How does weight add up to press on things?

  • Thread starter Thread starter avorobey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Microscope Weight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores how solid objects exert pressure on each other at a microscopic level. When one block of iron is placed on another, the pressure felt is due to the weight of the upper block being transmitted through the lower block, not directly from gravity. This pressure is defined as force per area, which explains why the material composition (iron or wood) does not change the pressure exerted. The interaction at the atomic level involves electromagnetic forces, where repulsion between electrons in the atoms creates the pressure. Ultimately, the mechanics of pressure in solids parallels those in gases, with atomic interactions playing a crucial role.
avorobey
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I think I understand how pressure works with gases. More molecules bouncing around -> more random impacts -> stronger force.

But I realized to my embarrassment that I don't understand how solid things press on each other, microscopically. Say I put a block of iron on my head. If I put another one on top of it, I feel twice the weight. The two blocks together can tear through thin paper where one block can't. But the contact between my head (or paper) and the blocks is just a very thin layer of atoms of the lower block's structure. If the lower block doesn't move when I put the upper one on it, what causes this thin layer to "press" on my head (or paper) more? When the two blocks together tear through thin paper, where does the force come from that acts on the paper molecules - it can't be gravity from the upper block, right? And how come that whatever this source of pressure is only depends on the weight of the upper block, and not on what it's made out of, iron or wood?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
avorobey said:
I think I understand how pressure works with gases. More molecules bouncing around -> more random impacts -> stronger force.
To bounce they need some kind of repulsion, right?

avorobey said:
But I realized to my embarrassment that I don't understand how solid things press on each other, microscopically.
The atoms at the boundary also repel each-other.

avorobey said:
When the two blocks together tear through thin paper, where does the force come from that acts on the paper molecules - it can't be gravity from the upper block, right?
Not directly, but transmitted through the lower block

avorobey said:
And how come that whatever this source of pressure is only depends on the weight of the upper block, and not on what it's made out of, iron or wood?
Because that's how pressure is defined: force per area. And the force here depends on weight.
 
>Not directly, but transmitted through the lower block

What exactly does this mean, "transmitted"? Microscopically?
 
avorobey said:
>Not directly, but transmitted through the lower block

What exactly does this mean, "transmitted"? Microscopically?

Electromagnetic forces.
 
Atoms in a solid (or gas or liquid) have electrons on the outside. Like charges repel. Not really any difference between a solid, liquid or gas in that respect. It's why gas molecules bounce off the walls of a vessel rather than disappear into them.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top