THE STRANGE PHYSICS OF MOVING BONES
M. A. MacConaill
Department of Anatomy, University College, Cork.
Summary
T H E centripetal force in a bone moving
at a joint is a consequence, not a
cause, of the bone's curved motion. That
it is centripetal and a consequence of
the motion follow from the need of a
force to prevent physiological disloca-
tion of the joint, and from a complete
revision of Newtonian mechanics in this
field.
Introduction
Archimechanics is a short name for
the mechanics used, for example, by
engineers of the common sort. It is
based upon ~he physics invented by
Isaac Newton; and this, in turn, is partly
based upon the physics of Aristotle,
though Newton's biographers never say
so. Biomechanics seems to be thought
of simply as archimechanics applied to
living bodies. This is untrue. Archimech-
anics is only a special instance of bio-
mechanics, which is a much more gen-
eral thing. This is as it should be; for
living things, though short-lived, are of a
higher order of being than the more
enduring dead.
In particular, biomechanics can com-
pel us to take a critical look at the very
foundations of the older kind. It is pro-
posed to show here that this is so when
we consider the motion of any bone at a
joint, and that the inquiry is no mere
exercise in scientific virtuosity but has a
direct bearing on the safety of our joints.
Concepts and Methods
Definitions. Bone means a structure
so named in osteology together with all
that moves with it at a joint. Motion (of
a bone) denotes any movement other
than a pure spin,
140
When is a ioint dislocated ? When a
synovial articular unit is at rest then its
two conarticular surfaces are in some
degree of contact with each other. Dur-
ing a movement the moving surface is
separated from the nearest part of the
fixed surface by a very thin film of syn-
ovial fluid (MacConaill, 1932). It is now
known that the thickness of this film is
about 10/~m : that is, about half the thick-
ness of a piece of the plastic film in
which a box of cigarettes is wrapped. A
joint is dislocated if the separation of its
articular surfaces is greater than that just
specified.
This may appear to be a severe defin-
ition of dislocation; but no-one who
knows joints as living things could (or
should) say otherwise: for that is how
normal joints work. There are 2 con-
sequences.
First, even a separation of 1 mm is a
dislocation. This is of clinical impor-
tance, for the therapeutic manipulation
called "traction" brings about such a
dislocation. Secondly, the capsule and
ligaments of a ioint are quite unable to
prevent dislocation, as simple experi-
ments on osteoligamentous preparations
show. To this rule there is one excep-
t i o n : i n the position called 'close-pack'
the capsule and ligaments do bring the
articular surfaces into complete congru-
ence; but this position is exceptional.
It follows that what clinicians call dis-
locations (or even subluxations) are
very gross dislocations indeed.
The 2 problems raised by joints. All
bones move along curved paths (as
motion has been defined earier); this
raises 2 problems. The first is, why is a
joint normally not dislocated even when
 THE STRANGE PHYSICS OF MOVING BONES
one of its bones is moving at high
speeds ? The solution of this problem
raises, strangely enough, a much more
far-reaching one : are the foundations of
Newton's mechanics valid, even when
speeds of motion are vastly below those
at which Einstein's theories of special
and general relativity become relevant ?
This problem too is soluble, because the
answer of our bones is, No F This is not
because bones are bones, but because
they with their joints are members of a
class of physical systems that will now
be considered briefly.
Structurally constrained systems.
There is no loss of generality in con-
sidering a 2-bone joint (articular unit).
This joint is prevented from being dis-
located (as this has been defined above)
by its musculature and/or gravity for its
capsule and ligaments cannot do i t - -
even the close-packed position of a ioint
requires muscles and/or gravity to bring
it about. During rest a static transarticu-
lar force engendered by one or both of
these agents keeps the articular surfaces
in contact. There is good reason to think
that this force is equal in amount to the
weight of the "mobile" bone; for ex-
ample, the whole upper limb at the
shoulder joint: but whether this be so
or no, the static force persists during
motion (MacConaill, 1956, 1957, 1966,
1969, 1977). There is an immediate con-
sequence of this fact.
