Searching for a Solid Proof of Chasles/Mozzi/Cauchy's Theorem

  • Thread starter Thread starter ObsessiveMathsFreak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Solid Theorem
Click For Summary
Chasles' Theorem states that any rigid body displacement can be represented as a screw motion, involving a circular helical path about a common axis. The original poster seeks a solid, linear algebraic proof, expressing dissatisfaction with existing proofs that lack rigor. They discovered a highly recommended paper by Dunham Jackson that thoroughly explains rigid body motions and their decomposition into screw motions, although it lacks diagrams. The poster has developed a semi-proof for the 2D case and is interested in exploring the 3D case further. The discussion highlights the importance of finding clear, convincing proofs for complex mathematical theorems.
ObsessiveMathsFreak
Messages
404
Reaction score
8
I've unsuccessfully been looking for a decent proof of Chasles' Theorem which states that any rigid body displacement whatsoever can be decomposed into a screw motion. In other words, no matter what the displacement is, you can consider it the result of the partiles having moved to their positions by following a circular helixical path about a common axis, with a common angular speed.

I suppose I'm mostly looking for a (linear) algebraic type proof. Most proofs I've encountered have been fairly loose and unconvincing. Does anyone know of a solid proof of this theorem?

Awkwardly, this theorem is also variously known as Mozzi's or Cauchy's screw theorem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In answer to my own question:

Shortly after making this post I stumbled across one of the best papers I've ever read.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00029890/di991259/99p1550p/0 by Dunham Jackson. It's old, but great, and completely and totally explains rigid body motions and their decompositions into rotations and translations and finally into screw motions. He refers to the theorem as Mozzi's theorem.

It's a great paper. I'd seriously recommend anyone to give it an hour of their time. It's an easy read, and the proofs are just brilliant. The only thing I could fault it on is a lack of diagrams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the link, this is a problem I've been annoyed with for a while too. I've worked out a semi-proof for the 2d case using similar triangles, but I would like to see the 3d case as well. Do you have a link for a free copy of the paper?
 
EFuzzy said:
Thanks for the link, this is a problem I've been annoyed with for a while too. I've worked out a semi-proof for the 2d case using similar triangles, but I would like to see the 3d case as well. Do you have a link for a free copy of the paper?
Attached is a copy of the paper.
 

Attachments

Thanks!
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K