Is torque as fundamental a concept as force?Shelf always tipping over when pushed, thanks to normal forceUnderstanding Newton's Laws of MotionCalculate force between rotating objectsWhat is force? The basic intuitionTorque/moment of force fundamentallyStatic equilibrium- when do you use forces and when do you use torques?

Fishing from underwater domes

Why are direct proofs often considered better than indirect proofs?

Why is it hard for a neural network to learn the identity function?

Replace a motion-sensor/timer with simple single pole switch

'spazieren' - walking in a silly and affected manner?

What are ways to record who took the pictures if a camera is used by multiple people?

meaning of "educating the ice"?

Are there balance issues when allowing attack of opportunity against any creature?

Can a country avoid prosecution for crimes against humanity by denying it happened?

How does Query decide the order in which the functions are applied?

Does the telecom provider need physical access to the SIM card to clone it?

Killing task by name - start menu shortcut

What happens if you just start drawing from the Deck of Many Things without declaring any number of cards?

From not IT background to being a programmer

Why didn't Thatcher give Hong Kong to Taiwan?

When do we use "no women" instead of "no woman"?

What are the French equivalents of "blow away the cobwebs"?

Was there an original and definitive use of alternate dimensions/realities in fiction?

Get rows that exist exactly once per day for a given period

Why is Mitch McConnell blocking nominees to the Federal Election Commission?

Is Chuck the Evil Sandwich Making Guy's head actually a sandwich?

Why do fuses burn at a specific current?

Missing $ inserted. Extra }, or forgotten $. Missing } inserted

How did Gollum know Sauron was gathering the Haradrim to make war?



Is torque as fundamental a concept as force?


Shelf always tipping over when pushed, thanks to normal forceUnderstanding Newton's Laws of MotionCalculate force between rotating objectsWhat is force? The basic intuitionTorque/moment of force fundamentallyStatic equilibrium- when do you use forces and when do you use torques?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








6












$begingroup$


I used to think that torque and force were equally “fundamental”. In other words, my understanding was that we usually use Cartesian coordinates in many common problems because it is a convenient system, so as a result instantaneous forces which act in straight lines seem “easier” mathematically but torques require some extra “baggage”. This baggage includes typically teaching that torque is defined in terms of force.



But if say we happened to choose polar coordinates for the problem the situation would appear the other way around. So it would be arbitrary if we chose to define forces in terms of torques instead.



But later on I learned that angular momentum is conserved independently of regular linear momentum (IIRC). This makes it seem much less certain that one should define either torque in terms of force or vice versa — it gives the impression they are more distinct than it first seemed.



That said, as far as I know a lot of physics is about defining & describing “fundamental forces” — not “fundamental torques”.



So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
    $endgroup$
    – DaveInCaz
    3 hours ago

















6












$begingroup$


I used to think that torque and force were equally “fundamental”. In other words, my understanding was that we usually use Cartesian coordinates in many common problems because it is a convenient system, so as a result instantaneous forces which act in straight lines seem “easier” mathematically but torques require some extra “baggage”. This baggage includes typically teaching that torque is defined in terms of force.



But if say we happened to choose polar coordinates for the problem the situation would appear the other way around. So it would be arbitrary if we chose to define forces in terms of torques instead.



But later on I learned that angular momentum is conserved independently of regular linear momentum (IIRC). This makes it seem much less certain that one should define either torque in terms of force or vice versa — it gives the impression they are more distinct than it first seemed.



That said, as far as I know a lot of physics is about defining & describing “fundamental forces” — not “fundamental torques”.



So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
    $endgroup$
    – DaveInCaz
    3 hours ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$


I used to think that torque and force were equally “fundamental”. In other words, my understanding was that we usually use Cartesian coordinates in many common problems because it is a convenient system, so as a result instantaneous forces which act in straight lines seem “easier” mathematically but torques require some extra “baggage”. This baggage includes typically teaching that torque is defined in terms of force.



But if say we happened to choose polar coordinates for the problem the situation would appear the other way around. So it would be arbitrary if we chose to define forces in terms of torques instead.



