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!

I Sum of internal forces equals zero

  1. May 4, 2016 #1
    This is probably a very trivial question, but my brain isn't "playing ball" today so I'm hoping someone can help me with this.

    Suppose I have a system of ##N## mutually interacting particles, then the force on the ##i##-th particle due to the other ##N-1## particles is given by $$\mathbf{F}_{i}=\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}$$ If I then introduce a net external force, ##\mathbf{F}^{ext}## acting on the whole system, then the total force, ##\mathbf{F}## acting on the system is given by $$\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{F}^{ext}+\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}$$ Concentrating on the double sum one can expand this as $$ \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=(\mathbf{F}_{12}+\mathbf{F}_{13}+\cdots)+(\mathbf{F}_{21}+\mathbf{F}_{23}+\cdots)+(\mathbf{F}_{31}+\mathbf{F}_{32}+\cdots)+(\mathbf{F}_{41}+\mathbf{F}_{42}+\cdots)+\cdots \\ =(\mathbf{F}_{12}+\mathbf{F}_{21}+\cdots)+(\mathbf{F}_{13}+\mathbf{F}_{31}+\cdots)+(\mathbf{F}_{14}+\mathbf{F}_{41}+\cdots)+\cdots \\ = \sum_{1<j}(\mathbf{F}_{1j}+\mathbf{F}_{j1})+\sum_{2<j}(\mathbf{F}_{2j}+\mathbf{F}_{j2})+\sum_{3<j}(\mathbf{F}_{3j}+\mathbf{F}_{j3})+\sum_{1<j}(\mathbf{F}_{4j}+\mathbf{F}_{j4})+ \cdots\\ =\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{i<j}(\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\mathbf{F}_{ji})$$ From Newton's 3rd law we have that ##\mathbf{F}_{ij}=-\mathbf{F}_{ji}##, and so clearly this whole term vanishes (term-by-term). Hence we are left with the known result that the total force acting on a system of ##N## particles is equal to the external force acting on the system, thus enabling us to treat the system (as a whole) as a point particle.

    Now, I'm sure there must be a more elegant why to arrive at this result than the way I have above, i.e. manipulating the double sum without having to expand in the way I did, but I can't seem to see the wood for the trees at the moment.

    [One thought I had was to write $$\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\sum_{i>j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}\right)$$ but I'm a little unsure about this. I mean, can one legitimately write ##\sum_{i>j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ji}##?]

    If anyone can provide a more elegant approach I'd much appreciate it.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2016 #2
    There's a nice trick that makes use of the fact that [itex]F_{ij}[/itex] is antisymmetric with respect to an exchange in the indices. By making use of the antisymmetric property, we have
    [tex]\sum_{i \neq j} F_{i j } = - \sum_{i \neq j} F_{ji } = -\sum_{j \neq i} F_{i j } = -\sum_{i \neq j} F_{i j } [/tex]
    where in going from the second to the third expression, we used the fact that [itex]i[/itex] and [itex]j[/itex] are dummy indices and from the third to the fourth, that the double summation is commutative.
  4. May 4, 2016 #3
    Would it be correct to express it as follows:

    $$\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\sum_{i>j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}\right)$$

    and then use the fact that double summation is commutative (and that ##i## and ##j## are dummy indices) to write $$\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{i>j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ji}$$ such that
    $$\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1, i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\sum_{i>j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\sum_{i<j}\mathbf{F}_{ji}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{i<j}\left(\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\mathbf{F}_{ji}\right)$$
  5. May 4, 2016 #4
    Yes, it looks confusing but is technically correct. You might want to be a little careful about notation though; when you wrote [itex]\sum_{i > j}[/itex] you were actually summing over [itex]j[/itex] only, and so the choice of notation might be confusing, because to most people it either means summing over [itex]i[/itex] or an implicit double summation.
  6. May 4, 2016 #5
    Ah ok. Would it be better to write it something like this:

    $$\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1,\;i\neq j}^{N}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\sum_{j= 1}^{i-1}\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\sum_{j= 1}^{i-1}\mathbf{F}_{ji}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j= 1}^{i-1}\left(\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\mathbf{F}_{ji}\right)$$

    What originally confused me was the notation used in David Tong's "Dynamics and relativity" notes. In section 5 (starting on page 67) he discusses this and I'm confused by his summation notation on page 68, in particular, How he ends up with $$\sum_{i}\sum_{i\neq j}\mathbf{F}_{ij}=\sum_{i<j}\left(\mathbf{F}_{ij}+\mathbf{F}_{ji}\right)$$ Should one interpret this as a sum over all pairs ##(i,j)## with the condition that ##i<j##?
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
  7. May 4, 2016 #6
    Yup, its clearer that way.
    Yes, the only reasonable interpretation is that it is a double summation over both indices. Although this then means that there may be confusion or inconsistency in his earlier summation notation. I guess one can always tell from the context what it is that is being summed over, but personally I don't quite like that formalism haha.
  8. May 4, 2016 #7
    The only problem it maybe inconsistent, since in the case where ##i=1##, the second sum becomes ##\sum_{j=1}^{0}## which doesn't make any sense since there is no "zeroth term"?!

    Me neither, I feel that it causes unnecessary confusion.
  9. May 4, 2016 #8
    Well, it just means that nothing happens for that value of ##i## i.e. no contribution.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Similar Discussions: Sum of internal forces equals zero
  1. Zero force (Replies: 4)

  2. Sum of forces (Replies: 8)