Why Do We Assume Rotation About C.O.M of Sphere?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pardesi
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the assumption that a sphere rotates about its center of mass (C.O.M) when rolling, particularly in the context of rotational mechanics problems. Participants explore whether this assumption is based on intuition, experimental evidence, or theoretical proof, and they examine the implications of torque and angular momentum in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the rotational axis is assumed to be through the C.O.M, suggesting that it may be intuitive but seeking a theoretical justification.
  • Others explain that friction creates a torque that rotates the sphere, but they note that torque can be calculated about various points.
  • A participant mentions a theorem regarding angular momentum that relates the total angular momentum of a moving and rotating body to its C.O.M and its rotation about that point.
  • There is a discussion about the parallel axis theorem and its distinction from the theorem being referenced, with some participants clarifying the components of angular momentum involved.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding the motion of points on the sphere relative to the C.O.M, particularly at the contact point with the surface.
  • Another participant suggests that for simple objects like a uniform sphere, it can be proven that the center of rotation is the center of mass using calculus.
  • There is a mention of different scenarios, such as a bowling ball or billiard ball, that complicate the assumption of rotation about the C.O.M, indicating that multiple rotational behaviors exist.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of agreement on the intuitive nature of the assumption that a sphere rotates about its C.O.M, but no consensus is reached on whether this assumption is adequately justified by theory or proof. Multiple competing views on the nature of rotation and torque are presented.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on the assumption of uniform density for the sphere and the unresolved nature of how different forces interact during rotation. The discussion also highlights the complexity of real-world scenarios that may not conform to the simple model of rotation about the C.O.M.

pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
why do we assume this??

most problems on rotational mechanics which we do we are not provided with the rotational axis ...like in case of a sphere which when given some initial translational speed and left finally starts rolling we assume that it rotates about the axis passing through the c.o.m and perpendicular to it's plane...is this just an intutive conclusion based on say experiments or is that a 'theoretical' proof for it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since friction opposes slipping, the friction force will be opposite to the velocity of the sphere. That friction creates a torque which rotates the sphere. (Not sure if that's what you're looking for.)
 
yes that's ok but there is torque about many points but why do we take the rotational axis as the axis through centre
 
You can take the torque about any point you like, it's just easier to describe the motion as the sum of a rotation about the center of mass and the translation of the center of mass.
 
yes that's right but how do we 'know' the body sotates about an axis passing throughthe c.o.m yes it is highly intutive but is intution enough or do we have a 'proof'
 
There is a theorem (easily proven) that shows that the angular momentum about any axis of a moving and rotating body equals the angular momentum of the center of mass of the object about the chosen axis plus the angular momentum (I\omega) of the rotating object about its center of mass.
 
Meir Achuz said:
There is a theorem (easily proven) that shows that the angular momentum about any axis of a moving and rotating body equals the angular momentum of the center of mass of the object about the chosen axis plus the angular momentum (I\omega) of the rotating object about its center of mass.

the parallel axis theorem?
 
Not quite the parallel axis theorem, which gives I about an axis other than one through the cm.
This one says: J=L+S, where J is the total angular momentum,
L=MRXV, and S=I.omega. R and V refer to the center of mass and
I is the tensor of inertia.
 
For a sphere, we want to know the evolution of the configuration of each point attached to the sphere body (the contact may be more of concern). We then want to know the position of the center first and then check how the other points (especially contact points for a rigid sphere) move relative to this center.


regards
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Doc Al said:
You can take the torque about any point you like, it's just easier to describe the motion as the sum of a rotation about the center of mass and the translation of the center of mass.

Is it Chasle's theorem? A displacement can be considered as a translation plus a rotation about its center of mass.
 
  • #11
pardesi said:
yes that's right but how do we 'know' the body rotates about an axis passing throughthe c.o.m yes it is highly intutive but is intution enough or do we have a 'proof'
The axis of a rolling sphere goes through the center of the sphere. If the sphere has uniform density, then the center of the sphere is also it's center of mass.

Continuing with the assumption of a uniform sphere, then the torque force is the result of the equal and opposing, but non-alligned friction force and the reaction force of deceleration of the sphere. The reaction force effectively occurs at the sphere's center of mass. These two opposing forces are separated by the distance of the radius of the sphere. The center of these forces is 1/2 the radius of the sphere above the surface the sphere is sliding on. The torque is equal to the sum of each force times 1/2 the radius, which translates into (reaction force + friction force) x 1/2 radius = friction force x radius (since reaction force == friction force).

In the case of simple objects, like a sphere, I'm pretty sure that it can be proven with calculus that the center of rotation is the center of mass.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
pardesi said:
most problems on rotational mechanics which we do we are not provided with the rotational axis ...like in case of a sphere which when given some initial translational speed and left finally starts rolling we assume that it rotates about the axis passing through the c.o.m and perpendicular to it's plane...is this just an intutive conclusion based on say experiments or is that a 'theoretical' proof for it

If you just push a sphere without giving it any spin, then the angular velocity vector and angular momentum vector all have to line up with the torque vector simply because you only have one component to your motion.

Does that mean that's the only way a sphere can rotate? No.

A bowling ball thrown with a mean hook would be quite a challenge for an early physics problem. So would a billiard ball struck with a little 'English'. So would a spinning satellite undergoing nutation because of fluid slosh (or whatever).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K