Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: Does vacuum have friction?

  1. #1 Does vacuum have friction? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Some scientists believe that rotating objests experience friction
    caused by physical vacuum:
    Vacuum has friction after all - space - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist
    Minds of people seems to be divided in this issue.Many disbelieve that such effect
    exist.I think that if such effect really exist it may mean an almost inexhaustable energy
    source.What do you think about it?


    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    5
    How about framedragging? every object has a mass so every object slightly distorts space. If an object is spinning realy fast, maybe the distortion of space will slow it down. Maybe the Casimir force will slow down the object as well


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Some scientists believe that rotating objests experience friction
    caused by physical vacuum:
    Vacuum has friction after all - space - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist
    Minds of people seems to be divided in this issue.Many disbelieve that such effect
    exist.I think that if such effect really exist it may mean an almost inexhaustable energy
    source
    .
    Surely it would mean exactly the opposite: yet another way in which energy is lost in a system. How can friction be a source of energy?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You can warm your hands up on a cold day with friction.
    EddyBearr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Surely it would mean exactly the opposite: yet another way in which energy is lost in a system. How can friction be a source of energy?
    Rotating planets is not enough to you ?! Friction is able to produce heat.Heat is energy.They theorize that materials with special properties which absorb electromagnetic fields better exibit vacuum pressure better.Then we take material with excellent properties of this kind and bound it to the rotating Earth.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Most heat is waste heat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    See this thread as a perfect ecample.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Stanley, Just imaginge the amount of enery it takes to drive planet earth. I don't care what anyone want to think, everything is possible and not possible. We cannot prove anything except in our selves. Once we can tap into the spiritual realm everything goes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Mother/Father

    Please keep such posts out of the Physics forum. It's for real science.

    Just a friendly FYI for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Some scientists believe that rotating objests experience friction
    caused by physical vacuum:
    Vacuum has friction after all - space - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist
    Minds of people seems to be divided in this issue.Many disbelieve that such effect
    exist.I think that if such effect really exist it may mean an almost inexhaustable energy
    source.What do you think about it?
    What energy source?

    Let's take the Earth. We know that it's rotational period increases by 2 milliseconds a century due to tidal interaction with the Moon. So let's be generous and say that 1/10 of that is due to this rotational friction. This means that the Earth slows by 0.0002 seconds in a century due to it. With the mass of the Earth, this works out to an energy difference of 1.2e21 joules or 3.33e14 kwh. This may seem like a lot, but remember, this is over a century, and the U.S. consumption of energy in just a year is 2.9e13 kwh. So to put it roughly, even if we are extremely generous with how much effect the friction has, and even if we could capture 100% of the energy, we would only get energy at 1/1000 the rate that the U.S. alone uses energy.

    Or let's put it another way. The article says that the energy is radiated away by photons. If we take 1.2e21 joules divided by the number of seconds in a century, we get a radiating rate of 3.8e11 joules/sec or 3.8e11 watts. However, this is being radiated from the entire surface of the Earth, which is 5.1e14 mē. This means we get 0.00074 watt/mē of Earth surface. You would need to collect the energy from a area ~1/3 km square to keep a single 100 watt bulb lit.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    To Janus:
    My bold idea is not to use natural friction of Earth in physical vacuum which might me practically
    non-existent, but to create such friction artificially.If some rotating body exibits friction, the largest
    heat creation will be in the points of friction.Therefore if you have some material which interacts
    with physical vacuum very well and this material is bound to Earth it should create heat in point of
    friction e.g. this material should get hot.Then you connect this material to a steam turbine and deal
    is done.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Does Vacuum have friction 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    MeteorWayne , What is the problem? I am not sure which part of my statement I should keep out of the forum. What are you saying The spirit is not part of your make up? or dark energy is not a part of the sience you study. What is a vacuum? is it not a part of the whole? There are so many different angles to the study of any phenomena. Why do you believe that my post is different to yours? Is it not your spirit asking these questions about energy in a vacuum? I am sure you can appreciate that enery is every where also in a vacuum and at some point there will be friction if that is the only way of creating energy. Please explain to me what is false science as opposed to real science, and don't swallow the dictionary. How can you make statements about phenomena without intuition? Why don't you ask me what I meant rather than don't post such statements on the physics fourum. I thank you for the friendly advice but I think you should keep one sided ideas out of the fourum and allow new ideas to come forward. Am I breaking a rule?
    Last edited by Mother/father; June 8th, 2012 at 03:25 AM. Reason: I used the wrong name
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    WTF is a physical vacuum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney View Post
    WTF is a physical vacuum?
    An electrolux... Or maybe a Kirby? Actually I believe "Physical Vacuum" refers to physical presence of field energy and particulate
    matter and how it could influence the topological properties of space time.

