Interchanging a position between two reference frames?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between position vectors in two different reference frames, A and B. It establishes that the position vector from the origin of frame A to a point P can be expressed in terms of the position vector from the origin of frame B to the same point. The equation r_{OO'} = r_{OP} + r_{PO'} is presented, but a key point is raised about the incorrect application of vector addition when frames have different orientations. This highlights the importance of considering both the position and orientation of the reference frames when analyzing vector relationships. Overall, understanding these relationships is crucial for accurately interchanging positions between different reference frames.
ato
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
\vec{r}_a is a positional vector from reference frame a. What is the position of same point from reference frame b ?
If required, assume position of origin of frame a is \vec{m} and unit point (i.e. \langle 1,1,1\rangle_a ) is \vec{n} from reference frame b.

I am studying Kleppner and Kolenkow and this is the first thing I asked myself. Unexpectedly its taking a while to figure it out. So help needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Let ##O## denote the origin of frame ##A## and let ##r_{OP}## denote the position vector from ##O## to some point ##P##. Now let's say we have a frame ##B## with origin ##O'## (which may or may not be changing with time) in frame ##A##; denote by ##r_{OO'}## the position vector from the origin of frame ##A## to that of frame ##B##. Here is a crude diagram: http://postimg.org/image/ynt4tab6f/full/

Notice, from the diagram, that ##r_{OO'} = r_{OP} + r_{PO'}## where clearly ##r_{PO'} = -r_{O'P}##. This gives you the relationship between the position vector from ##O'## to ##P## to the position vector from ##O## to ##P## in terms of how ##O'## is positioned relative to ##O##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WannabeNewton said:
Let ##O## denote the origin of frame ##A## and let ##r_{OP}## denote the position vector from ##O## to some point ##P##. Now let's say we have a frame ##B## with origin ##O'## (which may or may not be changing with time) in frame ##A##; denote by ##r_{OO'}## the position vector from the origin of frame ##A## to that of frame ##B##. Here is a crude diagram: http://postimg.org/image/ynt4tab6f/full/

Notice, from the diagram, that ##r_{OO'} = r_{OP} + r_{PO'}## where clearly ##r_{PO'} = -r_{O'P}##. This gives you the relationship between the position vector from ##O'## to ##P## to the position vector from ##O## to ##P## in terms of how ##O'## is positioned relative to ##O##.

No, its wrong to use of addition of vector law to add to vectors from different reference frame. For example consider two frames with same origin at O' but with different oriantitions. According to ##r_{OO'} = r_{OP} + r_{PO'}##, the ##r_{OO'}## for each frame would coinsides. But they should not if ##r_{O'P}## for each do not coinsides.

lkfix9i.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top