Conserved kinetic energy in collisions in different frames

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, participants explore how to demonstrate that kinetic energy conservation in one inertial frame implies conservation in all inertial frames for non-relativistic collisions. The conversation suggests starting with the conservation of momentum equation from a stationary frame and modifying it for a moving frame, leading to a simplified algebraic form. By expanding the terms and observing cancellations, the conservation of momentum can be established in the new frame. The next step involves substituting the modified velocities into the energy equation to show conservation of kinetic energy. This methodical approach highlights the interconnectedness of momentum and energy conservation across different frames.
bon
Messages
547
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



How do you show that in the non-relativistic case, if KE is conserved in a collision as viewed in one frame, then it is conserved in all other frames moving with constant velocity?



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



Not sure what to do...

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org


bon said:
Not sure what to do...
thanks

Perhaps start by stating the equation for (non-relativistic) conservation of momentum as observed from a stationary frame. Then modify that equation such that it represents conservation of momentum from the perspective of a (non-relativistic) moving frame.

Then a little algebra will show you to the light. :cool:
 


Hmm so m1(u1' + Vcm) + m2(u2' + Vcm) = m1(v1' + Vcm) + m2(v2' + Vcm)

How does this help?

thanks
 


Hello bon,

bon said:
Hmm so m1(u1' + Vcm) + m2(u2' + Vcm) = m1(v1' + Vcm) + m2(v2' + Vcm)

How does this help?

thanks

That's a great start! :approve:

Now is where the simple algebra fits in. Multiply m1 and m2 through their factors, and you should see what I mean.

[Edit: What I mean by that is expand the terms on both sides of the equation. See what cancels out.]
 
Last edited:


Ok cool so i see m1u1'+m2u2' = m1v1'+m2v2'

i.e. consv of momentum in new frame...Now need to get consv. of energy..

should i subsstitute u1'+Vcm into energy equn and expand?
 


edit: yes that works!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top