• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Vectors: How to prove the BAC-CAB identity w/o components?

  • Thread starter Master1022
  • Start date
  • #1
201
23

Homework Statement


Prove that $$\bf{ a \times ( b \times c ) = \phi [ b(a \bullet c) - c(a \bullet b) ]} $$

for some constant phi

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


So I have used the unit vectors i, j, and k and found out that phi = 1.

With the main part of the proof, we are not allowed to expand it using components. Also, I am not at the level where we know the tensors or more advanced methods that I have seen elsewhere on the internet- just the basic rules of dot and cross product.

So I know that $$ a \times ( b \times c ) = p c + q b + k(b \times c)$$ for some scalars p,q, and k. I also know that the a x ( b x c) will lie in the plane of bc, so thus k = 0.
$$ \textbf{a} \times ( \textbf{b} \times \textbf{c} ) = p \textbf{c} + q \textbf{b} $$

Our professor then gave the hint of dotting both sides by a and (b x c) separately and going from there.

So when I dotted both sides by a, I got:
$$ 0 = p (\bf{a \bullet c}) + q (\bf{a \bullet b}) $$

Then when I dotted everything by (b x c):
$$ 0 = p (\bf{c \bullet (b \times c)}) + q (\bf{b \bullet (b \times c)}) $$

This is where I don't know what to do, because the second expression goes to 0 = 0 and I cannot really see how to use it.

Any help is greatly appreciated.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
BvU
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2019 Award
13,009
3,005
Then when I dotted everything by (b x c)
You dot from the right on the right hand side of the equation. Perhaps try to do that on the lefthand side too ... o:)

[edit] I'll get some coffee first, sorry
 
  • #3
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
You dot from the right on the right hand side of the equation. Perhaps try to do that on the lefthand side too ... :rolleyes:
The inner product is commutative ...

This is where I don't know what to do, because the second expression goes to 0 = 0 and I cannot really see how to use it.
This is what allows you to conclude that there is no ##\vec b \times \vec c## component (i.e., ##k = 0##). Since you have already assumed that, it will come out as 0 = 0.

However, your inner product with ##\vec a## is sufficient for the conclusion that ##\vec a \times (\vec b \times \vec c) = \phi[\vec b(\vec a \cdot \vec c) - \vec c (\vec a \cdot \vec b)]##.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BvU
  • #4
Formula ##\boldsymbol a\times( \boldsymbol b\times\boldsymbol c)=\boldsymbol b(\boldsymbol a,\boldsymbol c)-\boldsymbol c(\boldsymbol a,\boldsymbol b)## follows by direct calculation in a Cartesian frame. This calculation may be little bit simplified if you choose the frame such that ##\boldsymbol a=(a,0,0),\quad \boldsymbol b=(b_1,b_2,0)##
 
  • #5
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
Formula ##\boldsymbol a\times( \boldsymbol b\times\boldsymbol c)=\boldsymbol b(\boldsymbol a,\boldsymbol c)-\boldsymbol c(\boldsymbol a,\boldsymbol b)## follows by direct calculation in a Cartesian frame. This calculation may be little bit simplified if you choose the frame such that ##\boldsymbol a=(a,0,0)##
I believe this fails the requirement not to use components as specified in the OP.
With the main part of the proof, we are not allowed to expand it using components.
 
  • #6
believe this fails the requirement not to use components as specified in the OP.
oh yes, I missed that. Pain without any gain, I see
 
  • #7
201
23
The inner product is commutative ...
However, your inner product with ##\vec a## is sufficient for the conclusion that ##\vec a \times (\vec b \times \vec c) = \phi[\vec b(\vec a \cdot \vec c) - \vec c (\vec a \cdot \vec b)]##.
Thank you for your response! Could you explain what you mean by the above statement- I cannot really understand what you mean.

Thanks.
 
  • #8
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
Thank you for your response! Could you explain what you mean by the above statement- I cannot really understand what you mean.

Thanks.
Which of the two statements you quoted?
 
  • #9
201
23
Which of the two statements you quoted?
The second one
 
  • #10
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
You have an equation that relates ##p## and ##q##. Use this to express one in terms of the other. This is sufficient to come to the conclusion that you are asked to derive.
 
  • #11
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
To be more specific, you have
So when I dotted both sides by a, I got:
$$ 0 = p (\bf{a \bullet c}) + q (\bf{a \bullet b}) $$
You can solve for either ##p## or ##q## in terms of the other here and insert it into your expression
$$ \textbf{a} \times ( \textbf{b} \times \textbf{c} ) = p \textbf{c} + q \textbf{b} $$
oh yes, I missed that. Pain without any gain, I see
My gym partner assures me that pain is just weakness leaving the body ... :rolleyes:
 
  • #12
201
23
To be more specific, you have
You can solve for either ##p## or ##q## in terms of the other here and insert it into your expression
I have ended up with $$ \textbf{a} \times (\textbf{b} \times \textbf{c}) = \frac{p}{(\textbf{a} \bullet \textbf{c})} [\textbf{b}(\textbf{a}\bullet\textbf{c}) - \textbf{c}(\textbf{a}\bullet\textbf{b})]$$

do we just let the $$\frac{p}{(a \bullet c)} = \phi = 1$$

Thanks.
 
  • #13
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
I have ended up with $$ \textbf{a} \times (\textbf{b} \times \textbf{c}) = \frac{p}{(\textbf{a} \bullet \textbf{c})} [\textbf{b}(\textbf{a}\bullet\textbf{c}) - \textbf{c}(\textbf{a}\bullet\textbf{b})]$$

do we just let the $$\frac{p}{(a \bullet c)} = \phi = 1$$
The first part, yes (##\phi = p/(\vec a \cdot \vec c)##). That ##\phi = 1## is something you must deduce by using some reference vectors (such as the basis vectors).
 
  • #14
201
23
The first part, yes (##\phi = p/(\vec a \cdot \vec c)##). That ##\phi = 1## is something you must deduce by using some reference vectors (such as the basis vectors).
wouldn't that mean for non-basis vectors, phi wouldn't be 1?
 
  • #15
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
wouldn't that mean for non-basis vectors, phi wouldn't be 1?
No. The product is linear in all arguments.
 
  • #16
201
23
No. The product is linear in all arguments.
That is true... not sure I completely understand why that is, but I have tried it out by setting vectors a, b, and c to random things and they seem to always yield the result that p = (a . c) for the LHS to equal the RHS...

Thanks for all the help!
 
  • #17
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,667
6,444
not sure I completely understand why that is
Why what is? Why the product is linear in all arguments? That follows directly from the cross product being linear in both arguments, i.e., ##\vec a \times (\vec b_1 + \vec b_2) = \vec a \times \vec b_1 + \vec a \times \vec b_2## etc.
 

Related Threads on Vectors: How to prove the BAC-CAB identity w/o components?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
876
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
788
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
899
Replies
3
Views
593
Replies
5
Views
3K
Top