Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion

hansda

Valued Senior Member
Newton's First Law of Motion states "an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_first_law

Using this Law in my paper ( https://www.academia.edu/31457696/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Success ), I made a statement (in II.6 of my paper, in the 1st paragraph, second line) that, "If no force is applied to the particle at any instant of time, the particle will remain in the same state of motion as the previous instant of time".

This statement is based on Instantaneous Force and from this statement Newton's first law can be concluded. So, this statement can be considered as Modified Newton's First Law of Motion or Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

This statement is based on Instantaneous Force and from this statement Newton's first law can be concluded. So, this statement can be considered as Modified Newton's First Law of Motion or Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

To me this paragraph seems strange

I am curious if anyone else has such a view?

Newton's First Law of Motion....

Using this Law in my paper, I made a statement.....

......from this statement Newton's first law can be concluded.....

.

Actually, I like this. You may be onto something.

I like the idea of an instantaneous force. Let's stipulate what that would mean:

1. You have stated that the instantaneous state of motion doesn't change unless an instantaneous force is applied. A force either must have a duration (not "instantaneous"), or else:

a) it will appear to have no effect at all on the state of motion (as is the case for something matter or antimatter at rest or a photon propagating in a given direction at c), or

b) it may ONLY change or reverse the current state of motion in terms of direction.
If the state of motion is a 'propagation' mode (spinning in either direction or propagating at the speed of light), the 'instantaneous, quantized force' applied is always equal to the twice the force needed to bring a photon to rest. This is the fundamental basis of the discrete nature of quantum interactions.

No one else (Newton or Galileo) has ever suggested application of the law of inertia to something that normally travels at c instead of only describing the state of motion of chunk of matter (for which being at rest is the more natural state).

And I think you may finally have success. Congratulations! Your law of inertia does not require relativity because the states of motion described are both invariant.

2. You have stated that in the absence of an instantaneous force, the state of motion (quantum spin or propagation or a combination of the two relative to a rest frame that is neither propagating nor spinning, remains unchanged over an interval (not just an 'instant') of time.

No one ever suggested that force could actually be instantaneous until you just did. Good job. Wherever or however did you derive such a wonderful idea? This idea is so powerful, it may supplant relativity. It already explains quantized interaction very well. This is not sarcasm.

Can't take any credit for this. It was all hansda's idea. The instantaneous force he has just described is the fundamental basis of the laws of the inertial nature of quantum entanglement.

While 'instantaneous motion' may appear to be nonsensical, 'instantaneous force' definitely is not. A photon reflected in a mirror is one example. A photon or energy wave reflected ar the boundary of what is inside vs what is outside of a fundamental particle is another. The tem wave in a microwave waveguide would be a third, because its phase velocity is known to be faster than light in a vacuum.

Last edited:
Newton's first law of motion is science. Don't anyone here suggest that hansda's thread belongs in pseudoscience. Argue it here on its own merits, or simply leave it exactly as it is.

What has been proposed is that forces exist with pre-quantized characteristics capable of changing states (direction) of energy in an instant (not a duration) of absolute time. Because it does not deal with time intervals, no Lorentz transformation or relativity is assumed. Neither is Minkowski rotation relevant to the analysis.

Absolute time in the form of an instant 'now' has simply been substituted in lieu of a position in absolute space, which the uncertainty principle already informs us, has no meaning if a velocity (which includes the speed of light) is known. It IS known, and therefore, all of this makes perfect sense.

Last edited:
To me this paragraph seems strange

Why do you think so? Newton's Law of Inertia can be derived from this "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

I am curious if anyone else has such a view?

May be others views are different.

Actually, I like this. You may be onto something.

Thanks.

A force either must have a duration (not "instantaneous"),

If the force is having a duration, it will be acting at every instant of time in that duration of time.

Dan,

What is instantaneous force? It will create trouble in Impulse calculation...F/dt will become F/0...you see just because word instantaneous is used in Newtonian, which is used in different context, it does not mean that force can be applied or experienced by an object in zero duration. Anything which is whacky gets your non-sarcastic support? You are allowing total screwing of acceleration concept in Newtonian. Novelty is not needed in this area, it's quite well established.

"If no force is applied to the particle at any instant of time, the particle will remain in the same state of motion as the previous instant of time".

Could you please clarify what you mean by "the previous instant of time?" If $$t_1$$ and $$t_2$$ are instants of time, wouldn't $$t_3 = \frac{t_1 + t_2}{2}$$ be an instant of time strictly between $$t_1$$ and $$t_2$$?

If the force is having a duration, it will be acting at every instant of time in that duration of time.
No. You can't have it both ways. Either it is an instant of time (NO duration), or it is an interval of time (which can only be measured ONCE without traveling backward in time). When you say "instantaneous force", I take you at your word that you mean what you say you mean. I'm dead serious; yours is an excellent idea.

