Does inertia keep a rotating object rotating forever, or something else?Is there still no known origin of the law of inertia?Does non-rotating object have rotational inertia if it is attach to rotating object by a springHow is inertia related to friction?Does a rotating object have more inertia, mass and gravitational pull?Calculating torque required to keep an object rotatingDoes Inertia really define the resistant ability of a bodyDoes the Earth keep spinning because of inertia?Feynman Lectures Vol1: 18-2 Rotation of a rigid body - conservation of angular momentumDoes horizontal inertia affect the time it takes something to reach the ground?How can angular momentum of an object needed to make another object rotate be calculated?Inertia on a rotating disc?
Why don't commercial aircraft adopt a slightly more seaplane-like design to allow safer ditching in case of emergency?
A scene of Jimmy diversity
ROT13 encoder/decoder
What are the arguments for California’s nonpartisan blanket (jungle) primaries?
what relax command means?
What is the point of a constraint expression on a non-templated function?
Is the purpose of sheet music to be played along to? Or a guide for learning and reference during playing?
Is it okay for a chapter's POV to shift as it progresses?
ArcPy Delete Function not working inside for loop?
Will this tire fail its MOT?
Intel 8080-based home computers
How Can I Process Untrusted Data Sources Securely?
How to color a tag in a math equation?
How could an animal "smell" carbon monoxide?
Improve quality of image bars
How fast does a character need to move to be effectively invisible?
Is there a typesafe way to get a Database.QueryLocator?
How can a drink contain 1.8 kcal energy while 0 g fat/carbs/protein?
Sending a photo of my bank account card to the future employer
How should one refer to knights (& dames) in academic writing?
Kepler space telescope undetected planets
Magento 2 Looking for configuration saved event
Why did Steve Rogers choose this character in Endgame?
Was Apollo 13 radio blackout on reentry longer than expected?
Does inertia keep a rotating object rotating forever, or something else?
Is there still no known origin of the law of inertia?Does non-rotating object have rotational inertia if it is attach to rotating object by a springHow is inertia related to friction?Does a rotating object have more inertia, mass and gravitational pull?Calculating torque required to keep an object rotatingDoes Inertia really define the resistant ability of a bodyDoes the Earth keep spinning because of inertia?Feynman Lectures Vol1: 18-2 Rotation of a rigid body - conservation of angular momentumDoes horizontal inertia affect the time it takes something to reach the ground?How can angular momentum of an object needed to make another object rotate be calculated?Inertia on a rotating disc?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?
angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia
$endgroup$
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?
angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?
angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia
$endgroup$
Someone told me that it is not inertia, but I think it is inertia, because it will rotate forever. In my understanding, inertia is the constant motion of an object without external force. Am I wrong?
angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia
angular-momentum rotational-dynamics conservation-laws torque inertia
edited 1 hour ago
knzhou
53.3k13 gold badges147 silver badges258 bronze badges
53.3k13 gold badges147 silver badges258 bronze badges
asked yesterday
enbin zhengenbin zheng
3352 silver badges10 bronze badges
3352 silver badges10 bronze badges
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]
Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.
“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.
The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.
What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.
Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.
Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.
Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.
Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.
As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.
For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.
So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492035%2fdoes-inertia-keep-a-rotating-object-rotating-forever-or-something-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]
Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.
“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.
The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.
What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.
Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.
Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]
Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.
“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.
The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.
What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.
Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.
Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]
Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.
“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.
The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.
What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.
Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.
Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.
$endgroup$
Is it inertia that a rotating object will rotate forever without external force? Someone told me that this is not inertia [...]
Well, sort of - it’s somewhat correct to say it is inertia, and somewhat correct to say it isn’t. One has to be precise with language! But there is some truth to what you were told.
“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity unless an external force is applied to them. It is basically a single word that encapsulates Newton’s first law of motion. It is a very fundamental law of nature, and at some level, no one really knows why it’s true.
The different parts of the rotating object are definitely not moving in a straight line, and it’s not the case that no forces are acting on them. So there is more than just inertia at play.
What is happening with a rotating rigid body is that each part of the body “wants” to maintain its fixed velocity according to the law of inertia, but the rigidity of the body is preventing it from doing so (since the pieces of the body have different velocity vectors so with fixed velocities they would all fly off in different directions). At the microscopic level, each piece of the body is applying forces to the adjacent pieces. Those forces are causing those adjacent pieces to change their velocity, according to Newton’s second law of motion. The end result of this highly complicated process is surprisingly simple: the body rotates. But the underlying cause is more than just inertia.
Now, I said it’s also somewhat correct to say that it is inertia that’s making bodies keep rotating. This is because there is also a rotational analogue of inertia that in informal speech among physicists might still be referred to as “inertia” (although calling it rotational inertia is more appropriate, and it will also commonly be described under the terms “moment of inertia” or “conservation of angular momentum”, or even more fancy terms like “rotational symmetry of space + Noether’s theorem”, although each of these terms describes something a bit more complicated than just rotational inertia). This rotational inertia is the tendency of rotating rigid bodies to continue rotating at a fixed angular velocity in their center of mass frame, unless a torque is applied to them.
