Problem Understanding theorm of Cross Product

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the cross product of two vectors, specifically addressing the relationship between the magnitude of the cross product and the area of the parallelogram formed by those vectors. Participants are questioning how a quantity representing length can be equated to an area, given their differing units.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the dimensional analysis of the cross product and its implications. Some are questioning the validity of equating the magnitude of the cross product with area, while others are attempting to clarify the dimensionality of vectors and their components.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants expressing confusion and seeking clarification on the dimensional aspects of the cross product. There are attempts to reconcile the mathematical properties of vectors with physical interpretations, but no consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of dimensionality in the context of vectors and their products, particularly in relation to physical quantities and their interpretations in mathematics.

PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10

Homework Statement


My textbook says:
The length of the cross product a x b is equal to the area of the parallelogram determined by a and b.

How can a length equal and area? They have different units?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PsychonautQQ said:

Homework Statement


My textbook says:
The length of the cross product a x b is equal to the area of the parallelogram determined by a and b.

How can a length equal and area? They have different units?
They are numerically equal. That doesn't say anything about units, just that the numbers are the same.
 
PsychonautQQ said:

Homework Statement


My textbook says:
The length of the cross product a x b is equal to the area of the parallelogram determined by a and b.

How can a length equal and area? They have different units?

If a and b have dimension length, then axb properly has dimension (length)^2. So does the area of a parallelogram.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
If a and b have dimension length, then axb properly has dimension (length)^2.
You're going to have to convince me, Dick. a X b is a vector, and its magnitude is a length. I don't see how you can get (length)2 out of a vector.
Dick said:
So does the area of a parallelogram.
 
Mark44 said:
You're going to have to convince me, Dick. a X b is a vector, and its magnitude is a length. I don't see how you can get (length)2 out of a vector.

I'll try. The components of axb are products of components of a and b. If the components of a and b have dimension length, that means the components of axb have dimension (length)^2. Not all vectors have dimension length. An example from physics is that angular momentum is defined by l=rxp. r has dimensions of length (m), p has the dimensions of momentum (kg*m/s). l has dimensions of angular momentum (kg*m^2/s).
 
Dick, my mind is blown right now.
 
Office_Shredder said:
Dick, my mind is blown right now.

I'm kind of surprised this is of mind-blowing proportions. It's just consistently tracking units. In math, you largely treat vectors as dimensionless, so the issue never comes up. If your vectors are dimensionful and you want a length vector perpendicular to a and b, you should use axb/(length units). Which you usually do anyway, just by ignoring the (length)^2 aspect of axb. It should really be satisfying that |axb| correctly has the dimensions of a parallelogram area. Don't get me talking about differential forms and duality. It's why there is a 'cross product' only in three dimensions. The dimension funnyness reflects that.
 
Last edited:
Mark44 said:
You're going to have to convince me, Dick. a X b is a vector, and its magnitude is a length. I don't see how you can get (length)2 out of a vector.
I never use "length" as a synonym for the magnitude of a physical vector. What is the length of a velocity vector? That doesn't quite make sense. Velocity has dimensionality of length per time, not length. The magnitude of that velocity vector? That makes sense, and it even has a name: Speed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K