One of the toughest challenges for AP Physics C students to get their minds around is that Newton’s Second Law takes so many different forms. There are six separate expressions of Newton’s Second Law of Motion in Calculus-based Intro Physics (a.k.a. AP Physics C Mechanics). Students with some background in physics are accustomed to expressing Newton’s Second Law as F=ma (or Ft=Δp, as is becoming popular with some physics teachers).
However, in AP C, we need both the acceleration and momentum forms of the Second Law, and each takes on three incarnations. In verbal form, here they are:
Single particle, acceleration form
Single particle, momentum form
System of particles, acceleration form
System of particles, momentum form
Angular acceleration form
Angular momentum form
In mathematical form, they look really nice too:
Roy
I wonder if you could expand upon this post a bit. Firstly I see that you make the connection between (apparently more traditional) F = ma and momentum, but I know that you have a concern over the interchange of the nomenclature of ‘Newton’s Second Law’ and the new terminology of ‘the momentum principle’. Care to elaborate on that concern?
Secondly, do you think that F = ma (with no mention of momentum per se), is a better way to set up the kids to understand the ‘six versions’ that you mention?
Adrian,
Essentially, in physics, we have, over the centuries, since 1687, developed a universal language; that is to say, a language that is spoken all over the world. That’s why the attempt to rename “Newton’s Second Law of Motion” as “The Momentum Principle” causes me a bit of a pause. We can all agree, presumably, that the momentum form of the Second Law, which is, after all, Newton’s original formulation, and which is, after all, definitely more pertinent than the acceleration form to contemporary physics as is done at CERN, should probably receive a more prominent treatment in introductory physics. There are many physics problems which benefit from a momentum analysis. However, that does not mean that the acceleration formulation, F = ma, should be summarily discarded! Many amazing physics problems benefit from an acceleration analysis. One of the sine qua nons of introductory physics, projectile motion, certainly depends on the idea the the acceleration is a constant, not to mention any problem that does not involve a collision. Both expressions of Newton’s Second Law are important. The attempt of a small number of authors to overturn the terminology “Newton’s Second Law of Motion,” in favor of “The Momentum Principle,” not only confuses speakers of the language of physics around the world, it also obscures the fact that the Second Law has an acceleration form as well as a momentum form. Thus, I do not support this change of terminology.
To your second query, I’m not sure. The traditional approach is to start with acceleration and then proceed to momentum. Would students benefit from reversing the order? My intuition is that they would not, but it is an interesting question. I am not a slavish traditionalist. I just don’t believe in discarding the baby with the bathwater.