How to trasform an orthonormal system in two reference frames

matteo86bo
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
My question is not homework. I feel ashamed of having this doubts but I'm really stuck on this.
The problem is I have a reference frame xyz and here I define the COM \vec x{_{cm}} of the system.
Now I move the COM reference frame x'y'z':
\vec{x'}=\vec{x}-\vec x{_{cm}}

In this reference frame I define a new orthonormal system x''y''z'' centered in (0,0,0), i.e. the COM mass.

I now want to recover to component of my last orthonormal system x''y''z'' in the original system xyz.

If I do:

\vec{x''}{ {\rm (in~ xyz)}}=\vec{x''}{ {\rm (in~ x'y'z')}}+\vec x{_{cm}}

I don't recover an orthonormal system of axis! What is wrong in my method?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hi matteo86bo! :smile:

i don't understand :confused:

x' = x - xc.o.m

so your xyz directions are the same, and only the origin has changed

then x'' = x' + xc.o.m = x
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
61
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
2K
Back
Top