It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here...

Theory of Everything  

  
Go Back   Theory of Everything > Physics > Relativity
Reload this Page Momentum vs. Inertia
Register Website Toe Club Your Blog Arcade

Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Momentum vs. Inertia
Old
  (#1 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
Momentum vs. Inertia - 04-19-2005, 12:39 PM

I have a good physics teacher, which is good at physics, but not explaining as a theacher. That is a really big problem. So, I have a physics exam in one wek and I want to understand something.....

What does momentum mean, is, and is calculated?

what does intertia mean, is, and is calculated?

Finally, what is the difference between momentum and inertia?


According to what I have understood from my teachers weak and deficult-to-follow explenations, in my head the significance of inertia and momentum is the same. is this correct?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
04-19-2005, 02:26 PM

inertia is the property of matter which counteract any change to its linear momentum. Inertia is explicitly stated in Newton's 1st law of motion. Newton defined it as the inertial mass in contrast to gravitational mass. The inertial mass then appears in Newton's 2nd law of motion (F=ma), while the gravitational mass appears in Newton's universal law of gravitation (there are two disparate masses here: the very large mass creating the gravitational field and the tiny mass of the test point-particle in the field such as an apple). But Einstein formulated the Principle of Equivalence stating that the inertial mass is always equal to the gravitational mass. Nobody has yet come up with a good physical reason for this equality. Einstein used the Principle of Equivalence to formulate his general theory of relativity.

linear momentum (p) is the product of inertial mass and velocity or p=mv and since velocity is a vector, linear momentum is also a vector. The time rate of change of linear momentum is the inertial force (F=ma), which defines inertial acceleration as the time rate of change of velocity since the inertial mass is a constant for all practical purposes (at low energy and low speed). Newton's 3rd law of motion give assurance for the conservation of linear momentum.

When an object is approaching relativistic speed the linear momentum increases and is directly proportional to its speed.

the relativistic mass increase is given by special relativity as

m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

where m_0 is the rest mass.

The angular momentum is just the product of linear momentum and a metric. In quantum mechanics, the angular momentum is a constant equals to Planck's constant of action establishing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as
\Delta r \cdot \Delta p \geq \hbar where \Delta r is the differential change in the metric and \Delta p is the differential change in linear momentum.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-21-2005, 04:17 PM

One more thing, how is the momentum of an object calculated?

is mv^2 or something similar??? I think that's what they told me.........
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
04-22-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
One more thing, how is the momentum of an object calculated?
From classical mechanics -
In an idealized frictionless system, the momentum of a point object of mass m and velocity v is given by mv. If there are no other object in the system, the velocity remains constant. But when interaction with one other object occurs then the vector sum of momentum remains constant. This is the conservation law for linear momentum and is a direct demonstration of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

m_1 v_1 + m_2 v_2 = 0

and the time rate of change of linear momentum is the inertial force.

F_1 = m_1 \frac{d v_1}{d t}

F_2 = m_2 \frac{d v_2}{d t}

therefore

F_1 + F_2 = 0 or F_1 = - F_2

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

But real objects are not point-particles, therefore in analytical mechanics, a center of mass is defined to account for linear momentum as well as angular momentum. Note that angular momentum is also conserved.

In relativistic mechanics, the time rate of change of mass is not zero, i.e., mass is not a constant.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-22-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
In relativistic mechanics, the time rate of change of mass is not zero, i.e., mass is not a constant.
So, how is momentum calculated in relativistic mechanics?
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
04-22-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
So, how is momentum calculated in relativistic mechanics?
the rest mass (m0) is replaced by the relativistic mass m_r given by

m_r =\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

so that the momentum becomes

p = m_r \mathbf{v}

in experiments this is only noticeable when the velocity v approaches near the speed of light. The other problem is length contraction and time dilation.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
04-22-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
the rest mass (m0) is replaced by the relativistic mass m_r given by

m_r =\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}

so that the momentum becomes

p = m_r mathbf{v}

in experiments this is only noticeable when the velocity v approaches near the speed of light. The other problem is length contraction and time dilation.
ok, I will memorize the Mr=......formula. and it is very obvious that it will only be noticeable when v is near c because it has to be a bick enough percentage to be devided by c and taken from 1, so that the number left can be devide rest mass, to get a relativistic mass.
What I mean is that I understand it.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
05-02-2005, 02:47 PM

inertial mass of a 4D object is not noticeable until this 4D object moves in trying to cross into the 5th physical dimension. if the object succeeded in moving at the 5th dimension then it becomes a 1D object at higher LOE with constant velocity.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9 (permalink))
The Thinker
Guille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the roughGuille is a jewel in the rough
 
Guille's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,278
Thanks Given: 14
Thanked 9x in 9 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rep Power: 47
   
05-02-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
inertial mass of a 4D object is not noticeable until this 4D object moves in trying to cross into the 5th physical dimension. if the object succeeded in moving at the 5th dimension then it becomes a 1D object at higher LOE with constant velocity.
does this mean that when I move I'm trying to get into the fifth dimension?

also, when you say Energy is 3 dimensional, is it 2 spatial and time, or three spatial and no time? how can energy haver no time? when it's clear that, for example, heat can be changed from object (moved=motion=time) or KE of an object to another object (motion=time). energy does move. so it has time.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10 (permalink))
Raider of the lost time
AntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the roughAntonioLao is a jewel in the rough
 
AntonioLao's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 5,109
Thanks Given: 641
Thanked 97x in 96 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rep Power: 71
   
05-02-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUILLE
does this mean that when I move I'm trying to get into the fifth dimension? also, when you say Energy is 3 dimensional, is it 2 spatial and time, or three spatial and no time? how can energy haver no time?
Yes. According to law of energy conservation, the total energy of the universe does not change and it is time independent. The time derivative of energy is always zero.

\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} = 0

But for Hamiltonian systems, the total energy is the sum of kinetic and potential energy but the potential energy is always found to be negative.
  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravitons, the impulse in angular momentum and the structure of space-time Guille Spacetime 23 04-18-2006 07:36 AM
Why we fail to see spin conservation in the quark realm: Robert Duncan Quantum Physics 1 12-04-2005 01:52 PM
The Dimensions of Charge volantis Relativity 11 09-29-2005 02:08 PM
Particles for Momentum Guille Your TOE Theory 5 05-15-2005 02:10 PM
my reason for searching a toe AntonioLao Introductions 3 03-11-2005 11:34 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com