12 1 What Is A Force? 1 - ? F 1 M e S 2 S F: Ma? Define Acce
12 1 What Is A Force? 1 - ? F 1 M e S 2 S F: Ma? Define Acce
Although it is interesting and worth while to study the physical laws simply 12-1 What is a force?
because they help us to understand and to use nature, one ought to stop every once
12-2 Friction
in a while and think, "What do they really mean?" The meaning of any statement
is a subject that has interested and troubled philosophers from time immemorial, 12-3 Molecular forces
and the meaning of physical laws is even more interesting, because it is generally
12-4 Fundamental forces. Fields
believed that these laws represent some kind of real knowledge. The meaning of
knowledge is a deep problem in philosophy, and it is always important to ask,
"What does it mean?"
Let us ask, "What is the meaning of the physical laws of Newton, which we
write as F = ma? What is the meaning of force, mass, and acceleration?" Well,
wecan intuitively sense the meaning of mass, and we can define acceleration if we
know the meaning of position and time. We shall not discuss those meanings,
but shall concentrate on the new concept of force. The answer is equally simple:
"If a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it." That is what Newton's laws
say, so the most precise and beautiful definition of force imaginable might simply
be to say that force is the mass of an object times the acceleration. Suppose we
have a law which says that the conservation of momentum is valid if the sum
of all the external forces is zero; then the question arises, "What does it mean,
that the sum of all the external forces is zero?" A pleasant way to define that
statement would be: "When the total momentum is a constant, then the sum of the
external forces is zero." There must be something wrong with that, because it is
just not saying anything new. If we have discovered a fundamental law, which
asserts that the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, and then define the
force to be the mass times the acceleration, we have found out nothing. We could
also define force to mean that a moving object with no force acting on it continues
to move with constant velocity in a straight line. If we then observe an object
not moving in a straight line with a constant velocity, we might say that
there is a force on it. Now such things certainly cannot be the content of physics,
because they are definitions going in a circle. The Newtonian statement above,
however, seems to be a most precise definition of force, and one that appeals to
the mathematician; nevertheless, it is completely useless, because no prediction
whatsoever can be made from a definition. One might sit in an armchair all day
long and define words at will, but to find out what happens when two balls push
against each other, or when a weight is hung on a spring, is another matter al-
together, because t~dies behave- is something completely outside any
~efinitions. , -
For example, if we were to choose to say that an object left to itself keeps its
position and does not move, then when we see something drifting, we could say
that must be due to a "gorce"-a gorce is the rate of change of position. Now we
havea wonderful new law, everything stands still except when a gorce is acting. You
see,that would be analogous to the above definition of force, and it would contain no
information. The real content of Newton's laws is this: that the force is supposed
to have some independent properties, in addition to the law F = ma; but the
specific independent properties that the force has were not completely described
by Newton or by anybody else, and therefore the physical law F = ma is au
incomplete law. It implies that if we study the mass times the acceleration and
'tall the proauct the force, i.e., if we study the characteristics of force as a program
12-1
of interest, then we shall find that forces have some simplicity; the law is a 0011 geomet
pro ram for analyzin nature it' a sug_gestion that the fOKes will be simQle. all the
Now the first example of such forces was the complete law of gravitatio~ was. I
which was given by Newton, and in stating the law he answered the questioc beam a
"What is the force?" If there were nothing but gravitation, then the combination ofEucl
of this law and the force law (second law of motion) would be a complete theory. but a
but there is much more than gravitation, and we want to use Newton's laws~ used ~
many different situations. Therefore in order to proceed we have to tell somethin! Howev
about the properties of force. need t
For example, in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that use in
the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present, that if we finda well;
force that is not equal to zero we also find something in the neighborhood thai lines.
is a source of the force. This assumption is entirely different from the case ofthe lines
"gorce" that we introduced above. One of the most important characteristics of answe
force is that it has a material origin and thO . naL.ju definition. I
~wton also gave one rule about the force: that the forces bet;een interactin1 purely
bodies are equal and opposite-action equals reaction; that rule, it turns out,~ chanic
not exactly true. In fact, the law F = ma is not exactly true; if it were a definition possib
we should have to say that it is always exactly true; but it is not. a mat
The student may object, "I do not like this imprecision, I should like to have the ax
everything defined exactly; in fact, it says in some books that any science is an exaci with
subject, in which everything is defined." If you insist upon a precise definition of ever i
force, you will never get it! First, because Newton's Second Law is not exact, and
second, because in order to understand physical laws you must understand that
they are all some kind of approximation.
