Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -3 down vote favorite

Maybe these two types of objects do not exist but hypothetically, what would happen if an unstoppable force struck an immovable object. In terms of visually and in Physics terms?

share|improve this question
why the vote down? – benhowdle89 Feb 25 '11 at 14:57
1  
Because it's a nonsense question. You posit two things that cannot both exist. It's wordplay, not physics. – coneslayer Feb 25 '11 at 15:10
$\infty-\infty$; the result depends on how immovable is the object and how unstoppable is the force. Off topic anyway [= – mbq♦ Feb 25 '11 at 15:12
2  
Unstoppable force (F) can move anything. Nothing can move immovable object (O). $\rightarrow$ F and O can't exist simultaneously. Universe will either have F or O, but not both. – Pratik Deoghare Feb 25 '11 at 15:17
1  
I actually like this question, or at least the idea behind it. It could be rephrased in more specific terms, e.g. A meteor hitting the earth, a meteor hitting a neutron star, a drop of water hitting a pond, a uranium or diamond projectile hitting a steel plate. All of these have characteristics in common, I.e. Symmetry breaking, shock wave, splash, etc. They correspond to what really happens when, as close as we can experimentally arrange it, this type of primordially interesting experiment is in fact done. Others could talk about Pb-Pb collisions and quark plasmas. It could be very cool. – sigoldberg1 Feb 25 '11 at 18:13
show 3 more comments

closed as off topic by mbq♦ Feb 25 '11 at 15:11

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

3 Answers

up vote 0 down vote

Movement is relative. If an object is at rest for one observer, it may be moving for another observer. If it is at rest and it has an infinite mass w.r.t. an observer then no finite force can accelerate the object so it will continue to be at rest for that observer.

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote

In addition to the relativity of motion, the phrase "unstoppable force" is also ambiguous here. In physics one could have forces that are specific to certain matter types (weak interaction comes to mind). Obviously then the force is not registered by certain matter types, and so has no impact on objects of that type "movable" or not. Neutrinos passing through the Earth also comes to mind here.

share|improve this answer
up vote -2 down vote

There may be two issues: or immovable object gets destroyed, or the unstoppable force gets exhausted ;-).

share|improve this answer
but immovable/unstoppable implies none of these would happen :) – benhowdle89 Feb 25 '11 at 14:39
A human being supposes but it is God who disposes ;-). Some miracle is in order here. – Vladimir Kalitvianski Feb 25 '11 at 14:54
Or the unstoppable force leaves a scratch on the immovable object surface ;-). – Vladimir Kalitvianski Feb 25 '11 at 15:02

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.