The Conservation of Momentum Explained Simply

[@upandatom]

Which explanation did you prefer, Newton's laws or Galilean Relativity? Why?

[@MdNoMaNOmEr]

Galilean Relativity its just easy to understand

[@FGj-xj7rd]

Papa Newton till the end 💪

[@aadityawadhwa6915]

I like every explanation in your video jade... love..love

[@jonmoxley5227]

Well.... Its a very easy choice...... Your explanation 🥰🥰🥰🦄🦄🦄🦄🦄🤩🤩🥶🥶🥶

[@Dragrath1]

When asking which I prefer I find that symmetry is the key word as Emmy Noether proved that there is by necessity a conserved quantity for every symmetry in nature and vice versa, I think that relativity seems better because it makes this deeper insight more obvious. Of course this neglects that Galilean relativity doesn't apply in an accelerating reference frame as only Einstein's special relativity covers that. Newton's Laws really don't help unless one looks at Force as the time derivative of momentum with momentum conservation simply being the absence of an acting net force.

[@doandrewt]

Animation skills aren't conserved; they are expanding over time!

[@Dalendrion]

You could track the animation skill over time and mentally reverse the clock. Then extrapolate to find the Big Bang of Jade's animations!

[@saumitrachakravarty]

Momentum comes from the Latin, petere, which is somewhat similar to impetus; hence we get p.

[@upandatom]

thanks!

[@mchammer5026]

I knew this was gonna be one of the first comments :)

[@arnold-pdev]

And probably because "m" was already taken.

[@hypervious8878]

ohhhhhh... Excellent, thank you. Jade you need more subs like this guy.

[@kllngii4892]

I think it is acually from pellere not petere

[@akshat6052]

I have studied this all but I still enjoy watching this #oomph

[@MrCardeso]

I was happy to see the Earth having such a blast flying around the Sun!

[@phs125]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[@infamagoose]

I kind of want a gif of that

[@ukcroupier]

The bit at 9:15 put a big smile on my face. I luv it when something that appears complex can be explained in such a simple way.

[@prameshshrestha1492]

Whats momentum? Its...um.... oomph😂😂 Couldnt have said it better 😂😂

[@JimGiant]

00mph is the velocity.

[@bhanudas3112]

I just love the way you explain...it is helping we during these online classes....

[@bingbongtheory]

You should do more on inertial frames of reference. I remember that being a big change in perspective for me personally when conceptualizing physics problems.

[@arnoahmed9269]

It was the best video on momentum I've watched. Was confused on this and other KZbinrs just started waffling and explaining the same concept in a more "smarter" way to sound smart. Glad you broke the fundamentals down. Thank you so much!

[@AlexKnauth]

That Relativity argument is really useful. It was useful for me when designing the collision-handling code for a small game I was making. I already had library functions for switching frames-of-reference as Galilean Relativity says, so if I use those to switch to the frame of the center-of-mass, the collision-handling becomes so much simpler because of the symmetry. Then once I find the state after the collision, I switch back to the old frame-of-reference.

[@animistchannel2983]

I failed to play along at home. When you got to the part where we could toss something in the air to demonstrate for ourselves, I looked around and what was in reach was: bowl of steaming hot oatmeal, cup of steaming hot coffee, my desktop computer, some delicate and pointy diagramming tools, and a stack of papers full of nautical designs. It just didn't seem like a good personal experiment at the time, so I'll have to take your word for it about the conservation of momentum. See, that's what I get for playing science videos with my breakfast -- I'll have to live with my faith in you after all. Fortunately, you have proven to be a credible source of information, which is rare these days. Of course, with boats & ships, we are often more concerned with another related law: "Something in motion tends to remain in motion until acted upon by a force." The goal being to have a vessel that directs force cleverly, and not get it acted upon by a rocky shore. Now, back to work! Row! Row! Row!... err... I mean... Draw! Draw! Draw! :)_

[@samarthsai9530]

I read about the relativistic point of view in the feynman lectures, as thrilling it was to read and animate it in my head, it is amazing to watch it animated on screen.Keep up the good work.

[@pixelfairy]

love the multiple approach style of this and the lagrange mechanics one you recently did! its the combination produces more understanding than the sum of the parts

[@loganstrong5426]

I remember doing collision problems in physics where you find the moving reference frame and conserve momentum. Nobody told me it was called Galilean Relativity, that sounds much cooler!

