First to deal with the notion of conservation in
theone dimensional collision of bodies was the
I 7th century
treatments of one
dimensional collisions
G DANIEL GOEHRING
Department of Philosophy,
The Ohio State University, USA
When a body of a certain size moves with a certain
speed, it can be assigned a certainmeasure of motion
which is proportional to its size and speed. Many
such measures can be formulated which are directly
proportional to the size of the body and to some
power of its speed, ie to the speed, to the square of
the speed, to the cube of the speed, etc. Two of these
measures acquired great importance during the 17th
century
in considerations of conservation. The
question over which of the two is conserved in the
one dimensional collision of nonrotating bodies
received several answers from the great philosophers
and scientists of that century,
My aimin this article is to examine these answers,
and in so doing to present the initial development of
the present day principles of the conservation of
momentum and energy-these principles receiving
their original formulationsinthe analysis of the
one dimensional collisions of bodies.
From Galileo to Descartes
Since the time of Aristotle, it had been an accepted
principle of mechanics that a body would remain in
motion onlyaslongas something, eg a force or
cause, continued to move it. Everyday experience
certainly seemed to confirm such a principle. The
Italian scientist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) de-
parted from this principle and asserted that in the
absence of any outside resistance a body in ‘hori-
zontal’ motion would continue to move. For
Galileo ‘horizontal’ motion was motion on a
spherical surface concentric with the earth, and
therefore circular rather than rectilinear. Neverthe-
less, Galileo’s assertion of a principle of inertia, al-
though indeed a special one, represented a monu-
mental advancein the science of dynamics. Although
Galileo made no direct contribution to the study of
conservationinthe one dimensional collision of
bodies, he was instrumental in advancing science to
the point at which such a study could be made.
Physics Education September 1975
French philosopher and mathematician Rene Des-
cartes (1596-1650). In his Principles of Philosophy
(1644) Descartes asserts that the total quantity of
motion in the universe remains constant. By the
quantity of motion of a body, he meant the scalar
(geometrical) product of the size (mass) of the body
and its speed. The argument he presents for the con-
stancy of the quantity of motion, rather than resting
on experiment, is founded on apriorigrounds,namely
on the immutability of God. Godis conceived by Des-
cartes as being the universal and primary cause of
motion, and His operations are conceived as being
constant and unchangeable. Thus Descartes asserts
that God conserves in matter a constant quantity of
motion.
This primary principle of the constancy of the
total quantity of motion in the universe, however, is
not sufficient for the complete analysis of con-
servation in one dimensional collisions that Des-
cartes intends to set forth. Descartes had reasoned
that from the immutability of God we can also
know certain natural laws, and these can serve as
secondary bases for his analysis of one dimensional
collisions. In the first of these natural laws, reminis-
cent of Galileo’s special law of inertia, Descartes
asserts that the state of rest of a body or the state of
motion of a body cannot change spontaneously
without an external cause. According to his mechan-
ical philosophy, the external cause could only be
direct contact with another body.
The second natural law states that a body which is
moving tends to continue its movement in a straight
line. In these two natural laws, asserting both the
uniformity and rectilinearity of unimpeded motion,
Descartes announced the present day law of inertia.
The third natural law treats directly the case of
two colliding bodies. Here Descartes asserts that if
abody collides with another which hasa greater
tendency to persist in its present state, it loses none
of its motion, and if it collides with another which
has a lesser tendency to persist in its present state, it
loses as much motion as it imparts to the body with
which it collides. It is important to understand that
Descartes distinguishes the quantity of motion from
the direction of motion. For Descartes, if the body
only changes its direction, then there is no change in
the quantity of motion.
Thisthirdnatural law, along with Descartes’
principle of the constancy of the total quantity of
motion, serves as the foundation for seven specific
laws of collision which Descartes proceeds to derive.
In the fist of these specific laws, Descartes considers
two elastic bodies of equal size, travelling in opposite
directions, colliding with equal speeds. Since he
holds that in this case their tendencies to persist in
457
conservation of the quantity of motion requires that
they both rebound, thus reversing their directions of
motion, while their quantities of motion remain
unchanged. In this law then, his principle of con-
servation enables Descartes to derive correct results.
