Why is the parallelogram rule for the addition of forces as it is?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the origins and fundamental nature of the parallelogram rule for vector addition in physics. It highlights that the rule likely emerged from early observations of forces, particularly in the context of ropes, and is rooted in the principle of linear superposition, where forces do not interfere with each other. Historical references indicate that the rule dates back to at least the first century BC, appearing in Heron's "Mechanics." The conversation also touches on the geometric methods of early mathematicians, suggesting that the rule's formulation was influenced by their approaches. Overall, the parallelogram rule is seen as a logical necessity in understanding vector addition and force interactions.
zexott
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Why is the parallelogram rule for the addition of forces as it is?
I feel it must have some deep origin and pointing to something fundamental. Though I know this problem may have no answer: God design it as such.
But I wonder how the first person came up with this rule, where does his/her intuition come from?
Are there something that addition of forces simply must obey due to logic itself?
Are there active research going on that is investigating this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Would you accept vector addition as being the logic?
 
It is likely that it arose because, at the time this was being developed, probably at the time of people like Stevens (1548 - 1620) most mathematics was carried out geometrically. So the parallelogram construction was the natural mode of working.
 
Whoops, autocorrect jumped in. I mean Stevenus .
 
Use the Edit button to correct it.
 
All the parallelogram rule does is to enforce that the addition of two vectors actually add their components.
 
Historically it was an observation about ropes. The rule is equivalent assuming the rule of linear superposition of forces ... that is, application of one force does not interfere with any other. This means that forces form a linear vector space.

The rule dates back to at least the first century BC; it appears in Heron's "Mechanics". But it is probably older.

Philosophers have written on it: file:///C:/Users/Peter/Downloads/1548-24248-1-PB.pdf
 
UltrafastPED said:
Historically it was an observation about ropes. The rule is equivalent assuming the rule of linear superposition of forces ... that is, application of one force does not interfere with any other. This means that forces form a linear vector space.

The rule dates back to at least the first century BC; it appears in Heron's "Mechanics". But it is probably older.

Philosophers have written on it: file:///C:/Users/Peter/Downloads/1548-24248-1-PB.pdf

Ah, observation of ropes, that's how their intuition comes. Now it seems conceivable for me. Your information is very detailed and now I guess I can trace it down. Thank you so much! And thank you all for your time and attention!
 
UltrafastPED said:
file:///C:/Users/Peter/Downloads/1548-24248-1-PB.pdf

:smile:
Don't you have a web link?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

For the friction formula when to use Fn(normal force)×mu and when F×mu
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Is there a list of root-power quantities? Or a rule of thumb?
Replies
14
Views
2K
I Is the phrase "discrete spectrum" in rule #5 a contradiction in terms?
Replies
5
Views
1K
B Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
Replies
35
Views
4K
I Why don't we "fly up" in an accelerating elevator?
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Trying to understand why electrons fill orbitals the way they do
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Are Tidal Forces Curvature of Space?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I What are the effects of Buoyancy & G-force combined in this scenario?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Schools Question About Relevance of a HBSc degree at UofT Compared to US Universities
Replies
23
Views
4K
Why is/is-not energy conserved in these scenarios?
Replies
14
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top