Any simple idea is approximate; as an illustration, consider an object, ...
what is an object? Philosophers are always saying, "Well, just take a chair for
example." The moment they say that, you know that they do not know what
they are talking about any more. What is a chair? Well, a chair is a certain thing
over there ... certain?, how certain? The atoms are evaporating from it from time
to time-not many atoms, but a few-dirt falls on it and gets dissolved in the paint;
so to define a chair precisely, to say exactly which atoms are chair, and which
atoms are air, or which atoms are dirt, or which atoms are paint that belongs to
the chair is impossible. So the mass of a chair can be defined only approximately.
In the same way, to define the mass of a single object is impossible, because there
are not any single, left-alone objects in the world-every object is a mixture ofa
lot of things, so we can deal with it only as a series of approximations and idealiza·
tions.
The trick is the idealizations. To an excellent approximation of perhaps one
part in 10 1 0, the number of atoms in the chair does not change in a minute, andif
we are not too precise we may idealize the chair as a definite thing; in the same wa'
)we shall learn about the charact~;:i~cs oUorce, in an ideal fashion, if we are not beca
) /too precise. One may be dissatisfied with the approximate view of nature that tests
phYSICS trle"s to obtain (the attempt is always to increase the accuracy of the not
approximation), and may prefer a mathematical definition; but mathematical but
definitions can never work in the real world. A mathematical definition willbe ofe
good for mathematics, in which all the logic can be followed out completely, but and
the physical world is complex, as we have indicated in a number of examples, such
as those of the ocean waves and a glass of wine. When we try to isolate pieces ofiI,
to talk about one mass, the wine and the glass, how can we know which is which,
when one dissolves in the other? The forces on a single thing already involve
approximation, and if we have a system of discourse about the real world, then
that system, at least for the present day, must involve approximations of some
kind.
This system is quite unlike the case of mathematics, in which everything can
be defined, and then we do not know what we are talking about. In fact, the g!Q!Y
of mathematics is that we do not have to say what we are talking about. The glory
is that the laws, the arguments, and the logic are independent of what "it" is. If
we have any other set of objects that obey the same system of axioms as Euclid's
12-2
try,then if we make new definitions and follow them out with correct logic,
consequenceswill be correct, and it makes no difference what the subject
Innature, however, when we draw a line or establish a line by using a light
anda theodolite, as we do in surveying, are we measuring a line in the sense
lid? No, we are making an approximation; the cross hair has some width,
geometricalline has no width, and so, whether Euclidean geometry can be
forsurveying or not is a physical 9..!:JestTon,not a mathematical question.
'er, rom an experimental ;tandpoint, not a mathematical standpoint, we
toknowwhether the laws of Euclid apply to the kind of geometry that we
measuringland; so we make a hypothesis that it does, and it works pretty
butit is not precise, because our surveying lines are not really geometrical
Whetheror not those lines of Euclid, which are really abstract, apply to the
ofexperienceis a question for experience; it is not a question that can be
redbysheer reason.
thesame way, we cannot just call F = ma a definition, deduce everything
mathematically, and make mechanics a mathematical theory, when me-
is a description of nature. By establishing suitable postulates it is always
Ieto make a system of mathematics, just as Euclid did, but we cannot make
ematicsof the world, because sooner or later we have to find out whether
'omsare valid for the ob'ects of nature. Thus we immechate y ge mvo ved
thesecomplicated and "dirty" objects of nature, but with approximations
'ncreasingin accuracy.
Weshall now discuss the only remaining forces that are fundamental. ~
themfundamental in the sense that their laws are fundamentally simple. We
a
I firstdiscuss e ectrical force. ~ects carry electrical charges w IC consist
plyof electrons or protons. If any two bodies are electrically charged, there
anelectricalforce between them, and if the magnitudes of the charges are
andQ2, respectively, the force varies inversely as the square of the distance
'eenthe charges, or F = (const) q1q2/r2. For unlike charges, this law is like
lawof gravitation, but for like charges the force is repulsive and the sign
ection)is reversed. The charges q 1 and q2 can be intrinsically either positive
negative,and in any specific application of the formula the direction of the
rcewillcome out right if the q's are given the proper plus or minus sign; the force
directedalong the line between the two charges. The constant in the formula
nds,of course, upon what units are used for the force, the charge, and the
lance,In current practice the charge is measured in coulombs, the distance in
lers,and the force in newtons. Then, in order to get the force to come out prop-
Iy in newtons, the constant (which for historical reasons is written 1/47l'fo)
kesthenumerical value
fO = 8.854 X 10-12 coul 2/newton . m 2
F = q1q2r/47l'€Or3.
nature,the most important charge of all is the charge on a single electron, which
1.60X 10-19 coulomb. In working with electrical forces between fundamental
ticlesrather than with large charges, many people prefer the combination
)2 47TEO, in which qel is defined as the charge on an electron. This combination
ur frequently,and to simplify calculations it has been defined by the symbol
;itsnumericalvalue in the mks system of units turns out to be (1.52 X 10-14)2.
advantageof using the constant in this form is that the force between two
tronsin newtons can then be written simply as e2/r2, with r in meters, without
theindividual constants. Electrical forces are much more complicated than
i impleformula indicates, since the formula gives the force between two
bjectsonly when the objects are standing still. We shall consider the more
aeneralcaseshortly.
In the analysis of forces of the more fundamental kinds (not such forces as
friction,
but the electrical force or the gravitational force), an interesting and very
portantconcept has been developed. Since at first sight the forces are very
uchmorecomplicated than is indicated by the inverse-square laws and these
wsholdtrue only when the interacting bodies are standing still, an improved
method is needed to deal with the very complex forces that ensue when the bodies
start to move in a complicated way. Experience has show that an a roach
:J;' known as the c e t of a "field" is of great utility for the anal sis of forces of this
~ type. To illustrate the idea for, say, electrical force, suppose we have two electrical
cEarges, ql and q2, located at points P and R respectively. Then the force between
the charges is given by
To analyze this force by means of the field concept, we say that the charge ql atP
produces a "condition" at R, such that when the charge q2 is placed at R it "feels"
the force. This is one way, strange perhaps, of describing it; we say that the force
F on q2 at R can be written in two parts. It is q2 multiplied by a quantity E thai
would be there whether q2 were there or not (provided we keep all the other charges
in their right places). E is the "condition" produced by qb we say, and F is the
response of q2 to E. E is called an electric field, and it is a vector. The formula for
the electric field E that is produced at R by a charge q 1 at P is the charge ql times
the constant 1/47fl:o divided by r2 (r is the distance from P to R), and it is actingin
the direction of the radius vector (the radius vector r divided by its own length).
The expression for E is thus
which expresses the force, the field, and the charge in the field. What is the point
of all this? The oi is to divide the analysis into two arts. One art sa s that
something produces a field. The other part says that something is acted on by
the field. B allowin us to look at the two arts inde endently, this se aratlOo
of the analysis simplifies the calculation of a roblem in many situations. If
many charges are present, we first work out the total electric field produced at R
by all the charges, and then, knowing the charge that is placed at R, we findthe
force on it.
In the case of gravitation, we can do exactly the same thing. In this case,
where the force F = - Gm Im2r/r3, we can make an analogous analysis, as follows:
the force on a body in a gravitational field is the mass of that body times the field
C. The force on m2 is the mass m2 times the field C produced by ml; that is,
F = m2c' Then the field C produced by a body of mass ml is C = -Grnlr/r3
and it is directed radially, as in the electrical case.
