What is the Relationship Between Time and Force in Particle Motion?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between time and force in particle motion, suggesting that force may depend on time due to the movement of particles through varying fields, such as electric fields. It highlights that while force can be defined as a function of position through potential energy gradients, this perspective may overlook the time-dependent aspects of force in dynamic systems. There is a debate about whether this time dependency applies only to individual particles rather than extensive bodies, which are collections of particles. Additionally, communication clarity is emphasized, with a reminder that thoughtful engagement is necessary for productive discussions. The complexity of determining force as a function of time versus position is acknowledged as a significant challenge in physics.
Jiman
Messages
28
Reaction score
6
I feel that force is also function of time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The natural forces of gravity and electromagnetism depend on position (inverse square law). If a particle is moving then the force is indirectly a function of time, as it changes position when it moves.

If you have an electric field, say, that is also a function of time, then the force at a given point depends explicilty on time.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and etotheipi
This is only true for particle but not for extensive body?
 
Jiman said:
This is only true for particle but not for extensive body?
A body is a collection of particles.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
PeroK said:
A body is a collection of particles.
Thank you so much!
 
Jiman said:
I feel that force is also function of time.

I am sure that you are citing this out of context, which is a nasty thing to do to any author. You should at least make an effort at (i) citing the exact phrase that led you to conclude this and (ii) citing the location of the source, i.e. where in the book did you get this.

Force can be defined as the gradient of the potential energy field, i.e.

F = -U

By that alone, I can claim that force depends only on position, since it is a function of the gradient (i.e. d/dx) of the potential energy field.

So how is that not correct in this context?

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
ZapperZ said:
I am sure that you are citing this out of context, which is a nasty thing to do to any author. You should at least make an effort at (i) citing the exact phrase that led you to conclude this and (ii) citing the location of the source, i.e. where in the book did you get this.

Force can be defined as the gradient of the potential energy field, i.e.

F = -U

By that alone, I can claim that force depends only on position, since it is a function of the gradient (i.e. d/dx) of the potential energy field.

So how is that not correct in this context?
Thank you for reminding me. I'll correct it.

Zz.
 
Jiman said:
Thank you for reminding me. I'll correct it.

You need to learn how to communicate in a clearer manner here. In the 4 posts that you have made in this thread, all of them were one-sentence responses. In this post alone, I've typed more than what you had written, combined!

It is difficult to know what it is really that you are going to "correct". Furthermore, I don't see any indication that you've understood the answer that you were given, since you did not indicate that one way or another.

If you wish that members responding to your questions provide detailed and thoughtful answers, you should at least put in the same level of effort in your questions and posts.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
ZapperZ said:
You need to learn how to communicate in a clearer manner here. In the 4 posts that you have made in this thread, all of them were one-sentence responses. In this post alone, I've typed more than what you had written, combined!

It is difficult to know what it is really that you are going to "correct". Furthermore, I don't see any indication that you've understood the answer that you were given, since you did not indicate that one way or another.

If you wish that members responding to your questions provide detailed and thoughtful answers, you should at least put in the same level of effort in your questions and posts.

Zz.
Sorry, English is not my native language. I hardly use English in my life. But I can understand what you're replying to.
 
  • Like
Likes Leo Liu
  • #10
Jiman said:
Sorry, English is not my native language.
PF is tolerable for this. It is one of the reasons I like it
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, vanhees71 and Jiman
  • #11
Kleppner said:
"At first glance there seems to be no problem in finding the motion
of a particle if we know the force. Newton’s second law tells us the acceleration,
which we can integrate to find the velocity, and we can then
integrate the velocity to find the position. This sounds simple but there
is a problem: to carry out these calculations we need to know the force
as a function of time, but force is usually known as a function of position
as, for example, the spring force or the gravitational force. The
problem is serious because physicists are generally interested in interactions
between systems, which means knowing how the force varies with
position, not how it varies with time."
 
  • Like
Likes Jiman
Back
Top