It was precisely that what confused me. I initially thougt Ehrenfest meant to say with his paradox that a rigid circle that rotates from a mathematical point of view does not comply anymore to the classical geometry of the circle (2RPi). I thought he meant that because the radius of the circle...
@ PAllen, Fredrik, Quinzio, BillK
Thank you all very much for your helpful replies. It appears I understood the paradox completely wrong. I did not understand that it was mainly aiming at the fact that ‘Born Rigidity’ is not applicable to rotation.
@ Harald/Harrylin
You understood in...
Thank you for your helpful and quick response. I (think I) understand the line of reasoning of Ehrenfest better now. But my problem in understanding the paradox remains exactly the same as before. Exactly because I’m not able to imagine any ‘radius’ R as a tangible real life (rigid or unrigid)...
My question relates to the “Ehrenfest paradox”. I try to grasp it.
“In its original formulation as presented by Paul Ehrenfest 1909 in the Physikalische Zeitschrift, it discusses an ideally rigid cylinder that is made to rotate about its axis of symmetry. The radius R as seen in the...