[@marcusa3280]

Fantastic video Jade. Your teaching ability is amazing.

[@jeremyrixon150]

Great video! (As an ex sydneysider, I also appreciated the scenes of Sydney! Whoever thought one could get nostalgic over the Princes Hwy?)

[@S-fi5ox]

Never thought about the relativistic scenario before. Thanks for teaching.

[@jonthecomposer]

Awesome video again!!! I never realized the relative part about conservation of momentum even though I knew the other things. It's amazing how some things that would seem so obvious still have to be pointed out. I love your presentation as well as Cornelius the kitteh :)

[@Tomyb15]

I really liked this video! Another interesting approach for the Newtonian explanation would be to talk about how an object is able to change its momentum. After talking about what magnitudes describe momentum (ie mass and velocity), you could talk about how for something to move in the first place you have to push it. Pushing really just means to apply a force for a given amount of time, so you could once again bring attention to the two magnitudes that affect momentum from this perspective (meaning, how a bigger force gives it more "oomph" and how applying a force longer also gives it more "oomph"). Here I would also mention that looking at momentum with this new definition also gives the same units as with the p = m*v definition. Lastly, you then bring Newton's 3rd law and say that because every force comes in equal and opposite pairs, for every object that got a given amount of "oomph", another got the same but opposite amount of "oomph". This has always been my favorite way of looking at conservation of momentum, but now that I've seen the relativity way, I think it's growing on me...

[@ayushkumawat8010]

i prefer Newton's explanation for momentum because the original Newton's second law is based upon momentum and F=ma is derived by that so that clicks better into my mind but Galilean approach can help anyone to assume the concept of momentum and visualize that in real world

[@cryme5]

Actually, Galilean relativity might be more fundamental. If we added a third cookie ball to collide we could have extrapolated to any masses. Then you just discovered what happens to a body not acted upon!

[@neelotpaldutta2347]

You missed a wonderful chance at 1:33, "Now imagine I throw a moon at you".

[@Dragrath1]

you would need to define what unit of mass an arbitrary moon has would you average over all natural bodies orbiting planets?

[@photinodecay]

@@Dragrath1 no, we'd just need to hit you with enough momentum to knock you out and ignore your question ;) I mean, we'd also need to take GR into account if the moon is big enough... like if we amalgamated all moons together

[@Dragrath1]

@@photinodecay I actually calculated that for our solar system when bored/procrastinating some months back. Doing the rough calculation's you will get an object roughly with a mass roughly around that of Mercury or Mars actually a bit less but Callisto+Titan+Ganymede alone is a bit over half the mass of Mars (I actually calculated the rough sum of solar system bodies with well defined mass estimates, but it should be near identical as the only objects with any relevant mass contribution besides the major moons are the two most massive dwarf planets Pluto and Eris, everything else i.e. all asteroids Centaurs, TNO's, comets etc only barely comes out to the same order of magnitude) Fun fact if you total the mass over every solar system object less massive than the Earth Venus and smaller you get a world roughly the same mass as Earth of which almost all the mass comes from Venus itself. All together there are only 18 objects in the solar system Sun and planets included with at least 10^22 kg mass everything less massive is pretty much only the same order of mass unless another high mass dwarf planet is found since Pluto's moon Charon is roughly equivalent in mass to the third most massive dwarf planet. Averaging over all moons would thus net a pretty pitiful asteroid mass object since there are so many more of them than real planetary mass moons though if you exclude moonlets or moons not massive enough to establish hydrostatic equilibrium factoring those in you find that with the sole exception of Vesta every object of the order 10^20 kg is in some degree of hydrostatic equilibrium. (and early Vesta was as well) with predominately icy objects able to reach hydrostatic equilibrium down to 10^19 kg. So maybe we can just agree that it is about 10^20+ kg? There was some point but by this point I've forgotten it....

