Are angular displacement, angular velocity, and angular acceleration, vectors?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether angular displacement, angular velocity, and angular acceleration should be classified as vectors. Participants explore definitions, representations, and the implications of vector notation in the context of rotational motion, with references to educational materials and personal experiences.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration are vectors, with direction defined by the right-hand rule.
  • Others point out that in many algebra-based physics textbooks, these concepts are not discussed as vectors, while calculus-based texts typically do.
  • One participant notes that when angular quantities are presented without vector notation, they represent only magnitude, lacking directional information.
  • A participant raises a concern about the changing components of angular velocity in a spinning bicycle wheel, questioning how this aligns with the vector representation.
  • Another participant argues that angular displacement does not behave like a vector due to its failure to obey the commutative law, although it can be approximated as a vector for small displacements.
  • It is mentioned that the time derivative of angular displacement, which is angular velocity, is indeed a vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the vector nature of angular displacement, with some agreeing it is a vector under certain conditions, while others argue it does not fully meet vector criteria. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the classification of angular displacement.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on the definitions of vectors and the context of rotational motion, as well as the varying treatment of these concepts in different educational resources.

joeybenn
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This my first post on this very helpful forum.

So are angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration actually vectors? My Physics book does not really give me a straight answer. Plus, if they are, why do they not have the classic vector notation of the arrow above [tex]\theta[/tex], [tex]\omega[/tex], and [tex]\alpha[/tex]?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
They are, in fact, most generally represented as vectors. The vector direction is along the axis of rotation, in the direction given by the right-hand rule: curl your fingers in the direction of rotation, and your thumb points along the axis in the direction of the vector.

You don't say where you are or which book you're using. I think in the USA, most algebra-based physics textbooks (for students who are not going to get a degree in physics) do not discuss rotational motion in terms of vectors, whereas most calculus-based textbooks (for students who are going to get degrees in physics or engineering) do.
 
I agree with jtbell, they are vectors. When written without the vector sign you are being given the magnitude without the direction.
 
jtbell said:
They are, in fact, most generally represented as vectors. The vector direction is along the axis of rotation, in the direction given by the right-hand rule: curl your fingers in the direction of rotation, and your thumb points along the axis in the direction of the vector.

You don't say where you are or which book you're using. I think in the USA, most algebra-based physics textbooks (for students who are not going to get a degree in physics) do not discuss rotational motion in terms of vectors, whereas most calculus-based textbooks (for students who are going to get degrees in physics or engineering) do.

Well, I am in fact trying to major in Physics in the USA despite my past college mistakes. That being said, it is a calculus based Physics book called: "Fundamentals of Physics - Third Edition" by Halliday and Resnick. My professor said it was an older version of the newer ones, and said that he used it based on the better explanations (in his opinion).

In regards to your answer, thank you. My next question being: is not the right hand rule used for torque generally? I am currently reviewing for a final exam so we did learn about torque. My understanding is that the right hand rule implies orthogonality given by the cross product, so more of a three dimensional view. The problem I see is that the vector for say [tex]\omega[/tex] in a spinning bicycle wheel, would be constantly changing in the [tex]\hat{i}[/tex] and [tex]\hat{j}[/tex] components. I think my T.A. one day told me something about [tex]\hat{\theta}[/tex] being pertinent to this explanation. I might be in over my head but this is what is bothering me so any help is appreciated.

Thanks.
 
drmermaid said:
I agree with jtbell, they are vectors. When written without the vector sign you are being given the magnitude without the direction.

Yes I do know that. Thank you. I figured that out just a couple hours ago in regards to the angular displacement, velocity, and acceleration.
 
joeybenn said:
The problem I see is that the vector for say [tex]\omega[/tex] in a spinning bicycle wheel, would be constantly changing in the [tex]\hat{i}[/tex] and [tex]\hat{j}[/tex] components.

The direction of the vector [tex]\omega[/tex] specifies the axis of rotation and the direction of rotation by the right-hand rule. If the speed of rotation isn't changing, and the orientation of the axis isn't changing, [tex]\omega[/tex] isn't changing.

Angular displacement is not a vector, despite having magnitude and direction, as it does not obey the commutative law for vectors: if you rotate the Earth 90 degrees north and then 90 degrees east, it is not the same thing as rotating 90 degrees east and then 90 degrees north. However, for small angular displacements [tex]d\vec{\theta}[/tex] it obeys the commutative law approximately, and can be considered a vector: if you rotate the Earth such that you move north 10 miles and then east 10 miles, this *is* about the same as moving east 10 miles and then north 10 miles. Thus, it's time derivative [tex]\vec{\omega} = d\vec{\theta}/dt[/tex] is a vector, and so is [tex]\vec{\alpha}[/tex].
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

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