Sound waves transport a small amount of mass, according to theory(physics.aps.org)
physics.aps.org
Sound waves transport a small amount of mass, according to theory
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/23
36 comments
> The new calculation indicates that for ordinary sound waves in most materials, the mass carried is equal to the sound wave energy multiplied by a factor that depends on the speed of sound and the medium’s mass density.
Since the effect is proportional to the density of the medium, you can't get actual antigravity. The mass is always positive. It can just be lighter than the other matter around it.
Practically speaking, you definitely can't use this for levitation or anything. This is E=mc^2 stuff; you need far more energy than conventional levitation would take. The energy in normal sound waves is very low, so high energy sound waves are very destructive.
For reference, the reference level sound intensity is 1 picowatt per square meter. That's zero decibels, the human audible threshold or the quietest sound we can hear under ideal conditions. A conversation is ~60 decibels, or 1 microwatt/m^2. Hearing damage comes at >90 dB or 1 milliwatt/m^2. >140 dB is quite painful, but it's only 100 watts/m^2. A household extension cord can carry about a kilowatt in less than a square centimeter- millions of times more power.
Since the effect is proportional to the density of the medium, you can't get actual antigravity. The mass is always positive. It can just be lighter than the other matter around it.
Practically speaking, you definitely can't use this for levitation or anything. This is E=mc^2 stuff; you need far more energy than conventional levitation would take. The energy in normal sound waves is very low, so high energy sound waves are very destructive.
For reference, the reference level sound intensity is 1 picowatt per square meter. That's zero decibels, the human audible threshold or the quietest sound we can hear under ideal conditions. A conversation is ~60 decibels, or 1 microwatt/m^2. Hearing damage comes at >90 dB or 1 milliwatt/m^2. >140 dB is quite painful, but it's only 100 watts/m^2. A household extension cord can carry about a kilowatt in less than a square centimeter- millions of times more power.
The soundwaves float, not the thing producing them.
Your disclaimer just put a smile in my face.
If Xmen taught me anything it is that this is old news
If you have a nonlinear interaction of a wave with a media, you might have a quadratic term A^2 cos^2(wt). If you remember your trig identities, you'll remember that two sinusoidal functions multiplied together decomposes into the sum of signals at the sum and difference frequencies: cos(w_1 t)cos(w_2 t) = 1/2*(cos((w_1 + w_2)t) + cos((w_1 - w_2)t)).
In this case the sum wave is at twice the frequency of the original wave, and the difference wave has 0 frequency - it is just mass transport. I have a feeling that is what is going on here.
In this case the sum wave is at twice the frequency of the original wave, and the difference wave has 0 frequency - it is just mass transport. I have a feeling that is what is going on here.
>you might have a quadratic term A^2 cos^2(wt). If you remember your trig identities, you'll remember that two sinusoidal functions multiplied together decomposes into the sum of signals at the sum and difference frequencies: cos(w_1 t)cos(w_2 t) = 1/2(cos((w_1 + w_2)t) + cos((w_1 - w_2)t)).*
The DC component isn't the same as mass transport, because the system still returns to its original state every period of cos(wt). The amplitude of the DC (A^2/2) is also much higher than the one part in a thousand the article was describing.
The DC component isn't the same as mass transport, because the system still returns to its original state every period of cos(wt). The amplitude of the DC (A^2/2) is also much higher than the one part in a thousand the article was describing.
Agree. It's standard quadratic medium rectification, and they've dressed it up so much they can't see it. The rectification will be associated with a uniform translation of the sample the sound wave travels through.
The article said that it involved interaction with gravity and wasn't from GR, so that doesn't sound like a complete explanation. Nonlinear phonon interaction has already been demonstrated experimentally, but that doesn't seem to include the additional complexity of the interaction with gravity.
In fact, sound waves literally means moving matter! Transporting mass along the wave propagation is a whole different thing. It depends on the matter that is moving/vibrating. While the propagation of kinetic energy through a medium cannot have mass, the mean mass transport through a closed surface should equal zero. However, if they've discovered that it, in fact, isn't - then it's a big deal.
Sound waves are often compared to water waves in this way. The water just moves up and down, and the horizontal movement is (mostly) an illusion.
