Timeline for Motivation for the definition of angular momentum?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 24, 2022 at 16:01 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 24, 2022 at 16:01 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 16, 2022 at 14:49 | history | bounty started | GedankenExperimentalist | ||
| S Nov 16, 2022 at 14:49 | history | notice added | GedankenExperimentalist | Improve details | |
| Nov 14, 2022 at 18:56 | answer | added | John Alexiou | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 14, 2022 at 14:21 | history | edited | GedankenExperimentalist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 785 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Apr 12, 2022 at 13:04 | comment | added | GedankenExperimentalist | @DvijD.C. Now after rereading the passage in Feynman lectures and your comment, it is clear to me that I was making a mistake in my assumptions. You are correct about the coordinates and I was not. Now it all seems clear to me. Thanks a lot for your help. | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 12:47 | comment | added | user87745 | I don't exactly understand your objection that this is something coordinate-dependent. Yes, if you write things in actual numbers, a lot of things are coordinate dependent, force itself is coordinate dependent if we are to use language that way. The point is that there is a coordinate independent way to write $xF_y-yF_x$, namely, $\vec{x}\times\vec{F}$. | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 12:44 | comment | added | user87745 | Since you mention Feynman, I suppose you've already seen this but see Eq. 18.10 and 18.11 here. Forget about the fact that he says "Here a new concept, force, must be introduced. Let us inquire whether we can invent something which we shall call the torque (L. torque, to twist)" in the preceding paragraph. Simply notice that 18.10 and 18.11 directly follow from Newton's laws -- we haven't introduced any new machinery. | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 12:34 | comment | added | GedankenExperimentalist | @DvijD.C. I think I may be ignorant here can you spill out the details or guide me on where to look at? | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 12:32 | comment | added | user87745 | No, why? The conditions for equilibrium of a rigid body are derived purely from Newton's laws without assuming anything additional. | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 12:30 | comment | added | GedankenExperimentalist | @DvijD.C. well, that is just another variation of archimedean experiments. The condition that you speak of is not motivated by the second law and thus has to be treated as a fundamental law of nature separate from Newtonian laws, thus raising the concerns mentioned in the post. | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 10:19 | comment | added | user87745 | How about the fact that when you express the condition for the equilibrium of a rigid body, Newton's laws take the form of torque-balance equations? | |
| Apr 11, 2022 at 6:34 | history | rollback | GedankenExperimentalist |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Apr 10, 2022 at 22:48 | history | edited | ACuriousMind♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed meta-commentary; spelling of proper names
|
| Apr 10, 2022 at 17:58 | vote | accept | GedankenExperimentalist | ||
| Nov 4, 2022 at 20:25 | |||||
| Apr 10, 2022 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1513169940060254208 | ||
| Apr 10, 2022 at 5:48 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Apr 9, 2022 at 23:07 | answer | added | joseph h | timeline score: 19 | |
| Apr 9, 2022 at 22:31 | answer | added | Cleonis | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 9, 2022 at 21:47 | history | asked | GedankenExperimentalist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |