Conservation of Momentum = Conservation of Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy, particularly in the context of collisions and particle physics. Participants examine whether these two conservation laws can be viewed as fundamentally linked or distinct, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that energy and momentum differ only by a factor of V/2, suggesting a fundamental connection between the two conservation laws.
  • Others argue that momentum is a vector and energy is a scalar, highlighting that both can be conserved in elastic collisions, while only momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions.
  • A participant questions the assertion that energy and momentum differ by a factor of V/2, clarifying that this applies to kinetic energy, which is not necessarily conserved.
  • It is noted that in inelastic collisions, energy can be lost as heat or radiation, which does not affect net momentum, despite radiation carrying momentum.
  • One participant emphasizes that momentum conservation arises from spatial translation invariance, while energy conservation is linked to temporal translation invariance, indicating that these principles can operate independently under certain conditions.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of missing particles in collisions, suggesting that apparent losses in momentum and kinetic energy cannot be inferred without considering both conservation laws.
  • There is a mention of specific scenarios, such as a classical object in a gravitational field, where certain components of momentum may not be conserved while energy remains conserved.
  • Participants express uncertainty about whether the conservation laws of energy and momentum convey the same message at the atomic or particle physics level, with some asserting that potential energy still exists in these contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the conservation of energy is fundamentally the same as the conservation of momentum. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship and independence of these conservation laws.

Contextual Notes

Some claims depend on specific definitions of energy and momentum, and the discussion includes unresolved assumptions about the nature of collisions and the tracking of particles.

Islam Hassan
Messages
237
Reaction score
5
Energy and momentum only differ by a factor of V/2. So in essence, at a fundamental level, does this mean that the conservation of energy is the conservation of momentum in disguise?

IH
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Momentum is a vector, while energy is a scalar. There are elastic collisions where both are conserved, while only momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions. In inelastic collisions, energy and momentum are both carried away by particles we don't explicitly track. However, momentum is carried away equally in all directions, so that what is lost in one direction is "added back" by the loss in the opposite direction.
 
However, momentum is carried away equally in all directions, so that what is lost in one direction is "added back" by the loss in the opposite direction.
Please explain what you mean by this.
 
It is also not true that "Energy and momentum only differ by a factor of V/2" - that's kinetic energy, not total energy. Kinetic energy is not necessarily conserved.
 
Bill_K said:
Please explain what you mean by this.

I meant that in an inelastic collision, energy is lost as heat, say as radiation. This removes energy, but does not remove net momentum, even though radiation carries momentum, because the heat loss is non-directional.
 
atyy said:
Momentum is a vector, while energy is a scalar. There are elastic collisions where both are conserved, while only momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions. In inelastic collisions, energy and momentum are both carried away by particles we don't explicitly track. However, momentum is carried away equally in all directions, so that what is lost in one direction is "added back" by the loss in the opposite direction.

What about at atomic/particle physics level where *everything* is kinetic: heat, sound, etc. At this level, do the two conservation laws of energy and momentum essentially repeat the same message?

IH
 
No they don't. While momentum conservation follows, by definition, from spatial translation invariance since momentum is the conserved quantity of this symmetry, energy conservation is due to temporal translation invariance since energy is the corresponding conserved quantity of this symmetry.

A system might not be space-translation invariant (e.g., a particle in an external potential) but time-translation invariant (if the potential is time independent). Then energy is conserved but momentum isn't.
 
Islam Hassan said:
What about at atomic/particle physics level where *everything* is kinetic: heat, sound, etc. At this level, do the two conservation laws of energy and momentum essentially repeat the same message?

IH

Not everything is kinetic energy. Fundamentally, momentum is always conserved, but only total energy, not kinetic energy is always conserved. But to see where your intuition holds partially, let's restrict ourselves to collisions that conserve momentum and kinetic energy. Let's say we don't observe all the outgoing particles, and we find that we are apparently missing some momentum. This does mean that we will also be apparently missing some kinetic energy. However, we cannot infer the apparent kinetic energy loss purely from the apparent momentum loss and conservation of momentum, without using conservation of kinetic energy. For example, if there are 3 missing particles, two of them may be identical particles moving in opposite directions, carrying away kinetic energy without removing net momentum, while the third carries away both kinetic energy and momentum.
 
Last edited:
vanhees71 has got the right answer.
For example, a classical object in a constant (external) gravitational field. In this case, the z component of momentum is not conserved, but the x,y components of momentum are conserved. And since the potential doesn't explicitly depend on time, energy is also conserved.
 
  • #10
Islam Hassan said:
What about at atomic/particle physics level where *everything* is kinetic: heat, sound, etc. At this level, do the two conservation laws of energy and momentum essentially repeat the same message?

IH

At the atomic/particle physics level, there is still potential energy.
 

Similar threads

High School Why Do Objects Bounce? Exploring Momentum and Energy Conservation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Ignoring the motion of the Earth for energy vs. momentum conservation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Undergrad Conservation of Momentum versus Conservation of Velocity
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Conservation of momentum and conservation of energy details
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Undergrad Conservation of angular momentum in the iceskater example
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Why is KE not conserved when momentum is?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
Undergrad Momentum of a Water Jet Impacting Plate
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Conservation of momentum in a closed system
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Why momentum is conserved when a gun fires? (conceptual question)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad A question on momentum conservation of bodies in combined motion
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K