Tennis Ball Dropped: Will It Ever Come to Rest?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a tennis ball dropped from a height of 4.9 meters, which bounces back to ¾ of its previous height after each impact. Participants are exploring the concept of whether the ball will ever come to rest and the implications of infinite bounces on time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the ball will never come to rest, while others argue that it will take an infinite number of bounces but not necessarily an infinite amount of time. There are attempts to justify these views with calculations and references to geometric series. Participants also raise questions about the implications of neglecting the time between bounces.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided calculations and references to philosophical paradoxes to aid understanding. There is a recognition of the complexity of the problem, particularly regarding the assumptions made about time and bounces.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the problem's stipulation to ignore the time required for hitting the ground and turning back, which influences their reasoning about the total time taken for the ball to come to rest.

arpon
Messages
234
Reaction score
16

Homework Statement


A tennis ball is dropped from a point 4.9 m above the ground. Every time it hits the
ground, it bounces back to ¾ of its previous height. How long will the ball take to
come to at rest? [ignore the time required for hitting the ground and turning back]

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I think , it will never come to rest.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting. I think that it will take an infinite amount of bounces to come to rest, but that does not necessarily mean that it will take an infinite amount of time. What do you think?
 
arpon said:
I think , it will never come to rest.
Justify your answer with a calculation.
 
The thought of it always traveling 3/4ths the previous height should not make you think it will never be zero (at rest). Think of it as the height approaches 0.
 
haruspex said:
Justify your answer with a calculation.
Nathanael said:
Interesting. I think that it will take an infinite amount of bounces to come to rest, but that does not necessarily mean that it will take an infinite amount of time. What do you think?
Yeah, I got it!
For the first drop, the required time is ##\sqrt{ \frac {2h}{g}}## ; [ as, ##h = \frac{1}{2} gt^2## ]
Then, the time interval between the first and second drop is ##2 \sqrt{ \frac {2(\frac {3}{4} h)}{g}}## ; [the time for going up to the maximum height of ##\frac{3}{4} h## and returning to ground]
In the same way, the time interval between the second and third drop is ##2 \sqrt{ \frac {2((\frac {3}{4})^2 h)}{g}}## , and so on.
Hence the total time required for coming to at rest is,
##t = \sqrt{ \frac {2h}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2(\frac {3}{4} h)}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2((\frac {3}{4})^2 h)}{g}} + ... ##
And I can easily get the summation of this infinite geometric series, as the ratio is less than 1. But at the first sight at the problem, it seemed impossible for the ball to come to at rest because infinite number of drops are needed before coming to at rest. Would you please help me to visualize what actually happens?
 
arpon said:
Yeah, I got it!
For the first drop, the required time is ##\sqrt{ \frac {2h}{g}}## ; [ as, ##h = \frac{1}{2} gt^2## ]
Then, the time interval between the first and second drop is ##2 \sqrt{ \frac {2(\frac {3}{4} h)}{g}}## ; [the time for going up to the maximum height of ##\frac{3}{4} h## and returning to ground]
In the same way, the time interval between the second and third drop is ##2 \sqrt{ \frac {2((\frac {3}{4})^2 h)}{g}}## , and so on.
Hence the total time required for coming to at rest is,
##t = \sqrt{ \frac {2h}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2(\frac {3}{4} h)}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2((\frac {3}{4})^2 h)}{g}} + ... ##
And I can easily get the summation of this infinite geometric series, as the ratio is less than 1. But at the first sight at the problem, it seemed impossible for the ball to come to at rest because infinite number of drops are needed before coming to at rest. Would you please help me to visualize what actually happens?
Have you heard of Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise paradox? Look it up.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quantum Defect and arpon
arpon said:
##t = \sqrt{ \frac {2h}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2(\frac {3}{4} h)}{g}} + 2 \sqrt{ \frac {2((\frac {3}{4})^2 h)}{g}} + ... ##
I would factor something out to make that less ugly!

arpon said:
Would you please help me to visualize what actually happens?
If you have a hard floor and some kind of bouncy ball, drop it on the floor. Listen to the way it bounces:
thud......thud......thud...thud...thud...thud...thud..thudthudthuthththttttt
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arpon
Nathanael said:
I would factor something out to make that less ugly!
I did so in my exercise book, but here, I just copied and pasted the terms I typed previously.;)
Nathanael said:
If you have a hard floor and some kind of bouncy ball, drop it on the floor. Listen to the way it bounces:
thud......thud......thud...thud...thud...thud...thud..thudthudthuthththttttt
But, it seems awkward that in the last second there is infinite number of drops. o_O
 
arpon said:
But, it seems awkward that in the last second there is infinite number of drops. o_O
Well in the real world this doesn't happen of course. Only in a perfectly ideal world where the bounces are somehow always 3/4 the previous height.
But yes I agree, even in an ideal world, it seems a bit strange. I would take up haruspex on his advice and look up that paradox (or one of it's many variations).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arpon
  • #10
arpon said:
But, it seems awkward that in the last second there is infinite number of drops. o_O
The key point (which I forgot to mention in my last post) is that the problem said to neglect the time between bounces. If the time between bounces was finite (no matter how small!) then it would take an infinite amount of time.

This is how I justify it to my self as making "sense" :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arpon
  • #11
Nathanael said:
The key point (which I forgot to mention in my last post) is that the problem said to neglect the time between bounces. If the time between bounces was finite (no matter how small!) then it would take an infinite amount of time.

This is how I justify it to my self as making "sense" :)
I agree with you.:)
 
  • #12
Nathanael said:
The key point (which I forgot to mention in my last post) is that the problem said to neglect the time between bounces. If the time between bounces was finite (no matter how small!) then it would take an infinite amount of time.
Couple of points...
I would word that as 'the time taken to bounce', and I don't think you mean 'finite', or even 'nonzero'. The time taken to bounce could be reducing geometrically in the same way that the times in the air are.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: arpon and Nathanael

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K