The thickness of the lubricant synovial
film is negligible as regards the kinemat-
ics of the joint. Hence the persistent
static force constrains the moving arti-
cular surface to move along the path
made necessary by the curvature of its
conarticular fellow in the direction of
motion, together with any rolling of the
moving surface that may occur. This
path is, of course, a curved path. Hence
we say that a joint, its bones and its
musculature form a structurally con-
strained system; because it is sufficient
to explain the motion of its mobile
part(s), in this case a motion along a
curved path.
141
A wheel well fitted to an axle, and a
piston enclosed by a cylinder are more
obvious examples of such systems. In
the first the motion is circular, in the
second it is rectilinear.
We have, then, explained why joints
are normally not dislocated, in terms of
a force that is operative during both rest
and motion. This force is centripetal
during motion; there is no reason for
giving it any other name when the joint
is at rest. But this very fact raises the
whole matter of the foundations of New-
tonian mechanics.
Gravicentres. The work gravicentre
is a short term for "centre of gravity".
Newton showed that the mass of a ma-
terial body could be validly thought to
be concentrated at its gravicentre; and
that this, in turn, could be thought of as
a tiny particle whose motions fully rep-
resent the motions of the body itself for
many purposes. Hence we shall use the
terms particle for "body" in most of what
follows, as indeed is the custom in
physics.
Newton's mechanics. So far as we
are concerned, here, Newton's mech-
anics stemmed from Aristotle's assump-
tion that the "natural" path of a particle
moving unconstrainedly was a straight
line; for it was an assumption. Like the
Greek, the Englishman found himself
obliged to explain motion along curved
lines. Unlike the Greek, however, he had
at his command Euclid's geometry, Gal-
ileo's notion of acceleration and his own
magnificent mathematical inventions, the
differential and integral calculi. He used
the last 3 to invent the notion of a force;
which he defined as the product of an
acceleration multiplied by the mass of
the accelerated particle, recognizing that
the force acted on the particle in the
direction of the acceleration.
He used his geometry and his notion
of force to explain both why some par-
ticles moved in curves and, for so long
as they did so, did not literally "fly off at
a tangent" and take the straight and
142 IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
narrow path of Aristotelian r e c t i t u d e - -
though he did not call it that !
We have all been taught his explana-
tion. The curvature of the path is always
caused by a force acting on the particle
and directed towards an axis (or suc-
cession of axes) around which the par-
ticle swings with a measurable angular
velocity. This axis (or set of axes) is a
"centre of motion", so that the force is
a centripetal force. The words italicised
in the preceding 2 sentences indicate
the 2 further assumptions that he made
so that he could explain curved motions.
The explanations can be summarized as:
"no centripetal force, no curvilinear
motion". The mechanics found on these
2 assumptions has, as we know, proved
remarkably successful in all the realms
that Einstein saw no need to enter.
The doubting arthrologist. All assump-
tions are dubitable. Until 1969 one
arthrologist had thought and written on
the assumption that Newton's pair was
not, so far as his own sphere of study
was concerned. Then he reflected upon
what has been said above about why
joints are not normally dislocated. It
became clear that if the persistent static
transarticular force was sufficient then a
dynamic (Newtonian) centripetal force,
engendered by the "shunt" (paraxial)
component of additional muscular force,
was unnecessary and, indeed, offended
against the scientific principle: invoke
no more causes than are enough.
He also considered the sinuous paths
of bees and birds and drunken drivers.
To attribute their curved paths to centri-
petal forces which oscillated between
the right and left sides of these objects
seemed to be an unvirtuous exercise in
mathematical virtuosity. So he investiga-
ted the whole matter of curvilinear mo-
tion anew, using nothing but indubitable
facts.
