Conservation of Linear Momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of linear momentum, specifically the condition that total linear momentum is conserved when the total force acting on a particle is zero. Participants clarify that the excerpt's use of the arbitrary vector \(\vec{s}\) is intended to demonstrate that if the dot product of the force \(\vec{F}\) with \(\vec{s}\) equals zero, then the momentum component in the direction of \(\vec{s}\) remains constant over time. Misunderstandings arise regarding the notation, particularly the derivative of momentum, \(\dot{\vec{p}}\), which is crucial for interpreting the statement correctly. The key takeaway is that the momentum component perpendicular to the applied force does not change when the force is zero in that direction. This highlights the relationship between force and momentum in classical dynamics.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
In my Classical Dynamics book, I am reading about the topic alluded to in the title of this thread.
Here is an excerpt that is provided me with confusion:

"The total linear momentum \vec{p} of a particle is conserve when the total force on it is zero

Note that this result is derived from the vector equation \vec{p} = \vec(0}, and therefore applies for each component of the linear momentum. To state the result in other terms, we let \vec{s} be some constant vector such that \vec{F} \cdot \vec{s} = \vec{0}indepent of time. Then \vec{p} \cdot {s} = \vec{F} \cdot \vec{s} = \vec{0} or, integrating with respect to time \vec{p} \cdot \vec{s} = c which states that the component of linear momentum in the direction in which in the force vanishes is constant in time

The part in bold is particularly confusing. Could someone help, please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yeah, that is very weird. It looks almost like they are using ##\vec{s}## as an arbitrary vector. So in other words, imagine ##\vec{s}## is any arbitrary (but constant with time) vector, then ##\vec{F} \cdot \vec{s} = 0## Yeah, also, it should be 0 (a scalar) not a vector, since the dot product of two vectors is a scalar.

I think there is something in the definition of a linear vector space that says if the dot product of a vector ##\vec{F}## with any arbitrary vector in the vector space ##\vec{s}## is zero, then the vector ##\vec{F}## must be the zero vector. (In other words, it is just another way of saying that ##\vec{F}## is the zero vector).
 
What it is trying to say (not too well) is that the change in the component of momentum in the direction perpendicular to the applied force is zero.
 
You misread. Your book (apparently Marion & Thornton) says
"To state the result in other terms, we let ##\vec s## be some constant vector such that ##\vec F \cdot \vec s = 0## independent of time. Then ##\dot{\vec p} \cdot \vec s=\vec F \cdot \vec s = 0## or, integrating with respect to time ##\vec p \cdot \vec s = c## which states that the component of linear momentum in the direction in which in the force vanishes is constant in time."​

You missed the derivative of momentum, ##\dot{\vec p}##.
 
Chestermiller said:
What it is trying to say (not too well) is that the change in the component of momentum in the direction perpendicular to the applied force is zero.
Ah, yeah. It could mean that. So if we choose a specific ##\vec{s}## for which ##\vec{F} \cdot \vec{s}=0## then this means for that specific vector ##\vec{s}##, we have: ##\vec{p} \cdot \vec{s} = c## (constant with time). So for example, if there are zero forces in the 'x' direction, then the momentum in the 'x' direction is constant.
 
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