P. Mardesic,G. J. Gutierrez Guillen,D. Sugny
Abstract:The author of the comment~[<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="2302.04190" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04190">arXiv:2302.04190</a>] criticizes our published results in Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{125}, 064301 (2020) about the Tennis Racket Effect (TRE). The TRE is a geometric effect which occurs in the free rotation of any asymmetric rigid body. We explain why the criticism of this comment is not valid.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is a criticism of the Tennis Racket Effect (TRE). Specifically, the paper responds to the criticism of the author's previous research results by Deriglazov in another review. Deriglazov believes that there are problems with the research methods of the author regarding TRE in "Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 064301 (2020)", especially regarding certain assumptions when using Euler's equations to describe the free rotation of a rigid body.
### Main problem points of the paper:
1. **Geometric origin of TRE**: In the previous paper, the author proposed the geometric origin of TRE and related it to elliptic integrals. They believe that TRE is caused by the motion of a rigid body under specific trajectories, which are close to the dividing line between rotational and oscillatory trajectories.
2. **Core of the criticism**: Deriglazov's criticism focuses on the reference frame chosen by the author. He believes that when the angular momentum \( \mathbf{m} \) is in the direction of the Z - axis of the laboratory - fixed coordinate system, the solution obtained using Euler's equations cannot exhibit TRE. Deriglazov believes that the author's initial condition settings are incorrect, leading to wrong conclusions.
3. **Author's response**: In this paper, the author explains in detail why Deriglazov's criticism is not valid. They point out that Deriglazov's assumption is based on a wrong initial condition, that is, in the rigid - body - fixed coordinate system, the form of the angular momentum \( \mathbf{m} \) is \( (0, 0, m_3) \), and this condition is actually only valid in the laboratory - fixed coordinate system. Therefore, Deriglazov's counter - example cannot prove that TRE does not exist.
### Formula explanations:
- **Euler's equations**: The dynamic equations that describe the free rotation of a rigid body can be expressed as:
\[
I_1 \dot{\omega}_1=(I_3 - I_2)\omega_2\omega_3
\]
\[
I_2 \dot{\omega}_2=(I_1 - I_3)\omega_3\omega_1
\]
\[
I_3 \dot{\omega}_3=(I_2 - I_1)\omega_1\omega_2
\]
where \( I_1, I_2, I_3 \) are the principal moments of inertia of the rigid body, and \( \omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3 \) are the angular velocities around these three principal axes.
- **Elliptic integrals**: When studying TRE, the author uses elliptic integrals to describe the motion of a rigid body. The first - class and third - class elliptic integrals are respectively expressed as:
\[
F(\phi, k)=\int_0^\phi\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{1 - k^2\sin^2\theta}}
\]
\[
\Pi(n; \phi, k)=\int_0^\phi\frac{d\theta}{(1 - n\sin^2\theta)\sqrt{1 - k^2\sin^2\theta}}
\]
Through these formulas and detailed explanations, the author aims to clarify that their research method is correct and that TRE can indeed be explained by their theoretical framework.