Why is Centrifugal force “not real”? I remember my physics teacher in high school pushing that idea and understanding why back then, but I do not remember now. I also forgot so much about physics in general that a simple would be much appreciated!
In: 6209
i think in high school physics, the insistence that it’s **not real** is a bit of overcompensation, from trying to teach people what centripetal force is and fighting uphill against centrifugal already being in people’s vocabulary.
yes, there is an effect where the mass’s momentum and inertia would fling it out of the circle if there were no containing force that is keeping it on its circular path. Functionally and practically, it seems to be right. You can spin a bucket on a rope without spilling it. we can see that it’s “real.”
But it’s not a force, or at least it’s not a force according the specific definition that we use for force in physics, and those definitions matter when you’re doing the calculations. In solving physics problems we need to be pedantic about definitions of force, acceleration, which mass they are acting upon, and which direction they are acting. so in order to get students to stop drawing that centrifugal force vector on a free body diagram, they must hammer it in again and again that it’s not real. What we might think of as “centrifugal force” isn’t one of the raw forces acting on the object, but the resultant of the other forces and inertia.
It’s real from the perspective of someone that’s spinning. It’s not real from the perspective of someone that’s not spinning.
It’s that simple, if someone tells you it’s not real, they’re really saying that they prefer you switch your perspective to the reference frame that’s not spinning.
It’s real from the perspective of someone that’s spinning. It’s not real from the perspective of someone that’s not spinning.
It’s that simple, if someone tells you it’s not real, they’re really saying that they prefer you switch your perspective to the reference frame that’s not spinning.
It’s real from the perspective of someone that’s spinning. It’s not real from the perspective of someone that’s not spinning.
It’s that simple, if someone tells you it’s not real, they’re really saying that they prefer you switch your perspective to the reference frame that’s not spinning.
i think in high school physics, the insistence that it’s **not real** is a bit of overcompensation, from trying to teach people what centripetal force is and fighting uphill against centrifugal already being in people’s vocabulary.
yes, there is an effect where the mass’s momentum and inertia would fling it out of the circle if there were no containing force that is keeping it on its circular path. Functionally and practically, it seems to be right. You can spin a bucket on a rope without spilling it. we can see that it’s “real.”
But it’s not a force, or at least it’s not a force according the specific definition that we use for force in physics, and those definitions matter when you’re doing the calculations. In solving physics problems we need to be pedantic about definitions of force, acceleration, which mass they are acting upon, and which direction they are acting. so in order to get students to stop drawing that centrifugal force vector on a free body diagram, they must hammer it in again and again that it’s not real. What we might think of as “centrifugal force” isn’t one of the raw forces acting on the object, but the resultant of the other forces and inertia.
i think in high school physics, the insistence that it’s **not real** is a bit of overcompensation, from trying to teach people what centripetal force is and fighting uphill against centrifugal already being in people’s vocabulary.
yes, there is an effect where the mass’s momentum and inertia would fling it out of the circle if there were no containing force that is keeping it on its circular path. Functionally and practically, it seems to be right. You can spin a bucket on a rope without spilling it. we can see that it’s “real.”
But it’s not a force, or at least it’s not a force according the specific definition that we use for force in physics, and those definitions matter when you’re doing the calculations. In solving physics problems we need to be pedantic about definitions of force, acceleration, which mass they are acting upon, and which direction they are acting. so in order to get students to stop drawing that centrifugal force vector on a free body diagram, they must hammer it in again and again that it’s not real. What we might think of as “centrifugal force” isn’t one of the raw forces acting on the object, but the resultant of the other forces and inertia.
Latest Answers