Is the rotational KE of a rigid body considered as internal energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the rotational kinetic energy (KE) of a rigid body should be considered part of its internal energy. Participants explore the definitions and implications of kinetic energy in both classical mechanics and relativistic contexts, examining the distinctions between internal energy, rest energy, and the contributions of rotational motion.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that rotational kinetic energy appears macroscopic and should not be included in internal energy, while others suggest that internal energy is defined as total energy minus potential energy in external fields and the kinetic energy of the center of mass.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between internal energy and rest energy, with some participants noting that rest energy is defined in a frame where the body is at rest, which excludes rotational motion.
  • One participant mentions that in classical mechanics, a rigid body does not have internal energy, as the distances between particles remain constant, implying that any potential energy contributions are also constant.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that mechanical energy can convert to internal energy in scenarios involving friction, such as in a spinning flywheel, indicating a potential exception to the rigid body assumption.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of extending classical mechanics into relativistic frameworks, emphasizing the need to adhere to the principles of each domain.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether rotational kinetic energy should be considered part of internal energy. Multiple competing views remain, with some participants asserting it does not contribute to internal energy while others suggest scenarios where it might.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding energy in classical versus relativistic contexts, as well as the implications of friction and energy conversion in rigid bodies.

  • #31
etotheipi said:
I think this is helpful, differentiating between distinct dynamical models. It might be best to leave it as such until I've studied continuum & fluid mechanics, since at the moment it feels like I'm missing too many pieces in the jigsaw puzzle!

I think you are conflating the model with the thing being modeled. You will always be able to find shortcomings of any model because it will have limits of validity. There is no such thing as a perfect model. The issue is whether or not the model is good enough to describe the actual behavior.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K