Collisions

[herme3]

In my P-Chem class we went over how there is a finite probability that a solid object can pass right through another solid object. So there is a chance that I can run full speed right into a wall and pass right through it. However, that probability is something like 1 in 1x10^(Some insanely large number). For all effects and purposes, it's zero. But mathematically it isn't completely zero.

 

How is that possible? What would have to happen to allow a solid object to pass through another solid object? Would the object have to split apart into individual atoms, or could it stay the way it is?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.C.MacSwell

I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range".

 

 

EM fields are only said to have a phase when they are EM waves. But we aren't talking waves here.

 

 

I'm picturing particles "sufficiently in phase" to make them atoms or electrons or protons etc. or sufficiently out of phase to make them, say, an electron and a photon etc. (not "sufficiently in or out of phase" could be an atom and a neutrino etc.).

 

 

Quote:

1. Wave interference in a pond where the waves essentially "go through each other and keep moving". I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules (though they are already "in range" prior to the wave). The wave continues but the molecules return to their original positions except for minor (mostly surface) effects.

 

 

There are no collisions between water molecules in a water wave (excluding breaking waves, of course). Each element of fluid moves up and down only.

 

Thus the disclaimer.

 

Each element of fluid moves up and down only and return to their original positions "ideally" or isentropically.

 

 

 

Quote:

2. Gravity: Any possibility (probably not but why not?) that outside of my "in range" there is a small residual (not quite cancelled out) electromagnetic effect that could be the gravitational field? Any thoughts?

 

 

Don't understand this part.

 

Both 1. and 2. (and to a lesser extent the prior part) were just "thrown out there".

 

The gravity part refers to a possibilty (probably unlikely) that uncharged molecules could attract each other. I think electrostatically may come closer to what I'm picturing but I didn't want to limit it. Any feedback is helpful.

__________________

Tom

[Tom Mattson]

I'm picturing particles "sufficiently in phase" to make them atoms or electrons or protons etc. or sufficiently out of phase to make them' date=' say, an electron and a photon etc. (not "sufficiently in or out of phase" could be an atom and a neutrino etc.).

[/quote']

 

This makes even less sense.

 

Precisely what about the particles is being "phased" to "make them atoms or electrons or protons etc." ? And how is this connected between the phases of EM fields, which you had initially mentioned? And back to my original comment, how are phases for EM fields defined when those fields are not waves?

 

Thus the disclaimer.

 

Each element of fluid moves up and down only and return to their original positions "ideally" or isentropically.

 

Then why do you talk about molecular collisions in water waves?

 

As for feedback on your musings, I think that for my part I'm going to stick to the question posed in the opening post.

[J.C.MacSwell]

This makes even less sense.

 

Precisely what about the particles is being "phased" to "make them atoms or electrons or protons etc." ? And how is this connected between the phases of EM fields' date=' [b']which you had initially mentioned[/b]? And back to my original comment, how are phases for EM fields defined when those fields are not waves?

 

 

 

Then why do you talk about molecular collisions in water waves?

 

As for feedback on your musings, I think that for my part I'm going to stick to the question posed in the opening post.

 

Didn't mention phases of EM fields, although I know where you misread it. Sorry if I was less than clear.

 

The molecular collisions in water waves? That came from you. My "analogy" referred to the passing right through of the "wave" (in spite of some similarities with collisions the "effect" is otherwise. See the "why doesn't it" part of the opening post.

 

As for feedback on my musings. Suit yourself. Others might like to think outside the box and I do my best to make it clear when I'm doing it so I don't confuse anyone. Apparently in your case I wasn't very sucessful.

[Tom Mattson]

Didn't mention phases of EM fields' date=' although I know where you misread it.

[/quote']

 

Sorry, but I didn't misread it. That's the way the sentence reads. If you meant something else, then you miswrote it.

 

Anyway, what about the phases of particles then?

 

The molecular collisions in water waves? That came from you.

 

Sorry, but it didn't. When you say:

 

"I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules"

(snip)

 

I took the pronoun "this" to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, which was:

 

"Wave interference in a pond"

 

*shrug* I can only read what you write.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Sorry' date=' but I didn't misread it. That's the way the sentence reads. If you meant something else, then you miswrote it.

 

Anyway, what about the phases of particles then?

 

 

 

Sorry, but it didn't. When you say:

 

[i']"I think this is virtually elastic "collisions" of the water molecules"

(snip)[/i]

 

I took the pronoun "this" to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, which was:

 

"Wave interference in a pond"

 

*shrug* I can only read what you write.

 

I apologise. I put "collisions" in quotes to differentiate it from a "true" collision. After reading it I realized it was still ambiguous so I further qualified it. Having already presented my definition of a collision (wrt the opening post) as after coming "in range" I qualified the pond wave molecules as being already "in range".

 

Could I have been more clear? (Absolutely) So I apologise.

 

Note the "true" above in quotes. I'm not sure it isn't true so I put it in quotes.

[Tom Mattson]

Heh. No need for apologies, I just couldn't make heads or tails of what you were saying. Hope you didn't take it as antagonistic.

[Primarygun]

Yesterday, I have a thought. When a bomb explodes, it naturally destroys the surrounding objects, such as trees, houses, cattle. The damage always spreads to a far distance, but the damage to the ground is much less than it. Maybe only 1-fortyth to it.

I guess it's because the force provided by certain bomb strips hitting the ground is smaller than the frictional force. Am I correct?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Anyway' date=' what about the phases of particles then?

 

.[/quote']

 

Allow me to make myself clearer, at least to what I meant (if I can, bearing in mind that I do not have a clear picture in my mind as to what I'm trying to put into words, and as I learn more I can improve it)

 

Instead of:

 

(( I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles that are sufficiently "in or out of phase" interact after coming "in range".))

 

let me rewrite it as:

 

I would say that the electromagnetic fields of their particles, when the fields that make up the particles themselves are sufficiently "in or out of phase", interact after coming "in range".

 

The italicized part could be what "gives" a particle mass or charge etc.

[Guest garthbedford]

when 2 objects collide, for example a motor car driving into a bug, is there a period of time where both those objects come to a complete standstill?

[swansont]

when 2 objects collide, for example a motor car driving into a bug, is there a period of time where both those objects come to a complete standstill?

 

Both? No. There will be an instant where the bug's center-of-mass has zero velocity in the horizontal direction, but not the car. (unless the bug was moving really, really fast) That will be true of any object that undergoes a change in direction of 180 degrees as the result of a finite acceleration for a measurable amount of time.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Both? No. There will be an instant where the bug's center-of-mass has zero velocity in the horizontal direction, but not the car. (unless the bug was moving really, really fast[/b']) That will be true of any object that undergoes a change in direction of 180 degrees as the result of a finite acceleration for a measurable amount of time.

 

Or if the bug was really really massive!