[@photinodecay]

@@Dragrath1 I think that's a good demonstration of a power law distribution and the practical effects of it

[@Dragrath1]

@@photinodecay Yep absolutely you change an order of magnitude and the properties all change quite drastically like Uranus and Earth's mass are only one order of magnitude different but both have way different properties in particular. I for instance suspect that the reason Mars seems so appealing to people is because people don't realize how significant the mass differences and conditions are between Earth and Mars. Power laws are amazing especially their scale invariance! :)

[@mSparks43]

such a pleasure watching you do such a great job of explaining such difficult concepts. thank you for brightening up my day.

[@sandeepkumardas732]

Fabulous information jade😍😍😍😍, I am from 🇮🇳🇮🇳India, from the city Bhubaneswar.... And also fall in love with u... 😍😍😍😍, ur explanation of physics equations.. Are fantastic 😍😍😍😍

[@drreason2927]

Very good ways to explain the concept. And great animation!

[@mosiotv]

Oomph! The best explanation so far! 👏👏

[@Skeithization]

The thing that resonated with me the most is the explanation of your cat :).

[@AgentOccam]

Cats everywhere, mate, they all be the same.

[@simiharshitha5457]

Sis💁🏻you Are a life saver of me 👧🏽and others 👧🏻👧👦🏻👩🏻👩🏼👦👧🏼👨🏼👧🏽👨🏻👨🏼please continue with this work🤓🤓

[@anirudhs3769]

The reference frame where the symmetry argument holds is the frame of centre of mass of the system.

[@vivekverma1081]

One of my favorite topic in physics.....thankyou

[@spicytrashpanda]

This is what I get to wake up to?!? Thanks Jade, commute to work just got 100x better!

[@WheelDragon]

😬 hopefully you're not watching while driving

[@upandatom]

yay! Have a nice day at work!

[@spicytrashpanda]

@@WheelDragon I'd never watch while driving, that would be reckless and I'm not about to hurt someone being careless. I create a playlist to listen to on my way there, though I did end up watching in the parking lot because I love the animations.

[@refsmithy]

Yay, another video from Up and Atom! Your videos are always so interesting Jade, but I'm afraid I got a bit distracted by seeing Sydney Trains... I'm not used to seeing familiar sights in videos since so many are either British or American.

[@srihariarun6031]

Madam you r really helping us by giving us a good explanation.

[@BangMaster96]

The letter 'p' is used to refer to momentum, because the letter 'm' is already used for mass in the equation for momentum. So, if you were to use 'm', the equation would become a bit weird 'm = m*v'. That's why we use 'p = m*v'.

[@stevedoe1630]

I know it’s elementary, but I like how she combines the physics with the algebra. And I really hope others can see that scientific models do less benefit in a vacuum; they serve the greater good combined.

[@jaayneous]

P is the symbol of momentum, because the word for momentum as newton described it, was *impetus* from lat. petere ( = to go) And also the symbol „m“ was taken ( m is mass usually), so thats why they used p for convenience

[@pushprajbhardwaj4820]

You're an amazing tutor I wish I could have a teacher like you.

[@Sidd-rb4ec]

Thank you it really helped me and I m really happy learning the gallelian perspective

[@unexpected2475]

I thought your profile pic was derranged, but then I saw your earth at 6:14. Exactly what I subscribed for!

[@jjer125]

Well to be fair, Newton's second states that the derivative of the momentum of a system is equal to the external forces applied on that system. With those being 0 that is exactly the conservation of momentum, that its derivative is null. Moreover the second law can only be applied in a galilean or inertial frame of reference, basically you assume galilean relativity to apply newton's second law. So both derivation feel somewhat similar.

[@totally_not_a_bot]

I personally use vectors. The more visual representation of arrows adding together makes more sense, and allows me to visualize more complex systems. For relative motion, I can adjust the vectors accordingly. I also sometimes consider momentum to be a measurement of kinetic energy that happens to contain a vector. Helps me understand exactly what it is. The momentum of a system becomes the energy contained within a system, which is thermodynamics.

[@highdrocarbon]

Finally a good KZbin notification after a while 💝

[@CarmenBrunnaDuarte]

The symbol is "p" because "momentum", in Newton's terms, is the tendency of a moving object to continue moving in the absence of any applied force. In Newton's time, the quality of an object that is moving independent of an observed force was called "impetus". "Impetus" comes from the Latin "in petere" (to go to). "Petere", hence "p".

