This paradox is a popular one that seems to have no resolution since the existence of one seems to deny the possibility of the other. After all, if you have an unstoppable force that must mean that there can be no such thing as immovable object and vice versa.
But while one can dismiss the paradox on those grounds, it is interesting to look more closely at it to try and get a better understanding of what we mean when we say ‘unstoppable’ and ‘immovable’ and try to give operational, as opposed to intuitive, meanings to those words. In doing so, we usually arrive at a deeper understanding of the paradox and of relevant physics principles.
Via Maggie Koerth-Baker I came across this interesting video that does just that.
11 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Alverant
January 26, 2013 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve watched his channel for some time now. It stopped be “minute” a long time ago in favor of longer videos (but they’re good videos so who cares). This was a thought provoking video because it means that the unstoppable force and immovable object were THE SAME THING.
On a side note I also subscribed (past tense) to a channel called “Imagining the 10th dimension” which was cool for a while then got real metaphysical crossing over into quasi-religious at which point I stopped watching. Well since then commenters on minute physics have been going after him to the point where he put this “I’m being persecuted by minute physics” video up. I didn’t want to get involved so I unsubscribed to 10th D. But I’m still curious as to what happened.
I suggest the following channels: numberphile, scishow, vsauce, and QualiaSoup.
Mano Singham
January 27, 2013 at 9:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for the recommendations. I have come across some of them from time to time but should check them more regularly.
LykeX
January 28, 2013 at 11:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Have you been looking at my subscription page?
I’ll add in a recommendation for ViHart. E.g. this video about Pythagoras. There’s some great nerdy stuff there.
k_machine
January 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To me, this whole “paradox” is one of those things that you can name and define but it doesn’t really make sense. I can write the term “sentient elbow”, and I can imagine a sentient elbow, but that doesn’t mean that such a thing exists or is even possible. Sort like the idea of the omnipotent god etc.
Didaktylos
January 27, 2013 at 7:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object? The encounter will never be resolved, as occurred in legend when the inescapable hound was set in pursuit of the uncatchable hare.
sailor1031
January 27, 2013 at 7:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s obviously a koan. And as we see from this video we have to eschew differentiation to understand it. Not this, not that!
Johnny Vector
January 27, 2013 at 8:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That was awesome. Now I want to start making stop-motion videos. As the guys on South Park once said, “How hard can it be?”
MNb
January 27, 2013 at 6:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MS, do you have telepathic skills or something? After my “complaint” you “punish” me by reminding me of a mistake I made some 35 years ago at my first test of physics ever. The question was about Newton’s Third Law and though I understood it I thought durin the test that I had found a counterexample in a feather blown by the wind against a huge building – un immovable object, so to say.
Great video. Keep this stuff coming!
Mano Singham
January 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Newton’s third law is one of the trickiest. It sounds so simple and is so easy to state but it is actually quite subtle. When I teach physics, I have a lot of fun with creating scenarios where students find that it is not as simply to apply as they thought.
Marcus Ranum
January 27, 2013 at 7:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t understand why they attempted a sciencey answer to that old chestnut. The better answer is to explain why it’s not “not even wrong” as a question because for either horn of the dilemma to be an actual possibility then the other is impossible. Thus there can be neither immovable objects or irrestable forces.
Jared A
January 28, 2013 at 6:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I recall that young adult author Diana Wynne Jones answered this question in the first page of Archer’s Goon.
To paraphrase: The result of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object is a family quarrel.