Next: The scalar triple product
Up: Vectors
Previous: The vector product
Let us try to define a rotation vector whose magnitude
is the angle of the rotation, , and whose direction is the axis of the
rotation, in the sense determined by the right-hand grip rule. Is this a good
vector? The short answer is, no. The problem is that the addition of rotations
is not commutative, whereas vector addition is commuative.
Figure 9 shows the effect of applying two successive rotations,
one about -axis, and the other about the -axis, to a six-sided die. In the
left-hand case, the -rotation is applied before the -rotation, and vice
versa in the right-hand case. It can be seen that the die ends up in two completely
different states. Clearly, the -rotation plus the
-rotation does not equal
the -rotation plus the -rotation. This non-commuting algebra cannot be
represented by vectors. So, although rotations have a well-defined magnitude and
direction, they are not vector quantities.
Figure 9:
|
But, this is not quite the end of the story. Suppose that we take a general vector
and rotate it about the -axis by a small angle
.
This is equivalent to rotating the basis about the -axis by
.
According to Eqs. (10)-(12), we have
|
(39) |
where use has been made of the small angle expansions
and
. The above equation can easily be generalized to allow
small rotations about the - and -axes by
and
,
respectively. We find that
|
(40) |
where
|
(41) |
Clearly, we can define a rotation vector , but it only
works for small angle rotations (i.e., sufficiently small that the small
angle expansions of sine and cosine are good). According to the above equation,
a small -rotation plus a small -rotation is (approximately) equal to
the two rotations applied in the opposite order.
The fact that infinitesimal rotation is a vector implies that angular velocity,
|
(42) |
must be a vector as well. Also, if is interpreted as
in the above equation then it is clear that the equation of motion of a vector
precessing about the origin with angular velocity is
|
(43) |
Next: The scalar triple product
Up: Vectors
Previous: The vector product
Richard Fitzpatrick
2006-02-02