Momentum paradox: Why can't we write it as p=m+v ?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter akashpandey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Momentum Paradox
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the fundamental misunderstanding of momentum, represented by the formula p=mv, and why it cannot be expressed as p=m+v. Participants clarify that momentum is a product of mass and velocity, which are quantities with different dimensionalities, making addition nonsensical. They emphasize that multiplication allows for the combination of different units, as seen in the compound unit kg·m/s, which retains its meaning across unit conversions. The conversation also touches on the conceptual definitions of multiplication and its application in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, specifically momentum.
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis and unit conversions.
  • Knowledge of mathematical operations, particularly multiplication and addition of different units.
  • Basic grasp of vector quantities and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the concept of dimensional analysis in physics.
  • Study the properties of vector quantities and their applications in mechanics.
  • Learn about the conservation of momentum and its implications in physical systems.
  • Investigate the mathematical definitions of multiplication in different contexts, including real numbers and rational numbers.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching mechanics, mathematicians exploring unit systems, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of momentum and dimensional analysis.

akashpandey
Messages
90
Reaction score
4
So as we know momentum has a formula p=mv right ?
But why we can't write it as p=m+v ?
The real question is why we multiply both mass and velocity quantity
And not add them ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2, sheepy_pasta, weirdoguy and 1 other person
Physics news on Phys.org
Because observation tells us that ##mv## is a useful quantity, and ##m+v## makes no sense. You can't add quantities that have different dimensionalities.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, KDPhysics, sheepy_pasta and 4 others
Ibix said:
Because observation tells us that ##mv## is a useful quantity, and ##m+v## makes no sense. You can't add quantities that have different dimensionalities.

Ok so as we know multiplication is repeated addition..
How would explain momentum according to multiplication definition ?
Does this mean we are scaling velocity by multiplying mass.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Or more simply i can put the question like
What does multiplication mean? If we can't add two different types of quantities, then how can we multiply two different types of quantities, like p=mv ?
 
You can't add quantities with different units because it makes no sense. ##m+v## is the mathematical expression of a question like "what's 1kg more than 10m/s", which makes no sense at all.

You can multiply quantities with different units because the units also multiply. That's possible because quantities with units are already a multiplication - for example 3m is just saying "three times the length of a metre rule" in a compact way. And constructing compound units such as m/s is also clearly meaningful - it's the mathematical expression of a question like "how many times the length of a metre rule did an object travel in the time it took my clock to tick once".

(I'm aware that modern SI defines units in a slightly more sophisticated way than "here's a lump of metal of a defined length". It doesn't make a difference to the point at hand.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, Infrared, KDPhysics and 5 others
Ibix said:
You can't add quantities with different units because it makes no sense. ##m+v## is the mathematical expression of a question like "what's 1kg more than 10m/s", which makes no sense at all.

You can multiply quantities with different units because the units also multiply. That's possible because quantities with units are already a multiplication - for example 3m is just saying "three times the length of a metre rule" in a compact way. And constructing compound units such as m/s is also clearly meaningful - it's the mathematical expression of a question like "how many times the length of a metre rule did an object travel in the time it took my clock to tick once".

(I'm aware that modern SI defines units in a slightly more sophisticated way than "here's a lump of metal of a defined length". It doesn't make a difference to the point at hand.)
Yeah got your point..
But definition of multiplication doesn't go hand in hand with this momentum thing.. that's all i am saying.
 
Ibix said:
You can't add quantities with different units because it makes no sense. ##m+v## is the mathematical expression of a question like "what's 1kg more than 10m/s", which makes no sense at all.

You can multiply quantities with different units because the units also multiply. That's possible because quantities with units are already a multiplication - for example 3m is just saying "three times the length of a metre rule" in a compact way. And constructing compound units such as m/s is also clearly meaningful - it's the mathematical expression of a question like "how many times the length of a metre rule did an object travel in the time it took my clock to tick once".

(I'm aware that modern SI defines units in a slightly more sophisticated way than "here's a lump of metal of a defined length". It doesn't make a difference to the point at hand.)
m/s is how man times the length of a meter rule object traveled in one tick of my clock.

So how would mathematically define this "kg.m/s" ?
 
