INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

In the preceding Chapter, our concern was to describe the motion of a particle in space quantitatively. We saw that uniform motion needs the concept of velocity alone whereas non-uniform motion requires the concept of acceleration in addition. So far, we have not asked the question as to what governs the motion of bodies. In this chapter, we turn to this basic question.

Let us first guess the answer based on our common experience. To move a football at rest, someone must kick it. To throw a stone upwards, one has to give it an upward push. A breeze causes the branches of a tree to swing; a strong wind can even move heavy objects. A boat moves in a flowing river without anyone rowing it. Clearly, some external agency is needed to provide force to move a body from rest.Likewise, an external force is needed also to retard or stop motion. You can stop a ball rolling down an inclined plane by applying a force against the direction of its motion.

In these examples, the external agency of force (hands, wind, stream, etc) is in contact with the object.This is not always necessary. A stone released from the top of a building accelerates downward due to the gravitational pull of the earth. A bar magnet can attract an iron nail from a distance. This shows that external agencies (e.g. gravitational and magnetic forces ) can exert force on a body even from a distance.

In short, a force is required to put a stationary body in motion or stop a moving body, and some external agency is needed to provide this force.

The external agency may or may not be in contact with the body.

So far so good. But what if a body is moving uniformly (e.g. a skater moving straight with constant speed on a horizontal ice slab) ? Is an external force required to keep a body in uniform motion?

Aristotle's Fallacy

Aristotle's Fallacy

The question posed above appears to be simple.However, it took ages to answer it.Indeed, the correct answer to this question given by Galileo in the seventeenth century was the foundation of Newtonian mechanics, which signalled the birth of modern science.

The Greek thinker, Aristotle (384 B.C– 322 B.C.), held the view that if a body is moving, something external is required to keep it moving. According to this view, for example, an arrow shot from a bow keeps flying since the air behind the arrow keeps pushing it. The view was part of an elaborate framework of ideas developed by Aristotle on the motion of bodies in the universe. Most of the Aristotelian ideas on motion are now known to be wrong and need not concern us. For our purpose here, the Aristotelian law of motion may be phrased thus: An external force is required to keep a body in motion.

Aristotelian law of motion is flawed, as we shall see. However, it is a natural view that anyone would hold from common experience. Even a small child playing with a simple (non-electric) toy-car on a floor knows intuitively that it needs to constantly drag the string attached to the toy- car with some force to keep it going. If it releases the string, it comes to rest. This experience is common to most terrestrial motion. External forces seem to be needed to keep bodies in motion. Left to themselves, all bodies eventually come to rest.

What is the flaw in Aristotle’s argument? The answer is: a moving toy car comes to rest because the external force of friction on the car by the floor opposes its motion. To counter this force, the child has to apply an external force on the car in the direction of motion. When the car is in uniform motion, there is no net external force acting on it: the force by the child cancels the force ( friction) by the floor. The corollary is: if there were no friction, the child would not be required to apply any force to keep the toy car in uniform motion.

The opposing forces such as friction (solids) and viscous forces (for fluids) are always present in the natural world. This explains why forces by external agencies are necessary to overcome the frictional forces to keep bodies in uniform motion. Now we understand where Aristotle went wrong. He coded this practical experience in the form of a basic argument.To get at the true law of nature for forces and motion, one has to imagine a world in which uniform motion is possible with no frictional forces opposing. This is what Galileo did.

The Law of Inertia

The Law of Inertia

Galileo studied motion of objects on an inclined plane. Objects (i) moving down an inclined plane accelerate, while those (ii) moving up retard. (iii) Motion on a horizontal plane is an intermediate situation. Galileo concluded that an object moving on a frictionless horizontal plane must neither have acceleration nor retardation, i.e. it should move with constant velocity (Fig. 5.1(a)).

                                      fig.5.1(a).

Another experiment by Galileo leading to the same conclusion involves a double inclined plane. A ball released from rest on one of the planes rolls down and climbs up the other. If the planes are smooth, the final height of the ball is nearly the same as the initial height (a little less but never greater). In the ideal situation, when friction is absent, the final height of the ball is the same as its initial height.

If the slope of the second plane is decreased and the experiment repeated, the ball will still reach the same height,but in doing so, it will travel a longer distance. In the limiting case, when the slope of the second plane is zero (i.e. is a horizontal) the ball travels an infinite distance. In other words, its motion never ceases.This is, of course, an idealised situation (Fig. 5.1(b)).

                   fig.5.1(b).The law of inertia was inferred by Galileo from observations of motion of a ball on a double inclined plane.

In practice, the ball does come to a stop after moving a finite distance on the horizontal plane, because of the opposing force of friction which can never be totally eliminated. However, if there were no friction, the ball would continue to move with a constant velocity on the horizontal plane. Galileo thus, arrived at a new insight motion that had eluded Aristotle and those who followed him. The state of rest and the state of uniform linear motion (motion with constant velocity) are equivalent. In both cases, there is no net force acting on the body. It is incorrect to assume that a net force is needed to keep a body in uniform motion. To maintain a body in uniform motion, we need to apply an external force to ecounter the frictional force, so that the two forces sum up to zero net external force.

To summarise, if the net external force is zero, a body at rest continues to remain at rest and a body in motion continues to move with a uniform velocity. This property of the body is called inertia. Inertia means ‘resistance to change’. A body does not change its state of rest or uniform motion, unless an external force compels it to change that state.

Ideas on Motion in Ancient Indian Science

Ancient Indian thinkers had arrived at an elaborate system of ideas on motion. Force, the cause of motion, was thought to be of different kinds : force due to continuous pressure (nodan), as the force of wind on a sailing vessel; impact (abhighat), as when a potter’s rod strikes the wheel; persistent tendency (sanskara) to move in a straight line(vega) or restoration of shape in an elastic body; transmitted force by a string, rod, etc. The notion of (vega) in the Vaisesika theory of motion perhaps comes closest to the concept of inertia. Vega, the tendency to move in a straight line, was thought to be opposed by contact with objects including atmosphere, a parallel to the ideas of friction and air resistance. It was correctly summarised that the different kinds of motion (translational, rotational and vibrational) of an extended body arise from only the translational motion of its constituent particles. A falling leaf in the wind may have downward motion as a whole (patan) and also rotational and vibrational motion (bhraman, spandan), but each particle of the leaf at an instant only has a definite (small) displacement. There was considerable focus in Indian thought on measurement of motion and units of length and time. It was known that the position of a particle in space can be indicated by distance measured along three axes. Bhaskara (1150 A.D.) had introduced the concept of ‘instantaneous motion’ (tatkaliki gati), which anticipated the modern notion of instantaneous velocity using Differential Calculus. The difference between a wave and a current (of water) was clearly understood; a current is a motion of particles of water under gravity and fluidity while a wave results from the transmission of vibrations of water particles.