Doesn’t that mean they could have components along each other’s direction? Thus if we move in the direction of one unit vector, we may “accidently” also move in the direction of another unit vector, yielding a change in another coordinate.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes.
 
gmmaro said:
Doesn’t that mean they could have components along each other’s direction?
It means that at least one does have a component parallel to at least one other, yes.
gmmaro said:
Thus if we move in the direction of one unit vector, we may “accidently” also move in the direction of another unit vector, yielding a change in another coordinate.
No, because moving along the direction of one coordinate basis vector is the definition of not changing the other coordinates. A simple example is to draw a non-orthogonal grid on paper. Label one intersection (0,0). All the intersections on one of the lines passing through that must then be (i,0) and those on the other line are (0,j). So if you start at the origin and move in the direction of one coordinate basis you will always have one or other coordinate being zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
gmmaro said:
In non-orthogonal coordinate systems, can we say that changing a coordinate could result in changing another coordinate? That is, the coordinates are dependent on each other.

As I understood, non-orthogonal systems will have unit vectors (which are defined to point in the direction of increasing corresponding coordinates) not orthogonal to each other. Doesn’t that mean they could have components along each other’s direction? Thus if we move in the direction of one unit vector, we may “accidently” also move in the direction of another unit vector, yielding a change in another coordinate.
Coordinate unit vectors are defined locally - as are vectors based on them. Take plane polar coordinates as an example, and consider the unit vector ##\hat \theta##. The direction of ##\hat \theta## changes at every point. If you fix ##r## and follow ##\hat \theta##, then you are not following the same unit vector at every point.

At each point, except the origin, the pair of unit vectors ##\hat r, \hat \theta## gives an orthogonal basis for the tangent space at that point. Note that as the Cartesian unit vectors do not change with position, you can ignore the concept of tangent space and identity the unit vectors as being the same at every point.

In non-orthogonal coordinates, the unit vectors form a non-orthogonal basis for the tangent space at each point. If two unit vectors coincided at a given point, then you would have some sort of coordinate singularity there. The origin is a coordinate singularity in plane polar coordinates, as ##\theta## is not defined at the origin.

Your question, I believe, doesn't properly recognise the local nature of vectors in general, curvilinear (non-Cartesian) coordinate systems.

PS more generally, you may be dealing with a non-Euclidean manifold, where the local nature of vectors becomes even more important.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
What is "orthogonality"? You need to add some structure to your space in order to define it. The usual version is a Hilbert space, where you define a "scalar product" of two vectors. If that scalar product is 0, the vectors are said to be ortogonal.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
To give an example. Suppose two particles at different points both have the velocity ##v_x \hat x + v_y \hat y##. Then, the two particles have the same velocity.

But, if they have the same components in plane polar coordinates ##v_r \hat r + v_\theta \hat \theta##, then they do not have the same velocity. In other words, the same components represent a different ector at different points - and we see that these components apply technically to a vector in the local tangent space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K