A Why are Euler's angles picked exactly that way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter illidan4426
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles
Click For Summary
Euler's angles are defined by a specific sequence of rotations around the axes: first around the z-axis, then the x-axis, and finally the z-axis again. This particular order is crucial because it leads to a unique representation of orientation in three-dimensional space. Alternative sequences, such as rotating around the x-axis first, would result in different transformation equations and potentially ambiguous orientations. The choice of convention in parametrizing rotations is essential for consistency in applications like robotics and aerospace. Understanding these conventions is key to accurately describing motion and orientation in 3D systems.
illidan4426
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I'm wondering why exactly those angles are picked to describe the orientation of the rotating body.
So the Euler's angles are described like this:
xyz-x'y'z' (first rotation around z axis)
x'y'z'-x''y''z'' (second rotation around x')
x''y''z''-XYZ (third rotation around z'')
So I've been thought it goes like this, now I'm wondering why? Why exactly these angles and why this order? Why can't it go like this for example:
xyz-x'y'z' (rotate around x)
x'y'z'-x''y''z'' (rotate around y')
x''y''z''-XYZ (rotate around z'')
Can the motion be described this way? The equations of transformation of xyz-XYZ would be different for sure.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are all kinds of conventions around to parametrize the rotations. The Euler angles are just the most often used ones.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and topsquark
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
9K