Problem about non-inertial reference frame

In summary, the problem of non-inertial reference frames arises when observing motion from a frame that is accelerating or rotating. In such frames, fictitious forces, such as centrifugal and Coriolis forces, appear to act on objects, complicating the analysis of motion. These effects challenge the application of Newton's laws, which are formulated for inertial frames, necessitating adjustments to understand dynamics accurately in a non-inertial context.
  • #1
MatinSAR
612
188
Homework Statement
Consider two circles(in a plane) rotating with a constant angular velocity, ω, relative to an inertial reference frame. The center of one circle is fixed at the origin of this reference frame, while the center of the second circle is located on the circumference of the first circle. If there is a point mass located on the second circle, what would be the fictitious force acting on it? The position vector of the point mass is ##\vec R(t)## in C1 circle.
Relevant Equations
Newton's 2nd law in non-inertial reference frame.
Picture of the problem:
1716264440610.png


I wanted to use this formula: (From Classical dynamics of particles and systems Book by Stephen Thornton)
1716264286607.png

1716265465008.png

O is inertial observer. O' is non-inertial observer.
I think ##F## and ##\ddot R## and ##\dot \omega## are ##0##. According to O' the point mass has velocity of ##v_r## so it's not ##0##. I believe I just need to determine the values of ##w \times r## and ##\omega \times v_r##.

However, I’m uncertain about how to proceed. I would appreciate any assistance you could provide.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your choice of non-inertial frame is not entirely clear. Is it:
  • origin O' orbits O but the axes are in fixed directions,
  • origin O' orbits O and axes rotate anticlockwise at rate ##\omega##, or
  • origin remains at O but axes rotate anticlockwise at rate ##\omega##
?
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #3
haruspex said:
  • origin O' orbits O but the axes are in fixed directions
This is what I meant.
 
  • #4
I would answer the question by comparing the accelerations in the two reference frames. The fictitious force would be held responsible for the difference.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #5
haruspex said:
The fictitious force would be held responsible for the difference.
Very meaningful. I didn't look at it this way. I will try to solve again.
 
  • #6
haruspex said:
I would answer the question by comparing the accelerations in the two reference frames. The fictitious force would be held responsible for the difference.
Can I say that the point mass rotates with angular velocity of ##\vec \omega## compare to O' and ##2 \vec \omega## compare to O?
1716480813056.png
 
  • #7
MatinSAR said:
Can I say that the point mass rotates with angular velocity of ##\vec \omega## compare to O' and ##2 \vec \omega## compare to O?
View attachment 345791
No, you can’t add rotations about different centres. The motion of the point about O varies over time. If the radii are ##r_1, r_2## then the motion varies between
- a tangential speed of ##\omega r_2+\omega(r_1+r_2)## at distance ##r_1+r_2##, implying an angular rotation of ##\omega \frac{ r_1+2r_2}{r_1+r_2}## about O, and
- a tangential speed of ##-\omega r_2+\omega(r_1-r_2)## at distance ##r_1-r_2##, implying an angular rotation of ##\omega \frac{ r_1-2r_2}{r_1-r_2}## about O.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #8
@haruspex I'm going to solve this question using TA's help. I will share the results. Thank you for your help and time.
 
  • #9
MatinSAR said:
@haruspex I'm going to solve this question using TA's help. I will share the results. Thank you for your help and time.
Ok, but if you write down the vector expression for the position of the mass at time t you can differentiate to find the acceleration. You can do that in both the ground frame and the accelerating frame.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR

FAQ: Problem about non-inertial reference frame

What is a non-inertial reference frame?

A non-inertial reference frame is a frame of reference that is accelerating or rotating relative to an inertial frame. In such frames, observers may experience fictitious forces, such as centrifugal force or Coriolis force, which do not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration of the reference frame itself.

What are fictitious forces, and how do they relate to non-inertial frames?

Fictitious forces are apparent forces that arise when observing motion from a non-inertial reference frame. Since the frame is accelerating, observers in that frame perceive forces that are not present in an inertial frame. Common examples include the centrifugal force experienced in a rotating frame and the Coriolis force affecting moving objects.

How can we transform equations of motion from an inertial to a non-inertial frame?

To transform equations of motion from an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame, you must account for the acceleration of the non-inertial frame. This involves adding fictitious forces to the equations of motion. For example, if the non-inertial frame is accelerating with acceleration 'a', you would add a term 'ma' to the force balance equation, where 'm' is the mass of the object being analyzed.

What are some practical examples of non-inertial reference frames?

Practical examples of non-inertial reference frames include a car making a sharp turn, where passengers feel pushed outward due to centrifugal force, or a spinning carousel, where riders experience forces acting away from the center. Another example is the Earth itself, which is a non-inertial frame due to its rotation and the resulting Coriolis effect on weather patterns.

How do non-inertial reference frames affect the laws of physics?

In non-inertial reference frames, the laws of physics still hold, but they must be modified to include fictitious forces. For instance, Newton's laws of motion can be used, but one must account for the additional forces that arise due to the acceleration of the frame. This means that while the fundamental principles remain applicable, the interpretation and application of these laws require careful consideration of the frame's motion.

Similar threads

Back
Top