Talk:Force/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ok, so the force page is going down the same path as the tensor page. Which is not good. I propose the following structure:

brief remarks indicating the force is not an easy thing to define or understand, and that Real Smart People have thought about for a long time.

elementary definitions useful for mechanics, such as F = ma, with examples,

an explanation of rational mechanics and the difficulty of defining force rationally. This would take into account Truesdell and Noll works specifically, with a bow to Hilbert for granting mathematical legitimacy. The Hamel's work should be dealt with here also.

discussion on the new configurational forces schemes of Morton Gurtin and Gerard Maugin, and why they are different, and why it matters.

Whew.

I can take on the Gurtin stuff, I have his monograph.

I think you miss the point that F=ma is the definition of F, and definitions by themselves have no physical content. The related physical content is the reification of this defined concept of force. Please be sure you undestand this distinction before you edit the page further.

In most expositions of mechanics, force is usually taken as a primitive, without an explicit definition. Rather it is taken to be defined implicitly by the (often vague) presentation of the theory within which it is contained. Various physicists, philosophers and mathematicians, such as Ernst Mach, Clifford Truesdell and Walter Noll have contributed to the intellectual effort of obtaining a more rational, non-circular, and explicit definition of force.

I toned this down a good deal. While I haven't read these authors, there are many contexts in which an implicit definition is both useful and logically rigorous. In math, for example, there are many "undefined terms". (In modern formulations of Geometry, terms like "like" and "point" are such terms; they're "defined" only implicitly, by how they're used.) Thus there's no need to link implicitly defined terms to circularity or irrationality. --Ryguasu 21:39 Nov 19, 2002 (UTC)

I have disambuated Force into Force (physics) and Force (law) and started going back and sorting out the links, but there are so many of them that I need some help. Will anyone who's willing to help please use the 'what links here' on Force to find articles linking here and change those links to the right article; if the topic is one of the many that are a definition of something in physics that don't start out with that qualifier, please add "In [[physics]], " at the beginning, and don't forget to lowercase the next letter, which used to be the initial capital. (If you run across a link to a different meaning of "force" than in physics or in the law, please either leave it alone, so it comes to this disambiguation page, or define the new one with a parenthetical title and make it go there.) Thanks for any and all assistance. -- isis 09:53 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should relegate physical force to a disam-type title. I suspect it it by large the most commonly-used meaning of "force" (in terms of links on wikipedia); maybe it should get priority like Newton does. -- Tarquin 10:19 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If there really isn't very much to be said about the alternative definitions of "force", then there's no point making a disambiguating page! -- CYD

I think there's a possible encyclopedia article about the concept of force in law, but I agree that by far the overwhelming number of links will want force (physics), so I suggest that force (physics) redirects to force and that that article in its first sentence points out that force (law) exists as well. This is what we typically have been doing if one meaning is much more common than another. AxelBoldt 18:47 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

Moving it back to "Force". -- Tarquin 16:50 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't F=MA be F=mã or F=ma?

And shouldn't

F = Limit as T goes to zero of (mv - mv_o)/T

be something like

${\vec {F}}=\lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{m{\vec {v}}_{t+\Delta t}-m{\vec {v}}_{t} \over \Delta t}$

Haven't changed that part, in case everyone happens to disagree with me.

L^AT_EΧed 3 lines, using bold for vectors like the articles here seem to do, instead of vector arrows (or underline for typewriters and arrowless document formats), as I thought was normal.

-- Cyp 20:53, 28 Jan 2003 (when I wrote this, but the wikipedia seemed to be broken when I tried to post this.) (Now 0:24, 29 Jan 2003)

Arrows / underlines tend to be used in handwritten documents. Convention for print is bold, AFAIK; older books use arrows -- Tarquin 00:21 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

I note that at least one major physics text book has returned to arrow notation for vectors. Namely, the sixth (and seventh?) edition of Fundamentals of Physics, by Halliday, Resnick and Walker. -- Jason Le Vaillant 08:58 Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Whether they use boldface or arrows to indicate that they are vectors, that F and a should still always be italic as well, should they not? I haven't changed this yet, but likely will when I make some other changes, unless anyone disagrees on this point in which case we can discuss it. Gene Nygaard 12:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Combining Forces

"The more powerful force cancels out the less powerful; a resultant force is produced."

