Coriolis and centrifugal forces

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the dependency of Coriolis and centrifugal forces on the choice of coordinate systems, particularly in the context of a stone falling from a tower on Earth. Participants confirm that these forces are indeed fictitious and vary with the observer's frame of reference, emphasizing that the rotating frame at the tower's base introduces additional complexities. The consensus is that using the center of the Earth as the origin simplifies calculations, as the centrifugal force is effectively included in gravitational acceleration. The equations of motion (EoM) for free fall are clarified, highlighting the negligible impact of centrifugal acceleration during short time scales.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of inertial and non-inertial reference frames
  • Familiarity with the concepts of fictitious forces
  • Knowledge of angular velocity and its implications in physics
  • Basic grasp of equations of motion (EoM) in classical mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Coriolis effect in rotating frames
  • Learn about centrifugal force and its role in gravitational calculations
  • Explore the implications of non-inertial frames in real-world applications
  • Investigate the concept of apparent gravity and its variations across the Earth's surface
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and professionals in engineering or geophysics who seek to deepen their understanding of dynamics in rotating systems and the effects of fictitious forces on motion.

Karol
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


There is a fixed coordinate system and a rotating one. the origins don't coincide.
The situation is like a stone falling from a tower on earth, where the rotating system has it's origin at the base of the tower.
Are the coriolis and centrifugal forces dependent on the choice of the coordinate system?
According to the equation-yes, because r is measured in the rotating system (is it?), but my intuition says the forces are constant.
If i choose a closer coordinate system to the moving object then the imaginary forces, the coriolis and centrifugal, are smaller, no?

Homework Equations


The "F" notation is for the fixed coordinate system and "R" for the rotating one.
\vec{a}_R=\vec{a}_F-2\vec{\omega}\times\vec{V}_R-\vec{\omega}\times\left( \vec{\omega}\times \vec{r} \right)
 

Attachments

  • Coordinates.jpg
    Coordinates.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 494
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Karol! :smile:
Karol said:
Are the coriolis and centrifugal forces dependent on the choice of the coordinate system?
According to the equation-yes, because r is measured in the rotating system (is it?) …

Yes of course.

r and v are measured in the rotating frame.

The coriolis force and the centrifugal force are creations of the coordinate system … of course they will usually be different for different systems … they are fictitious corrections that enable the observer to regards newotn's laws as applying.
… but my intuition says the forces are constant.

Why?? :confused:
 
If so, which coordinate system do i choose if i want to know how far from the base of the tower the stone will fall?
If i choose at the center of the Earth i will get an other answer than if i choose it at the base of the tower
 
Hi Karol! :smile:
Karol said:
If i choose at the center of the Earth i will get an other answer than if i choose it at the base of the tower

You're ignoring a more fundamental fictitious force: the fictitious force due to the translational acceleration of the observer (in this case, the centripetal acceleration of the tower round the earth).

This is not negligible (in fact, it's huge!).

So use the centre of the earth. :wink:

(of course, even if we use the centre of the earth, there's still the centripetal acceleration round the sun … but that's rω2, which is about 2300/3652, or about 2% … and of the sun round the galaxy, which is even smaller)
 
I know the tower has centrifugal acceleration, but it doesn't affect the falling stone, or should i add this acceleration to the acceleration i get for the stone for the frame at the base of the tower? is it true that i will get 2 different answers for the distance the stone is falling from the base of the tower?
 
Karol said:
I know the tower has centrifugal acceleration, but it doesn't affect the falling stone, or should i add this acceleration to the acceleration i get for the stone for the frame at the base of the tower?

the tower's frame of reference (ie with the origin at the tower) has a fictitious force due to the translational acceleration that it has in the centre-of-earth frame

since it's far larger than anything else in the calculation, i don't see any point in treating it as a correction … you should not use the tower-origin rotating frame of reference at all
 
tiny-tim said:
the tower's frame of reference (ie with the origin at the tower) has a fictitious force due to the translational acceleration that it has in the centre-of-earth frame
Yes, i know it's far larger because the radius of the Earth is big in comparison with the tower, and i have understood your proposal to use the center of the Earth as the origin.
The fact is i read in some book a solved example to the tower problem in which they used the tower frame.
I want to understand, in principle, what should i do with these problems. should i add the forces the tower frame feels to the stone or not?
 
The forces on the tower frame is just the centrifugal force, and this is already included in the gravitational acceleration \vec{g}, which can be set constant for this problem. The EoM. for the free fall from the tower thus reads
\ddot{\vec{x}}=-\vec{g}-2 \vec{\omega} \times \dot{\vec{x}}-\vec{\omega} \times (\vec{\omega} \times \vec{x}).
where \vec{x} is the position vector in the reference frame at the tower and \vec{\omega} the constant angular velocity wrt. to this same frame, i.e.,
\vec{\omega}=\omega \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -\cos \beta \\ 0 \\sin \beta<br /> \end{pmatrix},
where \beta \in [-\pi/2,\pi/2] is the latitude where the tower is located on Earth.

Now you can also neglect the centrifugal acceleration in the EoM, because \omega=2 \pi/\text{d} is very small at the time scale the free fall is happening. The remaining equation, including the Coriolis acceleration only, is then pretty straight-forward to solve!
 
vanhees71 said:
The forces on the tower frame is just the centrifugal force, and this is already included in the gravitational acceleration \vec{g}, which can be set constant for this problem. The EoM
I don't understand that. centrifugal force isn't the acceleration g, and how is it included. and what do i do with it concerning the stone, if at all, and if i don't want to neglect the centrifugal force.
Excuse me, but what EoM means?
 
  • #10
I feel c certain centrifugal force on the earth. if the imaginary forces are coordinate system dependent, according to which coordinate system do i feel them? it must be with the origin at the center, and not on the surface, and this is the only one the can be used for the force has a certain magnitude, no?
 
  • #11
The constant force of gravity that we feel at a point on the Earth's surface is, in fact, a combination of gravity and the centrifugal pseudo-force caused by the Earth spinning. So, the centrifugal force is effectively bundled up with gravity and there is no need to calculate it separately.

Apart from at the poles and equator, this combined force doesn't point at the centre of the Earth. So, things that are falling vertically are not actually falling directly towards the centre of the Earth. But, because the force is effectively constant (except over large distances) we don't notice this or normally have to take this into account.

See the note on "apparent gravity":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

If the Earth stopped spinning, then you'd find that things you thought were "vertical" were no longer vertical.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
858
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
8K
Replies
5
Views
2K