5

I have been told [Warning: I leave this because it's what I asked and allows to understand the dialogues in the comments, but Azad, whom I thank, has pointed that the formula does not hold in general in the form it is expressed] that the angular momentum of and rigid body with respect to any point $P$ can always be expressed as $$\mathbf{L}_{P}=\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times M\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\big(\sum_im_iR_i^2\big)\boldsymbol{\omega}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{cm}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to $P$, $M$ the mass of the body, $R_i$ the distance of the $i$-th point, having mass $m_i$, composing the body, and $\sum_im_iR_i^2=I$ its moment of inertia with respect to the instantaneous axis of the rotation around the centre of mass of angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\omega}$.

I know that the velocity $\mathbf{v}_i$ of each point $P_i$, having mass $m_i$, of a rigid body of mass $M$ can be see as the sum of a translation velocity of one of its points $C$ plus a rotation velocity around that point: $\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{v}_{C}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}$. If we chose $C$ as the centre of mass I see that $$\mathbf{L}_{cm}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{i}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})$$$$=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}) $$because, if I am not wrong, $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_C=(\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i})\times\mathbf{v}_C=\mathbf{0}$ since $\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to itself, which is $\mathbf{0}$.

How can it be proved that $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=(\sum_im_iR_i^2)\boldsymbol{\omega}$? I have searched a lot on the Internet and on books, but I find nothing. To give some background of mine, I have studied nothing of analytical mechanics. I find the formula very, very interesting both in itself and because, if the moment of inertia does not depend upon time, $\forall t\quad I(t)= I(t_0)$, the above expression can be differentiated to get the formula of the resultant torque with respect to the centre of mass $\sum\boldsymbol{\tau}_{cm}=\frac{d\mathbf{L}_{cm}}{dt}=I\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{cm}$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is the angular acceleration around the centre of mass. I heartily thank you for any answer!


Some unfruitful trials: by using the "BAC CAB identity" as suggested by Azad, whom I heartily thank, $\mathbf{a}\times(\mathbf{b}\times\mathbf{c})=(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{c})\mathbf{b}-(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b})\mathbf{c}$, I can see that$$\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=\sum_im_i\|\overrightarrow{CP_i}\|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$which, by decomposing every $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ into an axial component $\mathbf{A}_i$ and a radial component $\mathbf{R}_i$, whose norms respectively are $A_i$ and $R_i$, with $R_i$ as the distance from $i$ to the axis of rotation, becomes $$\sum_im_iR_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}+\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$but I cannot prove that $\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}=\mathbf{0}$.

