Relativity & Conservation of Momentum: A vs B Collision

hprog
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Suppose A and B are in uniform motion toward each other, coming from the right and left respectively.
A claims B to move 100 mph to the left and B claims that A moves 100 mph to the right.
Now let us assume that A and B collide together and they crumple up into a combined object C, and let assume that friction and other factors were low, then according to the conservation of momentum the velocity has now to be the total of the velocities.
Will C now move to the left or the right?
If A was at rest, then the total velocity will be 100 to the left, and if B was at rest then the total should be 100 to the right.
So what is wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conservation of momentum doesn't say that "the velocity has to be the total of the velocities". Momentum is mass times velocity. So first of all we need to know the masses of A and B.

Let's assume that those masses are equal (which is probably what you meant). Let's also assume that the velocities are small compared to the speed of light, so we don't have to worry about any relativistic complications. Then we can write:

mv_{A} + mv_{B} = 2mv_{C}

where m is the common mass of A and B (so C, which is the two put together, has mass 2m). Note that each of the v's is a vector, so we have to know, not just their magnitudes, but their directions in order to evaluate the above equation. But, as you noted, the directions depend on whose reference frame we use. In A's frame, we have v_{A} = 0 and v_{B} = -100, whereas in B's frame, we have v_{A} = 100 and v_{B} = 0 (we're assuming that positive velocities are to the right and negative velocities are to the left). Plugging those numbers into the above equation will give you what v_{C} must be in each frame.

It is true that the two answers, the one for A's frame and the one for B's frame, will be different. Is that what's bothering you?
 
hprog said:
So what is wrong here?
You need to distinguish between conservation and frame-invariance. Momentum is a conserved quantity, but it is not frame-invariant.

A frame-invariant quantity is one which is the same in all reference frames. Different frames disagree on v so they disagree on momentum. Momentum is not frame-invariant, or in other words momentum is relative to the reference frame.

A conserved quantity is one which does not change as a function of time in a given reference frame. Momentum is a conserved quantity. In other words, in a given reference frame its value before a collision is the same as its value after a collision.
 
The way in which the energy is transferred would depend on the makeup of the objects, would it not? If the objects were completely rigid and hit each other at an angle exactly parallel to their trajectory, they would bounce back in exactly opposite trajectories, correct? If the objects were made of smaller particles, the objects would react in accordance to their constituent particles and their structure withing the objects. My guess is that the objects would either crumple and bounce, shatter and bounce, or react and emit radiation. But I'm not a physicist.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top