But later on I learned that angular momentum is conserved independently of regular linear momentum (IIRC). This makes it seem much less certain that one should define either torque in terms of force or vice versa — it gives the impression they are more distinct than it first seemed.



That said, as far as I know a lot of physics is about defining & describing “fundamental forces” — not “fundamental torques”.



So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I used to think that torque and force were equally “fundamental”. In other words, my understanding was that we usually use Cartesian coordinates in many common problems because it is a convenient system, so as a result instantaneous forces which act in straight lines seem “easier” mathematically but torques require some extra “baggage”. This baggage includes typically teaching that torque is defined in terms of force.



But if say we happened to choose polar coordinates for the problem the situation would appear the other way around. So it would be arbitrary if we chose to define forces in terms of torques instead.



But later on I learned that angular momentum is conserved independently of regular linear momentum (IIRC). This makes it seem much less certain that one should define either torque in terms of force or vice versa — it gives the impression they are more distinct than it first seemed.



That said, as far as I know a lot of physics is about defining & describing “fundamental forces” — not “fundamental torques”.



So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?







newtonian-mechanics forces torque






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Qmechanic

113k13 gold badges223 silver badges1340 bronze badges




113k13 gold badges223 silver badges1340 bronze badges










asked 8 hours ago









DaveInCazDaveInCaz

1609 bronze badges




1609 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
    $endgroup$
    – DaveInCaz
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
    $endgroup$
    – DaveInCaz
    3 hours ago















$begingroup$
Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago





$begingroup$
Torque isn't something that arises when we move to polar coordinates. They exist no matter how we choose to represent coordinates. Additionally, you can work with forces in polar coordinates without even referring to torque. Why do you think this, exactly?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
6 hours ago













$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
$endgroup$
– DaveInCaz
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AaronStevens I was only referring to the choice of coordinate system potentially being more convenient depending on whether you chose to express a particular problem in terms of force or torque.
$endgroup$
– DaveInCaz
3 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1













$begingroup$

No, torque is not a fundamental quantity. it's only job is to describe where in space a force is acting through (the line of action). Torque just describes a force at a distance. Given a force $boldsymbolF$ and a torque $boldsymboltau$ you can tell that the force acts along a line in space with direction defined by $boldsymbolF$, but location defined by $boldsymboltau$ as follows $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolF times boldsymboltau ^2 $$



It might be easier to discuss angular momentum first, since torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, just as force is the time derivative of linear momentum.



For a single particle with linear momentum $boldsymbolp = mboldsymbolv$ located at some instant at a point $boldsymbolr$ the angular momentum is $$ boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp$$



So where is the momentum line in space? The momentum line is called the axis of percussion. It is located at



$$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolp times boldsymbolL ^2 = fracboldsymbolp times ( boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp) boldsymbolp = frac boldsymbolr (boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolp) - boldsymbolp ( boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolr) boldsymbolp = boldsymbolr frac boldsymbolp = r ; checkmark $$



provided that the point $boldsymbolr$ is perpendicular to the momentum $boldsymbolp$. Such a point can always be found, and it is the point on the line closest to the origin.



The conservation law for angular momentum (coupled with the conservation law for linear momentum) just states that not only the magnitude and direction of momentum is conserved but also the line in space where moment acts through is also conserved.



In summary, the common quantities in mechanics are interpreted as follows



$$ beginarrayr
textconcept & textvalue & textmoment\
hline textrotation axis & textrot. velocity, boldsymbolomega & textvelocity, boldsymbolv = boldsymbolrtimes boldsymbolomega \
textline of action & textforce, boldsymbolF & texttorque, boldsymboltau = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolF \
textaxis of percussion & textmomentum, boldsymbolp & textang. momentum, boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp
endarray $$



The stuff under the value column are fundamental quantities that give us the magnitude of something (as well as the direction). The stuff under the moment column are secondary quantities that depend on where they are measured and give use the relative location of the fundamental quantities. Hence the terms torque = moment of force, velocity = moment of rotation and angular momentum = moment of momentum. All that means is that these quantities are $boldsymbolr times text(something fundamental)$ and they describe the moment arm to this something.



