Can Physics Explain the Secrets Behind Card Magic Tricks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zorro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Magic Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether physics can explain the mechanics behind a card magic trick. Participants speculate about the presence of strings, suggesting that the card's movement and wobble indicate a hidden setup, possibly involving a second person. Observations note that the card descends when the magician leans forward, raising questions about the trick's execution. Despite various theories, the consensus leans towards it being a clever illusion rather than a demonstration of levitation. Overall, the trick is recognized as well-executed but ultimately reliant on traditional sleight of hand techniques.
zorro
Messages
1,378
Reaction score
0
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think there's a string running from his mouth to the card and then from the card to some point off to the left. I think that for four reasons:
First, the motion of his hands wouldn't interfere with such a setup.
Second, the card wobbles about an axis that suggests such a setup.
Third, he never opens his mouth.
Fourth, the card descends only when he leans forward.
 
Archosaur said:
Third, he never opens his mouth.

Hahaha :smile:
Yes I can see that. He is holding the string from his mouth.

Fourth, the card descends only when he leans forward.

A very careful observation!
Its just a trick :|
 
Not to his mouth. There are two strings, and they are at chest level. Attached to the shirt, probably. There almost has to be a second person controlling the other end of the strings.

Very nicely done, but no levitation.

Edit: Hm. Maybe it is in his mouth after all. Seems unnecessary, though.
 
Right, just a good trick, and I doubt that something "truly" levitating would so easily wobble. And the axis of wobble is such that, like said, would not cause his hand movements to interfere with the "invisible" string.
Still, good trick.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top