Can a rotating object have zero kinetic energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter esmeralda4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotating Zero
AI Thread Summary
Kinetic energy (KE) is a scalar quantity, not a vector, meaning it does not cancel out like vectors do. A rotating object cannot have zero total kinetic energy simply because its velocity components may be equal and opposite. Instead, it possesses rotational kinetic energy, which is distinct from linear kinetic energy. The formula for kinetic energy involves the square of velocity, derived from the vector dot product of velocity with itself. Therefore, a rotating object can have kinetic energy even if its linear velocity components appear to balance out.
esmeralda4
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Since velocity is a vector quantity I assume it follows that KE must also by a vector since KE=1/2mv squared.

Is it true to say a rotating object has zero total velocity since + = - and therefore the total KE is zero?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, because kinetic energy is not a vector quantity. It is a scalar. Think of the ##v^2## as coming from the vector dot product of the velocity with itself: ##v^2 = \vec v \cdot \vec v = v_x^2 + v_y^2 + v_z^2##.

There is such a thing as rotational kinetic energy.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rke.html
 
Last edited:
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...
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