The relationship between normal force and contact

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between normal force and contact, specifically referencing the textbook "Physics" by Randall D. Knight. The consensus is that the absence of normal force indicates a lack of contact, while the reverse is also true: no contact implies no normal force. Participants clarify that the statement "no normal force means no contact" is accurate, while the assertion that "no contact is a sufficient condition for no normal force" is debated. The conversation highlights the fundamental principles of contact forces in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly forces and contact.
  • Familiarity with the definition and role of normal force in mechanics.
  • Knowledge of the principles outlined in Randall D. Knight's "Physics".
  • Basic comprehension of sufficient and necessary conditions in logical statements.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of contact forces in classical mechanics.
  • Review the definitions and applications of normal force in various physical scenarios.
  • Examine the implications of sufficient and necessary conditions in physics problems.
  • Explore additional resources or textbooks that elaborate on force interactions, such as "University Physics" by Young and Freedman.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone interested in understanding the fundamental principles of forces and contact in physical systems.

siriux
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
"If there's no normal force, there's no contact."


Is the statement above correct?

What is the relationship between contact and the existence of normal force? Are they necessary and sufficient conditions to each other?

Thanks for your help :p
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why can't there be contact without a normal force?
 
I agree with you SammyS but the statement appears in Physics by Randall D. Knight pg225 paragraph 2 which precisely says

"No normal force" means "no contact"


Did I understand this quote correctly?
 
If that's it in its entirety, then you did.

However it is true that: No contact means no normal force.
 
Sorry I missed a full stop.

"No normal force" means "no contact".

So according to the textbook, "no contact" is the sufficient condition of "no normal force", which I think is wrong while I agree its conversion ("No contact" means "no normal force".) is right as you've just said.
 
siriux said:
So according to the textbook, "no contact" is the sufficient condition of "no normal force", which I think is wrong while I agree its conversion ("No contact" means "no normal force".) is right as you've just said.
Name the force/s that may arise when bodies are in contact.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K