Conservation of momentum with initial velocity of 0

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of momentum in scenarios involving a person throwing an object versus punching a wall. When a person throws a brick, they experience a backward velocity due to the conservation of momentum, which is straightforward. However, when punching a wall, the normal force pushes the person back, raising questions about how momentum is conserved if the wall appears stationary. It is clarified that the wall does not remain at zero velocity; rather, the interaction causes energy to be distributed as vibrations and heat, while the overall momentum of the system is still conserved. The conversation concludes with an analogy involving a thought experiment in space, illustrating that even in different contexts, momentum conservation remains valid.
BogMonkey
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the concepts of momentum conservation. Let's say I'm standing on a frictionless surface and I throw a 3kg brick horizontally with a velocity of 4m/s. In this scenario I can see that I'm going to be repelled backwards at a velocity of 12/my mass in kg but let's say instead of throwing a brick I punch a wall. The normal force acting on my fist will repel me backwards and I will have a new momentum but how is momentum conserved here if the velocity of the wall remains 0? Does all the kinetic energy go into vibrating the molecules of the wall + the tiny amount of heat and sound produced or something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BogMonkey said:
the velocity of the wall remains 0?

It doesn't remain 0. You know that if Chuck Norris makes push-ups, he doesn't push himself up but instead the Earth down? That is not a joke.

BogMonkey said:
Does all the kinetic energy go into vibrating the molecules of the wall + the tiny amount of heat and sound produced or something?

Not all but some kinetic energy. But total momentum as a vector has to be preserved on it's own, regardless of energy.
 
BogMonkey said:
The normal force acting on my fist will repel me backwards and I will have a new momentum but how is momentum conserved here if the velocity of the wall remains 0?

Since you are attached to the Earth by your feet, this creates a torque that cancels the one you deliver to the wall.

However, even if you were not attached by your feet you can consider the following thought experiment. You are floating in outer space, just you and a ball with a rod sticking radially out of it. You push the rod, the normal force repels you backwards. What does the ball do? It picks up a rotation and translation. Now, if you make the ball bigger and heavier, the translation and rotation are less noticable. It is more or less fair to consider the Earth/wall system as an extreme limit of this.

BANG!
 
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