Does Mass Determine Speed? Investigating the Physics and Biology

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the relationship between mass and speed in both physics and biology, examining how size affects movement and the implications of the square-cube law. Participants consider various examples from the animal kingdom and the complexities involved in determining speed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the perception of larger animals being faster is challenged by the square-cube law, which affects structural strength and speed.
  • One participant questions why small animals are not faster than larger ones, referencing the square-cube law.
  • Another participant argues that maximum speed is influenced by drag cross-section and metabolic power, proposing a relationship between mass and speed.
  • Concerns are raised about the complexity of speed, suggesting that factors beyond the square-cube law, such as metabolic rates and environmental interactions, play significant roles.
  • Examples of various organisms, including N2 molecules, fungi, and spiders, are discussed to illustrate the diversity of speed across different sizes and contexts.
  • There is a suggestion that speed might be more meaningful when expressed relative to body size, rather than in absolute terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between mass and speed, with no consensus reached. The discussion includes multiple competing perspectives and acknowledges the complexity of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about metabolic rates, structural strength, and environmental factors remain unaddressed, leading to potential gaps in understanding the functional relationships discussed.

Tiiba
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I don't know whether this is physics or biology. I think that depends on the answer as much as the question.

1) Hollywood says a big hulking giant would be a huge threat.
2) Critics laugh and say that a big hulking giant wouldn't even be able to walk.
3) Horses are fast, mice are slow, and ants are just pitiful. Sure, ants are pretty macho in proportion to their mass, but they can't run that fast.

So why? Is there a point where this trend is reversed? Elephants are pretty fast, too.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Tiiba said:
So why? Is there a point where this trend is reversed? Elephants are pretty fast, too.

Please state your question explicitly.
 
Why does the square-cube law not make small animals faster than large animals?
 
You're confusing two things here: speed and structural strength.

Of course you can make bigger strides when you're larger. But being larger also means you need increasingly stronger limbs, that can support your weight and survive the stresses of walking.

Since the material making up supporting structures (bones, chitin) cannot be made physically stronger, the only way to support more weight is to have larger cross-section bones.

The square-cube law means that it's not enough to double the thickness (cross-sectional area) of a limb to support a 3-dimensionally larger object, like a human-proportioned giant. You can see this at work in the examples of animals you've provided: limbs of an ant, mouse, horse and elephant grow increasingly thicker w/r to the body as you go up in size.

At some point, the size of the limbs (as compared to the body) needed to support the weight of the animal becomes prohibitively large.
 
You know, I think I have it.

Maximum speed depends on drag cross-section, while power available, which depends on metabolism, goes up with mass. Is this correct?

Dividing 8x power by 4x drag force gives 2x speed.

I did a calculation some time ago that predicted things the other way around. I think I totally forgot about metabolism.
 
Tiiba said:
power available, which depends on metabolism, goes up with mass. Is this correct?
Think it through carefully --- you've got waste heat/energy to dissipate --- you've skipped a few details that might contribute to understanding the functional relationships you're tossing around so casually.
 
What makes something fast is a lot more complex than the square cube law, which says exactly what it says and nothing more (though it has implication).

The average (relative)speed of a N2 molecule is 475 m/s. That's fast, and those molecules are small. The largest known living organism are fungi that stretch large distances (kilometers). They do not move at all.
Then, there's large animals that move pretty fast and tiny organisms that move with the current only. What about spiders that use silk to travel with air currents. Apparently they can reach an altitude of 5 kilometers. I wonder how they do on a list of fastest animals. What is their terminal velocity. Apparently this is unknown and depends on how much silk they use. Apparently every animal as small or smaller than a mouse survives terminal velocity impact on 'softer' surfaces,

Maybe it makes more sense to express speed relative to body size.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Suraj M

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
Replies
17
Views
10K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K