Momentum and energy in a collision

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differences in kinetic energy between lighter objects, such as arrows and bullets, and heavier objects, like guns. Participants clarify that the acceleration mechanisms differ significantly, leading to variations in kinetic energy despite equal forces acting on them, as per Newton's Third Law. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding momentum conservation and the role of energy forms in collisions, particularly inelastic collisions where total mechanical energy is not conserved. The necessity of mathematics in physics is also highlighted, as it provides a reliable framework for understanding these principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion, particularly Newton's Third Law.
  • Familiarity with the concepts of kinetic energy and momentum.
  • Basic knowledge of inelastic and elastic collisions.
  • Proficiency in mathematical principles relevant to physics, such as equations of motion.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the principles of momentum conservation in various types of collisions.
  • Study the differences between elastic and inelastic collisions in detail.
  • Learn about the mathematical formulations of kinetic energy and momentum.
  • Investigate simulation tools like the Collision Lab from PhET to visualize collision dynamics.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the mechanics of collisions and the interplay between momentum and energy in physical systems.

  • #31
ataskaita said:
If you square the magnitude of momentum you do not get energy unless maybe you use that momentum-energy relation, in that case it is kinda funny to teach momentum in school if you need special relativity to get it. Plus square is a very things changing stuff if you square something - you really produce BIG change on it.

And if you couldn't get any sense of that writing of mine, well again - momentum doesn't care about the 4 wheels of a car, momentum only thinks that it is one or two or three cars, but not the number of their wheels, but energy does care...

Whilst you insist on just using words and arm waving, you are never going to get this. Or perhaps you would rather wander round in blissful ignorance. That way you could ignore any rules - mathematical or otherwise. I think we have reach the stage of wasting all of our time on this topic.
We did try, though!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ataskaita said:
If you square the magnitude of momentum you do not get energy unless maybe you use that momentum-energy relation, in that case it is kinda funny to teach momentum in school if you need special relativity to get it.

You do not. Momentum and energy are equally fundamental, with or without relativity. What makes them unequal in your mind is your random decision to accept one but not the other.

And if you couldn't get any sense of that writing of mine, well again - momentum doesn't care about the 4 wheels of a car, momentum only thinks that it is one or two or three cars, but not the number of their wheels, but energy does care...

Momentum and energy are not defined on terms of wheels and cars. Using analogies that have nothing to with the subject matter and are meaningless to anyone except you is a very poor argument in a discussion on supposedly a scientific subject.
 
  • #33
voko said:
You do not. Momentum and energy are equally fundamental, with or without relativity. What makes them unequal in your mind is your random decision to accept one but not the other.
Momentum and energy are not defined on terms of wheels and cars. Using analogies that have nothing to with the subject matter and are meaningless to anyone except you is a very poor argument in a discussion on supposedly a scientific subject.

Ok, it is my decision so far to accept only energy (but of course i would be using momentum, as i did before) at least till i read or someone would answer me what hapens when particles, which are indivisible collide... ;)
 
  • #34
ataskaita said:
Ok, it is my decision so far to accept only energy (but of course i would be using momentum, as i did before) at least till i read or someone would answer me what hapens when particles, which are indivisible collide... ;)
You are making the same mistake as many other people. You find something hard to understand in Classical Science and, instead of sorting it out classically, you think the answer lies in using buzz words and even more rarified stuff. If you don't get the basic stuff then you have no hope of getting any further.
Momentum is Conserved wherever we look in nature - Planets or Quarks. You will not have a clue (trust me) what a Quark is so why introduce it into the discussion?
 
  • #35
voko said:
You may want to know that these days distance and time are interchangeable, any distance can be converted into time by dividing it with the speed of light, and any time can converted into distance by multiplying it with the speed of light.

In fact, the unit "meter" is defined as whatever distance is traveled by light in a particular fraction of one second, so distance is in a way secondary to time.



They certainly do. Momentum and energy are two different aspects of motion. Special relativity unites them just like it unites space and time.



Sorry, I could not make any sense out of that.



By squaring the magnitude of momentum?

And by the way speed of light has distance in it... so again distance, not just time
 
  • #36
sophiecentaur said:
You are making the same mistake as many other people. You find something hard to understand in Classical Science and, instead of sorting it out classically, you think the answer lies in using buzz words and even more rarified stuff. If you don't get the basic stuff then you have no hope of getting any further.
Momentum is Conserved wherever we look in nature - Planets or Quarks. You will not have a clue (trust me) what a Quark is so why introduce it into the discussion?

For me it is ok with conservation and maybe i would like momentum, it is that just dv/dt is just maths and introducing new quantity by just explaining it as dv/dt or da/dt is just too unexplanatory. I would really apreciate simple life like explanation of momentum and not dv/dt...
 
  • #37
This is no longer productive.

Both total energy and momentum are conserved. Not all energy is mechanical energy. Physics uses math.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K