Vector expressed in a basis noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length

In summary: The last equation is correct, but the first equation is not. The first equation is correct if the vectors are coplanar, but if they are not, the dot product will give you incorrect results. The reason why the reciprocal base is useful is that it allows you to calculate the components of a vector in a coordinate system that is not the same as the base that the vector is in.
  • #1
jonjacson
447
38
We have three orthonormal vectors [tex] \vec i_1 , \vec i_2, \vec i_3 [/tex] , and we know which are the components of an arbitrary vector [tex] \vec A[/tex] in this base, explicitly:

[tex] \vec A = (\vec A \bullet \vec i_1) \vec i_1 + (\vec A \bullet \vec i_2) \vec i_2 + (\vec A \bullet \vec i_3) \vec i_3 [/tex]

If now we want to generalize to a base that is orthogonal , but is NOT normalized, we can divide by the modulus, and we came back to the first case, so we have:

[tex] \vec i_1 = \frac{\vec e_1}{e_1} , \vec i_2 = \frac{\vec e_2}{e_2}, \vec i_3 = \frac{\vec e_3}{e_3} [/tex]

So now the expression of [tex] \vec A[/tex] is:

[tex] \vec A = \frac{\vec A \bullet \vec e_1}{e_1^2} \vec e_1 + \frac{\vec A \bullet \vec e_2}{e_2^2} \vec e_2 + \frac{\vec A \bullet \vec e_3}{e_3^2} \vec e_3 [/tex] Equation 1

In the next case the base will be noncoplanar, not orthogonal and the vectors won't be normalized, I am following the book from Borisenko and Taraponov about tensor calculus, they introduce the reciprocal bases to solve this problem to arrive at this expression:

[tex] \vec A = (\vec A \bullet \vec e^1) \vec e_1 + (\vec A \bullet \vec e^2) \vec e_2 + (\vec A \bullet \vec e^3) \vec e_3 [/tex]

Where the reciprocal base is defined as:

[tex] \vec e^1 = \frac{\vec e_2 \times \vec e_3}{\vec e_1 \bullet (\vec e_2 \times \vec e_3 )}[/tex]e^2, and e^3 have a similar definition in terms of e_1, e_2 and e_3.

Well the question is ¿why do we need to introduce the reciprocal base to solve this problem? ¿what is the benefit of using it?.

I don't know why you don't calculate the components of A using equation 1 . You can project A to the vector e_1, e_2 and e_3 using the dot product and you find the components of A ,in a similar way as you have done before with the other basis ¿is there something that impede you to make the calculation in this way?.

And you have another option, simply using this equality:

[tex] \vec A = \vec A [/tex]

First A expressed in the orthonormal base , and then expressed in the more general noncoplanar, nonorthogonal and not normalized :

[tex] (\vec A \bullet \vec i_1) \vec i_1 + (\vec A \bullet \vec i_2) \vec i_2 + (\vec A \bullet \vec i_3) \vec i_3 = A^1 \vec e_1 + A^2 \vec e_2 + A^3 \vec e_3 [/tex]

And you can find three equations to solve, so you wold not need introduce other base ¿is anything wrong in this last equation?

The book then introduce the concept of covariant and contravariant components of a vector, and I would like to understand why do you need the reciprocal base, and what it is.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
¿no suggestions? ¿do you think that i made a stupid question?

I expend one hour to make the question in latex:frown:

Please tell me something, I have been waiting for a reply during three days:cry:
 
  • #3
If you project A on a non-orthogonal basis, equation 1 is no longer valid. It's easy to see if you try it for A = e_1. If e_1 is not orthogonal to e_2, application of equation 1 picks up a term proportional to e_2.

Yes, you can do it the way you described too... but that requires you to solve a system of linear equations, in this case, a 3x3 system; isn't it easier just to take dot products with the reciprocal base?
 
  • #4
First of all, hamster 143, thank you very much for replying, very appreciated.

Now I understand the problem, I have make an image with the digital pen to explain it, but I don't know how to attach the image, so i have uploaded it to an external server, if this is not permitted due to forum rules or if you can't see the image , please tell me. :smile:

http://i33.tinypic.com/20uwytf.jpgWhen you use the dot product, you project onto the axis using 90 degree, but if the vectors are not coplanars this is not true, ok, but you can still develop a formula to project correctly onto the axis without the introduction of the reciprocal base( if i am not wrong) :

[tex] \vec A = (\frac{\sin {\gamma} }{\sin{\beta} } A )\vec u +( \frac{\sin {\alpha}}{\sin {\beta}} A) \vec v [/tex]

¿do you see any mistakes? ¿could we do the calculations like this? . ¿why is better the reciprocal base?
 

1. What is a basis?

A basis is a set of linearly independent vectors that can be used to express any other vector in a vector space.

2. What does it mean for a basis to be noncoplanar?

A noncoplanar basis means that the vectors in the basis do not lie on the same plane. This is important because it allows for a more flexible and comprehensive representation of vectors.

3. Why is it important for a basis to be neither orthogonal nor of unit length?

A basis being neither orthogonal nor of unit length means that the basis vectors are not perpendicular to each other and do not have the same length. This allows for a wider range of possible vector combinations and can be useful for representing more complex vector relationships.

4. Can a vector be expressed in multiple noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length bases?

Yes, a vector can be expressed in multiple noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length bases. This is because there are multiple ways to represent a vector using different combinations of noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length basis vectors.

5. How is a vector expressed in a basis that is noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length?

To express a vector in a noncoplanar, neither orthogonal nor of unit length basis, you would need to find the coefficients or weights that correspond to each basis vector, and then combine them to form the vector. This can be done using methods such as matrix multiplication or solving systems of equations.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
782
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Math
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
541
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
4K
Back
Top