Final answer:
Curtis's explanation involving the incorrect use of the puck's mass is not plausible because, during a perfectly elastic collision, the height the puck reaches is determined by its kinetic energy and not by mass. Other factors might cause the discrepancy.
Step-by-step explanation:
No, Curtis's explanation is not plausible based on the principles of physics. In an ideal scenario, where factors like air resistance and friction are negligible, the mass of the puck does not affect the height to which it can climb on a ramp after a collision. When dealing with energy conservation and perfectly elastic collisions, the mass is not a factor in determining the maximum height after a bounce, assuming the initial and final kinetic energies are conserved and there is no energy loss.
During a perfectly elastic collision, both kinetic energy and momentum are conserved. The speed at which the puck would move after the collision depends on both pucks' masses and velocities before the collision. However, if a puck slides up a frictionless ramp after the collision, the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy does not depend on the mass of the puck. Instead, the height attained by the puck would depend on its initial kinetic energy. Provided that the force applied and the horizontal distance before hitting the ramp remain constant, a heavier puck would carry more kinetic energy if it's moving at the same speed as a lighter puck; hence, in a real-world setting, it might reach a higher point if friction is also considered.
So, if Curtis observed a discrepancy in the height reached, it might be due to other factors like the angle of the ramp, the roughness of the surface, or inaccuracies in the initial speed measurement but not due to an incorrect mass value used in the calculations for a perfectly elastic collision scenario.