Why do we need Newton's First law? And how the First law works?

In summary, the conversation discusses the purpose and relevance of Newton's First Law of Motion in defining an inertial reference frame. The First Law is credited for its historical context and for providing a physical test for identifying inertial motion. It is also seen as the "setup" for applying Newton's Second Law of Motion. While some modern presentations may start with symmetry principles, Newton's First Law remains a fundamental concept in classical mechanics.
  • #1
Adjoint
120
3
This must have been asked before. But never mind here I ask it again to convince myself.

Newton's Second law says [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = m[itex]\vec{a}[/itex]
Now if we put [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = 0 here we get [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] = 0 which is Newton's First law.
So why do we need to state First law as a separate law?

Before I asked this I did little bit of searching. And what I got is - First law is necessary to define the Inertial reference frame on which Second law can be applied.

But why can't we just use Newton's second law to define Inertial frame? We can say [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = m[itex]\vec{a}[/itex] is the Second law. So if [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = 0 but [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] [itex]\neq[/itex] 0 (or vice versa) then the frame is non inertial.

One can say (can one?), we cannot apply Second law to define Inertial reference frame because the Second law in valid only in Inertial frame. Thus unless we know in advance that a frame is Inertial, we cannot apply the Second law.
But then why this is not a problem for first law? We don't need to know in advance if a frame is inertial to apply first law because we take First law as definition of inertial frame. Similarly, if we take Second law as the definition of Inertial frame, it should not require to know if a frame is Inertial or not to apply Second law (to check if the frame is inertial).

So, what's the reason for First law to exist?

Thanks a lot, in advance, for your help!

[EDITED]
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Adjoint said:
How does Newton's First law defines Inertial frame?
An "inertial frame" is a frame where any object without external forces either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity.
 
  • #3
I think Newton's First Law is very relevant because of its historical context. Before he formalised it, people thought that things naturally slow down (as they do - but for a good reason) yet could not square this with what went on with astronomical objects. N1 is a statement that unifies what goes on down here and up there. Well worth writing, IMO.
 
  • #4
A.T. said:
An "inertial frame" is a frame where any object without external forces either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity.

Thanks but I know what an Inertial reference frame is. But why it's the First law which is credited for the definition of Inertial frame?

sophiecentaur said:
I think Newton's First Law is very relevant because of its historical context.

So Newton's first law exists as a separate law just for its historical context?
 
  • #5
Adjoint said:
Thanks but I know what an Inertial reference frame is. But why it's the First law which is credited for the definition of Inertial frame?
Well, most basically because there are other frames in which the First law does not hold. That is, an object is observed to accelerate in the absence of any force defined in that frame.

So Newton's first law exists as a separate law just for its historical context?
Or you could say that it tells you the exact set of conditions under which the second law is claimed to be true.
 
  • #6
Adjoint said:
Thanks but I know what an Inertial reference frame is. But why it's the First law which is credited for the definition of Inertial frame?



So Newton's first law exists as a separate law just for its historical context?

It will be a long time, if ever, before they stop teaching Newtonian Mechanics as a first step for students and I don't thing that the historical context should be neglected. When you get down to it, N1 is only a special case of N2 but it's still worth keeping 'if only' for the historical context.
It's easy to forget that the notion of a 'frame of reference' is quite a struggle for a beginner. Using an assumed Earth frame for your first mechanics experience is surely acceptable.
 
  • #7
Adjoint said:
Thanks but I know what an Inertial reference frame is. But why it's the First law which is credited for the definition of Inertial frame?

Newton's First Law of Motion also provides a physical test; if there are no net forces, then one sees inertial motion. If one does not see inertial motion, then there must be unbalanced forces.

Adjoint said:
So Newton's first law exists as a separate law just for its historical context?

Newton's version is an improvement upon the work of Galileo - see "Two New Sciences" - and Descartes. But the first law is the "setup" for the application of Newton's Second Law of Motion.

Some modern presentations prefer to start with symmetry principles; when this is done the "laws of mechanics" are expressed in much different form. This is convenient when the subject is analytical mechanics, i.e., Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.

Added later:
Newton's First Law of Motion also describes the motion in the _absence_ of net forces: it continues as before (in this inertial reference frame), moving in a straight line, with unchanged speed.

