Does Zero Linear Momentum Always Mean Zero Kinetic Energy?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that while zero kinetic energy in a system of particles implies zero linear momentum, the opposite is not true; a system can have zero linear momentum while still possessing kinetic energy. Examples provided include two particles moving in opposite directions, resulting in zero momentum but non-zero kinetic energy. The conversation also touches on angular momentum, questioning if similar principles apply. Participants explore the implications of kinetic energy and momentum in a system treated as a single object, emphasizing that kinetic energy cannot be negative. Overall, the thread highlights the distinct relationship between kinetic energy and linear momentum in physics.
AdityaDev
Messages
527
Reaction score
33
"if kinetic energy of system of particles is zero, then linear momentum of that system of particles is zero but the reverse is not true. That is if linear momentum of a system of particles is zero, then the kinetic energy may not be zero"

This is what I got from my text. Can you provide me with some examples because I am a bit confused. Can you provide some explanation?
Is this true for angular momentum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Consider two particles with mass m, one with velocity +v and one with velocity -v.
 
  • Like
Likes AdityaDev
Vanadium 50 said:
Consider two particles with mass m, one with velocity +v and one with velocity -v.
So momentum is zero and kinetic E is not zero. Can you give an example for kinetic energy zero and momentum non zero?
 
AdityaDev said:
So momentum is zero and kinetic E is not zero. Can you give an example for kinetic energy zero and momentum non zero?
KE = sum of 1/2 mv2. Can any of those terms be negative?
Or, imagine covering the whole system with a curtain or box and treating it as one object of total mass M and velocity V.
P=MV, while KE= 1/2MV2+ KE(within system, relative to the center of mass)
If KE = 0, what does that imply? Assume masses are never negative.
 
  • Like
Likes AdityaDev
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