A Deductive Proof of Newton's Third Law

by Ken Amis

1. Background
Every physics student learns Newton's three laws of motion. It's tempting to consider that
these are three separate and independent laws. That's not so. Both the first and third
laws may be mathematically derived from the second law, as we will show.

The fact that the first law may be derived from the second has long been known. The
second law, Fnet = ma, tells us that the net (vector sum) of all forces acting on a body is
equal to the product of the body's mass and its vector acceleration. When the
acceleration is zero, the net force must be zero. This is exactly the content of the first law.

2. The Third Law

Newton's third law is often considered "trivial", but it's more subtle than most students
realize. It asserts that "If body A exerts a force on body B, then B exerts a force of equal
size and opposite direction on A." It can be written: FAB = – FBA. The pair of forces in this
law are often called an "action-reaction pair." Each force is said to be a "reaction" force of
the other, though this language is mere window dressing. The terms "action" and
"reaction" are often misleading to students and are best avoided in these discussions, for
they aren't necessary.

Let's first consider the case of two bodies in contact. Each exerts a force on the other at
the interface, or point of contact, where the bodies touch. If that point or interface is
treated as a "body" of mass zero, then Newton's second law tells us that Fnet = 0a, so
Fnet = 0. So the net force on a body of zero mass is always zero, whatever forces act
upon it. Therefore if only two forces act on a body of mass zero, they must add to zero,
and therefore must be equal size and oppositely directed. This establishes Newton's third
law.

Restating this may make it clearer. Any force can be decomposed into two parts. In this
case the net force on the interface may be considered the sum of: (1) The net force due
to A acting on the interface, and (2) the net force due to B acting on the interface. Two
bodies in contact are equivalent to two bodies with a zero mass body between them at
the point of contact.
We have shown that these two forces add to zero, so they must be
forces of equal size and opposite direction. Q.E.D.

3. A Closer look
If that seems too "pat" for your tastes, we can make the argument more rigorous.
Consider three balls contacting each other as shown in Fig. 1A. We show only the
contact forces of the two larger balls acting on the smaller one. Of course the smaller one
exerts equal and oppositely directed forces on the larger ones as well. Now consider the
limiting case as the small ball is made smaller, as in Fig. 1B, and finally in Fig. 1C the
small one has shrunk to zero dimension—a point. The initially unequal size forces shown
have necessarily become equal. They are now also colinear and oppositely directed.

Though Fig. 1 shows the case of

compression at the point of contact, the
argument applies equally well to forces in
the opposite direction, for example,
gravitational attraction.

4. Surface contact
When the bodies contact along a surface,
we can subdivide the surface into
infinitesimal pieces that may be treated as
points. The argument of section 2 may
then be applied, concluding that the force
of A acting on B is of equal size and
opposite direction to the force of B acting
on A, and these forces are coliniear, so
they produce no torque. Now integrating
over the whole surface of contact we find
that the net force of A acting on B is also
of equal size and opposite size to the net
force of B acting on A, and the net torque Fig. 1. Three bodies in contact.
due to all forces is zero, which means that The forces exerted on the smaller middle

FAB = – FBA. Again, we have established one are initially unequal in size

Newton's third law. or direction. In the limit as the

middle body's size and mass

For a concrete illustration, consider both go to zero, those two

two bodies in contact. Now place a forces become equal, opposite

piece of paper separating them at and colinear at the point of

the point of contact. The fact that contact.

the paper has much smaller mass

than the two bodies ensures that the net force on the paper is very small, and
the forces the two bodies exert on it are nearly equal and opposite. This
example may be useful in teaching this concept to students.

5. Final Generalization
So far we have considered only bodies in contact. What about forces that act at a
distance, such as gravitational, electric and magnetic forces? Here's where our approach
to this problem allows really profound insights.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of two separated bodies A and B interacting

with space in accordance with Newton's third law. Forces on these bodies
are shown.
If there's space between two bodies, of whatever extent, but zero mass, then treating
space as "the third body in the middle" yields the same result as above! You didn't expect
it to be that simple, did you?

6. New Insights From This Approach

Consider the implications flowing from this new approach. If Newton's third law is
universally true, it is telling us that the space between objects must indeed have zero
mass. Remember all those years physicists wasted on the idea of a substance called the
"luminiferous ether" that "fills all of space". [1] If they'd only had the benefit of the proof
we've outlined above they'd have realized that this ether must have exactly zero mass.
Then, if they really believed Newton's third law, they wouldn't have bothered with the
(now abandoned) notion of the ether. They'd have realized that their ether was
experimentally indistinguishable from nothing. [3]

Though the luminiferous ether idea has disappeared from textbooks, seldom rating even
a footnote, modern physics has introduced subtler and sneakier ways to give structure
and substance to space. These have fancy names like "vacuum states". If any of this new
stuff supposedly "in" space has mass, or if space itself has mass, then careful
measurements of forces between interacting bodies should reveal that fact. Any
inequality of action and reaction forces on bodies interacting through intervening space
would reveal the mass of space.

Critics of this interpretation of Newton's Third Law may object to treating space as a
"massless body". Why should this be so alarming? Physicists have entertained even
crazier concepts and even incorporated them into their theories. In the 20th century
physicists quite comfortably lived with the notion of massless neutrinos.

7. Why Didn't Newton Tell Us About This?

This analysis does not appear in Newton's writings, yet he invented the calculus, and
surely had some grasp of limiting processes. [2] Why did he split his revolutionary idea
into three distinct parts? Could it be that he didn't realize that the three laws were really
one? Could he have held back this important insight so that competitors couldn't easily
follow his "giant's foosteps"?

8. Conclusion
It's about time we quit speaking of "Newton's three laws" and simply refer to this
important idea as "Newton's law of mechanics." That's two fewer laws students will need
to cram for exams. It's often said that you can pass an elementary course in physics if
only you know Newton's laws of mechanics and all of their logical consequences. Those
consequences include the conservation laws of energy and momentum. There may be
something to that.

Ken Amis

Endnotes
1. Swenson, Loyd S. The Ethereal Aether, a History of the Michelson-Morley-Miller
Aether-Drift Experiments. University of Texas Press, 1972.

2. Newton, Sir Isaac.

The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. 1729.
3. Physicists now play with the notions of dark matter and dark energy supposedly filling
all of space, accounting for subtle data about the motions of distant stars and galaxies.
This in no way invalidates the arguments given here. It just makes the calculations more
difficult.

© 2002 by Ken Amis and Donald E. Simanek. Permission for reproduction and use of this entire document is
granted for educational non-profit purposes only.

Return to front page.

Go to Toward a New Theory of Gravitation by Ken Amis.
Return to the top of this document.
Return to Cutting edge science.