Friction: Little Hills & Valleys vs Better Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter wavelength
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the inadequacy of the "little hills and valleys" theory used to explain friction, questioning the necessity of friction to describe itself. Participants argue that electromagnetic interactions between atoms, specifically the attraction and repulsion of electric charges, could provide a more fundamental explanation for friction. The conversation highlights the broader issue that friction remains poorly understood in physics, despite its significant potential for practical applications if better understood.
wavelength
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
what is up with the theroy of little hills and valleys being used to describe friction! in order for this to work you need friction!
There has to be a better theroy! any ideas!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you need friction to explain friction? Just e/m interaction of atoms (=attraction and repulsion between electric charges) would do it.
 
Truth is, friction is not well understood by anybody. A surprising state fo affairs, considering it is one area of physics wherein greater understanding could yield tremendous amounts of practical application.
 
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