Sci & Educ (2010) 19:91113 DOI 10.

1007/s11191-008-9183-1

On the Concept of Force: How Understanding its History can Improve Physics Teaching
Ricardo Lopes Coelho

Published online: 14 January 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Some physicists have pointed out that we do not know what force is. The most common denition of force in textbooks has been criticized for more than two centuries. Many studies have shown that the concept of force is a problem for teaching. How to conceive force on the basis of the concepts and criticism of force in the works of Newton, Euler, dAlembert, Lagrange, Lazare Carnot, Saint-Venant, Reech, Kirchhoff, Mach, Hertz is the question of the present article. This part of the article is followed by an and Poincare overview of denitions of force in contemporary textbooks. In the next part, an answer to the question is given: how to understand force within the framework of the laws of motion and in applications. Finally, some educational implications are considered.

1 Introduction put forward the In the International Congress for Philosophy in Paris, 1900, Poincare question of if the fundamental equation of dynamics, F = ma, is veriable experimentally. The question itself involves, however, a problem, he said, for we do not even know what force and mass are. In recent textbooks on mechanics, as for instance in Bergmann and Schaefers, Experimental Physics (1998) or Dransfeld et al. Physics (2001), it can also be read that we do not know what force is. If we do not know what it is, it is difcult to explain it in the best way. As force is a fundamental concept of mechanics and mechanics is basic in physics, it is not surprising that force is the dominant theme in the misconceptions literature (Carson and Rowlands 2005, p. 473). In textbooks of the twentieth and twenty-rst century, force is in general dened as the cause of acceleration. Since acceleration is observable, its cause must be something real. Thus, force is real. Some physicists and philosophers of science have, however, pointed out that force does not exist in reality. Anyway, the mere fact that these two kinds of theses coexist, shows the difculty in seeing force in phenomena. Thus, the abstraction of force
R. L. Coelho (&) Faculty of Science, University of Lisbon, Campo Grande C4, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: rlc@fc.ul.pt

123

92

R. L. Coelho

from accelerated motions must obviously be difcult for students (see Carson and Rowlands 2005, p. 479; Rowlands et al. 2007, p. 3031; Matthews 2008, p. 7, 10). There was a considerable effort concerning the understanding of force. DAlembert, Lazare Carnot, Kirchhoff, Hertz, among others, did not only criticize the most common denition of force but also developed new theories in order to avoid that concept. Otherwise, there was a considerable effort as well in systematizing and applying mechanics to new domainsNewton, Euler, Lagrange, among many otherswhich is connected with that concept of force. How force could be conceived in compliance with these scientists contributions and without the inconveniences raised by the criticism of the concept, is the question to deal with in the present article. To this aim, the authors who have been object of historical studies on the concept of force (Dugas 1950; Jammer 1999; Coelho 2001) will be considered. This part is followed by an overview of denitions of force in contemporary textbooks (19012008). Finally, the connection between the concept, phenomena and equation of force will be dealt with.

2 History In 1687, Newton published the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. The fundaments of his theory consist of eight denitions and three axioms. The rst denition concerns matter, the second motion and the other six concern forces. Five of the eight propositions dene quantities and the other three, concepts: innate, impressed and centrifugal force (Denition III, IV, V). Centrifugal force is a particular case of impressed force.1 Thus, according to the denitions, there are two kinds of force: innate and impressed. Innate force is inherent in bodies2 and impressed is exterior to them.3 From the innate kind, there is only one force, called force of inertia.4 All the others, like pressure or impact, are impressed forces. Force of inertia justies that a body resists change of its motion or resting. Changes in motion require impressed forces. With these two kinds of force the axioms are connected. According to the rst law of motion, a body perseveres in its state of resting or of moving uniformly in a straight line, unless an impressed force constrains it to change its state.5 The second law of motion states: The change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed, and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.6 By motion is understood quantity of motion, i.e., the product of mass and velocity of the body (Denition II). A force is double another one, Newton adds, if the

1 2

Est autem vis impressa diversarum originum, ut ex ictu, ex pressione, ex vi centripeta (1726, p. 2).

Denitio III. Materiae vis insita est potentia resistendi, qua corpus unumquodque, quantum in se est, perseverat in statu suo vel quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum (p. 2). Denitio IV. Vis impressa est actio in corpus exercita, ad mutandum ejus statum vel quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum. Consistit haec vis in actione sola, neque post actionem permanet in corpore. Perseverat enim corpus in statu omni novo per solam vim inertiae (p. 2). Per vim insitam intelligo solam vim inertiae (p. 389). Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus illud a viribus impressis cogitur statum suum mutare (p. 13). Lex II. Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, & eri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur (p. 13).

4 5

123

On the Concept of Force

93

change caused by the rst is double the change caused by the second.7 Force is, therefore, the concept for changes in the quantity of motion. From a formal point of view, force is a deviation from the motion referred to in the rst law. As this motion is ascribed to a body on its own, force is consequently an external action. Eulers Mechanics or the Science of Motion Presented Analytically, (1736), consists of two books: the rst deals with free motions and the second with constrained motions. Eulers approach to free motion is based on the following sequence: a body by itself stays at rest or maintains the uniformity and rectilinearity of motion.8 Force is that which changes these states.9 In conformity with this, Euler carries out the decomposition of force. If a body is moving on a plane, two components of force are considered:10 tangential force, whose effect is only the change of velocity,11 and radial force, which has no other effect than the change of direction of the motion.12 Eulers approach can be interpreted in the following way. The mechanical states of a body by itself correspond to the motion of reference. Force is a deviation from this motion. The components of force correspond to the negations of the characteristics of the motion of reference. Let us move on to constrained motion. Euler was the rst to deal with the motion constrained by a surface. In this case, three components of force are considered. The rst one concerns the pressure exerted by a surface upon a moving body. This component must exist if the motion is conditioned. The other two components can exist or not. If they do not exist, a body covers the shortest line on the surface and moves uniformly, says Euler. If a body does not move uniformly, then there is a component tangential to the motion. If the body does not cover the shortest line, another component is considered.13 Eulers approach can be interpreted as follows. The motion of a body constrained by a surfaceit covers the shortest line uniformlyrepresents the motion of reference under those circumstances. Force is a deviation from that motion. The components of force correspond to the negation of the characteristics of this motion of reference. A difculty arises concerning the connection of the concept of force with the phenomena. Euler deals briey with this topic in the scholium to the denition of force ( 102) and in another scholium, in the second book, in the following way. It is difcult to think of
7

Si vis aliqua motum quemvis generet; dupla duplum, tripla triplum generabit, sive simul & semel, sive gradatim & successive impressa fuerit (p. 13). Corpus absolute quiescens perpetuo in quiete perseverare debet, nisi a causa externa ad motum sollicitetur (Vol. I, 56). Corpus absolutum habens motum aequabiliter perpetuo movebitur, et eadem celeritate iam antea quovis tempore fuit motum, nisi causa externa in id agat aut egerit (Vol. I, 63). Corpus absoluto motu praeditum progredietur in linea recta, seu spatium, quod describit, erit linea recta (Vol. I, 65). Potentia est vis corpus vel ex quiete in motum perducens vel motum eius alterans (vol. I, 99).

9 10

Si corpus in eodem plano moveatur in eoque etiam positae sint potentiarum sollicitantium directiones, singulae potentiae resolvi possunt in binas, quarum altera sit normalis, altera tangentialis (Vol. I, 550).
11

Vis igitur tangentialis in corpus, dum elementum Mm percurrit, alium effectum non exerit, nisi quod motum eius vel acceleret vel retardet (Vol. I, 544).

12 In hoc vero eius effectus consistit [] ut corporis tantum directionem immutet et efciat, ut corpus, quod per se in recta esset progressurum, in linea curva promoveatur (Vol. I, 549). 13 Prima potentia M, cuius directio in superciem est normalis, nullum habebit effectum in immutando corporis motu, sed tota impendetur in pressionem superciei. [] Secunda potentia N, quia eius directio in ipsa supercie est posita et normalis in directionem corporis, corporis directionem tantum immutabit celeritatem neque augendo neque minuendo. Haec vis igitur corpus a linea brevissima deducet facietque, ut non amplius in plano ad superciem normali moveatur []. Tertia potentia T, quia in directione corporis est posita, celeritatem tantum vel auget vel diminuit (Vol. II, 79).

