Dot product for vectors in spherical coordinates

AI Thread Summary
Taking the dot product of vectors in spherical coordinates is complicated due to the differing local orthonormal bases at different points in space. The basis vectors depend on the angles, making it difficult to define a consistent dot product without converting to Cartesian coordinates. While a neat expression for the dot product in spherical coordinates is not readily available, it can be derived through Cartesian conversions, though this method is lengthy. It is generally recommended to change coordinates before performing the dot product for simplicity. Understanding these complexities is crucial for accurate calculations in spherical coordinate systems.
Wminus
Messages
173
Reaction score
29
Hi all.

I'm struggling with taking dot products between vectors in spherical coordinates. I just cannot figure out how to take the dot product between two arbitrary spherical-coordinate vectors ##\bf{v_1}## centered in ##(r_1,\theta_1,\phi_1)## and ##\bf{v_2}## centered in ##(r_2,\theta_2,\phi_2)## without converting them to cartesian coordinates first.

Could you guys please help me? The main issue is that the basis for ##v_1## and ##v_2## are different so everything becomes super complicated.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
By the way, if this requires advanced mathematics and is very complicated, please just tell me that's the case instead of spending your time writing a long post. I don't really have the time to dwell too long on this issue.
 
Your last remark is confusing. What do you mean by "basis for v1 and v2 are different"?
 
Wminus said:
Hi all.

I'm struggling with taking dot products between vectors in spherical coordinates. I just cannot figure out how to take the dot product between two arbitrary spherical-coordinate vectors ##\bf{v_1}## centered in ##(r_1,\theta_1,\phi_1)## and ##\bf{v_2}## centered in ##(r_2,\theta_2,\phi_2)## without converting them to cartesian coordinates first.

Could you guys please help me? The main issue is that the basis for ##v_1## and ##v_2## are different so everything becomes super complicated.

Thanks
I don't think there is a definition of the dot (scalar) product which involves using vectors expressed in spherical coordinates, at least, not one which makes sense.

What started you down this dark road in the first place?
 
mathman said:
Your last remark is confusing. What do you mean by "basis for v1 and v2 are different"?

The basis vectors ##\hat{\phi}##, ##\hat{\theta}## depend on the angles ##\phi##,##\theta##. This is what I meant with the basis are different for vectors centered in different points of spherical space. Sorry for the confusion.

SteamKing said:
I don't think there is a definition of the dot (scalar) product which involves using vectors expressed in spherical coordinates, at least, not one which makes sense.

What started you down this dark road in the first place?

I was derailed while doing an assignment :( . I ended up wanting to calculate ##\vec{L} \cdot \vec{L}## where ##\vec{L} = -i \hbar \vec{r} \times \nabla## is the angular momentum operator in spherical coordinates.
 
Wminus said:
The basis vectors ϕ^\hat{\phi}, θ^\hat{\theta} depend on the angles ϕ\phi,θ\theta. This is what I meant with the basis are different for vectors centered in different points of spherical space. Sorry for the confusion.
The main problem is that in spherical coordinates, the local orthonormal basis are not the global coordinate basis, and hence you cannot obtain a 'neat' expression for the dot product using them. You can obtain an expression in terms of them using Cartesian conversions, but the expression is long, and it would be better to simply change coordinates first and then perform the dot product.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top