In spite of how it might at first seem, this separation of one part from another
is not a triviality. It would be trivial, just another way of writing the same thing,
if the laws of force were simple, but the laws of for e are so complicated thatit
turns out that the fields have a reality that i almost dependent of the objects
which create them. One can do something like shake a charge and producean
effect, a field, at a distance; if one then stops moving the charge, the field keeps
track of all the past, because the interaction between two particles is not in·
stantaneous. It is desirable to have some way to remember what happened Prel;'
ously. If the force upon some charge depends upon where another charge was
yesterday, which it does, then we need machinery to keep track of what went00
yesterday, and that is the character of a field. So when the forces et Ii·
Eated, the field heSQffi€S more and more real. and this technique becomes lessa~
less of an artificial separation.
In analyzing forces by the use of fields, we need two kinds of laws pertainin!
to fields. The first is the response to a field, and that gives the equations of motioo.
For example, the law of response of a mass to a gravitational field is that the force
is equal to the mass times the gravitational field; or, if there is also a charge
on the body, the response of the charge to the electric field equals the charge times
the electric field. The second part of the analysis of nature in these situations is10
formulate the laws which determine the strength of the field and how it is produced.
These laws are sometimes called the field equations. We shall learn more about
them in due time, but shall write down a few things about them now.
12-8
First,the most remarkable fact of all, which is true exactly and which can
silyunderstood, is that the total electric field produced by a number of sources
evectorsum of the electric fields produced by the first source, the second source,
soon. In other words, if we have numerous charges making a field, and if all
'tselfone of them would make the field E b another would make the field E2,
soon, then we merely add the vectors to get the total field. This principle
beexpressed as
E=L~' 47fEor~
i
C = -Gmirdr~
If, for instance, the only component of the magnetic field were By and the only
component of the velocity were vx, then the only term left in the magnetic force
would be a force in the z-direction, at right angles to both Band v.
The next kind of force we shall discuss might be called a pseudo force. In
Chapter 11 we discussed the relationship between two people, Joe and Moe, who
use different coordinate systems. Let us suppose that the positions of a particle
as measured by Joe are x and by Moe are x'; then the laws are as follows:
reviously, we considered the case where s was constant, and we found that s
ade no difference in the laws of motion, since ds/dt = 0; ultimately, therefore,
e laws of physics were the same in both systems. But another case we can take is
at s = ut, where u is a uniform velocity in a straight line. Then s is not constant,
nd ds/dt is not zero, but is u, a constant. However, the acceleration d2x/dt2
2 2
still the same as d x' /dt , because du/dt = O. This proves the law that we used
Chapter 10, namely, that if we move in a straight line with uniform velocity the
ws of physics will look the same to us as when we are standing still. That is
e Galilean transformation. But we wish to discuss the interesting case where s
still more complicated, say s = at2/2. Then ds/dt = at and d2s/dt2 = a, a
niform acceleration; or in a still more complicated case, the acceleration might
a function of time. This means that although the laws of force from the point
fview of Joe would look like
cPx'
m -- = Fx' - ma.
dt'2
hat is, since Moe's coordinate system is accelerating with respect to Joe's, the
xtraterm ma comes in, and Moe will have to correct his forces by that amount
order to get Newton's laws to work. In other words, ~re is an apparent, mysted-
us new force of unknown ori ~ct!. arises, of course, because Moe has the
rong coordinate s stem. This is an example of a pseudo force; other examples
cur in coordinate systems that are rotating.
Another example of pseudo force is what is often called "centrifugal force."
n observer in a rotating coordinate system, e.g., in a rotating box, will find
ysterious forces, not accounted for by any known origin of force, throwing
ingsoutward toward the walls. These forces are due merely to the fact that the
bserverdoes not have Newton's coordinate system, which is the simplest coord i-
atesystem.
