Angular velocity and those damn radians

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of radians and their application in measuring angles, particularly in the context of angular velocity. Participants explore the relationship between angular displacement, linear displacement, and the use of radians compared to degrees.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the utility of radians for measuring angles and the relationship between angular velocity and the circumference of a circle.
  • Another participant clarifies that there are 2pi radians in a circle and explains that radians are dimensionless, making them easier to work with than degrees.
  • A participant acknowledges a mistake in terminology and seeks further clarification, indicating a desire for more information.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of radians as units of measurement, with one participant arguing against the notion of radians being a constant.
  • Another participant explains the relationship between angular and linear displacement, emphasizing that angular velocity is analogous to linear velocity but in rotational motion.
  • Some participants express difficulty in visualizing concepts related to non-Cartesian coordinate systems and the implications of multiplying angular displacement by the radius to obtain linear displacement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the basic definitions and relationships involving radians and angular velocity, but there remains some uncertainty and confusion about visualizing these concepts and the nature of radians as units of measurement.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express limitations in their understanding of non-Cartesian coordinate systems and the intuitive grasp of angular versus linear displacement.

Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
I don't get radians. I understand it's a constant, ie: circumference/radius = 2pi because 2*r*pi equals circumference
BUt I don't get why it is so damn handy for measuring angles!

THe formula for angular velocity is \omega*r=(2pi/t)*r where omega=change in angle divided by time.

what the? 2pi/t equals \omega?? 2pi=6.28? Why would \omega*t*r equal 2pi*r aka the circumference of the circle? I must be misunderstanding this very badly... Though it is pretty late here :/

Please explain all this, slowly and clearly...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, there are 2pi radians in a whole circle.
And, the circumference, C, of the circle is of length 2pi*r.
So you automatically have a length by multiplying radains by the radius,
The radian is dimensionless.
Much easier than using degrees for angles.

secondly
If the circle, or more specificially, a spot on the circle has rotated 2pi radians in one second, then naturally omega=2 pi/t. If t changes then so does omega.
 
oops stupid me for some reason i wrote diameter when i meant circumference :facepalm:

thanks for the reply 256bits, i just read it and things are much more clear. but people, please keep them coming so i can get more information
 
You wrote circumference. I was just writing dowm my train of thought. ;facepalm undone.
 
well i edited the post afterwards :p

anyway i understand it all, thanks for your help. I just thought it was weird that multiplying an angle equivalent to 360 degrees with the radius of a circle would get you the circle's circumference. but once i stopped thinking in degrees i think it's easier to understand now =)

but thanks anyway
 
You are making a mistake when you say "I understand it's a constant". That would be like saying "inches" is a constant. "radians" are not numbers they are units of measurement.
 
Well, actually radian is another form of expressing angles, just like degrees and both type of expressions are convertable, just like converting km/h to m/s and vice versa.

Because of ω=change in angular displacement=angle traveled/ time, then ω=2Pi/t for standard expression.

The circumference you meant is actually the distance traveled by the rotating circle.
For ease, ω is look like velocity or speed, but is in angular motion, and that is why ω is called angular velocity.
ω*t = angular displacement,
ω*t*r= linear displacement

And the relationship between linear motion and angular motion is differed by r.

Hope this can give you the right concept.
 
yes, I understand it now on a superficial level...

but i still get this weird feeling when i multiply angular displacement with the radius and then i get the linear displacement...

From a purely algebraic standpoint this makes perfect sense but I just can't seem to picture this in my mind, like I can with almost all other concepts.
 
I think everyone has trouble forming a picture in their minds of non-cartesian coordinate systems. For example, this is the equation for acceleration in the spherical polar coordinate system:
\vec{a} = ( \ddot{r} - r {\dot{\theta}}^2 - r {\dot{\phi}}^2 sin^2(\theta) ) \hat{r} + ( r \ddot{\theta} + 2 \dot{r} \dot{\theta} - r {\dot{\phi}}^2 sin(\theta) cos(\theta) ) \hat{\theta} + (r \ddot{\phi} sin(\theta) + 2 \dot{r} \dot{\phi} sin(\theta) + 2r \dot{\theta} \dot{\phi} cos(\theta) ) \hat{\phi}
I seriously doubt anyone has an intuitive picture in their heads for this equation.

Edit: The way I try to put myself at ease is by thinking: its just the cartesian system, but written using different variables. I can convert back to cartesian anytime I want, and the calculation can be done using either coordinate system.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Nikitin said:
yes, I understand it now on a superficial level...

but i still get this weird feeling when i multiply angular displacement with the radius and then i get the linear displacement...

From a purely algebraic standpoint this makes perfect sense but I just can't seem to picture this in my mind, like I can with almost all other concepts.

Then you will get used to it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K