Is the concept of reactive centrifugal force valid?

[Andrew Mason]

Do you have any mainstream scientific reference for this definition of force?

You seem to be hung up on this rope for some reason. So I just figured I should define this interaction in terms of the real masses and their accelerations. That way we are only concerned about real forces on real masses and not the angels who are holding hands in between them.

To make it conceptually easier to see, would it help to put a massless ball, C, at the centre of mass of these two 1 kg masses that are 2m apart and rotating (ie. 1 m. from each of A and B)?

I think that most of the difficulty in this conversation stems from your penchant for refusing to use standard terms in the standard way. Btw, this is also a good way to fail a freshman physics class, even if you actually do understand the physics.

Some professors like to discourage non-conformist approaches to physics. Feynman did his best to change things but it takes time.

There is no force between A and B. A zero vector has no defined direction.

So are you saying I can't add what you say is the force of A on the rope to the force of the rope on B to get the force of A on B? Or are you saying those forces really add up to zero?

AM

 

[Andrew Mason]

It would seem the main difference is unlike gravity, fictitious centrifugal force doesn't have an equal and opposing force. It's just a mathematical method used to compensate for the rotating frame.

It has an equal and opposing force in the rotating (non-inertial) frame - the force that is keeping it in (eg the passenger presses into the door of the car because he is trying to flee the centre of rotation due to centrifugal force and the car presses back as a centripetal reaction force) when the car goes around a curve. That is the classic example of the fictitious centrifugal force, because, of course, there is no acceleration outward. I don't see the difference between that pseudo centrifugal force and the so-called reactive centrifugal force.

AM

 

[Doc Al]

It has an equal and opposing force in the rotating (non-inertial) frame - the force that is keeping it in (eg the passenger presses into the door of the car because he is trying to flee the centre of rotation due to centrifugal force and the car presses back as a centripetal reaction force) when the car goes around a curve. That is the classic example of the fictitious centrifugal force, because, of course, there is no acceleration outward. I don't see the difference between that pseudo centrifugal force and the so-called reactive centrifugal force.

The pseudo centrifugal force acts on the passenger, giving him zero net force in the noninertial rotating frame. The so-called reactive centrifugal force acts on the door of the car, and is a real force exerted by the passenger.

As rcgldr stated, the pseudo centrifugal force is not part of a 3rd law pair. Realize that 3rd law ('action/reaction') pairs act on different bodies.

In this example with the passenger in a car going around a curve: The door of the car exerts a real centripetal force on the passenger; the 3rd law pair to that force is a real force exerted by the passenger on the door. In the inertial frame, there is a net force on the passenger producing his centripetal acceleration. Viewed from the rotating frame, in which there is no acceleration, there is an additional pseudo centrifugal force acting outward on the passenger, giving him zero net force. That pseudo force has no agent (it's not a real force) and has no 3rd law pair.

 

[Doc Al]

You seem to be hung up on this rope for some reason. So I just figured I should define this interaction in terms of the real masses and their accelerations. That way we are only concerned about real forces on real masses and not the angels who are holding hands in between them.

Yet you seem to want an 'angel' connecting the masses so you can claim that A exerts a force directly on B even though they are not in contact.

How about you stop the nonsense and use a real rope! With mass. What do you think changes now?

And stop making up nonsense definitions ('non-conformist' ) that you think will support your strange notions. Stick to standard physics.

 

[Dale]

You seem to be hung up on this rope for some reason.

It is rather important. Without the rope there is no force on A or on B. That makes it pretty clear that the interactions are with the rope.

To make it conceptually easier to see, would it help to put a massless ball, C, at the centre of mass of these two 1 kg masses that are 2m apart and rotating (ie. 1 m. from each of A and B)?

It is your scenario. Feel free to specify it however you wish. But I will analyze whatever situation you choose using Newtons laws, not Andrew Masons laws.

So are you saying I can't add what you say is the force of A on the rope to the force of the rope on B to get the force of A on B?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Yet you seem to want an 'angel' connecting the masses so you can claim that A exerts a force directly on B even though they are not in contact.

How about you stop the nonsense and use a real rope! With mass. What do you think changes now?

The complexity of the problem. Now you have a string of positively and negatively charged masses each prescribing rotation about each other and exerting centripetal forces on each other about their respective centres of mass with the net result of attractive forces between one end and the other toward the middle.

And stop making up nonsense definitions ('non-conformist' ) that you think will support your strange notions. Stick to standard physics.

"Standard" physics does not get hung up on the physics inside massless ropes. "Standard" physics treats centrifugal forces as pseudo forces. "Standard" physics does not distinguish between a "reactive centrifugal force" and a centrifugal "force". "Standard" physics says that all forces, including reactive forces, in a two body rotation are centripetal.

