Can anything which isn't rotating have angular momentum?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
20
down vote

favorite
4












Suppose a ball is going straight along a fixed line without rotating. Now you consider a point which is not along the trajectory of the ball. If I want to consider the angular momentum about that point, as you can understand that the $r$ and $v$ vector aren't in the same direction, so $rtimes v $ should have a value. So this object isn't rotating but has an angular momentum. Can I conclude that the ball has angular momentum without rotating?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
    – anna v
    Aug 24 at 6:33






  • 28




    Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
    – knzhou
    Aug 24 at 6:38






  • 3




    I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
    – Michael
    Aug 24 at 18:54






  • 2




    You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
    – Philip Oakley
    Aug 25 at 21:11














up vote
20
down vote

favorite
4












Suppose a ball is going straight along a fixed line without rotating. Now you consider a point which is not along the trajectory of the ball. If I want to consider the angular momentum about that point, as you can understand that the $r$ and $v$ vector aren't in the same direction, so $rtimes v $ should have a value. So this object isn't rotating but has an angular momentum. Can I conclude that the ball has angular momentum without rotating?







share|cite|improve this question


















  • 3




    Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
    – anna v
    Aug 24 at 6:33






  • 28




    Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
    – knzhou
    Aug 24 at 6:38






  • 3




    I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
    – Michael
    Aug 24 at 18:54






  • 2




    You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
    – Philip Oakley
    Aug 25 at 21:11












up vote
20
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
20
down vote

favorite
4






4





Suppose a ball is going straight along a fixed line without rotating. Now you consider a point which is not along the trajectory of the ball. If I want to consider the angular momentum about that point, as you can understand that the $r$ and $v$ vector aren't in the same direction, so $rtimes v $ should have a value. So this object isn't rotating but has an angular momentum. Can I conclude that the ball has angular momentum without rotating?







share|cite|improve this question














Suppose a ball is going straight along a fixed line without rotating. Now you consider a point which is not along the trajectory of the ball. If I want to consider the angular momentum about that point, as you can understand that the $r$ and $v$ vector aren't in the same direction, so $rtimes v $ should have a value. So this object isn't rotating but has an angular momentum. Can I conclude that the ball has angular momentum without rotating?









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 1 at 3:18

























asked Aug 24 at 6:20









Nobody recognizeable

444216




444216







  • 3




    Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
    – anna v
    Aug 24 at 6:33






  • 28




    Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
    – knzhou
    Aug 24 at 6:38






  • 3




    I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
    – Michael
    Aug 24 at 18:54






  • 2




    You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
    – Philip Oakley
    Aug 25 at 21:11












  • 3




    Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
    – anna v
    Aug 24 at 6:33






  • 28




    Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
    – knzhou
    Aug 24 at 6:38






  • 3




    I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
    – Michael
    Aug 24 at 18:54






  • 2




    You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
    – Philip Oakley
    Aug 25 at 21:11







3




3




Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
– anna v
Aug 24 at 6:33




Yes , that is the way it has been defined .
– anna v
Aug 24 at 6:33




28




28




Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
– knzhou
Aug 24 at 6:38




Yes. The definition makes sense, because if a ball flew past you, you would start spinning if you caught it.
– knzhou
Aug 24 at 6:38




3




3




I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
– Michael
Aug 24 at 18:54




I was going to say an electron until I read the question.
– Michael
Aug 24 at 18:54




2




2




You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
– Philip Oakley
Aug 25 at 21:11




You should distinguish between the object on its own (frame of reference defined by its velocity vector), and the system of the static object and the observer, where line of sight is an alternate frame of reference, and you get a choice as to which frame is used for the 'angular' momentum question. Without a well defined centre of balance/gravity, you can't decide about the angular momentum.
– Philip Oakley
Aug 25 at 21:11










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
27
down vote



accepted










Yes, it does. It may seem a bit more intuitive if you imagine a line connecting your reference point and the centre of the ball: as the ball moves, the line sweeps out an angle across the ball, so there should be some angular momentum. If you think in polar coordinates instead of cartesian, the ball is rotating.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 2




