Eigenvectors of Inertia tensor

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the computation of eigenvectors of the inertia tensor for an N-particle system using Fortran code. The user observes that the vectors defined as cross products of the eigenvectors and particle position vectors appear to be mutually orthogonal for non-linear configurations when N is greater than or equal to three. Despite attempts to find an analytical explanation, the user struggles to understand why the sum of certain products involving these vectors vanishes. A participant suggests that these products correspond to off-diagonal components of the inertia tensor in the eigenvector coordinate system, which are zero because the inertia tensor is diagonal in its own eigenframe. The conversation highlights the complexities of relating numerical observations to theoretical principles in physics.
Derivator
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've written a little fortran code that computes the three Eigenvectors \vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \vec{v}_3 of the inertia tensor of a N-Particle system.
Now I observed something that I cannot explain analytically:
Assume the position vector \vec{r}_i of each particle to be given with respect to the center of mass of the system.
Then define three new vectors \vec{\omega}_j := (\vec{v}_j\times\vec{r}_1,\dots,\vec{v}_j\times\vec{r}_N) where j=1,...,3. These new vectors are of length 3*N.
Now, for a non-linear configuration of the \vec{r}_i and N>=3, the \vec{\omega}_j seem to be mutually orthogonal, that is \vec{\omega}_j \cdot \vec{\omega}_i = 0 for i \neq j (At least, I obtain this numerically up to machine precision)

I have no analytical explanation for this...

The most promising ansatz I tried so far is:
\vec{\omega}_i \cdot \vec{\omega}_j = \sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\times \vec{r}_l)(\vec{v}_j \times \vec{r}_l) = \sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{v}_j)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{r}_l)-(\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{r}_l)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{v}_j)= -\sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{r}_l)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{v}_j)

Where I have used the relation
(\mathbf{a \times b})\mathbf {\cdot}(\mathbf{c}\times \mathbf{d}) = (\mathbf{a \cdot c})(\mathbf{b \cdot d}) - (\mathbf{a \cdot d})(\mathbf{b \cdot c})
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruple_product)

and the fact that the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor are mutually orthogonal:

\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{v}_j = 0

Unfortunately, this is the point where I'm stuck. I don't see why -\sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{r}_l)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{v}_j) should vanish.derivator
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm a bit confused on how you're defining your ##\vec{w}_i##. Can you explain? I'm not quite seeing how you're defining it (maybe it's that I don't understand the physical significance).

Also, the dot product won't vanish in your ansatz. The simplest case I can think of is considering a space in ##\mathbb{R}^3## when ##N=1##. Dotting a random vector in the x-y plane with both the x-axis and y-axis. You'll get a vectors along the positive and/or negative z-axis. The dot product of those two vectors isn't zero.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
the \vec{\omega}_i are just the hypervectors build from the cross products of the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor and the particle positions (length 3*N). Frankly, I don't know, if they have any physical significance. They just happen to be an intermediate step in my calculation and I noticed their orthogonality. while playing around with my code.

Of corse, you are right, that for N=1 the dot product will not vanish. However, for N >=3 , as long as the particles are not in one line, it does.

Cheers,
derivator
 
Taking the eigenvectors to be normalized your last sum is a sum on the product of the i-th and j-th components (with the eigenvectors as the basis) of the position vectors of the particles. Since you have defined the position vectors relative to the center of mass you know the following holds for each component: $$ \sum_l r_l^x=0. $$ I don't know the solution to the problem, but maybe this will help cast it in a new light.
 
Hi Haborix,

thanks a lot for your idea. Unfortunately, I also don't see how to use this relation...

Still hoping, someone might see why the sum is vanishing.

Cheers,
derivator
 
Maybe, I just had an idea:
Am I right, that the -\sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{r}_l)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{v}_j) are nothing else than the off-diagonal components of the inertia tensor when being expressed in the coordinate system defined by the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor? (for the components of the inertia tensor see: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node64.html)
Now, if I did not overlook anything, then its trivial why the
-\sum_{l=1}^N (\vec{v}_i\cdot\vec{r}_l)(\vec{r}_l\cdot\vec{v}_j) vanish: It's simply because the inertia tensor is (trivially) diagonal in its own `eigenframe'.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
derivator
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top