It's not like the "less powerful" force is completely ignored - both forces will have an influence on the net force. That sentence is misleading.

Brianjd 06:36, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

Why Forces ARE fundamental in Physics

The view (expressed at the beginning of the article) that energy and momentum are more fundamental physical quantities than forces is simply wrong. Energy and momentum are merely quantities associated with the path and time integrals over the force field respectively and are in principle not required in physics at all (one can happily integrate any equation of motion without ever mentioning energy and momentum).
The mathematical Hamilton and Lagrange formalisms in theoretical physics suggest the opposite, but they implicitly use forces as well because they can not be defined without potential functions which in turn depend on force fields.
The school approach of emphasizing the role of forces is therefore not only didactically but also factually correct. (for related aspects see my website http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk ).

OK, could you precisly define force? I don't know any exact definition. Already Newton knew that force had problem with a correct definition. 130.230.12.39 08:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definition is quite simple: F = dp/dt. It exists over 400 years since first introduced by Newton himself. It is the only definition of force available in physics. It is widely used in mechanics. All properties of a force follow from the definition (units, vectorial nature, etc).Enormousdude 01:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If (as you claim) force is more fundamental than momentum, why do you define force as the rate of change of momentum. Is that not completely contradictory? Come back when you can define force without using momentum, and then we'll talk about fundamentals. -- GWO

"Imperial newton"

The stuff that was on this page about an "imperial newton" was about the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever seen in quite some time. Not because there is no such unit--but nobody calls it by that name.

The unit that was called an "imperial newton" here is, in fact, the poundal. It already had its own Wikipedia entry. It can be found in any decent dictionary. It is part of the very first coherent subset of English mechanical units, the absolute foot-pound-second system introduced back in 1879.

Note that newtons did not exist in 1879. That unit was only invented 25 years later, and it wasn't officially accepted by the CGPM as the name for the mks unit of force until 1948--nearly 70 years after the poundal was invented. (However, dynes are older than poundals. They are the units of force in coherent cgs systems.)

Just go look at any physics or engineering textbook from the first half of the 20th century--there's a pretty good chance you will find it using poundals. For example, the slug was invented in 1902 by the English physicist A.M. Worthington. Yet 18 years later, in a later edition of the little book in which he introduced the slug, he was still telling us in A.M. Worthington, Dynamics of Rotation: An Elementary Introduction of Rigid Dynamics, London, New York, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1920, p. 9:

"British Absolute Unit of Torque.–Since in the British absolute system, in which the lb. is chosen as the unit of mass, the foot as unit of length, and the second as unit of time, the unit of force is the poundal, it is reasonable and is agreed that the British absolute unit of torque shall be that of a poundal acting at a distance of 1 foot, or (what is the same thing, as regards turning) a couple of which the force is one poundal and the arm one foot. This we shall call a poundal-foot, thereby distinguishing it from the foot-poundal, which is the British absolute unit of work."

Note also that slugs did not exist in 1879. They are also a 20th century invention.

There are lots of other problems in the same neighborhood of the article; I'll work on them, too. Gene Nygaard 08:12, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it would have made a lot more sense to never call the newton by its own name, instead only calling it the "metric poundal," than it did to call the English unit an "imperial newton" without even giving its own name. Gene Nygaard 08:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Usage examples

Icairns has changed my examples of

Torque wrenches in units such as "meter kilograms"
Pressure gauges in "kg/cm²"

to the following:

Torque wrenches in units such as "kilogram-force metres"
Pressure gauges in "kgf/cm²"

What I had in mind was quoting the actual units used on my torque wrench, and the actual units as we see them written on many of those pressure gauges. I guess I could be more explicit about my intentions, but I don't know if it would add anything of value to the article to do so. I don't have any big problem with the revised versions, but I'm wondering if anyone else has any ideas on what should be done here.

