Possible Expressions for Matrix Rotation Reduction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on expressing a transformation between inertial and rotating coordinate systems using rotation matrices. The transformation is defined as (p, q, r) = R_1(θ_1(t)) R_2(θ_2(t)) R_3(θ_3(t)) (x, y, z) and seeks to express (a, b, c) in a similar form with constants C_1 and C_2. The participants suggest that the transformation can be simplified to (a, b, c) = R_i(φ_1(t)) R_j(φ_2(t)) R_k(φ_3(t)) (x, y, z) by defining new rotation matrices based on the original angles and constants. The discussion concludes that the trivial way of defining the new rotation matrices is valid, provided the product of rotation matrices remains a rotation matrix.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rotation matrices in three-dimensional space
  • Familiarity with time-dependent angular transformations
  • Knowledge of inertial and non-inertial coordinate systems
  • Basic linear algebra concepts related to matrix multiplication
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of rotation matrices and their applications in physics
  • Explore the derivation of time-dependent rotation transformations
  • Study the implications of combining multiple rotation matrices
  • Learn about the representation of rotations in different coordinate systems
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers working with rotational dynamics, as well as students studying advanced linear algebra and coordinate transformations.

Deadstar
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
I'm wondering if the following is possible.

Consider some inertial coordiante system x, y, z, and a rotating coordiante system p, q, r defined through matrix rotations as follows.

\begin{pmatrix} p \\ q \\ r \end{pmatrix} = R_1(\theta_1(t)) R_2(\theta_2(t)) R_3(\theta_3(t)) \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}

Where this is simple a 1-2-3 rotation as described in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix "In three dimensions" section, with the \theta values being time dependent angles. I used 1,2,3 instead of x,y,z since I already have them as variables and 1,2,3 is more general to arbitrary coordiante systems. The above then is a 1-2-3 rotation but really any combination of rotation matrices can be used, this is just an example.

So let's now define a new coordinate system a,b,c, such that

\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{pmatrix} = R_1(C_1) R_2(C_1) \begin{pmatrix} p \\ q \\ r \end{pmatrix}

Where C_1 and C_2 are constants, again which rotation matrices are used doesn't really matter.

We could alternatively write this as.

\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{pmatrix} = R_1(C_1) R_2(C_1) R_1(\theta_1(t)) R_2(\theta_2(t)) R_3(\theta_3(t)) \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}

To show the relationship between a,b,c and our inertial coordinate system.

Now my question is, is there anyway of expressing the above as

\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{pmatrix} = R_i(\phi_1(t)) R_j(\phi_2(t)) R_k(\phi_3(t)) \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}

Where i, j, k can be 1,2 or 3 to denote which rotation matrix, and \phi time dependent angles that will surely depends on the \theta angles and the constants.

I would have thought yes since a,b,c's orientation is constant with respect to p,q,r, but I'm not sure what the above form would be.

Thanks for any info.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Deadstar said:
We could alternatively write this as.

\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{pmatrix} = R_1(C_1) R_2(C_1) R_1(\theta_1(t)) R_2(\theta_2(t)) R_3(\theta_3(t)) \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}

To show the relationship between a,b,c and our inertial coordinate system.

Now my question is, is there anyway of expressing the above as

\begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \\ c \end{pmatrix} = R_i(\phi_1(t)) R_j(\phi_2(t)) R_k(\phi_3(t)) \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}

Can't you do it the trivial way?:

R_i(\phi_1(t)) = R_1(C_1) R_2(C_1) R_1(\theta_1(t))
R_j(\phi_2(t)) = R_2(\theta_2(t))
R_k(\phi_3(t)) = R_3(\theta_3(t))

Or are you defining "rotation matrix" in some way so that the product of rotations matrices is not necessarily a rotation matrix?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K