Vector Properties: Divide by Direction Impossible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prashasti
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Properties Vector
AI Thread Summary
A vector cannot be divided by another vector, as direction cannot be divided by direction. The equation v→ = u→ + a→t can be rearranged to t = (v→ - u→)/a→, but this representation does not imply actual division of vectors. When considering the resultant of v→ - u→, its direction depends on the sign of t, indicating that directionality is crucial in vector operations. Division is only valid when two vectors are collinear, allowing for scalar results. Ultimately, dividing vectors involves multiple component divisions rather than a single operation.
Prashasti
Messages
63
Reaction score
2
It is well known that a vector can't be divided by a vector, as a direction can't be divided by a direction. Keeping this in mind, I used the equation, v→ = u→+a→t, and wrote it as t = v→ -u→/a→. Now, isn't it wrong to write the equation like this? As , in it, a vector, that is v→ -u→ is being divided by another, (i.e. a→)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This shows only equation representation. Actually you can't perform any operation like dividing.
 
Consider
$$\vec v = \vec u + \vec a t\\
\vec v - \vec u = \vec a t$$

If t > 0, then the resultant of ##\vec v - \vec u## has the same direction as ##\vec a##. If t < 0, then the resultant of ##\vec v - \vec u## has the opposite direction as ##\vec a##.

If you know that two vectors ##\vec a## and ##\vec b## are along the same line (i.e. one equals the other multiplied by a scalar), then you can divide one by the other to get the scalar.

Otherwise, then you indeed cannot divide them.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
If you are interested in the scalar, then all you need to divide is any (non-zero) component into its corresponding component.

In fact when you are dividing one vector by another, you are in essence carrying out three divisions instead of one to get the same result.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top