This is why it is called the Law of Inertia. The expression "F=ma" is consistent with this. Newton constructed geometric proofs from the laws and definitions provided; being one of the world's great mathematicians and geometers, he would not have introduced an axiom or law which he felt to be unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
UltrafastPED said:
Newton's First Law of Motion also provides a physical test; if there are no net forces, then one sees inertial motion. If one does not see inertial motion, then there must be unbalanced forces.

But can't the Second law provide the same thing?

Adjoint said:
But why can't we just use Newton's second law to define Inertial frame? We can say [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = m[itex]\vec{a}[/itex] is the Second law. So if [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] = 0 but [itex]\vec{a}[/itex] [itex]\neq[/itex] 0 (or vice versa) then the frame is non inertial.
 
  • #9
sophiecentaur said:
I think Newton's First Law is very relevant because of its historical context. Before he formalised it, people thought that things naturally slow down (as they do - but for a good reason) yet could not square this with what went on with astronomical objects. N1 is a statement that unifies what goes on down here and up there. Well worth writing, IMO.

This point about historical context is important. It is not at all unusual for the modern formulation and presentation of a theory to be very different (mathematically cleaner, more crisply formulated axioms, all neatly trimmed with Ockam's razor) than the stumbling path that that the pioneers followed. It's a lot easier to plot a direct path when you already know your destination. (Both quantum mechanics and special relativity also followed this pattern).

UltrafastPED said:
But the first law is the "setup" for the application of Newton's Second Law of Motion.
It is, and in the 17th century that setup was much more necessary than it is in the 21st century. In the 350 years in between, we've come to accept the second law to such an extent that it feels natural to start with it and watch the first law fall out of the ##F=0## case, rather than following Newton's path. Back then... not so much.

Although science and the history of science are deeply entwined (you cannot study the latter without understanding the former; and although you can use physics to solve problems without knowing the history, it is very difficult to make new contributions to physics without knowing the history) they are different disciplines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #10
UltrafastPED said:
But the first law is the "setup" for the application of Newton's Second Law of Motion.
Nugatory said:
It is, and in the 17th century that setup was much more necessary than it is in the 21st century. In the 350 years in between, we've come to accept the second law to such an extent that it feels natural to start with it and watch the first law fall out of the F = 0 case, rather than following Newton's path. Back then... not so much.

I see that historical context is really crucial here. But then just to be sure, can we say that Newtonian mechanics can be formulated by using just his Second and Third law? ...While the First law is a reminder of the intellectual leap that had to be taken at Newton's time.

Hmm... Still, a great mind like Newton obviously noticed that his first law is a special case of his second law. But he kept it as a separate law anyway.

Well, so the first law stays. :tongue2:

Thanks everyone. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
You're looking at it wrong, Adjoint. Just because you get a constant velocity from the second law with zero net force does not mean the first law is a special case of the second. The first law stands by itself. The other two laws must necessarily be consistent with that first law (and they are). It is that need for consistency that makes the first law appear to be unnecessary.

The modern view is that the Newton's first law establishes the context in which Newton's other two laws are valid. A rotating observer can invent fictitious forces to make Newton's second law appear to be valid, but now there's a new problem: There are no equal but opposite forces on some other object to those fictitious forces.
 
  • #12
Thanks DH.

In the example you gave - I see that the inconsistency appears because the reference frame in non-inertial. That was certainly your point, right?
But I am not completely clear how the First law (and only the first law) can rescue us from here?

As far as I understand, the first law would say, the particle here (in a rotating frame) is changing its velocity or accelerating without any force acting on it. So the reference frame in non-inertial.

But can't the second law say the same thing? The second law can say, well here a ≠ 0 but F = 0, so this is a non-inertial frame.

I don't understand why an observer would invent a fictitious force when he applies the second law but won't invent a fictitious force when he applies the first law?

Would you explain a bit more please?
 
  • #13
Adjoint,

How would you determine that F = 0? Normally you would measure m and a and infer F, right? So if you're in a rotating frame and you measure a nonzero a for an object which is actually in inertial motion, then what? Is there an F acting on that body?
 
  • #14
D H said:
You're looking at it wrong, Adjoint. Just because you get a constant velocity from the second law with zero net force does not mean the first law is a special case of the second. The first law stands by itself. The other two laws must necessarily be consistent with that first law (and they are). It is that need for consistency that makes the first law appear to be unnecessary.

The modern view is that the Newton's first law establishes the context in which Newton's other two laws are valid. A rotating observer can invent fictitious forces to make Newton's second law appear to be valid, but now there's a new problem: There are no equal but opposite forces on some other object to those fictitious forces.

