Consider the momentum as the acceleration energy?

AI Thread Summary
Momentum cannot be considered acceleration energy because it fundamentally differs from kinetic energy in terms of conservation and dimensionality. While momentum is conserved in collisions, kinetic energy is not, indicating distinct physical properties. Momentum is a vector quantity, encompassing both magnitude and direction, whereas kinetic energy is a scalar, possessing only magnitude. The confusion arises when comparing changes in energy and momentum, but the underlying principles of their definitions and conservation laws highlight their differences. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for grasping concepts in physics.
aloshi
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Hello!
yes is from Sweden and my English is not good, but will try to do as best as possible. My question is:
why can not consider the momentum as the acceleration energy?

I know that:
Impulse is change in momentum which is not the same as energy
Impulse can be expressed either as F * (delta) t or m * (delta) v since it is the same thing. That the expressions are as follows from Newton's 2nd Kraftlag together with the definition of acceleration: (delta) v / (delta) t

but as we move into the energy we see that energy is defined as:
W = mv ^ 2 / 2
but what is the difference between rörelsenergi and momentum:

I couple of things:
An important difference is that momentum is always kept in a collision between two or more objects. The kinetic energy conservation is generally not in a collision.
Another difference between kinetic energy and momentum is that kinetic energy is a scalar (ie, has size but not direction) while the momentum is a vector (ie, both the size and direction)

but I can not really understand what the difference between momentum and kinetic energy (accelerating energy)
 
Physics news on Phys.org


if we compare the energy between, thus förendringen Middle two speeds we get that the change in energy is:
http://www.pluggakuten.se/wiki/images/8/8f/Untitled11111.jpg
I can not see a big difference between them, the only thing that separates them is that we have abbreviated removed (delta)stretch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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