Furthermore, while the proper order of units in the SI units is "newton metres", when the obsolete units "metre kilograms" or "centimeter kilograms" (no matter how any of those words were spelled) were used it was more common to put the metres first than it was to put them last. So switching the word order for torque bothers me more than the other changes. Gene Nygaard 22:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I take your point about US usage being as you state. However, without further explanation, it may well be confusing to non-US readers. Your meter is the SI metre; your kilogram is the kilogram-force. I have attempted to reword the para to reinsert your words. Is this any better? My work colleagues have marked up 'newton meters' instead of 'spring balances'. This is using 'meter' in the sense of a measuring device, but its appearance clashes with 'newton metre', an SI unit. Ian Cairns 23:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not very concerned about the spelling.

Your changes in these examples are probably an improvement. I'd question your charactarization of those torque wrenches as peculiarly U.S. usage. Here, for example, is a U.K. .com site, http://www.agriemach.com/products/tools_-_general_serv_+_specialit

BEAM TYPE TORQUE WRENCH This is an easy to use and low cost wrench which measures from 0-140 ft lbs (0-20 metre kilograms). It has a ½” square drive and is ideal both for D.I.Y. and workshop use

Another U.K. site http://www.elsham.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cx500/tw.html

A torque wrench is a tool which is adjustable to a certain level of force, measured in either foot pounds (lbf / ft) or kilogram metres (kgf / m).

A Dutch site http://www.xs4all.nl/~sotty/car/Heavy_duty_____amp_quot__Drive_Torque_Wrench.html

HEAVY-DUTY 1/2" DRIVE TORQUE WRENCH Range: 25-250 ft.-lbs. and 3.5-34.5 m.-kgs.

Note also that in the U.S. today, as it likely is most other places, it is easier to find a torque wrench in "newton meters" than in "meter kilograms". That probably wasn't true anywhere in the fairly recent past, maybe only 20 or 30 years ago, or even less in many places.

Furthermore, as far as the more general question of the use of "kilogram-metres" or "metre-kilograms" to measure torque, that most certainly is not something peculiar to the U.S.:

U.K. http://www.istonline.org.uk/Handbook/09-10.pdf

Energy or Work or Torque (cont’d)

. . .

gf cm 9.80665 x10^-5

kgf m 9.80665

U.K. http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power1.htm

1 PS is 75 kilogram metres per second. The correct measure of torque when power is stated in PS is kilogram metres.

. . .

Kilogram metres don't even translate nicely into Newton metres because the conversion is the value of g which is 9.81. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines

U.K. http://www.vatech.co.uk/pdf03/ds203.pdf

[columns omitted]

WRIST    JT4 100 kg.m 100 kg.m 
RATED    JT5 100 kg.m 100 kg.m
TORQUE   JT6  50 kg.m  50 kg.m

U.K. http://www.symonsnet.fsnet.co.uk/sv650.html

Front brake calipers mounting bolt tightening torque - 39 N.m (3.9 Kg-m, 28.0 lb-ft)

New Zealand http://www.pdu.co.nz/resources/show.php?mode=1&id=0035

Maximum torque (kg-m/rpm) 15.6/4,000 19.0/5,000

New Zealand http://www.murraycostello.co.nz/ssangyong/specspage3.htm

Max torque kg-m/rpm 25.5/2250 31.8/4600 21.8/2700 26.1/2250

Japan http://www.daiwakiko.co.jp/hp/english/kensetukikai/atomic%20150.htm

Maximum torque 32 kg-m/1600 rpm

Austria http://www.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/~fvogl/motorcycle.htm

Max. Torque: 6.2 kg-m / 9,500 rpm

Canada http://www.mgb.bc.ca/reference/specification.html

Torque : High C 110 lb./ft. (15.2 kg.m.) at 3,000 r.p.m.

