Title text:
Unstoppable force-carrying particles can't interact with immovable matter by definition.
Transcript:
[An arrow pointing to the right and a trapezoid are labeled as 'Unstoppable Force' and 'Immovable Object' respectively.]
[The arrow is shown as entering the trapezoid from the left and the part of it in said trapezoid is coloured gray.]
[The arrow is shown as leaving the trapezoid to the right and is coloured black.]
[Caption below the panel:] I don't see why people find this scenario to be tricky.
Source: https://xkcd.com/3084/
I'm driving. I lose my brakes and can't slow down as if my gas pedal is stuck (unstoppable force). I'm on a road that stops at a T intersection and there's a concrete wall to keep people from going straight when they are moving vertically towards the T intersection (immovable object).
The car just goes right through the concrete wall with no damage?
Replace the concrete wall with a wooden fence. Technically the fence is immovable, but the car is going to smash right through that thing.
So is this about clarifying what exactly the objects are? I'm not smart enough for this one and am so confused...
In this example your car is not an unstoppable force, it is just a "travelling" mass
The fact that the car had brakes to begin with would suggest that it is, by design, a force which stops regularly.
The thrust of your car engine is a very stoppable force.
Concrete walls are resilient, but can be moved.
What will happen is that the kinetic energy from the collision will crumple the front part of your car, as the concrete wall applies an equal and opposite force. Ideally, the fact that some of the energy is “used” in deforming your car (and subsequently escapes as heat) decreases the amount of kinetic energy that is used to deform you.
Well, maybe..
No.