I was encouraged in part because you didn't make the mistake Minkowski did, equivocating and attempting to set up a proportion relationship between an interval of time and an instant of time.

Last edited:
This statement is based on Instantaneous Force and from this statement Newton's first law can be concluded. So, this statement can be considered as Modified Newton's First Law of Motion or Instantaneous Law of Inertia.
To me this paragraph seems strange

I am curious if anyone else has such a view?
Why do you think so? Newton's Law of Inertia can be derived from this "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

May be others views are different.

This statement is based on Instantaneous Force

What is Instantaneous Force ?

and from this statement Newton's first law can be concluded

How is Newton's first law concluded (finished)?

So, this statement can be considered as Modified Newton's First Law of Motion

How modified?

or Instantaneous Law of Inertia

Law of inertia

(Objects at rest stay at rest

objects in motion stay in motion

unless either are acted on by a external force)

Dan,

What is instantaneous force? It will create trouble in Impulse calculation...F/dt will become F/0...you see just because word instantaneous is used in Newtonian, which is used in different context, it does not mean that force can be applied or experienced by an object in zero duration. Anything which is whacky gets your non-sarcastic support? You are allowing total screwing of acceleration concept in Newtonian. Novelty is not needed in this area, it's quite well established.
That is exactly what hansda's idea allows ("screw Newtonian acceleration") and this is what makes it so attractive to those of us who actually believe the clock postulate.

Think about what an entangled electron in atomic structure does in terms of its waveform. A reversal of spin direction can occur instantaneously without bulk transfer of energy at c. You cannot accelerate something already propagating >=c. A side effect is the quantization of energy within atomic structure, never before predicted by any theory from first principles. Check and mate, one move, courtesy of hansda's, whether he intended this or not.

F = ma only makes sense for the behavior of the solid phases of matter or antimatter possesing inertia, but it is hardly a complete description of nature without taking into account the equivalent laws of motion of unbound energy or something like a photon. Acceleration within atomic structure does not follow the same laws of motion as it does on our scale. An equivalent law of inertia for energy did not exist until hansda just created it

The uncertainty principle is a QM idea which says that the more precisely you know a particle's position, the less precisely you know its velocity. Extending the idea to a velocity equal to the speed of light in a vacuum and applying it for waveforms instead of just particles is also the quickest way yet to prove that a fixed position in space, like a fixed origin of a coordinate system, or detecting absolute motion for anything in relative motion in space, is an absurdity since 1905.

If any of hansda's idea goes against any other established idea in science, this is your chance to refute it. As far as I can see, it doesn't.

Last edited:
Instantaneous Law of Inertia
Ooo. Like it. What do you think, hansda? Not only success, but original as it gets.

You've beaten Einstein, you know that, right? That doesn't happen every day.

Hansda / Danshawen,

Try defining instantaneous force, and this thread will fall flat.

Hansda / Danshawen,

Try defining instantaneous force, and this thread will fall flat.

See second paragraph of II.6 of my paper.

Dan,

What is instantaneous force?

See 2nd para of II.6 of my paper.

It will create trouble in Impulse calculation...F/dt will become F/0...you see just because word instantaneous is used in Newtonian, which is used in different context, it does not mean that force can be applied or experienced by an object in zero duration.

Seems you are forgetting the basics. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_(physics)

Good question.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "the previous instant of time?"

Here I am following the concepts of calculus, where two consecutive instants of time are at an infinitesimal duration of time apart. You can also see II.9 of my paper.

If $$t_1$$ and $$t_2$$ are instants of time, wouldn't $$t_3 = \frac{t_1 + t_2}{2}$$ be an instant of time strictly between $$t_1$$ and $$t_2$$?

If $$t_2 - t_1 = dt$$, where $$dt$$ is infinitesimal duration of time; $$\frac{dt}{2}$$ is not used in calculus.

Hansda / Danshawen,

Try defining instantaneous force, and this thread will fall flat.
A change of direction of a photon or flipping the quantum spin state of electron or the evolution of a changing magnetic field from a collapsing electric field or verse vicea are all examples of the effects of the action of an instantaneous force.

An instantaneous force requires no time interval in which to act, and therefore no acceleration other than a change of direction is required.

Last edited:
No. You can't have it both ways. Either it is an instant of time (NO duration), or it is an interval of time (which can only be measured ONCE without traveling backward in time). When you say "instantaneous force", I take you at your word that you mean what you say you mean.

If the force is having a duration, say the duration is time T. Here force can be considered as a function of time. So within the interval of time T, at every instant of time the force will be having some value.