Non-Convex Coordinate Transform Problem Rotating Frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding a coordinate transformation between a fixed frame (ƒ) and a rotating frame (ρ) using known 3D points and rotation angles. The challenge lies in determining the plane normal and distance in frame ƒ, as all points are coplanar but not identical across time. The user seeks to set up an overdetermined system using the plane equation in frame ƒ to solve the problem. Suggestions include utilizing concepts from Lorentz transformations to approach the solution. The overall goal is to clarify the problem and explore potential methods for approximation.
phil0stine
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I am sure this is not the best description of the problem, so let me know how I can clarify.

Say there are 2 coordinate systems, with one orbiting around the other. Call one fixed ƒ and the other rotating ρ. The goal is to find the transform between the two frames.

What's known is
1) A set of 3D points at a given time τ in frame ρ
2) The angle θ which frame ρ is subsequently rotated about the z-axis of frame ƒ between time τ and τ+1
3) New 3D points at time τ+1 in frame ρ, and so forth.
4) All points from all views lie in a single plane in frame ƒ (this does not mean the points at time τ and time τ+1 are the same, just that they are coplanar)

I want to set up the problem to use the plane equation in frame ƒ to solve an overdetermined system, but I run into the problem that I do not know the plane normal η and distance d in frame ƒ.

Is there any way this can be solved (even approximately)? Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would start small and go from one dimension, then two dimensions to finally three dimension. A sketch would help a lot of understand the problem better.
 
phil0stine said:
I am sure this is not the best description of the problem, so let me know how I can clarify.

Say there are 2 coordinate systems, with one orbiting around the other. Call one fixed ƒ and the other rotating ρ. The goal is to find the transform between the two frames.

What's known is
1) A set of 3D points at a given time τ in frame ρ
2) The angle θ which frame ρ is subsequently rotated about the z-axis of frame ƒ between time τ and τ+1
3) New 3D points at time τ+1 in frame ρ, and so forth.
4) All points from all views lie in a single plane in frame ƒ (this does not mean the points at time τ and time τ+1 are the same, just that they are coplanar)

I want to set up the problem to use the plane equation in frame ƒ to solve an overdetermined system, but I run into the problem that I do not know the plane normal η and distance d in frame ƒ.

Is there any way this can be solved (even approximately)? Thanks
Lorentz transformations concepts can be used to solve the puzzle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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...
Back
Top