Understanding Newton's Second Law: How kgm/s2 Relates to Force

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter -Physician
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Newton
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between Newton's second law and the units of force, specifically how the formula for force relates to dimensional analysis and the concepts of acceleration and velocity. Participants explore the implications of different formulations of force, including the transition from \( F = \frac{mv}{t} \) to \( F = ma \), and the validity of dimensional analysis in calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the formula \( F = \frac{mv}{t} \) leads to \( F = ma \) and discuss the dimensional consistency of both formulations.
  • Others emphasize that while the dimensions match, the relationship between acceleration and the change in velocity over time is not captured solely by dimensional analysis.
  • There is a contention regarding the applicability of dimensional analysis in calculus, with some arguing that it does not account for the differences between average velocity over time and instantaneous acceleration.
  • One participant points out that the dimensions of derivatives remain consistent, suggesting a general rule about the dimensions of derivatives.
  • Another participant expresses concern that the discussion may have misrepresented the role of dimensional analysis in understanding physical relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement, particularly regarding the interpretation and application of dimensional analysis in the context of calculus. There is no consensus on the implications of these analyses for understanding Newton's second law.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that assumptions made in the analysis may affect the accuracy of conclusions drawn, particularly in relation to the definitions of velocity and acceleration.

-Physician
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Okay, so if we have the work Formula:
##A=Fd## we have units: ##N*m## which gives us joule ##J##,
but if we have the formula of the force:
##F=\frac{mv}{t}## we would have ##\frac{kg * \frac{m}{s}}{s}## which gives us ##kg \frac{m}{s^2}##, so does that give Newton?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, because kg = mass and m/s^-2 = acceleration so... mass x acceleration = Force
 
So formula ##F=\frac{mv}{t}## gives us formula ##F=ma## or ##F=ma## gives us ##F=\frac{mv}{t}## ?
 
Looks OK to me. The dimensions are the same on both sides of the equation.
Why would you doubt this?
Science is consistent and full of little interesting bits like this. Enjoy.
 
-Physician said:
So formula ##F=\frac{mv}{t}## gives us formula ##F=ma## or ##F=ma## gives us ##F=\frac{mv}{t}## ?
That's about right, just the variation is missing. I assume that you know that acceleration is the variation of velocity over time. Dimensional analysis doesn't provide that kind of information.

Newton's second law is that F ~ dp/dt with p=mv
 
harrylin said:
Dimensional analysis doesn't provide that kind of information.

How not??
Acceleration: ST-2
 
sophiecentaur said:
How not??
Acceleration: ST-2
Again: it doesn't provide the information about v/t vs. dv/dt.
 
Same units same dimensio. Even same value for uniform acceleration. What probem do you have?
 
sophiecentaur said:
Same units same dimensio. Even same value for uniform acceleration. What probem do you have?
I have no problem.
 
  • #10
But you claim that Dimensional Analysis doesn't work in calculus?
 
  • #11
[tex] \frac{d v}{d t} = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t} = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \frac{v(t + \Delta t) - v(t)}{\Delta t}[/tex]

Now, look at the numerator (angle brackets mean dimension of ...):
[tex] \left[ v(t) \right] = \left[ v(t + \Delta t)\right] = \left[ v \right] \Rightarrow \left[ \Delta v \right] \equiv \left[ v(t + \Delta t) - v(t) \right] = \left[ v \right][/tex]
where we had used the rule from Dimensional analysis that one can only add and subtract physical quantities with the same dimension, and the result is of the same dimension.

Next, look at the fraction:
[tex] \left[ \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t} \right] = \frac{\left[\Delta v \right]}{\left[ \Delta t \right]} = \frac{\left[ v \right]}{\left[ t \right]}[/tex]
where we had used the rule of Dimensional analysis that the dimension of a product or ratio of two physical quantities is the product or ratio of their dimensions.

Even if you take the limit as [itex]\Delta t \rightarrow 0[/itex], the dimensions of the ratio do not change. So:
[tex] \left[ \frac{d v}{d t} \right] = \left[ \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t} \right] = \frac{\left[ v \right]}{\left[ t \right]}[/tex]

This is a general rule: The dimensions of a derivative of y w.r.t. x is simply [y]/[x].
 
  • #12
sophiecentaur said:
But you claim that Dimensional Analysis doesn't work in calculus?
No, not at all. I simply warned the OP that v/t is not identical to dv/dt. For example, if m=1, v=1, t=1, F =/= 1 (except by pure chance) :rolleyes:
 
  • #13
I think it was you who brought DA into it and you seemed to be 'dissin' it. All you were really doing was questioning the accuracy resulting from some assomptions? I'll buy that.
 
  • #14
sophiecentaur said:
I think it was you who brought DA into it and you seemed to be 'dissin' it. All you were really doing was questioning the accuracy resulting from some assomptions? I'll buy that.
No, it wasn't me - and let's hope that the OP gets it. :smile:
 
  • #15
Thank you all for your comments. I got it all
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K