[@daniellassander]

Great video as always, i prefer the galilean relativity more because it goes a bit more in depth.

[@romainsavioz5466]

Figaro

[@justinpieper8129]

the most fascinating part of relativity for me is how the perspective of the observer could so drastically change the perceived outcome. where you are can change what you see entirely.

[@cupostuff9929]

2:44 Finally, a straight answer to why momentum is conserved in a closed system

[@Noneblue39]

literally one of the most important things ! nice explanations!

[@jeffprakash9168]

Nice.. Video jade... All support and love... From india.... 😍😍😊😊

[@JackKirbyFan]

You are such a good teacher. I'm really impressed. I learned a lot

[@aryalanjewar7628]

Now I ll be able to solve question based on collisions 😀😀 Thanks jade

[@operatingsystemhijacking6894]

We got new name of momentum, #OOMPH which we all conserved very diligently. Animation skills improved. Regards Ashutosh Rajput from India.

[@nijram15]

The Galileo argument is a much more fundamental argument. It's a variant of Noethers theorem, she showed that every symmetry has a conserved quantity. For instance, time symmetry gives rise to energy conservation. Would love to see a video on that, animated this lovely :)

[@DuckStorms]

@UpAndAtom can you explain entropy? Is it energy unavailable for work? Or microstates in a macrostate? Or something in a chemical reaction? Or entropy in the English language? Is it "disorder" or "information"? What's this Maxwell's deamon?

[@Max-ui5gc]

You uploaded a video before, where you showed an other problem with two completly different models (one of it was Newtons). It really blew my mind, but I can't really remember a lot and would love to rewatch it. What was that video called?

[@Noor-ib5hf]

7:05 i have a question!! is P (total) = P1+P2 is the same as P(total)=mv - mv because the second mv (-mv) is negative because the cookie dough on the right is travelling in the opposite direction of the other cookie dough?

[@erictaylor5462]

2:55 If the floor is frictionless, would the wheels on the skateboard turn? Even if the bearings in the wheels were also frictionless?

[@alquinn8576]

yeah with truly zero friction, the skateboard would just slide on its wheels

[@julianengel492]

I really like the way you explain things, it is so easy to follow :) Could you make a video on the planetary boundaries (Rockstroehm et al. 2009), I kind of struggle to find good and short ways to explain the concept to people and I am sure you would do an amazing job in it :)

[@WayOfTheCode]

Ooh wow momentum conservation. Great choice of video.

[@electromorphous]

I never thought of it that way. The relativity way is really cool.

[@Yossus]

Great video! I love how you made the formulae more accessible by using sketches as subscripts. Also, Galilean Relativity rocks 🔥

[@martinstent5339]

A question: in quantum physics, momentum and position are complimentary properties. So if you determine the position of a particle very accurately, you will alter it’s momentum. In what sense is momentum now being preserved?

[@odizzido]

I could see that the text book probably does not come back down exactly where you threw it from since we're all in orbit. You added extra orbit energy to your text book and perhaps that changed how it moved, even if it's immeasurably small.

[@ginnyliz460]

You have a REALLY cool rainbow fringing pattern on your couch at 0:47 :o

[@thylatrash7668]

great, now i want cookie dough 😫 and awesome video btw, i prefer the newton explanation but the relativity one is also pretty neat

[@stanpr1674]

My question about the laws of conservation of momentum is with reference to aircraft flight. Why is it the time flying from New York and LA or La to New York are relatively the same, excluding westerly winds affecting the LA to New York flight. The earths rotational speed is 1000 MPH easterly rotation.

[@ELYOUSFIWORLD]

very very useful video ! thank you ! what about conservation of light momentum ?

[@anthonynorman7545]

I understood everything in the video...it's been a while 😅 I liked the relativity because it was given in a different perspective than how I was taught: skateboarding Cornelius and cookie dough.

[@joirnpettersen]

For the relativity example, do we have to consider the momentum of the observer?

[@TheEulerID]

No. It's irrelevant as there is no interaction with the observer.

[@anujarora0]

4:10 is it just me or the ball is looking like a sperm heading towards an egg

[@upandatom]

haha omg I can't unsee that now!

[@emman100]

She gotta include some Easter eggs for the adults.

[@hypervious8878]

Oh, duuuuude...!

