Rotation of Vector in P: Why Divide by r?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the rotation of a vector in a coordinate system, specifically questioning the necessity of dividing by r in the second equation of the rotation formulas. It is argued that the correct formulas for rotation do not include the r factor, as the standard rotation equations are x' = x cos(θ) + y sin(θ) and y' = y cos(θ) - x sin(θ). An example using specific values demonstrates that including r leads to incorrect results, while using the standard formulas yields the correct rotated vector. The conversation also touches on the need for clarification from the professor regarding the inclusion of the r term in the second component of the rotation. Ultimately, the validity of the standard rotation equations is reinforced, while the rationale for the r division remains unclear.
Soff
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
When you rotate passivly an arbitrary vector in P (which is not in the origin of a coordinate system), you will get the following new coordinates for the same vector:

x'=x \cos\theta+y\sin \theta
y'=\frac{1}{r}(y\cos \theta-x\sin\theta)

where r is the distance from the origin to the point P and x,y are the components of the vector. Can somebody explain me, why you have to divide by r in the second equation?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You don't! For one thing, there is no "r" in the original information- unless you are assuming that r is the length of the vector <x, y>. But, in any case, there is no "r" in the correct formulas:
x&#039;= x cos(\theta)+ y sin(\theta)
y&#039;= y cos(\theta)- x sin(\theta)
which are simply what you give without the "r".

You can check by taking x= 2, y= 0 and rotating through \theta= 90 degrees.
Assuming, again, that r is the length of the vector, then here r= 2 and your formulas give x'= 2(0)+ 0(1)= 0, y'= (1/2)(2(1)- 1(0))= 1 but <0, 1> is a a vector with length 1.

Using the formulas without the r, you get x'= 2(0)+ 0(1)= 0, y'= 2(1)- 1(0)= 2 giving the vector <0, 2> which is correct.
 
I attached the graphic which describs the situation with the rotation. What I want is to describe the vector in the lower part of the system in coordinates of A^{\theta} and A^{r}. The professor told me that the solution is:

A^{r}=A^{x}\cos\theta+A^{y}\sin\theta
A^{\theta}=\frac{1}{r}(A^{y}\cos\theta-A^{x}\sin\theta)

The first component is simply a rotation, but why this factor \frac{1}{r} in the second component?
 

Attachments

  • abb223.jpg
    abb223.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 431
Why don't you ask the professor?
 
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...
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 '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