0
$\begingroup$

I was studying centripetal force and Centrifugal force, and I decided to look out for their formulae....(Obviously on Google)

The formulae for centripetal force given was: $$m \frac{v^2}{r}$$ And for centrifugal force was $$m \omega^2 r$$ And after substituting $\omega= \frac{v}{r}$; the formula for centrifugal force and centripetal force become equal

$$\left|\overrightarrow{F}_{\mathrm{Centrifugal}}\right| = \left|\overrightarrow{F}_{\mathrm{Centripetal}}\right| = m\frac{v^2}{r}$$

Now I know that centrifugal and centripetal force are opposite to each other and if these are opposite then $$\overrightarrow{F}_{\mathrm{Centrifugal}} + \overrightarrow{F}_{\mathrm{Centripetal}} = 0$$

But then why is that when a guy rotates anything the rotating object faces a centrifugal force outwards? The both forces' magnitudes are same due to same formula and their directions are opposite so they should cancel each other out...(My observation isn't made up, that's the reason why machines like centrifugal separators work as the heavy particles face an outwards force)

I am a ninth grader so my knowledge may be incomplete in some areas... Please answer right from the basics...

$\endgroup$
1

5 Answers 5

2
$\begingroup$

I just posted Why is the centrifugal force radially outwards?, but that may not be 9th grade level.

To avoid semantics and corner cases, let's restrict this discussion to a single mass undergoing uniform planar circular motion around a point called The Origin.

A centripetal force is any and all forces that point inward to the origin. If it's Earth going around the Sun, then it's the Sun's gravitational pull. If it's David's rock in his sling, then it's the tension force in the rope. On a loop-de-loop at Six Flags, it's a combination of gravity and the contact force of the rails on the wheels.

A centripetal force can be in an inertial frame, or a non-inertial frame. All that matters is that:

$$ f = m\frac{v^2} r $$

where $r$ is the distance to the origin (again, we're 2D in a plane to avoid semantics around "axis" vs "origin". etc), and $v$ is the tangential velocity (again, I am tempted to say $r$ is the radius of curvature and $v$ is that tangential velocity--that would apply to an arbitrary path--and this is why I want to stick to uniform circular motion in a plane).

In any and all inertial frames: the centrifugal force is zero. One of the biggest lessons in classical physics is that nature and physical law does not care about our coordinate systems. A foundational law is Newton's:

$$ \vec F = m\vec a $$

and it holds in inertial frames with no extra work.

In a rotating frame, there is a problem with Newton's Law: it's violated.

Here on Earth, we have the precession of a Foucault pendulum, for example.

For a simpler example (always start simple and work your way up), consider a 2D reference frame centered on the Sun, with the Earth at $R$. (pls ignore Barycenter for now--the Earth revolves around the center of a stationary Sun).

In this frame:

Earth moves at

$$ v = \frac{2\pi\,{\rm A.U.}}{\rm year} $$

in a circle of radius:

$$ R = 1{\rm A.U.} $$

The Sun's gravity applies a centripetal force, such that the acceleration of the Earth is:

$$ a_{\oplus} = -\frac{v_{\oplus}^2}{R} = 4\pi^2 \,{\rm\frac{A.U.}{\rm year}^2} $$

That minus sign indicates the acceleration is radially inward.

That requires a force:

$$ f = M_{\oplus}a_{\oplus} $$

and it is from gravity:

$$ f_g = -GM_{\odot}\frac{M_{\oplus}}{R^2} $$

The minus sign indicates the force is attractive.

You can verify:

$$ f_g = M_{\oplus}a_{\oplus} $$

and Newton's Laws work.

Now let's go to a rotating frame. Same origin, but we're going to rotate the frame at:

$$ \Omega =2\pi\,{\rm year}^{-1}$$

(Since it's a 2D coordinate system, we don't need a $\hat z$ modifying it).

In the coordinate system, the Earth sits at $R$ with velocity:

$$ v'_{\oplus} = 0$$

with acceleration:

$$ a'_{\oplus} = 0 $$.

Well, now there is a problem. The Sun's gravity still works, so that:

$$ f_g \ne M_{\oplus}a_{\oplus} $$

Newton's law isn't working.

We can restore physics by introducing a fictitious centrifugal force:

$$ f_c = +M_{\oplus}\Omega^2 R = M_{\oplus}\frac{4\pi^2}{1 {\rm A.U.}} $$

The plus sign indicates that this new force is radially outward.

Now the sum of all external forces is:

$$ F_{tot} = f_g + f_c = 0 = f_{cent}$$

and $F=ma$ holds: physics doesn't care about your coordinates.

Now this is the simplest example. Had I chosen:

$$\Omega \ne 2\pi\,{\rm year}^{-1} $$

then Earth would have a non-zero velocity, breaking

$$ \Omega R = v $$

and Newton would be out of balance. This is remedied by introducing a velocity dependent Coriolis Force:

$$ \vec f_C = -2\vec \Omega \times \vec v' $$

Note that the angular velocity is that of the coordinate system, not the Earth's in its orbit; moreover, $v'$ is not the inertial velocity of Earth, it's the velocity of the Earth in the rotating coordinate system.

