Why Is Momentum Conserved but Not Kinetic Energy in an Inelastic Collision?

AI Thread Summary
Momentum is conserved in inelastic collisions due to the principles outlined in Newton's third law, while kinetic energy is not conserved because it can be transformed into other forms of energy like heat and sound. Inelastic collisions are characterized by a loss of kinetic energy, which is defined by the objects not retaining their initial kinetic energy post-collision. Perfectly inelastic collisions represent a scenario where the colliding objects stick together, resulting in the maximum loss of kinetic energy. Despite the loss of kinetic energy, the total energy remains conserved throughout the process. Ultimately, momentum persists before and after the collision, highlighting its fundamental nature in physics.
bolbol2054
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
why although the equations of momentum and kinetic energy of an object contains the same symbols m and v we note in an inelastic collision that momentum unlike the kinetic energy is conserved
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Momentum will always be conserved because of the symmetry regarding Newton III. But kinetic energy does not need to be conserved because it can easily be transformed into heat, sound, deformation, etc. Note that the total energy still is conserved, just not kinetic energy. Moreover, inelastic collisions are defined by us to be a collision which does not conserve kinetic energy much like perfectly inelastic collisions are defined to be a collision where the final two objects "stick" together resulting in the maximum loss in kinetic energy.
 
The kinetic energy is converted into other forms of energy. It all starts or ends with the motion of the body.

The momentum, whereas, is always there, before collision, after collision.
 
that's now clear thank you
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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