Total angular momentum of a translating and rotating pancake

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the total angular momentum of a body that is both translating and rotating, specifically in the context of a pancake model. Participants explore the derivation of angular momentum as presented in a classical mechanics textbook, addressing the implications of using different reference frames, particularly the center of mass (CM) frame versus a fixed origin.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the treatment of the center of mass (CM) in the derivation, particularly whether the position of CM should be calculated relative to the fixed origin when calculating angular momentum.
  • Others argue that in the CM frame, the CM is the origin, and thus the reference point for angular momentum calculations is also the CM.
  • There is a discussion about the phrasing used to describe velocities, with some participants suggesting that velocities should be described relative to a frame rather than to other points.
  • Participants reference a figure from the textbook to clarify the relationship between position vectors in different frames, leading to the conclusion that certain integrals vanish when calculated in the CM frame.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the application of cross products in the context of angular momentum, debating the correct interpretation of the integrals involved.
  • There is a distinction made between vector results from integrals and scalar results, with some participants clarifying the implications of integrating magnitudes versus vector components.
  • A later reply raises a question about the feasibility of using two different reference frames simultaneously in the calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of reference frames and the implications for angular momentum calculations. There is no consensus on the best approach to reconcile the use of different frames or on the interpretation of certain mathematical expressions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities in the definitions and assumptions related to reference frames and the treatment of angular momentum, which may affect the clarity of the discussion.

Rikudo
Messages
120
Reaction score
26
I have read Classical Mechanics book by David Morin, and there are some parts that I do not understand from its derivation.

Note :
## V## and ##v## is respectively the velocity of CM and a particle of the body relative to the fixed origin , while ##v'## is velocity of the particle relative to CM
From this, we can get : $$ v = V + v'$$
Screenshot_2021-08-11-12-04-56-87-1.png
333.png


In the 3rd step, It is written that ## \int r' \times V\, dm ## vanised because the position of CM in CM frame is zero.
But, isn't the position of CM should be calculated relative to the origin? (Since we are calculating the angular momentum relative to the origin, not CM)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, by definition if you are in the CM frame of reference the CM is chosen as the origin of your reference frame. Then also the reference point of the angular momentum is the CM.
 
Rikudo said:
and is respectively the velocity of CM and a particle of the body relative to the fixed origin , while is velocity of the particle relative to CM
it is a very bad phrase
there can not be a velocity of one point relative other point
there can be velocity of a point relative a frame
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and ergospherical
wrobel said:
it is a very bad phrase
there can not be a velocity of one point relative other point
there can be velocity of a point relative a frame
Ah...I see.Thanks for telling me!
vanhees71 said:
Well, by definition if you are in the CM frame of reference the CM is chosen as the origin of your reference frame. Then also the reference point of the angular momentum is the CM.
Alright. So, ##\int V \times r' \,dm ## use CM as its origin point, i suppose?
 
Figure 8.4 says it all imho. ##r'## is the position vector in the frame of reference of CM, so when you calculate those terms (the ones that vanish) it is like you are in the frame of reference of CM, regardless if the whole calculation is done in the frame of reference of another point that is taken as origin , different than CM.
so in a nutshell it is
$$\int \vec{r'} dm=\vec{0}$$
$$\int \vec{r} dm=M\vec{R}$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Ok I might not have explained it very well but here is a better (i think) explanation.

From figure 8.4 it is ##\vec{r'}=\vec{r}-\vec{R}## hence integrating both sides we get $$\int\vec{r'}dm=\int\vec{r}dm-\int\vec{R}dm=M\vec{R}-\vec{R}M=0$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
It's nice to meet you again!
Delta2 said:
Ok I might not have explained it very well but here is a better (i think) explanation.

From figure 8.4 it is ##\vec{r'}=\vec{r}-\vec{R}## hence integrating both sides we get $$\int\vec{r'}dm=\int\vec{r}dm-\int\vec{R}dm=M\vec{R}-\vec{R}M=0$$
But, isn't ##\int V \times r' \,dm = V\int r'\, sin\alpha ## since it is a cross product? (With ##\alpha## is the angle between vector## V ##and vector ##r'##).
Then, to find ##\int r'\, sin\alpha ##, we need to multiple both sides by ##sin \alpha## before integrating it.
$$\int\vec{r'} sin (\alpha)dm=\int\vec{r}sin (\alpha) dm-\int\vec{R}sin (\alpha) dm$$
 
No , you confuse $$\int\vec{V}\times\vec{r'} dm=\vec{V}\times\int\vec{r'}dm$$ with $$\int|\vec{V}\times\vec{r'}|dm=|\vec{V}|\int|\vec{r'}|\sin a dm$$, the first above gives a vector as result(where in the integration opposite vectors cancel out), while the second gives a number greater than zero (where in the integration opposite vectors don't cancel out, because we take their magnitude).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Delta2 said:
No , you confuse $$\int\vec{V}\times\vec{r'} dm=\vec{V}\times\int\vec{r'}dm$$ with $$\int|\vec{V}\times\vec{r'}|dm=|\vec{V}|\int|\vec{r'}|\sin a dm$$, the first above gives a vector as result(where in the integration opposite vectors cancel out), while the second gives a number greater than zero (where in the integration opposite vectors don't cancel out, because we take their magnitude).
OK
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Delta2 said:
it is like you are in the frame of reference of CM, regardless if the whole calculation is done in the frame of reference of another point that is taken as origin
So, we use the origin and CM frame of reference. but, how is it possible to use two different frames at the same time?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K