Rotational energy from linear fields

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how a charged object or mass accelerated by a linear field can increase its rotational energy. Participants clarify that linear and angular momentum are interconnected, with angular momentum being present about various axes even during linear motion. The role of electric and magnetic fields is highlighted, noting that while linear fields typically do not induce rotation, combinations of fields can transfer angular momentum to a particle. The conversation also touches on quantum mechanics, specifically the frequency of an electron's wave function and its implications for energy and spin angular momentum in relativistic scenarios. Ultimately, the complexity of the relationship between linear acceleration and rotational energy remains a key point of inquiry.
Chris FW
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to understand how a charged object or an object with mass which is being accelerated by a linear field and therefore should accelerate in a purely linear fashion could possibly increase its rotational energy?
I am not looking for trivial answers perhaps a certain distribution of mass/ charge that is the shape of an object? But I would consider that any object independant of shape would accelerate in a straight line through the centre of mass/charge distribution.
Any suggestions would be gratefully appreciated.
Chris FW
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmm, "rotational energy"? Do you mean you want to know how to increase it's angular momentum about some axis? When an object is moving in a straight line, it already has angular momentum about every axis except an axis passing directly through the line of its path (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Linear and angular momentum are the same thing from two different points of view.

That being said, uniform magnetic fields tend to accelerate things (moving charges) in a circular way. Is this what you're looking for?
 
Chris FW said:
I am trying to understand how a charged object or an object with mass which is being accelerated by a linear field and therefore should accelerate in a purely linear fashion could possibly increase its rotational energy?
I am not looking for trivial answers perhaps a certain distribution of mass/ charge that is the shape of an object? But I would consider that any object independant of shape would accelerate in a straight line through the centre of mass/charge distribution.
Any suggestions would be gratefully appreciated.
Chris FW

What do you mean with a linear field? As you know central forces cannot change angular momentum as the force is parallel to the position vector. There are however combinations of electric and magnetic fields that can change the angular momentum of a particle, notice that in this case the electromgnetic force has angular momentum of itself transferred to the particle! E.g. an electrically charged particle in a magnetic field is surrounded by both electric and magnetic fields that carries angular momentum.
 
Last edited:
Chris FW said:
I am trying to understand how a charged object or an object with mass which is being accelerated by a linear field and therefore should accelerate in a purely linear fashion could possibly increase its rotational energy?
I am not looking for trivial answers perhaps a certain distribution of mass/ charge that is the shape of an object? But I would consider that any object independant of shape would accelerate in a straight line through the centre of mass/charge distribution.
Any suggestions would be gratefully appreciated.
Chris FW

For Example an electron accelerated by a uniform linear electric field in say a cathode ray tube will receive energy from the field and accelerate but its frequency will also increase (wavelength decrease) nothing to do with magnetic fields (F= q(VxB) but E=hf
 
Chris FW said:
For Example an electron accelerated by a uniform linear electric field in say a cathode ray tube will receive energy from the field and accelerate

True. That's classical physics, and no rotation involved.

but its frequency will also increase (wavelength decrease) nothing to do with magnetic fields (F= q(VxB) but E=hf

What do you mean by "its frequency"? Do you mean the frequency of the quantum mechanical wave function of the electron? If so, this is a correct statement, but then it's a quantum physics question. And yet, I still don't understand what that has to do with rotation or angular momentum. There is still no rotation involved.
 
Xezlec said:
What do you mean by "its frequency"? Do you mean the frequency of the quantum mechanical wave function of the electron? If so, this is a correct statement, but then it's a quantum physics question. And yet, I still don't understand what that has to do with rotation or angular momentum. There is still no rotation involved.


I think he means the 'relativstic' increase in energy (frequency) ...and thus what happens to the spin angular momentum in such a relativistic case.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Can Rotating Objects Store Potential Energy Like Springs?
Replies
4
Views
11K
Is the rotational KE of a rigid body considered as internal energy?
Replies
30
Views
3K
Confusion about tidal locking and rotational kinetic energy
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Torque required from powered roller to rotate cylinder
Replies
19
Views
2K
Distinction between translational and rotational energy
Replies
1
Views
2K
Conservation of linear and angular momentum
Replies
9
Views
2K
Does the Work-Energy Theorem hold true for objects in rotational motion?
Replies
30
Views
3K
Dumbell collision, COM and rotational motion
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top