I Angular Velocity: Vector or Not?

Click For Summary
Angular velocity is classified as an axial vector, which behaves differently from traditional vectors under transformations, particularly during reflections. In three dimensions, it is considered a pseudovector, possessing both magnitude and direction, but remaining unchanged when the coordinate system is mirrored. The cross product of two polar vectors results in a pseudovector, while the cross product of a pseudovector and a polar vector yields a vector. This distinction is crucial for understanding the relationship between angular velocity and tangential velocity, especially when considering the cross product with the radius vector. Overall, the discussion clarifies the mathematical properties of angular velocity and its implications in vector calculus.
e2m2a
Messages
354
Reaction score
13
I understand that angular velocity is technically not a vector so does that mean the cross product of the radius vector and the angular velocity vector, the tangential vector, is also not a vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Angular velocity is an axial vector, i.e., it transforms as ##\vec{\omega} \rightarrow \vec{\omega}## under space reflections, while a polar vector like the usual velocity transforms as ##\vec{v} \rightarrow -\vec{v}##. Wrt. rotations axial vectors transform in the same as polar vectors.

An axial vector is always equivalent to an antisymmetric tensor. For Cartesian components you can map the axial-vector components to the tensor components via
$$\Omega_{jk}=\epsilon_{jkl} \omega_l$$
and the other way
$$\omega_l=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{jkl} \Omega_{jk}.$$
In both formulae the Einstein summation convention is used, and ##\epsilon_{jkl}## is the Levi-Civita symbol which is defined by ##\epsilon_{123}=1## and being antisymmetric under exchange of any index pair. This implies that it's 0 if at least two of the indices are equal.

It's also easy to see that the cross product of two polar or two axial vectors is an axial vector, while the cross product of a polar and axial vector is a polar vector.
 
e2m2a said:
I am told that angular velocity is not a vector so does that mean the cross product between the radius vector and angular velocity vector, the tangential velocity vector, is also not a vector?
If you are working in the two dimensional plane then angular velocity has only one dimension. It is a scalar.

If you are working in three dimensions then angular velocity is a pseudovector. It has magnitude and direction, but if you do a mirror reflection on your coordinate system so that all of your vectors change signs, the pseudovectors remain unchanged. So picky mathematical types do not want to call them vectors.

Taking the cross product of the angular momentum [pseudo]vector and the radius vector will do just fine to get you a velocity vector.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and berkeman
In three dimensions, the cross product of two (polar) vectors gives a pseudovector. The cross product of a pseudovector and a vector gives a vector. The cross product of two pseudovectors gives a pseudovector.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71 and jbriggs444
jbriggs444 said:
If you are working in the two dimensional plane then angular velocity has only one dimension. It is a scalar.

If you are working in three dimensions then angular velocity is a pseudovector. It has magnitude and direction, but if you do a mirror reflection on your coordinate system so that all of your vectors change signs, the pseudovectors remain unchanged. So picky mathematical types do not want to call them vectors.

Taking the cross product of the angular momentum [pseudo]vector and the radius vector will do just fine to get you a velocity vector.
Ok. Thanks for the explanation.
 
Dale said:
In three dimensions, the cross product of two (polar) vectors gives a pseudovector. The cross product of a pseudovector and a vector gives a vector. The cross product of two pseudovectors gives a pseudovector.
All right. Thanks. That clears things up.
 
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
512
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
8K
Replies
15
Views
2K