Axiomatization of Newtonian Mechanics

Luis J. Garay, Jaime Redondo

November 2016

Abstract
When studying physics, concepts as force, mass, or free particle
are defined and used dogmatically. We work with definitions that are self-
definining, and we do not even think about the meaning of Newtons laws
as empirical results or deeper insights into physics. An axiomatization of
physical rules and definitions used in mechanics is purposed and analyzed,
in order to build a solid basis of physics.

1 Introduction
In the last years of the nineteenth century, it was seen that Newtonian mechanics
fundamentals were not clear. Two topics were discussed: What an inertial frame
is and what mass and force are. The study of the first question motivated the
development of Special Relativity. The second one lost its interest and there
is not much apart from the studies of Ernst Mach. Machs trial to reduce
mechanics to kinematics found its biggest problem in the concepts of mass and
force, and this two concepts are the key that will lead to a fixed formulation of
mechanics. But he was the first one in write down the problem that defining
mass suppose for fundamental physics, and some analysis of his work has been
done [1]
The biggest problem when revising the definitions that are usually given in
Physics lectures are the definitions. The first problem starts with the definitions
of free particle and inertial reference frame. We usually say that free particles
are those that move at constant velocity in inertial reference frames, and that
inertial reference frames are those in which free particles move at constant ve-
locity. But that is circular!
The second problem arrives when we try to deal with Newtons second law.
From kinetics, we know certainly what acceleration is. But we do not define
mass, although thinking about it is quite interesting. And, furthermore, the
definition of force that is often given is that force is the result of any action
applied on a particle. But, with this definitions in hand, is not true that we
could rewrite Newtons Second Law like this?

f 4 = a4 (1)

1
If we do not define mass, we could say that there is another quantity, i.e. Mass
that follows another Lay of Motion as in (1). Bearing this in mind, one sees
the importance of arriving on a true definition for inertial frame, free particles,
mass and force.
After Machs work, we find another axiomatization model [3] which carries
some of the same problems of the first author: the use of influence without
definition, and the need of further physical laws such as gravitation to define
mass. After that, the biggest research in axiomatization of physics was done
by Herbert A. Simon [2, page 355-368]. The author states the first approach
to define mass with respect to conserved quantities, momentum and angular
moomentum. He gives a proof of uniqueness of a set of mass solutions, except
from a proportionallity parameter, which is not further explained. So, the prob-
lem stated before of Newtons Second Laws formulation still remains. While
Simons proofs and definitions for reference system, and Galilean reference sys-
tem are brilliant in terms of generality, his work is done with no definition of
free particle, and with physical hypothesis that he uses whenever he needs
them.
We see that there still remain some problems with this definitions. Our first
point must be physics experimental character, so, defining what can we observe
in a physical system.

2 Preliminars: Observables, Free Particles and

Reference Systems
In the first term we have to define what can we observe and measure in any
physical system. In order to avoid any error, we will define that our unique ob-
servables are position and temporal interval. Derived quantities such as velocity
(the quotient of position in a temporal interval) and acceleration (the quotient
of velocity in a temporal interval) get defined for further use.

We can now define a system of n particles by the set of positions observed

of those particles in any time ~ri (t), i = 1, . . . , n. It is easily seen that this set
depends on our reference system. For this reason, we will set some definitions
to derive which are the reference systems with respect to we can work.

2.1 Definition 1: Free Particle

A free particle is the one on which I see no agents acting over it.

This is our second experimental-dependant result. Depending on our experi-

mental suitcase, we can see some agents acting on a particle or none agent acting.
For example, electromagnetic fields were not always considered in history. But,
for some experimental situation, this definition is correct.

2
2.2 Definition 2: Inertial Reference Frame
Given a system of free particles , we define an inertial reference frame, that might
not exist Q as a frame in which the free particles move at constant velocities.

2.2.1 Corollary 2.1: Galilean Transformations

If there exists an inertial reference frame Q1 for a system of free particles with
velocities

vi , there are an infinite number of inertial reference frames Qj moving
at constant velocities
uj with respect to Q1 in which the velocities of the free
particles are:
~vj =

vi +

uj (2)
And Q is called a Galilean class of inertial reference frames, where (2) is called
the Galilean Transformation.

2.3 First Newtons Law

First Newtons common formulation states that a system of free particles will
move with constant velocities with respect to any inertial reference frame. For
our use, it means that given a system of free particles, it exists a class of Galilean
inertial reference frames, and because of Proposition 2, in those frames, free
particles move with constant velocity.

