Difference between Newton's first and second law

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between Newton's first and second laws of motion, particularly focusing on the concepts of acceleration and net force. Participants are exploring the implications of these laws in the context of inertial frames of reference.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the relationship between acceleration and net force as described by Newton's laws. Questions arise about the definitions and implications of these laws, particularly regarding the conditions under which a particle is at rest or moving at constant velocity.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the relationship between the laws, noting that Newton's first law can be seen as a special case of the second law. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and implications of terms like "rate of change of momentum," with some participants seeking further clarification on these concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the participants' varying familiarity with calculus, which may influence their understanding of the discussion. The conversation also touches on the distinction between constant and variable mass in the context of Newton's second law.

alpha372
Messages
43
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'd just like some verification really: see step three


Homework Equations



net force = 0 --> equilibrium; net force = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


I've come to the conclusion that the difference between Newton's first law and second law is acceleration:

Newton's first law:
absence of acceleration

Newton's second law:
presence of acceleration

I was wondering if it would be safe to say:

"A particle not accelerating in an inertial frame of reference implies that the net force acting on the particle is zero"

(after all, if it is not accelerating, wouldn't that automatically imply that the particle is a rest or moving at a constant velocity?)

Instead of what the book more or less says:
"A particle at rest or moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame of reference implies that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is zero"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
alpha372 said:

Homework Statement


I'd just like some verification really: see step three


Homework Equations



net force = 0 --> equilibrium; net force = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


I've come to the conclusion that the difference between Newton's first law and second law is acceleration:

Newton's first law:
absence of acceleration

Newton's second law:
presence of acceleration

I was wondering if it would be safe to say:

"A particle not accelerating in an inertial frame of reference implies that the net force acting on the particle is zero"

(after all, if it is not accelerating, wouldn't that automatically imply that the particle is a rest or moving at a constant velocity?)

Instead of what the book more or less says:
"A particle at rest or moving at a constant velocity in an inertial frame of reference implies that the sum of the forces acting on the particle is zero"
That's right, both statements are correct. Newton's first law is just a special case of his 2nd, when a=0. A particle at rest or moving with constant velocity, will remain at rest or moving with constant velocity, unless acted on by a net unbalanced force (Newton 1). If a net unbalnced force acts on a particle,it will accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force (Newton2: Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass).
 
PhanthomJay said:
That's right, both statements are correct. Newton's first law is just a special case of his 2nd, when a=0. A particle at rest or moving with constant velocity, will remain at rest or moving with constant velocity, unless acted on by a net unbalanced force (Newton 1). If a net unbalnced force acts on a particle,it will accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force (Newton2: Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass).

Thank you. I like how you pointed out that Net Force = rate of change of momentum, or f=ma for constant mass, I didn't know about the "Net Force = rate of change of momentum" equation.
 
oh, it has been awhile since I've been in a calc class.

Does, "rate of change of momentum" mean the derivative of momentum?
 
alpha372 said:
oh, it has been awhile since I've been in a calc class.

Does, "rate of change of momentum" mean the derivative of momentum?
It's been awhile for me, too! Yes, it's the first derivative of the momentum with respect to time. Newton 2 may be written as [tex]F_{net} = d(mv)/dt[/tex]. When mass is constant, this boils down to [tex]F_{net} = m(dv/dt)[/tex], and since dv/dt =a, then [tex]F_{net} = ma[/tex]. When mass is not constant (like in rocket propulsion problems where the rocket is burning off fuel), you've got to use the more general equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K