Rotation about the Center of Mass

AI Thread Summary
When an object moves both translationally and rotationally, its center of mass follows a path as if there were no rotational energy because rotation occurs around this point. The center of mass remains unaffected by the object's rotation since it is a singular point defined by the distribution of mass. Forces applied to individual masses in a system, such as m1 and m2 connected by a rod, demonstrate that the acceleration of the center of mass can be derived from the net external forces acting on the system. This results in the center of mass moving uniformly along a straight line in the absence of external forces, validating Newton's second law for center of mass motion. Consequently, the center of mass serves as a natural reference point for analyzing rotational motion.
ninevolt
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Why is it that when an object moves both transitionally and rotationally the center of mass follows the path as if there was no rotational energy?

My theory is that objects naturally rotate around the center of mass and since the center of mass is a point, rotation doesn't affect its location. If this is true then I have another question.

Why do objects naturally rotate around the center of mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Simple example. Consider just two masses, m1 and m2 joined by a weightless rod of length L.

Imagine some forces F1 and F2 are applied to the two masses. In addition, there may be some tension in the rod. It applies force T to m1 and -T to m2. (Newton's 3rd Law)

Acceleration of m1:

m_1 a_1 = F_1 + T

a_1 = \frac{F_1 + T}{m_1}

Acceleration of m2:

m_2 a_2 = F_1 - T

a_2 = \frac{F_2 - T}{m_2}

Lets say that m1 is located at some point r1 and m2 at r2. Then the center of mass, r, is located at:

r = \frac{m_1 r_1 + m_2 r_2}{m_1 + m_2}

From this, it is easy to convince yourself that acceleration of center of mass, a, is given by the following.

a = \frac{m_1 a_1 + m_2 r_2}{m_1 + m_2}

Substituting earlier equations for a1 and a2 into the above, we get this.

a = \frac{F_1 + T + F_2 - T}{m_1 + m_2}

Tensions cancel. If I now call the total mass of the system M = m1 + m2, the result is exactly what you expect.

a = \frac{F_1 + F_2}{M}

a M = F_1 + F_2

Or in other words, the Newton's 2nd Law is valid for center of mass motion.

It is easy enough to extend the above for any collection of point masses. If you know a bit of calculus, you can derive it for continuous rigid bodies.

As far as the object rotating "around center of mass", any kind of motion can be separated into linear and rotational, with center of rotation being an arbitrary point. The above equations show that in absence of an external force, center of mass moves with no acceleration. That is, uniformly, along a straight line. Therefore, it is a natural choice for origin of rotational motion. You can pick any other point, but that point is going to experience a net force from its neighbors, and therefore, its motion is much more difficult to describe.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top