Newton's second law if mass changes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Newton's second law in scenarios where mass changes, specifically questioning the validity of the equation ƩF = m dv/dt + v dm/dt. It is argued that in cases like a rocket expelling fuel, using momentum conservation leads to consistent results with ƩF = m dv/dt, but not with the additional term v dm/dt. The conversation highlights that defining force through dp/dt introduces frame dependency, complicating the application of Newton's laws. Ultimately, the applicability of Newton's second law to systems with non-constant mass remains debated, particularly regarding the definitions of force and conservation laws. The conclusion suggests that working in an inertial frame co-moving with the system can reconcile these issues.
Philip Wood
Gold Member
Messages
1,220
Reaction score
78
Are there any cases in Newtonian physics where it is valid to apply Newton's second law in the form ƩF = m dv/dt + v dm/dt, in which dm/dt is non-zero?

It is my belief that there are no such cases. For example, if one applies momentum conservation to a rocket in a field-free region, we obtain an equation which is consistent with ƩF = m dv/dt (that is ƩF = ma), but not with ƩF = m dv/dt + v dm/dt.

Despite my scepicism, the original question is a genuine one.
 
Science news on Phys.org
You have to keep in mind all the components of your system. For example, if the mass of your rocket decreases with time and you're keeping into account only that mass, you must use: ƩF = m*dv/dt + dm/dt*v, if you're considering the system to be formed of the rocket plus the consumed fuel, than the mass of the system is constant and you have your ƩF = m*dv/dt and the momentum is conserved for the center of mass of the system.
 
I was taking m as the (changing) mass of the rocket itself, yet obtained a result (using the Principle of Conservation of momentum) which was inconsistent with F= mdv/dt + vdm/dt, but consistent with F= mdv/dt.

Using the Pof C of M, I get w dm = m dv in which w is the velocity of the exhaust gases relative to the rocket (and is negative), m is the mass of the rocket itself, and v is its forward velocity. dm is negative.

Thus w dm/dt = m dv/dt.

But -w (-dm)/dt = w dm/dt is the rate of gain of backward momentum by the exhaust gases, so the forward force, F, on the rocket (from the gases) is w dm/dt.

So, for the rocket, we have F = m dv/dt.
 
Last edited:
Philip Wood said:
Are there any cases in Newtonian physics where it is valid to apply Newton's second law in the form ƩF = m dv/dt + v dm/dt, in which dm/dt is non-zero?
The answer is it depends on what you mean by "force" and it also depends on whether you think Newton's second law has any business being applied to a system of non-constant mass. There are some who argue that it doesn't. I'll ignore this latter concern.

If you define force via F=dp/dt then yes, you get a "force" from \dot m v. But now there's a big problem with this definition. Force is no longer frame invariant. If you define force via F=ma then there is no \dot m v term. But now there's a big problem here as well. This definition creates problems with respect to the conservation laws. Pick your poison ...

One way around this is to work in an inertial frame instantaneously co-moving with the system center of mass. Now F=dp/dt and F=ma are identical, just as they are for a system of constant mass.
 
Thank you, DH, for a very interesting post. When you say that force, defined as as dp/dt (with non-zero v dm/dt), is frame-dependent, does this remark apply if we consider only inertial frames?
 
I need to calculate the amount of water condensed from a DX cooling coil per hour given the size of the expansion coil (the total condensing surface area), the incoming air temperature, the amount of air flow from the fan, the BTU capacity of the compressor and the incoming air humidity. There are lots of condenser calculators around but they all need the air flow and incoming and outgoing humidity and then give a total volume of condensed water but I need more than that. The size of the...
Thread 'Why work is PdV and not (P+dP)dV in an isothermal process?'
Let's say we have a cylinder of volume V1 with a frictionless movable piston and some gas trapped inside with pressure P1 and temperature T1. On top of the piston lay some small pebbles that add weight and essentially create the pressure P1. Also the system is inside a reservoir of water that keeps its temperature constant at T1. The system is in equilibrium at V1, P1, T1. Now let's say i put another very small pebble on top of the piston (0,00001kg) and after some seconds the system...
I was watching a Khan Academy video on entropy called: Reconciling thermodynamic and state definitions of entropy. So in the video it says: Let's say I have a container. And in that container, I have gas particles and they're bouncing around like gas particles tend to do, creating some pressure on the container of a certain volume. And let's say I have n particles. Now, each of these particles could be in x different states. Now, if each of them can be in x different states, how many total...

Similar threads

Back
Top