4
$\begingroup$

I have been told [Warning: I leave this because it's what I asked and allows to understand the dialogues in the comments, but Azad, whom I thank, has pointed that the formula does not hold in general in the form it is expressed] that the angular momentum of and rigid body with respect to any point $P$ can always be expressed as $$\mathbf{L}_{P}=\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times M\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\big(\sum_im_iR_i^2\big)\boldsymbol{\omega}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{cm}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to $P$, $M$ the mass of the body, $R_i$ the distance of the $i$-th point, having mass $m_i$, composing the body, and $\sum_im_iR_i^2=I$ its moment of inertia with respect to the instantaneous axis of the rotation around the centre of mass of angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\omega}$.

I know that the velocity $\mathbf{v}_i$ of each point $P_i$, having mass $m_i$, of a rigid body of mass $M$ can be see as the sum of a translation velocity of one of its points $C$ plus a rotation velocity around that point: $\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{v}_{C}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}$. If we chose $C$ as the centre of mass I see that $$\mathbf{L}_{cm}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{i}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})$$$$=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}) $$because, if I am not wrong, $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_C=(\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i})\times\mathbf{v}_C=\mathbf{0}$ since $\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to itself, which is $\mathbf{0}$.

How can it be proved that $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=(\sum_im_iR_i^2)\boldsymbol{\omega}$? I have searched a lot on the Internet and on books, but I find nothing. To give some background of mine, I have studied nothing of analytical mechanics. I find the formula very, very interesting both in itself and because, if the moment of inertia does not depend upon time, $\forall t\quad I(t)= I(t_0)$, the above expression can be differentiated to get the formula of the resultant torque with respect to the centre of mass $\sum\boldsymbol{\tau}_{cm}=\frac{d\mathbf{L}_{cm}}{dt}=I\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{cm}$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is the angular acceleration around the centre of mass. I heartily thank you for any answer!


Some unfruitful trials: by using the "BAC CAB identity" as suggested by Azad, whom I heartily thank, $\mathbf{a}\times(\mathbf{b}\times\mathbf{c})=(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{c})\mathbf{b}-(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b})\mathbf{c}$, I can see that$$\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=\sum_im_i\|\overrightarrow{CP_i}\|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$which, by decomposing every $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ into an axial component $\mathbf{A}_i$ and a radial component $\mathbf{R}_i$, whose norms respectively are $A_i$ and $R_i$, with $R_i$ as the distance from $i$ to the axis of rotation, becomes $$\sum_im_iR_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}+\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$but I cannot prove that $\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}=\mathbf{0}$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't this just a consequence of the parallel axis theorem? Proofs of the theorem should be easy to Google. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie May 12 '15 at 9:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your first equation describes total angular momentum around origin and you're just a BAC CAB away from the proof $\endgroup$ – Azad May 12 '15 at 9:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure that I would call this a proof in any sense of the word. The calculation merely leads to the derivation of $I$, i.e. it's the definition of moments of inertia more than anything else. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 12 '15 at 9:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I consider it a pretty bad habit to introduce things into physics that one "knows a-priori" just to get some sense of "proving something". Your a-priori knowledge is a trivial derivation of the very expression that you are using in your "proof". The much better way is to treat everything as a derivation. It works just as well and it doesn't clash with the definition of science, which is not the same as the definition of mathematics. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne May 12 '15 at 9:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I recommend you read the first chapter of Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. It has a good and brief survey of these things. $\endgroup$ – Azad May 12 '15 at 10:22
2
$\begingroup$

I think you are overcomplicating this. Consider an arbitrary point P moving with linear speed $\mathbf{v}_A$.

  • Linear momentum is $$\mathbf{P} = m \mathbf{v}_{cm}$$
  • Angular momentum at the center of mass is $$\mathbf{L}_{cm} = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega}$$
  • Linear velocity of the center of mass is $$\mathbf{v}_{cm} = \mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{cm}$ is the location of the center of mass relative to A.
  • Linear momentum in terms of the motion of A is $$\mathbf{P} = m (\mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm})$$ $$\boxed{ \mathbf{P} = m \mathbf{v}_A - m \mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} }$$
  • Angular momentum at A is $$\mathbf{L}_A =\mathbf{L}_{cm} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{P}$$ which is expanded as $$\mathbf{L}_A =I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times m \mathbf{v}_{cm} = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times m (\mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm}) $$

$$\boxed{ \mathbf{L}_A = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega}-m \mathbf{r}_{cm} \times\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} + m \mathbf{v}_{A}}$$