    Unless it is refering to Vacuum State which is a whole other ball of quantum yarn.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    trash can candidate!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    To Janus:
    My bold idea is not to use natural friction of Earth in physical vacuum which might me practically
    non-existent, but to create such friction artificially.If some rotating body exibits friction, the largest
    heat creation will be in the points of friction.Therefore if you have some material which interacts
    with physical vacuum very well and this material is bound to Earth it should create heat in point of
    friction e.g. this material should get hot.Then you connect this material to a steam turbine and deal
    is done.
    You are still missing the point about how just weak this friction effect (if it even actually exists) would be.

    It varies by the size of the object and how well it absorbs EM radiation. The example they give is a 100nm speck of graphite, which is small and absorbs light well.

    It would take ten years for such a speck to lose 2/3 of its rotation speed.

    So what happens if we scale this up to a hunk the size of the Earth? the Earth is 12756000 m across or 1.3e14 times that of the speck. The ability to absorb EM radiation increases with the surface area, which increases by the square of the increase in size. However, the volume, and thus the mass increases by the cube of the increase in size, this means that the mass increases 1.3e14 times faster than the surface area. This also means that it should take 1.3e14 time longer for the "friction" to slow the Earth sized hunk of graphite to 1/3 its original speed.

    Assuming that the hunk starts with the same rotation rate of the Earth, this works out to 1.3e13 centuries to increase the day by 48 hrs. This works out to a rate of 3 nanoseconds per century, which is ~1/150,000 the rate at which the Earth loses rotation due to tidal interaction with the Moon( this is why I said that assuming 1/10 of this rate was being very generous.)



    So to even get that 0.00074 watt/mē that I mentioned in my last post, (keeping in mind that the "heat" generated by this friction cannot exceed the rotational energy lost due to the friction) you would have to have a substance that absorbed em radiation many many times better than graphite. (not even reasonably possible, seeing as even something much more reflective than graphite, such as fresh concrete, absorbs ~45% of the light that falls on it).

    And that is not even taking into account that the fact that we were considering a huge hunk of graphite, which has a much lower density than the Earth does. This means that it has less rotational energy than the Earth and loses less with the same amount of slowing.

    The upshot is that this effect would be so small that no method that would make it a viable energy source.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    MeteorWayne , What is the problem? I am not sure which part of my statement I should keep out of the forum. What are you saying The spirit is not part of your make up? or dark energy is not a part of the sience you study. What is a vacuum? is it not a part of the whole? There are so many different angles to the study of any phenomena. Why do you believe that my post is different to yours? Is it not your spirit asking these questions about energy in a vacuum? I am sure you can appreciate that enery is every where also in a vacuum and at some point there will be friction if that is the only way of creating energy. Please explain to me what is false science as opposed to real science, and don't swallow the dictionary. How can you make statements about phenomena without intuition? Why don't you ask me what I meant rather than don't post such statements on the physics fourum. I thank you for the friendly advice but I think you should keep one sided ideas out of the fourum and allow new ideas to come forward. Am I breaking a rule?
    Moderator Note: As Meteor has pointed out to you, this is a Science Forum. We disucss the findings of science and scientific methodology and we do so while broadly following that methodology. Statements such as the following are, by definition, unaccetable, since they do not follow scientific methodology, or even give an implicit nod to its importance.

    everything is possible and not possible. We cannot prove anything except in our selves. Once we can tap into the spiritual realm everything goes.

    Within the physics sub-forum and other science based sub-forums please follow those guidelines. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    It varies by the size of the object and how well it absorbs EM radiation. The example they give is a 100nm speck of graphite, which is small and absorbs light well.
    Their theory doesn`t state that graphite is the best material which is able to absord EM radiation.The ability of material to absorb EM radiation doesn`t depend on surface area but also on properties of material itself.Also materials with high surface area could be created.I think all those calculations do not have sense unless effect itself would be practically proved.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    It varies by the size of the object and how well it absorbs EM radiation. The example they give is a 100nm speck of graphite, which is small and absorbs light well.
    Their theory doesn`t state that graphite is the best material which is able to absord EM radiation.The ability of material to absorb EM radiation doesn`t depend on surface area but also on properties of material itself.Also materials with high surface area could be created.I think all those calculations do not have sense unless effect itself would be practically proved.
    I'm sorry, but did you even read the whole post? Fresh concrete already absorbs 45% of the EM radiation that falls on it and that is far less than what graphite absorbs. The maximum that any substance could absorb is 100%. Ergo, the best you could ever hope for is an absorption rate of 2.22 times that of fresh concrete. Since graphite already absorbs more than fresh concrete does, the difference between graphite and the 100% absorber would be even less.

