Misconceptions about Newton's 3rd Law in GCSE Physics Revision Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy87
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on misconceptions regarding Newton's Third Law as presented in a GCSE physics revision guide. It highlights that while the weight of a book resting on a table is equal to the normal force exerted by the table, these forces do not represent an interaction pair as defined by Newton's Third Law. The guide incorrectly states that the reaction force is equal and opposite to the weight of the book, which misrepresents the concept. Participants agree that while the forces are equal and opposite, they should clarify that they are not an action-reaction pair. The confusion arises from the guide's placement of this information in a section dedicated to Newton's Third Law, leading to potential misunderstandings for students.
Jimmy87
Messages
692
Reaction score
19

Homework Statement


Forces involved when a book is resting on top of a table.

Homework Equations


F = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


This is not really a homework question but it is from school. I found a previous thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/misinterpretation-of-Newtons-third-law.526181/). After reading this a few times it seems to make perfect sense to me. The weight force happens to be the same as the normal force the book exerts on the table but they are not an interaction pair. However, I was reading through one of my old GCSE revision guides for physics. I'm British and GCSE are the main exams you sit before going to college (ages 15-16). If I have understood the attached post then this revision guide is completely incorrect. I have attached the page from the book which is titled "Newton's 3rd Law" and it says in capital letters at the bottom in a bright red box that the reaction force is equal and opposite to the weight! This is a mainstream revision guide available from amazon. Have a missed something or is this completely wrong? It also says before the statement, learn this very important FACT.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
The book exerts a force on the table (equal to the weight of the book) and the table exerts an equal and opposite force on the book. The Earth also exerts a force on the book (equal to the weight of the book) and the book exerts an equal and opposite force on the earth.

The book has weight due to the Earth's gravitational pull, but I don't think that is the intended interaction in the diagram.
 
brainpushups said:
The book exerts a force on the table (equal to the weight of the book) and the table exerts an equal and opposite force on the book. The Earth also exerts a force on the book (equal to the weight of the book) and the book exerts an equal and opposite force on the earth.

The book has weight due to the Earth's gravitational pull, but I don't think that is the intended interaction in the diagram.

But it says in the red box that "the total reaction force is equal and opposite to the weight" and it is in a section titled "Newton's 3rd Law"?
 
Yes. On a horizontal surface the 'reaction' force of the table on the book to the 'action' force of the book pushing on the table will be equal to its weight. I see why you take issue with the phrasing. How would you prefer this fact phrased instead?
 
Perhaps one thing to notice is that not all action-reaction pairs are shown. There should be an orange arrow pointing upward on Earth's center of mass (the reaction force to the book-earth interaction) and a purple arrow pointing down (the 'reaction' force, if you will, of the book pushing on the table). Of course, that might make the drawing a bit confusing.
 
brainpushups said:
Yes. On a horizontal surface the 'reaction' force of the table on the book to the 'action' force of the book pushing on the table will be equal to its weight. I see why you take issue with the phrasing. How would you prefer this fact phrased instead?
I think I'm fine with the "equal and opposite" force because it is equal and opposite to the weight it is just not an interaction pair. So if this distinction is made clear (i.e. that it is not an interaction pair) then there is no problem. However, this is in a section all about Newton's 3rd Law and this seems totally wrong to me. Regardless of whether the phrasing is correct or incorrect it is definitely not a Newton's 3rd Law pair but they are saying it is! Why else would they put it in a section about Newton's 3rd Law? If it was in a section labelled Newton's 2nd Law then I would understand.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...

Similar threads

Back
Top