[@jimmyshrimbe9361]

You rock, Jade!! ❤️🤘❤️

[@theguidance7485]

You present videos, in a seemingly fluid way (I still need to pay attention tho).This doesn’t get said enough but thnks for your effort

[@Jim-yl6oq]

Jade, please do a video explaining why it takes 4X as much energy to accelerate a mass to 2 mph compared with 1 mph. I know the formula for energy based on velocity but it doesn't seem intuitive.

[@ChristopherLien]

I found the explanation by Newton's laws to be easier to understand, but the explanation by relativity to be much more fun.

[@priyankapaunikar2261]

Can you please do a video on Planck's distribution law for blackbody radiation?

[@KryssAA]

Not serious question here but... Why is there plugs in the middle of the wall behind you ? What you plug in on those ?

[@allantaylor420]

Lets say instead of the book exemple inside the train you used a drone flying inside the train. Would it get smashed in the wall ? And would it make a diference if the train car was opened (it would have a lot wind going on ) or a closed one like in a train for passengers. How does that work? Thxxx for the knowledge , love the videos!

[@curiouspathfinder9083]

Hey, got here from Instagram. Love your videos. Could you do more philosophical videos.

[@upandatom]

stay tuned ;)

[@happy-eo9gu]

Is there a way to see this as the just removal of scalar distance.

[@UHDStudio]

Really brilliant video, again. Will have to watch many times to get it :) but its fine with me....Keep doing your brilliants videos 😀

[@HaloHeathen]

8:16 "what about a more realistic scenario", like I would have taken a bite of the cookie dough! LoL!

[@pbp6741]

Now I’m sad physicists failed to name momentum “oompf.”

[@vishwamithra3390]

So does this Galilean view also help when the masses are also different? Like

[@monad_tcp]

5:58 I remember creating a simulation on my computer using the equations and wondering why that was happening, I though I had made a mistake, then I realized why.

[@Anthro006]

It all seems so terribly relative! I love relative reference frames, though. Thank you!!!

[@anwarulhaq4227]

Nice video. I have watched your videos and the way you describe things are very understandable. Make a video about movement of earth. Earth's rotation and revolution around sun. Do not go into history but explain only the physical proves in simple words. Like parralax etc. explain what are proofs that earth is moving.

[@gJonii]

Don't you need the assumption of symmetry in laws of physics regarding rotation or something for relativity argument to hold?

[@yashpreetgoyal3286]

Thanks Jade. I was doing this topic in the school and wanted to confuse the teacher in all these theories. Greetings from India🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@anshuman_eek]

In which class mate

[@upandatom]

ooh tell him the relativity one! I never even heard of it until I was randomly reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics one day

[@lesterderrick]

So your cats happiness isn't affected by your presence but the entropy of your place increases the longer the cat is there alone without you

[@nafrost2787]

Is it possible to drive Newton's laws if we have Galilean Relativity?

[@s.vidhyardhsingh3881]

Galilean relativity is Awesome!!!! Wow!!!

[@timothemalahieude5076]

In the second explanation (relativistic point of view) you always supposed that the mass of the objects were the same. How do you generalize to different masses ?

[@Pika250]

The reason relativity (as far as conservation of momentum is concerned) and quantum physics are incompatible is as follows: Relativity uses the assumption that if X and Y are members of the ring, so are (X + Y)/2 and (X - Y)/2. But this means that 2 is invertible, and thus all the powers of 2 are invertible as well. But the smallest subring of the reals in which this happens is the dyadic fractions, a topologically dense subset of the reals. However, according to the quantum model, all members of the ring are integer multiples of the smallest possible unit: the Planck unit. What if X and Y, in terms of Planck units, have opposite parity as integers? The camera has to move at speed (X + Y)/2, which isn't an integer.

[@lewdcharizard9902]

I would like to see a video on why fire is shaped like it is. Like, a candle flame should look like an orb, but it always looks like it's pushing up when you would expect gravity to push it down. Something to do with the part of the flame that pushes perpendicular to gravity has none of its energy opposed to gravity, so it gets pushed downwards and because the flame would be an orb, it always looks like the flame is standing. But with better words and pictures

[@TheLowstef]

By the way, in Bulgaria we had an old expression for momentum (which we actually call impulse... yeah...). So the old expression for momentum translates as "amount of movement". I.e. "oomph"

[@michaeljmcguffin]

In French too: quantité de mouvement

[@Bit-while_going]

Do all forces in the universe have an equal and opposite counter force? If so then is the counter force of entropy order, implying that they have to be in balance, and that life serves a universal function in countering the forces of chaos?