In statics, for example, we learn to balance forces and moments, which should be interpreted as balancing the force magnitude and the line of action of the force.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 hours ago


















0













$begingroup$

Just what is fundamental? Torque is certainly more than just force with additional “baggage”. And it’s more than just about coordinate systems. Torque and force are not a matter of either or. Both are needed for the analysis of motion and equilibrium.



Moment, which is another term for torque, is a fundamental concept in statics. For example in statics both forces and moments are needed to determine static equilibrium . Forces cause straight line motion. Moments cause rotational motion. The requirements for equilibrium are that the sum of both the moments and forces have to be zero. And it goes beyond statics. Bending moments and shear forces are fundamental to the study of mechanics of materials.



You will learn to appreciate the difference if and when you study statics , dynamics, and mechanics of materials.



Hope this helps






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    2 hours ago


















0













$begingroup$

I would argue that force is more fundamental concept than torque. This is mainly because torques is, for lack of a better term, a property of forces. Also, the torque produced by a force depends on your subjective choice of which point you are calculating the torque about. This is all captured in the definition of torque
$$boldsymboltau=mathbf rtimesmathbf F$$
where $mathbf F$ is the force vector and $mathbf r$ is the vector pointing from the point about which you are calculating the torque to the point where the force is applied.



Note that this defines torque in terms of a force, but you cannot determine a force from a torque. For a given $boldsymboltau$ and a given $mathbf r$ there is not a unique force $mathbf F$. Therefore, this also gives the impression that force is a more fundamental concept.



Also note that the definition of torque does not depend on if we are using polar coordinates or not. You can discuss forces in polar coordinates without referring to torque, and you can talk about torques in Cartesian coordinates.



So torque is not fundamental, however that doesn't mean it's not useful. It is useful in looking at how forces cause extended bodies to move (or not move), and it is useful when motion has rotational symmetry about some point (i.e. when angular momentum is conserved).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$

















    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499753%2fis-torque-as-fundamental-a-concept-as-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1













    $begingroup$

    No, torque is not a fundamental quantity. it's only job is to describe where in space a force is acting through (the line of action). Torque just describes a force at a distance. Given a force $boldsymbolF$ and a torque $boldsymboltau$ you can tell that the force acts along a line in space with direction defined by $boldsymbolF$, but location defined by $boldsymboltau$ as follows $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolF times boldsymboltau ^2 $$



    It might be easier to discuss angular momentum first, since torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, just as force is the time derivative of linear momentum.



    For a single particle with linear momentum $boldsymbolp = mboldsymbolv$ located at some instant at a point $boldsymbolr$ the angular momentum is $$ boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp$$



    So where is the momentum line in space? The momentum line is called the axis of percussion. It is located at



    $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolp times boldsymbolL ^2 = fracboldsymbolp times ( boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp) boldsymbolp = frac boldsymbolr (boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolp) - boldsymbolp ( boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolr) boldsymbolp = boldsymbolr frac boldsymbolp = r ; checkmark $$



    provided that the point $boldsymbolr$ is perpendicular to the momentum $boldsymbolp$. Such a point can always be found, and it is the point on the line closest to the origin.



    The conservation law for angular momentum (coupled with the conservation law for linear momentum) just states that not only the magnitude and direction of momentum is conserved but also the line in space where moment acts through is also conserved.



    In summary, the common quantities in mechanics are interpreted as follows



    $$ beginarrayr
    textconcept & textvalue & textmoment\
    hline textrotation axis & textrot. velocity, boldsymbolomega & textvelocity, boldsymbolv = boldsymbolrtimes boldsymbolomega \
    textline of action & textforce, boldsymbolF & texttorque, boldsymboltau = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolF \
    textaxis of percussion & textmomentum, boldsymbolp & textang. momentum, boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp
    endarray $$



    The stuff under the value column are fundamental quantities that give us the magnitude of something (as well as the direction). The stuff under the moment column are secondary quantities that depend on where they are measured and give use the relative location of the fundamental quantities. Hence the terms torque = moment of force, velocity = moment of rotation and angular momentum = moment of momentum. All that means is that these quantities are $boldsymbolr times text(something fundamental)$ and they describe the moment arm to this something.



