Inertia tensor around principal Axes

In summary, the conversation is about the rotation of a second order tensor and how it can be represented using a rotation matrix. The professor's script provides the equation for calculating the rotated tensor, and the conversation also includes a discussion on finding the intervals of integration for the components of the tensor. The conversation ends with the asker thanking everyone for their help and mentioning a new problem they have to solve.
  • #1
Lambda96
156
59
Homework Statement
Show that if ##\rho## is invariant (i.e. stays the same) under a ##\pi##-rotation around the 1 axis, then
Relevant Equations
none
Hi,

unfortunately, I am not getting anywhere with the following task

Bildschirmfoto 2022-12-10 um 20.33.32.png


The inertia tensor is as follows

$$\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
I_{11} & I_{12} & I_{13} \\
I_{21} & I_{22} & I_{23} \\
I_{31} & I_{32} & I_{33} \\
\end{array}\right)$$

I had now thought that I could simply rotate the inertia tensor around the angle ##\pi## using the rotation matrix for x, i.e.

$$\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & cos & -sin \\
0 & sin & cos \\
\end{array}\right)$$

I have received the following

$$\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
I_{11} & I_{12} & I_{13} \\
I_{21} & I_{22} & I_{23} \\
I_{31} & I_{32} & I_{33} \\
\end{array}\right) \left( \begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 \\
\end{array}\right)=\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
I_{11} & -I_{12} & -I_{13} \\
I_{21} & -I_{22} & -I_{23} \\
I_{31} & -I_{32} & -I_{33} \\
\end{array}\right)$$

And as you can unfortunately see, that is not the right solution at all. Unfortunately, I don't know what exactly I should calculate here to get the result.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First of all, the inertia tensor is a second order tensor so it doesn't rotate like that (how does it rotate?)

Secondly, you may want to take a look at the defining integral/sum for each of the components, assuming your lecture material contains such. What does the hint given in the problem mean in that context?
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, vanhees71, Lambda96 and 1 other person
  • #3
##RMR^T##

Is how you rotate a tensor I believe.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, FactChecker and Lambda96
  • #4
Thank you for your help,

@Filip Larsen do you mean the following?

$$ I_{xx}=\int_{}^{} \rho(r)(y^2+z^2)\ d^3r $$
$$ I_{xy}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)xy \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{xz}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)xz \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{yx}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)yx \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{yy}=\int_{}^{} \rho(r)(x^2+z^2) \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{yz}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)yz \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{zx}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)zx \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{zy}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r)zy \ d^3r $$
$$ I_{zz}=\int_{}^{} \rho(r)(x^2+y^2) \ d^3r $$

I have now replaced the index of ##11## by ##xx## etc., as I find this notation easier to write in Latex.

The integrals integrate over the volume, which means that the integral can be represented as follows.

$$ I_{xx}=\int_{}^{}\int_{}^{}\int_{}^{} \rho(r)(y^2+z^2)\ dxdydz $$

Unfortunately, I am now just unsure about the interval of integration, so I thought of the following

$$ I_{xx}=\int_{-z}^{z}\int_{-y}^{y}\int_{x}^{x} \rho(r)(y^2+z^2)\ dxdydz $$

This would make all terms with a ##x## disappear, but unfortunately this also makes all other integrals 0, so I assume that these are the wrong intervals of integration.
 
  • #5
PhDeezNutz said:
##RMR^T##

Is how you rotate a tensor I believe.
With the rotor, ##R##, being for half the angle of the rotation.
CORRECTION: This is wrong. Thanks, @vanhees71
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #6
Look at the integrals for the components that you have to show becomes zero, e.g. ##I_{xy}##. What happens if you split this integral into two parts, one integral for ##y \gt 0##, the other for ##y \lt 0##?
 
  • Like
Likes Lambda96
  • #7
If I split the y-integral, it would look like this:

$$ \int_{-y}^{0} -\rho(r)xy \ dy + \int_{0}^{y} -\rho(r)xy \ dy $$

Then the left integral ##\int_{-y}^{0} -\rho(r)xy \ dy=-A## and the right integral ##\int_{-y}^{0} -\rho(r)xy \ dy=A## gives ##A-A=0##.
 
  • Like
Likes Filip Larsen
  • #8
FactChecker said:
With the rotor, ##R##, being for half the angle of the rotation.
No it's just the rotation matrix you also use for vector components. The point is that a 2nd-rank tensor is a bilinear form, i.e., the value ##\Theta(\vec{x},\vec{y})## is independent of the choice of coordinate systems. Especially when using cartesian coordinates the change from one to the other system is given by an orthogonal matrix ##\hat{R}## with ##\hat{R}^{-1}=\hat{R}^{T}##. Thus you have
$$\vec{x}'=\hat{R} \vec{x}, \quad \vec{x}=\hat{R}^T \vec{x}',$$
where ##\vec{x}## and ##\vec{x}'## are now the components of the vector written as a column of numbers with respect to the "old" and the "new" basis.

