Proving $\tau = I\alpha$ for Continous Mass Distribution

AI Thread Summary
To prove the relationship τ = Iα for continuous mass distribution, one must transition from the discrete case to an integral form. The moment of inertia I can be defined as an integral that accounts for the continuous distribution of mass rather than point-like particles. The proof relies on the concept that as the mesh value of the Riemann sum decreases, it converges to the Riemann integral, allowing for accurate approximation of torque and angular acceleration. This approach highlights the limitations of discrete models while demonstrating the validity of the continuous case. Ultimately, the proof reinforces the fundamental relationship between torque, moment of inertia, and angular acceleration in rotational dynamics.
pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
how does one prove \tau=I\alpha for continious mass distribution where \tau is the net external torque along the axis of rotation I is the moment of inertia,and \alpha is the angular accelaration ...
i know the proof when the mass distribution is discrete...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
look at your discrete version and see how you can turn the sum into an integral ... eventually, i think the integral get absorbed in the definition of I (moment of inertia)
 
well taht doesn't happen ...because the discrete version necissates teh existence of point like particles...what does ahppen that thsi turns out to be a very good approximation...using the fact that as the mesh value of the riemann sum decrease it converges to the riemann integral; for a closed bounded function
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Effects of External Torques on the Angular Momentum of Asymmetric Bodies
Replies
3
Views
2K
A doubt in the rotational analogue of F=ma
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Explanation of parallel axis theorem
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Distribution of torsion in a steel guitar string
Replies
16
Views
1K
I Moment of inertia of human body with limbs at an angle
Replies
12
Views
2K
Angular acceleration in rigid body rotation due to a torque
Replies
1
Views
2K
Does Newton's Second Law for Torque Work for the Centre of Mass of an Object?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Moment of inertia where mass and torque are at a different positions
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Direction of friction on a rolling body
Replies
2
Views
1K
How Does Mass Distribution Affect Rotational Inertia?
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top