But everyone knows intuitively that the water is moving horizontally at least a little bit. Some ocean water gets left on the beach or the boardwalk, or perhaps your toy or ball gets swept out to sea on the waves.
Is this the right analogy, or are they talking about something different?
But everyone knows intuitively that the water is moving horizontally at least a little bit. Some ocean water gets left on the beach or the boardwalk, or perhaps your toy or ball gets swept out to sea on the waves.
Is this the right analogy, or are they talking about something different?
The water moves in circles/ellipses.
Not in closed circles/ellipses. With finite wave amplitudes, a fluid parcel in wave motion experiences Stokes Drift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift).
In water, this effect arises because the fluid is deeper at the crest of the wave than at the trough, and wave velocities are faster in deeper water. The fluid parcel moves up -> forwards quickly -> down -> backwards more slowly.
I'm curious about whether the researchers here have demonstrated a similar effect for sound waves. Pressure waves have similar dynamics (with faster particle movement at lower pressures), and the researchers mention that this is a finite-amplitude effect.
In water, this effect arises because the fluid is deeper at the crest of the wave than at the trough, and wave velocities are faster in deeper water. The fluid parcel moves up -> forwards quickly -> down -> backwards more slowly.
I'm curious about whether the researchers here have demonstrated a similar effect for sound waves. Pressure waves have similar dynamics (with faster particle movement at lower pressures), and the researchers mention that this is a finite-amplitude effect.
I was on a plane today thinking about recent research that uses vibrational/waves to interact with objects. Researchers can suspend and manipulate objects with these waves.
I was thinking, why isn’t it possible to use this technology to create levitating objects or vehicles???
Like UFO type flight.
Just attach powerful emitters around the craft.
This article makes me think this might be possible.
F= m*a
If waves possess mass, then it could be used as a means of force.
I was thinking, why isn’t it possible to use this technology to create levitating objects or vehicles???
Like UFO type flight.
Just attach powerful emitters around the craft.
This article makes me think this might be possible.
F= m*a
If waves possess mass, then it could be used as a means of force.
"I was thinking, why isn’t it possible to use this technology to create levitating objects or vehicles???"
It can, at least if we squint a bit. There is a clear mathematical relationship with all the various bits involved. Compute the amount of energy required to create the amount of sound to levitate, say, something with the mass of a car.
You'll compute an amount of energy sufficient to destroy any conceivable emitter and any object it is targeted at. My intuitive guess is that you'll actually require an amplitude of sound that isn't sound anymore; there's actually a maximum volume that sound can have, because the bottom of the wave can only go to zero pressure. It can't go past vacuum.
Also, I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I believe it would require the emitter to be separate from the thing being levitated... I think trying to self-levitate with a sound emitter would be the mathematical equivalent of trying to fly by pulling up on your hair.
So don't think full-sized UFOs dapperly zipping about with discreet little "blip blip blip" sounds in the distance... think a train car running underneath a levitating car, with a speaker giving off energy comparable to continuously-exploding bunker-buster bombs, if not nuclear bombs.
Definitely better off with a helicopter.
There is a reason all the things you've seen lifted are little bits of styrofoam and ping pong balls.
It can, at least if we squint a bit. There is a clear mathematical relationship with all the various bits involved. Compute the amount of energy required to create the amount of sound to levitate, say, something with the mass of a car.
You'll compute an amount of energy sufficient to destroy any conceivable emitter and any object it is targeted at. My intuitive guess is that you'll actually require an amplitude of sound that isn't sound anymore; there's actually a maximum volume that sound can have, because the bottom of the wave can only go to zero pressure. It can't go past vacuum.
Also, I'd have to think about it a bit more, but I believe it would require the emitter to be separate from the thing being levitated... I think trying to self-levitate with a sound emitter would be the mathematical equivalent of trying to fly by pulling up on your hair.
So don't think full-sized UFOs dapperly zipping about with discreet little "blip blip blip" sounds in the distance... think a train car running underneath a levitating car, with a speaker giving off energy comparable to continuously-exploding bunker-buster bombs, if not nuclear bombs.
Definitely better off with a helicopter.
