Proving things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry

In summary: Also, multiplying by the rotation matrix for a given axis will not change the values of the moments about that axis because the moments are determined by the eigenvalues of the inertia tensor and not by the rotation matrix.
  • #1
B3NR4Y
Gold Member
170
8

Homework Statement


Consider an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of rotational symmetry, which we'll call ## \hat z ##
a.) Prove that the axis of symmetry is a principal axis. (b) Prove that any two directions ##\hat x## and ##\hat y ## perpendicular to ##\hat z ## and each other are also principal axes. (c) Prove that the principal moments corresponding to these two axes are equal: λ12

Homework Equations


The moment of inertia tensor for a rigid body is ## I_{ij} = m_\alpha (r_\alpha \delta_{ij} -r_{\alpha, \, i} r_{\alpha, \, j} )##
For a continuous mass distribution ## I_{ij} = \int dV \rho(\vec r) (r^2 -r_i r_j ) ##

If an axis is a principal axis (eigenvalue of the inertia tensor), then the inertia tensor about the principal axes is diagonally λ1 λ2 λ3, and elsewhere zero.

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure where to start proving that an axis of rotational symmetry is a principal axis. I'd imagine I'd have to work out the arbitrary λ for each axis, but this seems like it would be really ugly and I think there should be a slicker way to do it but I can't find it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
B3NR4Y said:

Homework Statement


Consider an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of rotational symmetry, which we'll call ## \hat z ##
a.) Prove that the axis of symmetry is a principal axis. (b) Prove that any two directions ##\hat x## and ##\hat y ## perpendicular to ##\hat z ## and each other are also principal axes. (c) Prove that the principal moments corresponding to these two axes are equal: λ12

Homework Equations


The moment of inertia tensor for a rigid body is ## I_{ij} = m_\alpha (r_\alpha \delta_{ij} -r_{\alpha, \, i} r_{\alpha, \, j} )##
For a continuous mass distribution ## I_{ij} = \int dV \rho(\vec r) (r^2 -r_i r_j ) ##

If an axis is a principal axis (eigenvalue of the inertia tensor), then the inertia tensor about the principal axes is diagonally λ1 λ2 λ3, and elsewhere zero.

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm not sure where to start proving that an axis of rotational symmetry is a principal axis. I'd imagine I'd have to work out the arbitrary λ for each axis, but this seems like it would be really ugly and I think there should be a slicker way to do it but I can't find it.
Look at it like this. When calculating inertia properties about a rotational axis which is also an axis of symmetry, which elements of the inertia tensor are non-zero?
Can you show why the zero elements are equal to zero without using the fact that the axis of rotation is also a principal axis?
 
  • #3
The parts of the inertia tensor that are nonzero are those along the diagonal. The off-diagonal elements are zero, because they contain products of two coordinates, and the sum of them, and if the object is symmetric about those points the sum (or integral) disappears. I think, that's my reasoning. And therefore the inertia tensor is diagonalized and the elements on the diagonal are the principal axes. Am I in the right direction?
 
  • #4
B3NR4Y said:
The parts of the inertia tensor that are nonzero are those along the diagonal. The off-diagonal elements are zero, because they contain products of two coordinates, and the sum of them, and if the object is symmetric about those points the sum (or integral) disappears. I think, that's my reasoning. And therefore the inertia tensor is diagonalized and the elements on the diagonal are the principal axes. Am I in the right direction?
I believe that's how the proof of this proposition is generally argued.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronaut...fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec26.pdf
 
  • #5
Okay, so for the next parts I'm thinking I should follow in the same way, but it seems to be redundant to continue in the same direction for the two directions orthogonal to the ##\hat z##. I was thinking maybe multiplying by the rotation matrix but that seems silly to do, but also not silly to do, if I multiply by the rotation matrix for a 90 degree in the y axis, I have to do it twice by the tensor transformation law. Same for x. But I think I'm headed in the wrong direction here too.

So I' = R I RT
 

1. What is an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry?

An arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry is a 3-dimensional object that can rotate around a specific axis without changing its shape or size. This axis of symmetry can be any line passing through the object's center of mass.

2. How can we prove things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry?

To prove things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry, we use the principles of rotational mechanics and apply them to the specific axis of symmetry. This involves using equations and calculations to determine the object's rotational motion, angular velocity, and angular acceleration.

3. Why is it important to prove things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry?

Proving things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry is important because it allows us to understand the rotational behavior of a wide range of objects. This knowledge is essential in fields such as engineering, physics, and biomechanics, where rotating objects are common.

4. What are some common examples of arbitrary rigid bodies with an axis of symmetry?

Some common examples of arbitrary rigid bodies with an axis of symmetry include cylinders, cones, spheres, and cubes. These objects have a geometric shape that allows them to rotate around a specific axis without changing their shape.

5. Are there any limitations to proving things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry?

Yes, there are some limitations to proving things for an arbitrary rigid body with an axis of symmetry. This method may not be applicable to irregularly shaped objects or objects with multiple axes of symmetry. Additionally, it assumes that the object is rigid and does not deform under rotational forces.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
281
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
925
Replies
6
Views
615
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Back
Top