Is there anything more to forces than being mathematical machinery?

Click For Summary
Forces are defined in classical physics as interactions between bodies that result in motion, but their fundamental nature remains elusive. The discussion highlights that while forces can be measured and modeled, they are often seen as mathematical abstractions rather than physical entities. Newton acknowledged the lack of a rational mechanism for forces like gravity, suggesting a deeper underlying reality. The conversation also emphasizes that the definition of force, such as F = ma, serves as a practical tool for calculations, even if it doesn't fully explain what forces are. Ultimately, the nature of forces may be less important than their consistency and utility within the framework of physics.
  • #61
DrStupid said:
I usually refer to the original wording.
Not usually the best approach. The ideas have been polished and refined since Newton first stated them.
That means that forces are the only cause for changes in the state of motion of bodies. Frames of references are not even mentioned.
A more modern view is that cause and effect are irrelevant. If there is a change of momentum, there is a net force. If there is a net force, there is a change of momentum. The two concepts are not cause and effect -- they are more nearly synonymous. We adopt the definition that a "force" is a transfer of momentum and that an "inertial frame" is one in which Newton's first law holds good.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy and russ_watters
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
vanhees71 said:
Then the 2nd Law says that the causes of changes of the state of motion (the deviation from rectilinear uniform motion) are forces,
That’s what I believe and have found that same expression expressed by some other well known physicists (including you).
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #63
Adesh said:
some other well known physicists

You mean Newton? He's pretty well known, I guess. :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes Adesh
  • #64
etotheipi said:
You mean Newton? He's pretty well known, I guess. :wink:
Mr. Feynman, Mr. Arnold Sommerfeld and few others too.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #65
DrStupid said:
According to N1 force is the cause and the change of motion the effect. How is this not a causality?
Science has ‘identified’ a common but rather slippery intermediate agency - a Force- which takes the place of all other real agencies: horses, falling water, a spring, a magnet etc.. The term Force allows us a common concept that can be treated a bit like money. We can earn money from many sources and spend it in many ways. Maths is what helps us deal with quantities involved. You could say that the causality is between the tennis player and the ball and the force just allows you to appreciate the quantities involved.
Our brains treat both forces and money as if they are real but they’re only in your head. I thing this justifies the OP and you can choose validly to look at things that way.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #66
Since the OP has been answered and this thread is now veering off into a repetition of a discussion that was previously closed it is time to close this thread also.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
581
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K