Solving Cross Product w/ Determinants: Setting Up Equations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the cross product of vectors and its representation using determinants. Participants explore how to derive the component form of the cross product without relying on the established relationship involving the sine of the angle between the vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in relating the geometric interpretation of the cross product to its component form and seeks guidance on setting up equations using determinants.
  • Another participant questions whether it is possible to derive the component form of the cross product without knowing its geometric interpretation involving the sine of the angle.
  • A participant provides the determinant representation of the cross product and suggests that it can be derived from the definitions of a right-handed coordinate system.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of having a definition of the cross product before deriving its formula, with references to the properties of the cross product such as associativity and anti-commutativity.
  • Some participants mention the historical context of vector mathematics and how earlier physicists might have approached problems without modern vector notation.
  • One participant notes that the determinant form is a mnemonic and discusses the origins of the unit vectors used in the context of quaternions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the component form of the cross product can be derived without prior knowledge of its geometric interpretation. Multiple viewpoints regarding the definitions and properties of the cross product are presented, indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the historical evolution of vector mathematics. There are unresolved assumptions about the foundational definitions of the cross product and the implications of using different mathematical frameworks.

danny271828
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble relating the cross product form |a||b|sin(theta) to its component form (a1b2 - a2b1) ... and so on... I know how to do this mathematically so please don't just suggest some proof that I can find in every textbook... The component form involves the solutions to equations using determinants I believe... I was wondering if anyone could get me going in the right direction as far as setting up a set of equations to solve in order to arrive at this component form... I know I have seen this somewhere but cannot find the right book... So I guess you could say I'm trying to setup the right question, in other words, is there a set of equations for 2 vectors in a plane that can be solved via determinants in order to arrive at this component form for the cross product? I'm having a little trouble stating the question even...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess another way of what I am asking is - is there any way to arrive at the component form of the cross product without knowing it is equal to absin(theta)?
 
Well, a x b = [tex]\det \left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \textbf{i} & \textbf{j} & \textbf{k} \\<br /> a1 & a2 & a3 \\<br /> b1 & b2 & b3 \end{array} \right)[/tex], unless you were referring to something else?

(Of course, a = a1i + a2j + a3k, etc.)
 
well that's kind of what I'm asking... is there a way to arrive at that determinant form without knowing a x b equals |a||b|sin(theta)? So we want to construct a vector that is perpendicular to 2 vectors in a plane and has a magnitude that somehow expresses the amount of rotation.
 
"well that's kind of what I'm asking... is there a way to arrive at that determinant form without knowing a x b equals |a||b|sin(theta)?"

Well that's kind of the definition for the cross-product. Nevertheless, maybe this might help a bit:

Start with the following definitions for a right-handed co-ordinate system:

[tex]\hat{x}\times\hat{x} = \hat{y}\times\hat{y} = \hat{z}\times{z} = 0[/tex]
[tex]\hat{x}\times\hat{y} = -\hat{y}\times\hat{x} = \hat{z}[/tex]
[tex]\hat{y}\times\hat{z} = -\hat{z}\times\hat{y} = \hat{x}[/tex]
[tex]\hat{z}\times\hat{x} = -\hat{x}\times\hat{z} = \hat{y}[/tex]

So if you write

[tex]A\times B = (A_x\hat{x} + A_y\hat{y} + A_z\hat{z}) \times (B_x\hat{x} + B_y\hat{y} + B_z\hat{z})[/tex]

(Ie: [tex]A_y\hat{y}\times B_x\hat{x}=A_yB_x(\hat{y}\times\hat{x}) = -A_yB_x\hat{z}[/tex])

Expand, regroup, and this will lead you to the determinant form.
 
Last edited:
danny271828 said:
well that's kind of what I'm asking... is there a way to arrive at that determinant form without knowing a x b equals |a||b|sin(theta)? So we want to construct a vector that is perpendicular to 2 vectors in a plane and has a magnitude that somehow expresses the amount of rotation.
If you don't use "length of a x b= |a||b|sin(theta)" (and the fact that a x b is perpendicular to be a and b with the "right hand rule"- it is not correct that a x b= |a||b|sin(theta)!) the what definition of cross product ARE you using?

Obviously, you have to have some definition before you can derive a formula!

nicksause is using, as a definition, that [itex]\vec{i}\times \vec{j}= \vec{k}[/itex], [itex]\vec{j}\times\vec{k}= \vec{i}[/itex], and [itex]\vec{k}\times\vec{i}= \vec{j}[/itex] together with requiring that the cross product be associative, distribute over vector addition, and be anti-commutative.
 
nicksause is using, as a definition, that [itex]\vec{i}\times \vec{j}= \vec{k}[/itex], [itex]\vec{j}\times\vec{k}= \vec{i}[/itex], and [itex]\vec{k}\times\vec{i}= \vec{j}[/itex] together with requiring that the cross product be associative, distribute over vector addition, and be anti-commutative.

Right, I should have mentioned that.
 
nicksause is using, as a definition, that [itex]\vec{i}\times \vec{j}= \vec{k}[/itex], [itex]\vec{j}\times\vec{k}= \vec{i}[/itex], and [itex]\vec{k}\times\vec{i}= \vec{j}[/itex]
That is the original quaternion-based definition of the cross product. Even the use of [itex]\vec{i}, \vec{j}, \vec{k}[/itex] as unit vectors comes straight from the quaternions. The determinant form is an easy mnemonic for some; I prefer the even/odd permutations of i,j,k (or whatever).

As an aside, the concept of vectors and vector spaces is a relatively recent invention (end of the 19th century). We are introduced to vectors in the first week of freshman physics and use vector-based calculations throughout. How did physicists do things, even very basic freshman-level physics things, before the invention of vectors and all that is associated with them?
 
They probably used systems of equations expressed in some choice of coordinate system. I would imagine that there was more use of geometric and trigonometric arguments.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K