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

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Conservation of momentum in a closed system
Replies
3
Views
2K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Why is momentum considered a vector and kinetic energy a scalar?
Replies
15
Views
3K
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Internal forces converting kinetic into potential energy (vice versa)
Replies
10
Views
2K
Can the centre of mass do work?
Replies
6
Views
1K
I Question about a Rotating system with mass moving inwards
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Conservation of angular momentum during collisions
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Question about transfer of Energy and Momentum in Ballistics
Replies
34
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top