What comes after (i hat j hat k hat)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter billturner90
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of unit vectors in higher-dimensional spaces, particularly focusing on whether new unit vectors added in dimensions beyond three are orthogonal to all previous unit vectors. The conversation touches on concepts from linear algebra and geometry, including the visualization of four-dimensional space and the naming conventions for unit vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the next unit vector in four-dimensional space would be denoted as \hat{l} for the w-axis.
  • Others argue that as dimensions increase, each new unit vector can be orthogonal to all previous unit vectors, particularly in the context of the standard basis for \mathbb{R}^n.
  • A participant notes that while it is not necessary for basis vectors to be orthogonal, calculations are simpler if they are, and the standard basis vectors in \mathbb{R}^n are orthogonal and of unit length.
  • Another participant discusses the visualization of four-dimensional space, suggesting that techniques used for 3D representations can also apply to higher dimensions, and mentions the tesseract as an example.
  • There is a historical perspective provided on the naming conventions of unit vectors, including references to quaternions and the contributions of various mathematicians to vector analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of orthogonality for unit vectors in higher dimensions. While some assert that new unit vectors can be orthogonal, others emphasize that it is not a requirement. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the visualization of higher-dimensional spaces and the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes limitations related to the visualization of higher dimensions and the historical context of vector naming conventions, which may influence participants' understanding and interpretations.

billturner90
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
hello persons of the forum i am new here. I am in my second year of college and i recently became a bit more interested in math after finishing my calculus series. The 3 unit vectors used (i,j,k) are all orthogonal if i am correct. I was wondering if once we look into the 4-D space would the next unit vector also be orthogonal to the 3 previous unit vectors? is this where non euclidian geometry comes into play?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not quite "non-Euclidean", but I think the next unit vector would be \hat{l}, for the w-axis.
 
thanks for the response but maybe you misunderstood my question. I was wondering if, as we move up in the dimensions, each new unit vector would be orthogonal to all the others. I guess i feel curious about this because it is not possible to visualize 4-D space, and i don't understand how this new unit vector would look.
 
To the best of my knowledge, there is no name for that unit vector. Three-dimensional space is very commonly used in physics problems, so there are special names for the unit vectors in that space.
 
billturner90 said:
The 3 unit vectors used (i,j,k) are all orthogonal if i am correct. I was wondering if once we look into the 4-D space would the next unit vector also be orthogonal to the 3 previous unit vectors?
It is if we want it to be. The standard basis for the vector space \mathbb R^4 is

\vec e_1=(1,0,0,0)
\vec e_2=(0,1,0,0)
\vec e_3=(0,0,1,0)
\vec e_4=(0,0,0,1)

These vectors are orthogonal with respect to the standard inner product, defined by

\vec x\cdot\vec y=x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3+x_4y_4
 
billturner90 said:
thanks for the response but maybe you misunderstood my question. I was wondering if, as we move up in the dimensions, each new unit vector would be orthogonal to all the others. I guess i feel curious about this because it is not possible to visualize 4-D space, and i don't understand how this new unit vector would look.
It is not necessary that basis vectors be orthogonal to one another but calculations are much simpler if they are, so, yes, the "standard" basis for R^n has all basis vectors orthogonal to one another (and of unit length).
 
billturner90 said:
thanks for the response but maybe you misunderstood my question. I was wondering if, as we move up in the dimensions, each new unit vector would be orthogonal to all the others. I guess i feel curious about this because it is not possible to visualize 4-D space, and i don't understand how this new unit vector would look.
It certainly is possible to visualize 4D space. The same techniques used to represent a 3D object on a 2D piece of paper can be applied to higher dimensions. Use a search engine to search for images of a tesseract and you will find lots of such visualizations. It is a bit difficult to wrap your mind, but it is not impossible.Regarding the names i hat, j hat, k hat: Those are far from the only names used to describe the canonical R3 unit vectors (1,0,0), (0,1,0), and (0,0,1). You will also see these vectors identified as x hat, y hat, z hat, as or e1, e2, e3, and so on.

The names \hat{\imath}, \hat{\jmath}, and \hat k are pretty much specialized to 3D space. Those names stems from the quaternionic origin of modern vector analysis. Hamilton envisioned an extension to the complex numbers in which i2=j2=k2=ijk=-1. Some physicists very much liked Hamilton's quaternions, others very much didn't like them. Those who didn't like the quaternions did see their utility in describing our physical world. The vectorialists developed our modern 3D vector analysis by combining the "useful content" of Hamilton's quaternions with the (erroneously) discarded works of Hermann Grassmann. An intellectual war between the quaternionists and vectorialists ensued during the latter part of the 19th century into the early 20th century. The vectorialists won that battle in the sense that we now largely use vectors rather than quaternions to describe the 3D world.

The names \hat e_1, \hat e_2, and \hat e_3 comes from German mathematicians. Those German mathematicians also saw the utility of Hamilton's quaternions and of the (largely) English-speaking vectorialists. They also saw that Grassmann's work was of even greater value than that used by the vectorialists. Vector analysis is useful far beyond the apparently 3D world in which we appear to exist. One obvious way to generalize the concept of the 3D unit vectors to some N-dimensional space is to use one symbol to designate a unit vector, with indices to indicate different unit vectors. Since this work was done largely by German mathematicians, the symbol e used to designate a generic unit vector stems from the German word einheitsvektor ("unit vector").
 
Just as a follow up to D H's excellent and intriguing post, check out the wiki entry for tesseract -- it's really interesting and may clear up some of the OPs original concerns.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K