View Full Version : For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction


Jozen-Bo
01-31-08, 05:42 AM
I was curious about one of the premises of Physics. The old statement: for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Is this still valid in Physics?

And if so...would it not mean that the opposite of the state of nothing..no time..and so on - is totality...all time and all possibilites fulfilled?

Off course, nothing isn't an action...but it may have implications as being a state that brings about its opposite state...Everything Possible.

Then in between these two ends ...or beginnings..or absolutes...would we have a progression of relativity?


If so, then would that mean that nothing itself is inseperate from Everything...
and perfect knowledge exists in a static and eternal state fully fulfilled from the implication of Every Possible Outcome?

Asguard
01-31-08, 05:45 AM
you missread the principle. Its every ACTION has an equal and oposite reaction. It refers to forces nothing else. If i push on a wall the wall pushes back, if i give you a $100 there is no universal law that means you will give me $100 back

Reiku
01-31-08, 05:51 AM
No.

The principle only works on macroscopic levels. On the subatomic level, not everything works by cause and effects.

Reiku
01-31-08, 05:52 AM
''And if so...would it not mean that the opposite of the state of nothing..no time..and so on - is totality...all time and all possibilites fulfilled?''


Here you are certainly right. If we extrapolate our existences down to subatomic levels, then this line holds true.

Asguard
01-31-08, 05:57 AM
Reiku

no it doesnt, I could say that the oposite of everything was god, chocolate iced cream or the disc world and that would make as much sence as that statement.

we dont KNOW what is possable (we are a product of THIS univese and ONLY this universe). We cant even DEFINE nothing, how are we going to assume that the oposite of whatever nothing is is THIS

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:01 AM
Then let us associate colors with codes.

Asguard
01-31-08, 06:02 AM
that went straight over my head i hate to say:(

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:03 AM
Also... to say we are a product of this universe only, is a falsifiable theory, against the multiverse theory...

An electron for instence, is shared among many universes... collectively, you can say from this interpetation that possibly it extends into infinity = 00

Enmos
01-31-08, 06:07 AM
Also... to say we are a product of this universe only, is a falsifiable theory, against the multiverse theory...

An electron for instence, is shared among many universes... collectively, you can say from this interpetation that possibly it extends into infinity = 00

Says who ? That is an unfounded assumption.. not science.

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:13 AM
I am very let down with the lack of physics around here:

Everette showed us that the universe could be an infinite amount among many: Not only this, but he showed us that a single particle is in a dizzy infinite among an infinite amount of universes.

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:14 AM
Not that i agree with the theory. For reference.

Enmos
01-31-08, 06:18 AM
I am very let down with the lack of physics around here:


Not that i agree with the theory. For reference.

:confused:

Look they observe these particles disappearing.. nothing more. They assume that they move between universes. It is unfalsifiable and thus not science.
Or am I unaware of any evidence supporting this assumption ?

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:47 AM
If they disappear, then they ''tunnel'' through time and space.

Reiku
01-31-08, 06:48 AM
That is self-constistent, in the theory that one universe is enough.

Enmos
01-31-08, 09:08 AM
Right.. so why do we need multiple universes ?

Reiku
01-31-08, 09:12 AM
Only because of situations... these ''things'' happen inherently, and yet, the math predicts them... BUT

There is one theory saying that one universe is certainly enough.

Enmos
01-31-08, 09:15 AM
Only because of situations... these ''things'' happen inherently, and yet, the math predicts them... BUT

There is one theory saying that one universe is certainly enough.

I don't know what you're saying.. please explain again ?

ge0050
03-18-10, 10:21 AM
>
you missread the principle. Its every ACTION has an equal and oposite reaction. It refers to forces nothing else. If i push on a wall the wall pushes back, if i give you a $100 there is no universal law that means you will give me $100 back
<

Newton is correct. The opposite reaction to me giving you $100 is you taking $100 from me.

The reason for most problems we associate with the "human condition" is that we ignore this simple principle and think that it only applies to physics.

Whatever we do, there is always going to be an equal and opposite reaction, which may be the cause of the problem we are trying to solve.

Muslim
03-19-10, 05:34 AM
The total energy of the universe is zero as, shown by Hawkins. The Multiverse makes the most sense, our universe is just one among and infinite other universes, since in theory there are infinite other universe then it is a possibility, we could be existing on another universe in another dimension. All the possible actions play out, for example in one universe maybe the job you did not get, in another universe you might have got the job. Theoretically it is a possibility.