In order to have the outcome of the tensor be the same its representing matrices ##\hat{Theta}## and ##\hat{\Theta}'## must fulfill
$$\vec{x}^{T} \hat{\Theta} \vec{y} = (\hat{R}^T \vec{x}')^T \hat{\Theta} \hat{R}^T \vec{y}' = \vec{x}^{\prime T} \hat{R} \hat{\Theta} \hat{R}^T \vec{y}'=\hat{x}^{\prime T} \hat{\Theta}' \hat{y}'.$$
Since this must hold for any vectors ##\vec{x}## and ##\vec{y}## you necessarily get the transformation law for cartesian components of a 2nd-rank tensor,
$$\hat{\Theta}'=\hat{R} \hat{\Theta} \hat{R}^T.$$
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Astronuc, Lambda96 and FactChecker
  • #9
Thank you all for your help 👍

However, I still have two questions

My professor's script says the following about the rotation of a second order tensor

$$I_{ab} \rightarrow I'_{ab}=R_{ac}R_{bd}I_{cd}$$

Alternatively in vector notation

$$I \rightarrow I'=RIR^T$$

Unfortunately, I still don't quite understand how I could have solved the task with it. Would I have to do the calculation as follows?

$$\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 \\
\end{array}\right)\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
I{11} & I{12} & I{13} \\
I{21} & I{22} & I{23} \\
I{31} & I{32} & I{33} \\
\end{array}\right)\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 \\
\end{array}\right)=\left( \begin{array}{rrr}
I{11} & -I{12} & -I{13} \\
-I{21} & I{22} & I{23} \\
-I{31} & I{32} & I{33} \\
\end{array}\right)$$

Where ##R## is the rotation matrix around the x-axis with angle ##\theta=\pi##.

To my second question, I now have to calculate another problem, namely the inertia tensor of a cuboid about a principal axis, can I post this discussion here too or should I open a new post for it?
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #10
You're assuming the rotation leaves the tensor invariant, i.e., ##I=I'##. So what does that imply about the individual elements of ##I##?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #11
I would set up the expressions for the entries in Cartesian and then convert to spherical.

With ##\phi## and then ## \phi + \pi##

Once you brutally trudge through each the integrals in each case I think they will evaluate to the same.

After that you can reason which ones are zero. I’ll take a look at it more closely later.
 
  • #12
PhDeezNutz said:
I would set up the expressions for the entries in Cartesian and then convert to spherical.

Cylindrical seems more relevant.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #13
pasmith said:
Cylindrical seems more relevant.
I agree.
 
  • #14
@vela that means that the objects must all be the same after the rotation, i.e. as before the rotation. In my calculation in post 9 I see that all objects except ##I_{12},I_{13},I_{21},I_{31}## remain the same. Does this mean that for an invariant rotation, I can take these objects as zero?

Thanks PhDeezNutz and pasmith for the tip, would ##I_{xy}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r) xy \ d^3r ## then have to be as follows, with ##x=rcos(\theta)##, ##y=rsin(\theta)## and ##z=z##?

$$I_{xy}=\int_{0}^{z}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{r} -\rho(r) r^3cos{\theta}sin{\theta} \ dr d\theta dz$$
 
  • #15
If ##I=I'##, that means the corresponding entries are equal, so for example, you have ##I_{12} = -I_{12}##. What does that tell you about ##I_{12}##?
 
  • Like
Likes Lambda96, vanhees71 and PhDeezNutz
  • #16
Lambda96 said:
@vela that means that the objects must all be the same after the rotation, i.e. as before the rotation. In my calculation in post 9 I see that all objects except ##I_{12},I_{13},I_{21},I_{31}## remain the same. Does this mean that for an invariant rotation, I can take these objects as zero?

Thanks PhDeezNutz and pasmith for the tip, would ##I_{xy}=\int_{}^{} -\rho(r) xy \ d^3r ## then have to be as follows, with ##x=rcos(\theta)##, ##y=rsin(\theta)## and ##z=z##?

$$I_{xy}=\int_{0}^{z}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\int_{0}^{r} -\rho(r) r^3cos{\theta}sin{\theta} \ dr d\theta dz$$

Technically [itex]x_1 = z[/itex], [itex]x_2 = r\cos\theta[/itex] and [itex]x_3 = r\sin\theta[/itex].

You can make the domain of integration all of [itex]\mathbb{R}^3[/itex] by taking [itex]\rho = 0[/itex] outside the object. The assumption is that [itex]\rho(r,\theta,z) = \rho(r,\theta + \pi, z)[/itex] for every [itex](r, \theta, z)[/itex].
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #17
On second thought I think you should use Cartesian.

