Fictitious Force: What Makes It Fictitious?

AI Thread Summary
Fictitious forces arise in non-inertial reference frames and are not caused by any physical interaction, unlike real forces which have identifiable sources. They are considered "fictitious" because they do not act directly on an object but are instead a by-product of the frame's acceleration, such as the centrifugal force felt in a turning car. These forces are often referred to as pseudo-forces and are necessary for applying Newton's laws in non-inertial frames. To maintain the perception of equilibrium in these frames, fictitious forces are introduced to account for unbalanced accelerations. Understanding fictitious forces helps clarify the distinction between real forces and the effects experienced in accelerating frames.
BitXBit
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] What is fictitious force?

Hi.

I was wondering if someone would be able to explain to me what is meant by fictitious force? I know that it is a force that acts on masses in a non-inertial frame of reference. That is to say, the motion of the car from the view of the driver, for example. But what makes it "fictitious"?

Thanks. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Real" forces have actors, something that exerts the force; "fictitious" forces do not. Take an example of a car racing around a circular track. There is a real centripetal force acting on the car: The road exerts a frictional force on the car. The road is the actor.

Fictitious forces are just artifacts of viewing things from a non-inertial reference frame, required to make use of Newton's laws. Viewed from the frame of the car, there's a centrifugal force acting outwards. Don't bother asking what exerts that force, since it's not a real force.

Does that help a bit?
 
I think so...

So its fictitious because the force is not placed directly on the object, but is in a manner of speaking a by-product (in your example, of the centripetal force acting on the car)?
 
Last edited:
BitXBit said:
So its fictitious because the force is not placed directly on the object, but is in a manner of speaking a by-product (in your example, of the centripetal force acting on the car)?

Yup, that sounds about right. I think Pseudo-forces (that is how I heard them to be called most often) as accounting for the acceleration. What I mean by this is that acceleration happens when you don't have balanced forces, so to pretend that you have no acceleration when you are in the non-inertial frame, you have to add this fictional pseudo-force to cancel the acceleration.
 
Ah! I understand! Thank you both for your help! :D
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
44
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top