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 09:40 AM
The reason for most problems we associate with the "human condition" is that we ignore this simple principle and think that it only applies to physics.
Wrong: it hasn't been shown to apply to humans - it is a physics principle.


Whatever we do, there is always going to be an equal and opposite reaction, which may be the cause of the problem we are trying to solve.
Unproven speculation.


The opposite reaction to me giving you $100 is you taking $100 from me.
What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to you sending me a birthday card*? What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to me dating your sister?

* And me sending you one isn't valid because of the time delay...

stateofmind
03-19-10, 09:51 AM
Wrong: it hasn't been shown to apply to humans - it is a physics principle.


Unproven speculation.


What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to you sending me a birthday card*? What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to me dating your sister?

* And me sending you one isn't valid because of the time delay...

Don't you agree that it's POSSIBLE there is an equal and opposite reaction to everything we do? Also, given the complexity of human beings, as opposed to the some of the simple systems that physics deals with (force), don't you think that the equal and opposite reactions might not be so symmetrical from the obvious surface perspective?

I can give an obvious example that is a non-symmetrical equal but opposite reaction which creates a feedback loop: A guitar player plucks some strings on a guitar and the reaction is sound that is produced through an amplifier. No, contrary to what you might think, an anti-matter version of the guitar player plucking the string with the opposite hand does not come out of the amplifier. Upon hearing this he changes his next action - which is a feedback loop - and this goes on for as long as the guitarist wishes.

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 09:59 AM
Don't you agree that it's POSSIBLE there is an equal and opposite reaction to everything we do?
It's an idea, but how do measure and quantify human actions/ reactions?
What value (in what units) does "me dating your sister" have?
And what exactly is the appropriate response/ reaction?
Is there only one possible reaction? Hardly.


Also, given the complexity of human beings, as opposed to the some of the simple systems that physics deals with (force), don't you think that the equal and opposite reactions might not be so symmetrical from the obvious surface perspective?
So you're saying that "equal and opposite" when it comes to humans might not be?


I can give an obvious example that is a non-symmetrical equal but opposite reaction which creates a feedback loop: A guitar player plucks some strings on a guitar and the reaction is sound that is produced through an amplifier.
False dichotomy: since it goes through an amp there are other considerations to take into account than simply guitar/ output.


No, contrary to what you might think, an anti-matter version of the guitar player plucking the string with the opposite hand does not come out of the amplifier. Upon hearing this he changes his next action - which is a feedback loop - and this goes on for as long as the guitarist wishes.
:shrug:
:confused:

stateofmind
03-19-10, 10:07 AM
So you're saying that "equal and opposite" when it comes to humans might not be?


False dichotomy: since it goes through an amp there are other considerations to take into account than simply guitar/ output.


:shrug:
:confused:

I'm saying equal and opposite when it comes to humans might not be symmetrical from the perspective we commonly use to look at things.

Okay, you don't want the amp? How about an acoustic guitar? You pluck the string and a sound comes out. The pluck was the action and the sound was the reaction - see, it's not symmetrical but still equal and opposite.

I was trying to show with the "anti-matter form of the guitarist plucking a string with the opposite hand" how ridiculous symmetrical equal and opposite reactions would look in certain phenomena.

DRZion
03-19-10, 10:12 AM
The neutrino was predicted to exist based solely on conservation laws. During beta decay there was a bit of momentum and energy which was unaccounted for, and for this reason Pauli created the neutrino. Lo and behold, several years later it was detected.

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 10:34 AM
I'm saying equal and opposite when it comes to humans might not be symmetrical from the perspective we commonly use to look at things.
In other words not equal...


Okay, you don't want the amp? How about an acoustic guitar? You pluck the string and a sound comes out. The pluck was the action and the sound was the reaction - see, it's not symmetrical but still equal and opposite.
Nope, the sound isn't equal to the initial energy - there will be losses. The reaction is the motion of the string.


I was trying to show with the "anti-matter form of the guitarist plucking a string with the opposite hand" how ridiculous symmetrical equal and opposite reactions would look in certain phenomena.
You were veering off at a tangent: how does introducing anti matter or the "other hand" illustrate the point (if there was one)?

stateofmind
03-19-10, 10:44 AM
In other words not equal...


