Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I want to know if there is any anti-gravity material. I am thinking of making flying vehicles which are made up of anti-gravity material so that they will not experience any gravity on them and can easily take off and be more fuel efficient. Is there any such thing? Or any workaround?

share|improve this question
1  
@downvoters and other commentators: I voted up made it from -2 to -1 since I have no answer for this simple question. Please be gentle with questioners. I would also appreciate if you, knowledgeable person, provide us a simple but reasonable logical answer to the question. You may explain more talking about anti-material too. Everybody can google so if you have something to share please do it otherwise just pass it. – Developer Nov 2 '11 at 11:06
13  
I am also tempted to downvote because physics.stackexchange requires at least a tiny bit of own research effort to be successful. The person asking the question did not even use wikipedia to look up the term. The article on anti-gravity is well written there and explains why a simple anti-gravity material does not exist and possible directions for future work. I am also in favor of gentle treatment of questioners but a simple google or wikipedia search is not too much to ask for. – Alexander Nov 2 '11 at 12:02
1  
isn't helium anti-gravity material? it does make balloons define gravity, just because it's gas don't mean it's not material? – Val Jan 4 at 14:00
1  
Hm.. this makes me remember a video of Feynman where some audience member asked him if there was any way to make an anti-gravity machine, to which he replied: your butt's one such machine. – nervxxx Apr 8 at 0:59

6 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

When you say "anti-gravity material", the closest thing I can think of is the hypothetical concept of negative mass:

In theoretical physics, negative mass is a hypothetical concept of matter whose mass is of opposite sign to the mass of the normal matter. Such matter would violate one or more energy conditions and show some strange properties such as being repelled rather than attracted by gravity. It is used in certain speculative theories, such as on the construction of wormholes. The closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of pseudo-negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect.

But it gets more complicated because there are actually three different kinds of mass: gravitational mass, passive grativational mass, and inertial mass:

Thus objects with negative passive gravitational mass, but with positive inertial mass, would be expected to be repelled by positive active masses, and attracted to negative active masses. However, any difference between inertial and gravitational mass would violate the equivalence principle of general relativity. For an object where both the inertial and gravitational masses were negative and equal, we could cancel out mi and mp from the equation, and conclude that its acceleration a in the gravitational field from a body with positive active gravitational mass (say, the planet Earth) would be no different from the acceleration of an object with positive passive gravitational and inertial mass (so a small negative mass object would fall towards the Earth at the same rate as any other object).

In any case, there does not exist any such thing, to the extent of human knowledge.

share|improve this answer
1  
Which is precisely why this is a good question! Why is gravity attractive?? Granted this is more philosophical than physics, it is still on the minds of us theorists. – Chris Gerig Nov 28 '11 at 20:28
2  
@ChrisGerig: I have often heard it stated that the attractiveness of gravity is a feature of all spin 2 gauge theories. – Jerry Schirmer Dec 6 '12 at 14:54
@JerrySchirmer Why is this so? – namehere Dec 6 '12 at 16:09
1  
@namehere: I've never seen it adequately proven. But I have heard that statement many times. – Jerry Schirmer Dec 6 '12 at 17:18
2  
@JerrySchirmer The proof is in Zee's QFT book in one of the early chapters. It's due to a simple pattern: spin-0 exchange -> universal attraction, spin-1 exhange -> attraction&repulsion, spin-2 exchange -> universal attraction, spin-3 exchange -> attraction&repulsion etc. Then there is a theorem that rules out interacting spin > 2 particles so all that's left is spin-0 (Higgs/pions), spin-1 (gauge bosons) and a single spin-2 (graviton). – Michael Brown Apr 8 at 2:26
show 1 more comment

A from a theoretical physics point of view not completely off the mark approach to anti-gravity effects comes from certain versions of supergravity, which is a unified supersymmetric point-particle quantum field theory.

