Arbitrary choice of origin when linear momentum is zero

AI Thread Summary
When the total linear momentum of a system of particles is zero, the angular momentum is independent of the choice of origin. This is because shifting the origin by a constant vector does not affect the overall momentum, as the displacement cancels out in the calculations. The discussion suggests verifying this by substituting a new origin into the angular momentum equation, leading to the conclusion that the additional terms vanish due to the zero total momentum condition. However, participants express that while the mathematical proof is clear, the intuitive understanding of this principle remains elusive. Ultimately, the relationship between linear and angular momentum in this context highlights the importance of momentum conservation principles.
Zorba
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
I read the following in a textbook I'm reading:

If the total linear momentum of a system of particles is zero, then the angular momentum of the system is independent of the choice of origin.

It was given without proof and I've been trying to see why this is the case - mainly intuitively speaking, as it doesn't seem entirely obvious to me, if anyone can provide any insight.
Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you would memorize it best, if you do the calculation by yourself :)
Try pluging in \vec{r}'=\vec{r}+\vec{a} into the definition of angular momentum and see if \vec{a} cancels given \sum m_i v_i=0 (zero total momentum).
 
\displaystyle \Sigma \Right ( r_i \times m_i v_i \Left ) - \Sigma \Right ( (r_i + \alpha_i) \times m_i v_i \Left )
which gives
\Sigma \Right ( \alpha_i \times m_i v_i \Left )
not sure why this should be zero though?
 
"a" ist a constant displacement of origin which is the same for all point. Take it out of the sum.
 
Ah yes, although the mathematical solution still doesn't lend much to the intuitive reason behind it at all tbh.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top