There is a reason all the things you've seen lifted are little bits of styrofoam and ping pong balls.
Sound waves can move matter [1], and to a lesser degree light can too [2].
[1] Acoustophoretic contactless transport and handling of matter in air https://www.pnas.org/content/110/31/12549
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/longitudina... [pdf]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
[1] Acoustophoretic contactless transport and handling of matter in air https://www.pnas.org/content/110/31/12549
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/waves/longitudina... [pdf]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
I guess the aviation application is very focused on the magnitude of the force generated per watt of power expended, and pushing really hard on air (like airplane engines do) is pretty effective for that, even if there's also some way to make sound waves generate thrust. Are the sound wave lifters and manipulators (which are super cool) very power-efficient compared to a fan or a jet engine?
Which again proves Tesla's quotes about frequency and vibrations.
Do sound waves have mass or transport/displace matter? The article does seem clear on this to me. Not a physicist so I could be totally wrong here, but having mass is not necessarily the same as being matter, correct? Since matter is made of atoms, and sound is just waves. Maybe someone can help explain this to me.
Electrical engineer here. Sounds waves are called transverse waves because their displacement moves in the positive/negative y directions, which appears to give the impression that the wave is a single traveling particle. Instead the sum of the displacement creates the "traveling wave", which is similar to a wave an audience might do at a sporting event. I don't think this article did a great job describing what they meant by mass. I believe they blow the word "Phonon" a bit out of proportion. High energy physics is an incredibly hard topics where very few people are smart enough to read such a paper with confidence so these are just my humble thoughts.
I think you might have got transverse swapped with longitudinal, transverse is perpendicular to the axis of propagation (string waves and EM waves), longitudinal is parallel (sound waves in fluid), and mechanical solids can support both (you can have a transverse sound wave in an iron bar but not in the air).
Random idea this brings up... Some of the faster than light drive concepts worked by compressing space in front of the ship and expanding it behind. If sound waves carry mass maybe they could be harnessed and focused in a way to warp space time and impact travel speed? I wonder how the medium impacts the mass?
Here's one for ya ~> Which came first: Sound or light?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations
does light make sound?
Gravitational waves resonate at audio frequencies [1], but I am not aware of any findings on that wrt light.
However, you can convert light into sound through the photoacoustic effect [2], and curiously enough, you can recover sound from images through light [3].
[1] Listen to the sound of the kilonova -- the Gravitational Waves Announcement Chirp https://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php
https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-you-can-hear-gravi...
[2] Converting sunlight into audible sound by means of the photoacoustic effect: The Heliophone [pdf] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80794107.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_spectroscopy
[3] Veritasium: Can You Recover Sound From Images? [video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB0L0mSCI
See the research Abe Davis is doing on visual vibration analysis: http://abedavis.com
However, you can convert light into sound through the photoacoustic effect [2], and curiously enough, you can recover sound from images through light [3].
[1] Listen to the sound of the kilonova -- the Gravitational Waves Announcement Chirp https://www.ligo.org/science/GW-Inspiral.php
https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-you-can-hear-gravi...
[2] Converting sunlight into audible sound by means of the photoacoustic effect: The Heliophone [pdf] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/80794107.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoacoustic_spectroscopy
[3] Veritasium: Can You Recover Sound From Images? [video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUzB0L0mSCI
See the research Abe Davis is doing on visual vibration analysis: http://abedavis.com
Interesting. Assuming this theory gets verified in duplication studies, I feel there's a good market opportunity for vocalization (voice) therapy in the weight- and inch-loss industry
Does the mass have to be transported at the same speed as the sound or like electron drift in a conductor is the mechanistic speed of movement/translation far far slower?
[deleted]
Possible explanation for the emdrive?
does low frequencies have more mass? ;D
Really, "phonon"?
Yes, vibrations in a lattice are quantized: they can only occur at a discrete set of frequencies and energies.
Check this out, there's more of these quasi-particles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles
Yes, really. It's a very important part of condensed matter physics.
I can't read the paper but the physical mechanism for how anything like this manifests is so obvious they'll be embarrassed to miss it: the entire solid must translate a small distance.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I’m talking about.