Article View: sci.physics
Article #5678Re: Another antigravity device
From: Thomas Clarke
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:03
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:03
41 lines
2650 bytes
2650 bytes
In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes: Disclaimer deleted. > Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal. It takes > a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly. > Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea > level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the > lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of > energy. The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away > from the earth where the curvature of space is less. If we make the > crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the > crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy > will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential > energy. > > Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for > this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual > stuff. However, we're talking questions of principle here. Is there > any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't > levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm > asking. On the general principle that the universe conspires to prevent such useful things as antigravity or faster than light communication, I say it won't work. I think the results of a detailed calculation would have the following results: To levitate the material would have to be rigid enough that the vertical derivative of deformation energy/unit mass would exceed the gradient in gravitational potential energy/unit mass. Mass cancels out, and as is usual in eleasticity, rigidity with mass factored out gives a velocity - the speed of sound in the material. Now nature will have so arranged things that a levitational material (calorite? what did H.G.Wells call it?) would have a speed of sound greater than c. Therefore such a material is impossible!? -- Thomas Clarke Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL 12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826 (407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Dec15.140343.10696@cs.ucf.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!newsReferences:
<1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.physics Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) Subject: Re: Another antigravity device Message-ID: <1992Dec15.140343.10696@cs.ucf.edu> Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system) Organization: University of Central Florida References: <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:03:43 GMT Lines: 41