[@HoD999x]

i stopped at 1:52 to say: just consider all the particles individually and it all becomes very easy to understand. an anvil is "more particles" than a basketball. you are throwing more stuff.

[@arunvs8264]

A question imagine a perfectly insulated flask which contains hot water. Acoording to thermodynamics entrophy should increase which increase the heat of the system so in a perfectly insulated flask as time pass heat also increase?

[@seanrichards8774]

ARUN V S your fifth word negates and discussion of thermodynamics

[@johnbennett1465]

@@seanrichards8774 you miss-typed "any" as "and". This makes it hard to understand. You should edit it to fix this.

[@johnbennett1465]

Perfect insulation => closed system. In a closed system, the entropy will go to its maximum and stay there. For a flask of water the heat energy will quickly distribute to a uniform (maximum entropy) state and then stay in that state. I.e any variations in temperature will even out and then the temperature will stay constant. The reason that many explanations of entropy don't talk about the steady state is that it is impossable to create a truly closed system in real life. Thus for any real system it is always possable for the entropy to increase. Well until we reach the heat death of the universe, but that is not happening for very long time 😀.

[@fs203tusharchandaliya4]

Plz make a video on Quantum entalglement.

[@ttd972]

To complete the second argument, you should show that if momentum is conserved in one reference frame, then it is conserved in any other reference frame.

[@thisaccountisdead9060]

I would die if you could look at the difference between Pareto and Gaussian distribution. I've been doing my own bit of research. Apparently there is a book by Nassim Taleb called "The Black Swan" which looks into this: the issue being whether Gaussian distributions are adequate for very complex unpredictable systems (though I am not sure why?). I had been researching Network Theory - looking at Paul Erdos's work on networks (where 'six degrees of separation' come from). Specifically the Erdos relationship of nodes vs connections (or number of people vs number of friends per person) - which is a logarithmic relationship. for example 6 billion people with 30 friends each gives you the Erdos number of 6 (six degrees od separation). And I noticed a connection between the Erdos Number and the Pareto distribution - they both have the same kind of exponential curve, but also the same kind of formulation. I was just playing around, so I could be doing things wrong. It seemed to me that the Erdos number was inveresly proportional to the Pareto distribution. I.e. as the number of connections went down per person, the Pareto figure went up. For example a community with 50 people and 29 friends each had an Erdos Number of 1.161. I was interested because the Pareto distribution of 1.161 also comes up for the so called "80/20 Rule" - which I am sure is just a coincidence (and the "80/20 Rule" - a rule of thumb - itself is not based on any particular reasoning as strong as the Erdos Number for example). But playing around with different Erdos numbers seemed to effect the Pareto distribution in a meaningful way: 50 people with 50 freinds gave a 100/100 rule; 50 people with 30 friends gave a 80/20 rule; and 50 people with an average of between 4 and 4 friends gave a 95/5 rule. I really didn't place too much significance on my very rough findings until I read about flawed ways of using Gaussian distribution methods. I am really not an expert at all. My only experience with Gaussian distribution is in matrix mathematics for use in finding unknowns from a series of simultaneous equations - for example solid mechanics models of car wishbone suspensions (so university level stuff still). For very simple models I could get away with using spreadsheets in Excel. But for more complex models I used programs that I was sure used Gaussian distribution (for finding the unknowns of simultaneous equations). I have no idea what Excel uses? But what if people were using Gaussian methods developed by engineers (to model car wishbones suspensions for example) for use in modelling social networks for example - where really they should be using Pareto distributions? I have no idea personally. Just some artcles on line and wikipedia pointing out Gaussian flaws for risk analysis is all the expertise I am going on. LOL - could it be that the Oracle in The Matrix Trilogy used Pareto distributions while The Architect was relying on Gaussian distributions? Anyway. Sorry for the alarmist long comment. Keep calm and carry on.