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
 
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