Nope, the sound isn't equal to the initial energy - there will be losses. The reaction is the motion of the string.


You were veering off at a tangent: how does introducing anti matter or the "other hand" illustrate the point (if there was one)?

Asymmetry can still be equal - or to make it a little more clear - something may be asymmetrical from one perspective but symmetrical from another.

Okay, even if you think the sound isn't the reaction... the vibration of the string is not a symmetrical reaction to the pluck from the pick but it is still an equal and opposite reaction. Input and output.

I was trying to think of the exact opposite of the act of someone plucking a string! The opposite of a person made of matter is a person made of antimatter and the opposite hand... like he was the mirror image - get it?

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 11:02 AM
Okay, even if you think the sound isn't the reaction... the vibration of the string is not a symmetrical reaction to the pluck from the pick but it is still an equal and opposite reaction. Input and output.
And your point would be...?
Newton's statement was about the forces involved, not their manifestation. E.g. Plucking a string induces movement in the string - it doesn't preclude the movement (or even indicate that a reaction should be movement).


I was trying to think of the exact opposite of the act of someone plucking a string! The opposite of a person made of matter is a person made of antimatter and the opposite hand... like he was the mirror image - get it?
Which does nothing to illustrate the point in contention. You were showing an "opposite action", not an opposite reaction. But it still come s down to an action leading to a reaction.

stateofmind
03-19-10, 11:33 AM
And your point would be...?
Newton's statement was about the forces involved, not their manifestation. E.g. Plucking a string induces movement in the string - it doesn't preclude the movement (or even indicate that a reaction should be movement).

My point is this:


What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to you sending me a birthday card*? What is the "equal and opposite reaction" to me dating your sister?

That there is probably an equal and opposite reaction to both of these things and probably every single action we make - including unconscious ones. We may think there isn't because the reaction isn't symmetrical from the perspective that we're viewing it from. This phenomenon is actually quite common in the study of chaos in non-linear systems. Picture two prisms (3 dimensional) exactly alike, they're tips pointing to each other to create a perfect symmetry - like an input and an output.

Like this:

><

Now do you realize that there are many more angles (perspectives) that you can view the two prisms that are NOT symmetrical? Symmetry depends on perspective.




Which does nothing to illustrate the point in contention. You were showing an "opposite action", not an opposite reaction. But it still come s down to an action leading to a reaction.

You don't think the vibration of the string is a reaction to the pluck? :confused:

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 11:43 AM
My point is this:
That there is probably an equal and opposite reaction to both of these things and probably every single action we make - including unconscious ones.
You say "probably". Why?


We may think there isn't because the reaction isn't symmetrical from the perspective that we're viewing it from. This phenomenon is actually quite common in the study of chaos in non-linear systems. Picture two prisms (3 dimensional) exactly alike, they're tips pointing to each other to create a perfect symmetry - like an input and an output.
Like this:
><
Now do you realize that there are many more angles (perspectives) that you can view the two prisms that are NOT symmetrical? Symmetry depends on perspective.
Specious twaddle.
Doesn't chaos theory (and especially catastrophe theory) show that there are tipping points where a small input leads to an overwhelmingly larger effect? Sort invalidates "equal" and opposite, doesn't it?
What evidence is there for equal and opposite reactions in human behaviour? What's the units of measurement?
Again: if I buy you a cup of tea what is the equal and opposite reaction?


You don't think the vibration of the string is a reaction to the pluck? :confused:
That's not what I said. I was querying the value (or even the point) of introducing anti matter and the "other hand". The ACTION is plucking the string. The REACTION is the vibration of the string. Anything else is extraneous.

stateofmind
03-19-10, 12:08 PM
You say "probably". Why?


I say probably in the knowledge that nothing can be known absolutely. The Theory of Relatively is also probably a correct description of the universe.


Doesn't chaos theory (and especially catastrophe theory) show that there are tipping points where a small input leads to an overwhelmingly larger effect? Sort invalidates "equal" and opposite, doesn't it?

Cause and effect gets trickier the further you go into it. Those "tipping points" where output is magnified has a bunch of explanations. Firstly, to reach those tipping points they have to have been caused by what probably seemed insignificant at the time but if they led to the tipping point then they must have been significant, right? In reality it seems, all actions get magnified over time.

