The angular velocity vector of a rigid body is defined as . But I'd like to show that that's equivalent to how most people intuitively think of angular velocity.
Euler's theorem of rotations states that any rigid body motion with one point fixed is equivalent to a rotation about some axis passing through the fixed-point. So let's consider a rigid body undergoing some motion with one point fixed, and for any times and let denote the "rotation vector" of the rotation that's equivalent to the rigid body's motion between time and time . For those who don't know, the rotation vector of a rotation is a vector whose magnitude is equal to the angle of the rotation and which points along the axis of the rotation; see this Wikipedia article.
Now my question is, how do we prove that the limit of as goes to exists, and that it's equal to the angular velocity vector?
This would all be much simpler if rotations were commutative since then the angular velocity would just equal the derivative of with respect to time. But since rotations are non-commutative, does not equal and thus the relation between angular velocity and the time derivative of is considerably more complicated; see this journal paper for details.
Note: This is a follow-up to my question here.
EDIT: Note that what this journal paper calls would in my notation be written as . The paper discusses the fact that the angular velocity vector is not equal to the time derivative of . This means that the limit of does not equal . But my question is about proving a slightly different statement, which is that the limit of as goes to DOES equal . Note that the expressions and are not equal, because does not equal due to the non-commutativity of rotations. So none of what I'm saying contradicts or seeks to disprove the journal paper.
If you take in the EDIT part of your question, with , you are in the special case from Asher Peres's paper you have mentioned, which then proves your statement according to your observation from the EDIT part, because in that case, you have
Indeed, according to Asher Peres, we have:
The two concepts do seem to be similar. The key I think lies in the fact that one can express an infinitesimal angle as the arclength divided by the radius
Consider a fixed point with location or a rigid body.
To prove the rotation first establish that
This can be done with just geometry given that small angle approximations. For example the change in the x-direction is .
The expression can be written as
The last part is to calculate
Take the projection of the location perpendicular to the rotation with then
Edit 1
A more vigorous treatment involves creating a 3×3 rotation matrix, and applying small angle approximation to it. Use as successive rotations
All this now applied to a small angle to make such that and
So
The last 3×3 matrix is called the vector cross product operator matrix. It is skew symmetric and it is used widely in computer graphics and in dynamics.
I'll try to be as rigorous as possible but before diving in to the problem I want to explain my notation. I've dropped vector arrows if it is clear from the expression, which quantity is a vector and which is a scalar. Furthermore sometimes I've dropped the time dependence but one can deduce from the context which quantity time dependent. Note that differentiability is a local condition that is it doesn't care about what the function does far apart but just around the point that you are taking the derivative. This is apparent from the definition of a differentiable function. Let be a function. We say that the function is differentiable at a (fixed) point if and only if the following limit exists:
if we substitute . This is probably the usual definition of a derivative that you know. However for our purposes I want to use another equivalent definition, which might look weird at the first glance. The function is differentiable at if and only if there exists and a function , which is continuous at with the value , such that the following holds for all :
There is an intuitive way to think about this definition, which basically tells you that the tangent line with "slope" that you put at the function should have maximum a linear error. If you think about in terms of Taylor series the definition becomes more clear. Note again that the differentiability is a local condition. You can see this clearly from the second definition. There are absolutely no conditions on how the function should behave like (except around , which we require it to be continuous since continuity also a local condition remember the definition of continuity). Thus far away from we just define to be:
So with this intro let's return to our problem. We can only prove that the angular velocity vector is given by locally around . Note that we will choose to be a fixed but an arbitrary point. Thus you can show that for all there exists a neighbourhood of such that . Of course I am assuming here that is a differentiable function over all , which would be the case if you consider something "physical" since you can make the slope of arbitrarily large but in praxis you cannot make it not differentiable. I assume that you know that the Lie Algebra of is which are basically all skew-symmetric matrices. I'll choose without loss of generality since you can translate the time axis and redefine your functions. Note that , where of course my origin is the fixed point and is a differentiable function with the property that . Thus the derivative of at zero is given by:
for some , which is the velocity vector. We want to figure out what is in terms of and . Note that for some , where summation over is implied. You might think that I'm doing something shady by calling these numbers . Note that we are doing maths at this moment thus if you want you can call them . I'll explain later why physically is the angular velocity but for now we have:
at this point I think it is quite obvious what you should choose as , namely you choose , which you can also write it as . Assuming that is the angular velocity at the moment, let me calculate your identity. We just take the cross product with from left:
where I used the fact that .