123

94

R. L. Coelho

force without motion. Otherwise, motion can exist without force. Hence, he concludes that all forces which we observe, have origin in motions.14 This difculty with observing force became the problem of the concept. Some theories of mechanics were carried out in order to avoid that concept of force. The rst of them is dealt with next. de Dynamique, whose main contribution is a In 1743, dAlembert published the Traite general method of solving problems. The second part of the book, which consists of two parts, is dedicated to the method and its applications. The rst deals with the principles of mechanics which justify the method: the principles of inertia, equilibrium and the composition of motion.15 The rst principle states that a body maintains its rest or if moving, will move rectilinearly and uniformly, if no external causes act on it.16 As accelerated motions are observable, there can be no doubt concerning the existence of those causes.17 There was, however, an objection against the use of force in mechanics. The cause of motion was represented at that time by u in the equation udt = du, where dt and du represent small quantities of time and velocity. DAlembert includes this equation in his theory: it denes accelerative force.18 However, he does not accept its meaning.19 According to him, the thesis that force is the cause of acceleration is based on the vague and obscure principle that the cause is proportional to the effect.20 In fact, he continues, excepting impact, force is unknown to us.21 It is said, he exemplies, that weight is the cause of acceleration by falling. However, what is observed is only the motion and not the force.22 Hence, he carried out a theory of mechanics without supposing
14 Motum enim semel existentem perpetuo conservari debere clare ostendimus supra ( 63); hic vero, quemadmodum ex motu potentiae oriantur, exposuimus. Quemadmodum vero potentiae sine motu vel existere vel conservari queant, concipi non potest. Quamobrem concludimus omnes potentias, quae in mundo conspiciuntur, a motu provenire (Vol. II, 29). 15 quilibre joint a ` ceux de la force dinertie & du Mouvement compose , nous conduit a ` la Le Principe de le mes [] (1758, p. xv). solution de tous les Proble 16 ` moins quune cause e trangere ne len tire (p. 34). Un Corps mis Un Corps en repos y persistera, a ment & en ligne droite, une fois en mouvement par une cause quelconque, doit y persister toujours uniforme rente de celle qui la mis en mouvement, nagira pas sur lui (p. 4). tant quune nouvelle cause, diffe 17 ne ral puissance ou cause motrice, tout ce qui oblige un Corps a ` se mouvoir (p. 4). On appelle en ge trangere qui agit sans cesse, Cette variation continuelle ne peut provenir (art. 6.) que de quelque cause e le rer ou retarder le Mouvement (p. 17). pour acce 18 le ratrice, la quantite a ` nous nous contenterons [] dentendre seulement par le mot de force acce laquelle laccroissement de la vitesse est proportionnel (p. 25). 19 ometres pre sentent sous un autre point de vu quation udt = du entre les tems & part des Ge e le La plu rige par eux en principe. Comme lacles vitesses. Ce qui nest, selons nous, quune hypothese, est e le ratrice, & quun effet, selon eux, doit e tre toujours croissement de la vitesse est leffet de la cause acce ` sa cause, ces Ge ometres ne regardent pas seulement la quantite u comme la simple proportionnel a ` dt; cest de plus, selon eux, lexpression de la force acce le ratrice, a ` laquelle ils expression du rapport de du a tendent que du doit e tre proportionnel, dt e tant constant (p. 2425). pre 20 ` ce principe dont tout le monde fait usage aujourdhui, que la force Pourquoi donc aurions-nous recours a le ratrice ou retardatrice est proportionnelle a ` le le ment de la vitesse? principe appuye sur cet unique acce ` sa cause. [] nous nous contenterons dobserver, axiome vague & obscur, que leffet est proportionnel a ` la Me chanique, & que par conse quent il doit en e tre banni (p. xii). que [] il est inutile a 21 tre alte re que par quelque cause e trangere. Or de toutes Le Mouvement uniforme dun Corps ne peut e diates, qui inuent dans le Mouvement des corps, il ny a tout au les causes, soit occasionnelles, soit imme tat de de terminer leffet par la seule connoissance de la plus que limpulsion seule dont nous soyons en e s causes nous sont cause, comme on le verra dans la seconde Partie de cet Ouvrage. Toutes les autre rement inconnues (p. 22). entie 22 tre que par leffet, & nous en ignorons entie rement la nature: toutes les autres causes ne se font conno telle est la cause qui fait tomber les Corps pesans vers le centre de la Terre (p. xi).

123

On the Concept of Force

95

a knowledge of the nature of force. He did not presume, for instance, that forces act together as each of them would act by itself.23 He further argues that the knowledge of motion is enough for science and opted to work out a theory starting from matter and motion.24 In sum, dAlembert admitted force from an ontological point of view but not as an object of knowledge due to the lack of observability. Euler in 1750, published an article with the title Discovery of a New Principle of Mechanics. The new principle is only an equation, whose form is force = mass acceleration.25 Force, which he also called potentia (1736), is decomposed into three components, symbolized by Px, Py, and Pz. The components have the form Px = 2 m d2x/dt2.26 With this kind of decomposition, the information concerning the path covered by a body and how it is covered lies in the coordinates and in the acceleration along the coordinates. Lagranges Analytical Mechanics, 1788, made a new contribution to the concept of force and to the decomposition of motion. This book consists of two parts: statics and dynamics. Statics is dened as the science of the equilibrium of forces27 and dynamics as the science of forces and of the motions which are caused by them.28 The concept of force is presented at the beginning of the rst part, as the cause or tendency to cause motion in a body.29 This meaning will change in the course of the development of the theory. This development is connected with the proposition which unies the theory, and will be considered briey: the addition of the moments of force equals zero. In statics, two forces are in equilibrium if their values, P and Q, and distances to the fulcrum, dp and dq, are related as follows: P dp = -Q dq. The general equation for the
23 tre surpris de ce que je tire la de monstration dune proposition si simple en Quelques Lecteurs pourront e ne ral beaucoup plus compose ; mais on ne peut, ce me semble, de montrer autrement la apparence, dun cas ge proposition dont il sagit ici, quen regardant comme un axiome incontestable, que leffet de deux causes gal a ` la somme de leurs effets pris se pare ment, ou que deux causes agissent conjointement conjointes est e pare ment; principe qui ne me paro t pas assez e vident, ni assez simple, qui tient comme elles agiroient se `s a ` la question des forces vives, & au principe des forces acce le ratrices dont nous avons dailleurs de trop pre ci-dessus art. 22. Cest la raison qui ma oblige a `e viter den faire usage (p. 3839). parle 24 gard des de monstrations de ces Principes en eux-me mes, le plan que jai suivi pour leur donner A le & la simplicite dont elles mont paru susceptibles, a e te de les de duire toujours de la toute la clarte ration seule du Mouvement, envisage de la maniere la plus simple & la plus claire. Tout ce que nous conside voyons bien distinctement dans le Mouvement dun Corps, cest quil parcourt un certain espace, & quil ` le parcourir. Cest donc de cette seule ide e quon doit tirer tous les Principes de la employe un certain tems a chanique, quand on veut les de montrer dune maniere nette & pre cise (p. xvi). De toutes ces Me exions, il sensuit que les loix de la Statique & de la Me chanique, expose es dans ce Livre, sont celles qui re sultent de lexistence de la matiere & du mouvement (p. xxviii). re 25 F = ma is usually called Newtons second law. According to Euler, who read the Principia, Newtons second axiom is not expressed by that equation. As a matter of fact, that equation does not appear anywhere in Newtons Principia. Moreover, historians of science do not agree with each other concerning an equation for Newtons second law. (See Cohen 1970, p. 144; Dellian 1985, p. 401; Maltese 1992, p. 26). 26 ` s le le ment du Euler writes the equation rstly to coordinate x and afterwards similarly for y and z. Apre le ment dt pour constant, il sera 2Mddx tems dt, soit x ? dx la distance du corps au plan et prenant cet e `e loigner ou a ` approcher le corps du plan. Et cest cette formule seule, P dt2 ; selon que la force P tend ou a canique (Opera Omnia, Ser. II, Vol. 5, p. 89). qui renferme tous les principes de la Me 27 quilibre des forces (18881889, Vol. I, p. 1). La Statique est la science de le 28 le ratrices ou retardatrices et des mouvements varie s La Dynamique est la science des forces acce quelles doivent produire (Vol. I, p. 237). 29 ne ral, par force ou puissance la cause, quelle quelle soit, qui imprime ou tend a ` On entend, en ge e (Vol. I, p. 1). imprimir du mouvement au corps auquel on la suppose applique

123

96

R. L. Coelho

equilibrium of two forces can, therefore, be written in the form P dp ? Q dq = 0. P dp is called moment of force and Q dq as well.30 Thus, that equation can be read: the sum of the moments of forces is equal to zero. Equations with three or more forces in statics as well as the equations of motion can be read in the same way. The general equation of dynamics in generalised coordinates, for instance, is written in the form Ndn Wdw . . . 0 where Ndn is a moment of force. The elements of moment of force have been generalised.31 This generalisation might obscure the meaning of force. Let us consider a simple example to clarify the interpretation: the circular movement of a point around an axle. Supposing that the motion takes place on the plane XY and taking the angle h between the X-axis and the radius as the generalised coordinate, a short piece of the path ds is given by r dh. Once the geometrical element of a motion is determined, Lagranges equations indicate how the path is covered. The two possible forms are h0 mr2 or h Qh : mr 2 In the rst case, the motion is uniform; in the second, there is a deviation from uniformity. From a formal point of view, the circular uniform motion functions here as the motion of reference. There is place for force only if that motion changes. Lazare Carnot developed a new theory of mechanics in order to avoid the concept of force as the cause of acceleration. According to his Principes fondamentaux du mouvement et du repos, (1803), there are two ways of carrying out mechanics: either as a theory of force or as a theory of motion.32 The rst one was followed by almost all the authors, said Carnot. He also acknowledged its advantages. It has, however, one shortcoming, being based on the metaphysical concept of force. This gave him the reason for opting for the second method.33 The problem pointed out by Carnot concerns the observation of force

30 Nous nommerons chaque terme de cette formule, tel que Pdp, le moment de la force P [] la formule ne rale de la Statique consistera dans le galite a ` ze ro de la somme des moments de toutes les forces (Vol. ge I, p. 2930). 31 lasticite et e langle exte rieur quelle Some examples of generalization. 1.Nommons E la force de le ` diminuer; le moment de cette force sera exprime par Ede (Sect. II, art. 9), de sorte que la somme des tend a ` me sera [] ? E de. (Vol. I, p. 143). 2. Appliquons les me mes moments de toutes les forces du syste ` la de termination de le quilibre dune surface dont tous les e le ments dm soient extensibles et principes a gard de la quantite k dont nous venons de de terminer contractibles [] (See Vol. I, p. 158159). 3. A le quation ge ne rale de larticle 10 repre sente la la valeur, il est bon de remarquer que le terme Sk dL de le ` diminuer la valeur de la fonction L [] (See Vol. I, somme des moments dautant de forces k qui tendent a p. 214215). 32 ` res denvisager la me canique dans ses principes. La premie ` re est de la conside rer Il y a deux manie ` -dire des causes qui impriment les mouvemens. La seconde est de la orie des forces, cest-a comme la the rer comme la the mes (p. xi). orie des mouvemens eux-me conside 33 ` re me thode offre donc beaucoup plus de facilite ; aussi est-elle, comme je lai observe ciLa premie ne ralement suivie (p. xvxvi). La premie ` re est presque ge ne ralement suivie, comme la dessus, presque ge savantage de tre fonde e sur une notion me taphysique et obscure qui est celle plus simple; mais elle a le de ici la seconde comme je lavois de ja ` fait dans la premie ` re e dition; parce des forces (p. xixii). jai adopte viter la notion me taphysique des forces (p. xvi). que jai voulu e