What kind of unit would this hypothetical physical quantity have and what can it be used for? So we take 1 kilogram and 1 meter per second and add them and get 2 kg+m/s? What if we choose different units? Momentum will scale in the obvious manner, 1 kg·m/s = 1000 g·m/s, whether we multiplied 1kg by 1m or 0.5 kg by 2m/s, but your added quantity will depend on the values we adding up, so if we add 1kg and 1m/s it will be 2 kg+m/s = 1001 g+m/s, but if we add 0.5 kg and 1.5 m/s we will get 2 kg+m/s = 501.5 g+m/s, which can't be derived independently from the original 2 kg+m/s without knowing the separate values that went into it. We'll have to keep track of this values all the time (kind of like that: 1kg+1m/s=1000g+1m/s) so there was no point in adding the numbers in the first place.
The multiplied value holds its own as an independent value under the change of units.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #10
akashpandey said:
m/s is how man times the length of a meter rule object traveled in one tick of my clock.

Physical units can have more than one interpretation. One example of the interpretation of m/s is as a velocity, but there can be different examples.

So how would mathematically define this "kg.m/s"
That question is not addressed by mathematics. For example, trigonometry does not tell us that the hypoteneuse of a triangle must be a ladder leaning against a wall. Properties of a ladder leaning against a wall might be analyzed by using trigonometry, but the mathematics of trigonometry does not tell us that only one particular application of trigonometry exists.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
  • #11
akashpandey said:
Ok so as we know multiplication is repeated addition..
How do you write √2 * π as repeated addition?
 
  • #12
akashpandey said:
Summary:: Why we multiply mass and velocity ?

So as we know momentum has a formula p=mv right ?
But why we can't write it as p=m+v ?
The real question is why we multiply both mass and velocity quantity
And not add them ?
If you think of a mass ##M## as being composed of a lot of smaller masses, ##m##, all moving together at some velocity ##v##. Let's say 100 small masses make up the larger mass.

If you add mass and velocity, the the momentum of each component would be ##p = m + v## and the momentum of the whole thing would be ##P = 100(m + v) = 100m + 100v##.

But, if you calculate the momentum of the large mass directly you get ##P = M + v = 100m + v##. And you get a different answer.

Adding two quantities in this way makes no sense.

Whereas, if you multiply quantities, then we have ##p = mv##, and ##P = 100mv = Mv##, and it all makes sense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Merlin3189 and Ibix
  • #13
akashpandey said:
Summary:: Why we multiply mass and velocity ?

So as we know momentum has a formula p=mv right ?
But why we can't write it as p=m+v ?
The real question is why we multiply both mass and velocity quantity
And not add them ?
I think when people started studying motion,they didn't knew that their is quantity momentum which remains conserve but when they started doing maths they found that this quantity mv remains same and they gave name momentum to it.
It would be like saying something like why cucumber is cucumber not orange.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
PeroK said:
Whereas, if you multiply quantities, then we have ##p = mv##, and ##P = 100mv = Mv##, and it all makes sense.
It makes sense formally, but it also has to be useful somehow, which it is because it's conserved.
 
  • #15
akashpandey said:
But definition of multiplication doesn't go hand in hand with this momentum thing.. that's all i am saying.
Take a step backwards. When did you first learn the definition of Multiplication as repeated additions? I suspect it was when you were less than ten years old. Since then, the more advanced concepts of Maths crept into your awareness - even if you never did an advanced Maths Analysis course and you just do it mechanically. However, once you go beyond integers in the application of that definition then you have to introduce implied multiplication and insert that in your 'multiple additions' definition. It has to pull itself up by its own bootstraps - especially when the numbers are not even rational.

The 'rules' about what you are allowed to do about dimensions are pretty straightforward and are actually pretty intuitive. You can multiply different quantities and get a meaningful answer. Amp Hours as the capacity of a battery make sense because you can use the same capacity battery for twice as long by taking half the current etc. etc. etc.. But what would adding possibly 10A to 5H mean? 15 'Somethings'? Equivalent to 1A plus 14H?? Clearly not.

Once you have established the principle of what does and what dean;t make sense then you OP question is answered.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Leo Liu, Ibix and PeroK
  • #16
akashpandey said:
Yeah got your point..
But definition of multiplication doesn't go hand in hand with this momentum thing.. that's all i am saying.
The repeated addition thing is not the definition of multiplication. It is the easiest way to teach multiplication to little children who only know addition. The repeated addition thing only even works for multiplication by integers.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz and Frigus
  • #17
How could a joke get so many answers?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hamiltonian, Leo Liu and Chestermiller
  • #18
Dale said:
The repeated addition thing is not the definition of multiplication. It is the easiest way to teach multiplication to little children who only know addition. The repeated addition thing only even works for multiplication by integers.