Just imagine a humanoid society that had evolved on a massive wheel, set in motion by some previous, extinct civilisation. They develop 'a Mechanics'. Whilst it would get to the same stage as ours, eventually, would they have got there (or not) with their own version of N1, on the way?
 
  • #15
On a massive wheel, like... the rotating Earth? :wink:
 
  • #16
A.T. said:
An "inertial frame" is a frame where any object without external forces either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity.

Adjoint said:
Thanks but I know what an Inertial reference frame is. But why it's the First law which is credited for the definition of Inertial frame?

The definition above is just a reformulation of the First law.
 
  • #17
A.T. said:
The definition above is just a reformulation of the First law.

You are pulling me back to my first question. I understand that the first law gives the definition of Inertia. What I don't understand is why we can't say that the second law does the same?
 
  • #18
Read back up to #13.
 
  • #19
olivermsun said:
How would you determine that F = 0? Normally you would measure m and a and infer F, right? So if you're in a rotating frame and you measure a nonzero a for an object which is actually in inertial motion, then what? Is there an F acting on that body?

For me (in a non inertial frame) it would seem so... Well now I am asking myself that how can I identify a frame as non inertial if I am in that frame? Certainly I will feel so; because of my inertia. But really, if I am in a non inertial frame, how can I tell that if an object is moving because a force is acting or because it is in a non-inertial frame?

EDIT: Provide the answer please. :confused:
 
Last edited:
  • #20
olivermsun said:
On a massive wheel, like... the rotating Earth? :wink:

No. I meant like Arthur C Clarke's in 2001. :tongue: i.e. where the rotational forces play a big part in their everyday lives. It took a long time for anyone to measure any rotational effect on Earth.
 
  • #21
Adjoint said:
But really, if I am in a non inertial frame, how can I tell that if an object is moving because a force is acting or because it is in a non-inertial frame?

Use the third law.
 
  • #22
I am sorry to say, but it seems like I don't know enough about inertial and non-inertial frames and rotational motion to continue following this discussion properly (though I started this thread :cry:)
For example: I can't simply figure out How one person in a non-inertial frame can measure force on an object properly? (I mean avoiding fictitious forces.)

But thank you all for your replies. Meanwhile I should go and do some study! o:)

EDIT: ... thanks DrS! I just had your reply.
To use the third law, I think you mean, I need to find if that accelerating object is giving any reaction force...?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Adjoint said:
To use the third law, I think you mean, I need to find if that accelerating object is giving any reaction force...?

Yes, if there are forces without counter forces than the frame of reference is non-inertial (or you missed interactions).
 
  • #24
Suppose I put a ball on a table and the ball starts moving. It's certainly moving without a counter force. So I decide my frame is non inertial.
But what if there was actually a counter force. Suppose someone with an almost invisible string attached to the ball was moving it around?
So unless I can be sure about all the forces acting on the ball and by the ball, how can I tell if the frame was inertial or not?
And in a certain situation it might not be possible for me to make sure about all the forces acting on and by an object.

As you said too -
DrStupid said:
or you missed interactions

It's likely to miss one or two interactions. So in practical case how can we be sure if a frame is inertial or non-inertial?

Also it seems like Newton's first law is not enough to check for an Inertial frame. Because to exclude the fictitious forces We also need the Third law. What's happening?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Adjoint said:
So why do we need to state First law as a separate law?

Apart from the issue of setting up context for the 2nd and 3rd law, the 1st law stands apart of the 2nd law also for another reason: in its original formulation, apart from being consistent with 2nd law, it says also something in addition that cannot be derived from the 2nd law.

How so?

Let the position of the particle at time ##t_0## be ##x_0##. Now imagine the force ##F## is a function of position ##x## only and ##F(x_0) = 0##. What will happen to the particle put at ##x_0##?

Based on the 1st law, we conclude the particle will stay at ##x_0## forever, because there is "no impressed force to compel the particle to change its state of rest".

Based on the 2nd law only, we cannot make such conclusion. This is because in its modern formulation, the 2nd law is this statement: mass times second derivative of position equals net force impressed:

$$
m\frac{d^2 x}{dt^2} = F.
$$

This equation connects force only to the second derivative of the position and disregards any other characteristics of motion. Due to this, in this case it is not sufficient to determine what will happen to the position of the particle: depending on the function ##F(x)##, there may be infinity of solutions distinguished by the time ##t_1## the particle begins to move.
 
  • #26
Adjoint said:
So in practical case how can we be sure if a frame is inertial or non-inertial?

There is no way to be sure in practice. You just can make reasonable assumptions. If the sum of all forces is not zero you have to decide weather you describe the situation with unknown interactions or with a non-inertial system (or both).

Adjoint said:
Also it seems like Newton's first law is not enough to check for an Inertial frame.

The first law is neither necessary nor sufficient for the identification of inertial systems. The second and the third law can do the job if you know all interactions.
 
  • #27
Jano L. said:
Let the position of the particle at time ##t_0## be ##x_0##. Now imagine the force ##F## is a function of position ##x## only and ##F(x_0) = 0##. What will happen to the particle put at ##x_0##?

Based on the 1st law, we conclude the particle will stay at ##x_0## forever, because there is "no impressed force to compel the particle to change its state of rest".

Only for ##v_0 = 0##.

Jano L. said:
Based on the 2nd law only, we cannot make such conclusion.

With the same starting conditions the second law leads to the same conclusion.
 
  • #28
DrStupid said:
Only for ##v_0 = 0##.

Yes, that is the idea.

With the same starting conditions the second law leads to the same conclusion.

Not always. If ##F(x_0) = 0## then the equation of motion may not have unique solution.
 
  • #29
Jano L. said:
If ##F(x_0) = 0## then the equation of motion may not have unique solution.

Can you give me an example that violates the first law?

To my knowledge the first law and the original wording of the second law differ in a single special case only: In contrast to the first law

[itex]F = \dot p = m \cdot \dot v + v \cdot \dot m[/itex]

allows accelerations without force for

[itex]\dot v = - v \cdot \frac{{\dot m}}{m} \ne 0[/itex]

I don't know if this was intended by Newton but this means that the use of forces for open systems might be problematic.
 
  • #30
Newton's first law, in its original formulation, is a special case of the second law. Newton didn't intend his laws to be logically independent, and it's not possible to read them as being independent. He probably just wrote the first law separately in order to emphasize that he was making a break with Aristotelianism.

Ernst Mach wrote a book, The Science Of Mechanics, 1919, http://archive.org/details/scienceofmechani005860mbp , which critiqued the logical basis of Newton's laws. Most people hear about Mach only through Mach's principle, which was not formulated precisely until long after Mach's death, so they get the impression that Mach was some kind of fuzzy-headed philosopher. But his critique of Newton's laws was very logically sound, and was influential. Probably influenced by Mach, some modern textbook authors started presenting Newton's laws in a rewritten form, with the first law rewritten as a statement that inertial frames exist. (It's not just a definition, it's an existence claim.) It's only in this rewritten form of Newton's laws that the first law is not a special case of the second.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
DrStupid said:
Can you give me an example that violates the first law?
When the particle begins to change its rectilinear motion at some instant ##t_1## while the acceleration at this instant vanishes.

For example, according to the 2nd law, particle put at rest on top of a sphere at instant ##t_0## may begin to change its velocity at any subsequent time ##t_1##. The 2nd law does not determine ##t_1##.

According to the 1st law, the particle will stay put.

To my knowledge the first law and the original wording of the second law differ in a single special case only: In contrast to the first law

[itex]F = \dot p = m \cdot \dot v + v \cdot \dot m[/itex]

allows accelerations without force for

[itex]\dot v = - v \cdot \frac{{\dot m}}{m} \ne 0[/itex]

I don't know if this was intended by Newton but this means that the use of forces for open systems might be problematic.

The second law is not
$$
F = \dot{m}v + m\dot v.
$$
It is
$$
F = m\dot{v}.
$$
In the last form, the 2nd law applies also to systems with variable mass.

The form ##F=\frac{dp}{dt}## is correct only if in addition, ##m## is assumed constant.
 
  • #32
  • #33
DrStupid said:
Show me your calculation.

I made a mistake above, the particle has to be put on a dome with special shape,not sphere. Check out John Norton's calculation:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/

Norton argues that actually the first law is valid even here, but he uses different "1st law" than the one Newton wrote. I only say that Newton's first law predicts something that Newton's 2nd law does not: that the particle will stay at the top. But it shows that Newton's first law is different kind of law: it is not a mathematical equation, but causality statement. Unfortunately, it is impossible to check this distinction experimentally.

According to the original wording of the second law

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/46

and the definition of momentum

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/26

it is.

Yes, if you are making logical conclusions based on these two statements only.

