Rotating a Perfectly Smooth Cylinder

Bmmarsh
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Consider the following model of a perfectly smooth cylinder. it it a ring of equally spaced, identical particles, with mass M/N, so that the mass of the ring is M and its moment of inertia MR², with R the radius of the ring. Calculate the possible values of the angular momentum. Calculate the energy eigenvalues. What is the energy difference between the ground state of zero angular momentum, and the first rotational state? Show that this approaches infinity as N-->oo. Constrast this with the comparable energy for a thick "nicked" cylinder, which lacks the symetry under the rotation through 2pi/N radians. This exemple implies that it is impossible to set a perfectly smooth cylinder in rotation, which is consistent with the fact that for a perfectly smooth cyinder such a rotation would be unobservable.

I've seen this question asked before, but no one offered a solution. And now that I have had this problem assigned to me, I figured I'de check to see if anyone has come up with a solution yet.

Conceptually, I understand that a perfectly smooth cylinder cannot rotate because it would be unobservable, but how would one go about showing this mathematically? Perhaps showing that it would take an infinite amount of energy to set such a cylinder in motion would be easier--however, I still wouldn't know how to mathematically derive this result.

Thanks for at least reading this =)
Any help would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't really understand. Is this a classical or quantum cylinder?
 
I'm sorry--this would be a quantum cylinder.
 
And i suppose that thick necked cylinder has some mass density which is uniform?
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top