Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

This is really basic, I'm sure: For rigid body motion, Euler's equations refer to $L_i$ and $\omega_i$ as measured in the fixed-body frame. But that frame is just that: fixed in the body. So how could such an observer ever measure non-zero $L$ or $\omega$?

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote

I fussed about this as well. My resolution: for these calculations the fixed-body frame is not to be considered as co-moving with the body, but rather a non-rotating frame that instantaneously aligns with the body.

The Euler angles translate between the body and the space frames. The Euler angles are indeed functions of time, and the fixed-body frame is as well, but angular velocity and momentum are measured with respect to a fixed "snapshot" of the body frame at a particular time.

share|improve this answer
But doesn't that make the body frame inertial -- and isn't the whole point of the Euler equations that they take into account non-inertial "psuedo-torques"? An observer on a spinning object is certainly non-inertial. And in fact, the precession of a free symmetric top is observable by an observer in the body frame: earth's $\omega$ precesses in cone once every 300-400 days. – gilonik Jul 25 '12 at 17:10
@gilonik, I think my answer was a bit too concise, sorry. The body frame is indeed non-inertial. However, to calculate angular velocity, one first establishes an inertial frame that coincides with the body frame at a particular time, and then determines the infinitesimal rotation of the body frame with respect to the inertial frame in a time dt. The angular velocity is that infinitesimal rotation / dt. A reference is Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, section 4-9. – Art Brown Jul 25 '12 at 19:23
That helps, thanks. The resolution must be in the instantaneous/infinitesimal caveat. So maybe I just can't picture it. Here's the point: why isn't the body-fixed frame the "rotational rest frame"? I know it isn't: The free precession of the earth shows that we in the body-fixed frame observe an $\vec{L}$ even though we're rotating with the earth. That this $\vec{L}$ differs in magnitude (and direction?) from that observed in the space-fixed frame is fine; that it's non-zero is where I'm getting mixed up. – gilonik Jul 25 '12 at 20:34
@gilonik, right, a body-fixed observer might think the body was not spinning (if the surroundings were ignored). Crucially, however, the body-fixed frame is not an inertial frame, so motion is complicated by Coriolis forces. That effect is described by (dG/dt)s=(dG/dt)b + wxG, relating the rate of change in a vector G in the space and body frames, with the angular momentum vector w as defined above. (In that sense, w quantifies the non-inertial-ness.) Setting G=L=Iw, one gets the Euler equations. It's only with that definition of w that one deduces the correct equations of motion. – Art Brown Jul 25 '12 at 21:35
up vote 0 down vote

Your reference is probably referring to the angular momentum and velocity of the fixed body frame relative to some inertial frame.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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