The Physics Behind Sonic the Hedgehog

I remember the first time I played a Sonic the Hedgehog game. I was 8 years-old and had just bought Sonic Unleashed with my Toys R Us gift card (what a throwback). Coming home, I slapped on the Wii and was thrusted alongside the blue blur himself. As he dashed through levels, I was amazed at his speed and agility, but what really drew my attention was when he ran through one of his signature loops. By all accounts of my 8 year-old logic, that should not have been possible. Sonic should have plummeted straight to the ground at the top of the loop, yet there he was coasting through it.

So what gives? We all know of gravity, the force of attraction, and how Earth’s gravitational pull keeps us on the surface and gives us weight. Why does it seem like Sonic is ignoring gravity through his loops? 

The answer to that lies in another force Sonic experiences as he travels through loops, a force called the centripetal force.

 

How Does Sonic Not Fall Out of a Loop?

Even if you haven’t taken a physics class in a very long time, I’m sure you’ve at least heard of Newton and his iconic three laws of motion, especially the first one about how an object’s direction changes due to forces acting on it. In other words, by Newton’s first law, objects stay moving in one direction until another force acts on them to change their direction, which in technical terms is called inertia. This is what’s happening to Sonic. Sonic enters the loop in a straight path, and as he goes farther into it, his direction begins to change (i.e. he’s moving along the track of the loop now). A force had to have been applied to Sonic to change his direction, this altering force being the normal force. Let’s take a closer look. 

Before Sonic dashes into the loop he builds up momentum, which is basically the energy that he’s been accumulating that keeps him moving in the same direction. Thus, as Sonic enters the loop, this momentum stays with him and the inertia causes him to continue forward. However, because the loop is curved, Sonic experiences a change in the direction of the normal force being applied to his feet causing him to also change direction. This normal force is the perpendicular component of the contact force that any object experiences when placed against the surface of another object. No matter where Sonic is in the loop, the normal force will face perpendicular from the track and point towards the center of the loop which leads to the circular path that he follows. This force is the centripetal force, and it allows our blue friend to stay on the track because of the enormous momentum that he built up before entering the loop. From Sonic’s frame of reference, he’s being pushed outwards into the track because it is rising in front of him as he is running causing him to experience what is known as the centrifugal force. But since we are not focusing on Sonic’s frame of reference, rather an outside one viewing him running in the circle, we’ll be referring to this net force causing Sonic to stray from his original path to this circular one as just the previously mentioned centripetal force (Fc).

Centripetal force is generally defined as the force that allows objects to follow curved paths, and it depends on a few things as you can see from the equation above. The mass of the moving object (m), the velocity at which the object moves at the top of the loop (v), and the size of the radius of the circular path that the object is making (r) all play a role in determining how large the centripetal force is. In our case, the moving object of interest is Sonic and the radius of the circular path is the radius of the loop he’s travelling through. Let’s do a simple calculation to see if we can get an idea of the magnitude of centripetal force that might be acting on Sonic during a loop.

Let’s start off with defining the various variables we talked about above. Sonic’s trade calling card is his ability to travel the speed of sound and cause sonic booms, so for velocity (v), we’ll assume Sonic is running at the speed of sound or 343 m/s. For mass (m), this information was a little bit more tricky to find, but after scavenging through a few various video game guides, I found Sonic’s mass to be approximately 35 kg (or 77.1618 pounds). Now onto the radius of the circular path (r).  We’ll take a few liberties with deciding the radius of the loops he travels through since they vary heavily from game to game. If we take a look at the original Sonic the Hedgehog game (the image at the very top if you want to follow along!), Sonic’s height is said to be around 100 cm (3’3”ft). If you superpose him multiple times over the loop, the loop appears to be 5 Sonics or 500 cm tall. That means that the radius for this loop would be 250 cm or 2.5 m. If we wanted to get really technical, the radius (r) is from the center of the circular path to the center of mass of the object. Since Sonic isn’t a point mass, we would need to calculate where his center of mass is if we want to be completely accurate. However, since the distance between Sonic’s center of mass and his feet is relatively much smaller than the entire radius of the loop, we will be assuming that Sonic is sufficiently small enough to just be a point mass to make our estimation simpler.

If we take these numbers and plug them into the equation for centripetal force, we get:

Woah! Looks like it’ll take a lot of force for the speedy blue hedgehog to clear this small loop at the speed of sound. 

 

Now, we did the calculations and found a force, but is there a way for us to find the maximum radius of a loop Sonic can travel even if we don’t know the centripetal force? In fact, there is! We’ll just need a little extra help from another concept from our friend Newton.

Gotta Go Fast

We mentioned Newton’s First Law earlier, but now we’re going to need his second one and the very famous equation attached to it: F=ma. This equation simply means that when an object with a mass (m) experiences a net external force acting on it (F), the object will accelerate proportionally to the force applied, where acceleration (a) is just the change in velocity (the direction and speed of the object) over a set time. Let’s look at our case with Sonic. If we say the force applied to him in the loop is the centripetal force, we’ll see a proportional change in Sonic’s acceleration to match. The change in acceleration comes from the change in Sonic’s direction and speed as he’s going around the loop. Therefore, we’ll get this:

So now we have two equations that can describe centripetal force: the one we originally mentioned and now this one from Newton’s Second Law. Since they both describe the same force, we can set them equal to one another and simplify:

As you can see the mass of the object does not matter, as it is cancelled out since it’s on both sides of the equation. We can then rearrange to solve for the radius of the loop in terms of the acceleration on the object and the velocity of the object at the top of the loop. Now, let’s find some values!

Since we (and assuming Sonic) are on Earth, acceleration acting on Sonic  is going to be equal to the force of gravity (9.81 m/s2). If we once again say Sonic’s max speed clocks out at the speed of sound (343 m/s), we then have everything we need to solve for the maximum radius of a loop Sonic can travel through! 

That means that Sonic can clear a loop that has a radius of 11,993 meters aka one that is 23,986 meters (or 78,694 feet) tall! Insane that this tiny blue hedgehog could do that, right? Remember that the next time you see Sonic clearing a loop in one of his games.

 

Blue Blur Speeds On

Sonic has always been one of my favorite video game characters and getting to calculate how parts of his game would work in real life is a great way to honor both him and my love for physics. You can do this with anything topic though! I implore you to pick your favorite video game, comic book, or TV character and see if you can use physics or another scientific discipline to better understand how it might be possible for that character to do what they do. Bridge the gap between your interests, and you’ll see just how fun science can be.  

 

Citations

“Sonic the Hedgehog.” Sonic News Network, sonic.fandom.com/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog#Heroes.

“What Is a Centripetal Force? (Article).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, 2016, www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/centripetal-force-and-gravitation/centripetal-forces/a/what-is-centripetal-force.

“What Is Centripetal Acceleration? (Article).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, 2016, www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/centripetal-force-and-gravitation/centripetal-acceleration-tutoria/a/what-is-centripetal-acceleration. 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.