I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
Now, this makes sense to me, but I used to think the opposite was also true.
An object at rest, will stay at rest unless an external force is applied to it as well, but now I’m not so sure.
The other day in my Chemistry class, we were discussing atoms and how they are seen, and looked at through a microscope. The only way to see them is to slow them down enough to be able to see with the naked eye.
This is done by taking them to a temperature which is approximately Zero Degrees C.
However, it was stated in the class Zero Degrees C can not ever be reached. So instead of stopping an atom, they slow it down enough to be able to capture it in the field of view on the microscope.
When we apply Newton’s first law to an object in motion (say a robot at the end of a match hitting a wall) we say it has “stopped” and therefore Newton’s Law was proven (It was acted upon by hitting a wall, and a multitude of other forces acting on it as well (gravity/friction/air resistance).
How do you prove Newton’s first Law with an atom which can’t be “stopped”, but only slowed down as of right now with current technology?
Just something I pondered during a long class on Monday night.
Also, in the whole conservation of energy theory, IF one atom ever was able to stop completely, would we would need something to move to take it’s place to make perfect balance to the system??
Maybe I’m confusing two different theory’s here, but something just doesn’t seem to add up at all.
Also, do atoms move in uniform motion? (I only ask because I see that uniform motion of an object is a requirement of Newton’s First law?)
Does anything ever move uniformly in the world for that matter?
Any input would be appreciated so I don’t go crazy during another class, or everytime we start talking about atom motion or Newton’s laws. :eek: