Final answer:
By applying the conservation of momentum and assuming equal momentum components post-collision, we calculate that the car must have been traveling approximately 150 mph to satisfy the conditions of the collision, which does not seem likely for typical traffic conditions.
Step-by-step explanation:
To determine how fast the car was moving before the collision, we can use the principle of conservation of momentum in a two-dimensional collision. Since the truck was traveling west and the car was traveling south, and after the collision, the vehicles moved southwest, the momentum vectors added up to a southwest direction.
In the context of the question, we can define south as the negative y-direction and west as the negative x-direction. The witness claims the truck (6000 kg) was traveling at 50 mph west, which we need to convert to meters per second (m/s) before performing calculations. The conversion factor is 1 mph ≈ 0.44704 m/s. Therefore, the velocity of the truck is 50 mph * 0.44704 m/s/mph ≈ 22.352 m/s.
The conservation of momentum states that the momentum before the collision is equal to the momentum after the collision. The momentum of the system post-collision can be broken down into its x and y components, which should be equal due to the fact that the final direction is southwest (45 degrees off of both axes).
The mass of the car is 2000 kg. Let v be the speed of the car south before the collision. The momentum in the west direction (-x) is entirely due to the truck: (6000 kg)(-22.352 m/s), and the momentum in the south direction (-y) will be due to the car: (2000 kg)(v).
The magnitudes of the x and y components after the collision should be equal, leading to the following equation:
6000 kg * 22.352 m/s = 2000 kg * v
We can solve for v, the car's velocity:
v = (6000 kg * 22.352 m/s) / 2000 kg
v ≈ 67.056 m/s
If we convert 67.056 m/s back to mph (1 m/s ≈ 2.23694 mph), we find the speed of the car is approximately 150 mph. This is an unusually high speed for a car to be traveling at an intersection and does not seem likely, suggesting that the witness' claim may need to be further investigated.