Skip to main content
Left closed in review as "Original close reason(s) were not resolved" by Qmechanic
Post Closed as "Duplicate" by Farcher, Miyase, Jon Custer
Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Link
Qmechanic
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k
edited tags
Link
Qmechanic
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k
Source Link
one two
  • 355
  • 1
  • 9

Are all conservation of momentum scenarios simply particles bouncing on walls?

All explanations of jet propulsion that I've seen are formulated as "due to conservation of momentum, air with momentum coming out of one end means the rocket must gain momentum in the opposing direction".

However it can't be the case that particles simply exiting some area with a momentum means all of a sudden something else must gain opposing momentum. If we had a straight pipe open on both ends, particles suddenly exiting one side (maybe a chemical exploding inside or the like) does not mean the pipe will all of a sudden start moving in the opposing direction. You need one side of the pipe to be closed in order for the pipe to move opposingly. Similarly it can't be the case that particles suddenly exiting an inflated balloon or rocket means the object must propel in the opposing direction due to some 'rule'.

I'm assuming what is actually happening is a case of 'particle collision averages'. In the case of a balloon the air inside is constantly bouncing off the walls in all direction. So when I let go of an inflated balloon I have disturbed this average. There are now particles hitting a side of the balloon with no opposing force, as the particles opposing that wall are now simply exiting the balloon.

Assuming my above formulation is correct, does this mean all statements regarding conservation of momentum are simply a rule of thumb for this above 'particle collisions average' explanation?