Why do we usually talk about Newton's THREE laws?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the classification and interpretation of Newton's three laws of motion, questioning why they are referred to as "laws" and examining their interrelations and implications. Participants explore theoretical aspects, definitions, and the applicability of these laws in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Newton's laws could be seen as a single law with one definition of "force," questioning the necessity of numbering them separately.
  • Others argue that the first law, which addresses inertia, is distinct and not directly addressed by the second or third laws.
  • A participant points out that F = ma implies that in the absence of force, there is no change in velocity, which they associate with Newton's first law.
  • Some express that the third law cannot be derived from the first or second laws and note that it may not always hold true.
  • A participant mentions that the first law determines the reference frame for the second law, while the second law describes motion in that frame, suggesting a complex interdependence among the laws.
  • Concerns are raised about defining inertial frames and forces, indicating a circular dependency in definitions.
  • Some participants propose that the first two laws should be considered definitions rather than laws, prompting further inquiry into the terminology used.
  • Discussion includes examples where the third law may not apply, such as in cases involving magnetic forces, but others counter that this could affect conservation of momentum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the classification and interpretation of Newton's laws, with no consensus reached on whether they should be considered separate laws or definitions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining inertial frames and forces, indicating that these definitions may depend on each other, which remains unresolved in the discussion.

EL
Science Advisor
Messages
558
Reaction score
0
...when it is really only ONE law, one definition of "force" and one special case of that definition?

At least in all books I have read Newton's laws are numbered 1-3.
Anyone who knows why Newton called them all for "laws", and why we still stick to that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can see how 3 is a general statement of 2, but 1 is inertia and neither 2 or 3 say anything about it.
 
Well, F = ma says that in the absence of force, there is no change in velocity -- which is Newton's first.

- Warren
 
That's exactly the question my Phyics teacher asked us and did not give the answer since he said it was for our final oral exam... :s
 
Yeah! Ain't it awful when your professor actually expects you to THINK?M
 
chroot said:
Well, F = ma says that in the absence of force, there is no change in velocity -- which is Newton's first.

- Warren
I thought about that, but since at the time of Newton that wasn't so self-evident, I think it still needed to be stated: If Newton's 2nd talks about acceleration due to a force, what about acceleration by other causes?
 
Strangely disturbing.
 
How does the third law necessarily follow from the second?
 
F=ma is a DEFINITION of "force".
The physics is in the law about an equally strong reaction force.
 
  • #10
The three law is very useful and affect a lot of things
 
  • #11
Because they are all required -

Newton's First Law - A body at rest stays at rest and a body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by a force

Newton's Second Law - The force on a particle equals the time rate of change of momentum, i.e. F = dp/dt. This gives Newton's first law when the force is zero, i.e. F = 0 -> dp/dt = 0 -> p = constant -> v = constant.

Newton's Third Law - Whenever there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. F12 = -F21.

The third law cannot be deduced from the first or second law. In fact it is not always true.

Pete
 
  • #12
here's my professor's point of view:
the first law determines the reference frame in which the second law is correct(the inertial frame). The second law describes the way a dimensionless body moves in an inertial frame but it cannot be considerd as a definition of force. The third law "expands" the second one from particles to bodies.
 
  • #13
B_orionis said:
here's my professor's point of view:
the first law determines the reference frame in which the second law is correct(the inertial frame). The second law describes the way a dimensionless body moves in an inertial frame but it cannot be considerd as a definition of force. The third law "expands" the second one from particles to bodies.
There is a well known problem between the first and second law. That is that to define an inertial frame you have to define what "free-particle" or "absence of force" means. But to define force you have to define inertial frame.

In the words of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington Every particle continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line except insofar that it doesn't..

Pete
 
  • #14
pmb_phy said:
Newton's Third Law - Whenever there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction, i.e. F12 = -F21.

The third law cannot be deduced from the first or second law. In fact it is not always true.

Are you saying the third law is not true? I'd like to see an example.
 
  • #15
pmb phy:
My point is that the first two should be seen as definitions and not laws.
So why are they still called "laws"?

Galileo:
The third law holds for central forces (e.g. gravity, electric).
The magnetic force (which is velocity dependent) is an example that doesn't obey the third law.
 
  • #16
EL said:
The third law holds for central forces (e.g. gravity, electric).
The magnetic force (which is velocity dependent) is an example that doesn't obey the third law.

That depends on how you look at it.
If the third law doesn't hold, then conservation of momentum doesn't hold either it that case. The total momentum is not just the momentum of the particles that carry the charge, it is also in the fields. If there are no external forces acting on the system, then:
[tex]\frac{d \vec P}{dt}=0[/tex]
where [itex]\vec P[/itex] is the total (mechanical plus electromagnetic) momentum.
Or, in the case of two charged particles:
[tex]\frac{d \vec P_1}{dt}=-\frac{d \vec P_2}{dt}[/tex]
which is Newton's third law.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 240 ·
9
Replies
240
Views
23K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K