Position vector in torque (and angular momentum)

AI Thread Summary
Torque is defined as the cross product of the position vector and force, represented as τ = r × F. While the force vector is fixed, the choice of origin for the position vector is arbitrary, leading to questions about the torque's dependence on this origin. Despite the arbitrariness, torque and angular momentum are calculated relative to the chosen point, meaning they are not absolute concepts. In the discussed scenario, the torque at time t is simply r(t) × F(t). The conversation concludes that the choice of origin does not change the fundamental nature of torque and angular momentum calculations.
chuchung712
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Torque is defined as the cross product of position vector and force, i.e. \vec \tau = \vec r \times \vec F .

However the force vector \vec F is fixed, but the choice of origin is arbitrary, making \vec r also arbitrary. Does it make the torque vector also arbitrary, which apparently shouldn't be?

So let's say in a very general case, a force \vec F(t) acts on a particle between times t1 and t2 with position vector of the particle \vec r(t). Is the torque at time t simply \vec r(t) \times \vec F(t) or (\vec r(t) - \vec r(t_1)) \times \vec F(t)? And if I want to find the angular momentum, is the linear momentum \vec p(t) or \vec p(t_1) - \vec p(t)? How do you justify the choice of origin as the centre of rotation of most standard cases? (as in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angular_momentum_circle.svg)

Please correct me if I have any conceptual problems, but I am really confused.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the origin is arbitrary thus the torque. Whatever origin you define, you will find the angular momentum with respect to that point, so angular momentum is also not an absolute concept.
 
  • Like
Likes chuchung712
TESL@ said:
Yes, the origin is arbitrary thus the torque. Whatever origin you define, you will find the angular momentum with respect to that point, so angular momentum is also not an absolute concept.
Thank you so much. So in my case the torque is simply \vec r(t) \times \vec F(t), right?
 
Yes.
 
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