123

On the Concept of Force

97

and was presented in considering machines, according to the author, as the most important object of mechanics. Some machines from that time worked thanks to men or animals. If a human being brings a machine into motion, he is the cause of that motion. The cause of motion was force, according to science. Is this force, Carnot questioned, the structure of the skeleton of the human being or of an animal or their wills? Does a double force mean, he continued to ask, that the will in the rst case is double that in the other?34 This questioning shows the difculty.35 As a solution to this problem, Carnot proposed to identify force with the quantity of motion which a force caused in a body.36 In doing this, we do not know more about the force which causes motion but it does not disturb the theory.37 Within this, force is a certain quantity of motion or, in other words, the motion caused by real force, called rst cause. In the introduction to the book, Carnot defends the thesis that what we know comes from experiments.38 From them, Carnot drew 7 statements called hypotheses, which constitute the starting point of his theory.39 The rst of them corresponds to the law of inertia.40 Once admitted that a body by itself maintains its resting or moving rectilinearly and uniformly, it follows that whatever motion requires an external cause. The rst cause satises this requirement. It does not satisfy, however, the epistemological requirement of observation. de Saint-Venant also carried out a reorganization of mechanics in Principles of Barre Mechanics, (1851). This book is divided into three thematic domains: kinematics, dynamics and statics. In kinematics, the motion is considered merely geometric. It is
34 ou la constitution physique de lhomme ou de lanimal qui par son Ces causes sont-elles la volonte tre le mouvement? Mais quest-ce quune volonte double ou triple dune autre volonte , ou une action fait na constitution physique capable dun effet double ou triple dune autre? (p. xii). 35 e nette peut pre senter a ` lesprit en pareille matie ` re le nom de cause? il y a tant despe ` ces de quelle ide cis des mathe matiques par une force, cest-a ` -dire, par causes! Et que peut-on entendre dans le langage pre une cause double ou triple dune autre? (p. xii). 36 ` -dire, si lon entend par le mot Si lon prend le parti de ne point distinguer la cause de leffet, cest-a de mouvement me me quelle fait na tre dans le mobile auquel elle est applique e, on devient force la quantite pe terai dabord, quil ne sagit point ici des causes premie ` res qui font na tre intelligible. (p. xii-xiii). Je re ja ` produit et inhe rent a ` chacun deux. Cest le mouvement dans les corps, mais seulement du mouvement de de mouvement de ja ` produite dans un corps, quon nomme sa force ou sa puissance (p. 47). cette quantite ja ` observe , on ne conside ` re, en me canique, aucune force qui ne re side effecainsi que nous lavons de ` -dire, qui ne soit re ellement une quantite de mouvement de ja ` produite (p. tivement dans les corps, cest-a 108). 37 canique ne remonte pas jusquaux causes premie ` res qui produisent le mouvement; elle nexamine La me de lhomme ou de lanimal fait sortir ses membres du repos, ou les y rame ` ne pas comment la volonte ment: elle ne voit que le fait qui en re sulte, ne conside ` re que le mouvement de ja ` produit, et son spontane , se conserve, se propage ou se objet est uniquement de rechercher comment ce mouvement une fois imprime modie (p. 33). 38 tablirent en axio me que toutes nos ide rite nest plus es viennent des sens: et cette grande ve Les anciens e ` , que toute science quelconque tire ses e le mens de lexaujourdhui un sujet de contestation. Il suit de-la rience, puisque les premie ` res ide es quelle puisse combiner sont le re sultat de nos sensations, qui ne sont pe es de lexpe rience. Dou riaux qui sont ` lhomme tire-t-il, dit Locke, tous ces mate autre chose que les donne ponds en un mot, de comme le fond de tous ses raisonnemens et de toutes ses connoissances? Je re rience (p. 2). lexpe 39 ` ses rentrent en partie les unes dans les autre s: mon objet na pas On pourra remarquer que ces hypothe te de les re duire au plus petit nombre possible; il me suft quelles ne soient point contradictoires et e quelles soient clairement entendues (p. 47). 40 ` se est le principe connu sous le nom de loi dinertie (p. 53). Cette hypothe

123

98

R. L. Coelho

considered from a physical point of view in dynamics, according the author. Statics is presented as a special case of dynamics. His dynamics presents a new sequence of the concepts of force, mass, and acceleration. s theory starts from a unique proposition, which states that the acceleration of Barre bodies depends on the points which constitute them. The number of points is considered proportional to the mass of a body.41 The mass of a body is, however, not determinable by those points. For the measurement of mass, the reciprocal alteration of the velocities of bodies by impact is proposed.42 As the use of this measurement process is very difcult, Saint-Venant recommended measuring mass by weighing.43 Force is dened as the product of mass by acceleration.44 At the beginning of the Principles and again in dynamics, the problems concerning force as cause of acceleration are referred to. The author aims to overcome those difculties in making force a mere mathematical concept. However, other difculties arose: not only concerning the process of measurement of mass but also the interpretation of phenomena. The terms used in the dealing with phenomena remind us of the traditional concept of force: acting forces, force acts on bodies, and analogous expressions.45 Saint-Venant was aware of this: he indicated at the beginning of dynamics, how the traditional interpretation of phenomena is to be understood in compliance with the planned conceptual framework.46 s aim was to make of force a mathematical concept due to the problems In sum, Barre caused by the concept in mechanics. For this reason, he starts with acceleration and denes mass through the impact of two bodies. This measurement process as well the interpretation of phenomena caused difculties.
` des nombres proportionnels a ` ceux des points e le mentaires quil faut On donne le nom de Masses a s, pour expliquer leurs divers mouvemens par supposer dans les corps, comparativement les uns aux autre ne rale], conforme ment a ` son e nonce ( 81). cette loi [la loi ge
42 La masse dun corps est le rapport de deux nombres exprimant combien de fois ce corps et un autre me, contiennent de parties qui, e tant se pare es et heurte es corps choisi arbitrairement et constamment le me ` deux lune contre lautre se communiquent, par le choc, des vitesses oppose es e gales ( 81). deux a 43 ne ral, se dispenser de ces mesurages de vitesse et dacce le ration, qui sont de licates Mais on peut, en ge et difciles, et estimer promptement les masses [] par le pesage ( 88). Les poids des corps sont, me lieu, proportionells aux masses ( 89). comme lon voit, en un me 44 pulsive dun corps sur un autre est une ligne ayant pour grandeur le La force ou laction attractive ou re le ration moyenne de ses points vers ceux du premier et pour produit de la masse de celui ci par lacce le ration ( 81). direction celle de cette acce 45 See 83, 85, 86, 93, 97, 98, 100, 103, 109, 116, 119, 120, 129, 138, 145, 157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 166, le ration g quils [les poids] 167, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 184, 185. Some examples:lacce me se font donnent aux masses sur lesquelles ils agissent ( 93);Si les forces agissant sur le syste quilibre [] ( 119). Force or puissance appear also with the verbs:solliciter, 97, 120, 159, e 169, 172;appliquer, 168, 169, 185;exercer, 144, 179, 185. 46 nomination de force ou daction vient du sentiment de leffort que nous exerc La de ons lorsque nous le ration a ` un corps et de ce que, dans le langage commun, lon attribue voulons imprimer une acce taphoriquement une activite analogue a ` celle de lhomme, aux autre s e tre s, me me inanime s, dans la me ` cette manie ` re de parler direction desquels lon voit des corps prendre un mouvement. Pour nous conformer a dans la science, nous dirons quelque fois quun corps A est sollicite par une force de grandeur F, qui a passe manant dun autre corps B, et qui, en agissant sur A dans une certaine direction, produit une acce le ration j ou e ` A une vitesse jt dans le temps t. Mais, par la ` , nous voudrons dire simplement que les points du corps donne a le ration dont la moyenne a une certaine direction et une A ont, vers ceux du corps B, des composantes dacce e par la masse m de A, donne un produit mj e gal a ` F. Nous dirons que nous appliquons grandeur qui, multiplie ` un corps A dans une certaine direction: cela signiera que nous plac s une force F a ons un ou plusieurs autre s ou inanime s dans des situations ou dans un e tat physique tels que les acce le rations des points de corps anime e par la masse de A, donne F ( 82). A vers leurs points aient une moyenne qui, multiplie 41

