Rotation about the center of mass and spin angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the theorem stating that angular momentum due to rotation about the center of mass is universal and independent of the choice of coordinate axes. A request for a mathematical proof led to references to Kleppner & Kolenkow and David Morin's books, but initial page numbers were incorrect. The correct pages clarify that rotational motion about the center of mass relies solely on torque and is unaffected by translational motion. The participants emphasize that definitions relative to the center of mass remain constant despite changes in the reference frame. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding angular momentum in classical physics.
sokrates
Messages
481
Reaction score
2
I needed to refresh my classical physics knowledge and I was going through Prof. Walter Lewin's physics videos at ocw.mit.edu and at some point he proposed the following theorem without proof:

"The angular momentum due to rotation about the center of mass is universal and does not depend on the relative choice of coordinate axis, unlike, say orbital angular momentum"

It might be really trivial, but I need to see a mathematical proof of this statement, can anyone help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can find proof in Kleppner & Kolenkow (pp. 262-4) or David Morin's book (pp. 380-1).
 
I took the time to find both books with great effort, and I checked the pages you refer me to.

None of them has the proof to the theorem I asked.

I wish you had taken the time to more carefully read what I asked.
 
Regarding Kleppner & Kolenkow, the correct pages are 260-2, not 262-4, so it seems it's my mistake. However, on p. 263 they state and reason quite clearly that "rotational motion about the center of mass depends only on the torque about the center of mass, independent of the translational motion ... "

Morin proves on page 381 that \mathbf{L}=M(\mathbf{R} \times \mathbf{V}) + \mathbf{L}_{CM}, where \mathbf{L}_{CM}=\int \mathbf{r'} \times (\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r'}) dm.

He states clearly that r' and omega' are both measured relative to the CM. How can something defined relative to the CM be dependent on the origin? Just take a moment to visualize this - you can move your frame of reference around, yet your CM won't budge, right? How can anything defined relative to the CM change when some other arbitrary coordinate system is moved around?

If you need to see this formally, then note he r' = R - r, where R is the CM coordinate and r the particle's position. Moving your frame of reference moves both R and r by the same amount and this cancels out: r' = (R+a) - (r+a) = R-a, independent of a. The particle's velocity in the CM frame (v' = omega' cross r' = V - v) is also independent of shifting the origin of your frame of reference for the same reason.

-----
Assaf
http://www.physicallyincorrect.com"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was extremely helpful. Thank you very much
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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...
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