1
$\begingroup$

Imagine a car at the surface of a moon that accelerates forward. As the car pushes on the ground to move, the moon starts to rotate in the opposite direction. However, at any given instant the car has some linear momentum, in the direction tangent to the moon surface at where it is, but the moon does not have any linear momentum due to rotation. In the image below it can be seen that for any particle on the moon there is another one diametrically opposite with opposite linear momentum (represented in purple), which means that the rotation does not contribute to the total linear momentum.

enter image description here

The only way for the linear momentum to be conserved is if the center of mass of the moon has some linear momentum opposite to that of the car. However, is this possible? If the car exerts a force on the moon only tangent to its surface, how can its center of mass accelerate?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are you sure? Rely on equations, before drawing conclusions $\endgroup$
    – basics
    Commented Sep 30, 2022 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ Seems to me that the car has angular momentum, not linear momentum, since it is held to the moon by gravity. Like having a ball attached to the end of a string and spinning it around. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    Commented Sep 30, 2022 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel, it must have both linear momentum and angular momentum. $\endgroup$
    – ordptt
    Commented Sep 30, 2022 at 17:57

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

"...but the moon does not have any linear momentum due to rotation"

This is not correct. Why?

fig1

At the moment a tractive force is applied through the wheels, and an equal and opposite force is applied on the moon. Newton's 3rd law still applies.

This force accelerates the center of mass of the car and the moon. Both acquire linear momentum.

In fact, total linear momentum is conserved here.

When you consider the details, you will see the car will orbit around the common center of mass (blue cross below) while at the same time the planet will also orbit around the center of mass at a smaller distance.

fig2

Above $R$ is shown as a negative value.

If the car of mass $m$ is orbiting at distance $r$, and the planet of mass $M$ is orbiting at a distance $R$ then you can say that

$$ m\, r + M\, R = 0$$

This combined center of mass remains fixed (at the origin) and is an internal reference frame as no external forces are applied to the system.

As the car accelerates going faster around its orbit, the planet must counter accelerate also increasing its orbital speed also. Both objects must remain diametrically opposed with respect to the common center of mass in order to maintain the above $m\,r + M R = 0$ relationship.

fig3

If at some time the car has velocity $v$, then the planet must have velocity $V$ in the opposite sense such that

$$ m v + M V = 0 $$

which is interpreted as the total momentum remains constant (at zero).

In terms of accelerations, if the acceleration of the car is $a = \frac{F}{m}$ and the acceleration of the planet is $A = \frac{-F}{M}$ then the above is

$$ \begin{gathered} m a + M A = 0 \\ m \frac{F}{m} + M \frac{-F}{M} =0 \\ F - F = 0 \end{gathered}$$

Which is exactly Newton's 3rd law.

You might decide to do a more rigorous analysis based on the following free body diagram

fig4

but remember that both objects orbit, and thus both have centripetal acceleration equalling $\frac{v^2}{r}$ and $\frac{V^2}{R}$ respectively. Then you can do the balance of forces in the x and y directions to see for yourself how the system behaves.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, the effort you put into this answer is amazing! The only thing I didn't quite get is where $mr+MR=0$ comes from. And, by the way, how did you make these images/illustrations? $\endgroup$
    – ordptt
    Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ @ordptt - By stating this I am placing the origin at the common center of mass (the barycenter). If you consider up direction in the sketch as positive then $r$ is positive and $R$ is negative from the barycenter. The choice of inertial origin is arbitrary and by choosing the barycenter it allows for an clearer explanation of what is going on. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 20:57
-1
$\begingroup$

The centre of mass of the moon is irrelevant except for calculating the force of gravity. It is the total center of mass, car+moon, that is important in calculating kinematic variables for a system of two bodies. The following simple argument may help.

For the car to move in the direction shown with the green arrow in your plot, the ground is pushed by a frictional force in the opposite direction. As incremental (v a vector) momentum of car is $mv$, the moon is pushed back by incremental -2 $mv$ , for conservation of momentum , this should equal $Mv^{'}$, M the mass of the moon and $v^{'}$ its velocity from momentum conservation. The mass of the moon is practically infinite with respect to the mass of the car, so the velocity of the moon would be very small, so nothing really moves except the car.

If the moon had the same mass as the moving object, this would result in a rotation of the moon about the center of mass.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The center of mass is relevant because it is Newton's 2nd law that describes its motion. You cannot talk about momentum at all unless you are tracking the center of mass motion, here for the car and the moon. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 30, 2022 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnAlexiou Only if you want rigorous equations. This is a qualitative answer at the level of the question, imo . I point out the role of the center of mass in the last paragraph. It would be good if you could point out an error in the simple argument I am making. I have edited. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 4:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.