123

On the Concept of Force

99

canique, whose aim was, In the following year, Reech published the Cours de Me however, very different. This book consists of two parts: rst, on the alleged science of mechanics and second, on the true science of mechanics. The reason for such a distinction lies in the concept of force. Criticised by him is the relative concept of force. By this is understood the measurement of force through its evident geometric effect, i.e., by the deviation from a certain motion. Instead, Reech proposes the real, absolute concept of force. This reality is connected with the sensation of our muscles. Our sensation awakened in us the idea of a certain quantity, called pressure or traction, which is the cause of the alteration of the motions of bodies which have been touched. This is the true idea of force that we should have, says Reech in the introduction to the Course.47 In the corpus of the book, force is dened as pressures or tractions that we can make through our organs on the bodies surrounding us.48 The process of measurement proposed for forces reects the denition. Force is to be measured through a convenient thread, whose changes in length indicate the magnitude of force.49 In this process, some difculties lie inherently. Reech pointed out that a thread has some mass and this inuenced the measurement of force. He proposed then, making a conceptual distinction between matter and connections of material points and to ascribe mass only to matter. In doing so, the thread is considered massless.50 Another difculty concerns the limitations in using a thread to measure force, as, for instance, in the case of celestial motions. For such cases, he proposes measuring force thanks to the deviation from a certain, conventional motion. To play this role, he chooses the rectilinear and uniform motion, not because it is the natural one, he points out, but only because it is the simplest motion and the most commonly used one. The law of inertia is, according to him, a mere convention.51 In 1876, Kirchhoff published a textbook on Mechanics, which became very successful; the second edition occurred in the same year. The preface to the book announces a restructuring of mechanics, whose leitmotiv lies in the concept of force. Physicists
ritable ide e que nous devions nous faire de la force, cest celle que nous acque rons quand, La seule et ve ` laide de nos organes, nous cherchons a ` modier le tat de repos ou de mouvement des corps qui nous a prouvons alors des sensations qui e veillent en nous plusieurs ide es fondamentales: environnent. Nous e te s de lespace, puis dabord celle de lexistence des corps, puis celle de la forme des corps et des proprie que nous nommons une pression celle du mouvement et du temps, puis encore celle dune certaine quantite est une cause de mouvement ou pluto t une cause de changement de ou une traction. Cette quantite ` laide de nos organes (p. 37). mouvement pour les parties des corps que nous rencontrons a 48 ` laide de Par le mot force, on ne doit entendre que les pressions ou tractions que nous pouvons faire a nous organes, sur les corps qui nos environnent (p. 57). 49 sidera, et lintensite de la force de pendra de La direction de la force sera celle du l dans lequel elle re lallongement ainsi que de la nature du l (p. 46). 50 senter un l tendu, comme e tant Par une abstraction de notre entendement, nous pouvons nous repre tement de pourvu de sa qualite matie ` re ou masse, et alors un pareil l sera parfaitement indiffe rent a ` comple ` re pluto t que dune autre, cest-a ` -dire quun pareil l suivra spontane ment les corps se mouvoir dune manie , en faisant de la force aux points dattache sur ces obstacles, et ou obstacles, auxquels il se trouvera attache ` leur mouvement (p. 59). en nexigeant aucune force pour participer a 51 ` faire. Il sagira de savoir quelle sorte de mouvement, rectiligne ou Mais alors, il y aura une convention a , nous devrons admettre, comme e tant celui dun point mate riel entie ` rement curviligne, uniforme ou varie ` re latitude a ` cet e gard, ainsi que nous lavons de ja ` fait libre en apparence, et parce que nous aurons une entie ` re section de la premie ` re partie, avec le seul avantage ou inconve nient den voir pressentir dans la dernie sulter de plus ou moins grandes simplications dans les relations me caniques des syste ` mes, nous serons re ` faire servir a ` un tel usage le tat de mouvement rectiligne uniforme, et a ` rencontrer conduits naturellement a ` re, qui ne sera plus un principe ni un fait dexpe rience, mais une pure cette fameuse loi dinertie de la matie s de choisir (p. 49). convention, la plus simple de toutes celles parmi lesquelles nous nous trouverons oblige
47

123

100

R. L. Coelho

disagreed with each other, according to Kirchhoff, about if some important statements, such as if the law of inertia and the parallelogram of forces were axioms, theorems or experimental results. According to the author, these problems lie in the concept of force: in the lack of clarity of cause motion and tendency to cause motion.52 To avoid these problems, Kirchhoff restricts the function of the science to the description of motion.53 At the beginning of the book, mechanics is dened as the science of motion. As in order to conceive motion, the notions of space, time and matter are necessary and sufcient, according to the author, these become the primitive notions of the science of motion. Force and mass are to be constructed within the theory.54 This plan was, however, not carried out successfully. Kirchhoff himself detected the following difculty. If a system of forces acts on a body, it is impossible to determine that system only through that motion. Thanks to the observation of that motion, we achieve the resultant but not the components of force. There are, therefore, forces which cannot be subsumed by the theory.55 Another difculty concerns the interpretation of phenomena. The most common expressions connected with force are: forces act, acting forces, forces are exerted, exerting forces.56 If forces act, they must be something which have an inuence. Thus, this terminology leads us to think of force as a cause, which Kirchhoff had planned to avoid. In sum, Kirchhoff changed the status of force, from a real thing to a mere theoretical concept. There was, however, a difculty in carrying out that transformation, namely in obtaining every force through motion and in the interpretation of phenomena. Machs Mechanics was published in 1883, with successive editions and reprints. His solution for force was taken up from a short paper written in 1868. Here, he criticized the vicious circle in dening mass at that time: weight was dened by mass and mass by weight.57 He proposed, then, a solution which presents the sequence: acceleration, mass, force. The starting proposition of Machs proposal, presented anew in Mechanics (1933), says that bodies in interaction cause reciprocal acceleration.58 This is considered a matter of
52 ften zu deniren, und die Kra fte als die Man pegt die Mechanik als die Wissenschaft von den Kra Ursachen, welche Bewegungen hervorbringen oder hervorzubringen streben. Gewiss ist diese Denition [] Aber ihr haftet die Unklarheit an, von der die Begriffe der Ursache und des Strebens sich nicht befreien ber, ob der Satz von lassen. Diese Unklarheit hat sich z. B. gezeigt in der Verschiedenheit der Ansichten daru gheit und der Satz vom Parallelogramm der Kra fte anzusehen sind als Resultate der Erfahrung, als der Tra tze, die logisch bewiesen werden ko nnen und bewiesen werden mu ssen (1897, p. V). Axiome oder als Sa 53 Aus diesem Grunde stelle ich es als die Aufgabe der Mechanik hin, die in der Natur vor sich gehenden ndig und auf die einfachste Weise zu beschreiben (p. V). Bewegungen zu beschreiben, und zwar vollsta 54 thig, aber auch Zur Auffassung einer Bewegung sind die Vorstellungen von Raum, Zeit und Materie no hinreichend. Mit diesen Mitteln muss die Mechanik suchen, ihr Ziel zu erreichen, und mit ihnen muss sie die thig hat, z. B. die Begriffe der Kraft und der Masse (p. 1). lfsbegriffe construiren, die sie dabei no Hu 55 Es ist einleuchtend, dass, wenn man eine bestimmte Bewegung eines Punktes als bedingt durch mehrere fte ansieht, diese nicht einzeln bestimmt sind; nur die Resultante ist bestimmt [] Aus der Bewegung Kra pfen, mit denen sie es allein kann die Mechanik nach unserer Auffassung die Denitionen der Begriffe scho ftesystemen an Stelle einfacher Kra fte die hrung von Kra zu thun hat. Es folgt daraus, dass nach Einfu ndige Denition des Begriffs der Kraft zu geben (p. 11). Mechanik ausser Stande ist, eine vollsta 56 See for instance, pp. 8, 13, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 45, 51, 56, 60, 62, 68, 86, 88, 89, 109, 110, 115, 126, 127, 128, 132, 144, 146, 150, 160, 164, 165, 170, 171, 233, 235, 236, 244, 247, 249, 290, 308, 348, 349, 352, 358, 369, 377, 385, 393, 404, 416, 418, 436, 455, 458. 57 hnlich m = p/g und wiederum p = mg (1868, p. 356). Man denirt gewo 58 cksichtigt lediglich die Tatsache, da in Wechselbeziehung stehende Die Denition [der Masse] beru rper, ob sogenannte Fernwirkungen, starre oder elastische Verbindungen in Betracht kommen, aneinKo nderungen (Beschleunigungen) bestimmen. Mehr als dies braucht man nicht zu ander Geschwindigkeitsa nnen (1933, p. 261). wissen, um mit voller Sicherheit und ohne Furcht, auf Sand zu bauen, denieren zu ko

123

On the Concept of Force

101

fact. Taking one body as a unit, Mach continues, the mass of the other is measured through the proportion of the accelerations due to the interaction of both bodies.59 Force is then dened as the product of mass and acceleration.60 Machs aim was also to make of force a mere theoretical concept. How to think of force remained, however, a problem. Force is any circumstance of which the consequence is motion, says Mach.61 This leads to the idea that force is the cause of motion. In a second step, Mach made recourse to our sensation to understand force: the circumstances determinative of motion which are best known to us, are our volitional acts. Thus, continues Mach, our habit of representing circumstances determinative of motion as something akin to volitional acts arises.62 He knew that this was not scientic but he did not know of a better way: the attempts to set aside this conception as subjective and unscientic, he said, fail invariably.63 Even though Mach gave a new denition of force and proposed to understand it as a mere theoretical concept, the approach to phenomena was marked by the traditional interpretation. Hertzs (1894) posthumous work, The Principles of Mechanics, was published. In the introduction to the book, his philosophy of science is presented. On it is based his mechanical theory. With this modus procedendi the author aims to overcome some problems of mechanics. Among the main difculties of this science is the concept of force. If we swing a stone tied to a piece of string in a circle, exemplies Hertz, we are conscious of exerting a force upon the stone. This agrees with the denition of force: force is independent of motion and the cause of it. Newtons third law, he continues, requires, however, an opposing force to the force exerted by the hand upon the stone. Here the

59 Ist uns aber einmal durch mechanische Erfahrung die Existenz eines besondern beschleunigungbest rper nahegelegt, so steht nichts im Wege, willku rper von rlich festzusetzen: Ko immenden Merkmals der Ko gleicher Masse nennen wir solche, welche aufeinander wirkend sich gleiche entgegengesetzte Beschleu chliches Verha ltnis benannt. Analog werden wir in dem nigungen erteilen. Hiermit haben wir nur ein tatsa rper A und B ([]) erhalten bei ihrer Gegenwirkung beziehungsweise allgemeinern Fall verfahren. Die Ko die Beschleunigungen -u und ?u, wobei wir den Sinn derselben durch das Zeichen ersichtlich machen. rper A als Einheit an, so Dann sagen wir, B hat die -u/u fache Masse von A. Nehmen wir den Vergleichsko rper die Masse m zu, welcher A das mfache der Beschleunigung erteilt, die er in schreiben wir jenem Ko lt. Das Massenverha ltnis ist das negative umgekehrte Verha ltnis der GegenbGegenwirkung von A erha eschleunigungen (1933, p. 211212). 60 rpers in die an demselben bestimmte Bewegende Kraft ist das Produkt aus dem Massenwert eines Ko Beschleunigung (1933, p. 242). 61 Die Kraft ist also ein bewegungbestimmender Umstand dessen Merkmale sich in folgender Art angeben lassen. Die Richtung der Kraft ist die Richtung der von der gegebenen Kraft allein bestimmten Bewegung. ngig von seinen Verbindungen besDer Angriffspunkt ist derjenige Punkt, dessen Bewegung auch unabha e der Kraft ist das Gewicht, welches, nach der bestimmten Richtung (an einer Schnur) timmt ist. Die Gro wirkend, an dem gegebenen Punkt angreifend, dieselbe Bewegung bestimmt oder dasselbe Gleichgewicht lt (1933, p. 75). erha 62 nde, die uns am besten bekannt sind, sind unsere eigenen Diejenigen bewegungbestimmenden Umsta Willensakte, die Innervationen. Bei den Bewegungen, welche wir selbst bestimmen, sowie bei jenen, zu uere Umsta nde gezwungen sind, empnden wir stets einen Druck. Dadurch stellt sich welchen wir durch a die Gewohnheit her, jeden bewegungbestimmenden Umstand als etwas einem Willensakt Verwandtes und als einen Druck vorzustellen (1933, p. 74). 63 Die Versuche, diese Vorstellung als subjektiv, animistisch, unwissenschaftlich zu beseitigen, mi cken uns immer. Es kann auch nicht nu tzlich sein, wenn man seinen eigenen natu rlichen Gedanken glu Gewalt antut und sich zu freiwilliger Armut derselben verdammt (1933, p. 74).

