Principal Axes: Understanding the Confusion

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter quasar987
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Axes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of principal axes in relation to the tensor of inertia, exploring the definitions and interpretations of these axes, particularly in the context of their relationship to eigenvectors and the diagonalization of the inertia tensor. Participants express confusion stemming from differing interpretations found in various sources, including textbooks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the directions of the principal axes are the eigenvectors of the tensor of inertia with respect to some coordinate system.
  • Others argue that the principal axes are obtained by applying a rotation matrix that diagonalizes the inertia tensor to the standard coordinate axes.
  • A participant questions whether the principal axes are the eigenvectors of the inertia tensor or the standard axes transformed by the rotation matrix.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the moment of inertia is a positive-definite symmetric matrix, leading to real eigenvalues and mutually orthogonal eigenvectors, which are claimed to represent the principal axes.
  • One participant presents a specific example involving a square mass and its inertia tensor, noting discrepancies between the eigenvectors and the transformed standard axes.
  • A later reply corrects a misunderstanding regarding the construction of the rotation matrix, indicating that the eigenvectors correspond to the columns of the rotation matrix rather than the rows.
  • Another participant adds that principal axes are not solely defined by eigenvalues but also relate to the axes of maximum and minimum moments of inertia.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between principal axes and eigenvectors, with no consensus reached on the definitions or interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific sources and examples to support their claims, but there are noted discrepancies in interpretations and definitions, particularly regarding the construction and application of the rotation matrix.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
The book was vague on this subject and as a result, everyone is in disagreement on this.

All my friends think that the directions of the principal axes are the eigenvectors of the tensor of inertia wrt some Oxyz axes.

I think that the directions of the principal axes are obtained by applying on the Oxyz axes the matrix R that diagonalizes the tensor of inertia. (i.e. the matrix whose lines are the eigenvectors of I)

The T.A. thinks we're both right.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Principal Axes are the coordinate Axes of the rotation R that diagonalizes I. (defined in Fowles and Cassiday)

"the matrix whose lines are the eigenvectors of I" are just the standard axes.
 
This is pretty much the definition I have in my book. But does that mean that the principal axes are the eigenvectors of I or the standard axes acted on by R?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've read all your source robphy and none seem to support my position.

Why do you say both are correct?

And how could both be correct? I have before me a concrete problem and clearly the eigenvectors and the Oxyz system acted on by R give different directions.
 
The moment of inertia is a 3-dimensional positive-definite symmetric matrix.

So, its eigenvalues are real and its eigenvectors are mutually orthogonal [or can be chosen to be]. (These eigenvectors are the principal axes, and the eigenvalues are the principal moments.)

So, there is a rotation that will orient the xyz-triad along the triad of mutually-orthogonal eigenvectors. If I am not mistaken, that rotation will diagonalize the moment of inertia matrix. It amounts to having chosen the axes to study the object along its principal axes.


Maybe you should post the concrete problem.
 
I will, because this is too mysterious.

There is a square of uniform mass M and sides 'a' in the Oxy plane with corners at (0,0), (a,0), (0,a) and (a,a).

Everyone agrees that the inertia tensor is

[tex]I=M\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2/3&-a^2/4&0\\-a^2/4&a^2/3&0\\0&0&2a^2/3\end{array}\right)[/tex]

Everyone also agrees that the eigenvectors are

[tex]\omega^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\ 0\\ 1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\omega^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}-1 \\ 1\\ 0 \end{array}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\omega^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\ 1\\ 0 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

However, this means that the matrix R which diagonalizes I is

[tex]R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&1\\-1&1&0\\1&1&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

And now if I apply R on, say, [tex]\hat{x}[/tex], I get

[tex]R\hat{x}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&1\\-1&1&0\\1&1&0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\ -1\\ 1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

which is not equal to any of the eigenvectors.
 
quasar987 said:
I will, because this is too mysterious.

There is a square of uniform mass M and sides 'a' in the Oxy plane with corners at (0,0), (a,0), (0,a) and (a,a).

Everyone agrees that the inertia tensor is

[tex]I=M\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2/3&-a^2/4&0\\-a^2/4&a^2/3&0\\0&0&2a^2/3\end{array}\right)[/tex]

Everyone also agrees that the eigenvectors are

[tex]\omega^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\ 0\\ 1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\omega^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}-1 \\ 1\\ 0 \end{array}\right)[/tex]
[tex]\omega^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\ 1\\ 0 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

However, this means that the matrix R which diagonalizes I is

[tex]R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&1\\-1&1&0\\1&1&0\end{array}\right)[/tex]

And now if I apply R on, say, [tex]\hat{x}[/tex], I get

[tex]R\hat{x}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&0&1\\-1&1&0\\1&1&0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0 \\ -1\\ 1 \end{array}\right)[/tex]

which is not equal to any of the eigenvectors.
No, you wrote down the transpose of R. The eigenvectors are the columns of R, not the rows.
 
Ok, it's an error in the book then because it is clearly indicated how to construct R from the eigenvectors and he lines up the eigenvectors (as opposed to "rows up").

Thanks for pointing that out marcusl.
 
  • #10
I apologize. I just want to add the principal axes are not only eingevalues of something. They are also the axis of bigger moment of inertia, the axis of least moment of inertia and the third, perpendicular to previous ones.
 
  • #11
Glad to help :biggrin:
 
  • #12
Yeah, me too... I guess. :devil:
 
  • #13
Rob, you gave all the answers. I just caught the error...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K