Coriolis effect and base forces

In summary: Option #2 says that we can use fictitious forces to make calculations work in a non-inertial frame. We can imagine a force that exists between two objects, even if we can't see it or measure it. This fictitious force allows us to make predictions about the behavior of objects in a non-inertial frame, even if we can't actually observe them. This is what we call mathematics.
  • #1
Jamal26
4
0
I wonder if anybody can point me to a good explication of the atmospheric Coriolis effect broken down into base forces. Most of the explanations I've seen are problematic, even flawed as far as I can tell, and they rarely talk about force vectors.

I've seen demonstrations, for instance a popular one is throwing a ball on a child's merry-go-round. I could be wrong, but I think this is absolutely an incorrect demonstration of the atmospheric Coriolis effect. It merely demonstrates differences in reference frames, which I believe is what the original mathematics of the Coriolis effect is about.

Why h20 aggregates and starts to rotate in the Earth's atmosphere is a very complex phenomenon as far as I can tell. There's a radial convection force for pushing hot air from the equator towards the colder polls, that definitely happens. Why it starts to rotate is another issue, I think.

I've read that rotating objects don't create rotating gravitational fields, so the idea that a rotating Earth could provide any force on air/water molecules seems dubious to me, but like I said I could be wrong. How does the Earth's rotation create any force at all on atmospheric molecules? Friction? Perhaps the curvature of the Earth plays a role?

Convection seems to be a very complex phenom. Can anybody point me to some good theory about predicting convection behavior?

I have this pet theory that warmer atmospheric temperatures make organized convection less probable, but when it does happen it becomes more violent. It would explain why we seem to have fewer, but more violent storms nowadays. Don't want to start a war about whether climate change is man made or not, just trying to understand Coriolis effect and atmospheric convection.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Turns out that the difference in reference frames as illustrated by child's merry-go-round that you dismissed off hand is the correct explanation.
 
  • #3
I didn't dismiss anything. Maybe you can explain a little more. For instance what are the 2 frames, and how do they contribute to actual physical aggregation & rotation of atmospheric molecules?
 
  • #4
You don't care. The coriolis effect is an essential part of the dynamics when you use a rotating frame of reference. If you want to describe the dynamics of a planetary atmosphere from the perspective of an inertial (non-rotating) frame where there is no coriolis effect, good luck. Conceptually, there's no problem with this. In practice, it is so ridiculously impractical that nobody does this.
 
  • #5
Jamal26 said:
I didn't dismiss anything. Maybe you can explain a little more. For instance what are the 2 frames, and how do they contribute to actual physical aggregation & rotation of atmospheric molecules?

The Earth is the merry-go-round. If you're outside of the Earth looking at it spin, than there is no Coriolis. But if you're spinning along with the Earth than the Coriolis must be included because you're using a non-inertial (accelerated) reference frame.
 
  • #6
Thanks for all of your replies. I have some things to say about them, but I want to generate some diagrams that will take a bit of time first.

I want to raise an issue on the question of computational impracticability that D H brings up. There are a lot of references to the concept of the Navier-Stokes equation being "chaotic," i.e. that solutions to it are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Does anybody have any links to this being demonstrated mathematically?

Steven Wolfram discusses the issue a bit here where he talks about where randomness comes from in modeling mathematical systems.

http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/997b

I really don't know enough about what Wolfram means by "intrinsic randomness" to know what he's talking about. Does he mean the equations generate randomness that can't be explained by initial conditions? Or does he mean that there is natural, perhaps quantum mechanical, randomness generation that can't be modeled?
 
  • #7
Jamal26 said:
I didn't dismiss anything. Maybe you can explain a little more. For instance what are the 2 frames, and how do they contribute to actual physical aggregation & rotation of atmospheric molecules?
You are thinking that the fictitious forces represent something real, something that can be attributed to one of the four fundamental interactions (gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, or the strong interaction). They don't. They are fictitious, hence the name. You have two choices when you look at physics from the perspective of a non-inertial frame: (1) don't do that, or (2) use fictitious forces.

Option #1 says that strictly speaking, Newtonian mechanics is only valid in an inertial frame of reference. An object that isn't subject to any external forces does not remain stationary or move along a straight line when observed from the perspective of an accelerating or rotating frame of reference. If you want to use F=ma you should be describing behavior from the perspective of an inertial frame of reference.

Option #2 says that option #1 is a non-starter. There are a number of applications where describing behavior from the perspective of an inertial frame doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. The mathematics behind those fictitious forces is perfectly valid. With them, one can indeed describe behavior from the perspective of an accelerating and/or rotating frame of reference.

You seem to be thinking that those fictitious forces have to be traceable to something real (your opening post). They aren't. They're traceable to the fact that we have intentionally decided to model behaviors such as weather from the perspective of a non-inertial frame.
 

Related to Coriolis effect and base forces

1. What is the Coriolis effect?

The Coriolis effect is a phenomenon in which objects moving in a straight line appear to curve due to the rotation of the Earth. This effect is caused by the Earth's rotation deflecting the motion of objects on its surface.

2. How does the Coriolis effect impact weather patterns?

The Coriolis effect plays a major role in shaping global wind patterns. It causes winds in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise and winds in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate counterclockwise. This is why hurricanes and typhoons spin in different directions depending on their location.

3. What are base forces and how do they relate to the Coriolis effect?

Base forces are any forces acting on an object that are not caused by the rotation of the Earth. These forces can include gravity, air resistance, and friction. The Coriolis effect is considered a base force because it is not directly caused by the Earth's rotation, but rather the result of the Earth's rotation on other forces.

4. How does the Coriolis effect impact projectiles?

The Coriolis effect can cause projectiles, such as missiles or artillery shells, to deviate from their intended path. This is due to the rotation of the Earth, which can cause the projectile to appear to curve as it travels. This effect must be taken into account when aiming long-range weapons.

5. Can the Coriolis effect be observed on other planets?

Yes, the Coriolis effect can be observed on other planets with a rotational axis, such as Mars. However, the direction and strength of the effect may vary depending on the planet's size, rotation speed, and other factors. The Coriolis effect is also present on other rotating celestial bodies, such as stars and galaxies.

Similar threads

Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
970
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top