  • 1
    Isn't this just a consequence of the parallel axis theorem? Proofs of the theorem should be easy to Google. – John Rennie May 12 '15 at 09:09
  • 1
    Your first equation describes total angular momentum around origin and you're just a BAC CAB away from the proof – Azad May 12 '15 at 09:20
  • 2
    I am not sure that I would call this a proof in any sense of the word. The calculation merely leads to the derivation of $I$, i.e. it's the definition of moments of inertia more than anything else. – CuriousOne May 12 '15 at 09:34
  • @JohnRennie Thank you for the comment!I know the parallel axis theorem, but I don't see how to apply that here... – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 09:38
  • @CuriousOne Thank you for the comment! I've added the definition of moment of inertia $I$ that I a priori know and that I'd like to prove to be used to express $\mathbf{L}_{cm}$... – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 09:43
  • @Azad Thank you for the hint! I see that $\sum \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=\sum m_i |\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i (\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$, but I don't see how this equates $I\boldsymbol{\omega}$. $|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2$ is sum of a radial square distance $R_i^2$ and an axial square distance $A_i^2$, therefore I think I should prove that $\sum m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}=\sum m_i (\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$, but I cannot... :-( – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 09:47
  • 2
    I consider it a pretty bad habit to introduce things into physics that one "knows a-priori" just to get some sense of "proving something". Your a-priori knowledge is a trivial derivation of the very expression that you are using in your "proof". The much better way is to treat everything as a derivation. It works just as well and it doesn't clash with the definition of science, which is not the same as the definition of mathematics. – CuriousOne May 12 '15 at 09:47
  • Yes proof is not such a good word here. The second term is zero. – Azad May 12 '15 at 09:56
  • @CuriousOne I agree: mine is an elementary course book. Edited to reflect your comment – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 09:58
  • @Azad I call $\mathbf{A}_i$ and $\mathbf{R}_i$ the axial and radial components of $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$. Therefore I see that $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=\sum m_i |\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i (\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ $=\sum m_i |\mathbf{R}_i|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}+\sum m_i |\mathbf{A}_i|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i (\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}\quad$... – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 10:07
  • ...but I'm not able to prove that $\sum m_i |\mathbf{A}_i|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i (\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}=\mathbf{0}$. How can we see that? Thank you again!!! – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 10:08
  • In all your eqs $\omega$ should be $\omega_i$. Angular velocity of every point object is perpendicular to its position vector. – Azad May 12 '15 at 10:20
  • 1
    I recommend you read the first chapter of Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. It has a good and brief survey of these things. – Azad May 12 '15 at 10:22
  • 1
    actually you can work $\omega$ as well. then just the radial component is zero and first term minus axial make up $I\omega$ – Azad May 12 '15 at 10:38
  • @Azad I don't understand: can you write "the radial component is zero and first term minus axial make up Iω" in formulae? If you would like to write an answer I'd be very grateful... $\infty$ thanks!!!! – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 12:11
  • 1
    $CP_i$ is a vector from cm to point i. $A_i$ is projection of this vector on axis of rotation. So $|CP_i|^2-|A_i|^2$ is the distance of each point to axis of rotation – Azad May 12 '15 at 12:38
  • 1
    $\omega$ is parallel to axis of rotation and axial component, so it's perpendicular to radial component. so $CP_i.\omega=(A_i.\omega)+(R_i.\omega)=(A_i.\omega)$ – Azad May 12 '15 at 12:41
  • @Azad Yes, I know that, but I cannot use it to prove the desired result, see my trials I've added in the OP. $\aleph_1$ thanks! – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 12:42
  • 1
    I'll post a full explanation in several minutes – Azad May 12 '15 at 12:46
  • 1
    Actually that term shouldn't be zero because $I$ is a tensor. It is zero only in the case that $\omega$ happens to be a principal axis of rotation. Generally $\overrightarrow{L}=\sum_i m_i (\overrightarrow{\omega}r_i^2 - \overrightarrow{r_i}(\overrightarrow{r_i}\cdot\overrightarrow{\omega}))$ So sorry for misleading – Azad May 12 '15 at 16:33
  • @Azad By $r_i$ and $r_i^2$ do you mean what I called $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ and $|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2$, and therefore, in general, only $ \mathbf{L}_{cm}=\sum_im_i(|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-( \overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}) $ holds [and therefore, for any point $P$, $ \mathbf{L}_P=\overrightarrow{PC}\times M\mathbf{v}_C+ \sum_im_i(|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-(\overrightarrow{CP_i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}) $ ]? Thank you a lot again! – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 16:43
  • 1
    yes that's right. sorry again – Azad May 12 '15 at 16:47
  • @Azad

    No problem! I thank you, instead, because your and luffy_csm's ideas have lead me to think more about the issue and understand the truth. If you want to briefly post that as an answer...

    – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 19:15

2 Answers2

4

I think you are overcomplicating this. Consider an arbitrary point P moving with linear speed $\mathbf{v}_A$.

