What is the Bridge Fall Paradox and its implications for material stress?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sweet springs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bridge Fall Paradox
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the "bridge fall paradox," which examines the implications of material stress when a train falls from a collapsing bridge. Participants explore the conditions under which the train's damage occurs, considering both simultaneous and non-simultaneous explosions of the bridge supports. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and idealizations related to the dynamics of the falling train and bridge.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the bombs explode simultaneously, the train would experience homogeneous damage as it falls in a horizontal position.
  • Others argue that if the bombs do not explode simultaneously, the front of the train would sustain more damage due to hitting the water first, as the train would not maintain a horizontal position.
  • A participant highlights that the frame of reference (whether the bridge or train is at rest) affects the interpretation of the events and outcomes.
  • Concerns are raised about the idealizations required for the paradox to hold, such as the assumption of negligible vertical height of the train and the need for the water to move at the same speed as the train for a flat landing.
  • Another participant emphasizes that modeling the bridge as a rigid object is problematic, suggesting a need for a more complex model with multiple supports being removed independently.
  • One participant expresses a desire to focus on the theoretical aspects of the problem while acknowledging the necessity of idealizations for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on which perspective regarding the damage to the train is correct. Multiple competing views remain regarding the effects of simultaneous versus non-simultaneous explosions and the implications of different frames of reference.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that several idealizations are necessary for the paradox to be meaningful, including assumptions about the behavior of the bridge and train during the fall. The discussion also highlights the complexity of modeling such scenarios accurately.

sweet springs
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
75
Bridge fall paradox

Another thread urges me to think of stress in materials in TOR and let me make a "paradox" to think of it as follows.
---------------
A train is running on a bridge over a wide river. Evil terrorists switch on the bombs set on legs of the bridge to crash whole the bridge into dust in a moment. Train falls on the river and gets damaged. Fortunately all the passengers and the crews have already jumped out before the train comes to the bridge with no injury at all. Before inspection of the damaged train, two inspecters say,

A: Train is damaged homogeneously. Terrorists set the bombs to explode simultaneously, so the train fell keeping horizontal position. Every bottom of the train hit the water surface similarly.

B: The front part of the train is the most damaged. In train system bombs explode not simultaneously. The header, the earlier. The train did not keep horizontal position. Its front is downer. The front is the first part to hit water surface, so it is most heavily damaged.

Which is right?
-----------------
The answer is homogeneous damage. The train behaves like spaghetti, even if how rigid it is, in the train system.

I am glad if you would have some fun.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
sweet springs said:
Which is right?
You have to specify whether the supports are removed simultaneously in the frame in which the bridge is at rest or the frame in which the train is at rest. The result will be different.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs
Thanks for your interest. Simultaneous explosion in the frame of the bridge (A says so), accordingly not simultaneous in the frame of the running train (B says so explicitly).
 
If the bridge rests on two supports then the points of support will start to drop first, and the rest of the bridge later (cf slinky drop). So the idea of the bridge and train falling at once seems to me to be problematic if the train is moving at anything comparable to the speed of sound in the material of the bridge.

Also the front of the train will take the brunt of the damage from sliding to a stop even if it does fall horizontally.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs
Ibix said:
So the idea of the bridge and train falling at once seems to me to be problematic if the train is moving at anything comparable to the speed of sound in the material of the bridge.
Yes, the train/bridge paradox (and its stick/grate relative) require many additional idealizations to make them "right":
- The train must have negligible vertical height before its downward acceleration at a point along its length is defined.
- The water underneath the bridge must be moving at the same speed as the train if there is to be any possibility of a flat landing (accelerometers on the train read straight up at impact).
- The bridge cannot be modeled as a rigid object supported at both ends (no rigid objects allowed!). Instead we have to imagine an arbitrarily large number of supports for arbitrarily small lengths of bridge, all independently removed.

I find that there is some pedagogical value in mentioning all of these after the basic resolution has been provided.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs
Thanks for your interest. I would like to concentrate on TOR effect by setting ideal conditions e.g.
- Small many bombs for local disappearance of bridge parts are placed almost continuously with precise setting of clocks synchronized in the bridge IFR
- Train falls on river water, hard rock base or any flat floor without touching the riverside ahead.

Sound speed has nothing to do with this, I think.

After I wrote above I noticed #5. Thanks. I admit many idealization are necessary but believe the essence works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K