How Does Momentum Conserve When a Biker Hits the Pavement?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of momentum in the context of a biker colliding with the pavement. It explores whether the Earth can be considered stationary during this collision and how to quantify momentum conservation in such a system. The participants clarify that while the biker's momentum can be analyzed, the Earth's massive size means its velocity change is negligible. Additionally, the kinetic energy of the biker is transformed into heat, sound, and deformation upon impact. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of analyzing momentum in collisions involving significantly different masses.
MattsVai
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I have a fundamental question regarding conservation of momentum (not homework).

So if we have a system of 2 balls, identical in size and weight, one of which is initially stationary until hit by the other ball. We have the following:

m1v1 + 0 = 0 + m2v2

or v2 = v1

and therefore there is conservation of momentum. Now what happens when say a biker hits the pavement with his helmet... how does momentum conserve? Is this a system of Earth vs bikers head? How can I quantify the conservation of momentum? having a hard time understanding...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MattsVai said:
So if we have a system of 2 balls, identical in size and weight, one of which is initially stationary until hit by the other ball. We have the following:

m1v1 + 0 = 0 + m2v2

or v2 = v1
Note that this is only true in a head on collision i.e. one dimensional case, in general both balls will have a non zero velocity after the collision.
MattsVai said:
Now what happens when say a biker hits the pavement with his helmet... how does momentum conserve? Is this a system of Earth vs bikers head? How can I quantify the conservation of momentum? having a hard time understanding...
The system would be the biker (not just his head) and the earth. What do you mean your having hard time quantifying conservation of momentum?
 
Hi Hootenanny, thanks for the reply :)

So basically how do I demonstrate conservation of momentum for a system in which there is collision between a biker and pavement (earth)? Is it safe to consider the Earth as stationary given that it has rotational and translational movements? What happens to the kinetic energy of the biker once he hits the pavement... where does that energy go?

Cheers
 
not really the same case is here, because mass of Earth and of helmet is not same therefore velocity would differ.
 
MattsVai said:
Hi Hootenanny, thanks for the reply :)
No problem :smile:
MattsVai said:
So basically how do I demonstrate conservation of momentum for a system in which there is collision between a biker and pavement (earth)? Is it safe to consider the Earth as stationary given that it has rotational and translational movements?
You can consider that Earth stationary before the collision and just consider the velocity of the biker (which for the sake of simplicity we can model as a particle). After the collision however, you must consider the velocity of both the Earth and the biker. You can ignore the rotational momentum of both the biker and the Earth as this is not going to significantly affect the result. To be honest this calculation is going to produce a very small change in velocity for the earth, so I don't know how accurate this is going to be.
MattsVai said:
What happens to the kinetic energy of the biker once he hits the pavement... where does that energy go?
The kinetic energy is dissapated as heat, sound, deformation of helmet etc.
 
Makes sense :)

Thanks for the input Hootenanny.

All the best!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top