AM

 

[Ken G]

It certainly seems clear that "reactive centrifugal forces" is an unfortunate term, but there's nothing formally wrong with it. The expression just means "whatever force appears when a body is constrained to accelerate perpendicular to its velocity", and it points "centrifugally" toward the instantaneous center of the motion. But since we already have the perfectly good term "centripetal force", and the term "centrifugal force" means something very different, there doesn't seem like any good reason to talk about "reactive centrifugal forces." All the same, there's nothing wrong with the concept, it's just awkward given the ways those other words are used. These comments would seem to apply independently to details of the mass distribution in a rope.

 

[Dale]

"Standard" physics treats centrifugal forces as pseudo forces. "Standard" physics does not distinguish between a "reactive centrifugal force" and a centrifugal "force".

I hope you understand my incredulity, but given the fact that you are 0 for 5 (or more) in providing any references supporting any of your previous positions I have a hard time believeing that you have the slightest idea what standard physics says. Do you have any mainstream scientific reference for these claims?

I agree that standard physics does not get hung up on massless ropes. There is no hangup since the standard rules apply, as you yourself have admitted (and then ignored your own advice). I also agree that all forces, including reactive forces, in a two body rotation are centripetal. Of course, there is more to physics than two body rotations.

 

[A.T.]

It certainly seems clear that "reactive centrifugal forces" is an unfortunate term, but there's nothing formally wrong with it. The expression just means "whatever force appears when a body is constrained to accelerate perpendicular to its velocity", and it points "centrifugally" toward the instantaneous center of the motion.

Away from the center, not toward.

But since we already have the perfectly good term "centripetal force",

That's toward the center

and the term "centrifugal force" means something very different,

Yes, away from the center.

there doesn't seem like any good reason to talk about "reactive centrifugal forces."

If the 3rd law reaction to centripetal force is centrifugal, the term makes perfect sense.

 

[A.T.]

I have a hard time believeing that you have the slightest idea what standard physics says.

To be fair: He put "standard" in quotes, indicating he means his own definition of "standard physics".

there is more to physics than two body rotations.

Not to his "standard" physics.

 

[A.T.]

In the rotating frame, what is the force that the astronaut exerts on the wall called, is it still reactive centrifugal force?

I see no reason to change it's name depending on the reference frame. The force by the wall on the astronaut is usually still called "centripetal force" in the rotating frame. Another hint that usually neither "centripetal" nor "centrifugal" implies the corresponding acceleration (there is none in the co-rotating frame).

The analogy would be gravity with the astronaut standing on the Earth in a inertial frame. In this case there are equal and opposing attractive forces due to gravity between astronaut and earth. There are also equal and opposing compressive forces between the astronauts feet and the surface of the earth.

That is correct for Newton's gravity. In General Relativity however the ground frame becomes non-inertial accelerating upwards, and gravity becomes an inertial force without a counter part.

 

[Andrew Mason]

I also agree that all forces, including reactive forces, in a two body rotation are centripetal. Of course, there is more to physics than two body rotations.

All rotations can be viewed as a group of multiple two body rotations. See my post #328.

AM

 

[A.T.]

I think that most of the difficulty in this conversation stems from your penchant for refusing to use standard terms in the standard way.

It's a great way to create endless arguments out of nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

 

[Dale]

All rotations can be viewed as a group of multiple two body rotations. See my post #328.

That was by no means a general proof, and there were still centrifugal forces on each end of the rope.

 

[Ken G]

Away from the center, not toward.

You're right, it's not the centripetal force, it's the action/reaction pair to the centripetal force. Of course, the centripetal force is a net force, so if there's more than one contributing, then we have more than one reactive centrifugal force.

If the 3rd law reaction to centripetal force is centrifugal, the term makes perfect sense.

I guess I've just never seen any example where the concept was actually useful.

 

[rcgldr]

If the 3rd law reaction to centripetal force is centrifugal, the term makes perfect sense.

I guess I've just never seen any example where the concept was actually useful.

That would depend on what you mean by useful. Does acceleration perpendicular to velocity really need a special term (centripetal)?

As an example where both forces could be considered reaction forces, consider the case of a rocket free of any external forces using it's engine to travel in an circular path at a constant speed. At the engine, there's a centripetal force accelerating the rocket inwards, and an equal and opposing "centrifugal" force accelerating the ejected mass (spent fuel) outwards.

 

[Ken G]

That would depend on what you mean by useful. Does acceleration perpendicular to velocity really need a special term (centripetal)?