    This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
    – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
    Aug 24 at 14:02






  • 10




    @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
    – Yakk
    Aug 24 at 17:34






  • 1




    @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
    – Kyle Oman
    Aug 24 at 18:19










  • @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
    – Nobody recognizeable
    Aug 25 at 6:02










  • @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
    – Kyle Oman
    Aug 25 at 8:47

















up vote
9
down vote













I think your question comes about because you are comparing angular momentum to linear and there seems to be a difference: in the case of "normal" momentum, it's mass times velocity, it's a "real" thing... but angular, well that seems to be virtual, the object might have or not have it depending on where "you" are. And that seems strange, right?



Ok, so imagine that same ball going along that straight line, but now you are on a cart travelling at the same speed along the same line. Now what's the momentum of the ball? Zero!



This example doesn't seem so odd, but the underlying basis is the same; all of these measurements depend on what "you" are doing, or more technically, your frame of reference.



So the idea that an object can have multiple values for [MEASUREMENT X] at the same time should not be at all surprising or weird, it's kind of baked into the way these things are defined.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Yes. If you watch a vehicle going straight on road while you stand at a bus stand then the angular momentum possessed by the vehicle is $mvecvtimesvecr$, where $m$ is mass of vehicle, $vecv$ is velocity of vehicle and $vecr$ is the vector starting from you and ending at the vehicle which is variable in this case.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Though I won't give you a complete answer but I would give you enough hint to think upon it.



      Let a bullet moving with a speed $v$ collide with a block of comparable mass. The block will start moving. In a crude language we tend to say that the block has gained some momentum from the bullet.



      Now we release a non spinning bullet towards a coin such that it hits the edge of the coin. The coin will surely spin. Thus it has acquired an angular momentum. If the bullet wouldn't have angular momentum, then how come it transfer angular momentum to the coin.



      Now the thinking process is yours....






      share|cite|improve this answer
















      • 3




        The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
        – Mike
        Aug 24 at 11:27

















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The angular momentum of an object is simply the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. If an object has angular momentum L, and N atoms, then each atom has, on average, L/N angular momentum. The atoms aren't rotating, they are revolving, and from an instantaneous point of view, they have linear motion.



      If you took two balls connected with a string and spin them, they would have angular momentum. If you cut the string, the balls will fly off, and the angular momentum won't go anywhere; the balls will still have angular momentum.



      Note that angular momentum is defined with respect to a particular axis. When discussing the angular momentum of an object, the axis is taken to be one that goes through the center of mass. But each object has an angular momentum with respect to every axis. The earth has an angular momentum with respect to the polar axis, and another angular momentum with respect to the sun's polar axis. For each axis, the total angular momentum of the universe is conserved.






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        The problem I see is that it is not clear what is meant by "rotating." An object can rotate about its center of mass, about a point away from its center of mass, or both!

        So, an object can have angular momentum, even though it may not be rotating with respect to its center of mass, but moves in a circular path. Or it might be moving in a straight line but rotates about its center of mass, or both.






        share|cite|improve this answer



























          up vote
          1
          down vote













          The answer depends on the kind of object - particle or field - you mean, and if you refer to spin- or orbital angular momentum.



          Invisible or "hidden" electromagnetic field spin angular momentum is equivalent to the canonical angular momentum
          $$vecL_c = vecr times q vecA$$
          generated by a charge $q$ at relative rest in a magnetostatic field with vector-potential $vecA$ at $vecr$. Example: If $q$ is located in the center of a solenoid field of flux $Phi$, a "hidden" electromagnetic field angular momentum $L = q Phi/ 2 pi$ would be generated.