  • Linear momentum is $$\mathbf{P} = m \mathbf{v}_{cm}$$
  • Angular momentum at the center of mass is $$\mathbf{L}_{cm} = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega}$$
  • Linear velocity of the center of mass is $$\mathbf{v}_{cm} = \mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{cm}$ is the location of the center of mass relative to A.
  • Linear momentum in terms of the motion of A is $$\mathbf{P} = m (\mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm})$$ $$\boxed{ \mathbf{P} = m \mathbf{v}_A - m \mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} }$$
  • Angular momentum at A is $$\mathbf{L}_A =\mathbf{L}_{cm} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{P}$$ which is expanded as $$\mathbf{L}_A =I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times m \mathbf{v}_{cm} = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega} +\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times m (\mathbf{v}_A + \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{r}_{cm}) $$

$$\boxed{ \mathbf{L}_A = I_{cm} \mathbf{\omega}-m \mathbf{r}_{cm} \times\mathbf{r}_{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} + m \mathbf{v}_{A}}$$

  • Combined the spatial momenum at A yields the 6×6 spatial inertia matrix at A

$$ \hat{\ell}_A = I_A \hat{v}_A $$ $$ \begin{Bmatrix} \mathbf{P} \\ \mathbf{L}_A \end{Bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} m & -m [\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] \\ m [\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] & I_{cm}-m\,[\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times][\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times] \end{bmatrix} \begin{Bmatrix}\mathbf{v}_{A} \\ \mathbf{\omega} \end{Bmatrix}$$

NOTE: For the wierd $[\mathbf{r}\times]$ notation that seems to be missing a vector see What is the Vector/Cross Product?

  • The mass momenent of inertia at A is thus defined as $$I_A = I_{cm}-m\,[\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times][\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times]$$ This is an vector representation of the parallel axis theorem.
  • Finally you need to differentiate the momentum expressions to arrive at the 6 Newton-Euler equations of motion (See https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/80449/392)
John Alexiou
  • 38,341
  • Thank you very much! Forgive me: I don't understand $\mathbf{L}A = I{cm} \mathbf{\omega}-m \mathbf{r}{cm} \times\mathbf{r}{cm} \times \mathbf{\omega} + m \mathbf{v}{A}$. As to $I{cm}$, is it a matrix? The only definition I know, used by my book, Gettys-Keller-Skove's Physics, of moment of inertia $I$ is a scalar $I:=\sum_im_iR_i^2$ -and $I=\int_V\rho R^2dV$ for a continuous body- where $R$ is the distance of the point from the axis. – Self-teaching worker May 13 '15 at 07:23
  • 1
    $I_{cm}$ is the mass moment of inertia tensor. It is defined as $$I_{cm} = \begin{pmatrix} I_{xx} & I_{xy} & I_{xz} \ I_{xy} & I_{yy} & I_{yz} \ I_{xz} & I_{yz} & I_{zz} \end{pmatrix}$$ (See http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node64.html). It contains the components of inertia for each axis in the diagonal, and cross terms on the off diagonal. As the body rotates (with a 3×3 rotation matrix $E$) the components of $I_{cm}$ change also. This is done with $$I_{cm} = E I_{\rm body} E^\top$$. – John Alexiou May 13 '15 at 12:17
  • Very, very interesting. I can't wait to study it! Thank you very much again! – Self-teaching worker May 13 '15 at 12:49
2

If we look at $CP_i X m_i (\omega \times CP_i)$ we can say that the cross product in the parenthesis gives the component of the vector $CP_i$ along the direction of $\omega$. Let us call that component $R_i$. (note: $R_i$ is the perpendicular distance between the particle in the system of particles in which we are interested in and the axis of rotation of the system of particles)

Now we have:

$CP_i \times m_i R_i \omega$ = $ m_i R_i^2 \omega$

(We are taking the cross product of $CP_i$ with $R_i$ which is in the direction perpendicular to both $\omega$ and $CP_i$ which will again give us $R_i$. )

Thus we have:

