0
$\begingroup$

Consider an inertial reference frame $I$, and a point object $K$ which is at rest with respect to $I$. $K$ is not at the origin of $I$.

Consider another reference frame $I’$, with the same origin as $I$, but rotating along a specified axis with angular velocity $\omega$ with respect to $I$.

From the reference frame $I’$, the object $K$ appears to be revolving around the origin of $I’$ with angular velocity $\omega$.

In the inertial frame $I$, no external force was needed on the body $K$ to describe its motion.

On the other hand, in the non-inertial frame $I’$, we need a pseudo-force to describe the body using Newtonian laws. Since in this frame, the body is revolving, so the required pseudo-force is centripetal.

However, in a uniformly rotating non-inertial frame, the effective pseudo-force should be centrifugal, instead of centripetal. So we have a contradiction.

I am sure I am missing something, but what?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

If $K$ would be at rest in $I'$ then one would indeed observe a centrifugal force from $I'$. From $I$ one would see a real force that makes $K$ co-rotate (such as friction).

If $K$ is now at rest in $I$, then from $I'$ you would see that $K$ has a velocity $\mathbf{v}$ in the azimuthal direction. The fictitious force acting on $K$ is then the Coriolis force $\mathbf{F}_{\text{Coriolis}} = -2m\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\mathbf{v}$. You will find that it points in the negative radial direction.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ So the Coriolis force provides $2m\omega^2r$ radially inwards and the centrifugal force provides $m\omega^2r$ radially outwards, right? So, effectively we get a centripetal supply of $m\omega^2r$? $\endgroup$
    – Soham Saha
    Commented Jun 11 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I had not learnt about the Coriolis force before. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Soham Saha
    Commented Jun 11 at 16:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes in this case, if we use cylindrical coordinates, $\boldsymbol{\omega} = \omega\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ for example and $\mathbf{v}$ is purely azimuthal (in the negative $\phi$-direction). So with the RHR you would find that $\mathbf{F}_{\text{Coriolis}}$ is purely in the negative $r$-direction with a magnitude $2m\omega v$. $\endgroup$
    – Jesse
    Commented Jun 11 at 17:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.