I think you can reason that

1) The diagonal entries must be nonzero and positive by virtue of the integrand of the integral is a categorically positive quantity; density is positive and you’re multiplying by the sum of two squared quantities.

2) The remaining entries in the first row (and column) must be zero due to @vela ’s reasoning. When you use the hint and compare initial vs. rotated integrals you’ll get something like ##A = - A \Rightarrow A = 0##.

Which leaves entries 23 and 32. I don’t know how to tackle those.

Edit: in post 9 you completed the problem. Just use vela’s hint and you’re done.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #18
Thanks to all of you for your help

@vela, if the following holds, ##I_{12}=I_{12}## this condition can only be valid if ##I_{12}=-I_{12}=0##.

So then I can assume the following:

$$\left( \begin{array}{rrr}

I_{11} & -I_{12} & -I_{13} \\

-I_{21} & I_{22} & I_{23} \\

-I_{31} & I_{32} & I_{33} \\

\end{array}\right) \rightarrow I_{12}-I_{12}=0 \rightarrow \left( \begin{array}{rrr}

I_{11} & 0 & 0 \\

0 & I_{22} & I_{23} \\

0 & I_{32} & I_{33} \\

\end{array}\right)$$I have one more question, if ##\rho## were not invariant, would the following hold for the above rotation ##I \neq I'## then the following would also hold ##I_{12} \neq -I_{12}##, right?
 
  • #19
If I’m not mistaken each entry of the moment of inertia tensor must be ##\geq 0##.

If ##I21 \geq 0## and ##-I21 \geq 0## then the the only way for this to happen is if ##I21 = 0##.


Edit: that’s wrong
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Lambda96 said:
I have one more question, if ##\rho## were not invariant, would the following hold for the above rotation ##I \neq I'## then the following would also hold ##I_{12} \neq -I_{12}##, right?
I wouldn't go that far. It could be that ##I \ne I'## because a different pair are not equal.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #21
The original question was that, given ##\rho## is invariant under the given rotation, show that specific components of the inertia tensor is zero. Unless you also know or show the invariance of the density function implies invariance of the inertia tensor, i.e. ##I = R I R^T##, you cannot use that to prove the components are zero as this would be kind of circular logic. And showing the inertia tensor is invariant requires you to look at the defining integrals anyway so why not just use those integrals directly to see the end up as zero?
 
  • Like
Likes vela, PhDeezNutz and jim mcnamara
  • #22
If ##\rho## is invariant under the rotation by ##\pi## around a given axis, then the components of the tensor of inertia transform as discussed above ##\hat{\Theta}'=\hat{R} \hat{\Theta} \hat{R}^T=\hat{\Theta}##. As was calculated in some postings above, this implies that ##\Theta_{12}'=\Theta_{12}=-\Theta_{12}## and ##\Theta_{23}'=\Theta_{23}=-\Theta_{23}##, which immediately shows that ##\Theta_{12}=\Theta_{23}=0##, and thus that the rotation axis is a principle axis of the tensor of inertia.
 
  • #23
vanhees71 said:
If is invariant under the rotation by around a given axis, then the components of the tensor of inertia transform as discussed above
I guess it all depends on whether or not the material quoted from already has introduced relationships which will allow the OP to conclude, by other means than from the integrals directly, that invariance of the inertia tensor under the rotation follows from the invariance of density function. The way I read the problem text it suggests a proof that involves the integrals directly.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #24
But this is really easy to see:
$$\Theta_{jk} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \rho(\vec{x}) [\vec{x}^2 \delta_{jk}-x_j x_k].$$
Then you get
$$\Theta_{ab}'=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \rho(\vec{x}) [\vec{x}^2 \delta_{ab} -R_{aj} R_{ak} x_j x_k].$$
Now substitute ##\vec{x}'=\hat{R} \vec{x}##, \quad ##\mathrm{d}^3 x'=\mathrm{d}^3 x##, and you get
$$\Theta_{ab}'=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 x \rho(\hat{R}^{-1} \vec{x}') [\vec{x}^{\prime 2} \delta_{ab} \vec{x}_a' \vec{x}_b'].$$
If the mass distribution is invariant under the rotation ##\hat{R}## (and thus also ##\hat{R}^{-1}##), you have
$$\rho(\hat{R}^{-1} \vec{x}')=\rho(\vec{x}').$$
That shows
$$\Theta_{ab}'=\Theta_{ab}.$$
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #25
I did it a little bit different than @vanhees71 in #24 but underneath it all is probably the same thing. I did along the lines of @Filip Larsen 's suggestion.

Take ##I_{12}## for instance.

