Fictitious Forces ⇔ Constraint Forces? (re: D'Alembert's Principle)

AI Thread Summary
Fictitious forces and constraint forces are distinct concepts in physics. Fictitious forces arise from non-inertial reference frames, such as the Coriolis force due to Earth's rotation, while constraint forces are linked to geometrical configurations, like the normal force on an inclined plane. Constraint forces self-adjust to balance opposing forces without doing work or changing momentum. The discussion emphasizes that not all forces lead to work, as work depends on the force's direction and the distance moved. Understanding the difference between these forces is crucial for accurate physical analysis.
Geremia
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
Are fictitious forces and constraint forces the same thing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, fictitious forces are forces which arise from analyzing within a non-inertial reference frame. Constraint forces are those which arise from a geometrical configuration.

For example, a constraint force would be perhaps a normal force exerted by the surface an object rests on such as an inclined plane problem. As long as the object is on the inclined plane, the object's motion is constrained to be along the inclined plane.

For a fictitious force consider that the Earth is in fact a rotating reference frame and therefore non-inertial. This gives rise to the Coriolis force which is needed to correct calculations due to this fact. It is small in effect but needed especially in large-distanced calculations.
 
cmmcnamara said:
No, fictitious forces are forces which arise from analyzing within a non-inertial reference frame. Constraint forces are those which arise from a geometrical configuration.
Yes, but how can geometry cause forces? Isn't force a change in momentum? Doesn't force imply movement? If a force isn't doing work, how is it a force?
cmmcnamara said:
For example, a constraint force would be perhaps a normal force exerted by the surface an object rests on such as an inclined plane problem. As long as the object is on the inclined plane, the object's motion is constrained to be along the inclined plane.
Yes, but what causes the constraint force, if not inertial effects?
 
Geremia said:
Yes, but how can geometry cause forces? Isn't force a change in momentum? Doesn't force imply movement? If a force isn't doing work, how is it a force?Yes, but what causes the constraint force, if not inertial effects?
Constraint forces self-adjust so that they are exactly equal and opposite to the force they are opposing. So they do not do work and they do not cause a change in momentum. They balance other forces that would otherwise do work/cause change in momentum.

AM
 
One should remember that NET forces produce a change in momentum. Any one individual force may or may not lead to a change in momentum.

A force is not required to do work. Work is the dot product of force and distance, so if the distance is 0, or if the force is applied perpendicular to the direction of motion, then the force does no work.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Back
Top