  • Combined the spatial momenum at A yields the 6×6 spatial inertia matrix at A

$$ \hat{\ell}_A = I_A \hat{v}_A $$ $$ \begin{Bmatrix} \mathbf{P} \\ \mathbf{L}_A \end{Bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} m & -m [\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] \\ m [\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] & I_{cm}-m\,[\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times][\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] \end{bmatrix} \begin{Bmatrix}\mathbf{v}_{A} \\ \mathbf{\omega} \end{Bmatrix}$$

NOTE: For the wierd $[\mathbf{r}\times]$ notation that seems to be missing a vector see What is the Vector/Cross Product?

  • The mass momenent of inertia at A is thus defined as $$I_A = I_{cm}-m\,[\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times][\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times]$$ This is an vector representation of the parallel axis theorem.
  • Finally you need to differentiate the momentum expressions to arrive at the 6 Newton-Euler equations of motion (See https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/80449/392)
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! Forgive me: I don't understand $\mathbf{L}_A = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega}-m \mathbf{r}_{cm} \times\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} + m \mathbf{v}_{A}$. As to $I_{cm}$, is it a matrix? The only definition I know, used by my book, Gettys-Keller-Skove's Physics, of moment of inertia $I$ is a scalar $I:=\sum_im_iR_i^2$ -and $I=\int_V\rho R^2dV$ for a continuous body- where $R$ is the distance of the point from the axis. $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker May 13 '15 at 7:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $I_{cm}$ is the mass moment of inertia tensor. It is defined as $$I_{cm} = \begin{pmatrix} I_{xx} & I_{xy} & I_{xz} \\ I_{xy} & I_{yy} & I_{yz} \\ I_{xz} & I_{yz} & I_{zz} \end{pmatrix}$$ (See farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node64.html). It contains the components of inertia for each axis in the diagonal, and cross terms on the off diagonal. As the body rotates (with a 3×3 rotation matrix $E$) the components of $I_{cm}$ change also. This is done with $$I_{cm} = E I_{\rm body} E^\top$$. $\endgroup$ – ja72 May 13 '15 at 12:17
  • $\begingroup$ Very, very interesting. I can't wait to study it! Thank you very much again! $\endgroup$ – Self-teaching worker May 13 '15 at 12:49
2
$\begingroup$

If we look at $CP_i X m_i (\omega \times CP_i)$ we can say that the cross product in the parenthesis gives the component of the vector $CP_i$ along the direction of $\omega$. Let us call that component $R_i$. (note: $R_i$ is the perpendicular distance between the particle in the system of particles in which we are interested in and the axis of rotation of the system of particles)

Now we have:

$CP_i \times m_i R_i \omega$ = $ m_i R_i^2 \omega$

(We are taking the cross product of $CP_i$ with $R_i$ which is in the direction perpendicular to both $\omega$ and $CP_i$ which will again give us $R_i$. )

Thus we have:

$ L_{cm} = (\sum_i m_i R_i^2 ) \omega $

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh! sorry. My mistake. I have made the correction in the answer. $\endgroup$ – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 14:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your question made me think about the basic definition of the direction of $\omega$. It is always defined with respect to the position vectors $r$ and $r+\Delta r$ where: $\Delta r = r\|\Delta \theta\|\hat\theta$, $\theta$ being the angle traversed by the vector $r$ in time $\Delta t$ and $\hat\theta$ being the tangent direction to the path of motion of the particle (Which is circular). I am really thankful to you @Self-teachingDavide for asking this question which led to the fundamental definition of direction of $\omega$. $\endgroup$ – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Coming back to the question, it can be seen that for taking the cross product $\omega \times r$, the direction of $\omega$ cannot be taken as $\hat k$. In order to get the direction of the angular velocity, one has to know the path of the particle, get the unit vector of the tangent ($\hat \theta$) at $r$ and find the cross product: $\hat r \times \hat \theta$. Please correct me if I am wrong. $\endgroup$ – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The math is pretty difficult and I have not seen such a proof presented anywhere. All my college courses dealt with 2D problems where $r$ was always in the X-Y plane and hence $\omega$ was always in the $\hat k$ direction. Also, most books present the proof only for planar rigid bodies and mention that the same is applicable to all rigid bodies. $\endgroup$ – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am sorry to have put up so many comments. Please check this link for a complete description of the angular velocity via Euler angles: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73961/… $\endgroup$ – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:39

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.