they would both lose.
If the unstoppable object was smaller, then it would pierce a hole through the immovable object, not moving the object, and not stopping.
This is an exercise in logic. If an unstoppable force exists, then an immovable object cannot exist, because it would be able to be moved by the unstoppable force, and vice versa. Sideways Logic The unstoppable force does not "stop", the immovable object does not move : the unstoppable force ricochets off the immovable object!
Obviously you can't have both an unstoppable force and an immovable object. If the force moves the object, then the object isn't unmovable. If the force doesn't move it, then the force isn't unstoppable.
well, to put it simply neither would win. Its a Paradox.
It's a paradox known as the "unstoppable force paradox" and it challenges the idea that both an unstoppable force and an immovable object can exist simultaneously. It's a thought experiment that raises questions about the fundamental laws of physics and what would happen in such a scenario.
Let's see: An immovable object has infinite inertia, so it has an infinite mass. An unstoppable force is probably infinite as well. Were we in the finite domain, we could useNewton's second law that says: F=ma, or a = F/m.Therefore the body would be accelerated by the quotient of the force and mass.Here we go into the speculative domain - if the infinities are equivalent,I will divide them and get a constant, therefore there is a constant acceleration and the unstoppable force wins (the object moves).The part where I cheated was when dividing infinities, which is not a well-defined mathematical operation.I believe we could say this: an unstoppable force would win over an equally immovable object.
the particles would split tocreate multiple unstoppable objects
You can't. Hence the name 'unstoppable'. An unstoppable force, upon hitting something, would push the other object aside and continue onwards. The only problem is if you have both an unstoppable force and an immovable object. The force can't push the object aside, and the object can't stop the force. The solution is fairly simple, however - the unstoppable force is deflected off to the side when the two collide. It isn't stopped, but continues in a different direction. The immovable object doesn't move. Easy. Alternately, the following happens: the unstoppable force continues straight onwards, and the object doesn't move. Since the two can't change in their actions, space itself is twisted to allow the force to pass through the object without moving it in any way. Having an unstoppable force and an immovable object is both theoretically and practically impossible anyway, so this entire line of questioning is fairly pointless.
This scenario presents a paradox as an unstoppable force by definition cannot exist alongside an immovable object. The collision of such theoretical entities would result in a logical contradiction, as the existence of one would negate the possibility of the other. In physics, it is not possible for both to coexist simultaneously in a real-world scenario.
This scenario presents a logical paradox because if the force is truly unstoppable, then it should be able to move any object regardless of its immovability. However, if the object is truly unmovable, then no force, not even an unstoppable one, should be able to move it. This dilemma illustrates the limitations of our understanding of physics and the concept of infinity.
Basic paradoxes are examples of questions that cannot be answered. For example, what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Since neither an immovable object nor an unstoppable force exist in reality, there is no way to determine what would happen in this theoretical situation. Source: personal experience
There would be an endless transfer of energyIsaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.This was my first introduction to philosophy. It was also my first introduction to the notion that ideas which are actually incoherent, when analysed, can nevertheless be extremely useful metaphors. I can think of no better way to describe some encounters between two-year-olds and their mothers, for example.----The correct setup would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momentum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.There would be an endless transfer of energy.The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.