Expanding triple (cross) product

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves expanding a triple product using the bac-cab rule, specifically L = mr x (ω x r). The original poster seeks to understand how to derive the angular momentum formula when r is perpendicular to ω.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss their attempts to apply the bac-cab rule and express confusion over the results they obtain compared to the expected answer. Questions arise regarding the distribution of vectors and the simplification of terms.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the application of the bac-cab rule, with participants sharing their interpretations and calculations. Some guidance on the nature of vector operations is being provided, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach or final outcome.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of vector operations and the specific conditions under which the problem is set, such as the perpendicularity of r and ω. There is a noted lack of clarity regarding the distribution of vectors in the context of the problem.

leroyjenkens
Messages
616
Reaction score
49

Homework Statement



Use (the bac-cab rule) to expand this triple product:L = mr x (ω x r)

If r is perpendicular to ω, show that you obtain the elementary formula, angular momentum = mvr.

(The bold letters are vectors.)

Homework Equations



A X (B X C) = (A\cdotC)B - (A\cdotB)C

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, simply doing the bac-cab rule, I get

(mr \cdotω)r - (mr \cdotr)ω

Which isn't even close to the answer in the book, which is:

L=m[r2ω-(ω \cdotr)r]

No idea how they got that.

Even if I distribute the r, they don't have it distributed to the ω, and on the right term, they don't distribute the ω. I don't understand.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
leroyjenkens said:

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, simply doing the bac-cab rule, I get

(mr \cdotω)r - (mr \cdotr)ω
This is wrong, going by the rule we get
m[(r.r)ω-(r.ω)r]
On simplification we'll get the answer...
Regards
 
Abhilash H N said:
This is wrong, going by the rule we get
m[(r.r)ω-(r.ω)r]
On simplification we'll get the answer...
Regards

OK yeah I lost track of which one was A, B, and C.

But this is what I get:
(mr\cdotr)ω-(mr\cdotω)r

r\cdotr simplifies to r2 because it's the vector dotted into itself, which produces the magnitude of that vector squared?

And according to the solution, why didn't they distribute the r through the parentheses in the second term?

Thanks.
 
What specifically do you mean by "distribute the r through the parentheses"?
 
vela said:
What specifically do you mean by "distribute the r through the parentheses"?

Oh ok, so that r isn't allowed to go into the parentheses until the r is dotted into the ω?
 
I guess I still don't know what you're trying to do. ##\vec{\omega}\cdot\vec{r}## is a scalar, and the result of the product multiplies ##\vec{r}##. By pulling ##\vec{r}## into the parentheses, what do you intend to accomplish?
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K