Frame of reference and Pseudo forces

Click For Summary
When observing a pendulum inside an accelerating car from an inertial frame, the pendulum appears to move backward relative to the car's motion due to the tension in the string pulling it forward. The bob does not actually move backward; instead, it remains at rest while the car accelerates. For an observer inside the car, the pendulum appears to experience a pseudo force, which helps balance the forces acting on it and allows for the application of Newton's laws. This pseudo force is necessary to explain the motion from the non-inertial frame of the car. Thus, the apparent backward motion of the bob is a result of the car's acceleration and the forces acting on the pendulum.
AdityaDev
Messages
527
Reaction score
33
If you have a car and a pendulum is hanged inside it, and if you watch from outside the car,and if the car has some acceleration, then you see the bob moving in opposite direction of motion of car. For a person standing outside, he knows that the car has some acceleration. What causes the bob to move backwards from his point of view?
its not pseudo force because the frame of reference is inertial.
the car accelerates and so does tge bob. But why in opposite direction?

Also if you have a person inside the car, since bob is at rest, he introducea the concept of psuedo force to balance tension and weight. Am I right?
How do you explain first case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AdityaDev said:
What causes the bob to move backwards from his point of view?
From the inertial observer's viewpoint, the bob is not moving backwards but is being dragged forwards by the tension of the bob. Since it is accelerating, you can deduce the angle that the pendulum makes.
 
  • Like
Likes AdityaDev
You're wrong. For someone outside the car(who knows the car is accelerated), the bob is just trying to stay at rest, but the string pulls it along with the car. So to avoid the complication caused by the string, let's just say there is a big glass container that can move with non-zero acceleration. We also assume that there is mass inside this container that has no friction with the ground. Then if the container accelerates, the mass just remains at rest and people outside the container, just say container is accelerated and the mass is at rest. But people inside the container(who don't know the container is moving) see that the mass is moving with some acceleration. So they say there is a force acting on it.
 
  • Like
Likes AdityaDev
The bob does not move backwards from the outside point of view. The car moves forward.
AdityaDev said:
If you have a car and a pendulum is hanged inside it, and if you watch from outside the car,and if the car has some acceleration, then you see the bob moving in opposite direction of motion of car. For a person standing outside, he knows that the car has some acceleration. What causes the bob to move backwards from his point of view?
its not pseudo force because the frame of reference is inertial.
the car accelerates and so does tge bob. But why in opposite direction?
The car accelerates. The bob does not accelerate. At least not until the pendulum's angle has changed and tension increased, causing it to do so.

Also if you have a person inside the car, since bob is at rest, he introducea the concept of psuedo force to balance tension and weight.
For the person inside the car, tension and "weight" are not balanced. The weight includes a pseudo-force component that causes a net motion. The concept of the pseudo force is introduced so that Newton's second law is consistent with the observed motion.
 
  • Like
Likes AdityaDev
AdityaDev said:
Also if you have a person inside the car, since bob is at rest, he introducea the concept of psuedo force to balance tension and weight. Am I right?
Yes. From the non-inertial frame of the car, a pseudo force is introduced so that Newton's 2nd law can be used. Since the acceleration is zero (assuming it is in its final position, at an angle with the vertical), the net force, including the pseudo force, will be zero.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
922
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K