I Extending Newton's laws -- Is the concept of force still defined?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of Newton's second law in the context of variable mass systems, questioning whether the concept of force remains valid. It is suggested that if external forces cause a body to lose mass, the traditional formulation of force may need reevaluation. The equation presented is deemed dimensionally inconsistent by some participants, leading to debates about the definition of force and its reliance on interactions between multiple bodies. The conversation also touches on the implications of massless particles, like photons, on Newtonian mechanics, highlighting the limitations of applying classical physics to such scenarios. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the complexity of defining force in evolving physical contexts.
  • #31
I won't stop you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Andrew Mason said:
I would propose to restrict the definition of "body" to baryonic matter (using it in the general sense to include electrons in atoms). After all, the concept of force originated with macroscopic objects containing baryonic matter. I realize that this may not work if you want to include as bodies such objects as dark matter, neutrinos, free electrons, black holes etc. However, the concept of force is not particularly useful, if it can apply at all, to such objects.

How about: "A body is an object comprised of baryonic matter, the quantity and identity of which does not change with time".

Baryonic matter appears in relativistic quantum field theories. It has very little to do with classical forces and classical forces are not very useful in the Standard Model either. Already with baryonic matter you run into issues of mass non-conservation.

Andrew Mason said:
We could then define "force" as a physical interaction with the body that changes the motion of a body.
If we accept your definition of "body" as baryonic matter with fixed constituents, you are already out of the constant mass case - as required by relativistic quantum theory.

Either way, your post is full of "we could define" and similar. Even if there were no caveats in the definition of what constitutes a "body", you could also do it in different ways that all capture the essence of Newton's laws of motion when applied to the constant mass case.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #33
Orodruin said:
If by ”force” you mean ”any momentum exchange” (including momentum lost or gained by mass entering or exiting your system) then Newton’s second law F = dp/dt holds as is.
As a matter of personal preference I would define force as the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. That makes it easy to generalize to relativity where the rate of change of the four momentum with respect to proper time is a tensor.
 
  • #34
Dale said:
As a matter of personal preference I would define force as the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. That makes it easy to generalize to relativity where the rate of change of the four momentum with respect to proper time is a tensor.
It is certainly the case that force=dp/dt. But if one defines force as dp/dt then one has to define momentum. If momentum is defined as mass x velocity, one has to define mass in a quantifiable way. But the only way to define mass in a quantifiable way (without resorting to something based on the number of protons+electrons + neutrons) is by its inertia ie.: m=(dp/dt)/(dv/dt) and everything becomes circular. I think the OP was trying to avoid that.

AM
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #35
Andrew Mason said:
If momentum is defined as mass x velocity,
Then momentum can be defined through Noether’s theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #36
dextercioby said:
Let me try to pose post 1 in another form then. Hypotheses once more: two bodies of masses ##m_1 (t)## variable which is acted on by a body of mass ##m_2## (constant) through a force we call it ##\vec{F}_{2,1} (t)##. The effect of the body ##m_2## is to make the other one both move and lose mass in time. Question: can we use the 3 known Newton's laws to calculate their motion (##\vec{x}_{1} (t), \vec{x}_{2} (t)##)? If yes, how? If not, why?
As others have said, this scenario is incompletely specified. Where does the lost mass go? Can you formulate a Lagrangian that covers all entities in the system?

[Btw, I symphathize with your frustration about how your thread keeps being subtly hijacked.]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
Replies
43
Views
3K