    In statics, for example, we learn to balance forces and moments, which should be interpreted as balancing the force magnitude and the line of action of the force.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 hours ago















    1













    $begingroup$

    No, torque is not a fundamental quantity. it's only job is to describe where in space a force is acting through (the line of action). Torque just describes a force at a distance. Given a force $boldsymbolF$ and a torque $boldsymboltau$ you can tell that the force acts along a line in space with direction defined by $boldsymbolF$, but location defined by $boldsymboltau$ as follows $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolF times boldsymboltau ^2 $$



    It might be easier to discuss angular momentum first, since torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, just as force is the time derivative of linear momentum.



    For a single particle with linear momentum $boldsymbolp = mboldsymbolv$ located at some instant at a point $boldsymbolr$ the angular momentum is $$ boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp$$



    So where is the momentum line in space? The momentum line is called the axis of percussion. It is located at



    $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolp times boldsymbolL ^2 = fracboldsymbolp times ( boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp) boldsymbolp = frac boldsymbolr (boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolp) - boldsymbolp ( boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolr) boldsymbolp = boldsymbolr frac boldsymbolp = r ; checkmark $$



    provided that the point $boldsymbolr$ is perpendicular to the momentum $boldsymbolp$. Such a point can always be found, and it is the point on the line closest to the origin.



    The conservation law for angular momentum (coupled with the conservation law for linear momentum) just states that not only the magnitude and direction of momentum is conserved but also the line in space where moment acts through is also conserved.



    In summary, the common quantities in mechanics are interpreted as follows



    $$ beginarrayr
    textconcept & textvalue & textmoment\
    hline textrotation axis & textrot. velocity, boldsymbolomega & textvelocity, boldsymbolv = boldsymbolrtimes boldsymbolomega \
    textline of action & textforce, boldsymbolF & texttorque, boldsymboltau = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolF \
    textaxis of percussion & textmomentum, boldsymbolp & textang. momentum, boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp
    endarray $$



    The stuff under the value column are fundamental quantities that give us the magnitude of something (as well as the direction). The stuff under the moment column are secondary quantities that depend on where they are measured and give use the relative location of the fundamental quantities. Hence the terms torque = moment of force, velocity = moment of rotation and angular momentum = moment of momentum. All that means is that these quantities are $boldsymbolr times text(something fundamental)$ and they describe the moment arm to this something.



    In statics, for example, we learn to balance forces and moments, which should be interpreted as balancing the force magnitude and the line of action of the force.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 hours ago













    1














    1










    1







    $begingroup$

    No, torque is not a fundamental quantity. it's only job is to describe where in space a force is acting through (the line of action). Torque just describes a force at a distance. Given a force $boldsymbolF$ and a torque $boldsymboltau$ you can tell that the force acts along a line in space with direction defined by $boldsymbolF$, but location defined by $boldsymboltau$ as follows $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolF times boldsymboltau ^2 $$



    It might be easier to discuss angular momentum first, since torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, just as force is the time derivative of linear momentum.



    For a single particle with linear momentum $boldsymbolp = mboldsymbolv$ located at some instant at a point $boldsymbolr$ the angular momentum is $$ boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp$$



    So where is the momentum line in space? The momentum line is called the axis of percussion. It is located at



    $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolp times boldsymbolL ^2 = fracboldsymbolp times ( boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp) boldsymbolp = frac boldsymbolr (boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolp) - boldsymbolp ( boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolr) boldsymbolp = boldsymbolr frac boldsymbolp = r ; checkmark $$



    provided that the point $boldsymbolr$ is perpendicular to the momentum $boldsymbolp$. Such a point can always be found, and it is the point on the line closest to the origin.



    The conservation law for angular momentum (coupled with the conservation law for linear momentum) just states that not only the magnitude and direction of momentum is conserved but also the line in space where moment acts through is also conserved.



