Preservation of kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between kinetic energy preservation and mass conservation during collisions, particularly in elastic and inelastic scenarios. It highlights that in high-energy particle interactions, new particles can be created, affecting mass, while nuclear reactions can lead to mass changes depending on the reaction type. In everyday collisions with kinetic energy less than rest mass energy, mass remains conserved regardless of the collision type. It is noted that macroscopic collisions typically result in energy dissipation as heat, sound, and deformation, rather than preserving kinetic energy. The inquiry reflects a desire to understand if kinetic energy can remain unchanged after collisions, especially in the context of elastic scattering.
matt010nj
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Does preservation of kinetic energy of some body after collision(elastic for example) determine preserving of its mass?Is complete preservation of kinetic energy of two bodies after collision even possible?
Thanx
Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What kind of body - and what kind of kinetic energies?

If one is talking of high energy particles, as sufficient energies, new particles can be created by transforming energ into matter.

If one is discussing nuclear particles like neutrons or subatomic particles interacting the nuclei the mass may increase, decrease or remain the same depending on the type of nuclear reaction involved. If a neutron is absorbed, the resulting radionuclide may emit a gamma ray on the order keV or MeV. That is the equivalent of mass loss. One would need to consider if the reaction is endothermic or exothermic. Of course the neutron could scatter elastically.

In more classical (everyday cases) where KE < rest energy/mass, the mass is preserved regardless of whether the collision is elastic or inelastic.

"An elastic collision is defined as one in which both conservation of momentum and conservation of kinetic energy are observed."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html#c4

"Macroscopic collisions are generally inelastic and do not conserve kinetic energy, though of course the total energy is conserved."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/inecol.html#c1

In general, when bodies of matter (atoms) collide, energy is dissipated in the form of friction, heat (thermal energy), sound (acoustic energy) and mechanical deformation.
 
Last edited:
Thank You for answer.I can see now that what I really want to know is if kinetic energy of each particle may stay the same after collision.If during collision some energy is created in diffrent forms (like heat,sound etc),and mass stays the same it must come from kinetic energy of particles befor collision.Am I wrong? My questions comes from reading about elastic scattering which is part of topic I try to learn about(center of the galactic).
Thanx
Matt
PS
If its not a place I should ask such questions please let me know (and redirect me somwhere if you don't mind).Also I realize some parts of my questions may be trivial or simply childish but last time I had a physics lesson at school was 20 years ago ( high school in Poland) :-)).Thanx again . Matt
 
Last edited:
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...
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