Why is torque perpendicular to the force applied?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of torque and its relationship to the force applied, specifically why torque is defined as being perpendicular to the force. Participants explore the implications of this definition, its intuitive understanding, and its mathematical relationships within physics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that torque is defined as perpendicular to the force, suggesting this definition is useful, though it could theoretically be defined differently with implications for other formulas.
  • There is a discussion about whether definitions are derived or constructed, with some arguing that definitions do not require derivation if they can be constructed.
  • One participant provides an intuitive example involving a spanner and a nut to illustrate how the direction of torque can be understood in practical terms, emphasizing that this intuition is based on the convention of handedness in screws.
  • Another participant relates torque to angular momentum, stating that torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, paralleling how force relates to momentum.
  • There is a question raised about whether the focus of the discussion is on the perpendicularity of torque to force or the directionality (clockwise vs. counterclockwise) of the torque.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of definitions in physics, with some agreeing on the utility of the torque definition while others challenge its derivation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the foundational aspects of definitions and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on conventions in definitions and the unresolved nature of how definitions are derived or constructed in physics.

MRzNone
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
I understand the right hand rule and the equition, but why is the direction of the torque perpendicular to the force on the counter clockwise side of the force and crossing the rotational point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because this is how torque is defined and it turns out to be a useful definition. You could just as well have defined it with a minus sign, but this would have had other consequences in other formulas.
 
But, definitions are derived right? Can you explain me how? They are seemingly irrelevant to me.
 
MRzNone said:
But, definitions are derived right?
No. Definitions are not derived by construction. If it is possible to derive something, you do not need to define it.
 
its a convention but i think you can feel that intuitive having thought over this -
look,
if you a screw and over it you have a nut ,tightly fitted ; and you are to undo it, using a spanner !
So, you will be rightly placing the spanner and forcing it to rotate it in counter clockwise sense about the screw
doing that you will be undoing the tightening , making the nut move towards you
so now you can think that your force on the spanner materialized into the outward movement of the nut (the direction of torque) !

How is it now ?!
 
Shreyas Samudra said:
So, you will be rightly placing the spanner and forcing it to rotate it in counter clockwise sense about the screw
doing that you will be undoing the tightening , making the nut move towards you
so now you can think that your force on the spanner materialized into the outward movement of the nut (the direction of torque) !

Note that this intuition is solely based on the convention of making nuts/screws with a particular handedness.
 
I second everything that Orodruin said, and I would like to add that the definition ensures that torque is to angular momentum what force is to momentum. What I mean by that is that force is the time derivative of momentum, and torque is the time derivative of angular momentum:
$$\dot{\mathbf L} =\frac{d}{dt}\left(\mathbf r\times(m\dot{\mathbf r})\right) =\mathbf r\times (m\ddot{\mathbf r}) =\mathbf r\times\mathbf F=\mathbf\tau.$$
 
And just to add to that, the relation would still hold if we defined both torque and angular momentum with a minus sign relative to the usual definition.
 
Is the question about the fact that the torque is perpendicular to the force or about the "clockwise" part?
 
  • #10
have
MRzNone got that
and how you felt about my reply
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K