Problem finding angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
Angular momentum (L) is defined as the summation of mrxv about a specific point, and its direction changes for a rigid body rotating about a non-symmetrical axis. The moment of inertia (I) remains constant even when the rigid body rotates about a non-symmetrical axis, provided the angular velocity (ω) is constant. The relationship Iω can only be used for angular momentum when it aligns with a symmetry axis, meaning no torque is acting on the system. For symmetric systems, the total angular momentum vector remains constant and is equal to Iω, while for non-symmetric systems, the k component of angular momentum is constant regardless of the point of reference. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately calculating angular momentum in various physical scenarios.
kelvin490
Gold Member
Messages
227
Reaction score
3
Angular momentum L is defined by summation of mrxv about a certain point. For a rigid body that rotate about an axis that is not the axis of symmetry, in general the direction of L is keep on changing. Also we get different L if we take about different point.

Iω is constant for constant ω and I is summation of ∫r2dm where r is the perpendicular distance between the element and the rotation axis. This value is constant even the rigid body is rotating about an axis that is not the axis of symmetry, in contrary with the above argument.

What is the restriction for using Iω as the value of angular momentum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kelvin490 said:
What is the restriction for using Iω as the value of angular momentum?

Take a look at these lecture notes: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node119.html

The main result is that, if the object's axis of rotation is \mathbf{k}, then \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{L} = I_k \omega, where I_k is computed with respect to the axis of rotation (which I believe is what you meant in your second paragraph). So the projection of angular momentum upon the rotation axis is constant and equal to Iω, but the other components are not, and they change with time (the angular momentum will precess around the rotation axis).

So the answer to your question is basically that you can only use Iω for angular momentum if the angular momentum is along a symmetry axis, so there is no torque.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
kelvin490 said:
Angular momentum L is defined by summation of mrxv about a certain point. For a rigid body that rotate about an axis that is not the axis of symmetry, in general the direction of L is keep on changing. Also we get different L if we take about different point.

Iω is constant for constant ω and I is summation of ∫r2dm where r is the perpendicular distance between the element and the rotation axis. This value is constant even the rigid body is rotating about an axis that is not the axis of symmetry, in contrary with the above argument.

What is the restriction for using Iω as the value of angular momentum?

If you have a XYZ frame (it does not matter if it is inertial or non-inertial, this will be a pure kinematics question), and you have a system of point particles, and each one of this particles describes a circle around Z-axis with exactly the same angular velocity (which can vary with time, but must be the same angular velocity for all particles of the system), then the total angular momentum vector of this system of point particles with respect to the origin point O of this XYZ-frame is:


\vec{L}(t) = \sum_i \vec{L}_i(t) = -\omega (t) \left(\sum_i m_i z_i(t) x_i(t)\right)\vec{u}_x - \omega (t) \left(\sum_i m_i z_i(t) y_i(t)\right)\vec{u}_y + \omega (t) I \vec{u}_z


(where "I" is the moment of inertia of the system of particles with respect to the Z-axis).


If the system of particles is symmetric with respect to the Z-axis, or if the system of particles is symmetric with respect to the XY-plane, then:


\vec{L}(t) = \sum_i \vec{L}_i(t) = \omega (t) I \vec{u}_z


This is only talking about the kinematics.

For dynamical questions there are some subtleties.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
king vitamin said:
Take a look at these lecture notes: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node119.html

The main result is that, if the object's axis of rotation is \mathbf{k}, then \mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{L} = I_k \omega, where I_k is computed with respect to the axis of rotation (which I believe is what you meant in your second paragraph). So the projection of angular momentum upon the rotation axis is constant and equal to Iω, but the other components are not, and they change with time (the angular momentum will precess around the rotation axis).

So the answer to your question is basically that you can only use Iω for angular momentum if the angular momentum is along a symmetry axis, so there is no torque.

For a non-symmetric object, we can still calculate the Iω about axis of rotation. Is this value equal to the magnitude of k component? Is the k component constant no matter which point we take the angular momentum?
 
kelvin490 said:
For a non-symmetric object, we can still calculate the Iω about axis of rotation. Is this value equal to the magnitude of k component? Is the k component constant no matter which point we take the angular momentum?

As kingvitamin and I already wrote, the projection of total angular momentum vector upon the rotation axis is constant (and does not depend on the point O of the rotation axis) and equal to Iω (if the particles are describing a circle around the rotation axis with the same constant angular velocity; obviously if the angular velocity changes with time, the projection of total angular momentum vector also changes with time, but this projection does not depend on the point of the axis).
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top