This question posed to Cecil at The Straight Dope has occupied most of my day today:
Here’s the original problem essentially as it was posed to us: “A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?”
I’ll give you a few moments to think about that before discussing the answer…
…
…
…
Cecil says that the obvious answer — that the plane does not take off because it remains stationary relative to the ground and the air — is wrong. The plane, he says, can take off:
But of course cars and planes don’t work the same way. A car’s wheels are its means of propulsion—they push the road backwards (relatively speaking), and the car moves forward. In contrast, a plane’s wheels aren’t motorized; their purpose is to reduce friction during takeoff (and add it, by braking, when landing). What gets a plane moving are its propellers or jet turbines, which shove the air backward and thereby impel the plane forward. What the wheels, conveyor belt, etc, are up to is largely irrelevant. Let me repeat: Once the pilot fires up the engines, the plane moves forward at pretty much the usual speed relative to the ground—and more importantly the air—regardless of how fast the conveyor belt is moving backward. This generates lift on the wings, and the plane takes off. All the conveyor belt does is, as you correctly conclude, make the plane’s wheels spin madly.
After reading the question this morning and discussing it with Meg for, oh, about 3 hours on and off, I was convinced that Cecil was wrong. There’s no way that plane could take off. The conveyor belt keeps pace with the speed of the plane, which means the plane remains stationary from the POV of an observer on the ground, and therefore cannot lift off.
Then I read Cecil’s answer again this evening and I’ve changed my mind; I’m fairly certain he’s right. For a sufficiently long conveyor belt, that plane is taking off. It doesn’t matter what the conveyor belt is doing because the airplane’s energy is acting on the air, not the belt. I had better luck simplifying the problem like so: imagine instead of a plane, you’ve got a rocket with wheels sitting on that belt. When that rocket fires, it’s eventually going to rocket off the end of that belt…which means that it doesn’t remain stationary to the ground and if it had wings, it would fly.
What do you think? Can that plane take off?
See also Feynman’s submerged sprinkler problem and an old argument of Newton and Huygens: can you swim faster through water or syrup?
Update: Well, that got out of control in a hurry…almost 300 comments in about 16 hours. I had to delete a bunch of trolling comments and it’s not productive to keep going, so I closed it. Thanks for the, er, discussion and remember, the plane takes off. :)
Free 1200-page physics textbook, available online or for download. I have no idea if it’s any good or not. Is anyone using this in their high school or college classroom?
A relativistic examination of gravity in the galaxy may indicate that the invention of dark matter may not be necessary to solve the not-enough-matter problem. “The motions of stars in galaxies is realized in general relativity’s equations without the need to invoke massive halos of exotic ‘dark matter’ that nobody can explain by current physics.”
Update: mjt has doubts about the paper referenced here and notes that there’s other evidence for dark matter that is not questioned by the above study.
Scientists want to build an array of submillimeter telescopes across the whole earth to peer “inside” the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy.
Update: Many people wrote in to correct me in saying that “submillimeter” referred to the size of the telescopes…it of course referred to the EM wavelength. Me brain not working right.
Brian Greene on Einstein’s most famous equation, E =mc^2. When he finally gets around to it in the middle of the article, Greene’s got a pretty good layman’s explanation of what the formula actually means.
A couple of guys calculated the average color of the universe to be turquiose. Then it turned out they had made an error and the actual color of the universe is beige.
Odd story of one astronomer possibly “stealing” another astronomer’s discovery of a large trans-Neptunian object. The original discoverer alleges that the usurper looked at a couple of Web sites that detailed the discovery and where the discover’s telescopes were pointed…the astronomy equivalent of stealing signs.
A sequel to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Briefer History of Time. “More Accessible. More Concise.”
The existence and behavior of dark matter is puzzling indeed, but some UK astrophysicists speculate that adding three more spacial dimensions to the universe explains the gravitational behavior of dark matter. If they exist, these extra dimensions would be about a nanometer across. A baby step toward string theory?
Physicist Stephen Hawking has been reduced to blinking to control his helper computer.
Adriana: “I thought you might be interested in a post I wrote a while back about a former editor of Elle who communicated for the last year of his life via blinks”.
When bent, why does dry spaghetti break into three or more pieces instead of two? This was one of the simple problems Richard Feynman amused himself with but never solved. Someone’s come up with the answer: when the first breakage occurs, it causes a local increase in the curvature of the two pieces, resulting in more breakage. (thx dj)
Modelling nuclear decay in atoms may tell us something about dating and relationships. One of the findings: people who date often are beneficial to the dating ecosystem “because they break up weak couples, forcing their victims to find better relationships”.
It’s not every day that a new form of matter is created. Physicists at MIT have created something called a superfluid, “a gas of atoms that shows high-temperature superfluidity”.
“There is no physics theory that explains the nature of, or even the existence of, football matches, teapots, or jumbo-jet aircraft.”. “Consequently physics per se cannot causally determine the outcome of human creativity; rather it creates the ‘possibility space’ to allow human intelligence to function autonomously.”
How to turn a block of Antarctic ice into a giant neutrino detector. “To turn the ice into a telescope, all you have to do is drill an array of 80 holes half a meter across by 2.5km deep using a very powerfull jet of hot water. Then lower a string of 60 optical detectors into each hole before they refreeze, conect them up to some powerful computer analysers and you are good to go.”
Astronomers may have detected the formation of a black hole. “A faint visible-light flash moments after a high-energy gamma-ray burst likely heralds the merger of two dense neutron stars to create a relatively low-mass black hole.”
The Oh-My-God particle is a proton with the energy of a slow-pitched baseball. And it’s moving so fast that after travelling for a year, it would only be a few nanometers behind a photon travelling at the speed of light.
“Fads, fashions and dramatic shifts in public opinion all appear to follow a physical law: one of the laws of magnetism”. “Michard and Bouchaud checked this prediction against their model and found that the trends in birth rates and cellphone usage in European nations conformed quite accurately to this pattern. The same was true of the rate at which clapping died away in concerts.”
Stay Connected