Rotational group SO(3) in classical mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the Lie algebra associated with the SO(3) group of rotations in classical mechanics. The matrix A represents an infinitesimal rotation generator, which is linked to the axis of rotation and the angle through its decomposition into linear combinations. The parametrization R(t) involves both a fixed rotation axis and a change in angle, as it describes the evolution of the rotation over time. The relationship between angular velocity vectors and antisymmetric matrices highlights the isomorphism between these vectors and the Lie algebra of SO(3). Further resources on Lie groups and their applications in mechanics are sought to deepen understanding.
m_dronti
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!
This is my first post here. I'm currently studying analytical/classical mechanics and have some problems understanding how the Lie algebra is formed in relation to the SO(3) group of rotations. My problem is this:

Given a matrix representation R of some rotation around a fixed axis, we can write this as

R=exp[A]

where A is some matrix. We can also parametrize this as

R(t)=exp[tA]

where R(0)=1, where 1 is the identity matrix. I understand how SO(3) is formed, how it is isomorphic to P^3 and that it should be a Lie group (but I have a very vague understanding of Lie groups). But I don't understand at all

1) what is A exactly? How is it related to the angle and rotation axis?
2) given that A can be decomposed as a linear combination of the infinitesimal rotation generators (and how should one understand them), what does that actually tell us in terms of what the Lie Algebra is?
3) when doing the parametrization, does this involve a fixed rotation axis or only a change in angle?

I have some more questions on this, but it might be best to start of there and see where it leads. If anyone can recommend homepages with more info (basic) on Lie groups in relation to this I would appreciate it.

Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi m_dronti,

For a particle with position vector \mathbf{x} rotating around origin with angular velocity vector \mathbf{\omega}, you have

\dot{\mathbf{x}} = \mathbf{\omega}\times\mathbf{x}

This can also be written as a matrix equation

\dot{\mathbf{x}} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&amp;-\omega_z&amp;\omega_y\\<br /> \omega_z&amp;0&amp;-\omega_x\\-\omega_y&amp;\omega_x&amp;0\end{array}\right)\mathbf{x}

which has the solution

\mathbf{x} = e^{At}\mathbf{x}\left( 0 \right)

where A is the matrix above. So you have an isomorphism between angular velocity vectors and real 3x3 antisymmetric matrices, which are the Lie algebra of SO(3).
 
Last edited:
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