However, the remainder of the laws are incorrect,
and manyquite surprisingly so. For instance, his
result is particularly astonishing in the fourth law,
in which he considers the case of a body in motion
striking a larger body at rest. According to Descartes,
the larger body has the greater tendency to persist
in its present state, and thus the smaller body cannot
move it. Since the larger body remains at rest, the
principle of the conservation of the quantity of
motion requires that the smaller body rebound with
its direction reversed, and with the same speed, ie
with the same quantity of motion as it had before the
collision. Thus Descartes’ principle of conservation
is seen to be inaccord with a law that curiously
asserts that a moving body cannot, regardless of how
fast it is moving, move a larger body that is at rest.
One might wonder how Descartes could assert
these laws of collision which were so obviously in
conflict with experience. In fact, Descartes was
troubled by this problem and attempted to solve his
dilemma by explaining that his conservation prin-
ciple and specific laws assumed conditions which
were not realized inthe world. Thisexplanation,
peculiar to say the least, represented a vain attempt
to salvage his incorrect principle of conservation.
Huygens’ introduction of reference frames
A different approach to the analysis of collisions is
that of the Dutch mathematician, astronomer and
physicist, Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695). In De
Motu Corporum ex Percussione (1656), Huygens
begins his treatment of collisions by introducing
three hypotheses upon which he bases his solutions
to the cases of the collisions of equal bodies.
The first of these hypotheses is a principle of in-
ertia, and corresponds to Descartes’ first and
second laws of nature. In his second hypothesis
Huygens asserts that two elastic bodies of equal
size, colliding with equal speeds, rebound such that
each retains its original speed and travels inthe
opposite direction. The third hypothesis is a state-
ment of a principle of relativity of motion which
allows Huygens to consider the same collision from
diflerent reference frames, and thereby to derive the
results forthe variousone dimensional collisions
between two elastic bodies.
For instance, the first law of collision that Huy-
gens derives involves the collision, described in the
second hypothesis, taking place on a boat. Huygens’
principle of relativity allows him to shift toan
458
is moving with a velocity V, equal to the velocity of
one of the bodies. From thepoint of view of the ob-
server on the bank, this collision appears asa station-
arybodybeingstruck by a second body with a velocity
of 2 V. After the impact then, for this observer on the
bank, the body originally in motion is now at rest
andthe body originally at rest has acquired the
velocity 2V. Thus Huygens establishes his first law
of collision, stating that whenever an elastic body
collides with another of equal size which is at rest,
the body originally in motion remains at rest after
the collision, andthe body originally at rest ac-
quires the velocity that the other originally had.
In order to deal with the cases of unequal bodies,
Huygens introduces his fourth and fifth hypotheses.
The fourth hypothesis states that whenever a body
collides with a smaller one at rest it gives it some
motion, and thereby loses some part of its own
motion. Using his principle of relativity of motion,
Huygens considers such a collision from the frame
of reference in which the larger body is initially at
rest. From this frame of reference, the motionlost by
the larger body in moving the smaller one now ap-
pears as motion acquired by the larger body after
the collision with the smaller one. Thus Huygens
derives his third collision law asserting that a body
at rest is moved by a smaller body in motion, regard-
less of the size or speed of the moving body. This law
represents an obvious improvement over Descartes’
curious law asserting that a smaller body rebounds
from a larger body at rest, leaving the larger one at
rest after the collision.
After rejecting Descartes’ specific lawsof collision,
with the exception of the first, Huygens begins his
analysis of conservation. His fifth hypothesis ap-
pears as a weakened version of Descartes’ principle
of the conservation of the quantity of motion. It
states that when after a collision one body has con-
served all its motion, the other onealso neither loses
nor gains any motion.With the aid of this fifth
hypothesis, Huygens is able to demonstratehis
fourth collision law stating that in the collision of
any two elastic bodies, the relative speed of approach
before collision is equal to the relative speed of
separation after collision.
Huygens proceeds to denounce Descartes’ prin-
ciple of conservation. In his sixth law of collision
Huygens states that the quantity of motion does not
have to be conserved, but can increase or decrease
after collision. His argument follows from his fourth
law, just discussed, stating that in the collision of any
two elastic bodies, the magnitude of the relative
velocity has the same value after the collision as it
had before. He considers the case of a smaller body
colliding with a larger body at rest. From this fourth
law, the sum of the speeds after collision must equal
Physics Education September 1975
the speed of the smaller body before collision. After formulation of the principle of the conservation of
the collision, the larger body has acquired part of momentum represented a significant advancement
the speed, and, therefore, the quantity of motion of over Descartes’ principle of the conservation of the
the two bodies has increased. Letting the bodies now quantity of motion. Descartes had asserted, in
reverse their directions and collide with the same accord with his conservation principle, that a mov-
speed with which they rebounded after impact, the ing body cannot, regardless of how fast it is moving,
larger body will remain at rest after collision, and move a larger body that is at rest. According to
the smaller bodyagain possesses all the speed. Newton’s ‘vectorial’ principle of conservation, it is
Therefore, in this case the quantity of motion of the obviously impossible for the larger body to remain
two bodies has decreased. at rest after the collision.
