Do non-orthogonal coordinate systems mean dependent coordinates?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of non-orthogonal coordinate systems, particularly whether changes in one coordinate can lead to changes in another, suggesting a dependency between coordinates. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications regarding coordinate systems and their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that in non-orthogonal coordinate systems, changing one coordinate may indeed affect another, implying a dependency between them.
  • Others argue that moving along one coordinate basis vector does not change the other coordinates, using the example of a non-orthogonal grid to illustrate their point.
  • A later reply emphasizes the local nature of unit vectors in non-orthogonal systems, suggesting that unit vectors can change direction at different points, which complicates the notion of dependency.
  • One participant introduces the concept of orthogonality, noting that it requires a defined structure, such as a Hilbert space, to be meaningful.
  • Another example is provided regarding particles with the same velocity components in different coordinate systems, highlighting that the same components can represent different vectors depending on the local context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether non-orthogonal coordinates imply dependency between coordinates. There is no consensus, as some support the idea of dependency while others refute it based on the definitions and properties of coordinate systems.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the local nature of vectors in curvilinear coordinate systems and the implications of coordinate singularities, particularly in polar coordinates. These aspects may influence the interpretation of dependency between coordinates.

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
8K
  • · 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