How does rotation have vectors?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NYGooner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation Vectors
AI Thread Summary
Rotation is a type of motion that can be described using vectors, specifically angular velocity or angular momentum, rather than implying that rotation itself possesses vectors. The right hand rule helps determine the direction of these vectors based on the rotation's direction, with clockwise rotation corresponding to a downward vector and counter-clockwise rotation corresponding to an upward vector. However, this does not mean that any part of the rotating object, like a vinyl record, is moving in that vector's direction; instead, points on the record move tangentially along their circular path. The confusion often arises from misinterpreting the relationship between the direction of rotation and the vector direction. Understanding this distinction clarifies how vectors apply to rotational motion.
NYGooner
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
In my textbook they used the right hand rule to show that rotation has vectors instead of just being positive or negative relative to its direction of rotation of a vinyl record. In the image the record was going clock wise so by the right hand rule it was going downward which makes sense, but are they also saying that if it was counter-clock wise then by the right hand rule it would have a vector in the upward direction? Does that mean it would move upward? I'm sorry if this sounds dumb, I just can't understand how we can apply vectors to rotation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are a couple of inaccurately used words in your statement.
1. "rotation has vectors". Rotation is a type of motion. It does not "have" vectors.
2. "In the image the record was going clock wise so by the right hand rule it was going downward which makes sense". You said "it" was going downward. Ask yourself the question: What was going downward? Certainly not the vinyl record. It is NOT going downward. It is only going round and round.
3. There is a si,i;ar statement about counter-clockwise rotation.
The vector you are talking about does not give the direction of motion. Think of a tiny spot on your vinyl record. It is going round at the same rate as the record. At any instant, the spot is moving in a specific direction. That is the direction of the instantaneous velocity, and it is tangential to the circle in which the spot is moving.
The vector that the right hand rule shows is the ANGULAR VELOCITY, or ANGULAR MOMENTUM. Nothing is actually moving in the direction of these vectors. Rather, something is rotating around these vectors. The direction of rotation and the direction of the vector are related by the right hand rule.
 
  • Like
Likes NYGooner
Sorry for the complicated wording, I just wasn't sure how to word this question. Thanks for clearing it up though, it makes sense now, thanks!
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

B What is physical significance of the direction of angular velocity?
Replies
2
Views
1K
A Ambiguity in sense of rotation given a rotation matrix A
Replies
12
Views
1K
I Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
Replies
1
Views
2K
I PIGA: Pendulous Integrating Gyroscopic Accelerometer
Replies
0
Views
1K
Conceptual questions about Angular Momentum Conservation and torque
Replies
2
Views
2K
What does the direction of angular velocity indicate?
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Confused about the axis of rotation in rotational motion w/o slipping
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Does a rotating accelerometer moving linearly measure linear velocity?
Replies
47
Views
4K
Motion involving Translation & Rotation |Kleppner and Kolenkow
Replies
10
Views
1K
Oscillation of a boat in still water (Metacenter and Center of Mass)
Replies
24
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top