Body Force vs Inertial Force: What's the Difference?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between body forces and inertial forces in physics. Body forces, such as gravitational and buoyant forces, are considered "real" because they act on the entire body and are associated with third law pairs. In contrast, inertial forces, like those represented by the m*a term, arise from resistance to motion and are not classified as real forces. The interpretation of gravity varies between Newtonian mechanics, where it is a real force, and General Relativity, where it is viewed as an inertial force. This nuanced understanding highlights the complexity of force classification in different physical frameworks.
CamJPete
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone. This is my first time on the physics forum, but I think I'm going to be a regular here.

I was reading a paper that outlined various ways to approach solving dynamic problems. The first approach outlined by the author is D'Alembert's principle of virtual work. In describing the history of this method, he states that "The technical community eventually took the position that dynamics should not be treated as a special case of statics, but rather the other way around. In other words, we soon placed the ma term on the right side of the equations of motion and included only real (contact and body) forces on the left side."(underlines added)

I understand what he is saying here that this principle eventually morphed into Newton's second law of F=ma, but I am confused by his calling a body force a "real" force. As I currently understand it, the m*a term is called an "inertial or psuedo force" (caused by resistance to motion, not truly a real force). But isn't the body force (say due to acceleration of gravity acting on the mass) an inertial force also? Why would it be included on the left side? In short: "what is the difference between a body force due to gravitational acceleration (that apparently belongs as part of sum of F on the left side of the equation), and an inertial force due to acceleration (that apparently belongs on m*a right hand side of the equation)?
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
As used in that statement, the term "body force" is intended to describe such things a gravitational force or a buoyant force. The essential character of a "body force" is that it is distributed over a body, or at least over an exterior surface. A contact force acts at an identifiable point, such as a point of attachment.
 
CamJPete said:
But isn't the body force (say due to acceleration of gravity acting on the mass) an inertial force also?
This is a good question, but it doesn't have a good answer. The answer is "it depends".

In Newtonian mechanics the force of gravity is taken to be a real force which acts on the whole body (hence a body force). Although it is proportional to mass like an inertial force, it is considered to be a real force by virtue of the fact that it comes in 3rd law pairs unlike inertial forces.

In General Relativity, the answer is different, the force of gravity is taken to be an inertial force. All forces which are proportional to mass and therefore are undetectable by an accelerometer are treated as inertial forces, and only forces which cause detectable acceleration by an attached accelerometer are considered to be real forces.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top