How Do You Prove the Time Derivatives of Polar Unit Vectors?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around proving the time derivatives of polar unit vectors, specifically $$\frac{d\hat{r}}{dt} = \dot{\phi} \hat{\phi }$$ and $$\frac{d\hat{\phi}}{dt} = -\dot{\phi} \hat{r }$$. Participants are exploring the geometric and analytical aspects of these derivatives in the context of polar coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to recall their previous solution and questions the assumption that a change in radius corresponds to a rotation by $$\Delta\phi$$ rather than a change in the length $$r$$. Other participants suggest returning to the definitions of the unit vectors and applying time derivatives to derive the relationships.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance by referencing the definitions of the unit vectors and suggesting the use of time derivatives. The original poster expresses appreciation for this direction, indicating that it has helped clarify their understanding. However, there is no explicit consensus on the assumptions being questioned.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes a potential confusion regarding the notation used for unit vectors, specifically the difference between $$\vec{i}$$ and $$\hat{i}$$, which may reflect varying conventions in the community.

A2Airwaves
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove: $$\frac{d\hat{r}}{dt} = \dot{\phi} \hat{\phi }$$ and $$\frac{d\hat{\phi}}{dt} = -\dot{\phi} \hat{r }$$

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I solved this for an Analytical Mechanics assignment a month ago, and completely forgot how it goes..
$$\hat{r} ⊥ \hat{\phi}$$
An change from r1 to r2 will create a ##Δ\phi## that is in the ##\hat{\phi}## direction...
and because ##\hat{r} ⊥ \hat{\phi}##, we can say the same happens for a change from ##\phi1## to ##\phi2## except in the ##-\hat{r}## direction. Assuming the change is infinitesimal, we can write ##Δr## or ##Δ\phi## as d/dt.

But then I'm confused because, why are we assuming a change from r1 to r2 is a rotation by ##Δ\phi,## and not a change of the length r..? Am I getting something completely wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Go back to definition:
##\hat r = \cos(\phi(t)) \vec i + \sin(\phi(t)) \vec j ##
##\hat \phi = -\sin(\phi(t)) \vec i + \cos(\phi(t)) \vec j ##

And use time derivative
 
Go back to definition:
##\hat r = \cos(\phi(t)) \vec i + \sin(\phi(t)) \vec j ##
##\hat \phi = -\sin(\phi(t)) \vec i + \cos(\phi(t)) \vec j ##

And use time derivative
 
geoffrey159 said:
Go back to definition:
##\hat r = \cos(\phi(t)) \vec i + \sin(\phi(t)) \vec j ##
##\hat \phi = -\sin(\phi(t)) \vec i + \cos(\phi(t)) \vec j ##

And use time derivative
Thank you so much!
My professor emphasized the geometric interpretation of the answers that I completely forgot about those definitions.
Worked like magic, problem solved.

By the way, is there a reason why you're writing ##\vec{i}## and not ##\hat{i}##?
I'm used to ##\hat{i}## as a notation for unit vectors, but do you mean the same thing or are you referring to something else?
 
Yes you're right, I meant ##\hat i## and ## \hat j ##.
For clear explanations and nice drawings, look up Kleppner and Kolenkow first chapter.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K