##I_{12} = - \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{y_1}^{y_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,y,z\right) xy \, dx \, dy \, dz ##

make change of variables

## x \rightarrow x ## and ##dx \rightarrow dx##
## y \rightarrow -y ## and ##dy \rightarrow -dy##
## z \rightarrow -z ## and ##dz \rightarrow -dz##

##I_{12} = - \int_{z_2}^{z_1} \int_{y_2}^{y_1} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,-y,-z\right) x \left(-y\right) \, dx \, \left(-dy\right) \, \left(-dz\right) ##

the negatives on the differentials multiply to 1:

## = - \int_{z_2}^{z_1} \int_{y_2}^{y_1} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,-y,-z\right) x \left(-y\right) \, dx \, dy \, dz ##

now un-reverse the limits of integration with the minus sign up front on ##z##

## = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{y_2}^{y_1} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,-y,-z\right) x \left(-y\right) \, dx \, dy \, dz##

now un-reverse the limits of integration with the minus sign on ##y##

## = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{y_1}^{y_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,-y,-z\right) x y \, dx \, dy \, dz##

Note that ##\rho\left(x,-y,-z\right) = \rho\left(x,y,z\right)##

## = \int_{z_1}^{z_2} \int_{y_1}^{y_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} \rho \left(x,y,z\right) x y \, dx \, dy \, dz##

Which is ##-I_{12}##

##I_{12} = - I_{12} \Rightarrow I_{12} = 0##
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #26
vanhees71 said:
But this is really easy to see:
My point was that you need a proof similar to yours in order to establish the invariance of the inertia tensor in the first place, you can't just assume it. If the OP is really able to establish (and not just copy) such a proof in his solution, then that is all fine and good. But I will still suspect most students new to this topic will prefer a more simple and direct proof that just show the integrals in question evaluates to zero under the given assumptions, similar to what PhDeezNutz showed.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PhDeezNutz
  • #27
Well, first of all, it's not more simple and second it's a very nice example for the application of symmetry principles in physics, and one cannot overestimate the importance of symmetry! Imho the most underrepresented subject in the standard physics curriculum is group and representation theory!
 
  • #28
vanhees71 said:
Well, first of all, it's not more simple and second it's a very nice example for the application of symmetry principles in physics
So you assume that every student who has just started to learn about moment of inertia and the inertia tensor automatically knows all the magic required to understand the tensor notation in your proof?

And now we are on this topic I suddenly recall my recurrent puzzlement when you and others here provide help to homework, which does not by itself introduce use of tensor notation, by including derivations in tensor notation, often accompanied with a remark about how simple something is to show. That may be nice and elegant if the student actually has a clue what the notation mean, but pretty useless if he doesn't.
 
  • #29
Filip Larsen said:
So you assume that every student who has just started to learn about moment of inertia and the inertia tensor automatically knows all the magic required to understand the tensor notation in your proof?
No, I don't assume this, but I advertize to teach it early on!
Filip Larsen said:
And now we are on this topic I suddenly recall my recurrent puzzlement when you and others here provide help to homework, which does not by itself introduce use of tensor notation, by including derivations in tensor notation, often accompanied with a remark about how simple something is to show. That may be nice and elegant if the student actually has a clue what the notation mean, but pretty useless if he doesn't.
Then he or she should learn it as early as possible, and here in the forum they can ask, if something is not clear!
 

1. What is the inertia tensor around principal axes?

The inertia tensor around principal axes is a mathematical representation of the distribution of mass and moments of inertia of a rigid body. It is a 3x3 matrix that describes how the body's mass is distributed and how it resists rotational motion around each of its principal axes.

2. How is the inertia tensor around principal axes calculated?

The inertia tensor around principal axes can be calculated using the parallel axis theorem, which states that the moment of inertia of a body around an axis parallel to its center of mass is equal to the moment of inertia around the center of mass plus the product of the mass and the square of the distance between the two axes.

3. What is the significance of the principal axes in the inertia tensor?

The principal axes in the inertia tensor represent the principal axes of rotation of the rigid body. These axes are perpendicular to each other and pass through the center of mass of the body. They are important because they simplify the calculation of the body's moments of inertia and provide information about its rotational motion.

4. How does the inertia tensor around principal axes affect the motion of a rigid body?

The inertia tensor around principal axes affects the motion of a rigid body by determining its resistance to rotational motion. A body with a larger moment of inertia around a particular axis will be more difficult to rotate around that axis. The inertia tensor also plays a role in determining the body's stability and its response to external forces.

5. Can the inertia tensor around principal axes change?

Yes, the inertia tensor around principal axes can change if the distribution of mass within the body changes. For example, if a mass is added or removed from the body, the inertia tensor will change accordingly. Additionally, if the body's shape or orientation changes, the inertia tensor will also change.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
759
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
794
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
512
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
7K
Back
Top