Rotational inertia differs from ordinary “linear” inertia in that it is a derived principle: it can be derived mathematically from Newton’s laws of motion, so in that sense it has (in my opinion) a slightly less fundamental status among the laws of physics. Rigid bodies don’t “want” to keep rotating in the same fundamental sense that particles “want” to keep moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity - they do end up rotating but it’s because of a process we understand well and can analyze mathematically (starting from Newton’s laws), rather than some mysterious natural phenomenon we observe experimentally and accept as an axiom without being able to say much more about why it’s true.
answered 21 hours ago
GenlyAiGenlyAi
2997 bronze badges
2997 bronze badges
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
«“Inertia” generally refers to the tendency of objects to continue moving in a straight line with a fixed velocity» It is the Merriam-Webster definition but is it the true definition of the scientific concept ? Wikipedia defines Inertia as «The resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity.» which covers both the linear momentum and angular momentum.
$endgroup$
– zakinster
11 hours ago
7
7
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@zakinster But a rotating object consists of parts which are constantly changing velocity. It's not clear how that definition would apply here, because angular velocity and velocity are two fairly distinct concepts.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@zakinster as I said, the constituent parts of a rotating body are constantly changing their velocity, hence this does not fit Wikipedia’s definition.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
7 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
In general I would not immediately assume that a Wikipedia definition is a "true definition" of any concept, scientific or otherwise.
$endgroup$
– Lee Mosher
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@LeeMosher good point. But Wikipedia gets it right on this particular occasion.
$endgroup$
– GenlyAi
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.
Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.
Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.
As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.
Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.
Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.
As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.
Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.
Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.
As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).
$endgroup$
At its most basic, an object will rotate forever for the simple reason that there is no preferred direction in space.
Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 explains how various conservation laws arise from from differentiable symmetries. It is a mathematical theorem, not a physics theory. Because of this mathematical certainty, it is one of the most important theorems in physics.
Noether's theorem explains how the conservation of angular momentum (rotation) is required on the assumption that rotation does not change the laws of physics. Similarly, energy is conserved if time does not change the laws, and conservation of linear momentum is caused by the absence of a preferred location.
As these assumptions have always been observed to hold, this gives a very strong proof for the conclusions (the conservation laws).
edited 8 hours ago
aniline
31 bronze badge
31 bronze badge
answered 23 hours ago
hdhondthdhondt
8,2381 gold badge15 silver badges27 bronze badges
8,2381 gold badge15 silver badges27 bronze badges
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
add a comment |
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
11
11
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is that "yes" or "no" to the question?
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
it is called conservation of angular momentum, as far as rotations go, one of the three strong conservation laws, energy ,momentum, angular momentum. They are called laws, because they are like axioms,seen to be to be true in data and thus the theory developed for mechanics incorporates them with Noether's theorem.
$endgroup$
– anna v
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn When classroom physics meets fundamental physics, simple yes or no questions rarely have simple yes or no answers.
$endgroup$
– Schwern
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Schwern I didn't ask for only "yes" or "no". The GenlyAI answer, for example, said both "yes" and "no".
$endgroup$
– RonJohn
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@RonJohn It's a YES. Angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– hdhondt
41 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.
For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.
So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.
For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.
So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.
For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.
So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
As Newton stated with his 1st law, an object without a force acting on it will keep moving with the same speed and direction. This is also known as the law of inertia. Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist acceleration. This is because no force is acting on it to affect acceleration.
For rotational motion, the version of this is the moment of inertia which is similar, but about the tendency to resist angular acceleration.
So it is inertia (the moment of inertia if rotation). It keeps rotating at constant angular frequency since it resists a possible change out of nowhere.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
AlazAlaz
38914 bronze badges
38914 bronze badges
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Alaz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.
$endgroup$
Without any applied torque the angular momentum of a rotating object is conserved.
answered yesterday
amateurAstroamateurAstro
4581 silver badge7 bronze badges
4581 silver badge7 bronze badges
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
This doesn't answer the question. The question asked if this could also be called inertia; it did not ask if angular momentum is conserved.
$endgroup$
– JMac
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f492035%2fdoes-inertia-keep-a-rotating-object-rotating-forever-or-something-else%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
It is external torques that cause an object to rotate (change angular momentum), as external forces are only responsible for moving the center of mass. An offset force happens to produce torques as a secondary effect.
$endgroup$
– ja72
9 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
What did the other person say it is?
$endgroup$
– Andrew Morton
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ja72 So it's going to rotate forever. Isn't that inertia?
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AndrewMorton I was told that rotation is not inertial because it is not an inertial system.
$endgroup$
– enbin zheng
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@ja72 I highly disagree. I think that's the entire crux of the question. Equating the two without explaining that "inertia" and "moment of inertia" are different things might completely neglect why OP got into this conversation in the first place, and may only add to the confusion. OP only ever talks about "inertia" so assuming that he really means "moment of inertia", without explaining that they are different, is likely not going to help them.
$endgroup$
– JMac
2 hours ago