Here's how I look at the magnified effects. Just like seeds some float along through the air for a time before landing. Some land on stony ground and can't take root. Some get eaten by birds. But some land on dirt and take root - that's when the real growth starts (magnified effects). Naturally, some environments are more conducive to the growth of some actions than others - just as some soils are better for some plants than others.

So while the reactions might seem disproportionate or random, this is just a misunderstanding. Reactions can grow and this in no way refutes opposite and equal reaction - it's just more complex than many of us imagine.

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 12:18 PM
I say probably in the knowledge that nothing can be known absolutely. The Theory of Relatively is also probably a correct description of the universe.
Specious comparison. What evidence is there for the "equal and opposite" principle applying to human behaviour?


Firstly, to reach those tipping points they have to have been caused by what probably seemed insignificant at the time but if they led to the tipping point then they must have been significant, right?
No, that's why it's called "catastrophe theory".


In reality it seems, all actions get magnified over time.
In other words "equal and opposite" doesn't apply.


So while the reactions might seem disproportionate or random, this is just a misunderstanding.
That's your claim: evidence?


Reactions can grow and this in no way refutes opposite and equal reaction - it's just more complex than many of us imagine.
Ho hum. New age wishful "thinking". What evidence is there?

stateofmind
03-19-10, 12:27 PM
Lol, of course you take what I say completely out of context and just attack the conclusions in isolation... you didn't even mention the seed analogy.

Where is the evidence that human behavior is affected by equal and opposite reaction? Hmmm... namely that the entire rest of the universe is dictated by it!! :bugeye:

Equal and opposite still does apply... My action has an equal and opposite reaction - you still following? - and then that reaction is subject to further reactions with other things - like the seed finding soil - which causes the reaction of growth. How are you not understanding this!!??

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 12:34 PM
Lol, of course you take what I say completely out of context and just attack the conclusions in isolation...
Because your "conclusions" are based on nothing.


you didn't even mention the seed analogy.
Because it was nonsense.


Where is the evidence that human behavior is affected by equal and opposite reaction? Hmmm... namely that the entire rest of the universe is dictated by it!! :bugeye:
Really? Where? How?


Equal and opposite still does apply... My action has an equal and opposite reaction - you still following? - and then that reaction is subject to further reactions with other things - like the seed finding soil - which causes the reaction of growth. How are you not understanding this!!??
Because you're talking rubbish: how are human behaviours equal or opposite to whatever engendered them? Go back to my "cup of tea" question and try answering that.
Is it possible for someone to decide NOT to react to someone's actions? Is it possible to OVER-react to someone's actions? Those examples alone should show that "equal and opposite" does NOT apply.

stateofmind
03-19-10, 01:59 PM
Talking to you is like throwing seeds in a desert.

Read-Only
03-19-10, 02:22 PM
Talking to you is like throwing seeds in a desert.

Hardly. You are being just plain silly by trying to introduce philosophical metaphors into a scientific (physics, to be precise) discussion. :shrug:

For example - what is the opposite reaction to a bird dying in the forest? What is the opposite reaction of deciding to have tuna on rye instead of ham on wheat?

Those examples compare perfectly with what you've been saying - and they are pure nonsense from a scientific perspective!!! So get over it and move along to something else.

Dywyddyr
03-19-10, 03:52 PM
Talking to you is like throwing seeds in a desert.
That would because your "seeds" are devoid of any rational value.

Learning
06-14-11, 12:46 PM
Just fascinating to read the exchanges between people who have such unique convictions on getting to "the point" which is difficult to define sometimes. Those of you with the skillful discipline to only use scientific methods and theories for dialogue is remarkable. I respect that you don't let the emotional, random, generalized perspectives pull you away from that. Trying to merge generalized concepts such as 'isn't this theory applicable to all interactions between human beings' does not seem like a scientific question, it's more like trying to take a recipe for how to make a cake and say, can't you make stir fry with this as well? Technically, yes you could, but it would not taste like stir fry is supposed to. Meaning, you may have the method and theory down, but the ingredients you use to create an outcome must be very specific and paticular. I love the thought of using the application of physics to connect certain concepts of life experience together (if i give you $100 dollars, push on a wall, etc) but trying to interweave them into scientific formulas may not be the best way to go about making sense of them. Although the concepts are accurate, but realistically (scientifically) they are not interchangeable. I just joined this conversation a year and a half late...wonder if I'm just writing to myself? ha.