Some particular versions of this theory not only contain the "usual" atractive graviton, a spin-2 particle, but in addition a so-called graviphoton is predicted. This graviphoton is a spin-1 vector field, interacts with mattar at the normal gravitational strength, and behaves generally like a massive photon. The fun thing about it is that it can give rise to attractive and repulsive forces. The repulsive forces feature can in principle give rise to anti-gravity effects, however the real-world / everyday usefulness of this has not yet been tested ... ;-)

For more see this blog article on Uduality.

share|improve this answer
I dont know why people have to downvote (again without saying what is technically or physically wrong!) my answer here; supergravity is an accepted mainstream high energy physics theory. Must be non physics reasons then ... -> Not cool, this takes away the fun of posting anything here on this site :-/ – Dilaton Apr 7 at 19:02

In the spirit of conspiracies and dubious theories, take a look at the so called Biefeld Brown effect.Some have claimed that Penney's 1965 paper as a possible source of rationalizing their beliefs. I don't know enough to offer an opinion either way. However, Mythbusters et al have obtained negative results in all their experiments.Take it for what its worth.

share|improve this answer

Forget anti-gravity material. As far as we know, there is none--gravity is always an attractive force. But there is a workaround: Use something with the appropriate properties, i.e. something that does have repelling force. Electromagnetism! All you need to do is separate enough charge, say a few grams of electrons, place half of them at the airport and attach the other half to your flying machine. Off they go with a mighty force that can lift Mount-Everest sized objects to the moon. Simple as that. (Calculation of the force between two 1g clouds of electrons left as an exercise--it's immense!).

Of course, the hard part is getting at a gram of electrons (without any positive charge nearby).

share|improve this answer
1  
And hey! We have mag-lev trains already! – Jerry Schirmer Dec 6 '12 at 14:56

Anti-gravity is a fringe-science thing. Its actually science fiction...

read on..wiki

share|improve this answer
1  
Why not explain what is your understanding about the anti-gravity material. It could be useful more if you share with us them. – Developer Nov 2 '11 at 11:09
der have been very vague idea about anti-gravity material in the past and present. Nazis were a few of them who tried to use anti gravity mechanism for their so called "foo-fighters" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter. There are numerous speculations about anti gravity along with main stream scientists being skeptical. But I can assure the questioner that he won't be able to use any sort of anti-gravity mechanisms in the near future for his craft!!! – Vineet Menon Nov 2 '11 at 11:55
""Nazis were a few of them who tried to use anti gravity mechanism for their so called "foo-fighters"" You watch too many Hollywood-Movies. BTW, frings means borderline, but this question is much across borders! – Georg Nov 2 '11 at 12:01
6  
It is not fringe science. It is garbage. – FrankH Nov 2 '11 at 15:11
1  
@FrankH...Let's not say something as pure garbage unless its disproven. In the wiki article, I saw some particle physics stuff something related to graviphotons and fifth force, which I couldn't understand so I'm not commenting... – Vineet Menon Nov 3 '11 at 4:56
show 3 more comments

Anti-gravity is impossible, as it would let you build a perpetual motion system, as follows.

Assume we have a system in which we can capture the kinetic energy of a falling mass. For example, a ball that falls onto a scooped wheel to drive it. Take the ball and move a sheet of anti-grav material under it. As the ball now no longer feels the earth's gravity, we can push it up above the wheel without using any energy. Now remove the anti-grav sheet. The ball will fall onto the wheel and thus generate energy.

This violates the law of conservation of energy, i.e. the first law of thermodynamics. Hence it is impossible, and hence anti-gavity cannot exist.

share|improve this answer
1  
It doesn't have to violate conservation of energy if moving the sheet needs appropriate amounts of energy. You simply assume it doesn't. – Jens Apr 8 at 7:50
2  
This is wrong for three reasons. First, you need energy to move the object because it still has inertial mass. Second, the sheet will move. Third, the sheet (planar) will not homogenously shield the gravitational field of the earth (sphere). – WIMP Apr 8 at 8:18

protected by Qmechanic Apr 7 at 15:27

This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.