Need Conceptual Framework for Reaction vs. Net Force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the net forces acting on accelerating boxes in contact with each other. While the mathematical relationship (F=MA) clarifies that different masses lead to different net forces, the conceptual understanding of force transfer between boxes remains unclear. The key point is that while action and reaction forces are equal and opposite, they do not cancel each other out in the context of acceleration; instead, the net force on each box is influenced by the mass and the external force applied. This means that box 2 can still accelerate despite exerting an equal force back on box 1, as the net force acting on each box is determined by their respective masses and the overall system dynamics. A deeper conceptual grasp of these principles can enhance intuition in solving related physics problems.
jon4444
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
I find the common physics problem of accelerating boxes that are touching very confusing. (To be clear, boxes are on surface, force comes from one side and all boxes accelerate. Questions typically ask about magnitude of force between particular boxes).
Once the boxes are accelerating, why is the net force on each different? I understand mathematically that it needs to be different if their masses are different (due to F=MA), but I can't get my head around it conceptually--what "happens" to the force as it gets transferred from box to box. Why does it vary?
Related, if the force from box 1 on box 2 is equivalent to the force from box 2 on box 1, why are they moving? Again, I get the idea that the reaction forces are different than the net forces, but conceptually, how can box 2 be accelerating if it's pushing just as hard back on box 1? (I.e., wouldn't the force coming from box 1 be "neutralized" by the reaction force?)
I know how to solve these problems to get the right answer in a textbook but any insights at the conceptual level to help develop a more intuitive understanding of the situation would be appreciated.
Jon
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jon4444 said:
Related, if the force from box 1 on box 2 is equivalent to the force from box 2 on box 1, why are they moving? Again, I get the idea that the reaction forces are different than the net forces, but conceptually, how can box 2 be accelerating if it's pushing just as hard back on box 1? (I.e., wouldn't the force coming from box 1 be "neutralized" by the reaction force?)
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/physics/horsecart.htm
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top