A rotating system of two point particles with inner torque

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the concept of inner torques in a system of two rotating point particles. The author notes that the torque exerted by one particle on the other is defined mathematically, yet questions the necessity of considering inner torques when the particles do not appear to attract each other. It is argued that, according to Newton's Third Law, the inner forces should cancel out, making the consideration of inner torques seem unnecessary. Despite the author's intent to derive a general equation for rotating systems, the explanation lacks clarity, leaving participants uncertain about the underlying principles. The conversation highlights the need for clearer communication in physics education regarding the interactions of point particles.
bolzano95
Messages
89
Reaction score
7
Lets say we have a system of two point particles (1. and 2.) which are rotating around an axis.
IMG_8329.jpg
What is written next in my physics course book is: The torque of a 2.body on the 1. body is M21=r1xF21 and the torque of the 1.body on the 2.body is M12=r2xF12. Understandable.
But how? There is no mention or suggestion that those two particles are attracted each other.

I don't understand why are we having inner torques in this example- we are dealing with a system: and it's normal that the inner forces cancel each other out based on the 3rd Newtons Law.
So why are we dealing with inner torques?

I think it's useless thinking about inner torques in the system: if we divide a rigid body to tiny pieces and we take them as point particles, the sum of inner torques is 0.

But the author is trying to derive a general equation for a rotating system of point particles and a rigid body. But he starts explaining the theory in such a confusing way that I'm not sure what I'm missing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bolzano95 said:
But how? There is no mention or suggestion that those two particles are attracted each other.
Aren't the forces shown in the diagram enough of a suggestion?
 
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