B Artificial gravity rotating on two axes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of rotating objects and the concept of artificial gravity in a spaceship. It explores whether an object can stably rotate on two axes simultaneously, noting that angular momentum typically points in one direction, complicating the notion of dual-axis rotation. Participants debate the implications of gyroscopic precession and the effects of external forces on rotation, emphasizing that any rigid body can only have a single rotational vector at a time. The conversation also touches on the mathematical representation of combined rotations, suggesting that they can be modeled as a single rotation around an oblique axis. Ultimately, the thread highlights the challenges in conceptualizing and defining rotation in three-dimensional space.
  • #51
Janus said:
A camera spun on the ISS would tend to maintain its rotational axis relative to the stars.
Indeed. But I understand your animation to be the result of a visualization of a sequence of two geometrical rotations and not the result of a numerical simulation of a torque free rotation. If that is correct, then the cylinder in your animation will not rotate as if it would if spun freely on the ISS. The reason I mentioned this is just that you included the bit about ISS in the quote.
 
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Filip Larsen said:
Indeed. But I understand your animation to be the result of a visualization of a sequence of two geometrical rotations and not the result of a numerical simulation of a torque free rotation. If that is correct, then the cylinder in your animation will not rotate as if it would if spun freely on the ISS. The reason I mentioned this is just that you included the bit about ISS in the quote.
I actually missed the mention of the ISS in that quote somehow. I probably was too focused on the animation he had in the post.
 
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
Once more, in tiny words?
There is a unique (pseudo)vector ##\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol \omega(t)## such that for any points ##A,B## of a rigid body one has $$\boldsymbol v_A=\boldsymbol v_B+\boldsymbol \omega\times \boldsymbol {BA}$$
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and vanhees71
  • #54
wrobel said:
There is a unique (pseudo)vector ##\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol \omega(t)## such that for any points ##A,B## of a rigid body one has $$\boldsymbol v_A=\boldsymbol v_B+\boldsymbol \omega\times \boldsymbol {BA}$$
I'm assuming that ## \boldsymbol{BA} ## is a position vector from ## B \to A ##; I haven't saw that notation ( but I don't see much )
 
  • #55
wrobel said:
There is a unique (pseudo)vector ##\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol \omega(t)## such that for any points ##A,B## of a rigid body one has $$\boldsymbol v_A=\boldsymbol v_B+\boldsymbol \omega\times \boldsymbol {BA}$$
Note the "B" in the edumakashun level for this thread.
 
  • #56
erobz said:
I'm assuming that BA is a position vector from B→A; I
yes
DaveC426913 said:
Note the "B" in the edumakashun level for this thread.
but the initial question is not of high school level at all. The concept of angular velocity of a rigid body is a tricky enough stuff. The inertia forces in an arbitrary motion is also a pretty subtle thing for high school
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Delta2
  • #57
wrobel said:
but the initial question is not of high school level at all.
Sure it is. It can be answered simply, without having the math as the answer.

wrobel said:
The inertia forces in an arbitrary motion is also a pretty subtle thing for high school
But the end result is not. At their simplest, the OP question(s) could be answered with a yes/no.
 
  • #58
then why do you ask questions when you know answers?
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and vanhees71
  • #59
DaveC426913 said:
Note the "B" in the edumakashun level for this thread.
This is perfectly B-level.The proof is not that difficult:

To describe a rigid body, take a model that it consists of a discrete set of point particles connected by massless rigid rods. Let's describe the rigid body with respect to an inertial refrence frame. To describe the body's particles take an arbitrary point fixed in the body. The position vector of this body-fixed origin is denoted with ##\vec{R}##, and any point of the body is described by
$$\vec{x}_i=\vec{R}+\vec{r}_i.$$
Since the ##\vec{r}_i## are vectors connecting the body-fixed origin with another body-fixed point, the rigidity of the body means that ##r_i=|\vec{r}_i|=\text{const}##. It's pretty obvious without calculation that thus the ##\vec{r}_i## can only rotate. To see this formally, we write
$$r_i^2=\vec{r}_i^2=(\vec{x}_i-\vec{R})^2.$$
Since this is constant, taking the derivative with respect to time yields
$$\dot{\vec{r}}_i \cdot \vec{r}_i=0,$$
which means that the velocity of the body-fixed point relative to the body-fixed reference point is always perpendicular to the position vector ##\vec{r}_i## relative to the body-fixed position. That means that there must be a vector ##\vec{\omega}## such that
$$\dot{\vec{r}}_i=\vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_i.$$
This implies that the velocity of this point in the body relative to the inertial frame,
$$\dot{\vec{x}}_i=\dot{\vec{R}}+\dot{\vec{r}_i}=\dot{\vec{R}} + \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_i.$$
The change of the relative vector in an infinitesimal step of time is
$$\mathrm{d} \vec{r}_i=\mathrm{d} t \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_i,$$
and this describes an infinitesimal rotation around a momentary rotation axis in direction of ##\vec{\omega}## by an angle ##|\vec{\omega}|\mathrm{d} t##. Thus ##\vec{\omega}## is the angular velocity, describing the rotation of the body around the body-fixed origin, ##\vec{R}##.