Thus Huygens shows that the quantity of motion Newton applied his principle of conservation of
is not necessarily conserved in all cases of collision-
momentum, before his formal statement of it, per-
as viewed from certain reference frames. In fact, onlyhapsas early as 1664 in a work which he never
in the cases of the collision of equal bodies is the published. In this unpublished work, Newton &st
quantity of motion conserved in all reference frames. applied his principle of conservation in an analysis
Inthe cases of the collision of unequal bodies, of collision between two completely inelastic bodies,
Huygens realizes that the quantity of motion is con- ie bodies that move together after impact. His
served only in the frame of reference in which the vectorial treatment of these one dimensional
colliding bodies rebound with their original speeds. collisions consists simply of plus and minus signs to
Huygens states in his eighth law of collision that this
denote direction. In the various cases of inelastic
reference frame is the one in which the speeds are collisions there is only a single velocity, ie one
inverselyproportional tothemagnitudesofthebodies. magnitude and one direction, of the bodies after the
In the collision of unequal bodies then, the quantity collision. Knowing the size of each body and their
of motion is conserved only in this one specific velocities before collision, Newton’s principle of the
frame of reference. conservation of momentum is sufficientin solving for
What Huygens recognized as being conserved in the commonvelocity of the bodies after the collision.
all reference frames was the sum of the products of Shortly thereafter, in the same writings, Newton’s
the magnitude of each body and the square of its principle of conservation appears in a discussion of
speed (corresponding of course, butwithoutthe one dimensional collisions between two elastic
factors of a half, to the present day statement of thebodies. For elastic collisions his principle of con-
conservation of kinetic energy). For Huygens this servation is not sufficient for obtaining the velocities
conserved quantity was just a number, to which he of the bodies after the collision. Newton asserts here
neglected to even assign a name. He realized, how- the additional principle, holding for the one dimen-
ever, that its total remained a constant before and sional collision of two perfectly elastic bodies, that
after collision in all frames of reference-in con- the relative velocity of separation of the bodies after
trast to Descartes’ quantity of motion, which, as collision is equal to the relative velocityof their
Huygens had shown, did not. Regardless of the approach before the collision. From these two prin-
relatively little importance he placed on this quantity,
ciples, and the sizes of the bodies and their velocities
his analysis of Conservation in the one dimensional before the collision, the velocities of the bodies after
collision of two elastic bodies represented a signifi-the collision can be found.
cant advancement over that of Descartes. It shouldperhaps be pointedout that since
Newton did not have this early work published, he
is not credited with formulating the general principle
Newton’s vectorial approach of the conservation of momentum. Instead, the
Huygens had shown thatthetotal of Descartes’ English mathematician John Wallis (1616-1703)
quantity of motion was not in general conserved usually receives credit for its formulation.
and hadintroduced a quantity of different magnitude Induced by a request issued by the Royal Society
as that whose total remained constant. The English of London, Wallis investigated the one dimensional
philosopher, physicist, and mathematician, Isaac collisions between completely inelastic bodies. In
Newton (1 642-1 727), however, retained Descartes’ his paper The General Laws of Motion, published in
quantity of motion as having the magnitude of the 1668, Wallis employed the principle of the con-
quantity conserved, but introduced the vector (alge- servation of momentum, using, as did Newton, plus
braic) replacement for it. and minus signs to denote the directions of ‘vector’
The statement of Newton’s principle of conserva- quantities.
tion appears, in its polished form, in his Principia
(1 687) and embodies the present day principle of the Leibniz and vis viva
conservation of linear momentum. Newton’s correct The last 17th century figure to be considered is the

Physics Education September 1975 459

German philosopher, mathematician and scientist,
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). In his
CriticalRemarksConcerning the GeneralPart of
Descartes’Principles (1692), Leibniz argues, like
Huygens and Newton, that it is not Descartes’
quantity of motion thatis conserved. In his Essay on
Dynamics (1692), Leibniz introduces an equation
expressing the conservation of Descartes’ quantity
of motion, but with the appropriate directional plus
and minus signs added to correct it. Hence, Leibniz,
like Newton, recognized that it is the vectorial sum
of the ‘quantities of motion’ that is conserved in the
collision of two bodies.
