Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Force instantaneous?

  1. Aug 28, 2009 #1
    Is force instantaneous or does it travel at the speed of light, and why?

    Like is the gravitational effect felt on us by the sun immediate or does it take 8 minutes or so to be realized?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2009 #2

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Assuming you are applying a force to something, then the effects of that force travel through the object at the speed of sound in that object. Much slower then the speed of light.
     
  4. Aug 28, 2009 #3

    rcgldr

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

  5. Aug 28, 2009 #4
    Gravity's a different creature. But if you were to don a suit of magnetized iron armor and sit on the earth and send a gigantic electromagnet to the sun and then someone switched it on, then yes, it would take 8 minutes for you to feel the tug.
     
  6. Aug 28, 2009 #5
    why would it not be instantaneous?
     
  7. Aug 28, 2009 #6

    Fuz

    User Avatar

    Gravity travels at exactly the speed of light. If the sun were to disappear right now, the Earth would keep revolving as if the sun were still there. After about 8 minutes the Earth would notice the absence of the suns gravity and would just float off into space.
     
  8. Aug 28, 2009 #7
    Because the messenger particles that mediate the force only travel at c.
     
  9. Aug 28, 2009 #8
    Mechanical forces propagate energy as mechanical waves (speed depends on the inertial and elastic properties of the the medium). Gravity, by what I've heard and read, propagates at the speed of light - meaning that if the sun suddenly disappeared, the planets that were orbiting it would take a while to go off course.
     
  10. Aug 28, 2009 #9
    In this folder gravity is instantaneous. A few folders down it propagates somewhat slower--sort-of.
     
  11. Aug 29, 2009 #10
    Gravity is instantaneous. If it were not there would be a "drag" factor on any rotating body because the force would be acting behind the radius line. Because mass absorbs space the support between two masses is removed and the effect is instantaneous. If ten matches were separating two masses and two (one from each end) were removed the shortened distance would be immediate. This is the reason for the constant acceleration of a rotating body toward the middle.
     
  12. Aug 29, 2009 #11

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Gravity is instantaneous in Newtonian physics. In general relativity it is not.

    That is a common argument used against general relativity by those who do not understand it. If that is all there was to general relativity that argument would be correct. However, there is more (a whole lot more) to general relativity than a finite propagation time for gravity. Other terms such as frame dragging nearly cancel the effects of frame dragging. For example, for planets far from the Sun and moving at relatively slow speeds compared to light speed it looks very much like gravity does propagate instantaneously. This is not the case for Mercury. That general relativity explained a known defect with the Newtonian explanation of Mercury's orbit was one of the reasons general relativity won the day over Newtonian mechanics.

    This is meaningless nonsense.
     
  13. Aug 29, 2009 #12

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As DH already said, this simlistic logic is wrong. It assumes that a field can only contain information about the position of the source during emission. But a field can also contain information about the velocity of the source during emission.

    The electric field is like this too: The field lines of a inertially moving charge always point towards the current position of the charge, not some old position from which the field was emitted. But this does not meant the electric field is instantaneous. It just means that the field moves at the same speed as the source was moving during emission.
     
  14. Aug 29, 2009 #13
    Isn't the idea of two events happening instantaneously actually a rather bizarre idea in itself? I have read about the idea in quantum mechanics with spins of certain particles, but our basic human model of what instantaneous really is seems ambiguous and hard to define. Just my slightly philisophical take. Time is a human construct. Any ideas that would help me would be appreciated so I thank the first poster for posing the question to begin with. Human models and what reality presents can be vexing. And I really dont know what I mean by reality. anyhow... any particular way people look at events and time would be helpful for me.
     
  15. Aug 29, 2009 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No it isn't. It is a human word used to describe a natural phenomena. Time exists whether we are here to observe it or not.
     
  16. Aug 29, 2009 #15
    The arrow of time may be a human construct.
     
  17. Aug 29, 2009 #16
    We can't really be sure whether something is a human construct or not. Even reality, despite how paradoxical it is, is something we take as common sense and for granted.
     
  18. Aug 29, 2009 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, the arrow of time is a consequence of thermodynamics. It is also built into the laws of the universe.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2009 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, we really can. You guys are arguing against the definition of science here. The whole point of science is to explain/understand natural phenomena. That is - things that exist in nature, whether we are here to observe them or not.

    If we define a "year" to be something other than its current definition, that doesn't make the sun any younger or older.
     
  20. Aug 29, 2009 #19
    That's not the current consensus I'm afraid. The second law of thermodynamics is not sufficient explanation. Actually Sean Carroll just wrote a book about this (Here to Eternity).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
     
  21. Aug 29, 2009 #20

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ??? In that wiki article there are 7 "arrows of time" listed and 6 of them are consequences/manifestations of the thermodynamic arrow.

    Since that article doesn't mention Sean Carroll, it doesn't really say anything about what you are talking about...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is Force instantaneous?
  1. Instantaneous speed (Replies: 2)

Loading...