          Reference:
          McDonald, K.T.: Electromagnetic Field Angular Momentum of a Charge at Rest in a Uniform Magnetic Field. Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 May 20, 2015 (PDF)






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            protected by ACuriousMind♦ Aug 24 at 15:48



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes








            7 Answers
            7






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            27
            down vote



            accepted










            Yes, it does. It may seem a bit more intuitive if you imagine a line connecting your reference point and the centre of the ball: as the ball moves, the line sweeps out an angle across the ball, so there should be some angular momentum. If you think in polar coordinates instead of cartesian, the ball is rotating.






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 2




              This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
              – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
              Aug 24 at 14:02






            • 10




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
              – Yakk
              Aug 24 at 17:34






            • 1




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 24 at 18:19










            • @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
              – Nobody recognizeable
              Aug 25 at 6:02










            • @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 25 at 8:47














            up vote
            27
            down vote



            accepted










            Yes, it does. It may seem a bit more intuitive if you imagine a line connecting your reference point and the centre of the ball: as the ball moves, the line sweeps out an angle across the ball, so there should be some angular momentum. If you think in polar coordinates instead of cartesian, the ball is rotating.






            share|cite|improve this answer
















            • 2




              This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
              – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
              Aug 24 at 14:02






            • 10




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
              – Yakk
              Aug 24 at 17:34






            • 1




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 24 at 18:19










            • @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
              – Nobody recognizeable
              Aug 25 at 6:02










            • @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 25 at 8:47












            up vote
            27
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            27
            down vote



            accepted






            Yes, it does. It may seem a bit more intuitive if you imagine a line connecting your reference point and the centre of the ball: as the ball moves, the line sweeps out an angle across the ball, so there should be some angular momentum. If you think in polar coordinates instead of cartesian, the ball is rotating.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Yes, it does. It may seem a bit more intuitive if you imagine a line connecting your reference point and the centre of the ball: as the ball moves, the line sweeps out an angle across the ball, so there should be some angular momentum. If you think in polar coordinates instead of cartesian, the ball is rotating.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Aug 24 at 6:34









            Kyle Oman

            13.9k751104




            13.9k751104







            • 2




              This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
              – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
              Aug 24 at 14:02






            • 10




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
              – Yakk
              Aug 24 at 17:34






            • 1




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 24 at 18:19










            • @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
              – Nobody recognizeable
              Aug 25 at 6:02










            • @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 25 at 8:47












            • 2




              This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
              – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
              Aug 24 at 14:02






            • 10




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
              – Yakk
              Aug 24 at 17:34






            • 1




              @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 24 at 18:19










            • @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
              – Nobody recognizeable
              Aug 25 at 6:02










            • @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
              – Kyle Oman
              Aug 25 at 8:47







            2




            2




            This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
            – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
            Aug 24 at 14:02




            This means that the answer to the question's title would be "No, something which isn't rotating can't have angular momentum", right? Your "Yes, it does" would be an answer to the body of the question.
            – Jose Antonio Dura Olmos
            Aug 24 at 14:02




            10




            10




            @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
            – Yakk
            Aug 24 at 17:34




            @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos I'm not sure if no triple negatives are ever not the right answer to no question.
            – Yakk
            Aug 24 at 17:34




            1




            1




            @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
            – Kyle Oman
            Aug 24 at 18:19




            @JoseAntonioDuraOlmos The opposite: "Yes, something which isn't rotating CAN have angular momentum."
            – Kyle Oman
            Aug 24 at 18:19












            @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
            – Nobody recognizeable
            Aug 25 at 6:02




            @KyleOman Can you explain the point that the ball is rotating in polar coordinates.
            – Nobody recognizeable
            Aug 25 at 6:02












            @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
            – Kyle Oman
            Aug 25 at 8:47




            @Nobodyrecognizeable draw the system at 2 different times, including radial and azimuthal unit vectors, and the velocity vector. Velocity has rotated wrt the coordinate frame.
            – Kyle Oman
            Aug 25 at 8:47










            up vote
            9
            down vote













            I think your question comes about because you are comparing angular momentum to linear and there seems to be a difference: in the case of "normal" momentum, it's mass times velocity, it's a "real" thing... but angular, well that seems to be virtual, the object might have or not have it depending on where "you" are. And that seems strange, right?