He had at his command an instrument
that Newton neither had nor could have
had; for it was not possible to construct
it until the greatest of Dubliners, William
Rowan Hamilton, had shown the way 134
years ago. This is Vector Algebra. It
has to be learnt by engineering students
inter alios, but is not part of the training
of medical people. It is simple and exact;
and it enabled the arthrologist to find
what could be indubitably asserted about
the physics of curvilinear motions. The
problems raised by the Newtonian as-
sumptions were solved, literally, in 2
lines of it.
The results of this investigation were
published in Appendix C of MacConaill
and Basmajian (1977). Intended for ex-
perts, this is couched in the terse, tech-
nical terms of vector algebra. The re-
mainder of this paper is a brief account
in simpler terms of the method used and
its results with particular reference to
our bones and joints.
Two vectors make a third. A vector
is any physical entity that requires both
a direction (sense) and a magnitude for
its specification. Let A be a vector; then
- A is a vector of the same amount
(magnitude) as A but of opposite sense
sense to it.
Let A and V be any 2 vectors at right
angles to each other (though they need
not meet). If these 2 vectors exist then
a third vector also exists; denote it by Q.
This vector is at right angles to each of
the other 2, and its amount is equal to
the product of the amounts of A and V.
We denote the amounts of A, V and Q
by a, v and q, respectively; and call Q
the 'vector product' of A and V. Using
the symbolism demanded by the algebra,
we have :
1.1) Q = A x V
1.2) q = a v
The problem solved. All velocities are
vectors, as are also accelerations and
forces. Herein lies the solution to the
problems stated earlier.
Let a particle be moving along a cur-
ved line. Then geometry assures us of
4 indisputable facts; (I) at any point on
the line the particle has a tangenential
velocity of V and an angular velocity A,
the latter being around an axis at a dis-
 THE STRANGE PHYSICS OF MOVING BONES 143

tance r from the point; (11) the magnit- otherwise be asserted about it indubit-
ude of V, that is of v, is ra. Vector algebraably is that it is a radial force. Whether
assigns A to a line along the axis, so that it be centripetal or centrifugal in any
A is at right angles to both V and the particular instance (or set of instances)
and the 'radius-vector' whose length is must be determined by other means.
r, and which is at right angles to both A Again, all that can be said indubitably
and V about the radial force is that it is asso-
The reader should think of a rectangu- ciated with curvilinear motion: it could
lar bone looked at from in front. Then A be either a cause or consequence of
will lie along an infero-superior edge, V this motion, whether it be centripetal or
will lie along an antero-posterior edge; centrifugal. It is certainly absent when
and the edge between the other 2 is the the motion is rectilinear; for then r is
radius-vector of length r and can be infinite and mv"/r is therefore O. New-
denoted by R. It can then be under- ton's assumption becomes a deduction.
stood that the vector product of A and V Rectilinear motion is the limiting case of
will be a vector lying along R. curvilinear motion; and the swing of a
We now apply equations (1.1) and bone is more "natural" than the path of
(1.2), and find : a piston.
(2.1) Q = A x V = - A x - V In short, the principle that summarized
(2.2) q = a v =rav/r=v"/r Newton's treatment of the matter must
be both inverted and made more gen-
This pair of equations constitutes the
eral. It now becomes: No curvilinear
general solution sought for. What does
motion, no radial force.
it mean ?
Application of the principle to bones.
