Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] pseudo-force



Appealing to my authority, Eisberg *: "It is purely an artifice, invented by the passenger in the car who wishes to use Newton's laws in a noninertial frame. Such a force is called a 'fictitious force'. [It is also sometimes called a 'd'Alembert force', after the French physicist Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717 - 1783) who first systematically clarified the rules for the application of the laws of physics by an accelerated observer."

* Ch. 5-4 Fictitious Forces pp. 174 => 186 (He includes Coriolis.)

bc

John Denker wrote:

On 10/26/2006 10:52 AM, David Bowman wrote:


I think they mean any tendency to cause an acceleration w.r.t. a
non-inertial reference frame that has no agent responsible for
producing it a la Newton's 3rd law and which is directly proportional
to an object experiencing it's mass, and which disappears in an
inertial refernce frame.



I have no objections to that definition, but here are some remarks
and questions.

Remark: Feynman (volume I chapter 12 section 5, entitled "pseudo
forces") tip-toed around the issue of /defining/ a pseudo force,
but gave some examples.

-- there is a term in the equation of motion that appears when
the frame of reference is accelerating in a straight line.

-- there is a corresponding term for rotating frames.

Everything is consistent to this point.

* Question: What about the Coriolis effect? Is it properly called a
pseudo force? The Coriolis effect is "proportional to the object's mass"
... but also proportional to its velocity.

FWIW I would answer "yes" to the previous question. but if
there are counterarguments I'd be delighted to see them.

* Question: What about gravitation? Is it a pseudo force? Feynman
tip-toes around this one also. He says we must "consider the
possibility" that gravity is a pseudo force ... but never quite
answers his own question.

FWIW I would answer "yes" to the previous question. but if
there are counterarguments I'd be delighted to see them.

* Question: Are there any textbooks that have anything to contribute to
this discussion? Feynman I-12-5 is (by Feynman standards anyway) rather
weak, but it's all I remember seeing on the subject, without having
attempted a systematic review of the literature. AFAICT Halliday & Resnick
avoid the subject (and the term) entirely, as do Sears, Zemansky, & Young.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l