Angular vs Linear Momentum in Collisions

AI Thread Summary
Linear momentum (p = mv) and angular momentum (L = Iω) are distinct concepts in classical mechanics, each with different units and definitions. While both types of momentum are conserved, they apply to different physical scenarios; linear momentum pertains to straight-line motion, while angular momentum relates to rotational motion. The conservation of momentum can be analyzed when transitioning between linear and rotational systems, such as a clay ball colliding with a rotating disk. Energy conservation must also consider both linear and rotational components, as potential energy can convert into rotational kinetic energy. Understanding these differences is crucial for analyzing collisions involving both linear and angular momentum.
soothsayer
Messages
422
Reaction score
5
In classical mechanics,

p = mv
L = Iω

These correspond to linear and angular momentum, respectively. They're both called momentum, but...they don't have the same units. Why is that?? How can we call them both momentum when they don't seem to represent the same physical quality? Can we set up equations of momentum conservation when going from a system of linear motion to one of rotational motion, like a sticky clay ball thrown in the air onto the edge of a rotating disk? If so, how do we account for this difference in the definitions of linear and angular momentum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks, Jimmy!
 
p = mv

L = rxp

So of course they have different units. Angular momentum is basically linear momentum multiplied by distance

If you take the time derivative of mv you get ma So the rate of change of momentum is equal to the net force acting. Internal forces cancel out by the equal and opposite rule so you're left with only external forces. If there are no external forces the rate of change of momentum is zero, so it does not change... hence conserved.For angular momentum if you take the time derivative of rxp you get rxF which is torque. By the same logic you're left with only external torques.

So no force means no change in linear momentum. No torque means no change in angular momentum. The idea behind them is similar. One is just the rotational analogy of the other, but they're different.

Oh and just in case you haven't seen angular momentum as rxp that's the definition. If something's moving in a circle then r and p are perpendicular and v can be expressed as ωr turning rxp into (if we only care about magnitude) rmωr = mr2w

I = mr2 so Iω
 
soothsayer said:
In classical mechanics,

p = mv
L = Iω

Can we set up equations of momentum conservation when going from a system of linear motion to one of rotational motion, like a sticky clay ball thrown in the air onto the edge of a rotating disk?

Yes.

And you have conservation of energy that also has to account for linear motion and rotational motion.

Instead of your example, set a ball at the top of a ramp, figure out how fast it should accelerate according to the laws of motion (keeping in mind only a portion of the gravitational acceleration is in the direction of motion), and then test it out. The ball takes too long to reach the bottom and is moving too slow when it reaches the bottom. Some of the ball's potential energy was converted to rotational kinetic energy instead of linear kinetic energy.

Energy doesn't seem quite so strange because at least you're working in the same units for both linear and rotational.

Go back to just a linear example. What's the rate of change in kinetic energy? (which is 1/2mv^2)

Now go back to a purely rotational example. What's the rate of change in rotational energy? (which is 1/2 Iw^2)
 
aftershock said:
p = mv

L = rxp

So of course they have different units. Angular momentum is basically linear momentum multiplied by distance

If you take the time derivative of mv you get ma So the rate of change of momentum is equal to the net force acting. Internal forces cancel out by the equal and opposite rule so you're left with only external forces. If there are no external forces the rate of change of momentum is zero, so it does not change... hence conserved.


For angular momentum if you take the time derivative of rxp you get rxF which is torque. By the same logic you're left with only external torques.

So no force means no change in linear momentum. No torque means no change in angular momentum. The idea behind them is similar. One is just the rotational analogy of the other, but they're different.

Oh and just in case you haven't seen angular momentum as rxp that's the definition. If something's moving in a circle then r and p are perpendicular and v can be expressed as ωr turning rxp into (if we only care about magnitude) rmωr = mr2w

I = mr2 so Iω
If a stationary object is in a collision with an object with angular momentum rxp
And later, at rest , is in a collision with an object with linear momentum mv.
And given that all 3 objects have same mass. And the linear speed and angular speed
are equal: Linear speed = 2m/sec. and angular speed = 1 radian/sec , radius = 2m In which collision will the stationary object have greater acceleration ?
 
Last edited:
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