Pseudo force can be illustrated by an interesting experiment in which we push
jar of water along a table, with acceleration. Gravity, of course, acts downward
nthewater, but because of the horizontal acceleration there is also a pseudo force
ctinghorizontally and in a direction opposite to the acceleration. The resultant
f gravity and pseudo force makes an angle with the vertical, and during the
cceleration the surface of the water will be perpendicular to the resultant force,
e., inclined at an angle with the table, with the water standing higher in the
arward side of the jar. When the push on the jar stops and the jar decelerates
ause of friction, the pseudo force is reversed, and the water stands higher in
eforward side of the jar (Fig. 12-4).
One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always propor-
onalto the masses; the same is true of gravity. The possibility exists, therefore,
hatgravity itself is a pseudo force. Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is
uesimply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system? After all,
'ecan always get a force proportional to the mass if we imagine that a body is
ccelerating. For instance, a man shut up in a box that is standing still on the
arlhfinds himself held to the floor of the box with a certain force that is propor-
tionalto his mass. But if there were no earth at all and the box were standing
itill,the man inside would float in space. On the other hand, if there were no
rth at all and something were pulling the box along with an acceleration g,
en the man in the box, analyzing physics, would find a pseudo force which
ouldpull him to the floor, just as gravity does.
Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that accelerations give an 1m!
tion of gravitation, that the forces of acceleration (the pseudo forces) cannot
distinguished from those of gravity; it is not possible to tell how much of a giv
force is gravity and how much is pseudo force.
It might seem all right to consider gravity to be a pseudo force, to say that,
are all held down because we are accelerating upward, but how about the peo
in Madagascar, on the other side of the earth-are they accelerating too? Einste
found that gravity could be considered a pseudo force only at one point at a tilll(
and was led by his considerations to suggest that the geometry of the world is mo
complicated than ordinary Euclidean geometry. The present discussion is on,
qualitative, and does not pretend to convey anything more than the general id
To give a rough idea of how gravitation could be the result of pseudo forces,
present an illustration which is purely geometrical and does not represent ther
situation. Suppose that we all lived in two dimensions, and knew nothing of
third. We think we are on a plane, but suppose we are really on the surface of
sphere. And suppose that we shoot an object along the ground, with no fore
on it. Where will it go? It will appear to go in a straight line, but it has to rem'
on the surface of a sphere, where the shortest distance between two points is alo
a great circle; so it goes along a great circle. If we shoot another object similarl
but in another direction, it goes along another great circle. Because we think
are on a plane, we expect that these two bodies will continue to diverge linear
with time, but careful observation will show that if they go far enough they mo
closer together again, as though they were attracting each other. But they are
attracting each other-there is just something "weird" about this geometry. Th
particular il1ustration does not describe correctly the way in which Euelid
geometry is "weird," but it illustrates that if we distort the geometry sufficien
it is possible that all gravitation is related in some way to pseudo forces; that ist
general idea of the Einsteinian theory of gravitation.
We conclude this chapter with a brief discussion of the only other known for
which are called nuclear forces. These forces are within the nuclei of atoms, an
although they are much discussed, no one has ever calculated the force betw
two nuclei, and indeed at present there is no known law for nuclear forces. Th
forces have a very tiny range which is just about the same as the size of the nuele
perhaps 10-13 centimeter. With particles so small and at such a tiny distanc
only the quantum-mechanical laws are valid, not the Newtonian laws. In nuel
analysis we no Ion er th..iE.Lin terms of forces, and in fact we can re lace the for
concept with a concept of the energy of interaction of two particles, a subject th
will be discussed later. Any formula that can be written for nuclear forces is
rather crude approximation which omits many complications; one might
somewhat as follows: forces within a nucleus do not vary inversely as the squa
of the distance, but die off exponentially over a certain distance r, as expressedb
F = (l/r2) exp( -r/ro), where the distance ro is of the order of 10-13 centimeter
In other words, the forces disappear as soon as the particles are any great distan
apart, although they are very strong within the 10-13 centimeter range. So f
as they are understood today, the laws of nuclear force are very complex; wed
not understand them in any simple way, and the whole problem of analyzing th
fundamental machinery behind nuclear forces is unsolved. Attempts at a solutio
have led to the discovery of numerous strange particles, the 7r-mesons, for example,
but the origin of these forces remains obscure.