Foundations: Newton's Third Law and time reversal invariance

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the principles of classical dynamics, particularly Newton's Third Law and its relationship with time reversal invariance and conservation laws. Participants explore the implications of these concepts for physics education and the formulation of fundamental principles in dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose a revised list of classical dynamics principles, emphasizing time reversal invariance as essential.
  • Others argue that time reversal invariance is less critical for elementary physics education compared to conservation laws, asserting that Newton's Third Law derives from conservation of momentum rather than time reversibility.
  • One participant criticizes the separation of the Third Law from conservation principles, suggesting that it complicates understanding for novices.
  • Another participant contends that conservation of momentum does not follow from the First and Second Laws without the Third Law, challenging the assertion that momentum conservation is more profound.
  • Some participants discuss specific scenarios involving forces and accelerations between two objects, questioning the necessity of the Third Law as an independent principle.
  • There is a suggestion that the teaching of Newton's laws should focus on conservation of momentum rather than the Third Law, which is viewed as awkward and redundant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between Newton's Third Law, time reversal invariance, and conservation of momentum. There is no consensus on whether the Third Law is necessary as a separate principle or if it can be derived from conservation laws.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the current educational approach to Newton's laws, noting that vector notation is a relatively recent development and that understanding of Lagrangian mechanics is necessary for a deeper grasp of Noether's theorem, which may not be accessible to novices.

  • #31


Shahin.Omar said:
When you start saying things like; 'good definition of exist or real', 'fictitious forces', 'pseudo forces', 'complicated nature of the issue', 'true vs apparent', 'ifs and buts'. Sorry to say, but they only mean one thing, you have failed to grasp it!

Imagine you are a judge, and there is a witness who uses phrases like the above, what impression would you get?

When you say 'it is complicated' what you really mean is 'it is complicated for me'. When it is complicated for you, tell me what would it be like for the kids, and this is the point here?

On the surface of Earth or inside an accelerated spaceship, you feel the same thing; your weight or gravitational mass' where is the complicacy? You start using terms like d'Alembert's force and it is bound to look complicated.
OK, since you have grasped the issue and it is so simple and you are so smart and I must be an idiot to have ever thought it was complicated please post your clear and easy definition of "exist" which can be applied to forces to show that the forces you listed do exist and inertial forces do not.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
I think this thread has been thoroughly hijacked and gone off the deep end. If the OP has further questions, please contact me to reopen this thread.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K