3 Momentum, Mass, and Force

With this preliminaries, we will work in an inertial reference system. This
statements will be valid, then, for any inertial reference system, changing the
magnitudes using the Galilean Transformation. Considering that we have a
system of free particles moving at certain velocities, we can define,

3.1 Momentum
Given two particles in an inertial reference system, on which no more agents act,
we define the momentum of the system as a linear combination of this particles
velocities that remains always constant, although the particles can interact with
each other. That is, for a certain interaction:

p~ = m1~v1 + m2~v2 = m1~v1 0 + m2~v2 0 (3)

This is the definition of the momentum of a system. We define another

quantity, the momentum of a free particle in a certain time, as a quantity
proportional to its velocity with a certain proportionality constant, mi . So we
can redefine the momentum of a system in a certain time as the sum of the
momentums of the particles at that instant of time.

3
 One now sees that Newtons formulation of Third Law is equivalent to the
Law of Conservation of Momentum. After defining force we will come back here
and reformulate Newtons Third Law.
Also, it is seen that for a system of three particles interacting with each other
but with no more agents involved, the momentum must remain also constant,
and that occurs for a system of this type of n particles. We will call a system of
particles in which the momentum remains constant a free system of particles.
It is also evident now that all the definitions of inertial reference system are
equivalent for a free system of particles.

3.2 Mass
If we find a set of numbers mi , each one fixed for each particle, such as the
momentum of the system remains constant when putting those values as the mi
in equation (5), we call mi the mass of particle i.

One easily sees that there are infinite possible values of the masses. One
point is of importance, as the mass is fixed and constant for each particle, we
can think like this: Lets start with two particles forming a free system. We
find some values, m1 and m2 so that the momentum remains constant if the
masses of each particle were rm1 and rm2 , for any real r. If we add another free
particle to the system, we will find out another value, m3 , so that the global
momentum is constant with rm1 , rm2 , and rm3 . If we continue like that we
will see that all the masses in universe depend upon a certain number r, that
can be set arbitrary. We set this number to be 1 Kilogram, that is the mass of
certain weight laying somewhere in Paris, and we all agree to measure the mass
with respect to that one.

If that sounds strange for someone, just think in the same terms about
length. We always measure with respect to something, in lengths case, with
respect to a certain fraction of lights speed, that we call meter. Now we are
inventing another number, which for our sense means unit, that is present in
any mass in the universe.

3.3 Force
Newtons Second Law is formulated as follows:

Given a system of particles in an inertial reference frame, with masses mi

and momentums pi , on which some agent is applied, we define force (F) as a
measure of that interaction as follows:

d
pi
Fi = (4)
dt
Then, we see that Newtons Second Law is a definition of force as the rate of
change of the momentum of a certain system over a time interval. We have to

4
take into account the Superposition Principle, as a consequence of this definition
of force:

X X d
pi d
p
F = Fi = = (5)
i i
dt dt
It is interesting thinking that we could actually use any other Force Law, such
as Coulombs Law or Newtons Gravitation Law in order to define the concept
of Force, and derive Newtons Second Law as an experimental consequence of
that. The problem states in the appeareance of constants (G and 0 in those
Laws, that does not appear in Newtons Second Law.

3.4 Newtons Third Law

In the interaction of two systems of free particles, the force exerted on one by
another is equal and with opposite sign as the force exerted on the another by
the one.
F~12 = F~21 (6)
That is a consequence of the fact that the momentum of the system formed by
the two systems is constant. That means that the change of momentum in one
system must be the same and opposite as the change of momentum in the other
system, and that is what we have defined as forces.

4 Conclusion
It is a must to think in the meaning of this axiomatization for Newtonian Me-
chanics. We reconverted the meaning of Newtons Laws: The first one is the
axiom of existence of inertial reference frames, the second one states as a defini-
tion of force, and the third one is just a consequence of this and Superposition
Principle. But the main point is, that we have developed everything with only
few experimental measurements: only position and time measurements and the
momentums conservation law. This last one is furthermore the most interest-
ing, as its been seen universal and as far as it allows us to develop the concept
of mass, and the concept of force. Moreover we could reformulate in a more
precise way the condition of a reference frame to be inertial as such in which
the momentum remains constant that is the same as such in which the global
force is zero. But, everyone sees that the way in which one must start to de-
velop the axioms is this which states here: from physical observables, till mass
and force definitions through a conservation law.

References
[1] M. Bunge. Machs critique of newtonian mechanics. American Journal of
Physics, 34:585596, 1966.

[2] A. Simon Herbert. Models of Discovery. 1977.

5
[3] V.V.Narlikar. The concept and determination of mass in newtonian me-
chanics. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and
Journal of Science, 7:3336, 1939.