            Ok, so imagine that same ball going along that straight line, but now you are on a cart travelling at the same speed along the same line. Now what's the momentum of the ball? Zero!



            This example doesn't seem so odd, but the underlying basis is the same; all of these measurements depend on what "you" are doing, or more technically, your frame of reference.



            So the idea that an object can have multiple values for [MEASUREMENT X] at the same time should not be at all surprising or weird, it's kind of baked into the way these things are defined.






            share|cite|improve this answer
























              up vote
              9
              down vote













              I think your question comes about because you are comparing angular momentum to linear and there seems to be a difference: in the case of "normal" momentum, it's mass times velocity, it's a "real" thing... but angular, well that seems to be virtual, the object might have or not have it depending on where "you" are. And that seems strange, right?



              Ok, so imagine that same ball going along that straight line, but now you are on a cart travelling at the same speed along the same line. Now what's the momentum of the ball? Zero!



              This example doesn't seem so odd, but the underlying basis is the same; all of these measurements depend on what "you" are doing, or more technically, your frame of reference.



              So the idea that an object can have multiple values for [MEASUREMENT X] at the same time should not be at all surprising or weird, it's kind of baked into the way these things are defined.






              share|cite|improve this answer






















                up vote
                9
                down vote










                up vote
                9
                down vote









                I think your question comes about because you are comparing angular momentum to linear and there seems to be a difference: in the case of "normal" momentum, it's mass times velocity, it's a "real" thing... but angular, well that seems to be virtual, the object might have or not have it depending on where "you" are. And that seems strange, right?



                Ok, so imagine that same ball going along that straight line, but now you are on a cart travelling at the same speed along the same line. Now what's the momentum of the ball? Zero!



                This example doesn't seem so odd, but the underlying basis is the same; all of these measurements depend on what "you" are doing, or more technically, your frame of reference.



                So the idea that an object can have multiple values for [MEASUREMENT X] at the same time should not be at all surprising or weird, it's kind of baked into the way these things are defined.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                I think your question comes about because you are comparing angular momentum to linear and there seems to be a difference: in the case of "normal" momentum, it's mass times velocity, it's a "real" thing... but angular, well that seems to be virtual, the object might have or not have it depending on where "you" are. And that seems strange, right?



                Ok, so imagine that same ball going along that straight line, but now you are on a cart travelling at the same speed along the same line. Now what's the momentum of the ball? Zero!



                This example doesn't seem so odd, but the underlying basis is the same; all of these measurements depend on what "you" are doing, or more technically, your frame of reference.



                So the idea that an object can have multiple values for [MEASUREMENT X] at the same time should not be at all surprising or weird, it's kind of baked into the way these things are defined.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Aug 24 at 14:24









                Maury Markowitz

                1,894216




                1,894216




















                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote













                    Yes. If you watch a vehicle going straight on road while you stand at a bus stand then the angular momentum possessed by the vehicle is $mvecvtimesvecr$, where $m$ is mass of vehicle, $vecv$ is velocity of vehicle and $vecr$ is the vector starting from you and ending at the vehicle which is variable in this case.






                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote













                      Yes. If you watch a vehicle going straight on road while you stand at a bus stand then the angular momentum possessed by the vehicle is $mvecvtimesvecr$, where $m$ is mass of vehicle, $vecv$ is velocity of vehicle and $vecr$ is the vector starting from you and ending at the vehicle which is variable in this case.






                      share|cite|improve this answer






















                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote









                        Yes. If you watch a vehicle going straight on road while you stand at a bus stand then the angular momentum possessed by the vehicle is $mvecvtimesvecr$, where $m$ is mass of vehicle, $vecv$ is velocity of vehicle and $vecr$ is the vector starting from you and ending at the vehicle which is variable in this case.






