Angular velocity and those damn radians

AI Thread Summary
Radians are a unit of measurement for angles that simplify calculations in circular motion, as they relate directly to the circle's radius and circumference. The formula for angular velocity, ω = 2π/t, indicates that if a point on a circle rotates through 2π radians in one second, its angular velocity is 2π radians per second. Understanding that radians are dimensionless and represent a ratio of the circle's circumference to its radius helps clarify their utility over degrees. The relationship between angular displacement and linear displacement is established through the radius, making it easier to transition between angular and linear motion. Overall, grasping these concepts can take time, but they become clearer with practice and visualization.
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.
 
Back
Top