Finally we show that this relative angular velocity is independent of the choice of this body-fixed origin. So let ##\vec{R}'## be another choice. Then
$$\vec{x}_i=\vec{R}+\vec{r}_i=\vec{R}'+\vec{r}_i'.$$
Now as before we have
$$\dot{\vec{r}}'=\vec{\omega}' \times \vec{r}_i',$$
and we have to show that ##\vec{\omega}'=\vec{\omega}##.

To see this we note that
$$\vec{R}'-\vec{R}=\vec{r}=\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_i'$$
is also a body-fixed vector, because it connects two body fixed points. Thus there must be a vector ##\vec{\omega}''## such that
$$\dot{\vec{R}}'-\dot{\vec{R}}=\vec{\omega}'' \times (\vec{R}'-\vec{R}) = \vec{\omega}'' \times (\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_i')=\vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_i-\vec{\omega}' \times \vec{r}_i,$$
and this can hold true for all points ##\vec{x}_i## making up the body, if
$$\vec{\omega}''=\vec{\omega}=\vec{\omega}'.$$
So finally we also have
$$\dot{\vec{r}}_i'=\vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}_i,$$
and that was to be shown.
 
  • Like
Likes Filip Larsen
  • #60
DaveC426913 said:
Sure it is. It can be answered simply, without having the math as the answer.But the end result is not. At their simplest, the OP question(s) could be answered with a yes/no.
Physics cannot be formulated with the adequate math. Euclidean vectors are still taught at high schools!
 
  • #61
vanhees71 said:
That means that there must be a vector ω→ such that
That actually means that for each ##\boldsymbol r_i## there must be a vector ##\boldsymbol \omega_i## . A correct argument you have already brought in #35 and it is not a high school
 
Last edited:
  • #62
The proof that it must be the same ##\vec{\omega}## for all ##\vec{r}_i## is the same as the one given that it is the same ##\vec{\omega}## for different choices of the reference point ##\vec{R}##. You can apply it to the constraint that for any two body-fixed points
$$|\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j|=|\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j|=\text{const},$$
i.e.,
$$\dot{\vec{r}}_i-\dot{\vec{r}}_j=\vec{\omega}_{ij} \times (\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j) = \vec{\omega}_i \times \vec{r}_i -\vec{\omega}_j \times \vec{r}_j$$
can only be fullfilled for all ##\vec{r}_i-\vec{r}_j## if
$$\vec{\omega}_{ij}=\vec{\omega}_{i}=\vec{\omega}_{j}.$$
Since this holds for all pairs of points labelled with ##i## and ##j##, one must have ##\vec{\omega}_i=\vec{\omega}## for all ##i##.

I still don't see, why this is not understandable by an interested high-school student. At least in Germany 3D Euclidean vectors are still in the curriculum.
 
  • #63
vanhees71 said:
can only be fullfilled for all r→i−r→j if
ω→ij=ω→i=ω→j.
Sin
I think that this implication still needs a detailed explanation


vanhees71 said:
I still don't see, why this is not understandable by an interested high-school student.
Perhaps this is understandable. But I think an angular velocity of a rigid body is nowhere included to the curriculum of a high school. By my own experience I see that this is not a simple topic for university students.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Motore
  • #64
vanhees71 said:
At least in Germany 3D Euclidean vectors are still in the curriculum
a lot of very complicated things can be produced from the 3D Euclidian vectors :)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Motore
  • #65
DaveC426913 said:
Sure it is. It can be answered simply, without having the math as the answer.But the end result is not. At their simplest, the OP question(s) could be answered with a yes/no.
Yes, an object can rotate around two axes simultaneously. But these axes cannot remain "fixed".

