Feynman's description of angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
Feynman's Messenger Lectures on angular momentum emphasize its relationship to areal velocity, suggesting that angular momentum can be interpreted as areal velocity multiplied by 2m. The discussion raises the question of whether the equation dA/dt = L/2m holds universally, with some participants noting that if L is proportional to areal velocity, so are multiples of L. A mathematical explanation is provided, showing that the area swept out by a radial vector can be derived from the cross product of position vectors. The conversation highlights the clarity of Feynman's geometric approach to understanding angular momentum, which contrasts with traditional teaching methods. This perspective invites further exploration of why such intuitive explanations are not more widely adopted in physics education.
stingray191
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I recently watched the Feynman Messenger Lectures on project tuva. I hope some of you have watched the second video lecture in the collection or will watch it in order to help me with my following question :smile:. In this lecture Feynman talks about angular momentum in terms of the time rate of change of the area swept out by the radial vector. That is, angular momentum is proportional to the areal velocity. I've always had trouble intuitively understanding angular momentum but feynman's geometrical description made sense to me and seemed simple. My question is this: Is interpreting angular momentum as being equal to the areal velocity times 2m valid in general? And if yes, then why is this way not taught in physics courses? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No, because if L, the magnitude of angular momentum, is proportional to the areal velocity, then so is 2L, 3L, and so forth.
 
I meant that does the equation dA/dt=L/2m hold in general where da/dt is the areal velocity.
 
"Leaning Towah!"

I haven't gone through all of his lectures yet but they are very entertaining. I never knew his accent was that strong though.
 
Consider a function r(t) (assume it is smooth or at least twice differentiable since we are considering a natural trajectory)

The area the function sweeps out from t to t+dt is dA=.5r(t)\times r(t+dt) this is because he area will be an infinitesimal triangle with the sides as vectors r(t) and r(t+dt) and it is well known that the area of a triangle defined by two "side" vectors is one half times the cross product of the vectors. See the graph below I made( dA is the yellow region)
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/614/areavelocity.jpg
Therefore, dA is equal to

\frac{dA}{dt}=.5\frac{r(t)\times r(t+dt)}{dt}=.5r(t)\times \frac{r(t+dt)}{dt}=.5r(t)\times v(t)

Obviously dA/dt (areal velocity) is proportional to angular momentum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?

Similar threads

Back
Top