Velocities in rotating and inertial reference frames

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a particle observed from both a non-rotating inertial reference frame and a rotating reference frame. Participants are examining the equations that describe the relationship between the particle's motion in these frames, particularly focusing on the implications of velocity transformations and the effects of rotation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the validity of equations relating to the motion of a particle in rotating frames, questioning the need for transforming velocities when switching between reference frames. They discuss the interpretation of terms in the equations and the implications of the cross-product in the context of rotational motion.

Discussion Status

The conversation has led to clarifications regarding the representation of vectors in different frames and the nature of their time derivatives. Some participants have provided insights into the mathematical transformations involved, while others continue to question the assumptions underlying the equations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of classical dynamics, particularly in relation to rotating reference frames, and are addressing potential misunderstandings about vector representation and transformation. There is an emphasis on ensuring clarity in the definitions and roles of different terms in the equations discussed.

gabee
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Can someone help clarify this equation from classical dynamics? It doesn't seem to make sense. Here's my textbook's explanation.

A particle has position vector \vec{r} in a non-rotating, inertial reference frame (the 'un-prime' frame). Suppose we want to observe the motion of this object in some rotating reference frame (the 'prime' frame) whose origin coincides with the origin of the inertial reference frame and is rotating with a constant angular velocity \vec{\omega} (which points along the axis of rotation) with respect to the inertial frame.

First, suppose that our particle appears stationary in the rotating reference frame. Then, in the inertial reference frame, the particle appears to rotate about the axis of rotation:

\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt} = \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}.

(This makes sense so far.)

Now suppose that the particle moves with constant velocity \vec{v'} as observed in the rotating reference frame. Then

\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt} = \vec{v'} + \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}.^ I don't understand why that is true. For instance, suppose that in the rotating reference frame, \vec{v'} = (1,0,0) and \vec{r} at time t=0 is (0,0,0). I would expect that, in the inertial reference frame, the particle's position vector \vec{r} should rotate about \vec{\omega} while increasing linearly in magnitude. However, it seems that the second equation above predicts that the change in \vec{r} will have one component from the cross-product term and one component from \vec{v'}, which is always (1,0,0) and thus always points along the x-axis of the inertial frame. This seems inappropriate; doesn't \vec{v'} need to be transformed to \vec{v} in order to be added in that equation?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
gabee said:
Now suppose that the particle moves with constant velocity \vec{v'} as observed in the rotating reference frame. Then

\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt} = \vec{v'} + \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}.
The first term on the RHS represents the rate of change relative to the rotating frame; the second term represents the rate of change of the rotating frame relative to the fixed frame.

However, it seems that the second equation above predicts that the change in \vec{r} will have one component from the cross-product term and one component from \vec{v'}, which is always (1,0,0) and thus always points along the x-axis of the inertial frame.
No. It always points along the x-axis of the rotating frame.
This seems inappropriate; doesn't \vec{v'} need to be transformed to \vec{v} in order to be added in that equation?
Sure. If you want to express the velocity in the non-rotating reference frame you must express that velocity in terms of non-rotating coordinates.
 
gabee said:
This seems inappropriate; doesn't \vec{v'} need to be transformed to \vec{v} in order to be added in that equation?

You are confusing the representation of a vector with the vector itself. The displacement vector between a pair of points has different coordinates when expressed in different reference frames. The displacement vector itself is an invariant. What changes upon transformation are the coordinates of the vector, not the vector itself.

While a vector represents the same thing regardless of the frame in which the coordinates are expressed, the time derivative of a vector quantity depends on the frame in which the derivative is computed. Transforming the velocity vector of some object as observed by someone fixed in the rotating frame is merely the rotating frame velocity vector expressed in inertial coordinates. This is substantially different from the velocity vector of the same object as observed by someone fixed in the inertial frame.

You can arrive at the same equation by noting that

\mathbf q_I = \mathbf T_{R\to I} \mathbf q_R

where \mathbf q is some vector quantity (here assumed to be a column vector), the subscripts I and R denote the representation of the vector in inertial and rotating coordinates, and \mathbf T_{R\to I} is the transformation matrix from rotating to inertial coordinates. Taking the time derivative,

\mathbf q'_I = \mathbf T'_{R\to I} \mathbf q_R + \mathbf T_{R\to I} \mathbf q'_R

The time derivative of the rotating to inertial transformation matrix is

\mathbf T'_{R\to I} = \mathbf T_{R\to I}\mathbf X(\mathbf \omega)

where \mathbf X(\mathbf \omega) is the skew-symmetric cross product matrix generated from \mathbf \omega. Since matrix multiplication is associative,

\mathbf q&#039;_I =<br /> \mathbf T_{R\to I}(\mathbf X(\mathbf \omega)\mathbf q_R + \mathbf q&#039;_R)<br /> =<br /> \mathbf T_{R\to I}(\mathbf \omega\times\mathbf q_R + \mathbf q&#039;_R)<br />
 
Got it. That's a great explanation, thank you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
560
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
911
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K