1D Elastic Collision - Velocities in the CM/ZM Frame

AI Thread Summary
In a one-dimensional elastic collision, the velocities of two particles in the center of mass (CM) frame after the collision are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign to their velocities before the collision. The discussion highlights the importance of using the CM frame directly, rather than transforming from the lab frame, to simplify calculations. Participants express confusion about the relationship between lab and CM velocities, emphasizing that in the CM frame, the total momentum is zero. By correctly setting up the equations in the CM frame, one can derive that the final velocities satisfy the condition of equal magnitude and opposite signs. Ultimately, working directly in the CM frame proves to be a more straightforward approach for solving the problem.
Zatman
Messages
85
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove that, for any 1D elastic collision between two particles: as viewed from the centre of mass (or zero momentum) frame of reference, the velocity of each particle after the collision has the same magnitude but opposite sign to its velocity before the collision.

2. The attempt at a solution
For i=1,2, let m_i, u_i, v_i be the mass, lab velocity before collision and lab velocity after the collision respectively.

The velocity of the centre of mass is:

V_{CM}=\frac{m_1u_1+m_2u_2}{m_1+m_2}=\frac{m_1v_1+m_2v_2}{m_1+m_2} (1)

Since the total momentum in the CM frame is zero, we have

m_1(u_1-V_{CM})+m_2(u_2-V_{CM})=0 (2)

m_1(v_1-V_{CM})+m_2(v_2-V_{CM})=0 (3)

Conservation of kinetic energy:

m_1u_1^2+m_2u_2^2=m_1v_1^2+m_2v_2^2 (4)

I need to show that

(i) (u_1-V_{CM})=-(v_1-V_{CM})

(ii) (u_2-V_{CM})=-(v_2-V_{CM})

I've been playing around with equations (1)-(4) (don't see much point copying my scribbles up on here) but can't seem to come up with (i) or (ii). Can anyone point me in the right direction to solving these equations? I'd very much appreciate it :)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Zatman! :smile:

Why aren't you using the centre of mass frame? :confused:

(ie VCM = 0)​
 
Hmm. Not sure I follow. VCM is the velocity of the centre of mass in the lab frame (which clearly isn't zero?). Then to transform into the centre of mass frame

v_{CM}=v_{LAB}-V_{CM}

Guess I'm missing something pretty fundamental here...
 
Zatman said:
Prove that, … as viewed from the centre of mass … frame of reference, the velocity of each particle after the collision has the same magnitude but opposite sign to its velocity before the collision.

the question requires you to use the centre of mass frame :wink:
 
I'm really confused now! How, exactly, is what I've set up not the centre of mass frame?

I've taken the velocities in the lab frame for each particle, and subtracted the lab velocity of the CM to get their respective velocities relative to the CM frame?
 
in the centre of mass frame, m1u1 + m2u2 = 0 :wink:
 
I agree... ugh, that certainly throws a spanner into the works, since that would mean my velocity of the CM relative to the lab would also be zero. I thought one could find the velocity of the CM relative to the lab by differentiating

(m_1+m_2)X_{CM}=m_1x_1+m_2x_2

giving

V_{CM}=\frac{m_1v_1+m_2v_2}{m_1+m_2} ?

But if this doesn't work, how do I even transform into the CM frame? :confused:
 
Wait hold on, what?

Surely, in the CM frame, it is

m_1(u_1-V_{CM})+m_2(u_2-V_{CM})

that is zero? And likewise for the velocities after collision.
 
Zatman said:
Surely, in the CM frame, it is

m_1(u_1-V_{CM})+m_2(u_2-V_{CM})

that is zero? And likewise for the velocities after collision.

yes :smile:

but what is VCM in th CM frame? :wink:
 
  • #10
In the CM frame, the CM is stationary. BUT the "VCM" in that equation is a constant equal to the velocity of the CM relative to the lab frame.

By your logic, m1u1 + m2u2=0 means that there is zero momentum in the lab frame, which isn't (necessarily) true?
 
  • #11
i'm not using the lab frame

the question requires you to use the centre of mass frame …
Zatman said:
Prove that … as viewed from the centre of mass … frame of reference, the velocity of each particle after the collision has the same magnitude but opposite sign to its velocity before the collision.)
 
  • #12
I really hope I'm not coming across as awkward, but this makes no sense to me. :(

You're saying that in the CM frame m1u1+m2u2=0?

How is that possible? u1 and u2 are velocities that I defined in the lab frame, hence that expression is the momentum in the lab frame -- which isn't zero. When you transform it to the CM frame (which is what I thought I'd done) you get the velocities in the CM frame - then the momentum expression is zero, but this expression isn't m1u1+m2u2, it's what I wrote above? I really can't see the flaw in this reasoning.
 
  • #13
Zatman said:
Prove that… as viewed from the centre of mass … frame of reference, the velocity of each particle after the collision has the same magnitude but opposite sign to its velocity before the collision.

Zatman said:
How is that possible? u1 and u2 are velocities that I defined in the lab frame

yes :smile:

don't :smile:

work in the centre of mass frame​
 
  • #14
But I need to define the velocities somewhere!

Are you saying that I can just forget the lab frame altogether and consider solely the CM frame -- i.e. do no transformation?
 
  • #15
Zatman said:
Are you saying that I can just forget the lab frame altogether and consider solely the CM frame -- i.e. do no transformation?

yes!

the question requires you to use the centre of mass frame :smile:
 
  • #16
Well, yes, I know I'm required to! It just seemed natural to set it up in a lab frame and then transform it.

Let me see what I can come up with. (thanks, tiny-tim)
 
  • #17
This is what I've set up in the CM frame - initial velocities u1 and u2, and final velocities v1 and v2 (NOT the same as the quantities defined in the first post!).

m_1u_1+m_2u_2=0

\Rightarrow u_1=-\frac{m_2u_2}{m_1} (1)

m_1v_1+m_2v_2=0

\Rightarrow v_1=-\frac{m_2v_2}{m_1} (2)

Kinetic energy considerations:

m_1u_1^2+m_2u_2^2=m_1v_1^2+m_2v_2^2 (3)

Now I substitute (1) and (2) into (3) to eliminate u1 and v1. Going through the algebra I end up with

v_2^2=u_2^2

v_2=\pm u_2

...and v2 cannot be positive u2 because otherwise there would be no collision?
 
  • #18
that's right :smile:

can you see now that it's much simpler working in the centre of mass frame? :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #19
tiny-tim said:
that's right :smile:

can you see now that it's much simpler working in the centre of mass frame? :wink:

Yes... when you don't over-complicate things :rolleyes:

Thank you for your help, tiny-tim. :)
 
Back
Top