Newton's 1st Law: Object at Constant Speed, No Reaction Force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Newton's laws of motion, particularly focusing on the implications of an object moving at constant speed without an external force acting on it. Participants explore the concepts of force, reaction forces, and the behavior of objects during collisions, raising questions about the nature of forces and motion in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that an object traveling at constant speed does not exert a force unless acted upon by another object, raising questions about the nature of collisions.
  • Others argue that when two objects collide, they exert forces on each other, contradicting the idea that an object can move without exerting a force.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of Newton's first and third laws, with some participants emphasizing that forces arise during collisions.
  • Concerns are raised about how an object can exert a force if it was previously moving without any external forces acting on it.
  • Some participants introduce the concept of inertia and suggest that it plays a role in maintaining motion until a collision occurs.
  • The impulse-momentum theorem is mentioned as a way to understand changes in motion during impacts, although some participants express unfamiliarity with the concept of momentum.
  • Free-body diagrams are suggested as a method for visualizing forces acting on colliding objects, highlighting the distinction between forces on different bodies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, as there are multiple competing views regarding the nature of forces during motion and collisions. Some participants maintain that an object can move without exerting a force, while others argue that forces are always involved during interactions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying levels of understanding of momentum and forces, as well as differing interpretations of Newton's laws. Some participants express confusion about the source of energy or force during collisions.

adjacent
Gold Member
Messages
1,552
Reaction score
62
An object is traveling at constant speed.There is no force on it(It means it won't also exert any force on any object)What will happen if I put something in its path?If it does not exert a force there will be no reaction force(Newtons 3rd law).Then what will happen to it?
 
Science news on Phys.org
What makes you say it won't exert a force? If you put an object in the particle's path, the object exerts a force on the particle when the two come into contact, so the particle will no longer be traveling at the same velocity. This is essentially a collision problem.
 
adjacent said:
An object is traveling at constant speed.There is no force on it(It means it won't also exert any force on any object)What will happen if I put something in its path?If it does not exert a force there will be no reaction force(Newtons 3rd law).Then what will happen to it?
If you put something in its path they will collide and exert forces on each other. Newton's first law says that an object will maintain the same speed and direction unless acted upon by some force. When the object collides with something, that something exerts a force on it.
 
If there is an action there should be a reaction.If the object exert a force the particle should also exert a force on the object BUT the particle is moving without any force.That was my question
 
The particle was free of forces before colliding. As soon as it collides, the particle exerts a force on the object that is equal and opposite to the force the object exerts on the particle.
 
WannabeNewton said:
The particle was free of forces before colliding. As soon as it collides, the particle exerts a force on the object that is equal and opposite to the force the object exerts on the particle.
That doesn't make a sense to me.How can some thing make a force out of nothing?
 
adjacent said:
That doesn't make a sense to me.How can some thing make a force out of nothing?
It isn't coming out of nothing. It is coming due to collision with the object. If there was no force on the particle due to colliding with the object, it would move on with the same velocity it originally had which is only possible if it passes freely through the object - this does not happen classically.
 
adjacent,

There are only two possibilities:

1) there is no force on the object: the object will move in a straight line at a constant speed (Newton's 1st).
2) there is a force on the object: the object will accelerate (Newton's 2nd) AND will exert a force on other objects (Newton's 2nd).

You seem to be thinking that there is some third possibility, there is not.
 
The fact that the sum of the forces acting on the object is zero, doesn't mean that the object doesn't have momentum (unless its mass is zero or it's motionless). Now, if you put an obstacle in its path (say another object or a solid wall) there will be an impact, its speed will change and you can use the impulse-momentum theorem to find what you need.
 
  • #10
Aero_UoP said:
The fact that the sum of the forces acting on the object is zero, doesn't mean that the object doesn't have momentum (unless its mass is zero or it's motionless). Now, if you put an obstacle in its path (say another object or a solid wall) there will be an impact, its speed will change and you can use the impulse-momentum theorem to find what you need.
I have not studied momentum yet
 
  • #11
Another question ,If a ball gets hit on the wall,the ball as well as the wall will exert the same force.Then how come the ball bounce back.It should be in equilibrium?
 
  • #12
You don't need to know momentum to understand this in an intuitive manner. Throw a ball at a wall - the ball will of course recoil backwards. How do you suppose its direction changed if there was no force on it? The force is coming from the contact.

The ball is not in equilibrium. There is a net force on it, the one being exerted on it by the wall. Newton's 3rd law says the wall exerts a force on the ball that is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the ball on the wall. Both will feel a force, they don't cancel out for both objects because the mutual reaction forces are acting on two different objects.
 
  • #13
adjacent said:
If there is an action there should be a reaction.
Right.

If the object exert a force the particle should also exert a force on the object
Right.

BUT the particle is moving without any force.
Until it collided with something. :smile:
 
  • #14
WannabeNewton said:
You don't need to know momentum to understand this in an intuitive manner. Throw a ball at a wall - the ball will of course recoil backwards. How do you suppose its direction changed if there was no force on it? The force is coming from the contact.

The ball is not in equilibrium. There is a net force on it, the one being exerted on it by the wall. Newton's 3rd law says the wall exerts a force on the ball that is equal and opposite to the force exerted by the ball on the wall. Both will feel a force, they don't cancel out for both objects because the mutual reaction forces are acting on two different objects.
Thanks. May be in the first question there could be inertial force or something that keeps the object moving in the same way.And exerting forces on objects?
 
