OK, we've been asked to derive the equations of motion in spherical coordinates. According to the assignment, we should end up with this:

$$ \bf \vec{v} \rm = \frac{d \bf \vec{r} \rm}{dt} = \dot{r} \bf \hat{r} \rm + r \dot{\theta}\hat{\boldsymbol \theta} \rm + r \dot{\phi}\sin \theta \bf \hat{\boldsymbol\phi}\rm $$

In this case θ is the angle from the z axis and phi is the angle in the x-y plane.

Now, if I take it that position $$\bf \vec{r} \rm = r \bf \hat{r}$$ and say $$ \bf \hat{r} \rm = \bf \hat{x} \rm \sin\theta \cos\phi + \bf \hat{y} \rm \sin \theta \sin \phi + \bf \hat{z}\rm \cos\theta \\ \hat{\boldsymbol\theta} = \bf \hat{x} \rm \cos\theta \cos\phi + \bf \hat{y} \rm \cos \theta \sin \phi - \bf \hat{z}\rm\sin\theta\\ \hat{\boldsymbol\phi} = \bf \hat{x} \rm (-\sin\phi) + \bf \hat{y} \rm \cos \phi\\ $$

now maybe I am making this more complex than it is. And maybe it's just a notation problem (I really hate the dot notation sometimes because I feel it obscures things, but I need to know it, I know).

If we assume that when r changes, $\phi$ and $\theta$ and their unit vectors stay the same, then we can safely say that $\frac{d \hat{\boldsymbol\phi}}{dr} = 0$ and $\frac{d \hat{\boldsymbol\theta}}{d r} = 0.$ (someone please tell me if i am wrong).

If we do the same thing with changing θ and $\phi$ though, the result is different. hen we change θ, r has to change because it changes direction, and when we change $\phi$ $r$ has to change because it changes direction in that case also.

When I take the derivative of $\hat{r}$ with respect to $\theta$, I get the following:

$$\frac{d \bf \hat{r}}{d\theta} = \bf \hat{x} \rm \cos\theta \cos\phi + \bf \hat{y} \rm \cos \theta \sin \phi - \bf \hat{z}\rm\sin\theta $$

which as it happens also is equal to $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$

Now, if I look at $\bf \vec{r} \rm = r \bf \hat{r}$ and take the derivative w/r/t time, I should get $\frac{d \bf \vec{r} \rm}{dt} = r \frac{d\bf \hat{r}}{dt} + \frac{dr}{dt}\bf \hat{r} \rm$

I notice that this happens (and some of this is just seeing the notation): $$ \frac{d \bf \vec{r} \rm}{dt} = r \frac{d\bf \hat{r}}{dt} + \frac{dr}{dt}\bf \hat{r} \rm = \dot{r} \bf \hat{r} \rm + r \hat{\boldsymbol \theta} \rm $$

ANd I feel like I am almost there. But I am having trouble making that last step. I am getting a bit frustrated because I can't seem to make the differentiation work the way it does in the text and I haven't found a derivation online that matches up with anything I have seen in class. Again, maybe it's just the notation used. But I am trying to understand where the $\dot{\theta}$ term comes up, and how to get that extra dimension in.

Any help is most appreciated. Thanks.

EDIT: fixed the unit vector phi expression.

  • $\begingroup$ flag on the play. Your "unit" vector in the $\phi$-direction doesn't have length one... I continue reading, but this is troubling to my hat-customs as a former physics major. See page 383 of supermath.info/math231_CurlDivNoncartesian_375_384.pdf $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 15 '13 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ I fixed the $\hat{\phi}$ expression, but other than that our comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- doesn't have length one? What are you referring to? Understand I am not always so intuitive about these things. I'm going with what the prof gives us, so I don't understand what the problem with hat-customs is. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ When we write $\hat{A}$ in physics-type notation this indicates the vector has length one. This beautiful notation allows us to express any nonzero vector $\vec{A}$ as the product of a magnitude and direction; $\vec{A} = A\hat{A}$. This formula also tells you how to calculate $\hat{A}$. To find $\hat{u}$ for a curvelinear coordinate we can calculate $\nabla u = \langle u_x,u_y,u_z \rangle$ and then normalize it to length one by dividing by $| \nabla u |$. For the spherical radius the gradient already has length one, but for $\phi$ some normalization is needed. $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 15 '13 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ So what should it look like? Is the book wrong here, or what? Why would my instructor wrote it this way? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ I think after your edit the spherical unit vectors are fine... I'm just telling you how to derive them via vector calculus. Others prefer to take a geometric approach. That is especially appropriate if this is from a physics course. That said, look at the answer given. Austen's advice is very good. I'm not sure what you mean by differentiation w.r.t. $\theta$. Perhaps, a partial derivative, but mostly, for this problem, I would think about $d/dt$ and keep in mind the spherical frame has a time-dependence but... the cartesian does not. That's the coordinate way to work it out. $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 15 '13 at 20:46

Suppose $\vec{r} = r \hat{r}$ where $ \hat{r} = \cos \phi \sin \theta \hat{x}+\sin \phi \sin \theta \hat{y}+ \cos \theta \hat{z}$. Now, this symbol represents the position of a particle at time $t$ where the spherical frame $\hat{r},\hat{\theta},\hat{\phi}$ is co-moving. On the other hand, the cartesian frame $\hat{x},\hat{y},\hat{z}$ is constant across all of three-dimensional space. So, differentiate with respect to time \begin{align} \frac{d}{dt}\vec{r} &= \frac{dr}{dt} \hat{r}+r\frac{d\hat{r}}{dt} \\ &= \dot{r} \hat{r}+r \frac{d}{dt} \left[\cos \phi \sin \theta \hat{x}+\sin \phi \sin \theta \hat{y}+ \cos \theta \hat{z} \right] \\ &= \dot{r} \hat{r}+r \frac{d}{dt} \left[\cos \phi \sin \theta \right] \hat{x}+r\frac{d}{dt} \left[\sin \phi \sin \theta \right]\hat{y}+ r\frac{d}{dt} \left[\cos \theta \right]\hat{z} \\ &= \dot{r} \hat{r}+r \left[-\dot{\phi}\sin \phi \sin \theta+\dot{\theta}\cos \phi \cos \theta \right] \hat{x}+ \\ & \qquad +r \left[\dot{\phi}\cos \phi \sin \theta + \dot{\theta}\sin \phi \cos \theta \right]\hat{y}+ r \left[- \dot{\theta}\sin \theta \right]\hat{z} \\ &= \dot{r} \hat{r}+ r\dot{\theta}\left[\cos \phi \cos \theta \hat{x} +\sin \phi \cos \theta \hat{y}-\sin \theta \hat{z}\right] \\ &\qquad + r\sin \theta \dot{\phi} \left[ -\sin \phi \hat{x}+\cos \phi \hat{y}\right] \end{align} Again, the concept here is that the spherical frame rides along with the particle motion and you're trying to express the velocity in terms of the co-moving frame. Identify the $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{\theta}$. As Austen was telling you, there is no $\hat{r}$ component in the $\frac{d}{dt} \hat{r}$ term because if there was a change then the length of the unit-vector would evolve... or you can just differentiate $\hat{r} \cdot \hat{r}=1$ with respect to time to see that the time-rate of change for $\hat{r}$ is infact orthogonal to $\hat{r}$ itself.

I would set-aside the questions about differentiating w.r.t. $\phi$ or $\theta$ for a moment until you complete this.

  • $\begingroup$ OK, so when I differentiate this: $\dot{r} \hat{r}+r \frac{d}{dt} \left[\cos \phi \sin \theta \hat{x}+\sin \phi \sin \theta \hat{y}+ \cos \theta \hat{z} \right]$ with respect to time I should end up with $\dot{r} \hat{r}+r \left[-\cos \phi \cos \theta \frac{d\theta}{dt} -\sin \phi \sin \hat{x}+\sin \phi \sin \theta \hat{y}+ \cos \theta \hat{z} \right] $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ $\dot{r} \hat{r}+r \frac{d}{dt} \left[\cos \phi \sin \theta \hat{x}+\sin \phi \sin \theta \hat{y}+ \cos \theta \hat{z} \right]$ with respect to time I should end up with $\dot{r} \hat{r}+r \left[(-\cos \phi \cos \theta -\sin \phi \sin \theta) \frac{d \theta}{dt}\hat{x}+(\sin \phi \cos \theta + \sin \theta \cos \phi)\frac{d \theta}{dt} \hat{y}- \sin \theta \frac{d \theta}{dt}\hat{z} \right]=\dot{r} \hat{r}+r\dot\theta \left[(-\cos \phi \cos \theta -\sin \phi \sin \theta) \hat{x}+(\sin \phi \cos \theta + \sin \theta \cos \phi)\hat{y}- \sin \theta \hat{z} \right]$ $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ there's a messed up sign in there but i can't get mathjax to obey me, but do I have the right idea? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse not quite, I'll add the next step in my answer. You should have some terms with $\dot{\theta}$ and others with $\dot{\phi}$. It's like a related rates problem from calculus I. $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 16 '13 at 1:28
  • $\begingroup$ That was the issue -- I was getting an answer that made sense b/c I had a $\dot{\theta}$ term but not a $\dot{\phi}$. But now I see that if I take the derivative w/r/t TIME the terms like $\cos \phi$ should become $-\sin \phi \dot{\phi}$, correct? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 16 '13 at 1:51

Start from $\mathbf{r}=r\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ and take the derivative using the product rule

$$ \dot{\mathbf{r}}=\dot r\hat{\mathbf{r}}+r\dot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}. $$

The first term is the first term of the answer you seek, so his focuses attention on $\dot{\hat{\mathbf{r}}}$. The derivative of a unit vector has no radial component, so can be expressed in terms of the other two unit vectors.

At this point you can resort to explicit coordinates, but a graphical proof is more illuminating. Think about what happens when only $\dot{\theta}\neq 0$, and then when only $\dot{\phi}\neq 0$ is changing.

  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse notice Austen is telling you to look at time-rates of change for $\theta$ and $\phi$ as they appear inside $\dot{\hat{r}}$ which can be written $\frac{d}{dt}\hat{r}$. $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 15 '13 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ Hm. When $\dot{\theta} \neq 0$ that would mean r is changing direction, yes? but $\phi$ isn't, so you should end up with $\frac{d \hat{r}}{d \theta}$ but I have that already, no? If only $\phi$ is changing then we have $\frac{d \hat{r}}{d \phi} = \bf \hat{x} \rm (-\sin\theta \sin\phi) + \bf \hat{y} \rm \cos \theta \cos \phi$ $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ If $\dot{\theta}=0$ then $\frac{d}{dt} \cos \theta = -\sin \theta \ \dot{ \theta} = 0$. $\endgroup$ – James S. Cook Sep 15 '13 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ Whe I did this in 2 dimensional polar coordinates I did this: $d\hat{r} = d\theta \hat{\theta}$ and $d\hat{\theta} = -d\theta\hat{r}$ because when you go around the $\theta$ axis you tilt the unit vectors. So I got $\frac{d\hat{r}}{d\theta} = \hat{\theta}$ and $\frac{d\hat{\theta}}{d \theta} = - \hat{r}$. multiplying through by $\frac{d \theta}{dt}$ I ended up with $\frac{d \hat{r}}{d \theta}=\hat{\theta} \frac{d\theta}{dt}$. Now, would I do the same thing here but add another term to this? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 15 '13 at 21:07
  • $\begingroup$ Austen - thanks a lot-- I got it together with your help too... I didn't want you to think I liked your answer less! $\endgroup$ – Jesse Sep 16 '13 at 3:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.