Why do you divide the components by the magnitude when finding a unit vector?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The process of finding a unit vector involves dividing each component of the vector by its magnitude. For the vector v = <3,4>, the magnitude is calculated as ||v|| = √(3² + 4²) = 5. Consequently, the unit vector is expressed as <3/5, 4/5>. This method ensures that the resulting vector maintains the same direction as the original while having a magnitude of 1, which is essential in various applications of vector mathematics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector notation and operations
  • Familiarity with the concept of magnitude in vectors
  • Basic knowledge of scalar multiplication of vectors
  • Ability to perform algebraic manipulations involving square roots
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the unit vector formula from general vector components
  • Learn about the applications of unit vectors in physics and engineering
  • Explore the concept of direction cosines and their relationship with unit vectors
  • Investigate the role of unit vectors in 3D space and their representation
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, physics, and engineering, as well as professionals working with vector analysis and applications in various fields.

hatelove
Messages
101
Reaction score
1
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
daigo said:
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?

The unit vector in the same direction as \( {\bf{v}} \) is a scalar multiple of \({\bf{v}}\), call it \(\lambda {\bf{v}}\), then as it is a unit vector \[\lambda {\bf{v}}.\lambda {\bf{v}}=\lambda^2 {\bf{v}}. {\bf{v}}=\lambda^2 ||v||^2=1\]

etc

CB
 
daigo said:
Say for example v = <3,4>

I was taught to divide each component by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector, i.e.

3^2 + 4^2 = ||v||^2
5 = ||v||

So the unit vector of that vector is <3/5,4/5> or 1/5<3,4>

But if I forgot that I had to divide the components by the magnitude, I would not know how to get the unit vector. So I guess I am asking why you divide the components by the magnitude in order to get the unit vector?

This is the same thing CB wrote essentially, just added an example to see the steps.

Looking at the vector you provided we can derive the scalar with which we must divide to get a unit vector. If v = <3,4> then |v|=5 as you already posted. Now let's look at the vector [math]v_1=\frac{1}{S}<3,4>[/math]. When you multiply a vector by a scalar the magnitude changes but the direction does not so this is perfect for what we are trying to find.

So [math]|v_1|=\sqrt{ \left( \frac{3}{S} \right)^2+ \left( \frac{4}{S} \right)^2}[/math]. Now set the magnitude equal to one and solve for S.

[math]1^2 = \left( \frac{3}{S} \right)^2+ \left( \frac{4}{S} \right)^2[/math][math]1^2 = \left( \frac{9}{S^2} \right)+ \left( \frac{16}{S^2} \right)=\frac{9+16}{S^2}=\frac{25}{S^2}[/math]

[math]S^2=25[/math] thus [math]S= 5[/math]. Even though -5 is another choice if we divide by -5 we change the direction of the vector so it can't be the unit vector, thus 5 is our only option.

If you go back and change the vector <3,4> for a generalized vector <a,b> the same steps will lead to [math]S^2=a^2+b^2[/math] and when we take the square root of both sides we get that S is the same as the magnitude.

I don't believe I've committed any major errors that aren't allowed with scalars and vectors as the conclusion is correct so I hope this helps show where that formula comes from.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K