Leibniz also recognized that the total of a scalar
quantity, which he called the visviva, remained
constant. Inthe collision of two perfectly elastic
bodies, this conservation of vis viva is expressed as
the sumof the products of the mass of each bodyand
the square of its speed being the same both before
and after impact. This is exactly the conservation
principle that Huygens had set forth.
Thus Leibniz recognized both the conservation of
vis viva (corresponding, but without the factors of a
half, to the conservation of kinetic energy) and the
conservation of momentum in the collision of two
perfectly elastic bodies. Furthermore, he was aware
that the principle of the conservation of momentum
held in all types of collisions (perfectly elastic, semi-
elastic, etc), while the principle of the conservation
of vis viva seemed to hold only in the collision of
perfectly elastic bodies.
Summary
As we have seen, the issue of conservation in the
collision of bodies aroused considerable interest in
the period of its initial investigation. Descartes as-
serted that thequantity of motion, thescalar product
of the mass and speed, was the quantity that was
conserved. Huygens, with the aid of his relativity
of motion principle, recognized that it was not
Descartes’ scalar quantity that was conserved, but
instead another scalar quantity, the product of the
mass and the square of the speed, whose total re-
mained constant. Newton discovered that Descartes’
quantity was conserved if considered a vector
quantity, and thereby announced the principle of
conservation of momentum. Leibniz recognized the
conservation of Newton’s momentum, and also the
conservation of vis viva,the same scalar quantity that
Huygens had earlier proposed. Although recogni-
tion of the immense importance of these principles
had to await further developments in physics, the
original formulation of these conservationprin-
ciples, resulting from the analysis of one dimen-
sional collisions, was completed by the end of the
17th century.
460
REFERENCES
Descartes (trans. E Anscombeand P T Geach) 1971
Descartes Philosophical Writings (New York: Bobbs-
Merrill) pp21 5-21
Galileo (trans. S Drake) 1957 Discoveries and Opinions of
Galileo (Garden City: Doubleday-Anchor) p1 13
Galileo(trans. S Drake) 1970 Dialogue Concerning the
Two Chief World Systems (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press) pp214-5
Leibniz (trans. A G Langley) 1949 New Essays Concern-
ing Human Understanding (LaSalle: Open Court)
~~657-70
Leibniz (trans. L E Loemker) 1970 Philosophical Papers
and Letters (Dordrecht : D Reidel) pp296-302
Leibniz (trans. P Schreckerand A M Schrecker) 1965
Monadology and Other Philosophical Essays (New York
Bobbs-Merrill) pp47-50
Newton(edited F Cajori) 1971 Principia (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press) p17
Newton (J Herivel) 1965 The Background t o Newton’s
Principia (London: Oxford University Press) p p 1 3 2 4 3
Schools CouncilResearchStudies-NuffieldSecond-
ary Science: An Evaluation
Dorothy J Alexander (for Schools Council) 1974
(London: Macmillan Education)
viii+ 70pp price E2.95
This is a useful addition tothe disappointingly
scanty shoal of research studies following behind the
wave of Nuffield Science Projects. It asks some im-
portant questions to some of which it gives depress-
ing answers. For example, it shows that, despite the
hopes of the Project organizers with their emphasis
on relevance, the views of the pupils in the sample on
the role of science in society deteriorated. We need
longer andrather different induction courses for
teachers if we want to see changes in attitudes of this
sort; those we have had in the past have tended to
give too much prominence to the new content and
experimental work to the neglect of the methods
which might be used to obtain these less tangible
changes.
Many of the answers are tentative which will dis-
appoint scientists used to more clear cut answers to
research but in fact thismodesty is one of the study’s
strong points. Its limitations lie in its lateness in the
life of the Project, in the totally inadequate resources
devoted to it and in its adoption of the traditional
scientistic view that the methods of science are the
only research methodsapplicable to this field. I
believe that the blindman’s buff quality of much of
the interpretation would have been reduced if less
Physics Education September 1 9 7 5