Proof derivative of a vector following precession motion

In summary, the conversation discusses a proof regarding the time derivative of a unit vector with constant magnitude following a precession motion. The proof involves showing that the derivative of the unit vector is equal to the cross product of the angular velocity vector and the unit vector. The person is unsure about two points in the proof: why the derivative vector must be orthogonal to both the unit vector and the angular velocity vector, and how to geometrically prove that the angle separating the two unit vectors is the same as the angle separating their projections onto a circle orthogonal to the angular velocity vector. The expert summarizer explains that the lengths of the two unit vectors must be the same and that the difference of their corresponding vectors is perpendicular to the angular velocity vector, based on
  • #1
Soren4
128
2
I do not get some points of this proof about the time derivative of a unit vector $\hat{u}$ (costant magnitude) which is following a precession motion. The picture is the following.
rrrrrrr.png

I want to prove that $$\frac{d\hat{u}}{dt}=\vec{\Omega}\wedge \hat{u}.$$

I'm ok with almost all the proof except the following points.

Consider the red vector [itex]d\hat{u}[/itex].
Since [itex]\hat{u}[/itex] has constant magnitude,[itex]d\hat{u}[/itex] must be orthogonal to [itex]\hat{u}[/itex].That's ok.

But why must [itex]d\hat{u}[/itex] be orthogonal to [itex]\vec{\Omega}[/itex] too (i.e. be tangential to a circle orthogonal to [itex]\vec{\Omega})[/itex]?

Secondly how can I geometrically prove that the angle [itex]d\theta[/itex] (the one in purple) that separates [itex]\hat{u}(t)[/itex] and [itex]\hat{u}(t+dt)[/itex] is the same that separates the projection of these two vectors on the circle orthogonal to [itex]\vec{\Omega}[/itex] (the projections are [itex]\hat{u}(t) Sin(\alpha) [/itex]and[itex]\hat{u}(t+dt) Sin(\alpha)[/itex])?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Soren4 said:
But why must [itex]d\hat{u}[/itex] be orthogonal to [itex]\vec{\Omega}[/itex] too (i.e. be tangential to a circle orthogonal to [itex]\vec{\Omega})[/itex]?
Define ##\vec v## as the vector from the origin (the lowest point drawn on the diagram) to the centre of the drawn circle, and ##\vec w(t),\vec w(t+dt)## as the two vectors you have drawn from the centre of the circle to its circumference. Then we have ##\vec u(t)=\vec v+\vec w(t)##, and ##\vec u(t+dt)=\vec v+\vec w(t+dt)##.

A bit of geometry shows that the lengths of ##\vec u(t)## and ##\vec u(t+dt)## are the same. Let that length be ##l##. Then ##d\hat u=\hat u(t+dt)-\hat u(t)=\tfrac{1}{l}(\vec u(t+dt)-\vec u)=\tfrac{1}{l}(\vec w(t+dt)-\vec w)##. Both ##\vec w(t+dt)## and ##\vec w## are perpendicular to ##\vec\Omega##, so their difference must be too, by the linearity of the dot product.
 

FAQ: Proof derivative of a vector following precession motion

What is a derivative of a vector following precession motion?

The derivative of a vector following precession motion is a mathematical concept that describes the rate of change of a vector as it rotates or precesses around a fixed point or axis.

How is the proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion derived?

The proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion involves using the definition of a derivative and applying it to the equations of motion for a rotating or precessing vector. This results in a set of equations that describe the rate of change of the vector's position, velocity, and acceleration.

What are the applications of the derivative of a vector following precession motion?

The derivative of a vector following precession motion has many applications in physics and engineering, including understanding the motion of spinning objects, analyzing the behavior of gyroscopes, and studying the rotation of celestial bodies.

How does the proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion relate to other mathematical concepts?

The proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion is closely related to other mathematical concepts such as rotational motion, calculus, and vector calculus. It builds upon these concepts to describe the behavior of rotating or precessing vectors.

Are there any limitations or assumptions in the proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion?

Like any mathematical proof, there may be certain limitations or assumptions in the proof of derivative of a vector following precession motion. These may include assumptions about the object's shape, the absence of external forces, or the accuracy of the equations used. It is important to carefully consider these limitations when applying the proof in real-world situations.

Similar threads

Back
Top