# Force FAQs:

Q: Is force any interaction that?

A: Yes, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object.

Q: Are forces due to the interaction of objects with mass?

A: Yes, and it is possible to define a system such that net momentum is never lost nor gained.

Q: Is force required to maintain motion?

A: Yes, and even at a constant velocity.

Q: Is force not a part of the modern SI system, and is generally deprecated?

A: Yes, however it still sees use for some purposes as expressing aircraft weight, jet thrust, bicycle spoke tension, torque wrench settings and engine output torque.

Q: Is force held out as a possibility with candidate theories such as supersymmetry proposed to accommodate some of the outstanding unsolved problems in physics?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force required to keep an object moving with constant velocity?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces fictitious?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force applied in the direction of motion while the kinetic friction force exactly opposes the applied force?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force due to repulsive forces of interaction between atoms at close contact?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces quantified using precise operational definitions that are consistent with direct observations and compared to a standard measurement scale?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces additive vector quantities: they have magnitude and direction?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force the newton , which is the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared, or kg·m·s−2?

A: Yes, The corresponding CGS unit is the dyne, the force required to accelerate a one gram mass by one centimeter per second squared, or g·cm·s−2. A newton is thus equal to 100,000 dynes.

Q: Are forces desirable?

A: Yes, since that force would then have only one non-zero component.

Q: Is force inferred from the object's curved path?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces emitted and absorbed?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force the pound-force , defined as the force exerted by gravity on a pound-mass in the standard gravitational field of 9.80665 m·s−2?

A: Yes, The pound-force provides an alternative unit of mass: one slug is the mass that will accelerate by one foot per second squared when acted on by one pound-force.

Q: Are forces acceleration forces that arise simply from the acceleration of rotating frames of reference?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces balanced?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force the result of adding the two force magnitudes or subtracting one from the other?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces considered more accurately to be "fundamental interactions"?

A: Yes, When particle A emits or absorbs virtual particle B, a momentum conservation results in recoil of particle A making impression of repulsion or attraction between particles A A' exchanging by B. This description applies to all forces arising from fundamental interactions.

Q: Are forces considered fictitious because they do not exist in frames of reference that are not accelerating?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces nuclear forces that act only at very short distances?

A: Yes, and are responsible for the interactions between subatomic particles, including nucleons and compound nuclei.

Q: Are forces equivalent to the gradient of a potential while nonconservative forces are not?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force today understood to represent the interactions between quarks and gluons as detailed by the theory of quantum chromodynamics?

A: Yes, The strong force is the fundamental force mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and the gluons themselves.

Q: Are forces classified as "vector quantities"?

A: Yes, This means that forces follow a different set of mathematical rules than physical quantities that do not have direction. For example, when determining what happens when two forces act on the same object, it is necessary to know both the magnitude and the direction of both forces to calculate the result.

Q: Is force observed between hadrons as the nuclear force?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force required to keep the cannonball moving at the constant forward velocity?

A: Yes.

Q: Were forces unified through a theory of electromagnetism?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces expressions of a more fundamental electroweak interaction?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force that it varied as an inverse square law directed in the radial direction?

A: Yes, and was both attractive and repulsive , was independent of the mass of the charged objects, and followed the superposition principle.

Q: Are forces equal in magnitude but opposite in direction?

A: Yes.

Q: Were forces first quantitatively investigated in conditions of static equilibrium where several forces canceled each other out?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces consequences of the fundamental ones?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force applied by the surface that resists the downward force with equal upward force?

A: Yes, The situation produces zero net force and hence no acceleration.

Q: Are forces interactions between different bodies?

A: Yes, and thus that there is no such thing as a unidirectional force or a force that acts on only one body.

Q: Are forces the most usual way of measuring forces?

A: Yes, and using simple devices such as weighing scales and spring balances.

Q: Is force indistinguishable at a temperatures in excess of approximately 1015 kelvins?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces the results of conservative ones since each of these macroscopic forces are the net results of the gradients of microscopic potentials?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces perceived as pushes or pulls?

A: Yes, and this can provide an intuitive understanding for describing forces.

Q: Is force opposed by static friction?

A: Yes, and generated between the object and the table surface.

Q: Was force first described in 1784 by Coulomb as a force that existed intrinsically between two charges?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force eventually corrected by Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces acting on an extended body?

A: Yes, and their respective lines of application must also be specified in order to account for their effects on the motion of the body.

Q: Are forces described in physics?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces described by detailed treatment with statistical mechanics?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force the force responsible for the structural integrity of atomic nuclei while the weak nuclear force is responsible for the decay of certain nucleons into leptons and other types of hadrons?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force unopposed and the net force on the object is its weight?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force directly related to the normal force that acts to keep two solid objects separated at the point of contact?

A: Yes.

Q: Are forces fully consistent with the conceptual definition of force offered by Newtonian mechanics?

A: Yes.

Q: Is force a redundant concept arising from conservation of momentum?

A: Yes, The conservation of momentum can be directly derived from the homogeneity or symmetry of space and so is usually considered more fundamental than the concept of a force.