As an example, suppose I chose $\Omega$ such that Earth appeared to revolve backwards one per year.

Let's call the yearly revolution $\Omega_0$, so I start with:

$$\Omega = 2\Omega_0 $$

Then we have gravity:

$$ f_g = -M_{\oplus}\frac{v^2} R = -M_{\oplus}\Omega_0^2 R$$

and the centrifugal force

$$ f_c = +M_{\oplus}\Omega^2 R = +4M_{\oplus}\Omega_0^2 R$$

We are way out of balance now, but now we add the Coriolis force with:

$$ v' = (\Omega_0-\Omega) R = -\Omega_0 R $$

so:

$$ f_C = -2\Omega v' = -4\Omega_0^2 R $$

The total$^1$ of all those forces is the centripetal force:

$$ f_{cent} = f_g + f_c + f_C = f_g = M_{\oplus}a_{\oplus} $$

which keeps the Earth on track to revolve once per year.

Newton is restored!

Note: the centripetal force is the sum of all of the radial forces, so that's not just gravity. It includes the inertial forces, too.

I prefer the term "inertial" over "fictitious" for the following reason(s):

If you start with Special Relativity (a 4D spacetime), and include acceleration: gravity, $f_g$, is also an inertial force caused by having a coordinate system that does not follow a geodesic. Moreover, the centrifugal and Coriolis force appear as gravitation. Of course, the math is much more difficult, but in the end it works because:

PHYSICS DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR COORDINATE SYSTEM.

[1] If you want to say only inward forces are centripetal, that is a matter of choice. In that case: $f_g + f_C$ cancels $f_c$ and has enough left over to keep Earth in orbit. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eötvös_effect, for yet another modification.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think it is easily comprehensible for a ninth grader, but I'll try $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Rutajit45amathsguy irk? The problem is that most explanation I have ever been taught are insufficient. Centrifugal and Coriolis depend on the rotational velocity of the frame and, respectively, the position and velocity in that frame. The centripetal force is radial, but what it is is frame dependent, and it's that last part that is confused in most treatments. Since it is a "real" force (string, gravity, electromagnetism), ppl forget that in a rotating frame it also includes centrifugal and Coriolis. It's not until General Relativity that all is resolved, which is advanced. $\endgroup$
    – JEB
    Commented Oct 14 at 2:32
0
$\begingroup$

Centripetal force is the force needed to keep an object moving in a circular path at a constant speed. In an inertial reference frame, an object moving in a circle at constant speed is accelerating (because the direction of its velocity is changing even though the magnitude of its velocity is constant). There must be a force acting on the object to cause this acceleration, and this force is centripetal force. The centripetal force may come from the tension in a string or from gravity or from electrostatic attraction etc. - the source does not matter.

However, if we switch to a (non-inertial) rotating reference frame in which the object appears to be stationary then we now seem to have an unbalanced force (the centripetal force) acting on a stationary object. To account for the object being stationary we introduce a "fictitious" force or pseudo-force, which is centrifugal force. We call it "fictitious" because it is not a real force due to tension or gravity etc. - it is a book-keeping adjustment that we only need because we are working in a non-inertial reference frame. Because the object is stationary in the rotating reference frame, we expect the net force acting on it to be zero. And this is why centrifugal force is equal in magnitude to centripetal force, and opposite in direction.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

There's nothing wrong with JEB's answer, but I think this may help:

You write

Now I know that centrifugal and centripetal force are opposite to each other 
...
But then why... the rotating object faces a centrifugal force outwards? 

Centrifugal and centripetal forces always point in opposite directions, along the radius away from or towards the center of rotation. However, they need not be equal in magnitude. The expression you found for centripetal force is only identical to the expression for centrifugal force (except for the direction) for the special case of an object for which there is no acceleration in the radial direction in the frame which measures the centrifugal force. In other cases, the $r$ means something different in the two expressions. See the note at the end if interested.

To explain in more detail:

Let us take the frame of an observer who is rotating with angular velocity $\omega$. For instance, we can attach the observer to a big rotating wheel.

If we attach a relaxed spring to a weight on one end and to the spinning wheel on the other end, with initial velocity 0 in the radial direction, as measured from a frame corotating with the wheel, we will start out by measuring a centrifugal force on the weight and zero centripetal force. The weight accelerates in the radial direction. This gives it a velocity in the radial direction, which makes it increase in radius. As it increases in radius, the inward pointing (centripetal) force of the stretched spring increases.

Eventually, the system will reach an equilibrium in which there is no longer any acceleration in the radial direction. This will be the amount of stretch at which the centripetal force equals the centrifugal force in the co-rotating frame.


