Understanding Spin: What Force Allows Constant Acceleration?

  • Thread starter FulhamFan3
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Spin
In summary, the concept of force is often used to explain acceleration, but it is not the most fundamental approach. Conservation of linear and angular momentum, as well as the principle of least action, are more fundamental principles that can explain the behavior of objects without the need for a force. These principles show that the concept of force is a consequence of a deeper understanding of motion and mechanics.
  • #1
FulhamFan3
134
0
It's my understanding that any acceleration is caused by a force. When you remove that force it goes at a constant velocity.

When an object is spinning it's accelerating, right? I mean the particles in the object are always changing direction. When left on it's own this leads me to believe that eventually this should slow down. But that doesn't happen, it just keeps spinning at a constant speed. What force allows this system to keep accelerating.

If my understanding of this is completely wrong please tell me otherwise.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The individual particles of a rigid object spinning is space are accelerating, but the system as a whole is not.
The center of mass moves with a constant velocity.

The forces which cause the necessary centripetal force for the particles are constraint forces. These are always pointing towards the axis of rotation and thus do no work.
 
  • #3
FulhamFan3 said:
It's my understanding that any acceleration is caused by a force. When you remove that force it goes at a constant velocity.

When an object is spinning it's accelerating, right? I mean the particles in the object are always changing direction. When left on it's own this leads me to believe that eventually this should slow down. But that doesn't happen, it just keeps spinning at a constant speed. What force allows this system to keep accelerating.

If my understanding of this is completely wrong please tell me otherwise.
An acceleration requires a force but not necessarily energy. If the force/acceleration is perpendicular to the direction of motion, there is no energy expended. In a spinning body, the forces are always central and the motion is always tangential, so no energy is required to keep it going. The centre of mass does not move as all forces are directed toward it equally from all directions.

AM
 
  • #4
Andrew Mason said:
The centre of mass does not move as all forces are directed toward it equally from all directions.


Or stated otherwise, the centre of mass does not move because each particle pair contributes a pair of equal and opposite forces to the system (Newton's third law) as a result there is zero force acting on the system as a whole.
 
  • #5
FulhamFan3 said:
It's my understanding that any acceleration is caused by a force. When you remove that force it goes at a constant velocity.

When an object is spinning it's accelerating, right? I mean the particles in the object are always changing direction. When left on it's own this leads me to believe that eventually this should slow down. But that doesn't happen, it just keeps spinning at a constant speed. What force allows this system to keep accelerating.

If my understanding of this is completely wrong please tell me otherwise.

There is also another way to look at this, which is even more FUNDAMENTAL than what has been described.

The emergence of Newton's Laws, especially F=ma, is actually a direct result of the conservation of linear momentum. That, in turn, is a manifestation of the translational symmetry of our universe [Aside: from Noether's theorem, every conservation law has a corresponding symmetry principle]. Thus, if you write F= dp/dt, and there is no net external force, then dp/dt = 0 and you have the conservation of linear momentum. This is where you get Newton's 1st Law and 3rd Law. Thus, Newton's Laws are simply the consequences of the conservation of linear momentum.

However, our universe or space is also isotropic (i.e. the same in every direction). This symmetry then results in the conservation of ANGULAR momentum L, i.e. dL/dt = 0. Again, if there's no external force or torque, the conservation law dictates that it will maintain its angular momentum. You will have the "angular" version of Newton's Laws being applied to such a system. They are idential to each other, because the identical conservation laws (and symmetry principles) are being applied.

Moral of the story here is that "F" isn't the key issue here. It is simply a consequence of a more fundamental principle. Once you understand where things come from and what is really the source for all this, you'll realize that there is a common root for many seemingly-different observations.

Zz.
 
  • #6
ZapperZ said:
There is also another way to look at this, which is even more FUNDAMENTAL than what has been described.

...

Moral of the story here is that "F" isn't the key issue here. It is simply a consequence of a more fundamental principle. Once you understand where things come from and what is really the source for all this, you'll realize that there is a common root for many seemingly-different observations.
This is a very important and well stated point.

Force is often neither the simplest nor most illuminating way to approach classical mechanics. But, in human experience, the concept of 'force' is more intuitively understandable than conservation of linear and angular momentum. Conservation of angular momentum is very often counter-intuitive (eg. gyroscopic precession). That is probably why we prefer to use force.

Some have argued - eg. Hamilton, Feynman, - that the principle of 'least action' (which I have always had trouble with understanding conceptually, although it is readily understandable mathematically) is an even more fundamental way of approaching forces and motion: 'Forget about force. The path from A to B of a body is the path for which the integral of the difference between kinetic and potential energy - the 'action' - is least.' There is something mysteriously symmetrical and simple about the concept but I am afraid it escapes my intuition. So, unfortunately, I continue to think in terms of force (and conservation of energy and of linear and angular momentum).

AM
 

1. What is spin in terms of physics?

Spin refers to the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle or object. It is a fundamental property of particles and cannot be explained by classical physics. Instead, it is described by quantum mechanics and is used to explain various phenomena such as magnetism and the structure of atoms.

2. How is spin related to constant acceleration?

Spin is not directly related to constant acceleration. However, the concept of spin is often used in the study of particles and objects that experience constant acceleration. This is because spin can affect how these particles behave in certain situations, such as in a magnetic field.

3. What force allows for constant acceleration?

The force that allows for constant acceleration is known as a constant force. This is a force that remains the same in magnitude and direction over time. An example of a constant force is the force of gravity, which causes objects to accelerate towards the Earth at a constant rate.

4. How does spin affect the behavior of particles?

Spin affects the behavior of particles in various ways. For example, particles with spin can have different energy levels and different magnetic properties compared to particles without spin. Spin also plays a role in determining the overall structure and behavior of atoms and molecules.

5. Is spin a classical or quantum concept?

Spin is a quantum concept that cannot be explained by classical physics. It is a fundamental property of particles that is used to explain various phenomena in the microscopic world. However, the effects of spin can sometimes be observed in macroscopic objects, such as in the behavior of magnets.

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
602
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
894
  • Classical Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
29
Views
2K
Back
Top