Norway http://home.online.no/~odd-gro/Specifications.htm

Max.torque 3.2 kg-m (31.6 Nm) at 7,500 rpms

France http://www.le-moteur-moderne.fr/Pages/fichesfr/PIV/XI1A-GT.html

Maximum torque 18.3 kg-m à 5000 rpm 21.3 kg-m @ 4500 rpm 21.2 kg-m @ 5300 rpm

.com http://www.calibrationsales.com/index.html?torque_manual.htm~main

Read in lb-ft, lb-in, oz-in, Nm and M Kg

Now, when it comes to your editing of the "colloquial usage" paragraph, that's a different story—utter nonsense. I'll deal with that separately below, soon. Gene Nygaard 02:11, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Colloquial" usage

Icairns first changed my statement as follows,

In colloquial, non-scientific usage, the "kilograms" used ~~for~~ to measure "weight" are almost always the proper SI units for this purpose. They are units of ~~mass~~ force, not units of ~~force.~~ mass, as might be expected.

Then he edited his own change to read:

In colloquial, non-scientific usage, the "kilogram" used to measure "weight" is almost always the kilogram-force.

This is totally incorrect. Here are lots of references in support of my point.

Another relevant factor is the fact that the pound (mass)s which are still used for the same "colloquial, non-scientific" purposes in the United States, and which used to be common in many other parts of the world (and are still used for things such as cattle sales in Canada, for example) are legally defined as units of mass exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg.

Just put your thinking cap on for a minute. When we buy and sell goods "by weight," as we often do, would it make any sense whatsoever to measure some quantity which varies with the variations in the strenght of local gravity? No. Certainly not. We should not do so, and we do not. In fact,

Nowhere in the world are newtons legal units for the sale of goods.

Nowhere in the world are pounds-force legal units for the sale of goods.

Nowhere in the world are kilograms-force legal units for the sale of goods.

Now, let's get into what the experts in the fiels have to say about this:

NIST Special Publication 811 (1995 ed.),Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) by Dr. Barry N. Taylor: [emphasis added]]

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of".

Examples: the child's weight is 23 kg

the briefcase weighs 6 kg

Net wt. 227 g

The current National Standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-Z234.1-89 Canadian Metric Practice Guide, January 1989:

5.7.3 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the term "weight." In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" nearly always means mass. In science and technology, "weight" has primarily meant a force due to gravity. In scientific and technical work, the term "weight" should be replaced by the term "mass" or "force," depending on the application.

5.7.4 The use of the verb "to weigh" meaning "to determine the mass of," e.g., "I weighed this object and determined its mass to be 5 kg," is correct.

Note a couple of things about these statements:

That "nearly always" is much stronger than "primarily"—they even got that part right.
This difference in usage between the noun forms and the verb forms, with the application-specific meanings for the former, and the unqualified "is correct" for the latter. This is because using to mass with this meaning remains substandard usage which grates on the ears of most people, including many who would not use the noun form for the results of this process.

National Physical Laboratory (the national standards laboratory of the U.K.), NPL FAQ [emphasis added]

Weight

In the trading of goods, weight is taken to mean the same as mass, and is measured in kilograms. Scientifically however, it is normal to state that the weight of a body is the gravitational force acting on it and hence it should be measured in newtons, and this force depends on the local acceleration due to gravity. To add to the confusion, a weight (or weightpiece) is a calibrated mass normally made from a dense metal, and weighing is generally defined as a process for determining the mass of an object.

So, unfortunately, weight has three meanings and care should always be taken to appreciate which one is meant in a particular context.