123

102

R. L. Coelho

problem begins: In our laws of motion, force was a cause of motion, and was present before motion. Can we, without confusing our ideas, suddenly begin to speak of forces which arise through motion, which are a consequence of motion? (1899, p. 6). Since force is dened as the cause of motion and there is a force that is a consequence of motion, the theory is not logically permissible, according to Hertz. His own solution for force appears in the following context. According to Hertzs philosophy of science, a physical theory is an image which we form of things.64 His image starts from one axiom, which is formulated for free systems. A non-free system is understood as a part of a free system,65 which is not completely known.66 Hertz imagined, then, connections between the sub-systems and expressed them mathematically. To verify if the consequences of the image are conform with the respective phenomena, measurements must be made. The methods of determining force indicated by Hertz were common in the mechanics of that time ( 542544). However, between these measurement processes and the constructed concept of force there is only a mere correspondence.67 The meaning of force in the theory is connected with its axiom. Hertzs theory is based on one unique axiom called fundamental law. This proposition, the only one drawn from experiments, according to the author, has the form of the law of inertia: Every free system persists in its state of rest or of uniform motion along the straightest path.68 In Hertzs mechanics, there is a force if the motion is not uniform or the curvature of the path is not a minimum.69 Thus, force is a deviation from the motion referred to in the fundamental law. In sum, Hertzs solution for force consists of a separation between force in thought, which belongs to the image, and force in practice, which is a measurement process. From a formal point of view, force is a deviation from the motion of the fundamental law. (1897) wrote an article about Hertzs mechanics, in which he asserts categorPoincare ically to say that force is the cause of acceleration is to do metaphysics.70 He defends instead that a concept of force should be worked out from its measurement process. Hence, he began to consider the denition of equal forces: two forces are said to be equal if they comments: attain equilibrium or produce the same acceleration on the same mass. Poincare we cannot connect and disconnect forces to or from bodies as horses to coaches or engines to carriages. It was said as well that two forces are equal if they balance with the same weight. pointed out that the weight depends on the place. Furthermore, Newtons third law Poincare
ueren Gegensta nde, und zwar machen wir sie Wir machen uns innere Scheinbilder oder Symbole der a von solcher Art, da die denknotwendigen Folgen der Bilder stets wieder die Bilder seien von den natur nde (p. 1). notwendigen Folgen der abgebildeten Gegensta 65 eren freien Systems ( 429). Nach unserer Auffassung ist jedes unfreie System Teil eines gro
66 Indem wir einen Teil eines freien Systems als unfreies System behandeln, setzen wir voraus, da das brige System uns mehr oder weniger unbekannt ist ( 430). u 67 nnen auch die Kra fte aus Rechnungsgro en zu Durch Anwendung einer jeden dieser drei Methoden ko nden der unmittelbaren Erfahrung gemacht werden, d.h. zu Zeichen fu r bestimmte Verbindungen Gegensta sinnlicher Empndungen und Wahrnehmungen ( 541). 68 rmigen Bewegung in einer Jedes freie System beharrt in seinem Zustande der Ruhe oder der gleichfo geradesten Bahn ( 309). 69 See 368 (the differential equations of the motion of a free system) and 482 (the equations of motion of a system inuenced by forces). 70 taphysique, et cette de nition, si Quand on dit que la force est la cause dun mouvement, on fait de la me rile. Pour quune de nition puisse servir a ` quelque chose, il on devait sen contenter, serait absolument ste ` mesurer la force; cela suft dailleurs, il nest nullement ne cessaire quelle nous faut quelle nous apprenne a apprenne ce que cest que la force en soi, ni si elle est la cause ou leffet du mouvement (1897, p. 734). 64

123

On the Concept of Force

103

is employed, in such cases, as a denition and not an experimental law. Due to all these moved on to the other possibility of dening force, thanks to mass. problems, Poincare raised To this kind of sequence of denitionsacceleration, mass, forcePoincare some objections as well. One of them concerns the supposition that the acceleration of body A is caused by B, when it is caused not only by B, but also by that of C, D, E, etc.71 To determine the mass of A based on the acceleration produced by B, it would be necessary to separate As acceleration into its elements.72 This decomposition of the , if the hypothesis of acceleration would, however, only be possible, according to Poincare goes central forces was admitted.73 As the hypothesis does not offer guarantees, Poincare on to another possibility, the determination of mass through the center of mass.74 The center of mass of a system, on which no exterior action is exercised, is characterized by a uniform and rectilinear motion. Thus, the values of masses of bodies could be combined in such a way that the center of mass might show such a motion. Since there is not a system without exterior action, the law of the movement of the center of mass would only be valid for the whole of the universe. This means that such a determination of mass would imply the observation of the movement of the center of the universe, which, Po concludes, is an absurdity.75 incare From his analysis of the processes of measurement of force and mass, he concludes that it is impossible to give a satisfactory idea of mass and force within classical mechanics.76

3 Denitions in Textbooks In a sample of about a hundred textbooks (Voigt 1901; Lenard 1936; Sommerfeld 1947; 1974; Hestenes 1987; Alonso and Finn 1992; Daniel 1997; Gerthsen Schaefer 1962; Budo 2006; Kuypers 2008, among others), it was veried that force is the cause of acceleration is the most common denition of force.

71 le ration de A nest pas due seulement a ` laction de B, mais a ` celle dune foule dautre s corps C, D lacce [] (1897, p. 735). 72 composer lacce le ration de A en plusieurs composantes, et discerner quelle est celle de il faut donc de ` laction de B (1897, p. 735). ces composantes qui est due a 73 composition serait encore possible, si nous admettions que laction de C sur A sajoute simCette de ` celle de B sur A, sans que la pre sence du corps C modie laction de B sur A, ou que la pre sence plement a quent, que deux corps quelconques sattirent, de B modie laction de C sur A; si nous admettions, par conse e suivant la droite qui les joint et ne de pend que de leur distance; si nous que leur action mutuelle est dirige `se des forces centrales (1897, p. 735). admettions, en un mot, lhypothe 74 ` se des forces centrales? Cette hypothe ` se est-elle rigouMais avons-nous le droit dadmettre lhypothe rience? Qui oserait lafrmer? Et reusement exacte? Est-il certain quelle ne sera jamais contredite par lexpe ` se, tout le dice si laborieusement e leve se croulera. Nous navons si nous devons abandonner cette hypothe le ration de A qui est due a ` laction de B. Nous navons plus le droit de parler de la composante de lacce ` laction de C ou dun autre corps. La re ` gle pour la mesure aucun moyen de la discerner de celle qui est due a des masses devient inapplicable (1897, p. 7356). 75 ` me soustrait a ` toute action exte rieure; toutes les parties de lUnivers Mais il nexiste pas de syste s parties. La loi du mouvement du centre de subissent plus ou moins fortement laction de toutes les autre nest rigoureusement vraie que si on lapplique a ` lUnivers tout entier. Mais alors il faudrait, pour en gravite de lUnivers. Labsurdite de cette tirer les valeurs des masses, observer le mouvement du centre de gravite quence est manifeste; nous ne connaissons que des mouvements relatifs; le mouvement du centre de conse de lUnivers restera pour nous une e ternelle inconnue (1897, p. 736). gravite 76 ` me classique, il est impossible de donner de la force et de la nous devons conclure, quavec le syste e satisfaisante (1897, p. 736). masse une ide

123

104

R. L. Coelho

Webster, for instance, wrote (1904): The property of persistence thus dened is called Inertia. This gives a criterion for nding whether a force is acting on a body or not [] Force is acting on a body when its motion is not uniform (p. 21). In Feynmans Lectures (1974), one reads: The Second Law gave a specic way of determining how the velocity changes under different inuences called forces; and If an object is accelerating, some agency is at work ( 94). Wolfson and Pasachoff, Physics (1990), write: Why are we so interested in knowing about forces? Because forces cause changes in motion (p. 76). If force is the cause of a motion which a body could not have by itself, force must be a real existing thing. A contrary thesis has, however, been defended by some physicists. Hamel in Mechanics (1912), says: Force itself, however, we do not dene as cause of motion, force is a thing of thought and not a natural phenomenon.77 Platrier writes in Rational Mechanics, (1954): In fact, force is only a human concept and we have no knowledge of the profound cause of motions.78 Ludwig, in the Introduction to the Foundations of Theoretical Physics, (1985), defends the thesis that the concept of force does not describe anything which exists in reality. In his own terminology, force does not belong to real text.79 Some physicists defend a variant of the most common denition of force, in understanding force as the effort felt by the pulling or pushing of an object. Planck (1916), for instance, says that the cause of the motion is called force and it corresponds to the effort, which we feel, if that same motion had been produced through our muscles instead of the bodies, which caused it.80 Nolting 2005, writes: The concept of force can only be dened indirectly through its effects. If we want to modify the state of movement or the shape of a body, for example, using our muscles, then an effort will be necessary [] This effort is called force [] We observe everywhere in our environment changes in the states of motion of certain bodies [] We see their causes equally in forces, which in the same way as our muscles, act on the bodies.81 This kind of denition of force has its origin in Reechs theory (1852). An important follower of his was Jules Andrade, who wrote (1898), Certain spirits despise the common idea of force, as furthermore, they despise the notion of muscular force. This disdain does

Die Kraft selbst aber denieren wir nicht als Ursache der Bewegung; denn die Kraft ist ein Gedankending und keine Naturerscheinung (p. 56). 78 alite la force ([F = m.a]) nest quune conception humaine et la cause profonde des mouvements En re nous est inconnue (p. 112).
79 Der physikalische Begriff der Kraft beschreibt eben nicht etwas unmittelbar Feststellbares [] Der rt nicht zur Formulierung der Abbildungsprinzipien, die etwas im Realtext, d. h. an der Kraftbegriff geho Wirklichkeit ([]) Ablesbares in eine mathematische Form umzuschreiben gestatten (p. 145). 80 Wir bezeichnen also nun ganz allgemein bei jeder beliebigen Bewegung die Ursache der Bewegung als e proportional der durch sie bewirkten Beschleunigung. Dieselbe entspricht Kraft und setzen ihre Gro mliche Bewegung, anstatt durch den ren wu rden, wenn wir die na derjenigen Anstrengung, die wir verspu rper, durch unsere Muskeln hervorrufen wu rden (p. 10). betreffenden Ko 81 t sich nur indirekt durch seine Wirkungen denieren. Wollen wir Der physikalische Begriff der Kraft la den Bewegungszustand oder die Gestalt eines Ko rpers z.B. durch Einsatz unserer Muskeln a ndern, so bedarf er ist, je gro er die zeitliche Geschwindigkeitsa nderung (Beschlees einer Anstrengung, die um so gro rker die Deformation sein soll. Diese Anstrengung heit Kraft. [] Nun beobachten wir unigung) oder je sta nderungen in den Bewegungszusta nden gewisser Ko rper, ohne da unsere berall in unserer Umgebung A u tten. Ihre Ursache sehen wir ebenfalls in Kra Muskeln direkten Einu ha ften, welche in gleicher Weise wie rper einwirken (p. 109). unsere Muskeln auf die Ko

77

123

On the Concept of Force

105

not seem justied to me, since the only common notion of force is the fruitful notion; mechanics, we admit clearly, is essentially anthropomorphic.82 1900, defended the thesis, however, that this notion of effort does not acquaint Poincare us with the true nature of force.83 He adds, the anthropomorphism cannot provide the foundation of anything truly scientic or philosophical.84 The fundamental equation of dynamics is sometimes used to dene force. Fliebach 2007, for instance, writes as follows: Newtons second axiom embraces the following denitions and afrmations: 1. Denition of mass; 2. Denition of force 3. []85 As the equation referred to as Newtons second axiom (F = ma) is composed of three variables, the denition of mass will have to be given by force and acceleration. As force is dened by the same equation, it follows that it depends on what mass and acceleration are. As, however, what mass might be depends on force, we remain not knowing what both are. This kind of denition was criticized by Mach in 1868, as seen above (see Hestenes 1987, p. 590; de Lozano and Cardenas 2002, p. 596). Although the kinds of denitions of force considered above had already been criticized, the criticism is rarely taken into account by modern authors.86 Let us consider if the dening of force could be improved. 4 Philosophy Newtons force represents a deviation from the states referred to in the law of inertia. Euler conceived force as a deviation from a certain motion in creating the theory of the motion constrained by a surface. Reech criticized force because it was considered as a deviation from a certain motion. In Hertzs theory, there is force if there is a deviation from the motion of the fundamental law. This concept, force as a deviation from a certain motion, is also present in the decomposition of force. A deviation from a certain motion corresponds to the negation of this motion, from a logical point of view. If the motion has the properties p and q, the negation of this conjunction is equivalent to the disjunction of the negations non-p or non-q. If it is characterized as rectilinear and uniform, the negation is non-rectilinear or non-uniform. The components of force are those which make the motion non-rectilinear or nonuniform. These are therefore connected with the logical negation of the characteristics of the motion of reference. If such a motion is characterized by the shortest line and
82 prisent cette ide e vulgaire de la force, comme ils me prisent dailleurs la notion de Certains esprits me pris ne me para t pas justie , car seule, la notion vulgaire de la force est la notion leffort musculaire. Ce me conde; la me canique, avouons-le hautement, est essentiellement anthropomorphique (p. 138). fe 83 tre la ve ritable nature de la force (1900, p. 468). cette notion deffort ne nous fait pas conna 84

un ro le historique conside rable dans la gene ` se de la Me canique; peut-e tre LAnthropomorphisme a joue tra commode a ` quelques esprits; mais il ne peut rein fournira-t-il encore quelquefois un symbol qui para ` re vraiment scientique, ou un caracte ` re vraiment philosophique (1900, p. 468). fonder qui ait un caracte

85 Das 2. Newtonsche Axiom beinhaltet folgende Denitionen und Aussagen: 1. Denition der Masse. 2. Denition der Kraft. 3. [] (p. 1314). 86 French (1971, p. 170) is an exception to this: knowing the difculties in dening force he does not give any denition.

123

106

R. L. Coelho

uniformity, the components of force are those which make the trajectory non-the shortest or the movement non-uniform. If the least curvature and uniformity characterize the motion of reference, there is force if the curvature of the path is not a minimum or the motion along it is not uniform. In this case, Hertz did not speak of components of force, since he used coordinates for the decomposition. With the introduction of coordinates, the information concerning the path and the i 0 holds for each rectangular coordinate, motion along it, is given through these. If mx the motion is rectilinear and uniform. If not, it is non-rectilinear or non-uniform. This holds mutatis mutandis for generalized coordinates. The example of the circular motion conh 0 the motion is uniform; if mr2 h Qh 6 0; it is not. (We sidered above shows: if mr 2 say that Qh does not have the dimensions of force. This can now be understood in connection with the motion of reference. In the former case, the motion of reference is the rectilinear and uniform motion; in the latter, it is the circular uniform motion. As these motions differ from each other, their variations in respect to time differ as well.) This concept of force concerns a motion which is characterized by a trajectory and how it is covered. This is not yet the concept of force we use when we say: body A exerts force f on body B. It is true that the variable m appears in the equations referred to above. However, mass does not matter, since those equations hold for all mechanical bodies. This is however not the case concerning the left-hand side of F = ma, if F refers to the force of a body. The force f also comes from experiments but not in the same way, as we will see. What can be drawn from experiments concerning this issue was presented in a clear way by Helmholtz. In his Lectures on Theoretical Physics, (1911), he wrote: Motion and acceleration are facts, which can be observed [] On the contrary, if one speaks of force as cause of this motion, one does not know more about the nature of force than can be gathered from the observation of the occurrence of the motion [] Therefore, nothing can be stated about force, which is not already known from acceleration.87 This can also be shown in the following way. Let us suppose that we have to study a motion about which we have no further information. To study this motion, we have to observe it carefully. The best means of achieving this goal are certainly stroboscopic images or lming. The result of this is some tens of images. Thanks to them, we can measure the piece of the path in each interval of time, determine the respective velocity and calculate the acceleration. This is all, however, we can draw from the data. We can say nothing about the force or mass of the moving body without further information. Acceleration is therefore the only one of the three magnitudes which can be drawn from a phenomenon. It follows that force requires more than one phenomenon. The proposition A exerts force f on B requires therefore more than one phenomenon. In order to assert that the force of A is f, we have to carry out a set of experiments (Kohlrausch 1996, p. 133 ff; Arons 1990, p. 52 ff). In using f concerning body B, it is assumed that A exerts on B the same force as it has exerted in those experiments. Let us consider why it is said, that A exerts force in all cases.

87 nnen [] Die Bewegungen und die Beschleunigungen sind Thatsachen, welche beobachtet werden ko ften spricht als den Ursachen dieser Bewegungserscheinungen, so wei man Wenn man dagegen von Kra von deren Wesen nichts weiter, als was man eben aus der Beobachtung des Bewegungsvorganges herauslesen kann [] Man kann daher von der Kraft nichts aussagen, was man nicht bereits von der Beschleunigung weiss (p. 24).

123

On the Concept of Force

107

As Bergmann and Schaefer highlighted, the only sign we have of force is acceleration.88 Between both acceleration and force there is, however, a necessary connection, which is established by the law of inertia. The law states that a free body stays at rest or moves rectilinearly and uniformly. Hence, free body is a sufcient condition for constant velocity. It follows from this implication that the moving body is not free if we observe non-constant velocity. This reasoning (free body implies constant velocity and nonconstant velocity therefore non-free body) is logically correct. It is the modus tollens: [(p ? q)^-q] ? -p. Thus, if the law of inertia is admitted, an accelerated motion requires an external something, which causes its acceleration. Coherently, we say that body A exerts force in all cases. In order to move on to on body B, we assume the same force. Let us try to express this dealing with the phenomena without the theoretical constraint derived from the law of inertia. Thanks to a set of experiments, f has been ascribed to body A. Then we assume, the body will move in the same way as it moved in those experiments. This assumption must be made if we want to use the information drawn from those experiments. Introducing f into the equation F = ma, where m and a refer now to B, we can predict some results. Thus, force f can be easily understood in conformity with our dealing with the phenomena. Let us turn now to the question asked in the introduction of how to conceive force in compliance with the contributions of Newton, Euler, Lagrange, etc. and without the inconveniences raised by the criticism of the concept. Thanks to Newtons, Eulers, Lagranges or Hertzs work we learn that force can be conceived as a deviation from a certain motion. Taking each of these as a motion of reference and therefore force as a deviation from the motion of reference, the criticism of concept can be overcome. It is not necessary anymore to consider force as the cause of acceleration and to try to observe it. Our dealing with phenomena is claried by the meaning of force as a value, which is ascribed to a body as a consequence of a certain set of experiments. All this enables us to understand the problems with the concept. DAlemberts and Carnots difculties concern the lack of observability of force. What they could observe were motions. Nevertheless, they admitted real forces. The admission of what is not observable can be understood thanks to the law of inertia. Both accepted this law as the rst statement of their theories. Thus, if they had not admitted the existence of force, their theories would not have been logically consistent. Tait, 1895, expressed the relationship between the law of inertia and the denition of force in the following clear way: Thus, for the present, we have the denition of force as part of this First Law: -Force is whatever changes the state of the rest or uniform motion of a body (p. 5). Even though the meaning of the law of inertia has changed, the structure of the law has been maintained. Hence, its logical consequence is still the same: acceleration requires force. As accelerated motions are observable, force must be there. The effects of force being observable, it must be a real existing thing. Thus, the spreading of the denition force is the cause of acceleration is understandable, since the law of inertia has been accepted by almost all the authors (Coelho 2007).