It strikes me that nobody has yet mentioned the Earth as an example. The south pole (i.e. the momentary rotation axis) does not remain at the same spot in Antartica. It moves semi-regularly about some "mean" pole at a distance of several meters with a "period" of about 430 days (the Chandler period). This causes variations of geographic latitude and longitude of a fraction of an arcsecond. For a perfect rigid body the instantaneous rotation axis is neither fixed with respect to the body, nor the direction of angular momentum, but moves simultaneously on two cones surrounding both.

I still don't find this easy to visualize. It is an interesting topic that features in vol.1 of the Berkeley physics course, as well as in Sommerfeld's course on theoretical physics.
 
  • #66
WernerQH said:
an object can rotate around two axes simultaneously.
the phrase "can rotate around two axes simultaneously" is incorrect by itself: there is continuum ways to present the angular velocity as a sum of two vectors.

ps In my opinion by its initial post itself this thread was promised to become odious. I quit it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, vanhees71, WernerQH and 1 other person
  • #67
wrobel said:
then why do you ask questions when you know answers?
I don't know the answer.
 
  • #68
Reporting to have this thread closed, as it seems to be unanswerable at the education level specified.
 
  • #69
wrobel said:
there is continuum ways to present the angular velocity as a sum of two vectors.
From the simple POW of vectors, that's absolutely true.

But exactly because of that from the POW of a complex body, sometimes it may be more practical to use (body) locked directions (with special significance for that complex body) as references.

Yet, the original question was a bit further down the rabbit hole.
DaveC426913 said:
...what would occupants experience as gravity? Would it change over time?
I do admit that I have only an intuitive answer for that, but I'm too interested in an actual answer.
 
  • #70
Rive said:
I do admit that I have only an intuitive answer for that, but I'm too interested in an actual answer.
"What would the occupants experience as gravity?"

The [inverse of the] acceleration of the floor under their feet.

"Would it change over time?"

Yes. As has been described, the instantaneous axis of rotation will not remain fixed relative to the body. Points at the instantaneous axis have zero g. Points away from the axis have non-zero g. It follows that the g for body-fixed points can change over time.
 
  • Like
Likes Rive
  • #71
jbriggs444 said:
"What would the occupants experience as gravity?"

The [inverse of the] acceleration of the floor under their feet.

"Would it change over time?"

Yes. As has been described, the instantaneous axis of rotation will not remain fixed relative to the body. Points at the instantaneous axis have zero g. Points away from the axis have non-zero g. It follows that the g for body-fixed points can change over time.
Cool. That's half the answer.
Magnitude would change over time. Would direction?
 
  • #72
DaveC426913 said:
Cool. That's half the answer.
Magnitude would change over time. Would direction?
Yes. A little bit of reasoning shows that it must be so.

Consider two points on the body with the instantaneous axis somewhere between them. "Gravity" at both points is away from the direction of the other.

Now let the rotational axis move so that gravity stays in the same direction at both points. That means [some point on] the rotational axis moves along a line between the two points.

Now consider a third point not located on the line connecting the first two. "Gravity" there also points away from the rotation axis. But the direction will be changing over time. This is not quite bulletproof, as it stands, but the basic idea holds -- if the rotational axis wanders around and gravity points away from the rotational axis, gravity cannot point in the same direction forever for everyone.

Edit: Had to swap "away from" for "toward" due to brain error.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Rive
  • #73
wrobel said:
I think that this implication still needs a detailed explanation



Perhaps this is understandable. But I think an angular velocity of a rigid body is nowhere included to the curriculum of a high school. By my own experience I see that this is not a simple topic for university students.
I didn't say, it's simple, I only said it's understandable by a motivated enough high school student.
 
  • #74
DaveC426913 said:
Reporting to have this thread closed, as it seems to be unanswerable at the education level specified.
I have answered it at the education level specified. You only have to think hard enough about it!
 
  • #75
vanhees71 said:
You only have to think hard enough about it!

1653575744977.png
'Think hard enough...' I can't even decipher it. I didn't learn this in HS.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #76
DaveC426913 said:
View attachment 301959'Think hard enough...' I can't even decipher it. I didn't learn this in HS.

:rolleyes:
It's possible you did but are just too old, like me. I've just finished going through my college level first year math textbooks* and much of the vector notation used by vanhees71 is nowhere to be found.

*
ISBN 0-87150-283-6 Functions and Graphs 3rd Edition Stokowski circa 1980
ISBN 0-15-505731-6 Calculus With Analytic Geometry 2nd Edition Ellis and Gulick circa 1982
 
  • #77
Thanks for an entertaining and interesting thread folks.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top