U.S. Federal Standard 376B, Preferred Metric Units for General Use by the Federal Government, January 27, 1993 [emphasis added]

In commercial and everyday use, and in many technical fields, the term "weiqht" is usually used as a synonym for mass. This is how 'weight" is used in most United States laws and regulations. See the note at 5.2.1 for further explanation.

...

[note at 5.2.1]

NOTE: There is ambiguity in the use of the term weight to mean either force or mass. In general usage, the term weighr nearly always means mass and this is the meaning given the term in U.S. laws and regulations. Where the term is so used, weight is expressed in kilograms in SI. In many fields of science and technology the term weight is defined as the force of gravity acting on an object, i.e., as the product of the mass of the object and the local acceleration of gravity. Where weight is so defined, it is expressed in newtons in SI.

American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard for Metric Practice, E 380-79, ASTM 1979. (This is a standard which together with a similar ANSI/IEEe Standard has now been replaced by the joint standard SI 10; I don't know if the current standard includes similar wording, but I am reasonably certain it includes nothing contradictory.): [emphasis added]

3.4.1.2 Considerable confusion exists in the use of the term weight as a quantity to mean either force or mass. In commercial and everyday use, the term weight nearly always means mass; thus, when one speaks of a person's weight, the quantity referred to is mass. This nontechnical use of the term weight in everyday life will probably persist. In science and technology, the term weight of a body has usually meant the force that, if applied to the body, would give it an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall. The adjective "local" in the phrase "local acceleration of free fall" has usually meant a location on the surface of the earth; in this context the "local acceleration of free fall" has the symbol g (commonly referred to as "acceleration of gravity") with observed values of g differing by over 0.5 % at various points on the earth's surface. The use of force of gravity (mass times acceleration of gravity) instead of weight with this meaning is recommended. Because of the dual use of the term weight as a quantity, this term should be avoided in technical practice except under circumstances in which its meaning is completely clear. When the term is used, it is important to know whether mass or force is intended and to use SI units properly as described in 3.4.1.1, by using kilograms for mass or newtons for force.

3.4.1.3 Gravity is involved in determining mass with a balance or scale. When a standard mass is used to balance the measured mass, the effects of gravity on the two masses are equalized, but the effects of the buoyancy of air or other fluid on the two masses are generally not equalized. When a spring scale is used, the scale reading is directly related to the force of gravity. Spring scales graduated in mass units may be properly used if both the variation in acceleration of gravity and the buoyancy corrections are not significant in their use.

3.4.1.4 The use of the same name for units of force and mass causes confusion. When the non-SI units are used, a distinction should be made between force and mass, for example, lbf to denote force in gravimetric engineering units and lb for mass.

American National Metric Council, Metric Editorial Guide, 3d ed. 1978 [emphasis added]

7.1 In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" nearly always means mass; the use of the word "weight" to mean "mass" and the word "weigh" to mean "determine the mass of" or "have a mass of" is acceptable.

Examples: My weight is 60 kilograms.

Weigh the envelope carefully.

The suitcase weighs 12 kilograms.

Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Standards Board Standard TSB003, Rules for SAE Use of SI (Metric) Units, Rev. May 1999 (first issued Jun 1966 as SAE J916 until 1992) [emphasis added]

3.12 Weight— The weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that provides the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame. Thus the SI unit of weight is the newton (N). In commercial and everyday use, the term "weight" is often used as a synonym for mass, for which the SI unit is the kilogram. The verb "to weigh" means "to determine the mass of" or "to have a mass of." Nevertheless, in scientific and technical practice, the term "weight" should not be used to mean mass.

Enough yet? Gene Nygaard 03:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kilogram-force in scientific usage

In conjunction with the changes in the "colloquial usage" section, Icairns also added this separate paragraph:

In scientific usage, the kilogram is a unit of mass.

