Understanding the Rotation of a Freefalling Rod

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rod Rotation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the behavior of a rod in freefall, particularly focusing on the torque experienced by the rod when analyzed from different coordinate frames. Participants explore the implications of using the center of mass versus an endpoint as the pivot point, examining the resulting motion and angular momentum of the rod.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that when analyzing the rod from its center of mass, there is no torque, and it falls straight down, while using an endpoint as the pivot introduces a net torque due to gravity acting on the center of mass.
  • Others argue that the rod is a rigid body, and the torque on one end is countered by an equal and opposite torque on the other end, leading to no rotation.
  • A participant points out that using an accelerating point as a pivot complicates the relationship between torque and angular momentum, suggesting that torque about such a point does not equal the rate of change of angular momentum unless it is the center of mass.
  • Some participants introduce the concept of inertial forces in an accelerating frame, stating that these forces cancel gravity at any point on the rod, resulting in no net force and thus no torque.
  • Another viewpoint is presented that while the rod gains angular momentum in an inertial frame, it does not gain angular momentum in the accelerating frame of one of its ends.
  • One participant mentions that the torque related to gravity gradient effects is relevant in contexts such as satellites in low Earth orbit, although the problem assumes a uniform gravitational field without tidal forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of using various pivot points for analyzing the rod's motion. There is no consensus on the resolution of the torque issue, with multiple competing perspectives remaining in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves assumptions about the uniformity of the gravitational field and the nature of rigid bodies. The implications of using different reference frames and the effects of inertial forces are also explored, but these aspects remain unresolved.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!

the rod is a rigid body. the other side of the rod also has an equal torque, and due to rigidity, will be in the opposite direction.
 
aaaa202 said:
This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!
The problem is that you are you using an accelerating point as your 'pivot'. Torque about such an accelerating point does not simply equal the rate of change of angular momentum, unless that point happens to be the center of mass.

See my post in this thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4097976
 
chill_factor said:
the rod is a rigid body. the other side of the rod also has an equal torque, and due to rigidity, will be in the opposite direction.
The only external force acting on the rod is gravity.
 
aaaa202 said:
But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
In an accelerated frame that falls with the rod, there is an inertial force upwards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#Acceleration_in_a_straight_line

The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
 
A.T. said:
The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
That's a good way to look at it (and probably more straightforward).

The extra terms (beyond the torque due to external forces) you get when you calculate dL/dt about an accelerating point are equivalent to introducing that inertial force.
 
In the frame of one of the ends, the rod gains angular momentum - by falling linearly to the floor.
The torque is present, and required for a linear motion downwards in this frame.
 
mfb said:
In the frame of one of the ends, the rod gains angular momentum - by falling linearly to the floor.
The torque is present, and required for a linear motion downwards in this frame.
Viewed from an inertial frame, the rod gains angular momentum. But in the accelerating frame of one of its ends, it does not.
 
A.T. said:
The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
Yes, there is a torque. It's the same phenomenon that causes spaghettification. Taking advantage of, or otherwise dealing with, gravity gradient torque is an important concept for satellites in low Earth orbit.
 
  • #10
D H said:
Yes, there is a torque. It's the same phenomenon that causes spaghettification. Taking advantage of, or otherwise dealing with, gravity gradient torque is an important concept for satellites in low Earth orbit.
Problem assumes uniform gravitational field. There are no tidal forces. Doc Al and A.T. have it covered from both perspectives.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K