But Newton wrote a whole book on this. In the section on definitions you cited, he deals with "body", which most of the time means that mass is assumed constant.

I did not read whole of Newton's book, but I am sure he did not meant actually to include the term ##\dot{m}v## from the derivative of momentum as a part of the equation of motion. That would lead him to incorrect results and I'm sure he would check before publishing them.

His 2nd law is thus correct only if in addition mass of the body is assumed to be constant, something he forgot/did not care to say or he said it elsewhere.
 
  • #34
Jano L. said:
Check out John Norton's calculation:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Dome/

It seems he missed the initial condition ##r_0=0##. I get the additional solution

[itex]r = \frac{{t{}^4}}{{144}}[/itex]

Edit: Now I got it. He mixed the time-dependent solution for the initial condition ##r(T) = 0## with the trivial solution ##r(t) = 0## and spliced them at ##t = T##. The resulting hybrid is still a solution of the differential equation and meets the initial condition ##r(0) = 0##.

There is either no force and no acceleration (for ##r=0##) or both force and acceleration (for ##r \ne 0##). Whether this is a violation of the first law or not seems to be a matter of interpretation.

Jano L. said:
Newton's first law is different kind of law: it is not a mathematical equation, but causality statement.

Yes, the first law says that force is the only cause of changes in motion. This is the qualitative definition of force. As bcrowell already mentioned this was important to distinguish Newton's force from Aristoteles' force. According to Aristoteles force was required to keep the state of motion. According to Newton force is required to change the state of motion. That's what the first law is about.

The second law does not care about causality but gives a quantitative definition of force.

Jano L. said:
But Newton wrote a whole book on this. In the section on definitions you cited, he deals with "body", which most of the time means that mass is assumed constant.

The second law is not limited to bodies. Even if the quantity of matter (we better do not use the term "mass" here in order to avoid possible confusions with rest mass) of a body is constant, a system consisting of a variable number of bodies may have a variable quantity of matter. As the second law is not limited to bodies it is not forbidden to apply it to such systems. But as already mentioned it might be problematic to use the second law this way. It only works if you do not mix forces for constant and variable quantity of matter.

Jano L. said:
I did not read whole of Newton's book, but I am sure he did not meant actually to include the term ##\dot{m}v## from the derivative of momentum as a part of the equation of motion. That would lead him to incorrect results and I'm sure he would check before publishing them.

To my knowledge Newton didn't refer to this topic. I guess he started from conservation of momentum and stopped with the conclusion that the sum of all alterations of momentum need to be zero (that's what the second and third law say). In that sense his laws of motion are universal and also work for open systems or even for different transformations. Thus is wasn't necessary to go into further details at this point. Everything else can be derived from his definitions for particular conditions.

Jano L. said:
His 2nd law is thus correct only if in addition mass of the body is assumed to be constant, something he forgot/did not care to say or he said it elsewhere.

That's the result for closed systems and Galilean transformation. That's the usual situation in classical mechanics (that's why it is so popular). But other condition may return other results.
 
Last edited:

1. Why is Newton's First Law important in understanding motion?

Newton's First Law, also known as the Law of Inertia, states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. This law is important because it helps us understand how objects behave and move in the absence of external forces. It also forms the basis for understanding the other two laws of motion.

2. How does Newton's First Law explain the concept of inertia?

Inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion. Newton's First Law explains this concept by stating that an object will continue to stay at rest or in motion with constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. In other words, an object's inertia causes it to resist changes in its motion.

3. Can you give an example of how Newton's First Law works in everyday life?

One example of Newton's First Law in everyday life is when you are in a moving vehicle and suddenly come to a stop. Your body continues to move forward due to its inertia, until an external force (such as a seatbelt) acts upon it and brings it to a stop. This demonstrates how objects tend to resist changes in their state of motion.

4. How does Newton's First Law apply to objects in space?

In space, objects continue to move in a straight line with constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. This is because there is no air resistance or friction to slow them down. This is why objects in orbit around the Earth, such as satellites, continue to stay in motion without any external forces acting upon them.

5. Is Newton's First Law always true?

Newton's First Law is a fundamental principle of physics and has been proven to hold true in countless experiments and observations. However, it is important to note that it is only applicable in inertial frames of reference, where there are no external forces acting upon the object. In non-inertial frames of reference, such as accelerating frames, the First Law may not apply.

Similar threads

  • Thermodynamics
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
901
  • Classical Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
929
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
904
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
2
Views
941
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top