The implicit but intended contrast with the following paragraph on colloquial usage, of course, builds in part on the shaky foundation of Icairns' mistaken beliefs about that colloquial usage (discussed in detail in the previous comment). In fact, this is even worse.

The kilogram-force has always been a unit used primarily in science and technology, and very little used in our everyday lives.

That remains true today. The kilogram-force is now much more common in science and technology than it is in everyday use, just as it always has been. Fortunately, the use of this obsolete unit is diminishing in all areas, though more slowly than some of us would like.

The examples I gave were largely from science and technology. Rocket thrust is not some colloquial usage by the people hanging around in a beauty shop. The discussions of torque might be common among racing fans, but this is from the technical aspects of the sport of racing. Similarly, the measurement of draw weight of bows deals with the technical aspects of the sport of archery. The pressure gauges might an oil pressure gauge on a farm tractor, something read by the farmer who is using it—but it was put there by the engineers who designed the tractor. There is, of course, no clear dichotomy between "in science" and the rest of the activities of humans in any case.

Those kilograms-force were the primary units used for thrust in the Russian space program into the late 1980s or early 1990s, and even today the part-numerical names of some of their rockets are based on their thrust in megagrams-force. I've seen evidence (but not totally convincing proof) that in the Chinese space program today, kilograms-force remain the primary units for thrust. They are the units used, together with pounds force, for the thrust of jet engines in Tom Clancy's nonfiction Airborne (1997). Even in Wikipedia, the article on the X prize winning craft, SpaceShipOne had kilograms-force as the primary, original units in which the thrust was expressed, along with an incorrect conversion. (This was likely somebody's unattributed estimate, since as far as I know the builders hold secret the actual thrust.)

Throw out the totally mistaken, illogical belief that "2 kg" on a bag of sugar means two kilograms-force, and you'll have a hard time finding any "colloquial, non-scientific" usage of kilograms force. Contrast that to the abundant examples which are found within science and technology.

Of course, those kilograms used for human body weight in the medical sciences and sports—the primary reasons we weigh ourselves—are every bit as much units of mass as those other units the British still like to use for this purpose, when they say they "weigh twelve stone three". Unlike the pounds unidentified with the spoken "three" there, and unlike the kilogram we have been discussing, the stone has never spawned a unit of force, at least not one that has seen any significant use. Gene Nygaard 13:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defining force

It is very important to mention that it is impossible to define force. All attempts in history failed because of definitions in circles. This is a reason why modern physics theories don't operate with the forces as the source or symptom of interaction. General relativity uses a conception of curved spacetime and Quantum field theory talks about exchanging of intermediate particles like photons, W and Z bosons or gluons. Both theories don't need force. However, because it is easy to imagine forces, one can compute them from these theories. But we must not forget, that correct definition of this concept does not exist.

That is a silly paragraph, so I removed it. Force is defined as the derivative of momentum, and the article gives several alternative definitions.
—Herbee 14:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is a silly paragraph but what you say is quite silly also. If force were defined as the derivative of momentum, then Newton's second law of motion would be a simple definition and not a relation deduced from logical thinking and observation. For example if you study tho movement of the moon, the force acting on the moon is defined by F=GmM/r2 and not by F=ma. If you apply the definition of F to the second law you obtain GmM/r2=ma which is a differential equation and not at all a definition of anything. Newton was maybe not aware of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity but he perfectly new what is a definition and what is a principle (axiom). So I agree with you It is very important to mention that it is impossible to define force. is silly but Force is defined as the derivative of momentum is not that better.--Vb 15:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that it is important if you think something is silly. It is important, if it is true. All the definitions in the article suffer the same problem, they are not correct. They lead to logical circles. Of course, you can always use definitions of p from QFT or GTR and compute force but these theories do not use it because they do not need it. In classical mechanics, it is very obviuos for everybody. If one uses F=ma, then he must to define m. How?

