Total derivative involving rigid body motion of a surface

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the total derivative in the context of rigid body motion and its implications for the transformation of surface normals and direction vectors. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of these transformations and the physical interpretations of derivatives related to surface normals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the transformation of a point under rigid body motion and derives a relationship involving the total derivative of a function dependent on surface normals and direction vectors.
  • Another participant asserts that the total derivative of the surface normal is given by the angular velocity cross product with the normal vector, rather than the partial derivative with respect to time.
  • A participant questions the physical interpretation of the partial derivative of the surface normal with respect to time and seeks clarification on its equality to the angular velocity cross product.
  • Another participant explains that the partial derivative of the normal with respect to time represents the change in the normal at a specific point in space, noting that this derivative may not always be well-defined.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation and validity of the derivatives involved, particularly regarding the total derivative versus the partial derivative of the surface normal. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of the surface normal and the conditions under which the derivatives are considered. The relationship between the total derivative and the physical interpretation of the surface normal is also not fully resolved.

user11443
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
This stems from considering rigid body transformations, but is a general question about total derivatives. Something is probably missing in my understanding here. I had posted this to math.stackexchange, but did not receive any answers and someone suggested this forum might be more suitable.

A rigid body motion consisting of ##3 \times 3## rotation ##{\mathbf{R}}## and ##3 \times 1## translation ##{\mathbf{p}}## transforms a point ##{\mathbf{x}} \in {\mathbb{R}}^3## to ##{\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}}##. For a small motion, the displacement of a point ##{\mathbf{x}}## is ##\Delta {\mathbf{x}} = ({\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}}) - {\mathbf{x}}##, which is rewritten as ##\Delta {\mathbf{x}} = {\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}}##, where ##{\mathbf{w}}## is the angular velocity using ##{\mathbf{R}} \approx {\mathbf{I}} + [{\mathbf{w}}]_\times##, with ##[{\mathbf{w}}]_\times## the infinitesimal skew-symmetric matrix.

For a surface with unit surface normal ##{\mathbf{n}}##, suppose we have a unit direction vector ##{\mathbf{s}} \in {\mathbb{S}}^2## that depends only on time ##t## and is independent of ##{\mathbf{x}}##. Consider the function ##f({\mathbf{x}}, t) = {\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}}, t)^\top {\mathbf{s}}(t)##. Suppose the same rigid body motion is applied to both the surface and the direction vector ##{\mathbf{s}}##, then it transforms the surface normal to ##{\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{n}}## and ##{\mathbf{s}}## to ##{\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{s}}##, so their changes are given by ##{\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{n}}## and ##{\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{s}}##, respectively. If a point ##{\mathbf{x}}_1## on the surface at time ##t_1## moves to ##{\mathbf{x}}_2## at time ##t_2##, we must have ##f({\mathbf{x}}_1, t_1) = f({\mathbf{x}}_2, t_2)##, since ##({\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{n}})^\top {\mathbf{R}} {\mathbf{s}} = {\mathbf{n}}^\top {\mathbf{s}}##.

The above means the total derivative of ##f({\mathbf{x}}, t)## with respect to ##t## is ##0##. However,
\begin{align}
\frac{df}{dt} &= \frac{d}{dt} {\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}}, t)^\top {\mathbf{s}}(t) = {\mathbf{s}}(t)^\top (\frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} \frac{d{\mathbf{x}}}{dt} + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial t}) + {\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}},t)^\top \frac{d{\mathbf{s}}}{dt} \\
&= {\mathbf{s}}(t)^\top \frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} ({\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}}) + {\mathbf{s}}(t)^\top ({\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{n}}) + {\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{x}},t)^\top ({\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{s}}) \\
&= {\mathbf{s}}(t)^\top \frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} ({\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}}).
\end{align}
So, we have that ##{\mathbf{s}}(t)^\top \displaystyle\frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} ({\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{x}} + {\mathbf{p}})## must be ##0##, for any choice of ##{\mathbf{s}}##, ##{\mathbf{w}}## and ##{\mathbf{p}}##. Something seems to be wrong here, since ##\displaystyle\frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}## is a property of the surface, independent of ##{\mathbf{s}}##, ##{\mathbf{w}}## and ##{\mathbf{p}}##. Can someone see what is incorrect in the above?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is the total derivative of ##\vec n## that is given by ##\vec w \times \vec n##, not the partial derivative wrt ##t##.
 
Thanks Orodruin. Is there a physical interpretation to the partial derivative of the surface normal with respect to time? Or in other words, it seems from applying the chain rule for ##\displaystyle\frac{d{\mathbf{n}}}{dt}## that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial {\mathbf{x}}} \frac{d{\mathbf{x}}}{dt} + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{n}}}{\partial t} = {\mathbf{w}} \times {\mathbf{n}}.
\end{equation}
But I am having a hard time seeing how the two things above turn out to be equal.
 
The partial derivative of n wrt time is the change in the normal at a given point in space. Since the normal is defined only on a surface, this derivative may not even make sense (you could extend the definition of n to the full volume by considering normal unit vectors to a family of non-intersecting surfaces, such as the level surfaces of some function). When it does make sense, you will find that this changes depending on the surface as well as the rotation.
 
Thanks, Orodruin.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K