    In summary, the common quantities in mechanics are interpreted as follows



    $$ beginarrayr
    textconcept & textvalue & textmoment\
    hline textrotation axis & textrot. velocity, boldsymbolomega & textvelocity, boldsymbolv = boldsymbolrtimes boldsymbolomega \
    textline of action & textforce, boldsymbolF & texttorque, boldsymboltau = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolF \
    textaxis of percussion & textmomentum, boldsymbolp & textang. momentum, boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp
    endarray $$



    The stuff under the value column are fundamental quantities that give us the magnitude of something (as well as the direction). The stuff under the moment column are secondary quantities that depend on where they are measured and give use the relative location of the fundamental quantities. Hence the terms torque = moment of force, velocity = moment of rotation and angular momentum = moment of momentum. All that means is that these quantities are $boldsymbolr times text(something fundamental)$ and they describe the moment arm to this something.



    In statics, for example, we learn to balance forces and moments, which should be interpreted as balancing the force magnitude and the line of action of the force.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    No, torque is not a fundamental quantity. it's only job is to describe where in space a force is acting through (the line of action). Torque just describes a force at a distance. Given a force $boldsymbolF$ and a torque $boldsymboltau$ you can tell that the force acts along a line in space with direction defined by $boldsymbolF$, but location defined by $boldsymboltau$ as follows $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolF times boldsymboltau ^2 $$



    It might be easier to discuss angular momentum first, since torque is the time derivative of angular momentum, just as force is the time derivative of linear momentum.



    For a single particle with linear momentum $boldsymbolp = mboldsymbolv$ located at some instant at a point $boldsymbolr$ the angular momentum is $$ boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp$$



    So where is the momentum line in space? The momentum line is called the axis of percussion. It is located at



    $$ boldsymbolr = frac boldsymbolp times boldsymbolL ^2 = fracboldsymbolp times ( boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp) boldsymbolp = frac boldsymbolr (boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolp) - boldsymbolp ( boldsymbolp cdot boldsymbolr) boldsymbolp = boldsymbolr frac boldsymbolp = r ; checkmark $$



    provided that the point $boldsymbolr$ is perpendicular to the momentum $boldsymbolp$. Such a point can always be found, and it is the point on the line closest to the origin.



    The conservation law for angular momentum (coupled with the conservation law for linear momentum) just states that not only the magnitude and direction of momentum is conserved but also the line in space where moment acts through is also conserved.



    In summary, the common quantities in mechanics are interpreted as follows



    $$ beginarrayr
    textconcept & textvalue & textmoment\
    hline textrotation axis & textrot. velocity, boldsymbolomega & textvelocity, boldsymbolv = boldsymbolrtimes boldsymbolomega \
    textline of action & textforce, boldsymbolF & texttorque, boldsymboltau = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolF \
    textaxis of percussion & textmomentum, boldsymbolp & textang. momentum, boldsymbolL = boldsymbolr times boldsymbolp
    endarray $$



    The stuff under the value column are fundamental quantities that give us the magnitude of something (as well as the direction). The stuff under the moment column are secondary quantities that depend on where they are measured and give use the relative location of the fundamental quantities. Hence the terms torque = moment of force, velocity = moment of rotation and angular momentum = moment of momentum. All that means is that these quantities are $boldsymbolr times text(something fundamental)$ and they describe the moment arm to this something.



    In statics, for example, we learn to balance forces and moments, which should be interpreted as balancing the force magnitude and the line of action of the force.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 3 hours ago









    ja72ja72

    21.8k4 gold badges36 silver badges107 bronze badges




    21.8k4 gold badges36 silver badges107 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      2 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Your first equation suggests that $mathbf F$ is always perpendicular to $mathbf r$. But this certainly is not always true. Am I missing something?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    2 hours ago













    0













    $begingroup$

    Just what is fundamental? Torque is certainly more than just force with additional “baggage”. And it’s more than just about coordinate systems. Torque and force are not a matter of either or. Both are needed for the analysis of motion and equilibrium.



    Moment, which is another term for torque, is a fundamental concept in statics. For example in statics both forces and moments are needed to determine static equilibrium . Forces cause straight line motion. Moments cause rotational motion. The requirements for equilibrium are that the sum of both the moments and forces have to be zero. And it goes beyond statics. Bending moments and shear forces are fundamental to the study of mechanics of materials.