Yes, because there are many situations where you know the acceleration, and it helps to have a name for the force you are looking for to provide that acceleration. When are we separately seeking the "reactive" centripetal force, once we know the centripetal force? We'll already have all the forces on the body, so we'll also have all their action/reaction pair forces, there's just nothing left to do. But I'll grant you that there is probably some situation we could imagine where a label for this force would be of use, it just doesn't seem generally useful enough to be worth it. Every label comes with some "overhead", around taking the time and effort to include it in the jargon of the field. If a label isn't worth that time and effort, it is appropriate to drop it from the lexicon.

As an example where both forces could be considered reaction forces, consider the case of a rocket free of any external forces using it's engine to travel in an circular path at a constant speed. At the engine, there's a centripetal force accelerating the rocket inwards, and an equal and opposing "centrifugal" force accelerating the ejected mass (spent fuel) outwards.

Right, but to me that's a classic example of where I don't need the concept of a reactive net force. I just want the force holding the rocket in a circle, and I don't need a label for the reaction forces because I already know them all, I just switch some signs. Imagine we had two sources of thrust, and engine and retro rocket, say. The concept of centripetal force would be useful because we would only know, from the motion, the sum of the forces of those two rockets, and that sum needs a name. Why does the reaction need a name? If we then find some way to solve for the two rocket forces, we still don't need a name for the sum of their reaction force-- we already know the two individual reaction forces and have no interest in their sum. It just seems like a way to label something we would always already know and need no help in describing.

 

[A.T.]

I guess I've just never seen any example where the concept was actually useful.

I agree in the sense that reactive centrifugal froce is not a "concept" on the same footing as the inertial centrifugal force. See my remarks here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3473918

If a label isn't worth that time and effort, it is appropriate to drop it from the lexicon.

This is not about physics anymore and should be discussed on the Wikipedia page, but I disagree for two reasons:

1) Wikipedia is not a minimal collection of only "very badly needed terms". It is a broad collection of terms that are used.

2) There is a lot of resources on the web which try to explain the term "centrifugal force" and end up implicitly confusing the inertial with the reactive one. The clear distinction drawn by Wikipedia helps to clear up the confusion (unless someone is willfully ignorant and prefers to redefine all other terms just to defend his flawed idea that they are the same thing)

Why does the reaction need a name?

It doesn't need one. You can name it F6. But apparently some authors prefer to give it an more explanatory name. That's why it is in Wikipedia. To avoid the confusion with such generic names the concept of the inertial centrifugal force should get a more specific name as I wrote here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3484999

 

[Dale]

If a label isn't worth that time and effort, it is appropriate to drop it from the lexicon.

I agree in principle, but it is simply not possible in practice. Once a term is part of the lexicon it becomes impossible to drop it because older texts will still refer to it as will some people who read those older texts, some of whom will write newer texts still using the term. The only thing to do is to understand the term correctly (for when others use it) and then not use it yourself.

 

[Andrew Mason]

That would depend on what you mean by useful. Does acceleration perpendicular to velocity really need a special term (centripetal)?

I think acceleration that is constantly perpendicular does. A non-rotating rocket thrusting perpendicular to its direction of motion does not create a central force.

As an example where both forces could be considered reaction forces, consider the case of a rocket free of any external forces using it's engine to travel in an circular path at a constant speed. At the engine, there's a centripetal force accelerating the rocket inwards, and an equal and opposing "centrifugal" force accelerating the ejected mass (spent fuel) outwards.

Or you could put a mass on a compressed spring and let it rotate while the spring expanded. These are examples of forces away from the centre. But these are not the forces resulting from rotation.

AM

 

[D H]

I agree in principle, but it is simply not possible in practice. Once a term is part of the lexicon it becomes impossible to drop it because older texts will still refer to it as will some people who read those older texts, some of whom will write newer texts still using the term. The only thing to do is to understand the term correctly (for when others use it) and then not use it yourself.

One word: Phlogiston. Physicists have pretty much eradicated this outmoded/invalid concept.

Two more words: Relativistic mass. While relativistic mass is not an invalid concept, it is in most cases a unnecessary concept (what's wrong with energy?) that tends to create more confusion that it solves. Physicists have been trying to eradicate the concept of relativistic mass for quite some time now. Since the main thrust of this thread is some silly wikipedia article, it is noteworthy that the wiki article on relativistic mass does denote (deep down in the article, but hey, it is present) that the concept of relativistic mass is outdated. There is no such indication in the article on reactive centrifugal force.

 

[Dale]

One word: Phlogiston. Physicists have pretty much eradicated this outmoded/invalid concept.