Our main problem now is to show that the numbers are in fact the angular velocity. Sadly there is no rigorous proof of this fact because know we are leaving the realm of maths and entering the realm of physics. I'll try to convince you of this fact by giving an example. You know that the position vector of a rotating point mass around axis with angular velocity is given by:
where
is the usual rotation matrix. By our definition the angular velocity vector has to be exactly the vector in direction because I have chosen the wrong si(g)n (pun intended!) with length . Note that we have:
comparing this with the equation , we see that:
and now you see and as promised. Now obviously this is not a proof of the fact that in general this holds but if you want you can also try this for a rotation in and axes and you get any combination thereof if you remember the vague written identity (s. wiki for the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff formula):
I have to gloss over some aspects like Lie algebra/group correspondence and locality of continuity of a function because I assumed that you are familiar with these ideas, if not feel free to say so in the comments and I'll edit my answer accordingly.
(NOTE:Posted as new answer instead of edit to previous answer because we will look at this scenario slighly differently.
One important fact is that finite rotations do not commute in gerneral, however infinitesimal rotations always commute. Let's revisit this point later.
But first let's invoke some proper statements regarding theorems.
{{Euler's Theorum Formally Stated}} For {any} general proper, orthogonal operator , there exists a fixed axis and an angle in the range such that
{Source}: Analyitcal Mechanics for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Oliver Davis Johns, Oxford University Press, 2005)
({ {General Theorem :}}Angular Velocity of Parametized Operators)\ \emph{Any "`time-varying"'} rotated vector (fixed axis or not) may be written as ({Source}: Analyitcal Mechanics for Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Oliver Davis Johns, Oxford University Press, 2005)
{{Consequence of second Theorem}}: If the operation of interest relates to the rotational velocity as and the vector of interest is the position vector then the derivative of these items is
then the explicit form of the rotational velocity in terms of a {general } rotational angle that solves these criteria (also see derivation of article) turns out to be
{{{But}}}... for a fixed axis, (as in the restrictions of Euler's theorem), turns out to be zero. Consequently, for a fixed axis of rotation
{{QED}}
Now let us return to the first point, which has not yet been demonstrated...
If is valid for any fixed axis rotation, a simple deduction is that it should apply to a sequence of fixed axis rotations. This is somewhat of an intuitive connundrum however. One reason the truth of the initial statement is important.
Let us consider a sequence of two fixed axis rotations a and be
Allegedly , and the operation should commute if the rotations are infinitesimal ...still EDITING.
There are some differences in the notation of the article with those used in the original question. This answer is provided within the notation of the article.
Key point: The article states that with correponding to the angle of rotation.
Now we can equate with with is an antisymetric matrix defined by . THESE are correct regarding positional changes of the object in terms of its angular velocity.
(I suspect what you are refering to as "lim ..." is ACTUALLy in the article, one reason I have migrated to the article's notation so as not to confuse this object with or in your notation.)
Your question as stated then reads to me "How do we proove THIS OBJECT (i.e. exists and that it equates to the operation )."
First of all, it has been defined in terms of the anti-simetric tensor and the angular velocity ; by definition.
But my intuition is that you are intersted in how to arrive at this object starting from instead. I believe this is demonstrated sufficiently in the first collum of the article.
To summarize: Letting the orthogonal matrix , . it follows that
. Therefor . If exist, exists and may be expressed in term of it. It works from both angles. (Also the derivatives of S given in the article are calculable.)
To put another way equations of the same form have the same solution. On one hand we have on the other we have . Therby it is trival to make the interpretive association
EDIT: In more explicit fashion
1) We have two items to consider initially.
A) The first is , the time derivitive of the position vector as a function of itself. Let be the matrix object that fulfills this relation. BY DEFINITION is where are the components of the angular velocity.
B) The second is the time derivative of the position vector as a function of the rotational angle vector .
Logical connection: A=B
Since
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan