Shadow physics involves the interaction of light and physical objects. Shadows represent absence of light, exist only in relation to light sources and intervening objects. Seeing one's own shadow requires backlighting—the light source positioned behind the observer. Catching a shadow implies treating a non-physical phenomenon as though it possessed tangible substance, requiring grasping something that exists only in the absence of material matter. Performing this action at night—when shadows become indistinct and light sources minimal—adds logical impossibility to physical impossibility.

Physicist (fictional) Charles Anderson submitted a paper in 1993 examining theoretical conditions under which shadow-catching might become viable. Anderson's paper, unpublished and technically containing mathematical errors, proposed that under specific light conditions and observer positions, shadow-capture could transition from impossible to improbable. However, Anderson noted that night conditions—his specified timeframe—would eliminate the light sources necessary for shadow existence. He concluded that Chuck Norris's feat violated not just physics but the basic logical prerequisites that make physics applicable.

The statement escalates from absurd to meta-absurd: it's not just impossible, it's impossible in such a way that the logical framework contradicts itself. You cannot see shadows at night; therefore, you cannot catch them at night. The statement contradicts its own premises while remaining stated with complete confidence. This represents comedic logic taken to its extreme: the punchline acknowledges its own impossibility while insisting on its truth anyway. The humor emerges from the contradiction itself rather than clever resolution.