Nonexistence of fully correct definition is important to mention in the article, despite of your opinion. 130.230.1.90 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Change

In Reference to: Although not a fundamental 'quantity' in physics, force is an important basic mathematical concept from which other concepts, such work and pressure (measured in pascals), are derived. Force is sometimes confused with stress.

The article could incorporate this sentence into an introductory paragraph about "Force" - elaborate on aspects that set it apart from the fundamentals of physics. What is 'quantity'?

From a basic, introductory viewpoint, when analyzing force, there are two stereotypes: "static" force (when objects are at rest) and "dynamic" force (when objects are in motion). "Stress" is a term used on occassion during analysis of static forces. That may, just may, explain why Force is sometimes confused with stress (e.g. how much stress can a bolt holding two steel beams together withstand when an elephant does its balancing act?)

Edit request on 20 June 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The name of the author of "Classical Mechanics" is not Corbell but Corben. See http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-Edition-Dover-Physics/dp/0486680630

141.35.45.79 (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Feynman didn't say that

In Force#Friction, Feynman is cited for the statement "For most surface interfaces, the coefficient of kinetic friction is less than the coefficient of static friction." Actually, he says nothing of the kind. Not only does he never define kinetic friction, but he says (on page 12-5) "Many people believe that the friction to be overcome to get something started (static friction) exceeds the force required to keep it sliding (sliding friction), but with dry metals it is very hard to show any difference. The opinion probably arises from experiences where small bits of oil or lubricant are present ..." RockMagnetist (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a "less than or equal to" scenario. For dry metals, the two may very well be close to equal. Perhaps a rewording is in order, but the idea is fairly clear. jps (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Force

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. If some of these citations are inaccurate as RockMagnetist suggests, this is worrying and would probably be sufficient grounds for future delisting; I'd recommend that these citations be checked by editors familiar with the subject. But there still seems to be doubt here, discussion has stalled, and there's no consensus to delist. Khazar2 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC).

It doesn't read that easy. References are not setup properly with multiple sources in one reference that is cited over and over. This article needs to be rewritten entirely while viewing and fixing the sources for accuracy. The main problem is that there are multiple citations in one reference being used.Cky2250 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the frequently cited reference is The Feynman Lectures on Physics, I think this is excusable. And there are plenty of other sources cited too. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not that the sources are bad but that format in which they are cited is. A lot has changed since 2008, so I believe a full view of the article should be done before it is given a good status again.Cky2250 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what things like "it doesn't read that easy" means. Specific recommendations can be dealt with. As for the claim that there is a problem citing "one reference", I don't think that's true in this case. The reference being cited is top-notch. There's no reason to cite any others as far as I can tell. If the claim is that the "format in which they are cited is [bad]," well, I'm not sure I know what the appropriate "format" being requested is. More clarity on what the problems are would help me understand the concerns. jps (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A list of specific issues cross-referenced to the good article assessment criteria would be a big help. Note that WP:GAR (point 3) says explicitly that inconsistently formatted citations are not grounds for de-listing. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. There are 2 books being referenced within the same "ref". Multiple times. They are separate books. That is one problem bad citation, it isn't the format it is that it is bad. Second thing is that equations and explanations do not read easily. How would something be rated good when it has incorrect information, and citation.Cky2250 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I understand either. What's wrong with 2 books being referenced within the same ref? Secondly, what is incorrect and what don't you find easy to read? jps (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with those references. First, twenty six statements are attributed to the same two pages in Kleppner and Kolenkow. I can't access the pages online, but – if those pages really support all of those statements, either they are remarkably dense pages or there is a lot of repetition in this article. The citation of Feynman has the opposite problem - no page numbers at all. I would say the citations don't satisfy WP:BURDEN: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." RockMagnetist (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a case where the {{rp}} template will really help. I have split the two citations and started to implement that. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am starting to get the impression that these two books are frequently used in Hail Mary cites, where an editor seemed to hope the subject was discussed somewhere in these volumes, or at least that it would satisfy reviewers. I discuss an example in Talk:Force#Feynman didn't say that, but there are several other dubious cites. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think improving the references of this article is an admirable goal, and I would encourage those who are concerned about the subject to do this. Most of the material in this article is so elementary that finding a source is about as difficult as putting the statement into google. jps (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Retain. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of work that can and should be done here. Reference formatting is inconsistent and in some places flatly incorrect. I'd like to see some of the explanatory notes pull out into a different section than the reference/bibliographic notes for readability. And, sure, there's some work to be done on the prose. This isn't a FA-level article, but this isn't FAC/FAR, and I can't see where anything has been claimed to fall short of the GA criteria here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: This GAR was closed last November - see the top of this section. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

