Finite rotations and infinitesimal rotations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concepts of finite and infinitesimal rotations, particularly in the context of their commutation properties as described in Kleppner's text. Participants explore the implications of these properties in both theoretical and conceptual frameworks, seeking clarity on the differences between finite and infinitesimal rotations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while infinitesimal rotations commute, finite rotations do not, leading to confusion about the relationship between the two.
  • One participant suggests that stacking infinitely many infinitesimal rotations results in a finite rotation that does not commute, drawing an analogy to conditionally convergent series.
  • Another participant emphasizes that rotations around different axes do not commute, while rotations around the same axis do, which aligns with the structure of the Lie algebra of the rotation group.
  • Some participants question the definitions of infinitesimal rotations and their mathematical representation, suggesting that clarity is needed regarding whether they are treated as vectors or matrices.
  • A later reply discusses the need for a precise definition of rotations and the mathematical structures involved to understand the commutation properties accurately.
  • One participant points out that the concept of commuting rotations must be distinguished from vector addition, as the mathematical context changes the interpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on a simple explanation for the commutation properties of finite and infinitesimal rotations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations and clarifications offered.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of physics textbooks in conveying the mathematical rigor behind these concepts, suggesting that the terminology used may lead to misunderstandings.

  • #31
vanhees71 said:
With Lie-group theory that's very easy to understand.
Oh! Now I see what you call Lie group theory. This is not yet Lie group theory this is just some trivial argument. Lie group theory is a serious mathematical branch. By the way, your formulas are too cumbersome. Particularly there is no need to refer on coordinate representations every time. Everything is much simpler.

Let ##u## be any vector frozen into a rigid body. The rigid body moves so that ##u=u(t)##. Define a linear operator $$A(t)u(0)=u(t).\qquad (!)$$ It is a unitary operator it's clear:
$$AA^*=I,\qquad (*)$$
Actually, formulas (*) and (!) are the definition of a rigid body.

Differentiate formula (!):
$$\dot u(t)=\dot A(t)u(0)=\dot A(t)A^{-1}(t)u(t)=\dot A(t)A^*(t)u(t).\qquad (**)$$
The operator ##\Omega=\dot AA^*## is skew-symmetric: ##\Omega^*=-\Omega##. Indeed, just take ##\frac{d}{dt}## from both sides of (*).

And finally, any skew-symmetric operator in ##\mathbb{R}^3## can unequally be presented with the help of (pseudo) vector such that ##\Omega x=\omega\times x,## and correspondingly formula (**) takes the form ##\dot u(t)=\omega\times u(t)##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
vanhees71 said:
No, it's very simple!
Simple for you, but probably not to the OP! Personally, I think talk of Lie groups, Lie algebra, and the like is too advanced for an I-level thread.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
16K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K