Well, this is a paradox from Feynman lectures on Physics, so if it is right to just discuss it here, then I would like to do so.

It says that we have a device in which there is a circular plastic disc in whose center, there is an axis. Around the axis, a coil of wire is attached which is further attached to a battery. Also, on the perimeter of the disc, there are some equally charged metal spheres. Everything is at rest. Suppose now that by accident, the current in the solenoid is interrupted. So long as the current continued, there was a magnetic flux more or less parallel to the axis. When the current is interrupted, the magnetic flux must go to 0. There will therefore be an E-field induced which will circulate around in the circles centered at the axis. The charged spheres on the perimeter will all experience an E-field tangential to the perimeter. There will be a net torque since field is same in each one.

Now, there can be 2 arguments as to if the disc will rotate when the current is stopped.

From above argument only, when the current is stopped, there is a change in magnetic flux and there should be an induced emf, and the disc must rotate.

But, using the principle of conservation of angular momentum, the angular momentum of the system previously was 0 and it should be so when current disappears. There should be no rotation.

Now, what's the answer to this paradox?

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestThe "counter" angular momentum is actually carried away by electromagnetic radiations ( you may be familiar that they carry a momentum equals E/c) Hence you cannot apply conservation of angular momentum unless you take the radiations into account

Log in to reply

Sorry but they are carrying a momentum as you say and then an angular momentum? I didn't get that.

Log in to reply

Well, your answer seems quite right to me but doesn't fascinate me a lot. Actually, this was near the same explanation that I first thought. I used the verb "fascinate" because Feynman says that "We should also warn you that the solution is not easy, nor is it a trick. When you figure it out, you will have discussed

an important principle of electromagnetism"Now, is the "

important principle of electromagnetism" just that "angular momentum is carried away by electromagnetic radiations"? I have one more question if "back emf" has some role to play here or not.Log in to reply

any think that has momentum has an angular momentum (as L=rXp) , so dont worry about that :) (infact, the principle of conservation of angular momentum is a direct consequence of conservation of linear momentum, (its not a new law))

Log in to reply

It seems like a paradox only because we assume that for a non-rotating disc, the angular momentum is zero. We're forgetting that the electric current in the disc has an angular momentum, which is conserved when it was converted into mechanical rotation. The work is showing them to be exactly the same.

Log in to reply

Now in layman's terms, that is actually just that the electrical energy gets converted to mechanical energy, right?

Log in to reply

That's right. The conceptual leap that needs to be made here is that the angular momentum of an electric current in a disc is a thing. Just because you don't see anything moving doesn't mean there is no angular momentum.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Do you remember the paradox we described in Section 17-4 about a solenoid and some charges mounted on a disc? It seemed when the current turned off, the whole disk should start to turn. The puzzle was: Where did the angular momentum come from? The answer is that if you have a magnetic field and some charges, there will be some angular momentum in the field. It must have been put there when the field was built up. When the field is turned off, the angular momentum is given back. So the disc in the paradox would start rotating. This mystic circulating flow of energy, which at first seemed so ridiculous, is absolutely necessary. There is really a momentum flow. It is needed to maintain the conservation of angular momentum in the whole world.Apparently you need both an electric and a magnetic field for it to have a momentum, which can be either linear or angular, depending on the arrangement of the EM field.

Log in to reply

@Michael Mendrin! And sorry if I disturbed you in any way! I would love to know more about this though! If you get anything, please share it! Thanks again BTW!

Hmm Okay I got it now! Thanks a lotLog in to reply

Check out my comment to Mvs.

Log in to reply

Here's one more example of a similar paradox:

Log in to reply

@raghav- its not a paradox, you have to incorporate relativity in order to show that the system loses energy and stops , using classical theory doesnt even predict that EM waves are released.

So, if you use a classical theory to explain a non classical, phenomenon, ofcourse, we will get paradoxes

Log in to reply

@Ronak Agarwal @Mvs Saketh @Raghav Vaidyanathan @Michael Mendrin and @Brilliantians

Log in to reply