Why Are 6 Coordinates Essential for Understanding Rigid Body Motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of a "rigid body," defined as a system of particles that maintain fixed positions relative to one another, thus not deforming. When a net force is applied to a rigid body, it accelerates in a direction determined by three spatial coordinates (x, y, z). If the center of mass is not aligned with the force's direction, the body experiences angular acceleration, necessitating the use of three additional coordinates to describe the angles of rotation around the axes. This results in a total of six coordinates required to fully characterize the motion of multiparticle systems, particularly in the context of three or more particles.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
Any good links to lecture notes or anyone can explain the underlying concepts here? Are we just dealing with a summation of points constituting a single object? I am sorry if this question is too general or broad. Maybe a more specific question is why there are 6 coordinates needed to describe such multiparticle systems where we are dealing with 3+ particles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ed Quanta,

The term "rigid body" refers to a system with any number of particles, but which are constrained not to move relative to each other. That is, a rigid body does not deform.

However, a net force applied at some point on the body will cause it to accelerate, and that acceleration will be in some direction defined by the 3 coordiantes: x, y, and z. And if the center of mass of the body is not on the line defined by the force's direction and the point where it's applied, the body will be angularly accelerated around an axis defined by the 3 angles it makes to x, y and z. That makes 6 coordinates needed to describe the motion of a rigid body.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top