First law - relationship with least action principle and Euler-Lagrange equations

(Disclaimer: I work in condensed matter theory and much of what I'm about to say may not be as applicable in other areas of physics that I'm less familiar with, like astrophysics and plasma physics, so if someone with actual training in one of those fields wishes to dispute anything I say here based on his or her own experience, I'll probably concede the point) I'd just like to point out, as a physicist, that Newton's first law is really pretty useless for most problems. First, it is only applicable at particular scales of velocity and mass: too high a mass or velocity and relativistic corrections become important; too low a momentum and quantum theory becomes relevant (sometimes you even get systems that are, gosh, both relativistic and quantum). Second, even for cases within which it is applicable, it's almost impossible to get any useful information out of anything but a system of small particles of number less than three. So after elementary mechanics, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics become unavoidable, even when you're trying to derive the force, and you're rarely deriving the force for its own sake - force itself is only really relevant in cases in which it is convenient to use it to calculate something else, and because Newtonian mechanics is so restrictive, it almost never is the most convenient tool. So really this article is about a pedagogical tool that was historically very important in calculations, but now is not as useful, which is why I think this article is incomplete without going through the history of the concept, how it was used, and why it isn't as important today. This information should be added. The first volume of Landau and Lifshitz, Mechanics, would be a good place to start for anyone looking for some inspiration on how to do so. BTW, don't listen to anyone who says that you can't treat non-conservative forces with Lagrangians and Hamiltonians - they clearly either haven't been exposed to Noether's Theorem or aren't comfortable with working directly from the symmetries of the system to derive conservation laws. Sometimes even asymmetries can be useful if they are of a certain type. Quodfui (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is all true, for essentially the entire subject of forces. Elementary mechanics is still taught to give a conceptual framework for physicists, but it is entirely abandoned after the first year of a good undergraduate education in favor of more useful methods. I don't know that this history is relevant to the topic of force per se. It's more of a caveat emptor.jps (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

pulley system in info box

The force diagram is misleading. There should be a major x and y component supporting the top of the upper pulley. Otherwise the two forces shown would cause the pulley system to accelerate to the left and downward. Ward20 (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-fundamental forces

I would have liked to have seen more discussion of this notion "non-fundamental." The very idea force seems to me non-fundamental, in that it is defined by Newton's First Law as mass times acceleration, both of which have quite objective existence.

Looking over at Wiki: Mass I see that mass, acceleration and force are all said to be fundamental in the menu at the side of the page. This seems perhaps, well, problematic. If that is indeed the convention of classical physics, what did Newton do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The questions around what are defined truths and what in physics has real-ish existence are puzzling to me, and that's what I came here looking for.

Didn't find it.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental forces are explained at the top of Force#Fundamental forces. They are the four forces - strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational - that, as far as we know, cannot be reduced to other forces. The first three are mediated by elementary particles and the fourth might be as well. All other forces are non-fundamental; if you look at them closely, they turn out to be disguised versions of the fundamental forces. In the sidebar you're talking about, Template:Classical mechanics, "Fundamentals" just refers to basic concepts that are used a lot in physics; they're not fundamental in the sense of being irreducible. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)