2 Reactions of 2 objects are not at equilibrium

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of equilibrium in the context of forces acting on objects. It clarifies that when a body is placed on a smooth surface, the surface exerts an upward force while the body exerts a downward force, which are equal and opposite according to Newton's Third Law. However, for the body to be in equilibrium, the net forces acting on it must sum to zero, which includes the gravitational force acting downward. The confusion arises from misunderstanding that the action-reaction forces do not act on the same object, thus they do not determine the equilibrium of the object itself. Ultimately, equilibrium is achieved when all forces acting on a single object cancel out, leading to no net force.
kira506
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Why are the reactions from two objects not at equilibrium ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your question. In particular, I don't understand what you mean by "reactions [...] not at equilibrium". Can you please give a specific example?
 
jtbell said:
I don't understand your question. In particular, I don't understand what you mean by "reactions [...] not at equilibrium". Can you please give a specific example?


sorry , I was in a hurry XD
I meant if a body is placed on a smooth surface ,the surface exerts a reaction on the body and so does the body so why are they not at equilinrium , I know its because of the weight mg , I know , but I can't understand why , I mean the 2 reactions are enough bec. According to Newton) 3rd law , every action has a reaction equal in magnitude but opposite in direction , unless the values of reactions are not equal ?
 
I still cannot make sense of your question because "if a body is placed on a smooth surface ,the surface exerts a reaction on the body and so does the body" (assuming the surface is horizontal) then we do have an equilibrium situation. As long as all force vectors cancel, so there is no net force, then we have equilibrium. I also do not understand "unless the values of the reactions are not equal". That is certainly NOT part of Newton's 3rd law.
 
kira506 said:
so why are they not at equilinrium

You still haven't said what you mean by "not at equilibrium." Like HallsofIvy, I don't understand what you're really asking about.

Right now, my coffee cup is resting on the table next to my elbow. The table exerts an upwards force on the coffee cup. The coffee cup exerts a downwards force on the table. These two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, according to Newton's Third Law. The coffee cup is also in equilibrium, because it's stationary (not accelerating).

Note however, that the reason why the coffee cup is in equilibrium is not because the two forces named above add up to zero, because those two forces act on different objects. (Maybe this is what is confusing you?)

The coffee cup is in equilibrium because the forces that act on it add up to zero. One force is the upwards force exerted by the table. The other force is the downwards gravitational force exerted by the earth. These two forces add up to zero, therefore the coffee cup is in equlibrium.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Reaction force of and its relation to normal force and friction
Replies
20
Views
4K
B The application of Newton's laws to fluid equilibrium
Replies
17
Views
2K
I To predict the nature of Normal Reaction in any mechanics set-up
Replies
10
Views
1K
B Why Does a Spring Return to Its Original Position After Being Stretched?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Gibbs Energy and chemical equilibrium
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Question about Action-Reaction Forces
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Equilibrium constant change with stoichiometric doubling (Callen)?
Replies
5
Views
2K
B Action-Reaction forces and angles
Replies
11
Views
1K
A Radiation back reaction in classical electrodynamics
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Calculating vapor pressure from Boltzmann distribution?
Replies
0
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top