If the body is accelerating in the co-rotating frame, the $r$ in the canonical expression for centripetal force does not indicate the distance to the center of rotation of the co-rotating frame, but the distance to a point at which the velocity of the body would be the tangent velocity of a circular path. This is the radius of curvature. If we have a free body travelling in a straight line, the radius of curvature is infinite, because only in the limit as radius goes to infinity does the circumference of a circle approach a straight line. Note how $F=mv^2/r = 0$ in the limit as $r \to \infty$. If the object is accelerated to follow a curved path, $r$ becomes finite. The tighter the curve, the smaller the radius of curvature. In the case for which the object is accelerated to follow a curved path corotating with the observer who measures the centrifugal force, the radius of curvature equals the radius from the observer's center of rotation to the object under consideration. In all other cases, the displacement from the center of rotation to the rotating object is not the radius of curvature.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Why is the formula for Centripetal and Centrifugal force same?

Since you’re a ninth grader I’ll try and provide a more intuitive explanation.

As you are already aware, they have the same magnitude but they are in opposite directions. But the centripetal force is that applicable to an inertial (non accelerating) reference frame where Newton’s laws can be applied, whereas the centrifugal force is a fictitious (non physical) force used in the non inertial (accelerating) of the object to explain the apparent outward force on the object.

In reality, in the accelerating frame the apparent outward force is due to the object “wanting” to keep moving in a straight line instead of in a circle due to its inertia, per Newton’s first law.

You experience this effect in a car taking a hard turn when it seems a force is is pushing you to the side of the car away from the turn. In reality there is no physical force pushing you outwards. Its your body wanting to move in a straight line tangent to the circular motion.

The both forces' magnitudes are same due to same formula and their directions are opposite so they should cancel each other out.

Since the two forces are applicable to two different reference frames you can’t simply add them and say they cancel one another out

Hope this helps.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

See centrifugal force is what is called a pseudo-force. As the name suggests, (pseudo meaning false) it is an imaginary or apparent force.

It is defined to be equal and opposite to the centripetal force.

Now, you may be wondering why we need to define such a thing. Well the simple answer is that the human mind is fooled easily.
A child in orange flying off of a merry-go-round

As you can see in the gif above, a child in orange appears to fly off of a merry go round as observed by the other child in the centre.

So it would "appear" that there is an outward force being applied on the child. So in our ignorance we term this apparent force as the "Centrifugal Force".

But we do know better, don't we?

In reality there is no outward force being applied on the orange child. But then why is the child flying off?
It will be easier to understand this effect on a simpler system.

I shall explain this effect on the simple, but equivalent, system of a person with a string and a stone. Afterwards we shall extrapolate our result to the case of the child and the merry-go-round.
Man swinging a stone above his head

As you can see in the gif above, the man is pulling on the string. If we ignore gravity, then this is the only force that is being applied on the system. That is it. There is no other force.

But the man is pulling on the string inwards, then why is the stone flying outwards with reference to him?
(Draw a parallel here to the child on the merry-go-round. The child was flying off even though there was no outward force being applied to the child.)

Well, the answer is INERTIA.
Inertia is the ability of the object to oppose a change in the state of its motion.

For example, when a car turns left and you're thrown to the right, you're actually moving straight relative to your initial state of motion. The car is moving left, not you. But it "appears" that you are feeling a force.

Now if the car continuously takes a left turn, and goes in a circle, you will continuously "feel" an opposite force. But in fact there is no force. Your mind made it up to account for your Inertia.

And so in the case of the stone, the centripetal inward pull by the man is constantly changing in direction and hence it "feels" as if a force is being applied on the stone. This inertial force is what we call Centrifugal force.

Similarly, in the case of the child, the rotating merry-go-round is constantly pulling the child inwards and hence changing its direction and consequently, the child "feels" an outwards force to account for the inertia.

So, in summary, the centrifugal force is the pseudo-force that is used to account for the inertia of the object in a rotating frame of reference.

Now, since it is a fictitious force, we cannot use it to cancel out the centripetal force.

I hope you were able to understand my explanation.
If there are any errors then please point them out.
Thank you.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ "It is defined to be equal and opposite to the centripetal force." This is not correct; a centrifugal force can be present in a noninertial reference frame without any centripetal force being present $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ But then why does the formulae don't predict the centripetal force is lesser and the centrifugal force and why are they given equal?? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Rutajit45amathsguy I'm sorry I don't understand your question. I did not provide any formula. Could you please rephrase? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ @BioPhysicist a nineth grade child in India doesn't know what a non-inertial frame of reference is. Please keep in mind that for the same reason, we don't directly teach complex numbers, we start with natural numbers and make our way up. Also, I'm sorry but I believe you are incorrect. There can be no centrifugal force without a centripetal force. Please provide a counter-example. And then I shall edit my answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ Centrifugal forces arise in a rotating reference frame, it isn't motion dependent. All good to simplify as long as the information is correct. As a counterexample, think of a bead on a rotating, radial wire. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13 at 19:02

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.