Momentum and energy in a collision

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between momentum and energy in collisions, specifically comparing the kinetic energy of lighter objects like arrows and bullets to heavier objects. Participants explore the implications of Newton's third law and the different acceleration mechanisms involved in these scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why lighter objects gain more kinetic energy than heavier ones, suggesting that Newton's third law implies equal energy transfer.
  • Others point out that the comparison between arrows and bullets involves different acceleration mechanisms, which may lead to different kinetic energies.
  • One participant presents a calculation involving forces and mass to illustrate their confusion about energy absorption in lighter objects versus heavier ones.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the bullet and gun interact for the same duration, suggesting that equal distances cannot be assumed in their analysis.
  • Some participants argue that mathematical relationships are essential for understanding physics, while others express frustration with the reliance on math without a clear physical basis.
  • There is a discussion about the visualization of concepts and the challenge of explaining physics in intuitive terms without relying on mathematics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of mathematics in understanding physics, with some advocating for its necessity while others question its relevance in intuitive explanations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the comparison of energy transfer in lighter versus heavier objects.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of accounting for all forms of energy in interactions and the nuances of inelastic collisions, but no consensus is reached on the implications of these factors.

  • #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
5K
  • · 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