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.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top