1

If an object is of constant angular velocity, then we can derived the closed form formula of rotation matrix thanks to the theory of linear ODEs (and the closed form of $e^{[\omega]}$):

$$R' = [\omega] R \Rightarrow R = e^{[\omega]t}R_0$$

However, if the things got a little more complicated, say, the object is of constant angular acceleration, namely $\omega(t) = \omega_0 + \alpha t$, is a closed form formula for $R$ also possible? Because the ODE $$R' = [\omega_0 + \alpha t]R$$ fails to be linear.

EDIT: this system is indeed linear, but not autonomous. Anyway, I want to emphasis that this is not an ODE of the form $X' = AX$ where A is constant.

Hans
  • 13
  • 2
    Pretty sure that the ODE you've given in your last equation is linear. Perhaps you meant that it's not autonomous? – Michael Seifert Nov 08 '22 at 19:11
  • @MichaelSeifert Yes, thanks for the correction! I have edited my post. So does this mean there is a closed form of solution? Because I only remember the solution of X' = AX where A is constant – Hans Nov 08 '22 at 21:14
  • The answer is also in "consideration #2" here (consistent with
    Michael Seifert's great answer): https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/630781/226902
    – Quillo Jan 13 '23 at 15:31

2 Answers2

2

You're basically asking how to find the equation to the equation $$ \frac{d\mathbf{R}}{dt} = M(t) \mathbf{R}. $$ It can be shown that the answer can always be written as $$ \mathbf{R}(t) = U(t) \mathbf{R}(0), $$ for a linear operator $U(t)$, but the form of $U(t)$ depends on whether $M(t_1)$ commutes with $M(t_2)$ for all $t_1$ & $t_2$. If $[M(t_1), M(t_2)] = 0$, then it can be shown that we have $$ U(t) = \exp \left[ \int_0^t dt'\, M(t') \right]. \tag{1} $$ In particular, the case where $M$ is independent of $t$ means that $U(t) = e^{M t}$.

If, on the other hand, $[M(t_1), M(t_2)] \neq 0$, then we have to define the evolution operator in terms of a Dyson series: $$ U(t) = 1 + \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \int_0^t dt_1 \int_0^{t_1} dt_2 \cdots \int_0^{t_{n-1}} dt_{n} \, M(t_1) M(t_2) \cdots M(t_n) \tag{2} $$ In other words, this is an infinite sum whose first term is a single integral, whose second term is a double integral, whose third term is a triple integral, etc. This turns out to be equivalent to $$ U(t) = 1 + \sum_{n = 1}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \int_0^t dt_1 \int_0^t dt_2 \cdots \int_0^t dt_{n} \, \mathcal{T} \left[ M(t_1) M(t_2) \cdots M(t_n) \right] $$ where $\mathcal{T} \left[ M(t_1) M(t_2) \cdots M(t_n) \right]$ is the time-ordered product of the operators, i.e., the operators are reordered so that the arguments decrease from left to right in the string. In this form, it is a bit easier to see how this might be equivalent to the form (1) above.

In particular, if we are talking about 2-D rotations, then the 2-D rotation group is Abelian, i.e., every rotation commutes with every other rotation and we're in the case where we can just write $U(t)$ in the form from (1) above. If, on the other hand, we're talking about 3-D rotations, then it is no longer the case that two rotations at different times will commute (because 3-D rotations generally do not commute), and so we would have to deal with the form (2) for $U(t)$ instead.

  • Thanks for your answer. Could you please provide some materials regarding those 'it can be shown' parts? I would like to know their derivations too. Sorry to trouble you. – Hans Nov 09 '22 at 19:47
  • My reference for the above was Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics, where he derives the result for the matrix differential equation $d\mathbf{v}/dt = M \mathbf{v}$ in the context of solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation $d|\psi\rangle/dt = -(i H/\hbar) |\psi\rangle$. I don't have the copy in front of me right now, but I believe that the results are outlined in Chapter 2 and there's a proof (or at least a demonstration) of the Dyson series in Chapter 5. – Michael Seifert Nov 10 '22 at 12:48
0

Sure. The shape of the matrix that produces the rotation is the same. It's the standard [cos - sin sin cos] thing. The angle simply changes. For constant angular velocity the angle is just $wt$. For constant acceleration it's just $\frac{1}{2} a t^2 + wt$. So you just put that in where you had $wt$.

Boba Fit
  • 373