Conservation of linear momentum and energy in a collision

AI Thread Summary
In a collision scenario involving a mass m1 moving at velocity v1 and colliding with a stationary mass m2, it is impossible for m1 to move off at -v1 while conserving both momentum and energy without m2 being infinitely large. The conservation of linear momentum dictates that m2 must move in the opposite direction after the collision, leading to an energy surplus that cannot be accounted for. Textbooks often depict this scenario for simplicity, especially when m2 is significantly larger than m1, which allows for a reasonable approximation. However, this simplification overlooks the violation of momentum conservation when m2 remains stationary. A more rigorous approach in educational materials would clarify the assumptions made in such examples.
entphy
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Consider an ideal case of a mass m1 moving at constant velocity v1 on a frictionless surface, colliding with another masss m2 at rest. After collision, can someone tell me if it is possible for m1 to move off at -v1 while conserving the momentum and energy of the entire system? This is quite a simple scenario depicted in many textbook but is this kind of collision physically possible at all, without m2 being infinitely large to absorb the momentum change?

Before the collision the linear momentum of the entire system is p1 = m1v1, and kinetic energy k1 = (p1)^2/2m1. But after the collision, m1 moved off with -p1 = -m1v1, carrying the same kinetic energy k1 as before. However due to conservation of linear momentum, m2must move in the opposite direction to m1 after collision with momentum of 2m1v1. Hence, m2 will carry with it the kinetic energy of 4k1*m1/m2. There is an energy surplus after collision just by conserving the linear momentum. Where does this energy come from? If this is not a physical possible collision (be it elastic or inelastic), why some of the textbooks keep depicting collision like this? Or is there any implicit assumption made without explicitely expressed? I even read similar depiction in one of the textbook talking about electromagnetic radiation pressure when shining on an object, talking about the momentum transfer but without mentioning about the energy change in the system.

Appreciate enlightenment. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are quite right in your analysis. Textbooks often use this example because it is relatively easy to work through in order to introduce students to the concept of collisions and because it represents a reasonable approximation when m2 >> m1. If we denote the ratio, \epsilon = m_1/m_2, then 0<\epsilon<<1. For a head on collision between the two masses, the velocities afterwards are,

v_1 = \frac{\epsilon - 1}{\epsilon+1}v_\text{initial}

and

v_2 = \frac{2\epsilon}{\epsilon+1}v_\text{initial}\;.

We can then expand

v_1 \sim -(1 - 2\epsilon)v_\text{initial} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)

and

v_2 \sim 2\epsilon v_\text{initial} + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)

Suppose we now take the leading order approximation:

v_1\sim - 1v_\text{initial} \text{ and } v_2 \sim 0

So, for the case when m2 is a hundred times m1 you are looking at a relative error of around 0.02, in the velocities.

However, strictly speaking you are correct. The case when the second mass remains stationary does indeed violate conservation of momentum and therefore cannot occur. That said, it is a relatively good approximation for a large contrast in masses. For example, if you imagine throwing a ball at a wall, you would assume in your calculations that the wall doesn't move - however, in actuality is does a little bit, and the Earth moves a little bit.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, appreciate the clear explanation. I hope all textbooks could be more rigorous and state the necessary assumptions much more clearer and explicitly.
 
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