MHB General orthogonal scale factor identity

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Please be patient as I struggle with latex here ...
Part 1 of the problem says to start with:
$ \frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}} ={h}_{1} \hat{q}_{1} $ and then to find an expression for $ {h}_{1} $ that agrees with $ {g}_{ij}=\sum_{l} \frac{\partial{x}_{l}}{\partial{q}_{i}}\frac{\partial{x}_{l}}{\partial{q}_{j}} $

My attempt is:
$ \hat{q}_{1} = \frac{1}{h}_{1} \frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}}$
but $ \hat{q}_{1}.\hat{q}_{1}=1$
Then $ \left({h}_{1}\right)^{\!{2}} =\left(\frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}$
Now $ \left(\frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)= \left(\frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)+\left(\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)+\left(\frac{\partial{z}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right) $
so $ \left(\frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}= \left(\frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}+\left(\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}+\left(\frac{\partial{z}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}} $
Now $ {g}_{ii} $ is defined = $ {h}_{i}^{\!{2}}$ and comparing with $ {g}_{ij}=\sum_{l} \frac{\partial{x}_{l}}{\partial{q}_{i}}\frac{\partial{x}_{l}}{\partial{q}_{j}} $ above...
Therefore $ {h}_{1}= \sqrt{ \left(\frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}+\left(\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}+\left(\frac{\partial{z}}{\partial{q}_{1}}\right)^{\!{2}}} $ QED - but have I done anything illegal here?
-----
Part 2 is a derivation:
Again starting with $ \hat{q}_{1} = \frac{1}{h}_{1} \frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}}$
Then $ \frac{\partial\hat{q}_{1}}{\partial{q}_{2}}=\frac{1}{{h}_{1}}\frac{\partial{}^{2}\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{1}\partial{q}_{2}} = \frac{1}{{h}_{1}}\frac{\partial}{\partial{q}_{1}}\left(\frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{2}}\right)^{\!{}} $ (${h}_{1}$ constant w.r.t. 2)
but $ \frac{\partial\bar{r}}{\partial{q}_{2}}={h}_{2} \hat{q}_{2} $
so $ \frac{\partial\hat{q}_{1}}{\partial{q}_{2}}=\frac{1}{{h}_{1}} \frac{\partial\left({h}_{2}\hat{q}_{2}\right)}{\partial{q}_{1}}= \hat{q}_{2}\frac{1}{{h}_{1}}\frac{\partial{h}_{2}}{\partial{q}_{1}}$
Which is QED - but again I have this uncertain feeling so would appreciate confirmation there I have done nothing untoward
-----------------
Part 3 has me so far, I would appreciate a hint ...
Derive $ \frac{\partial\hat{q}_{1}}{\partial{q}_{1}}= -\sum_{j\ne{1}}^{} \hat{q}_{2}\frac{1}{{h}_{2}}\frac{\partial{h}_{1}}{\partial{q}_{2}}$
I have tried a few things without success ... probably there is a trick I haven't encountered before?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In addition: I have assumed perhaps incautiously, that people would recognize the subject here - it is around generalised curvilinear coordinates, with the expression for $ {g}_{ij}$ representing the mixed coordinates, but ${h}_{i}$ excludes the mixed coordinates, IE it is for an orthogonal basis. I feel fairly confident of my working for the first 2 parts, but would like confirmation that I haven't done anything that isn't justifiable. For the 3rd part, I have spent ages trying different things - I thought I was onto it when I differentiated the starting eqn w.r.t. BOTH i and j, but still could not get a term in $ \frac{\partial{\bar{q}}_{i}}{\partial{q}_{i}} $. So I'd also really appreciate a tip as to what approach might product that term, thanks.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
497
Replies
2
Views
433
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
505
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K