Total derivative involving rigid body motion of a surface

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the total derivative of a function involving rigid body motion, specifically how a surface normal and a direction vector transform under such motion. It highlights that the total derivative of the function f(x, t) should equal zero due to the invariance of the relationship between the surface normal and the direction vector during motion. However, a contradiction arises when calculating the total derivative, suggesting that the expression involving the partial derivative of the surface normal with respect to spatial coordinates must equal zero for arbitrary choices of motion parameters. This leads to confusion about the physical interpretation of the partial derivative of the surface normal with respect to time, as it may not be well-defined in certain contexts. The conversation ultimately seeks clarity on the correct application of derivatives in this rigid body context.
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.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top