  • #15
adjacent said:
Another question ,If a ball gets hit on the wall,the ball as well as the wall will exert the same force.Then how come the ball bounce back.It should be in equilibrium?
The best approach for understanding this is using free-body diagrams (FBD). Draw one FBD for the ball and one for the wall. On the FBD for the ball there are two forces, the weight of the ball pointing down, and the normal force from the wall pointing backwards. On the FBD for the wall there are also two forces, the weight of the wall pointing down, and the normal force from the ball pointing forwards.

According to Newton's third law the normal force from the wall on the ball in the first FBD is equal and opposite to the normal force from the ball on the wall in the second FBD. Note that those two forces are on different FBD's because they act on different objects.

Now consider Newton's second law. The mass of the ball times its acceleration is equal to the sum of the forces acting on the ball, i.e. the sum of the forces on the first FBD. The mass of the wall times its acceleration is equal to the sum of the forces acting on the wall, i.e. the sum of the forces on the second FBD.

The two forces in a Newton's third law pair act on DIFFERENT bodies so they NEVER get summed together.
 
  • #16
adjacent said:
Thanks. May be in the first question there could be inertial force or something that keeps the object moving in the same way.And exerting forces on objects?
Inertial forces (aka fictitious forces) show up in non-inertial reference frames. You don't want to deal with those at this point. Stick to inertial reference frames where Newton's laws hold until you have fully mastered them. Only then look at inertial forces, etc.
 
  • #17
Doc Al said:
Right.


Right.


Until it collided with something. :smile:
I have confusion on this Until it collided with something From where is the energy provided for it to produce a force on the object?
 
  • #18
Inertia should be involved.Object wants to be in the same way.When another object collides on it,Inertia exerts a force on the other object.That is my thinking
 
  • #19
Another way to think of this is to think about billiard. When you hit the ball with the cue, the ball starts moving. You can suppose that the friction between the ball and the table as well as the aerodynamic drag are neligible. Thus, sum of the forces acting on the ball is zero and the ball will keep on moving at constant speed until it hits another ball. Newton's first law applies up to here. From the moment of impact on, the ball's velocity and direction will change and the other ball will start moving as well. This phenomenon is now described my the impulse-momentum theorem. Google it ;)
 
  • #20
Can someone explain #18?
 
  • #21
adjacent said:
I have confusion on this Until it collided with something From where is the energy provided for it to produce a force on the object?
Two points:
(1) Force doesn't require energy; they are different things.
(2) The object was moving!
 
  • #22
What about Inertia on 18#?Doc Al?
 
  • #23
adjacent said:
Inertia should be involved.Object wants to be in the same way.When another object collides on it,Inertia exerts a force on the other object.That is my thinking
That's an OK way to think of it. (Almost.)

Objects have inertia (mass). When moving, they "want" to keep going at the same speed in the same direction. But when they collide with something, they are prevented from doing that. The colliding objects exert forces on each other.
 
  • #24
adjacent said:
Inertia should be involved.Object wants to be in the same way.When another object collides on it,Inertia exerts a force on the other object.That is my thinking
Your thinking is slightly off. When an object collides with another the force is the normal or contact force. Inertia may be the reason that the objects are in contact, but it is the contact which exerts the force. Inertia itself does NOT produce a force in inertial reference frames.

Inertial forces are an advanced topic that you need to wait for until you have mastered Newtons laws with real forces.
 
  • #25
Is Doc Als Explanation correct,DaleSpam? Is there any mathematical explanation for it?
 
  • #26
adjacent said:
Is Doc Als Explanation correct,DaleSpam? Is there any mathematical explanation for it?
I think we're basically saying the same thing. (I don't think you had "inertial forces" in mind when you mentioned inertia. As DaleSpam says, that's a more advanced subject.)
 
  • #27
Doc Al said:
I think we're basically saying the same thing. (I don't think you had "inertial forces" in mind when you mentioned inertia. As DaleSpam says, that's a more advanced subject.)
He specifically mentioned inertial forces in post 14:
adjacent (emphasis added) said:
May be in the first question there could be inertial force or something that keeps the object moving in the same way.
I am trying to steer him away from that concept until he masters standard Newtonian mechanics concepts.

It could be that he used the words without realizing that they have a specific meaning, which he did not intend.
 
  • #28
adjacent, at this point in your education, it is best to think simply that inertia is another word for mass. The forces are exerted on an object through various interactions (contact, electromagnetism, gravity, etc.) and it responds to a force by accelerating by an amount related to its inertia by f=ma. So inertia is a description of the response of the object to an external force, not the source of that force. The source of the force is the appropriate interaction.
 
  • #29
DaleSpam said:
He specifically mentioned inertial forces in post 14:I am trying to steer him away from that concept until he masters standard Newtonian mechanics concepts.
I missed that explicit reference. Oops!

It could be that he used the words without realizing that they have a specific meaning, which he did not intend.
That's what I assumed.
 
  • #30
Thanks
 

Similar threads

High School Newton's first law and a body on an infinite and frictionless road
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Newton's Third Law: Action & Reaction Along the Line Connecting Two Objects
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate The Confusion of Weight and Mass in Physics Education
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
High School Is Newton's Second Law Flawed? An Exploration of Zero Force in Space
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K
Undergrad Newton's first law of motion and Inertial Systems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Newton's First law and KT of Gases
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Question about Newton's Second and Third Laws
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
High School Newton's Third Law: Equal Forces & Stationary Object?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Are frictional forces action forces or reaction forces?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad Does Newton's or Galileo's first law depend on gravity?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K