88 gheitsgesetz sagt aus, dass ein Ko rper weder eine positive noch eine negative Beschleunigung Das Tra hrt, wenn keine a uere Krafteinwirkung vorhanden ist. Beschleunigung ist also immer ein Anzeichen fu r erfa ueren Einwirkung, und zwar das einzige, das die Mechanik kennt (p. das Vorhandensein einer solchen a 114).

123

108

R. L. Coelho

Saint-Venants and Machs theories of mechanics start from acceleration. In a second step, they dene mass and nally force as a mere mathematical concept. That starting point of their theories is, however, incompatible with the classical system, for acceleration implies force, since the law of inertia is admitted. Hence, that sequenceacceleration, mass, forcecould be and was criticized for presupposing force before introducing it (Roche 2006, p. 1030). This difculty can now be overcome. If force is not anymore the real cause of acceleration, a denition of mass based on its measurement, which involves acceleration, is free of those objections (see Arons 1990, p. 51; Hecht 2006). Kirchhoff (1897) dened mechanics as the science of motion and planned to carry out a theory based on motion. He himself pointed out a difculty: if there is a system of forces, it is not possible to determine the components only through motion. If force is understood as information drawn from some experiments, it follows that those components result from previous experiments. As these experiments are motions, Kirchhoffs plan is free of that difculty. Hertzs solution for force shows the difculty in connecting force with phenomena. This is corroborated by those authors like Hamel, Platrier or Ludwig, whose theses can be summed up by force is not in real text. This kind of thesis is now clear: as we can observe only acceleration, force cannot be seen in phenomena. As the determination of force is based on observations of the mechanical kind, our knowledge of phenomena is limited by the means employed in achieving it. Thus, it is understandable that Platrier 1954, said that the profound cause of the motions is unknown to us. Wilczek 2004, says By comparison to modern foundational physics, the culture of force is vaguely dened, limited in scope, and approximate (p. 12). In the next year, Wilczek characterizes the assumptions concerning force as a sort of folklore (2005, p. 10). The concept of force as a deviation from a certain motion enables us to integrate theses of philosophers of science and to understand their criticism. As the real cause of acceleration is a theoretical consequence of the law of inertia, it is understandable what Russell writes in Principles of Mathematics: force is a mathematical ction, not a physical entity (1937, p. 482). Another mathematician and philosopher, Clifford wrote: We do not know why the presence of one body tends to change the velocity of another; to say that it arises from the force resident in the rst body acting upon the matter of the moving body is only to slur over our ignorance (1955, p. 243). Nagel 1961, questions: Why should uniform velocity be selected as the state of a body which needs no explanation in terms of the operation of forces, rather than uniform rest or uniform acceleration (such as motion along a circular orbit with constant velocity) []? (p. 177). As force has been taken as a deviation from a motion of reference and the uniform velocity is a characteristic of the motion of reference of the classical theory, there is no place for force there. As from the standpoint of the classical theory, there is force if the motion is not rectilinear, the circular motion implies force. We have, however, also seen that the circular uniform motion can be taken as a motion of reference. In fact, this had already been done by Lagranges formalism even though not verbalized. Hertzs fundamental law also subsumes the circular motion. In sum, the selection referred to by Nagel depends on the motion of reference. As this does not have to be the motion of the law of inertia, the circular uniform motion can also be a motion of reference. Thus, the criticism is overcome and the criticized aspects are integrated. Ellis dealt with the concept of force in various papers (1962, 1963, 1965, 1976). His thesis, the law of inertia lays down the mechanical behavior of bodies and force is a matter of convention, was subject of intensive controversy (Hunt and Suchting 1969, pp. 235 ff).

123

On the Concept of Force

109

Let us consider this regarding the 1976 article: it is a matter of convention what states we should regard as natural, and hence what things we should regard as force-effects, and hence what forces we should say exist (p. 175). The concept of force as a deviation from a certain motion enables us an easy understanding of the thesis on the conventionality, since a motion of reference implies some choice. As it is not necessary for the motion of the law of inertia to be considered the natural motion, and neither for the other motions with an analogous function, it is not necessary to postulate the existence of forces anymore (Snider 1967). In discussing the topic causal laws, Chalmers 2008, writes: Newtons laws can readily be interpreted as causal laws describing the disposition of objects to exert and respond to specied forces. However, this is not the only way [] The laws of mechanics can also be written in a form that takes energy, rather than forces, as the starting point (p. 223). If force as the cause of acceleration is a theoretical consequence of the law of inertia and force exerted by an object on another expresses a piece of information drawn from other experiments, the Newtonian description of motion is not more profound than the Lagrangian one.

5 Some Educational Implications Students preconceptions or misconceptions and common sense beliefs concerning force have been the subject of much research (McClelland 1985; Halloun and Hestenes 1985; Bliss and Ogborn 1994; Hijs and Bosch 1995; Rowlands et al. 1999; de Lozano and Cardenas 2002 among many others). Teaching strategies and methods have also been developed (Arons 1990; Hestenes 1992; Rowlands et al. 1998; Stinner 2001; Galili 2001; Seker and Welsh 2006). All this deserves special attention.89 In what follows, only a few questions gathered from the literature will be dealt with. The relationship between force and motion has been the subject of many investigations and studies (Peters 1985; Halloun and Hestenes 1985; Galili and Bar 1992; Lombardi 1999; Carson and Rowlands 2005; Smith and Wittmann 2008). According to Rowlands et al. 2007: misconceptions of force and motion are fundamental because understanding the Newtonian concept of force and motion is essential in understanding the system as a whole (p. 31). One typical issue of this problem concerns the relationship between force and velocity, which is sometimes expressed as F = mv. This difculty in learning could be overcome thanks to the concept of force as deviation from a certain motion. In this case, to speak of force already implies a motion. Without a motion of reference, force does not have any meaning. The idea of deviation from the motion of the law of inertia is used by Hestenes New Foundations for Classical Mechanics (1987, p. 589) (see also Arons 1990, p. 52). Carson and Rowlands 2005, write: The problem is that we do not observe or experience force as such (p. 474). It is hence understandable that it is difcult to see how force can be abstracted from experience (p. 479). The forceless situation could be helpful in enabling us to make a comparison with situations with force. This situation is however unreal (Carson and Rowlands 2005, p. 483, 4867). Let us consider if the difculty could be overcome.
89 These issues deserve special attention because of the considerable amount of research literature. Some empirical educational research is also in preparation within the framework of the European Project History and Philosophy in Science Teaching.

123

110

R. L. Coelho

Let us take the linear oscillation of a spring as an example. It can be veried through observation that a body and a spring are involved in this motion. The motion of the body is accelerated as well as each element of the spring. If it is said that the spring exerts force f on the body and force is the cause of acceleration, we are led to looking for the cause of the acceleration there. However, it is difcult, perhaps impossible, to distinguish between cause and effect there, since both bodies are involved in the motion. If it is said that f was drawn from other experiments, it is not necessary to see force there. In general, if it is taught that force is there, where the motion is accelerated, a student will try to nd in motion and through the observation of it, what does not come from there. If it is taught that force were gained from other experiments, the student will understand it without difculty. In a study on scientic argumentation in the classroom, Driver et al. 2000, write: As Kress, Ogborn, Jewitt, and Tsatsarleis (1998) pointed out nature does not speak for itself, particularly when the teacher is trying to convince pupils [] that objects continue in motion forever (p. 291). Hanson 1965, highlighted the logical component of this problem. A frame of reference requires four particles. It is admitted in physics that any two particles attract each other. Thus it is impossible to determine how a free body moves (p. 14). Matthews 2008, put forward a radical question: we never see force-free behaviour in nature, nor can it be experimentally induced, so what is the source and justication of our knowledge of bodies without impressed forces? (p. 10) According to textbooks on mechanics, the law of inertia comes from Newton. It is perhaps difcult to accept a change of the status of a motion which has been adopted since the seventeenth century. However, a change in the law has already taken place, as we will see. According to Newton (1726), dAlembert (1758), Laplace (1799), Carnot (1803), Poisson (1833) and many others, a ball on a at table justies the law of inertia. In fact, it can be observed that it stays at rest or moves rectilinearly and uniformly if it is not disturbed by an impressed force. The difculty at that time was the uniformity, which could not be observed. For this reason, the staying at rest and moving rectilinearly were laws of nature in dAlemberts theory and the uniformity of motion was a corollary, as it could not be observed but only inferred. In contemporary mechanics, a ball on a at table cannot however be used for the same aim. It is not a free body and the law is formulated for such a one. Nowadays, free body means a body without any constraint, whereas in the past, the body was free only in some directions and not in all thinkable ones. The meaning of free body differs, therefore, from body not disturbed by impressed force. For this reason, it is now impossible to outline an experiment in compliance with the law, whereas the law was proved by experiments in the past. If we adopt contemporary statements of the law, we will have some problems, as has been pointed out. Considering the motion of the law of inertia as a motion of reference, the law of the past is integrated in its experimental component. Since the contemporary meaning of free body is avoided, it is not necessary to prove what cannot be. Furthermore, other statements with analogous function, which appeared in the course of the development of mechanics, such as Hertzs fundamental law, can be integrated as well. In so far as the ascribing of a natural motion to bodies has led to the concept of force as a real something, the introducing of the motion of reference avoids the traditional problem with force.