                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        Yes. If you watch a vehicle going straight on road while you stand at a bus stand then the angular momentum possessed by the vehicle is $mvecvtimesvecr$, where $m$ is mass of vehicle, $vecv$ is velocity of vehicle and $vecr$ is the vector starting from you and ending at the vehicle which is variable in this case.







                        share|cite|improve this answer












                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer










                        answered Aug 24 at 6:36









                        Jitendra

                        48311




                        48311




















                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote













                            Though I won't give you a complete answer but I would give you enough hint to think upon it.



                            Let a bullet moving with a speed $v$ collide with a block of comparable mass. The block will start moving. In a crude language we tend to say that the block has gained some momentum from the bullet.



                            Now we release a non spinning bullet towards a coin such that it hits the edge of the coin. The coin will surely spin. Thus it has acquired an angular momentum. If the bullet wouldn't have angular momentum, then how come it transfer angular momentum to the coin.



                            Now the thinking process is yours....






                            share|cite|improve this answer
















                            • 3




                              The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                              – Mike
                              Aug 24 at 11:27














                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote













                            Though I won't give you a complete answer but I would give you enough hint to think upon it.



                            Let a bullet moving with a speed $v$ collide with a block of comparable mass. The block will start moving. In a crude language we tend to say that the block has gained some momentum from the bullet.



                            Now we release a non spinning bullet towards a coin such that it hits the edge of the coin. The coin will surely spin. Thus it has acquired an angular momentum. If the bullet wouldn't have angular momentum, then how come it transfer angular momentum to the coin.



                            Now the thinking process is yours....






                            share|cite|improve this answer
















                            • 3




                              The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                              – Mike
                              Aug 24 at 11:27












                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            Though I won't give you a complete answer but I would give you enough hint to think upon it.



                            Let a bullet moving with a speed $v$ collide with a block of comparable mass. The block will start moving. In a crude language we tend to say that the block has gained some momentum from the bullet.



                            Now we release a non spinning bullet towards a coin such that it hits the edge of the coin. The coin will surely spin. Thus it has acquired an angular momentum. If the bullet wouldn't have angular momentum, then how come it transfer angular momentum to the coin.



                            Now the thinking process is yours....






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            Though I won't give you a complete answer but I would give you enough hint to think upon it.



                            Let a bullet moving with a speed $v$ collide with a block of comparable mass. The block will start moving. In a crude language we tend to say that the block has gained some momentum from the bullet.



                            Now we release a non spinning bullet towards a coin such that it hits the edge of the coin. The coin will surely spin. Thus it has acquired an angular momentum. If the bullet wouldn't have angular momentum, then how come it transfer angular momentum to the coin.



                            Now the thinking process is yours....







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Aug 24 at 8:20









                            Jnan

                            19117




                            19117







                            • 3




                              The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                              – Mike
                              Aug 24 at 11:27












                            • 3




                              The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                              – Mike
                              Aug 24 at 11:27







                            3




                            3




                            The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                            – Mike
                            Aug 24 at 11:27




                            The angular momentum of the system will still be conserved. The coin will start spinning but the bullet's trajectory will be deflected in the opposite direction too.
                            – Mike
                            Aug 24 at 11:27










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote













                            The angular momentum of an object is simply the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. If an object has angular momentum L, and N atoms, then each atom has, on average, L/N angular momentum. The atoms aren't rotating, they are revolving, and from an instantaneous point of view, they have linear motion.



                            If you took two balls connected with a string and spin them, they would have angular momentum. If you cut the string, the balls will fly off, and the angular momentum won't go anywhere; the balls will still have angular momentum.



                            Note that angular momentum is defined with respect to a particular axis. When discussing the angular momentum of an object, the axis is taken to be one that goes through the center of mass. But each object has an angular momentum with respect to every axis. The earth has an angular momentum with respect to the polar axis, and another angular momentum with respect to the sun's polar axis. For each axis, the total angular momentum of the universe is conserved.






