Splitting vectors into Components

AI Thread Summary
Vectors are essential in physics as they provide both magnitude and direction, which are crucial for accurately describing real-world phenomena. The process of splitting vectors into components simplifies complex problems by allowing for easier calculations, particularly in determining forces and accelerations. While the mathematical representation of vectors is well understood, the deeper philosophical question of why mathematics effectively describes the natural world remains unanswered. This discussion highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between vectors and physical concepts, emphasizing their role in solving equations. Ultimately, the ability to break down vectors into components is a fundamental skill in physics that enhances problem-solving capabilities.
ninfinity
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I suppose this is less of a "help me with a problem" question than a question asking why something happens. All semester I have been working with vectors and vector components in my general physics class. I understand how to do it and how to solve a complex problem using this method. What I don't understand, however, is why this works. I would really appreciate some insight into this matter.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
General problems should really go in the maths section, rather than the homework help section.

If you want to know exactly how vectors relate to the real world, you could be asking a very deep and complex (and philosophical) question.

In general though vectors give magnitude and direction (using trig to find angles etc), and most real world values are actually vectors. Mass of an object is a scalar, but its acceleration is best described as a vector since both the magnitude and direction of acceleration are important for describing the object.

\vec{F} = m\vec{a}

So we get a vector describing the force on an object, and as you said we split the vector up into its component parts to allow us to solve equations more easily. Why can we describe the natural world using maths, no one knows yet.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top