$ L_{cm} = (\sum_i m_i R_i^2 ) \omega $

  • Thank you for the answer! I cannot understand the direction of the vector $m_iR_i^2\omega$. Is it the same as the direction of the angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ (i.e. the axis' direction)? If it is, I don't understand why: from what I understand $\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}=R_i|\boldsymbol{\omega}| \mathbf{j}_i $, where $R_i$ is the distance between $i$ and the axis, and $\mathbf{j}_i$ is a unitary vector, perpendicular to both the axis and $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ and such that ${\boldsymbol{\omega},\times\overrightarrow{CP_i},\mathbf{j}_i}$ is dextrorotatory; – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 13:51
  • i.e.: I write $m_i|\boldsymbol{\omega}|R_i\mathbf{j}_i$ for your $m_i \omega R_i$ to explicitate the direction; nevertheless it appears to me that the vector $\overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i|\boldsymbol{\omega}|R_i\mathbf{j}_i$ has norm $m_i|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|R_i|\boldsymbol{\omega}|$ (where $|\overrightarrow{CP_i}|=\sqrt{A_i+R_i}$ is the distance of $i$ from the centre of mass) and a direction that, in general, is not the same as $\boldsymbol{\omega}$... – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 13:53
  • 1
    Oh! sorry. My mistake. I have made the correction in the answer. – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 14:01
  • 1
    Your question made me think about the basic definition of the direction of $\omega$. It is always defined with respect to the position vectors $r$ and $r+\Delta r$ where: $\Delta r = r|\Delta \theta|\hat\theta$, $\theta$ being the angle traversed by the vector $r$ in time $\Delta t$ and $\hat\theta$ being the tangent direction to the path of motion of the particle (Which is circular). I am really thankful to you @Self-teachingDavide for asking this question which led to the fundamental definition of direction of $\omega$. – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:10
  • 1
    Coming back to the question, it can be seen that for taking the cross product $\omega \times r$, the direction of $\omega$ cannot be taken as $\hat k$. In order to get the direction of the angular velocity, one has to know the path of the particle, get the unit vector of the tangent ($\hat \theta$) at $r$ and find the cross product: $\hat r \times \hat \theta$. Please correct me if I am wrong. – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:23
  • 2
    The math is pretty difficult and I have not seen such a proof presented anywhere. All my college courses dealt with 2D problems where $r$ was always in the X-Y plane and hence $\omega$ was always in the $\hat k$ direction. Also, most books present the proof only for planar rigid bodies and mention that the same is applicable to all rigid bodies. – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:26
  • 1
    I am sorry to have put up so many comments. Please check this link for a complete description of the angular velocity via Euler angles: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73961/angular-velocity-expressed-via-euler-angles/74014#74014 – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:39
  • 1
    As to "one has to know the path of the particle, get the unit vector of the tangent...", yes, the rotation of a point $P$, having velocity $\mathbf{v}$, around a point $Q$ precisely is $\frac{\mathbf{\omega}\times\mathbf{v}}{|\overrightarrow{QP}|^2}$, cfr. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity#Particle_in_three_dimensions Of course, all the particles of a rotating rigid body have the same angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ with respect to any chosen point. It isn't unusual to chose to a Cartesian system, to work in, such that $\mathbf{\omega}$ is parallel to the $z$ axis. – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 18:46
  • 1
    As to the original question, Azad has said in its comments that $\mathbf{L}_{cm}=I\boldsymbol{\omega}$ does not hold in general... – Self-teaching worker May 12 '15 at 18:46
  • 1
    Yes, you can choose a cartesian system to have $\omega$ along $\hat k$. But then, the cartesian system will not be at rest with respect to the fixed co-ordinate system at the CG. Correct me if I am wrong. The dynamics course by MIT OCW (16.07) has a good deal of information on the free body motions of a rigid 3-D body. Check it out, Cheers! – luffy_csm May 12 '15 at 18:53
  • @Self-teachingDavide No, that holds in general but $I$ of rigid body is not $\sum_i m_i r_i^2$ in general – Azad May 12 '15 at 20:07