                            share|cite|improve this answer
























                              up vote
                              2
                              down vote













                              The angular momentum of an object is simply the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. If an object has angular momentum L, and N atoms, then each atom has, on average, L/N angular momentum. The atoms aren't rotating, they are revolving, and from an instantaneous point of view, they have linear motion.



                              If you took two balls connected with a string and spin them, they would have angular momentum. If you cut the string, the balls will fly off, and the angular momentum won't go anywhere; the balls will still have angular momentum.



                              Note that angular momentum is defined with respect to a particular axis. When discussing the angular momentum of an object, the axis is taken to be one that goes through the center of mass. But each object has an angular momentum with respect to every axis. The earth has an angular momentum with respect to the polar axis, and another angular momentum with respect to the sun's polar axis. For each axis, the total angular momentum of the universe is conserved.






                              share|cite|improve this answer






















                                up vote
                                2
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                2
                                down vote









                                The angular momentum of an object is simply the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. If an object has angular momentum L, and N atoms, then each atom has, on average, L/N angular momentum. The atoms aren't rotating, they are revolving, and from an instantaneous point of view, they have linear motion.



                                If you took two balls connected with a string and spin them, they would have angular momentum. If you cut the string, the balls will fly off, and the angular momentum won't go anywhere; the balls will still have angular momentum.



                                Note that angular momentum is defined with respect to a particular axis. When discussing the angular momentum of an object, the axis is taken to be one that goes through the center of mass. But each object has an angular momentum with respect to every axis. The earth has an angular momentum with respect to the polar axis, and another angular momentum with respect to the sun's polar axis. For each axis, the total angular momentum of the universe is conserved.






                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                The angular momentum of an object is simply the sum of the angular momentum of its parts. If an object has angular momentum L, and N atoms, then each atom has, on average, L/N angular momentum. The atoms aren't rotating, they are revolving, and from an instantaneous point of view, they have linear motion.



                                If you took two balls connected with a string and spin them, they would have angular momentum. If you cut the string, the balls will fly off, and the angular momentum won't go anywhere; the balls will still have angular momentum.



                                Note that angular momentum is defined with respect to a particular axis. When discussing the angular momentum of an object, the axis is taken to be one that goes through the center of mass. But each object has an angular momentum with respect to every axis. The earth has an angular momentum with respect to the polar axis, and another angular momentum with respect to the sun's polar axis. For each axis, the total angular momentum of the universe is conserved.







                                share|cite|improve this answer












                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer










                                answered Aug 24 at 19:51









                                Acccumulation

                                1,04717




                                1,04717




















                                    up vote
                                    1
                                    down vote













                                    The problem I see is that it is not clear what is meant by "rotating." An object can rotate about its center of mass, about a point away from its center of mass, or both!

                                    So, an object can have angular momentum, even though it may not be rotating with respect to its center of mass, but moves in a circular path. Or it might be moving in a straight line but rotates about its center of mass, or both.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer
























                                      up vote
                                      1
                                      down vote













                                      The problem I see is that it is not clear what is meant by "rotating." An object can rotate about its center of mass, about a point away from its center of mass, or both!

                                      So, an object can have angular momentum, even though it may not be rotating with respect to its center of mass, but moves in a circular path. Or it might be moving in a straight line but rotates about its center of mass, or both.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer






















                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote










                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote









                                        The problem I see is that it is not clear what is meant by "rotating." An object can rotate about its center of mass, about a point away from its center of mass, or both!

                                        So, an object can have angular momentum, even though it may not be rotating with respect to its center of mass, but moves in a circular path. Or it might be moving in a straight line but rotates about its center of mass, or both.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        The problem I see is that it is not clear what is meant by "rotating." An object can rotate about its center of mass, about a point away from its center of mass, or both!

