I Rate of change of ##L## in a rotating coordinate system

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the rate of change of a vector ##\mathbf{A}## in both inertial and rotating frames, highlighting the relationship between their time derivatives. It is established that for a vector independent of the coordinate system, the equation ##\left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{inertial} = \left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{rot} + \boldsymbol \omega \times \mathbf A## holds true. However, when considering the angular momentum vector ##\mathbf{L}##, it is argued that this relationship does not apply due to the dependency of ##\mathbf{L}## on the coordinate system, as its magnitude differs between stationary and rotating frames. The discussion suggests using the relation for angular momentum directly to verify results, emphasizing the distinction between vector components and vectors themselves. Overall, the applicability of the derived equation to angular momentum is contested based on its inherent properties.
Kashmir
Messages
466
Reaction score
74
* We've a vector ##\mathbf{A}## lying in space, changing according to some rule.

* We introduce an inertial frame and find ##\left(\frac{d}{d t}
\mathbf{A} \right)_{i n}## in it.

* We also introduce a co located frame rotating with ##\mathbf{\omega}##. In this rotating frame I find ##\left(\frac{d}{d t}
\mathbf{A} \right)_{rot}##

* There exists a relationship between the two time rates as
##\left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{inertial} = \left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{rot} + \boldsymbol \omega \times \mathbf A##

* In all of this derivation it was assumed that the vector ##\mathbf{A}## was independent of the coordinate system. We merely observed the vector in two frames. The vector is independent of the coordinate system.----------------------------------
* Can we use the above equation on angular momentum vector ##\mathbf{L}## i.e ##\left ( \frac{d\mathbf L}{dt} \right )_\text{inertial} = \left ( \frac{d\mathbf L}{dt} \right )_\text{rot} + \boldsymbol \omega \times \mathbf L##?

I think no we can't.

In the derivation of the ##\left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{inertial} = \left ( \frac{d\mathbf A}{dt} \right )_\text{rot} + \boldsymbol \omega \times \mathbf A## we assumed that the vector ##\mathbf{A}## was independent of the coordinate system, its lengths and direction in space is independent of the coordinate system.

However for ##\mathbf{L}## that isn't the case.
##\mathbf{L}## has a different length in a stationary frame than in a rotating one. So the derivation doesn't apply.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
L=r \times p
\frac{dL}{dt}=\frac{dr}{dt} \times p + r \ \times \frac{dp}{dt}
Why don't you use this relation to check the result ?
 
Of course you can use the formula. The formula refers to the time derivative of polar or axial vector components (not vectors!).
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top