How Can I Apply a Quaternion Rotation on a Local Axis After an Initial Rotation?

Registred
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hey,

Once again, I got a question about quaternions.
Say I have an initial rotation Q1. I now want to rotate Q1 on the X and then on the Y axis. BUT: The Y rotation should apply to the local Y axis which was given in Q1.

The problem is:
If i rotate Q1 by the X-rotation Q2, then the Y axis changes for Q1*Q2. So, since quaternion multiplication is noncommutativ, if I then apply the Y-rotation Q3, I don't rotate about the original Y axis of Q1.

How can I rotate quaternions this way?

Greetings!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I assume that the rotations around X and Y will be achieved by applying by two separate quaternion increments, call them QX and QY. Assuming this is the case I think you need to proceed as follows;

1. apply the QX rotation to Q1, call the result R1.
2. apply the QX rotation to the QY rotation increment - this transforms the Y axis rotation from the original frame of reference to the frame that exists after you've done the X rotation. Call the modified QY increment QY'
3. apply QY' to R1
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top