What theory explains this?

This topic is 1025 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

Recommended Posts

I wonder, I think about physics from time to time, and I just cannot explain particular phenomenas even a tiny bit.

1.)

When two objects of same weight, same speed, opposite speed vectors, collide, they often just both stop instantly, considering good stiffness.

2.)

When an object of any large speed collides to a zero resting object of same mass, the resting object instantly moves at the other first object speed, while the first object instantly stops to rest. Like the Newton Bouncer

Force in Newton theory is explained over time, So what exactly acts in those phenomenas, and do they conflict with general mechanics or not at all?

Share on other sites

Force in Newton theory is explained over time, So what exactly acts in those phenomenas, and do they conflict with general mechanics or not at all?

Are you looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 ?

Share on other sites

Are you looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_%28physics%29 ?

Thanks, but I find myself confused, since the Impulse is a force integrated over a small time interval, and I am not sure where such a large force does come from? I have always considered Impulses as a workaround of some practical usage, I though there is some more theory into it?

Share on other sites

The events cannot be instantaneous, that would break causality. If one is caused by the other, they must be separated in time. Of course, not a whole lot of time, but its still there. Information will not propagate faster than the speed of light, and you need it to propagate for the objects to respond to the collision.

Share on other sites

The events cannot be instantaneous,

I am aware of that, but still to me the Impulse theory seems more like "adjusting" into this fact of short time. I wonder what actually acts on this from principles of work, force, speed, energy. Where does the force come from? Is it really explained by impulse theory standardly?

Even of the time length there, it is a fact (is?) that there is no observable acceleration before the object travels its speed? Man, how big force would that be, and it seems to not be emited by matter adjusting during collapse, too few energy to overcame donated energy of contact, right?

Share on other sites

Even of the time length there, it is a fact (is?) that there is no observable acceleration before the object travels its speed? Man, how big force would that be, and it seems to not be emited by matter adjusting during collapse, too few energy to overcame donated energy of contact, right?

There is an acceleration, it's just extremely fast because the objects only touch for a very small amount of time and a large kinetic energy transfer is carried out over that time interval. The acceleration can be huge (like on the order of several thousand g's) but it isn't infinite.

Share on other sites

I have this knowledge so far about collision reaction:

- the force acts over time t

- it cannot make more work to overcome the original speed/energy of contacting object, at most only reach it very close

but now I have a question, is there a way to determine the length of this t time? Since it is one of actual inputs to produce the force size. Is there a general time, or some way to find this time length, or what facts this time would be affected by?

Share on other sites

Its called a Newtons cradle and I think you are struggling over the need for a small gap between balls to mathematically model the transfer.

The basic premise is simple: energy is conserved and momentum is conserved. To do it properly you would use Hooke's law for the material etc but you don't have to if the balls are idealised. Just move the balls apart by a small amount and have them sequentially collide.

Are you trying to plug n play this with a physics engine?

Share on other sites

The events cannot be instantaneous, that would break causality. If one is caused by the other, they must be separated in time. Of course, not a whole lot of time, but its still there. Information will not propagate faster than the speed of light, and you need it to propagate for the objects to respond to the collision.

Actually information (laws of physics) is the only thing faster than light. Einstein demonstrated that when changing a neutron to an ion, another nearby ion would be repelled beginning instantly at the moment of the change, before light had time to travel from the first ion to the second. The information that there were now 2 ions and needed to repel each other was transmitted faster than light.

To explain what actually happens in the above example (Newton’s cradle), let’s look at a bigger example.
If you have a button 1 light-year away, the smallest amount of time it could take for you to hit it would be 1 year.
But what if you had a long piece of wood between you and the button? Now you can push the board instantly into the button, right?
Wrong. It would in fact take much longer than 1 year. The atoms inside the board must push each other one-by-one along the length of the board, which happens at the speed of sound.

When a ball hits another in your example, the ball getting hit shrinks in size from the impact point in the direction of the impact. The atoms bounce in that direction until reaching the other side of the ball (restoring the ball to its original width), at which point they bounce into the next ball in line and so on until reaching an end ball.

Nothing is “instant”. By mentally imagining this process you can more easily follow the forces acting on the balls and reason in your mind why 2 balls falling from the left will cause 2 balls to fly to the right.

In computer physics, however, this perfect model is not useful. Impacts are instantaneous. Getting a (reasonably) correct result depends on your contact resolver and how it decides the order in which to resolve collisions (and interpenetrations). The above explanation regarding waves traveling through objects isn’t useful as a mathematical model, but it helps you design your system such that it resolves collisions in a more realistic order.

Even of the time length there, it is a fact (is?) that there is no observable acceleration before the object travels its speed?

All objects accelerate into any new velocity except light (and perhaps quarks or other forms of sub-atomic particles). But in computer physics this is not something practical (or possible) to model. Every iteration of the physics engine performs sudden instant changes from one velocity to the next. It often looks realistic because the changes are typically small, but large instant changes, such as those in Newton’s cradle, are perfectly possible.

L. Spiro Edited by L. Spiro

1. 1
2. 2
Rutin
16
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

• 26
• 9
• 11
• 9
• 9
• Forum Statistics

• Total Topics
633710
• Total Posts
3013486
×