1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Newton's Law of motion

  1. Oct 20, 2012 #1

    bgq

    User Avatar

    Hi,

    Newton's 2nd Law can study the motion of the objects in the case of zero net force:

    F = ma

    if F = 0 then a = 0 then v = constant, then the object is either at rest (v=0) or moving in uniform rectilinear motion. (Bold quantities are vectors).

    What is the point of Newton's first law as it is nothing more than a special case of Newton's 2nd Law?

    I am sure there is a good reason that Newton himself stated his first law as a separate law, but I can not see this reason.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 20, 2012 #2
    But Newton didn't say that! Your statement is a modern rearrangement used for calculative convenience.

    In modern terms a = kF where k = 1/m is the constant of proportionality.

    Newton's First law tells us that

    Note this does not require the proportional relationship spelled out the the second law.

    What would happen if we ever found an alteration of motion that had some other relationship than direct proportionality to the forces impressed?
     
  4. Oct 20, 2012 #3
    The first law is the qualitative definition of force: It is the reason for a change of the state of motion.

    The second law is the quantitative definition of force: It is proportional to the change of momentum. (Today the constant of proportionality has been set to 1.)
     
  5. Oct 20, 2012 #4
    We already found it in non-inertial frames of reference and nothing unusual happened.
     
  6. Oct 21, 2012 #5

    bgq

    User Avatar

    OK, seems good.

    If we have a book on a table at rest. The book is submitted to two forces whose net is null.
    What do we apply here to conclude that table at rest, Newton's first or second law?
     
  7. Oct 22, 2012 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Neither. At rest and in motion are results of a choice of reference frame, arbitrarily selected before you start to do any analysis.
     
  8. Oct 22, 2012 #7

    bgq

    User Avatar

    OK, Lets choose the frame of reference coincides with the table.
     
  9. Oct 22, 2012 #8
    Check out:
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_%281846%29/Axioms,_or_Laws_of_Motion

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Principles_of_Natural_Philosophy_%281729%29/Definitions#Def2

    Now, you are right that from the second law follows that without a force, the state of motion continues. However, the first law describes more precisely what that state of motion is. In order to fully include the first law into the second, he would have had to write:

    The alteration of a state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

    So, it appears that he chose to split it up in order to phrase, as a separate law on its own right, what this alteration is relative to. In particular, the second law is not relative to orbital motion.

    See: http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/newton/newton_1.htm
     
  10. Oct 22, 2012 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In the reference frame of the table, the book is not moving.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Newton's Law of motion
  1. Newton's Law of Motion (Replies: 1)

Loading...