An Alternate Approach to Solving 2-Dimensional Elastic Collisions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on an alternative approach to analyzing two-dimensional elastic collisions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of fully elastic interactions, where the coefficient of restitution equals one. It highlights that while transient elastic deformation is typically not considered in basic collision theory, it can be relevant in specific contexts like bouncing balls. The conversation also touches on the relationship between refraction and momentum, suggesting the potential for incorporating wave functions into collision dynamics. Additionally, there is an exploration of adapting the theory for Compton scattering, though challenges remain in understanding the implications of elastic collision impulses in photon/electron interactions. Overall, the thread presents innovative ideas for expanding the conventional understanding of elastic collisions in physics.
neilparker62
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
1,191
Reaction score
683
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are looking at the elastic collision of two bodies, shouldn't you be solving for the transient elastic deformation of the bodies during the collision using Theory of Elasticity, involving Young's modulus, density, and Poisson ratio of the two bodies?
 
Thanks for the comment / query but I'm really not doing much more than follow the basic theory of 1-dimensional elastic collisions in which transient deformation is not usually dealt with. For example a bouncing ball deforms when it hits the floor but the energy is lost and then immediately regained. Very specifically in this article we are dealing with fully elastic 2D collisions (coefficient of restitution = 1). Have requested the graphic being used gets changed as it may create the wrong impression - car collisions are not at all elastic! Gravitational slingshots might be more pertinent examples of what's being described here.
 
Graphic has been changed - thanks Greg!
 
Great article, never thought about the relationship between refraction and momentum. Another amazing relationship is to apply a wave function to one of the particle sizes. Let one of the particles expand and contract at a certain frequency which adds to the dynamics of the collision (ie. if expanding or contracting, the particle will have another aspect to the collision). This extends the refraction/momentum model to include diffraction around edges.
 
Thanks for your kind comment - what I had been trying to do is see if somehow the theory can be adapted for Compton scattering. But haven't made much progress as yet. Can't quite figure what ##2 \mu \Delta v## (elastic collision impulse) looks like when we're talking about a photon/electron collision.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top