Why Use Impulse in Experiments?

AI Thread Summary
Impulse serves as a useful physical construct in experiments because it represents the transfer mechanism of momentum, similar to how work represents energy transfer. It allows for easier calculations by eliminating the need to explicitly measure force, as seen in examples like bouncing a tennis ball or analyzing rocket propellant. The concept of impulse simplifies complex scenarios where direct force measurement is challenging. Additionally, the terminology of 'impulse' versus 'change in momentum' reflects a focus on agency and causation in physics. This discussion highlights the practical applications and philosophical implications of using impulse in experimental contexts.
mishima
Messages
576
Reaction score
43
Is impulse only really used in real life because of the instruments you might have? I'm having trouble understanding why this idea is a useful physical construct. The best I found is that just like work can be thought of as a "transfer mechanism" of energy, impulse is the "transfer mechanism" of momentum (I don't recall where that quoted term is from).

I was really just wondering why in an experiment someone would choose to talk about impulse rather than momentum. I have a hunch its because of what you can measure with what you have.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Impulse is the term for a change in momentum, just like work is the term for a change in energy. Impulse is not just momentum (just like work isn't just energy).

Impulse is also equal to the applied force integrated over time---i.e. the force times time (if its constant). The concept of impulse is useful in that it eliminates the need for an explicit force by itself.

Consider bouncing a tennis ball off of the ground. To calculate the force acting on the ground during the bound would be very difficult, and involve modeling the tennis ball as some sort of complex spring, and taking into account its structural properties... etc etc. The force can be approximated, however, by calculating the impulse (which is just the change in momentum---easy), and dividing by the total time of the encounter.

Another example is in propellants (e.g. rocket fuel). Often a situation will be such that the impulse delivered is roughly constant (e.g. for a certain amount of rocket fuel)---if the fuel is used over a short amount of time, it produces a large force (but the same impulse); or if its used over a long time it produces a small force (but the same impulse). Again the impulse is very useful for making calculations.
 
Zhermes has it, in my opinion, spot-on.

A semantic question remains, perhaps. Why do we talk about 'impulse' rather than 'change in momentum' if they're equal to each other? For the same reason, perhaps, that we talk about 'force' rather than 'rate of change of momentum'. 'Impulse' and 'force' are both terms we apply with an agent in mind, originally, perhaps, a human being. We distinguish what we do (initiated by an act of will?) from what happens as a result.
 
Ok, thanks for the responses. The idea of agency attached to these concepts is interesting. I've also heard it often that things like force and impulse are considered "causes" of the effects of rate of momentum change and momentum change.
 
Exactly. Consider, though, the stance of Ernst Mach: "There is no cause nor effect in nature. Nature simply is.
 
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