1D Elastic Collision in CM frame

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on understanding the derivation of final states in one-dimensional elastic collisions in the center of mass (CM) frame. Participants clarify that momentum conservation applies in the CM frame, where initial and final momenta are both zero. The CM frame is considered inertial due to the absence of external forces acting on the system, as per Newton's first law. The confusion arises from the notation used for momenta, specifically the distinction between total momentum and individual particle momenta in the CM frame.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with momentum conservation principles
  • Knowledge of center of mass frame concepts
  • Basic calculus for handling equations of motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of momentum conservation in elastic collisions
  • Learn about transformations between inertial frames and the CM frame
  • Explore the implications of Newton's first law in different reference frames
  • Review examples of one-dimensional elastic collisions with varying mass ratios
USEFUL FOR

Students of introductory mechanics, physics educators, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of elastic collisions and momentum conservation in different reference frames.

stfz
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hi all,
I've been self-studying a first year uni introductory mechanics course, and I'm confused with the derivations involved in calculating the final state of an elastic collision in one dimension, given the initial state.
So basically we have masses of m_1, m_2 with initial velocities v_1i, v_2i respectively that collide elastically.
The method I'm trying to understand is to use transformations to get into the CM frame.
upload_2016-1-11_18-48-45.png

Transforming initial velocities into the CM frame:
upload_2016-1-11_18-49-16.png

Given that momentum is conserved in the inertial coordinate frame (using the impulse approximation, we're assuming that CM frame is inertial... My first question - can someone explain why we can assume that CM frame is inertial? Is this because net force is reckoned equal to force of collision, which is an internal force?

Those assumptions then lead to:
upload_2016-1-11_18-51-9.png

I.e. momentum conservation in the CM frame.
Now the next step I don't get:
upload_2016-1-11_18-51-39.png

I'm assuming that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}+p'_{2i}## and similarly ##p'_f=p'_{1f}+p'_{2f}##.
And ##p'_i=p'_f=0##. But how can we state that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}=-p'_{2i}##, etc. in the above. If my assumption was wrong, what are ##p'_i, p'_f## defined as?

Could someone please help me to understand how this works? I am using this course: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.a4.pdf

Thanks in advance! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stfz said:
Hi all,]
Given that momentum is conserved in the inertial coordinate frame (using the impulse approximation, we're assuming that CM frame is inertial... My first question - can someone explain why we can assume that CM frame is inertial? Is this because net force is reckoned equal to force of collision, which is an internal force?
Yes. This is just an application of the first law: the assumption is that there are no external forces on the system.
Now the next step I don't get:
View attachment 94168
I'm assuming that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}+p'_{2i}## and similarly ##p'_f=p'_{1f}+p'_{2f}##.
And ##p'_i=p'_f=0##. But how can we state that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}=-p'_{2i}##, etc. in the above. If my assumption was wrong, what are ##p'_i, p'_f## defined as?

Could someone please help me to understand how this works? I am using this course: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.a4.pdf
##p'_i= p'_f=0## applies in the CM frame. ##p_f = p_{1f} + p_{2f} \ne 0 ## and ##p_i= p_{1i} + p_{2i} \ne 0 ## applies in the observer frame. The prime (') should be used to designate the CM frame.

AM
 
Last edited:
stfz said:
Now the next step I don't get:
View attachment 94168
I'm assuming that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}+p'_{2i}## and similarly ##p'_f=p'_{1f}+p'_{2f}##.
And ##p'_i=p'_f=0##. But how can we state that ##p'_i = p'_{1i}=-p'_{2i}##, etc. in the above. If my assumption was wrong, what are ##p'_i, p'_f## defined as?

Could someone please help me to understand how this works? I am using this course: https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.a4.pdf

Thanks in advance! :)

What he's done is not what you assumed. He's defining ##p'_i## to be ##p'_{1i}##. I can't really see a good reason to introduce another term for this momentum here, but that's what he's done. Just to emphasise that ##p'_{1i} = - p'_{2i}##, perhaps. In any case, it's not the total momentum he's defined, as you assumed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K