    You will learn to appreciate the difference if and when you study statics , dynamics, and mechanics of materials.



    Hope this helps






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
      $endgroup$
      – Danny
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      2 hours ago















    0













    $begingroup$

    Just what is fundamental? Torque is certainly more than just force with additional “baggage”. And it’s more than just about coordinate systems. Torque and force are not a matter of either or. Both are needed for the analysis of motion and equilibrium.



    Moment, which is another term for torque, is a fundamental concept in statics. For example in statics both forces and moments are needed to determine static equilibrium . Forces cause straight line motion. Moments cause rotational motion. The requirements for equilibrium are that the sum of both the moments and forces have to be zero. And it goes beyond statics. Bending moments and shear forces are fundamental to the study of mechanics of materials.



    You will learn to appreciate the difference if and when you study statics , dynamics, and mechanics of materials.



    Hope this helps






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
      $endgroup$
      – Danny
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      2 hours ago













    0














    0










    0







    $begingroup$

    Just what is fundamental? Torque is certainly more than just force with additional “baggage”. And it’s more than just about coordinate systems. Torque and force are not a matter of either or. Both are needed for the analysis of motion and equilibrium.



    Moment, which is another term for torque, is a fundamental concept in statics. For example in statics both forces and moments are needed to determine static equilibrium . Forces cause straight line motion. Moments cause rotational motion. The requirements for equilibrium are that the sum of both the moments and forces have to be zero. And it goes beyond statics. Bending moments and shear forces are fundamental to the study of mechanics of materials.



    You will learn to appreciate the difference if and when you study statics , dynamics, and mechanics of materials.



    Hope this helps






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Just what is fundamental? Torque is certainly more than just force with additional “baggage”. And it’s more than just about coordinate systems. Torque and force are not a matter of either or. Both are needed for the analysis of motion and equilibrium.



    Moment, which is another term for torque, is a fundamental concept in statics. For example in statics both forces and moments are needed to determine static equilibrium . Forces cause straight line motion. Moments cause rotational motion. The requirements for equilibrium are that the sum of both the moments and forces have to be zero. And it goes beyond statics. Bending moments and shear forces are fundamental to the study of mechanics of materials.



    You will learn to appreciate the difference if and when you study statics , dynamics, and mechanics of materials.



    Hope this helps







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 8 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    Bob DBob D

    12.4k3 gold badges10 silver badges37 bronze badges




    12.4k3 gold badges10 silver badges37 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
      $endgroup$
      – Danny
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      2 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
      $endgroup$
      – Danny
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
      $endgroup$
      – Aaron Stevens
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      6 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
      $endgroup$
      – Bob D
      2 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny
    6 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    I would argue that when we're talking about fundamental point particles, torque is just a matter of coordinate systems, and only becomes necessary when we consider composite systems.
    $endgroup$
    – Danny
    6 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Danny what do you mean by saying that torque is just a matter of coordinate systems?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @BobD Certainly torques make life a whole lot simpler for extended bodies, but I would argue that the concept of force is more fundamental than torque, as torque is defined in terms of force, but not the other way around. Couldn't one argue that a zero net torque is just a simpler way of saying that the net force acting on every part of the body must be $0$?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    6 hours ago













    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens I wasn't arguing that torque isn't derived from force or that torque is equally "fundamental" as force. For that matter I'm not sure we can say forces in general are "fundamental" in the same manner as the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Instead my focus was on the OP statement "So is choosing to use either force or torque as the basis of laws & problems arbitrary? Or is there an actual fundamental rationale to when one or the other should be used?" It's the ideal of either or use of force and torque to solve problem I addressed.
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    6 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens You never know.I've given up trying to figure out why
    $endgroup$
    – Bob D
    2 hours ago











    0













    $begingroup$

    I would argue that force is more fundamental concept than torque. This is mainly because torques is, for lack of a better term, a property of forces. Also, the torque produced by a force depends on your subjective choice of which point you are calculating the torque about. This is all captured in the definition of torque
    $$boldsymboltau=mathbf rtimesmathbf F$$
    where $mathbf F$ is the force vector and $mathbf r$ is the vector pointing from the point about which you are calculating the torque to the point where the force is applied.



    Note that this defines torque in terms of a force, but you cannot determine a force from a torque. For a given $boldsymboltau$ and a given $mathbf r$ there is not a unique force $mathbf F$. Therefore, this also gives the impression that force is a more fundamental concept.



    Also note that the definition of torque does not depend on if we are using polar coordinates or not. You can discuss forces in polar coordinates without referring to torque, and you can talk about torques in Cartesian coordinates.



    So torque is not fundamental, however that doesn't mean it's not useful. It is useful in looking at how forces cause extended bodies to move (or not move), and it is useful when motion has rotational symmetry about some point (i.e. when angular momentum is conserved).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      0













      $begingroup$

      I would argue that force is more fundamental concept than torque. This is mainly because torques is, for lack of a better term, a property of forces. Also, the torque produced by a force depends on your subjective choice of which point you are calculating the torque about. This is all captured in the definition of torque
      $$boldsymboltau=mathbf rtimesmathbf F$$
      where $mathbf F$ is the force vector and $mathbf r$ is the vector pointing from the point about which you are calculating the torque to the point where the force is applied.



      Note that this defines torque in terms of a force, but you cannot determine a force from a torque. For a given $boldsymboltau$ and a given $mathbf r$ there is not a unique force $mathbf F$. Therefore, this also gives the impression that force is a more fundamental concept.



      Also note that the definition of torque does not depend on if we are using polar coordinates or not. You can discuss forces in polar coordinates without referring to torque, and you can talk about torques in Cartesian coordinates.



      So torque is not fundamental, however that doesn't mean it's not useful. It is useful in looking at how forces cause extended bodies to move (or not move), and it is useful when motion has rotational symmetry about some point (i.e. when angular momentum is conserved).






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        0














        0










        0







        $begingroup$

        I would argue that force is more fundamental concept than torque. This is mainly because torques is, for lack of a better term, a property of forces. Also, the torque produced by a force depends on your subjective choice of which point you are calculating the torque about. This is all captured in the definition of torque
        $$boldsymboltau=mathbf rtimesmathbf F$$
        where $mathbf F$ is the force vector and $mathbf r$ is the vector pointing from the point about which you are calculating the torque to the point where the force is applied.



        Note that this defines torque in terms of a force, but you cannot determine a force from a torque. For a given $boldsymboltau$ and a given $mathbf r$ there is not a unique force $mathbf F$. Therefore, this also gives the impression that force is a more fundamental concept.



        Also note that the definition of torque does not depend on if we are using polar coordinates or not. You can discuss forces in polar coordinates without referring to torque, and you can talk about torques in Cartesian coordinates.



        So torque is not fundamental, however that doesn't mean it's not useful. It is useful in looking at how forces cause extended bodies to move (or not move), and it is useful when motion has rotational symmetry about some point (i.e. when angular momentum is conserved).






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        I would argue that force is more fundamental concept than torque. This is mainly because torques is, for lack of a better term, a property of forces. Also, the torque produced by a force depends on your subjective choice of which point you are calculating the torque about. This is all captured in the definition of torque
        $$boldsymboltau=mathbf rtimesmathbf F$$
        where $mathbf F$ is the force vector and $mathbf r$ is the vector pointing from the point about which you are calculating the torque to the point where the force is applied.



        Note that this defines torque in terms of a force, but you cannot determine a force from a torque. For a given $boldsymboltau$ and a given $mathbf r$ there is not a unique force $mathbf F$. Therefore, this also gives the impression that force is a more fundamental concept.



        Also note that the definition of torque does not depend on if we are using polar coordinates or not. You can discuss forces in polar coordinates without referring to torque, and you can talk about torques in Cartesian coordinates.



        So torque is not fundamental, however that doesn't mean it's not useful. It is useful in looking at how forces cause extended bodies to move (or not move), and it is useful when motion has rotational symmetry about some point (i.e. when angular momentum is conserved).







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

        22.1k4 gold badges41 silver badges78 bronze badges




        22.1k4 gold badges41 silver badges78 bronze badges






























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499753%2fis-torque-as-fundamental-a-concept-as-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її