The impossibility of absolute rigidity during collisions

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impossibility of absolute rigidity during collisions, emphasizing that perfectly rigid bodies cannot exist due to the necessity of instantaneous velocity changes, which would require infinite forces. It argues that all materials must exhibit some degree of elasticity, as compression is essential for force generation during interactions. The conversation highlights that even atomic structures must compress to exert force, challenging the notion of complete rigidity. Additionally, it draws parallels with tension in materials, illustrating how molecular deformation occurs when forces are applied. Overall, the conclusion reinforces that the concept of perfectly rigid bodies is fundamentally flawed in mechanics.
kotreny
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Let's say we have two perfectly rigid spheres. One is at rest and the other is moving toward it with some differentiable velocity. When they collide, the first sphere will start moving with infinitesimal velocity and the second will reduce its speed by an infinitesimal amount. But since the spheres can't go through each other or distort themselves at all, the respective accelerations must be instantaneous, or else there would be a short discrepancy in their velocities and the distance they each must travel.

My conclusion is that, given differentiable velocity, the colliding bodies cannot be perfectly rigid.

I'm teaching myself mechanics, so I don't know when professors remind their students of this. I think it's an interesting point that, in theory, all things must be elastic to some degree. This occurred to me just today though, and I would like to know if I'm wrong. If I'm not, please tell me who first stated it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kotreny said:
My conclusion is that, given differentiable velocity, the colliding bodies cannot be perfectly rigid.
Yes, given differentiable velocity. If the spheres have some mass, an instantaneous velocity change would mean infinite forces.
 
I thought about it, and realized that compression not only has to exist, it causes the force during a collision, or just about any mass-to-mass interaction you can think of. In fact, compression is inherent in the very nature of mass and it's ability to influence other masses. Pushing something would be theoretically impossible if your hand were completely rigid. Even atoms must be compressed to create any force.

I never thought about mass this precisely before. Is it something people are usually taught?
 
A similar deformation of supposedly rigid objects occurs with tension. Tie one end of a rope to a building. Use your hand or a machine to pull the rope with force F. The building will also pull the rope with force F, a force pointed the other way (which is why the rope doesn't accelerate.) How does the building apply a force to the rope? The molecular bonds in the building are deformed slightly, and behave as stretched springs.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top