    IOW, there is no substance that can even theoretically make this a viable source of energy production. It's like trying to use a drag chute as a brake in interstellar space. increasing the efficiency of the parachute will not make it an practical method of braking because even a 100% efficient parachute would not create enough drag.

    Just give up on this idea already, it is a lost cause.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    In the post they state that hot material will have vacuum friction drastically increased.
    I do not think it is because it absorbs EM radiation better.Also it is not clear whether
    friction could occur only as result of EM absorption.Posibly there is some other ways.
    For example a charged material may create repulsion of virtual particles of the opposite
    charges and thus friction.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    [QUOTE=Stanley514;330925]In the post they state that hot material will have vacuum friction drastically increased.
    I do not think it is because it absorbs EM radiation better.
    [\quote]No, they say that in a hot environment the drag increases. This is because virtual particle creation increases, and there are more to be absorbed. But if the environment is hot, then it's getting energy from somewhere, and that's what you need to be looking at as an energy source. The energy needed to maintain the temperature is going to be magnitudes larger than any energy you'll get from the virtual particle friction. Put another way, it would take much more energy to keep the object hot than the friction drag makes.

    Also it is not clear whether
    friction could occur only as result of EM absorption.Posibly there is some other ways.

    For example a charged material may create repulsion of virtual particles of the opposite
    charges and thus friction.
    You are grasping at imaginary straws to keep afloat an idea that has already sunk. Nothing in the article even suggests that anything like that is the even a slight possibility. It talks about a particular effect, under particular conditions, due to particular causes based on theory. This doesn't leave the window open for other "possible" means for friction. You can't just say maybe this or maybe that. Wishful thinking is not science.

    And with that, I'm done with this subject.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Some scientists believe that rotating objests experience friction
    caused by physical vacuum:
    Vacuum has friction after all - space - 11 February 2011 - New Scientist
    Minds of people seems to be divided in this issue.Many disbelieve that such effect
    exist.I think that if such effect really exist it may mean an almost inexhaustable energy
    source.What do you think about it?
    In my view,
    vacuum is not supposed to have matter ( as you ALL must know) , <-------- (1)
    matter collides with matter to create friction. <--------(2)
    So taking (1) and (2) into consideration, vacuum exerts no friction on any object

    Else you may find Moon drifting towards you ( Since it will lose its velocity, and according to Newton, it will come crashing into Earth




    Note : Please do not post anything under this thread which is a correct reply to the thread
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    An electromagnetic field is a force. A vacuum posses such.

    A force acts on a body, or a charge, or space/time?

    What holds matter together?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    25
    Geo, I respect your views, but I believe we are talking about friction caused by a vacuum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Fort Lee, NJ, USA
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Surely it would mean exactly the opposite: yet another way in which energy is lost in a system. How can friction be a source of energy?
    Rotating planets is not enough to you ?! Friction is able to produce heat.Heat is energy.They theorize that materials with special properties which absorb electromagnetic fields better exibit vacuum pressure better.Then we take material with excellent properties of this kind and bound it to the rotating Earth.
    Do not forget that theories are models of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Does vacuum have friction?

    This is a good question, but in today's physics I think it is seldom addressed. Newton's first law of motion says "every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it." Does this imply there is generally little or no friction when traveling through vacuous space? and is space vacuous?

    Today the vacuum of space is called the Zero Point Field. We know that within interplanetary space, for instance, there is Zero-Point-Energy within it and particles such as a plethora of neutrinos, with a great number of electrons, some protons, and a sprinkling of anti-matter. So the greatest vacuum physically possible would seemingly have at least some friction to it. There are other possible theoretical particles such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, and a great many other theoretical possibilities of increased particulate friction.

    A hypothetical entity having nothing at all within it, not even Zero Point Energy, would seemingly have the possibility of no friction concerning something traveling through it, but few believe there is such a thing.

    Newton's first law would not be effected by such friction, however, since all such friction producing entities would be considered "external forces."

    As to an infinite supply of energy: To produce energy one must transform a higher state of energy density to a lower energy density to extract some of the energy difference. The Zero Point Energy/ Field is theoretically, and by definition, the lowest possible energy state and therefore no excess energy can be extracted from it. This is the mainstream answer and mine too
    Last edited by forrest noble; June 22nd, 2012 at 11:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. friction and hearing
    By Chocolateh in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 16th, 2009, 08:33 AM
  2. Space and Friction
    By Elen in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2008, 09:39 PM
  3. average force of friction
    By hockey45 in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 1st, 2007, 07:22 AM
  4. Friction
    By anand_kapadia in forum Physics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: February 19th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  5. friction and speed
    By young_scientist in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2007, 08:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •