For n dimensions, n+1 reference points are sufficient to fully define a reference frame. I just want the above line explanation. In a frame of reference, can we have one reference point or more than one?

Juan Lowe 2022-11-16 Answered
For n dimensions, n + 1 reference points are sufficient to fully define a reference frame. I just want the above line explanation.
In a frame of reference, can we have one reference point or more than one?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Kaeden Lara
Answered 2022-11-17 Author has 23 answers
It means you need to fix a point as the origin and then you need n unit vectors for an n-dimensional frame of reference. If we consider the tips of the unit vectors and the origin as reference points then we need ( n + 1 ) reference points to define the frame of reference. All the other points in the frame of reference can be written as a linear combination of the unit vectors.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-05-18
When I moving object in some frame of reference, it has a positive kinetic energy. In the frame of reference where the object is stationary, it has a kinetic energy of 0.
Is the energy difference in some way associated to the frames of reference?
asked 2022-05-09
Is this possible to create a inertial frame of reference in the earth? How it is possible?
asked 2022-08-09
Train at a railway station and on the platform there is a glass case (the mass of case is 5   k g and if it gets hit with a velocity of 10   N then the glass will break), a frame of reference is attached to me. Now my train starts with an acceleration of 2 m / s 2 . Now according to me I'm at rest and glass case is moving backward and so the acceleration on the glass case is 2 m / s 2 . Therefore the force acting on the glass case is F = m a = 5 × 2 = 10 N at this the glass case should break, but this is not happening. Whereas according to a frame of reference attached to a person on the platform every thing is fine(i.e. there is no force(horizontal) acting on the glass case).
asked 2022-07-21
Let's say someone who is not moving is seeing a rod which has one edge at x = 0 and the other at x = a so its length is a. An observer moving at constant speed u along the x-axis uses lorentz transformation to determine the coordinates of these two points in his frame of refrence.
x a = γ ( a u t ), x 0 = γ ( 0 u t ) so to find the length of the rod we take the difference of these two points and it gives us x a x 0 = γ a.
I know that γ > 1 so shouldn't the moving reference frame observe the rod to be bigger? Why are we talking about length contraction?
asked 2022-07-22
Consider a (classical) system of several interacting particles. Can it be shown that, if the Lagrangian of such a system is Lorenz invariant, there cannot be any space-like influences between the particles?
asked 2022-05-13
A rotating frame of reference (since you rotate your BEC to generate these), where the energy is given by:
E ~ [ Ψ ] = E [ Ψ ] L [ Ψ ] Ω ,
Where Ω is the rotational velocity which you apply to the BEC.
Now the argument that the term L [ Ψ ] Ω should be substracted comes from the fact that in a rotating frame your system loses that fraction of rotational energy. Now I was wondering if anyone knew where the form of L [ Ψ ] Ω came from?
I know that in a rotating frame of reference you have that v = v r + Ω × r . If you fill this in into the kinetic energy and use some basic definitions, you get that the extra effect of rotation is given by:
1 2 I Ω 2 = 1 2 J Ω .
This yields half of the value that is used in the book, is there something that I'm missing or not seeing right ?
asked 2022-07-18
Given a point mass, with x _ the position vector, on which acts a force F _ such that it is conservative:
F _ = U ( x _ ) .
Then if I change frame of reference from a inertial one to a non-inertial one, it is true that the (total) force (meaning the vector sum of all the forces acting w.r.t. the new frame of reference) remains conservative?

New questions