Newton's third law of motion - why?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the conceptual understanding of Newton's third law of motion, particularly the reasoning behind the law that states for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Participants explore the implications of this law in various contexts, including gravitational interactions and the conservation of momentum, while seeking deeper insights into the nature of forces and their interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why objects exert equal and opposite forces, questioning the underlying causality and seeking a logical explanation.
  • Another participant discusses the historical context of Newton's laws, noting that Newton did not provide further justification for his laws, including the third law.
  • Some participants mention the relationship between Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum, suggesting that momentum conservation is a consequence of the third law.
  • There is a discussion about translational symmetry and its connection to conservation laws, with references to Noether's theorem as a framework for understanding these relationships.
  • One participant argues that laws in physics are accepted based on observation rather than derived, emphasizing that seeking a "why" behind a law leads to another law rather than a proof.
  • A participant presents an informal argument regarding potential energy and forces, illustrating the relationship between translational symmetry and the forces acting on two particles.
  • Another participant reiterates the question of why Earth exerts a force on the Sun, adding to the exploration of intuitive logic behind the interactions described by the third law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of Newton's third law and its implications for understanding forces and motion. However, there remains a lack of consensus on the deeper reasoning behind the law and its foundational status in physics, with multiple competing views on how to approach the question of "why."

Contextual Notes

Some discussions touch on the limitations of current understanding and the dependence on foundational assumptions in physics, particularly regarding the nature of laws and their derivation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those seeking to deepen their understanding of classical mechanics and the philosophical implications of physical laws.

  • #31
xts said:
Well... Have you tried to read Principia? I don't expect you reading Newton's Latin, but even modern translation?
Yes, I have, and yes, it is painfully difficult. Newton did not have the modern mathematics that makes the modern interpretation of Newton's laws easily comprehensible. Vectors? Vectors are a modern development, about a hundred years old. Reading any physics paper that dates from before the very end of the 19th century is extremely tedious. Vectors clean things up so very nicely. Algebra? Newton tended toward geometric reasoning rather than algebraic reasoning. Modern algebra was in its infancy in Newton's time. Calculus? While Newton and Leibniz are viewed as having independently developed the calculus, it is Leibniz form that we typically use nowadays, later modified extensively by Weierstrass. Newton's calculus was a bit (more than a bit) idiosyncratic.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K