I Moment of Inertia about an axis and Torque about a point

AI Thread Summary
Angular momentum and torque are defined about a point, while moment of inertia is defined about an axis, creating a need for clarity in their interrelations. The torque generated by a force acting on a body causes rotation, but the choice of axis becomes complex when the body can rotate freely. In such cases, general equations of motion should be applied rather than focusing on a specific axis. When an axis is fixed, only the torque component along that axis is relevant, regardless of the reference point chosen. Understanding the moment of inertia tensor can provide deeper insights into these concepts.
Nikhil_RG
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Angular Momentum and Torque are defined about a point. But Moment of Inertia of a body is defined about an axis. There are equations which connect Angular momentum and Torque with Moment of Inertia. How will this be consistent? When I say that the torque of a force acting on a body about a point causes it to rotate about an axis, which axis should be considered that includes the point about which the torque is acting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nikhil_RG said:
Angular Momentum and Torque are defined about a point. But Moment of Inertia of a body is defined about an axis.
According to whom?

Wikipedia:
Angular momentum is a vector quantity (more precisely, a pseudovector) that represents the product of a body's rotational inertia and rotational velocity (in radians/sec) about a particular axis.

Torque is defined as the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance of the line of action of a force from the axis of rotation.
 
Moment of inertia is not defined relative to an axis. It is defined relative to a point. However, it is an order 2 tensor and not a scalar. In order to obtain a scalar, you can restrict the rotation of a body to only be possible around a particular axis. In this case, only the torque’s component in the axis direction will be relevant and angular momentum will be parallel to the axis.
 
Thank you malawi_glenn for the response.

My question comes from the fact that the basic expression to calculate angular momentum involves finding the cross product of the position vector of the particle and it's linear momentum. So there has to be a point about which the position vector is defined and the angular momentum would be calculated about that particular point.
 
Orodruin , is there a textbook or resource that I could refer to to understand about Moment of Inertia Tensor.

And in the case where the body is free to rotate in any axis and a force is acting at some point on it, which causes a Torque, which axis do we consider, since there are no limitations.
 
Nikhil_RG said:
Orodruin , is there a textbook or resource that I could refer to to understand about Moment of Inertia Tensor.
Well, first of all, do you understand tensors?

Nikhil_RG said:
And in the case where the body is free to rotate in any axis and a force is acting at some point on it, which causes a Torque, which axis do we consider, since there are no limitations.
You do not consider an axis. You consider the general equations of motion. There are some simplified cases such as an object rotating freely around a fixed point an object not subject to any net force (just torques).

Nikhil_RG said:
So there has to be a point about which the position vector is defined and the angular momentum would be calculated about that particular point.
In the case where you fix the rotational axis, only the torque in the axis’ direction is relevant. This component will not depend on which reference point you pick as long as you pick a point on the axis.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top