Discussion, We can now say 4 things about any bone
that swings around an axis (or set of
First we note that v~/r is the magnitude
axes) at a joint; 2 of them are absolutely
of an acce/eration. This is proved in-
certain, 2 are virtually certain. All follow
dubitably today in what is called "the
from the fact that the path of a bone in
theory of physical dimensions", a theory
space (outside the joint) is always that
that is dealt with in all good textbooks
of its gravicentre at any instant.
of physics. Next we note that this ac-
celeration lies along the radius joining The two absolutely certain things are
the particle to its immediate (or instan- that a radial force acts through the
taneous) axis of rotation, that is, of gravicentre, and that its magnitude is
swing around this axis. Lastly we note equal to that of the dynamic (Newtonian)
that the general solution does not assign force proper to the mass, angular veloc-
either a centripetal or a centrifugal dir- ity and tangential velocity of the bone.
ection to the acceleration; although this This has been proved abo~,e,
direction is maintained if the sense of The two virtually certain things are
A changes from, say, clockwise to anti- that the force is a consequence of the
clockwise, that is, if A becomes - A curved path of the gravicentre, not a
and geometry shows that the sense of cause of it; and that it is indeed centri-
V changes as that of A does. All we can petal.
say indubitably is that Q is radial. Since the static transarticular force,
Let m be the mass of the particle, in persistent during rfiovements, is suffi-
the sense that Newton defined 'mass'; m cient to constrain the bone to swing in a
is not a vector. Then mQ is a force, as "non-dislocatory" path, it is unnecessary
Newton defined this term. Its magnitude to invoke any other cause even to assist
is mv2/r, that is, precisely that of New- in bringing about and maintaining the
ton's centripetal force. But all that can normal swing of the bone. Hence the
144 IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
radial force is a consequence, not a
cause, of the curved path : to say other-
wise would be to offend against the
scientific mode of explanation. It has,
indeed, been shown in the text of
MacConaill and Basmajian (1977) that
the moment of the musculature acting
on a moving bone is the same during
motion as that during stabilization, for
any chosen position of the moving bone
relative to the fixed one; strange as this
may seem.
The argument for the centripetal direc-
tion of the radial force is derived from
the need to prevent dislocation of the
joint involved, as dislocation has been
defined at the beginning of this essay.
If the radial dynamic force were centri-
fugal then it would be opposite to the
static force and so lessen it below the
amount needed. This would happen even
if the dynamic force were quite small (as
it is at most joints). Biomechanical,
rather than archimechanical, principle
would require that the force be centri-
petal.
Thus the centripetal dynamic force
acting along a moving bone is Newtonian
in its direction and magnitude, but non-
Newtonian in being the consequence,
not the cause, of the bone's curved path
in space. But why motion of a particle
along a curve should produce a force at
right angles to the curve at any point of
it is as much a mystery as why the
motion of an electron should produce a
magnetic force at right angles to it's
path at any point.
Death of a hypothesis. It appears,
however, that the non-Newtonian nature
of the dynamic centripetal force in mov-
ing bones puts an end to a hypothesis
first stated in this Journal over 30 years
ago and later modified (MacConaill,
1946, 1966). This assigned to one of the
2 anatomico-kinetic classes of muscles
(viz. the shunt muscles) the special
function of providing the Newtonian
centripetal force required to prevent
dislocation of joints during rapid swings.
This hypothesis has now died because
it is no longer needed (though the clas-
sification itself is very much alive). So
has a father slain his own child w!th
Ockham's Razor.
References
MacConaill, M. A. 1932. The function of articular
fibrocartilages. J. Anat. 66, 210.
MacConaill, M. A. 1946. Some anatomical factors
affecting the stabilizing factors of muscles. Ir.
J. Med. Sc. 6th Series. May, 160.
Macconaill, M. A. 1956. The statics of single
joints. Ir. J. Med. Sc. 6th Series. Aug. 353.
MacConaill, M. A. 1957. Motion at one joint. Ir. J.
Med Sc. 7th Series. March, 99.
MacConaill, M. A. 1966. Some minimal principles
applicable in myomechanics. Bio-med. Eng. 1,
498.
MacConaill, M. A. and Basmajian, J. V. 1969.
Muscles and Movements. Baltimore. Williams
and Wilkins.
MacConaill, M. A. and Basmajian, J. V. 1977.
Muscles and Movements. 2nd edn. Huntington
N.Y. Krieger Publishing Co. p. 387.