Understanding Angular Velocity and Orientation in Kleppner's Textbook

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angular Orientation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between angular velocity and angular orientation as presented in Kleppner's textbook. Participants explore the mathematical framework for transitioning from angular velocity, which is treated as a vector, to angular orientation, which is not a vector. The conversation includes theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and clarification of concepts related to transformation matrices and quaternions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to integrate angular velocity, which is a vector, to obtain angular orientation, which is not a vector.
  • Another participant asserts that integrating angular velocity directly to obtain angular orientation is not possible and suggests using transformation matrices or quaternions instead.
  • A request for an example is made regarding how to derive angular orientation from an angular velocity vector.
  • A participant discusses the time derivative of a transformation matrix in relation to angular velocity, introducing the concept of a skew-symmetric matrix generated from a vector.
  • There is a query about the course content where the skew-symmetric matrix concept was learned, indicating a lack of familiarity with this material among some participants.
  • Another participant elaborates on the relationship between time derivatives of vector quantities in different reference frames, providing equations that relate these derivatives and emphasizing the role of transformation matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the method of transitioning from angular velocity to angular orientation, with some advocating for transformation matrices or quaternions while others seek clarification on the integration process. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to this transition.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the definitions of angular velocity and orientation, as well as the mathematical steps involved in the integration process. Some participants may have varying levels of familiarity with the concepts discussed.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
in kleppner's textbook he expalins quite well why we can't have angular orientation vector (because then we wouldn't have commutavity of vectors), but we can have angular velcoity as a vector, my question is how does this work when we integrate from an angular velocity vector to get an angular orientation which is not a vector? how do we get this?

thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't integrate angular velocity to get an angular orientation.

You have to integrate a transformation matrix or a quaternion instead.
 
could you give an example for this?
i mean if we have the angular velcoity vector: (w_x,w_y,w_z) how would you get an angular orientation?
 
Here I am assuming that "angular velocity" [itex]\omega_{B\to A}[/itex]means the angular velocity of reference frame A with respect to some other reference frame B, expressed in terms of reference frame A.

Suppose [itex]T_{A\to B}(t)[/itex] is the transformation matrix from frame A to frame B. Then the time derivative of this matrix is

[tex]\frac d{dt}T_{A\to B}(t) = T_{A\to B}(t) X(\omega_{B\to A})[/tex]

where [itex]X(a)[/itex] denotes the skew-symmetric matrix generated from the vector a (i.e., X(a)b = a cross b).
 
in what course did you learn this?

i haven't yet encouterd that in my studies.

anyway, shouldn't it be:
[tex]\frac d{dt}T_{A\to B}(t) = X(\omega_{B\to A})T_{A\to B}(t)[/tex]
 
You probably learned that the time derivatives of some vector quantity [itex]\vect q[/itex] as observed in frames A and B are related via

[tex] \frac {d\vect q}{dt_A} = \frac {d\vect q}{dt_B} + \omega_{A\to B}\times \vect q[/tex]

The coordinates of the vector as expressed in frames A and B are

[tex] \vect q_A = \mathbf T_{B\to A} \, \vect q_ B[/tex]

Differentiating this with respect to time,

[tex] \frac {d\vect q_A}{dt}<br /> = \mathbf T_{B\to A} \, \frac {d\vect q_B}{dt} +<br /> \frac{d}{dt}\mathbf T_{B\to A} \, \vect q_ B[/tex]

The first and last equations both relate various expressions of time derivatives of a vector quantity; they just do so differently. The last equation doesn't address the frame of the observer. This is fairly easy: The time derivative of the components of some vector as expressed in some reference frame is the time derivative of that vector as observed in that reference frame.

The first equation doesn't address the frame in which the quantities are expressed.
Making these frames explicit,

[tex] \frac {d\vect q_A}{dt_A}<br /> = \mathbf T_{B\to A}<br /> \left(<br /> \frac {d\vect q_B}{dt_B} + \omega_{A\to B:B}\times \vect q_B<br /> \right)<br /> = \mathbf T_{B\to A}\frac {d\vect q_B}{dt_B} <br /> + \mathbf T_{B\to A}\mathbf X(\omega_{A\to B:B})\, \vect q_B[/tex]

For the above to be true for any vector quantity [itex]\vect q[/itex],

[tex] \frac{d}{dt}\mathbf T_{B\to A} = \mathbf T_{B\to A}\mathbf X(\omega_{A\to B:B})[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K