Conservation of momentum VS friction

AI Thread Summary
When a train stops suddenly, the conservation of momentum principle indicates that the momentum of the train is transferred to loose objects, such as passengers. While friction between the passenger and the seat does cause some deceleration, it is minimal compared to the initial speed of the train. The larger mass of the train means that the end velocity of the passengers will still be significant, even after accounting for friction. An external force acting on the train disrupts momentum conservation for the system as a whole, but individual passengers continue moving forward due to inertia. Understanding these dynamics clarifies how forces interact during sudden stops.
FelBEach
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
If you are in a moving train and the train stops instantly would you hit the object ahead of you at the exact same speed the train was traveling or would there be some slight deceleration due to friction? Wouldn't the friction your body experiences with the seat you are sitting on and the air around you cause you to decelerate even at a very minute rate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct in the point that friction acts to slow the passanger down a little (very little).

However, if a train moves and suddenly stops, it loses its momentum (which has to be conserved at all costs), so that momentum is now shared between every "loose" object in the train (people etc.)

For conservation of momentum we have that

m(train+loose objects)*v.initial=m(loose objects)*v.end

The train has a much larger mass than the loose objects, so the end velocity for them has to be a lot larger than when they were moving with the same speed as the train.

Conclusion, friction slows the passenger down a little, but the passengers total velocity is still larger than when moving at the same speed as the train.
 
when I said the train stops I was thinking the train hit some type of immovable object causing an immediate stop. Wouldn't the momentum from the train be just absorbed by the object and your body would only be moving because it was moving to begin with and just hasn't been stopped yet?
 
Ofey said:
You are correct in the point that friction acts to slow the passanger down a little (very little).

However, if a train moves and suddenly stops, it loses its momentum (which has to be conserved at all costs), so that momentum is now shared between every "loose" object in the train (people etc.)

For conservation of momentum we have that

m(train+loose objects)*v.initial=m(loose objects)*v.end

The train has a much larger mass than the loose objects, so the end velocity for them has to be a lot larger than when they were moving with the same speed as the train.

Conclusion, friction slows the passenger down a little, but the passengers total velocity is still larger than when moving at the same speed as the train.
This is completely incorrect. Momentum of the "train + loose objects" is not conserved--there is an external force acting on the train!

FelBEach said:
when I said the train stops I was thinking the train hit some type of immovable object causing an immediate stop. Wouldn't the momentum from the train be just absorbed by the object and your body would only be moving because it was moving to begin with and just hasn't been stopped yet?
Perfectly correct. Your body will continue moving in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by some force. (This is Newton's 1st law.) The seat friction (hopefully) will slow you down a bit before you collide into something.
 
Of course, I am terribly sorry :frown: I was just thinking that the train stopped, never thought about the force making it stop, which obviously has to exist.
 
Thanks, you guys helped me a lot. respect
 
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