Newton's 2nd Law: Zero Acceleration Problem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a hypothetical scenario involving Newton's 2nd Law and the implications of a low-mass body moving at a constant velocity colliding with a stationary astronaut. Participants explore the concepts of force, acceleration, and momentum in the context of this collision.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how a body moving at a constant velocity can exert force upon collision if acceleration is zero, leading to the conclusion that force would also be zero.
  • Another participant asserts that upon collision, the acceleration of the moving body is no longer zero, implying that a force must have acted during the collision.
  • A different participant introduces the concept of momentum, explaining that while the body does not have acceleration before the collision, it possesses momentum, which is conserved during the collision.
  • It is noted that the force experienced during the collision is not constant and relates to the change in momentum of the bodies involved.
  • Some participants clarify that bodies do not "carry" force; rather, forces act on bodies to change their motion or momentum.
  • There is a suggestion that the misunderstanding lies in the interpretation of force and momentum in Newtonian mechanics, emphasizing that a net force results only when momentum changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that momentum is a key factor in understanding the collision, but there is some disagreement regarding the interpretation of force in relation to the moving body prior to the collision. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of force and momentum in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of force and momentum, particularly in the context of Newton's laws. The discussion highlights the need for clarity on how these concepts interact during collisions.

leibniz33
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi all, here is a problem that has popped into my head every so often for the last year or so:

A small, low-mass body is moving at a constant velocity of 1000m/s through a vaccuum, so it has no acceleration or deceleration i.e. a=0. Now let's say you are an astronaut and you are floating directly in the path of this oncoming body. You are completely stationary i.e. you have zero velocity. The small body collides with you. According to Newton's 2nd law, Force = Mass x Acceleration, so if you want to calculate the force F carried by the small body that hits you, you should be able to use this formula. However, if a=0, then F = m(0), therefore F=0. How can a body moving at 1000m/s hit you and impact no force on you?

Bear in mind that this is intended purely as a hypothetical. Of course in actual space, the gravity of nearby large bodies like planets/moons/stars would give a certain acceleration to the small body. However, even if a very small moon was nearby and it gave the small body an acceleration of 0.01m/s^2, this would still result in a very small F value, much less than would be expected of something traveling at 1000m/s. I'm sure there is a very simple explanation for this, but i haven't been able to find one yet.

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When it hits you the acceleration will no longer be 0.
 
The low mass body is not accelerating because no overall force is acting on it.

However, the body has momentum.

When bodies collide, elastically or inelastically, the total linear momentum of the system is conserved (assuming not rotation/spinning) . Some of the momentum of the moving body will be "transferred" to the stationary body. How much momentum is transferred depends on the coefficient of restitution between the two bodies.

As far as the force is concerned. Yes the hit body accelerates so a force has acted on it - but it is not a constant force. The relevant equation is (I believe)

\int F dt (impulse) = change in momentum of either body in 2-body system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse

Clive
 
Yup, in addition to the comments already posted, the key thing to resolving this 'paradox' is that when the moving object collides with something else, it decelerates.
 
Thanks very much, that makes clear sense now that I think about it!

So does that mean that the small body in the problem technically carries no force until it receives an acceleration by colliding with another body or being affected by an external force? That's an unusual concept..
 
leibniz33 said:
So does that mean that the small body in the problem technically carries no force.
Both the small and large body carry momentum, not force. A net force only results when the momentum is changed. By momentum, I mean mass times velocity, so this includes circular movement, where speed is constant, but the inwards acceleration results in constantly changing velocity.
 
leibniz33 said:
Thanks very much, that makes clear sense now that I think about it!

So does that mean that the small body in the problem technically carries no force until it receives an acceleration by colliding with another body or being affected by an external force? That's an unusual concept..

That's the nub of your misunderstanding methinks

In Newtonian mechanics (and probably other mechanics that use the idea of force) bodies do not carry force, forces act on bodies (if they are external) and cause a change in their motion / momentum either acceleration or deceleration. Newton 1 - once a body has been accelerated by an external force, and that external force has been removed, the body no longer needs a force to keep it moving with constant velocity in a straight line.

Clive
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K