That's how mutlipication is defined for positive integers. Multiplication of the rationals and the reals is defined by a systematic generalisation.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi, Dale and jbriggs444
  • #19
Dale said:
The repeated addition thing is not the definition of multiplication. It is the easiest way to teach multiplication to little children who only know addition. The repeated addition thing only even works for multiplication by integers.
My whole life was a lie.😕
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #20
Hemant said:
My whole life was a lie.😕
Well, I may be wrong about that. I cannot find an independent definition of real multiplication. So don’t question your life quite yet!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and Frigus
  • #21
Well, in the grand scheme of things using dimensional real numbers to quantify things in the physical sciences is really a rather remarkable process. One could argue all day how "intuitive" it is but in the end the real reason is it's observed to work really well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, etotheipi and akashpandey
  • #22
Dale said:
Well, I may be wrong about that. I cannot find an independent definition of real multiplication. So don’t question your life quite yet!

Addition and multiplication of the rationals is, of course, defined by:
$$\frac a b + \frac c d = \frac {ad + bc}{bd}, \ \ \ \frac a b \times \frac c d = \frac {ac}{bd}$$
Where ##a, b, c, d## are integers, with ##bd \ne 0##.

Multiplication of the Real numbers depends on how you construct them from the rationals. One approach is to define a real number as an equivalence class of sequences of rationals. Then you have to show that if you take two such real numbers, then the product can be well-defined by multiplying the sequences term by term etc.

As has been mentioned before constructing the real numbers from the rationals is a non-trivial exercise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stephen Tashi and Dale
  • #23
PeroK said:
Multiplication of the rationals is, of course, defined by:
ab×cd=ad+bcbd
Where a,b,c,d are integers, with bd≠0.

Multiplication of the Real numbers depends on how you construct them from the rationals. One approach is to define a real number as an equivalence class of sequences of rationals. Then you have to show that if you take two such real numbers, then the product can be well-defined by multiplying the sequences term by term etc.

As has been mentioned before constructing the real numbers from the rationals is a non-trivial exercise.
Well, that is addition. multiplactions is ##\frac{ac}{bd}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
  • #24
martinbn said:
Well, that is addition. multiplactions is ##\frac{ac}{bd}##.
So it is! I better correct it. o:)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: martinbn
  • #25
Even with repeated addition, you are still not adding things with different units.

1 apple x 3 means 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple. You are not adding the 3 to the 1.

50 mph *2 hours = (50 mph *1 hour) + (50 mph * 1 hour) = 50 miles + 50 miles = 100 miles
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cnh1995 and russ_watters
  • #26
Ok, I am convinced.

Of course, multiplication of units cannot be identified with either multiplication of reals or integers. It has its own rules and it is just one of those rules that you can multiply disparate units but not add them.
 
  • #27
A.T. said:
How do you write √2 * π as repeated addition?
So tell me how else you define multiplication ?
 
  • #28
akashpandey said:
Summary:: Why we multiply mass and velocity ?

So as we know momentum has a formula p=mv right ?
But why we can't write it as p=m+v ?
The real question is why we multiply both mass and velocity quantity
And not add them ?
The short answer to your question is "because we multiply acceleration by mass to get the net force." Consider the following observation (please don't try it at home - it's a thought experiment).

Put your hand flat on a table. Drop on it a 0.5-kg book from a height of 1 meter. You will feel no pain. Now drop a 10-kg lead brick on your hand from the same height. You will fell a lot of pain and probably will have to go to the hospital with a broken hand. The speed ##v## of both objects just before contact with your hand is the same. Why the difference in pain level?

Answer: Each object is stopped by your hand in pretty much the same time interval ##\Delta t##, therefore the acceleration is pretty much the same. However, the net force required to stop the book is much less than the one required to stop the book because the lead brick is 20 times more massive. The more force your flesh and bones are required to exert, the more painful the sensation; if that force exceeds a certain limit, your bones will break.

BTW, I would not question why write ##F_{net}=ma## and not ##F_{net}=m+a## lest Sir Isaac turn over in his grave.
 
  • #29
Meir Achuz said:
How could a joke get so many answers?
I guess no question is dumb enough to ask ?

Say you need to explain it to 10 years old child and he only nows that multiplication is adding a number repeated time.
So how could you explain him that p=mv and p is not m+v.
 
  • #30
akashpandey said:
So how could you explain him that p=mv and p is not m+v.
p=mv by definition. Even a 10 year old knows that words have definitions.

Adding m+v is against the rules. Even a 10 year old knows that math has rules.

When the inevitable “why” question is asked the answer is that a bunch of scientists and mathematicians agreed to use those definitions and rules because it gave them useful results for the real world.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
66K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K