Intersection of two 3D parametric curves

AI Thread Summary
To find the intersection of two 3D parametric curves defined by different equations, it's essential to equate their x, y, and z components, resulting in three equations with two unknown parameters. The first curve is a parabola, while the second is a line, and at the intersection point, the coordinates must match, although the parameters do not. The approach involves solving two of the equations for the parameters t and s, then substituting these into the third equation to verify if they yield the same result. The discussion highlights the challenge of finding an analytical solution for the parameters in 3D, as opposed to the simpler 2D case, where a numerical solution for one parameter sufficed. Ultimately, the intersection can be confirmed by checking if the derived parameters satisfy all three equations.
Quaoar
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have two parametric curves defined in three dimensions, which are functions of a variable t, like so:

x1 = f1(t)
y1 = f2(t)
z1 = f3(t)

x2 = f4(t)
y2 = f5(t)
z2 = f6(t)

I am trying to find the intersection of these two curves, but I am having some difficulty with the mathematics. In two dimensions, I simply solve for t as a function of x, and then plug that value of t into my y function to obtain y as a function of x. With three equations, I cannot do this.

Any idea of how I should approach this problem? Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
In general, 3 dimensional curves won't intersect. You need more information.
 
Well, I do know that they have a single intersection, no more and no less. I'll flesh out the actual equations here:

x1 = v_e * cos(theta_e) * cos(phi_e) * t
y1 = v_e * cos(theta_e) * sin(phi_e) * t
z1 = v_e * sin(theta_e) - g/2 * t^2

x2 = x_m + v_m * cos(theta_m) * cos(phi_m) * t
y2 = y_m + v_m * cos(theta_m) * sin(phi_m) * t
z2 = v_m * sin(theta_m) * t

v_e, theta_e, phi_e, x_m, y_m, v_m, theta_m, and phi_m are all constants. The first equation is a parabola, the second equation is a line.
 
At the point of intersection, the x, y, z values for each set of parametric equations has to be equal but the values of the parameters do not. I recommend you use t for one, s for the other.

You have
x1= v_e * cos(theta_e) * cos(phi_e) * t= x_m + v_m * cos(theta_m) * cos(phi_m) * s= x2,

y1 = v_e * cos(theta_e) * sin(phi_e) * t= y_m + v_m * cos(theta_m) * sin(phi_m) * s= y2

z1= v_e * sin(theta_e) - g/2 * t^2= v_m * sin(theta_m) *s

You have three linear equations to solve for the two unknown parameters. You should be able to do that using only two of the equations. Then try putting those parameters into the third equation to see if they are the same. If so that is the point of intersection. If not, then they do not intersect.

mathman, you don't need "more information". Either they intersect or they don't!
 
Well, actually, I know that s = t at the point of intersection.

What I'm trying to do is find an analytical solution for t so that I can solve for theta_m and phi_m. In the 2D case, we just have to solve for theta_m, and I found that the solution was transcendental, requiring the solution for theta_m to be computed numerically.

So in essence, we have three unknowns: t, theta_m, phi_m. In the 2D case, I was able to find an analytical solution for t for both curves, which I then set equal to each other, and then used a numerical computation to determine the value of theta_m. It appears that in the 3D case I cannot do this?
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top