What Does F=ma Really Mean? A Closer Look at Newton's Law

[ZapperZ]

I completely agree. Suffian has come upon the fact that F=dp/dt is a definition, and that definitions are unfalsifiable even in principle. I'd like to see this discussion continue in the Philosophy section, so I'm moving it there.

Oh no! It's bad enough that I've had threads I responded to being moved to the TD section. Now I also have one in the Philosophy section? That hurts! :) :)

In case anyone hasn't noticed this, Frank Wilczek, who this week was one of the co-winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, has an essay related to "F=ma" in this month's issue of Physics Today.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p11.html

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

Can someone else translate this for me?

Zz.

It looks like a spring-scale turned on its side to act as a catapault to me (either way, it does the same thing - it measures force via f=ma). So I guess suffian agrees with Tom:

Suffian has come upon the fact that F=dp/dt is a definition.

 

[wuliheron]

I completely agree. Suffian has come upon the fact that F=dp/dt is a definition, and that definitions are unfalsifiable even in principle. I'd like to see this discussion continue in the Philosophy section, so I'm moving it there.

Are you sure it doesn't belong in the religion and mysticism section?

 

[Andrew Mason]

Wilczek article

In case anyone hasn't noticed this, Frank Wilczek, who this week was one of the co-winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, has an essay related to "F=ma" in this month's issue of Physics Today.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p11.html

Interesting article. I tend to agree that the concept of 'force' is not the most useful way to think about certain phenomena. Force is a useful concept when building bridges. It is less useful when trying to understand nuclear interactions. But, fundamentally, it is just a device to help us understand masses and their motions.

I got a lot of flack for suggesting that the concept of the strong nuclear force should be reconsidered ("Gravity in the Nucleus" thread under the Nuclear Particles head). I suggested that we should not necessarily equate high nuclear binding energy with this very complicated force. I wonder what Wilczek thinks of the strong nuclear force...

AM

 

[ZapperZ]

Interesting article. I tend to agree that the concept of 'force' is not the most useful way to think about certain phenomena. Force is a useful concept when building bridges. It is less useful when trying to understand nuclear interactions. But, fundamentally, it is just a device to help us understand masses and their motions.

I got a lot of flack for suggesting that the concept of the strong nuclear force should be reconsidered ("Gravity in the Nucleus" thread under the Nuclear Particles head). I suggested that we should not necessarily equate high nuclear binding energy with this very complicated force. I wonder what Wilczek thinks of the strong nuclear force...

AM

Considering that he won the Nobel Prize for QCD, or specifically for the formulation of the asymptotic freedom of the strong force in QCD (of which several people have tried to explain to you in that earlier thread), it is VERY clear exactly what he thinks of the strong nuclear force.

But just to be sure, I will ask him tomorrow (Friday) when he gives his lecture here at Argonne.

Zz.