References
Alonso M, Finn EJ (1992) Physics. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham d Scient, Paris canique Physique. Soc dE Andrade J (1898) Lec ons de Me

123

On the Concept of Force

111

Arons AB (1990) A guide to introductory physics teaching. Wiley, New York rme, 11th Bergmann L, Schaefer C (1998) Lehrbuch der Experimentalphysik, vol I, Mechanik, Akustik, Wa edn. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York Bliss J, Ogborn J (1994) Force and motion from the beginning. Learn Instr 4:725 (1974) Theoretische Mechanik, 7th edn. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin A Budo quilibre et du mouvement. Deterville, Paris Carnot L (1803) Principes fondamentaux de le Carson R, Rowlands S (2005) Mechanics as the logical point of entry for the enculturation into scientic thinking. Sci Educ 14:473493 Chalmers AF (2008) What is this thing called Science? 3rd edn. Open University Press, Berkshire (Republished) Clifford WK (1955) The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences. K. Pearson (ed). J. R. Newman (newly ed), Dover Publications, New York nster, New York Coelho RL (2001) Zur Konzeption der Kraft der Mechanik. Waxmann, Mu Coelho RL (2007) On the law of inertia: how understanding its history can improve physics teaching. Sci Educ 16:955974 Cohen IB (1970) Newtons second law and the concept of force in the Principia. In: Palter R (ed) The annus mirabilis of Sir Isaac Newton 16661966. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 143191 de Dynamique, 2nd edn. Paris, Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York, d Alembert J (1758) Traite London, (Republished 1968) rme. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York Daniel H (1997) Physik, Vol. 1, Mechanik, Wellen, Wa de Lozano SR, Cardenas M (2002) Some learning problems concerning the use of symbolic language in physics. Sci Educ 11:589599 Dellian E (1985) Die Newtonsche Konstante. Philos Nat 22:400405 rme, 9th edn. Oldenbourg, Mu nchen Dransfeld K, Kienle P, Kalvius GM (2001) Physik I: Mechanik und Wa Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientic argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ 84:287312 ditions Griffon, Neuchatel canique. E Dugas R (1950) Histoire de la Me Ellis B (1962) Newtons concept of motive force. J Hist Ideas 23:273278 Ellis B (1963) Universal and differential forces. Br J Philos Sci 14:177194 Ellis B (1965) The origin and nature of Newtons laws of motion. In: Colodny RG (ed) Beyond the edge of certainty. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 2968 Ellis B (1976) The existence of forces. Stud Hist Philos Sci 7:171185 Euler L (1736) Mechanica sive motus scientia analityce exposita. Opera Omnia, serie II, vol 12, Teubner, Leipzig (1912) couverte dun Nouveau Principe de Mecanique, Me moires de lacade mie des Euler L (1750/1752) De sciences de Berlin 6:185217. Opera Omnia, serie II, vol 5, pp 81108 ber Physik. Feynman Lect Phys 1:1. Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sand M (1974) Feynman Vorlesungen u nchen, Wien Oldenburg, Mu Fliebach T (2007) Lehrbuch zur theoretischen Mechanik. Vol. 1 Mechanik. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, 5th edn. Heidelberg, Berlin, Oxford French AP (1971) Newtonian mechanics. W. W. Norton, New York, London Galili I, Bar V (1992) Motion implies force: where to expect vestiges of the misconception? Int J Sci Educ 14:6381 Galili I (2001) Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. Int J Sci Educ 23:10731093 Gerthsen C (2006) Physik, 23rd edn. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York Halloun I, Hestenes D (1985) Common sense concepts about motion. Am J Phys 53:10561065 Hamel G (1912) Elementare Mechanik. Teubner, Leipzig, Berlin Hanson NR (1965) Newtons rst law: a philosophers door into natural philosophy. In: Colodny RG (ed) Beyond the edge of certainty. Prentice Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ, pp 628 Hecht E (2006) There is no really good denition of mass. Phys Teach 44:4045 ber die Dynamik discreter Massenpunkte. J. A. Barth, Leipzig Helmholtz H (1911) Vorlesungen u Hertz H (1894) Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange dargestellt. J. A. Barth, Leipzig Hertz H (2003/1899) The principles of mechanics presented in a new form, Trans. by Jones DE and Walley JT, Dover Publications, Nineola, New York Hestenes D (1987) New Foundations for Classical Mechanics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster (Republished) Hestenes D (1992) Modeling games in the Newtonian world. Am J Phys 60:732748 Hijs T, Bosch GM (1995) Cognitive effects of science experiments focusing on students preconceptions of force: a comparison of demonstrations and small-group praticals. Int J Sci Educ 17:311323

123

112

R. L. Coelho

Hunt IE, Suchting WA (1969) Force and natural motion. Philos Sci 36:233251 Jammer M (1999/1957), Concepts of force: a study in the foundations of dynamics. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY ber Mathematische Physik, vol I, 4th edn. Teubner, Leipzig Kirchhoff G (1897) Vorlesungen u r Unterricht, Forschung und Technik. 24th edn, Kohlrausch F (1996) Praktische Physik: zum Gebrauch fu Teubner, Stuttgart Kress G, Ogborn J, Jewitt C, Tsatsarleis B (1998) Rhetorics of science classroom: a multimodal approach. Institute of Education, London Kuypers F (2008) Klassische Mechanik, 8th edn. Wiley, Weinheim canique Analytique. 4th edn. Paris Lagrange J-L (18881889) Me de Me canique Ce leste, Vol. I. Paris. Culture et Civilisation, Brussell, (Republished Laplace PS (1799) Traite 1967) nchen Lenard P (1936) Deutsche Physik. Vol. 1. Einleitung und Mechanik. Lehmanns, Mu Lombardi O (1999) Aristotelian physics in the context of teaching science: a historical philosophical approach. Sci Educ 8:217239 hrung in die Grundlagen der Theoretischen Physik, Vol. I Raum, Zeit, Mechanik, 3rd Ludwig G (1985) Einfu edn. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden Mach E (1868) Ueber die Denition der Masse. Repertorium Experimental-Physik 4:355359 Mach E (1933) Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, 9th edn. Brockhaus, Leipzig Maltese G (1992) La Storia di F = ma: la seconda legge del moto nel XVIII secolo. Leo S. Olschki, Firenze Matthews MR (2008) Teaching the philosophical and worldviews components of science. Sci Educ, Online First: doi 10.1007/s11191-007-9132-4 McClelland JAG (1985) Misconceptions in mechanics and how to avoid them. Phys Educ 20:159162 Nagel E (1961) Structure of science: problems in the logic of scientic explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York Newton I (1726/1972) Isaac Newtons Philosophiae naturalis Principia Mathematica, 3rd edn. Harvard Univ. Press Nolting W (2005) Grundkurs: Theoretische Physik, Vol. 1, Klassische Mechanik, 7th edn, Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden Peters P (1985) Even honors students have conceptual difculties with physics. Am J Phys 50:501508 hrung in die Allgemeine Mechanik. S. Hirzel, Leipzig Planck M (1916) Einfu canique Rationnelle. Tome I, Dunod, Paris Platrier C (1954) Me H (1897) Les Ide es de Hertz sur la Me canique. Rev Gen Sci 8:734743 Poincare H (1900/1901), Sur les Principes de la Me canique. In Ier Congre ` s international de Philosophie, Poincare Tome 3. Paris, pp 457494. Kraus Reprint Limited, Nendeln, Liechtenstein (Republished 1968) de Me canique. Bachelier, Paris Poisson SD (1833) Traite canique dapre ` s la nature ge ne ralement exible et e lastique des corps, CarilianReech F (1852) Cours de Me Goeury et Vor Dalmont, Paris Roche J (2006) What is momentum. Eur J Phys 27:10191036 Rowlands S, Graham T, Berry J (1998) Identifying blocks in the development of student understanding of moments of forces. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 29:511531 Rowlands S, Graham T, Berry J (1999) Can we speak of alternative frameworks and conceptual change in mechanics. Sci Educ 8:241271 Rowlands S, Graham T, Berry J, McWilliam P (2007) Conceptual changes through the lens of Newtonian mechanics. Sci Educ 16:2142 hrung in die Theoretische Physik, vol 1, 6th edn. de Gruyter, Berlin Schaefer C (1962) Einfu canique fonde s sur la Cine matique. Bachelier, Paris Saint-Venant AJCB (1851) Principes de Me Seker H, Welsh LC (2006) The use of history of mechanics in teaching motion and force units. Sci Educ 15:5589 Smith TI, Wittmann MC (2008) Applying a resources framework to analysis of the force and motion conceptual evaluation, Physical review special topicsphysics. Educ Res 4:020101 Snider CW (1967) The confusion concerning universal forces. Br J Philos Sci 18:6466 ber theoretische Physik. Vol. I Mechanik. 3rd edn. Akad. Verl. Geest & Sommerfeld A (1947) Vorlesungen u Portig, Leipzig Stinner A (2001) Linking the book of nature and the book of science: using circular motion as an exemplar beyond the textbook. Sci Educ 10:323344 Voigt W (1901) Elementare Mechanik. Veit & Comp, Leipzig Webster AG (1904) The dynamics of particles and of rigid, elastic, and uid bodies. Teubner, Leipzig Wilczek F (2004) Whence the force of F = ma ? I: culture shock. Phys Today 57N10:1112

123

On the Concept of Force Wilczek F (2005) Whence the force of F = ma ? III: cultural diversity. Phys Today 58N7:1011 Wolfson R, Pasachoff JM (1990) Physics. Scott, Glenview, Ill

113

Author Biography
Ricardo Lopes Coelho has been a Professor Auxiliar at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, since 1997, and a Privatdozent at the Technical University of Berlin, since 2001. He studied piano, philosophy and physics in Portugal, did his PhD at the TU-Berlin and his Habilitation in History and Philosophy of Exact Sciences at the same University. Among others, he published some articles concerning his main research interest, the understanding of scientic concepts and principles through its past and philosophy. He is the author of two books: Zur Konzeption der Kraft der Mechanik (On the Concept of Force in Mechanics) (2001) and O Conceito de Energia: Passado e Sentido (On the Concept of Energy: History and Meaning) (2006).

123