Is there evidence that relativity contradicts Newton's 3rd law?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aaryan0077
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between relativity and Newton's third law of motion, exploring whether relativity contradicts or modifies this law. Participants examine various aspects of Newton's laws, particularly focusing on momentum conservation and the implications of relativistic effects on force interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant recalls a vague memory suggesting a connection between relativity and a violation of Newton's third law, specifically mentioning numbers 0 and 9, but lacks clarity on the details.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the relevance of base-10 digits to physical laws and requests a source for the initial claim.
  • Some participants clarify that Newton's laws fundamentally state that momentum is conserved, with one noting that while F = ma is not valid in relativity, the form F = dp/dt remains applicable.
  • A participant discusses how mass increases with velocity in relativity, necessitating the use of the Lorentz factor, and notes that Newton's third law does not strictly hold under relativistic conditions.
  • Another participant describes a scenario involving two bodies exerting forces on each other, arguing that changes in force due to relativistic effects lead to unequal forces at different times in different inertial frames.
  • One participant mentions NASA's tests of an asymmetrical capacitor in a vacuum as evidence against Newton's third law, suggesting it was more a belief than a law, while another participant challenges this claim, citing a NASA report that attributes the observed effects to known physical principles.
  • A later reply introduces Noether's theorem to argue that conservation of momentum is supported across various physical theories, contesting the idea that Newton's third law is invalidated by relativity.
  • Another participant proposes alternative methods that might circumvent Newton's third law, including capturing rocket exhaust through thermal rectification, but this is met with skepticism and accusations of promoting unfounded ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the validity of Newton's third law in the context of relativity, with some arguing that it does not hold under relativistic conditions, while others defend its relevance through conservation principles. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing interpretations and claims about experimental evidence.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on specific interpretations of relativistic effects and the definitions of force and mass, which may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes references to experimental claims that are contested, highlighting the complexity of the topic.

aaryan0077
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Okay, I know it may sound stupid but I read somewhere (long ago) that relativity puts Newton's 3rd law in confutable state.
I don't remember how the article exactly read but I remember that it has some connections with 0 and 9. It was like ( as in my fade memory I remember ) that Newton's 3rd law violates (or doesn't connect, or something related) something (sort of mapping I think) between 0 and 9.

I am totally confused?
Does relativity really discards the 3rd law, and if so, how? What about that 0 and 9 connection (or mapping or whatever) ?
What does this all means?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have never heard of anything like that. It would be very surprising to me to find that base-10 digits have anything to do with any physical laws. Can you link to your source?
 
Newton had three laws, but they only say one thing: momentum is conserved.

You might be thinking of his second law being invalid. It's sometimes written as F = ma. This isn't correct in relativity. However, another form of this same law, F = dp/dt (where p is the momenum) IS valid.
 
DaleSpam said:
I have never heard of anything like that. It would be very surprising to me to find that base-10 digits have anything to do with any physical laws. Can you link to your source?

Yeah its surprizing to me too. As I said I read that long ago, and some days ago it just struck my mind when I was thinking of relativity. I tried to remind myself of something more, but no luck ( though I could remember that 0 and 9 was in concern of solar system and I remember nothing more than that ).

For source sorry I cannot link you to anything.
Anyway thanks for your try.:smile:
 
Tac-Tics said:
Newton had three laws, but they only say one thing: momentum is conserved.

You might be thinking of his second law being invalid. It's sometimes written as F = ma. This isn't correct in relativity. However, another form of this same law, F = dp/dt (where p is the momenum) IS valid.

Yeah! I knew that!
I think I'll have to get something more than just fade memory to discuss something. :frown:
Anyway thanks! :wink:
 
In regard to f=ma (as someone supposed was your question), consider that mass is not constant, but increases the higher the velocity. This is a case where a Lorentz factor has to be used. This is such a minute correction at non-relativistic speeds that it doesn't matter, but at relativistic speeds (where velocity is a significant fraction of c) it can be very significant.

As to the third law, it's true that it does not strictly hold under relativity. Here's a short 3-page paper that discusses it; you might have read between the differential equations, but it lines it out:

http://physicsanddrums.com/Newtons_third_law.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aaryan0077 said:
Does relativity really discards the 3rd law, and if so, how?
Newton's third law says: if a body A exerts a force on a body B, the body B exerts a force on the body A and the two forces are opposite in direction and equal in magnetude.
Relativity laws says that the interaction (forces) between A and B can't "travel" with a speed higher than c and a change in the force that A exerts on B will take some time to reach B. For exemple, A and B are two electrically charged bodies in vacuum separated by a distance L. If we move A a little bit from its initial position, there will a change the force exerted on B, but B will not know that change before a time T=L/c. During that time B still "feels" the initial value of the force exerted by A, and A, in its new position, "feels" a new value of the force exerted by B. During that time, these two forces are generally not equal in magnetude and are not in oppposite directions.
 
Yeah it looks like Newton's third law is going down. Nasa tested the asymetrical capacitor in a vacuum and it propelled itself. Newton's third law was more a statement of belief than anything else as there was no known violation of Newton's third law in nature, but then you don't find cell phones much in nature either. There may be another more practical system that if anyone wants a link to it I will find it for them that proposes a gauge theory that ties the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy together.
 
  • #10
As I said in "Force & S.Relativity" , meaning of simultaneity in relativity is relative. It depends on frame & is not general.
Let design an artificial experiment. Assume that there are just two bodies A & B in universe that exert force to each other.Suppose we have some inertial frames. In on of the inertial frames at instant T we measure the force A exerts on B and B on A. If third law of Newton was true , this two forces must be equal. but these two measurements in another inertial frame that has velocity relative to the first , are not simultaneous. I think it could be showed that if third law waz true , the force between A & B should be constant regard to time for each inertial frame.

Good luck
 
  • #11
Newton's 3rd law is a statement of the conservation of momentum which arises from the fact that the Lagrangian is symmetric wrt displacements in space (Google Noether's theorem). SR, GR, QM, and the Standard Model all support the conservation of momentum. You are mistaken.
 
  • #12
There is a lot of information on the Web about the assymetrical capacitor propulsion. One place the video of the test that NASA did in 2003 can be seen is at:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/90739...or_test_in_vacuum_at_nasa_nsstc_leeif_facili/

The NASA report about it is at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf

Another proposed method of getting around the 3rd Law has to do with capturing the exhaust of a rocket using a thermal rectification process. It can be found at this link:
[crackpot link deleted]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Jedi_Sawyer said:
The NASA report about it is at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213312.pdf
Here's the last two sentences of the NASA report, which clearly and directly contradict your assertion:
In
spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the
thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the
contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only
electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions.
Let me be perfectly clear: what you are claiming is not only factually wrong, but it is crackpottery. It is against the forum guidelines to post factually wrong information and crackpot ideas. Mistakes are one thing, but now you know.
Another proposed method of getting around the 3rd Law has to do with capturing the exhaust of a rocket using a thermal rectification process. It can be found at this link:
[crackpot link deleted]
That one is seriously just pathetic. It is the classic crackpot problem: they make the problem just complicated enough that they no longer understand what is going on. Don't post it or such ideas again.

Question answered, thread locked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K