I wouldn't put reactive centripetal force in this category. Phlogiston is a wrong concept and was disproven experimentally. The reactive centripetal force is not wrong, just not terribly useful or general.

Two more words: Relativistic mass. While relativistic mass is not an invalid concept, it is in most cases a unnecessary concept (what's wrong with energy?) that tends to create more confusion that it solves. Physicists have been trying to eradicate the concept of relativistic mass for quite some time now.

This was exactly the example I was thinking of. While it is not wrong, it is confusing and unnecessary. However, it has proven to be annoyingly persistent and I think impossible to remove despite the best efforts of a large part of the community for decades. Even Einstein stopped using it early last century, so it has been out of favor for several times longer than it ever was in favor. Yet, you still see it in pop-sci books and even in modern textbooks.

 

[A.T.]

it is noteworthy that the wiki article on relativistic mass does denote (deep down in the article, but hey, it is present) that the concept of relativistic mass is outdated. There is no such indication in the article on reactive centrifugal force.

The reason, once again, is that "reactive centrifugal force" is not a term that describes a general concept that could be outdated. It is rather an explanatory combination of words describing a quite problem-specific quantity, and is merely meant to distinguish it from the inertial centrifugal force.

 

[Dale]

The usage could still be identified as outdated or unnecessary.

 

[Andrew Mason]

The reason, once again, is that "reactive centrifugal force" is not a term that describes a general concept that could be outdated. It is rather an explanatory combination of words describing a quite problem-specific quantity, and is merely meant to distinguish it from the inertial centrifugal force.

The distinction being that there is no non-reactive centrifugal force acting ON the thing that is applying the "reactive centrifugal force". Because if there was and you removed the thing that it is applying its "reactive centrifugal force" to, it would accelerate outward. (We all seem to agree that a mass cannot accelerate outward due to rotational forces).

So this "reactive centrifugal force" has to be a reaction to the centripetal acceleration that it is experiencing from something farther from the centre in a radial direction. If that is the case, then the "reactive centrifugal force" is always toward another mass. Also, this more radially distant mass is necessarily rotating about the former.

So this means the "reactive centrifugal force" is a force exerted by a mass in the direction of another mass that it is also rotating about.

As long as that is how you use "reactive centrifugal force", you are fine. Good luck in trying to explain to a physics student why physicists do not call that a centripetal force.

AM

 

[D H]

The usage could still be identified as outdated or unnecessary.

What he said.

Part of the problem here is the internet. There are a bunch of intransigents out there who feel very strongly about outmoded/unnecessary/confusing terms such as relativistic mass and reactive centrifugal force. Those intransigents don't get much sympathy in texts and journals, but they do get to sound their voices on the 'net. Wikipedia for example has this egalitarian notion that all points of view are equally valid -- even outdated/outmoded/confusing points of view. Even the formerly very good usenet physics FAQ has suffered from this intransigent syndrome with respect to relativistic mass.

 

[Dale]

So this "reactive centrifugal force" has to be a reaction to the centripetal acceleration

Careful, 3rd law "reaction" forces are reactions to other forces, not reactions to accelerations.

 

[Andrew Mason]

Careful, 3rd law "reaction" forces are reactions to other forces, not reactions to accelerations.

Quite right. I should have said centripetal force. I wanted to make the point that the "reaction centrifugal force" arises due to the fact that another body is causing it to accelerate centripetally.

AM

 

[Dale]

Regarding the Wikipedia article which spawned this whole thread. In the first sentence of the first paragraph it says "This reactive force is directed away from the center of rotation". Which I think we all agree is incorrect in general since there are cases where the reaction to a centripetal force is also centripetal (e.g. two bodies under a central force).

Unfortunately, that sentence has a reference which is clearly incorrect:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qn...nepage&q="reactive centrifugal force"&f=false

Does anyone have a reference that we could use to counteract this and point out the fact that sometimes the reaction to a centripetal force is also centripetal. We can then put a "there is controversy" section in.

 

[A.T.]

Regarding the Wikipedia article which spawned this whole thread. In the first sentence of the first paragraph it says "This reactive force is directed away from the center of rotation". Which I think we all agree is incorrect in general since there are cases where the reaction to a centripetal force is also centripetal (e.g. two bodies under a central force).

Unfortunately, that sentence has a reference which is clearly incorrect:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qn...nepage&q="reactive centrifugal force"&f=false

The reference is indeed bad. In the last paragraph of page 46 they talk about centrifugal & centripetal force balancing each other, but no mention of rotating reference frame. In fact they call circular motion (orbit) a "state of equilibrium".

I also agree that the gravity example is bad, unless you want to go into the non-inertial rest frame of one of the bodies.