Is there a preferred orientation for the x and y axes in physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eckiller
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bases Systems
eckiller
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In abstract linear algebra you learn that vectorspaces (and in particular I
want to only consider ordered 2-tuples) have no natural coordinate system,
but you can introduce coordinate systems and describe vectors relative to
other vectors.

However, in physics, they often make the (1, 0) and (0, 1) vectors [2-tuple
vector objects themselves, *not* coordinates] parallel to the page edges,
regardless of the coordinate system used.

My question is: Is this merely convention?

I mean, it seems arbitrary that (1, 0) and (0, 1) get to be made parallel to
the page edges, although it is intuitive. So is this just the standard
intuitive way of interpreting the linear vector space of 2-tuples?

To clarify with an example, consider the ramp problems in physics.

There are two bases, the ground basis where we know gravity and the ramp
basis, where one of the axes is coincident with the ramp slope, and the
other orthogonal with the ramp slope.

We want to change the gravity vector to be relative to the ramp basis. The
ground system, which gravity is initially relative to, is taken to be the
standard basis. Is this necessary or just done for convenience?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, it is a convention, and it is in some way the easiest to use, just as base 10 is the easiest for us to write numbers in. You need some reference frame, so why not this one? In particular situations better ones may be used (just as base 2 is sometimes better in which to count), but you can't predict when that'll happen.

In physics we often choose vectors that are orthogonal so we can resolve forces. Sometimes we choose a better basis so that we can work out properties of linear maps (maps of the plane, in this case, that send straight lines to straight lines and keep the origin fixed).

Learning to do Change of bases is always tricky, but inthe same way that double entry bookkeeping is tricky, and is probably why it is brushed under the carpet.
 
I might point out that, in physics, there are NO "given" coordinate systems. The choice of which way the x, y, and z axes point and the length of a unit coordinate is the arbitrary choice of coordinate system (or basis for a vector space).

That's a main reason why physics "laws" are typically in terms of vectors: If an equation in terms of vectors is true in one coordinate system, then it is true in any coordinate system.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top