Jump to content

Newton's Third Law

From Natural Philosophy Wiki

Newton's third law of motion states that if one body exerts a force on a second body, the second exerts on the first a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Isaac Newton gave it in the Principia (1687) as Actioni contrariam semper et aequalem esse reactionem.

The standard account

The third law is the statement of momentum conservation for a pair of interacting bodies: because the two forces are equal and opposite, the total momentum of the pair does not change. Physicists distinguish a weak form — the forces are equal and opposite — from a strong form, in which they are additionally directed along the line joining the two bodies, which is what is required for conservation of angular momentum as well. Newtonian gravity and Coulomb's Law both satisfy the strong form.

The Lorentz Force does not. It is a standard and entirely uncontroversial result in mainstream electrodynamics that the magnetic forces between two isolated current elements, computed from the Grassmann–Lorentz expression, are in general neither equal and opposite nor collinear. The textbook resolution is that the electromagnetic field itself carries momentum — the Poynting momentum density ε0E×B — so that momentum is conserved for the system of charges plus field, even though it is not conserved for the charges alone. In relativistic field theory the third law is therefore not a fundamental axiom but a consequence of translational symmetry (Noether's theorem) applied to the full system. This is a real and well-known subtlety, not a suppressed embarrassment; it is discussed openly in graduate texts.

On this wiki

What is disputed here is not the fact but the conclusion drawn from it. Several researchers catalogued on this wiki treat the failure of the Lorentz force to be action–reaction symmetric as evidence that the force law itself is wrong, rather than as evidence that field momentum must be included.

The honest summary is that mainstream physics and these researchers agree on the mathematics and disagree on its meaning: whether a field that carries momentum is a physical thing that can absorb the imbalance, or a bookkeeping device introduced to rescue a defective force law.

See also