                                        So, an object can have angular momentum, even though it may not be rotating with respect to its center of mass, but moves in a circular path. Or it might be moving in a straight line but rotates about its center of mass, or both.







                                        share|cite|improve this answer












                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer










                                        answered Aug 28 at 22:24









                                        Guill

                                        1,67366




                                        1,67366




















                                            up vote
                                            1
                                            down vote













                                            The answer depends on the kind of object - particle or field - you mean, and if you refer to spin- or orbital angular momentum.



                                            Invisible or "hidden" electromagnetic field spin angular momentum is equivalent to the canonical angular momentum
                                            $$vecL_c = vecr times q vecA$$
                                            generated by a charge $q$ at relative rest in a magnetostatic field with vector-potential $vecA$ at $vecr$. Example: If $q$ is located in the center of a solenoid field of flux $Phi$, a "hidden" electromagnetic field angular momentum $L = q Phi/ 2 pi$ would be generated.



                                            Reference:
                                            McDonald, K.T.: Electromagnetic Field Angular Momentum of a Charge at Rest in a Uniform Magnetic Field. Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 May 20, 2015 (PDF)






                                            share|cite|improve this answer


























                                              up vote
                                              1
                                              down vote













                                              The answer depends on the kind of object - particle or field - you mean, and if you refer to spin- or orbital angular momentum.



                                              Invisible or "hidden" electromagnetic field spin angular momentum is equivalent to the canonical angular momentum
                                              $$vecL_c = vecr times q vecA$$
                                              generated by a charge $q$ at relative rest in a magnetostatic field with vector-potential $vecA$ at $vecr$. Example: If $q$ is located in the center of a solenoid field of flux $Phi$, a "hidden" electromagnetic field angular momentum $L = q Phi/ 2 pi$ would be generated.



                                              Reference:
                                              McDonald, K.T.: Electromagnetic Field Angular Momentum of a Charge at Rest in a Uniform Magnetic Field. Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 May 20, 2015 (PDF)






                                              share|cite|improve this answer
























                                                up vote
                                                1
                                                down vote










                                                up vote
                                                1
                                                down vote









                                                The answer depends on the kind of object - particle or field - you mean, and if you refer to spin- or orbital angular momentum.



                                                Invisible or "hidden" electromagnetic field spin angular momentum is equivalent to the canonical angular momentum
                                                $$vecL_c = vecr times q vecA$$
                                                generated by a charge $q$ at relative rest in a magnetostatic field with vector-potential $vecA$ at $vecr$. Example: If $q$ is located in the center of a solenoid field of flux $Phi$, a "hidden" electromagnetic field angular momentum $L = q Phi/ 2 pi$ would be generated.



                                                Reference:
                                                McDonald, K.T.: Electromagnetic Field Angular Momentum of a Charge at Rest in a Uniform Magnetic Field. Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 May 20, 2015 (PDF)






                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                The answer depends on the kind of object - particle or field - you mean, and if you refer to spin- or orbital angular momentum.



                                                Invisible or "hidden" electromagnetic field spin angular momentum is equivalent to the canonical angular momentum
                                                $$vecL_c = vecr times q vecA$$
                                                generated by a charge $q$ at relative rest in a magnetostatic field with vector-potential $vecA$ at $vecr$. Example: If $q$ is located in the center of a solenoid field of flux $Phi$, a "hidden" electromagnetic field angular momentum $L = q Phi/ 2 pi$ would be generated.



                                                Reference:
                                                McDonald, K.T.: Electromagnetic Field Angular Momentum of a Charge at Rest in a Uniform Magnetic Field. Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 May 20, 2015 (PDF)







                                                share|cite|improve this answer














                                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                                edited Sep 1 at 15:10









                                                Kyle Kanos

                                                21.3k114690




                                                21.3k114690










                                                answered Sep 1 at 14:31









                                                Realist753

                                                995




                                                995















                                                    protected by ACuriousMind♦ Aug 24 at 15:48



                                                    Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


                                                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                                                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                                                    Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                                                    Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?