Cause of Momentum: Forces & Particles Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter richerrich
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cause Momentum
AI Thread Summary
Momentum is fundamentally defined as the product of mass and velocity, expressed as FT = mv = p. While classical physics links momentum to inertia, which describes a mass's resistance to motion changes, relativistic mechanics introduces complexities such as the Lorentz factor, making momentum frame-dependent. The discussion suggests that momentum arises from energy transfer during interactions between objects rather than from the exchange of force carrier particles. Observers may perceive momentum differently based on their frames of reference. Ultimately, the nature of momentum remains a complex topic with no definitive explanation.
richerrich
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
What causes momentum? Are there some force carrier particles passed on from one object to another causing momentum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What causes momentum?

Nobody really knows... anymore than we know, for example, "what causes mass?".

But there are some insightful ways to summarize what we observe about it:


FT = mv = p, so you can see one set of "causes" ...mass times velocity...and is a convenient way to describe one common characteristic of mass.

In classical physics, momentum is closely related to inertia:

Inertia is the resistance of a mass to a change in its state of motion or rest; momentum is a measure of the energy of a moving mass. [These two terms might be interesting to compare in more detail]

In relativistic mechanics, things change a bit but don't give me (personally) any better insights...momentum involves the Lorentz factor and invarient mass. The only other helpful thing I can think of is that momentum is frame dependent...two different observers will not in general observe the same momentum...they see such energy differently.
 
Naty1 said:
Nobody really knows... anymore than we know, for example, "what causes mass?".

But there are some insightful ways to summarize what we observe about it:


FT = mv = p, so you can see one set of "causes" ...mass times velocity...and is a convenient way to describe one common characteristic of mass.

In classical physics, momentum is closely related to inertia:

Inertia is the resistance of a mass to a change in its state of motion or rest; momentum is a measure of the energy of a moving mass. [These two terms might be interesting to compare in more detail]

In relativistic mechanics, things change a bit but don't give me (personally) any better insights...momentum involves the Lorentz factor and invarient mass. The only other helpful thing I can think of is that momentum is frame dependent...two different observers will not in general observe the same momentum...they see such energy differently.

Thank you :)
 
richerrich said:
What causes momentum? Are there some force carrier particles passed on from one object to another causing momentum?

It's just a transfer of energy. Object A is traveling and Object B gets in the way, they bounce into each other, vibrate a little and the magnitude of all the tiny vibrating vectors takes the objects in their respective ways. No particles exchanged, only vibrations, some maybe thrown away and mixed up on the surface but there are no 'force carrying particles' moving from one to the other.
 
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