Torque question -- why defined as r×f and not f×r?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vijay.V.Nenmeli
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
AI Thread Summary
Torque is defined as r×f instead of f×r due to the convention of vector cross products, where the order matters because r x F does not equal F x r. This convention simplifies calculations and provides a clear representation of torque's direction, which is perpendicular to the plane formed by the force and the radius vector. While other angles, like 45 degrees, could theoretically represent torque, they complicate calculations and do not align with the two possible rotational directions in a plane. The choice of perpendicular vectors leads to more efficient and accurate results in physics. Ultimately, using the cross product for torque is a practical decision rooted in mathematical convenience.
Vijay.V.Nenmeli
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,
Quick question.
Could anyone explain to me why torque is defined as r×f and not f×r.Also, how do we know that taking the direction of the vector as perpendicular to the plane is valid?
Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vijay.V.Nenmeli said:
Hello everyone,
Quick question.
Could anyone explain to me why torque is defined as r×f and not f×r.
It's a convention, just like choosing the negative direction of the x-axis to be to the left of the origin is a convention. You could do it the other way as long as you were consistent about doing it the other way everywhere - for example, you would also have to switch the order in the definition of angular momentum.

Also, how do we know that taking the direction of the vector as perpendicular to the plane is valid?
It leads to a mathematically convenient way of describing torques and angular momenta. As these have both magnitude and orientation in space, it's natural to describe them as vectors perpendicular to the plane of movement. As a historical note, torque and angular momentum were discovered before vector calculus was invented... There's a thread on this history somewhere around here.
 
The order here is important because the cross product does not commute; that is r x F ≠ F x r .
 
Thanks a lot Nugatory,
But this method of taking perpendicular vectors is, as I see it, merely a way to simplify calculations. Does it affect the calculations in any way I.e If I were to take a different vector to represent torque, say one that was aligned at 45 degrees to the plane of F and R,, I'd get a different vector. Less convinient to work with, maybe, but how do we know that the 45 degree vector is not right and the perpendicular is
??
 
Vijay.V.Nenmeli said:
but how do we know that the 45 degree vector is not right and the perpendicular is?
A convention is neither right nor wrong.
 
Vijay.V.Nenmeli said:
Does it affect the calculations in any way I.e If I were to take a different vector to represent torque, say one that was aligned at 45 degrees to the plane of F and R,, I'd get a different vector. Less convenient to work with, maybe, but how do we know that the 45 degree vector is not right and the perpendicular is??

There are exactly two vectors (of a given magnitude) that can be perpendicular to the plane of F and R: one up and one down. There are an infinite number of vectors of that magnitude that can be at a 45 degree angle to that plane (imagine a cone with its point just touching and its axis perpendicular to the plane - all vectors along the surface of that cone are at the same angle relative to the plane). Because there are only two possible rotations in a plane, clockwise and counter-clockwise, it's easy to map the the two possible directions of a perpendicular vector to the two possible rotations.

That doesn't make a 45-degree convention "wrong" (as A.T. has pointed out above, a convention cannot be wrong), but it is a fairly strong hint that we'll get better answers faster if we use the cross-product.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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