Spherical Vector Addition Process

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the addition of vectors in spherical coordinates, specifically whether it's necessary to convert them to Cartesian coordinates for operations. The consensus is that converting to Cartesian is the easiest method for vector addition and other operations like dot and cross products. Additionally, the difference between "bound" and "free" vectors is clarified; free vectors can be moved freely without changing their properties, while bound vectors are fixed to a point of application. Examples illustrate that forces are typically bound vectors, while velocities are considered free vectors. Ultimately, for vector operations, converting to Cartesian coordinates is the recommended approach.
n00bcake22
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hello Everyone,

I was just wondering if there was a way to add two vectors that are determined by spherical coordinates (radius, theta, phi). For example, if I have v1 = (5, Pi/4, Pi/2) and v2 = (3, Pi, -Pi/2) is there a way to add these using their respective radii, thetas, and phis or do I HAVE to convert them to Cartesian coordinates first, perform the addition, and then convert back?

Also, if anybody knows, what is the difference between "bound" and "free" vectors? I was looking around and this came up but the description was a bit fuzzy.

Thanks again!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hello n00bcake22! :smile:
n00bcake22 said:
I was just wondering if there was a way to add two vectors that are determined by spherical coordinates (radius, theta, phi). For example, if I have v1 = (5, Pi/4, Pi/2) and v2 = (3, Pi, -Pi/2) is there a way to add these using their respective radii, thetas, and phis or do I HAVE to convert them to Cartesian coordinates first, perform the addition, and then convert back?

there's probably a way of doing it once you've found the angle between the two vectors

but converting to Cartesian is the only easy way :smile:
what is the difference between "bound" and "free" vectors?

a free vector is like velocity … you can slide it about anywhere, especially when you want to add it to another vector

a bound vector is like force … you can't slide it about unless you compensate by adding a couple … a bound vector is really a pair, the vector itself and the line of application :wink:
 
Thanks tiny-tim!

Converting to Cartesian and back it is! :) Is this the suggested method for all vector operations (dot/cross product, etc.)?

Could you give a slightly more verbose example of “bound” and “free” vectors? I am still a bit confused.

Using your examples, a force A i^ + B j^ + C k^ (bound?) is acting on a point mass M whose velocity is D i^ + E j^ + F k^ (free vector?). I fail to see the difference. :(
 
hi n00bcake22! :smile:
n00bcake22 said:
Converting to Cartesian and back it is! :) Is this the suggested method for all vector operations (dot/cross product, etc.)?

yes (except for very simple cases)
Could you give a slightly more verbose example of “bound” and “free” vectors? I am still a bit confused.

Using your examples, a force A i^ + B j^ + C k^ (bound?) is acting on a point mass M whose velocity is D i^ + E j^ + F k^ (free vector?). I fail to see the difference. :(

we don't usually want to add velocities …

although we often add the force on two different points, or the momentum of two different points, we never have any reason to add the velocities of two different points …

but we do add relative velocities, and when we add them the line through which they act doesn't matter, so velocity is a free vector :wink:
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top