Moment of Inertia: Kinetic Energy, Momentum & Conservation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between kinetic energy, momentum, and angular momentum in rotating bodies. It clarifies that while kinetic energy can be expressed in terms of moment of inertia (I) and angular velocity (ω), angular momentum is defined as Iω, which differs from the linear momentum calculation. The distinction is made that linear momentum is a sum of the momenta of individual particles, while angular momentum is a vector quantity with its own specific formulation. Additionally, the conservation of angular momentum is emphasized, suggesting that it remains constant in a closed system. Understanding these concepts requires recognizing the differences between linear and angular quantities in physics.
GeneralOJB
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I read that for a rotating body the kinetic energy ##E_k = \sum \frac{1}{2}mv^2 = \frac{1}{2}{\omega}^2∑mr^2 = \frac{1}{2}I{\omega}^2## where ##I## is the moment of inertia.

If we did the same thing for momentum then ##P = ∑mv = \omega\sum mr##

So why is angular momentum ##I\omega=\omega\sum mr^2##? Shouldn't the momentum just be the sum of the momentum of all the particles, like we did with kinetic energy?

Also why should I believe that this quantity ##I\omega## is conserved?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Use LaTeX :smile:
##E_k = \sum\frac{1}{2}mv^2 = \frac{1}{2}\sum m(\omega r)^2 = \frac{1}{2}\omega^2\sum mr^2 = \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2##
 
Ah, didn't know we had LaTeX.
 
GeneralOJB said:
Shouldn't the momentum just be the sum of the momentum of all the particles.
That would be the total linear momentum, not the total angular momentum.

Note that linear and rotational kinetic energy are both of the same physical scalar quantity. While linear and angular momentum are two different vector quantities. You should look at the vector formulas for momentum to understand it better.
 
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