Slashdot Mirror
Solar Sailing and Physics
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this article, the New Scientist writes that the next generation of spacecraft might be propelled with the help of the sun. "Both NASA and the European Space Agency are developing solar sails and, although never tested, the concept is quite simple. A solar sail is essentially a giant mirror that reflects photons of sunlight back in the direction they came from." But Thomas Gold from Cornell University in New York says the proponents of solar sailing have forgotten about thermodynamics, the branch of physics governing heat transfer." And this is where it's becoming interesting. Gold's paper, "The solar sail and the mirror," states that "either Carnot's accepted rule is in error, or the solar sail proposal will not work at all." So, as this illustration from New Scientist shows, the real question is: "Can it really sail away?" We'll know it in September when the first tests are done. In the mean time, read this summary for more details and read the original stories for far more information."
The article is wrong in the sense that it treats the photons from Sun to be in the form of heat - they are not, because their velocities are not randomised - there is a net momentum radially away from the sun. Carnot's cycle assumed the thermal energy to be in the thermodynamic form, i.e. say internal KE of gas, etc... You could simply adapt this guy's argument to a bullet hitting a plank of wood and show that wood gaining motion would break carnot's law - this is not the case.
Yes, but for a different reason... The black side heats up more than the shiny side and it recoils molecules more... - the photon effect works the other way round but is negligible in presence of air...
Gold's theory ignores one important aspect- the doppler effect.
Let's do a gedankenexperiment (thought experiment).
Hypothesize that you have such a solar sail and it's already in orbit and starting to pull away from earth (say, because an ullage rocket has initiated a short accelleration)
The incoming solar photons - IN THE FRAME OF REFERENCE OF THE SAIL - enter and leave at constant wavelength. But the sail is moving with respect to the rest of the solar system (the ullage rocket kick-started this motion)... so the wavelength measured in the frame of reference of the sail mirror is not correct.
In the external (non-accellerated) frame of reference of the solar system, the photons hit the mirror at some particular wavelength, but exit at a longer wavelengh (because the mirror is moving).
The count of photons is the same- but their energy is lower.
So, where did the energy go? Draw the Feynmann diagram: there's only one place it could have gone- and that's into the sail itself. Therefore the sail accellerates further.
A similar gedankenexperiment will show that a sail moving _toward_ the sun pumps energy into the photons, and so decellerates.
Didn't Voyager and Galileo take advantage of the solar wind to get way out there in a short time?
No (human) spacecraft to date has used the solar wind for propulsion - the solar sail is the only realistic mechanism for doing so, and that's never actually been tried (there was to have been a test of the Cosmos 1 couple of years ago but it suffered a launch failure).
Nae bother
When you can bandy about cool names like "the Carnot cycle", why let actual facts get in the way?
This guy is wrong. Period. The solar sail would not be a heat engine -- it's not an engine of any kind -- so Carnot's analysis does not apply. Radiation pressure does exist and can be used to blow objects away from the Sun. Don't believe me? Too bad, because we have photographic evidence: The tails of comets always point away from the Sun (during the approach and departure of the comet), in part due to the radiation pressure on the dust that makes up the tail.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Nope. They could maneuver in a way similar to that sailing ships use to go upwind. By angling the sails correctly and using the sun's gravity field, a solar sail vessel can fly "upwind" toward the sun. See this NASA reference for a basic primer.
The Planetary Society already has a solar sail project going and is preping to launch soon.
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/
There is a very introductory book about solar sailing by Louis Friedman, Executive Directory of the Planetary Society: it's Starsailing: Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel (yeah, yeah, it's amazon, thbbbppp) and here are some selected chapters. It rocks because it walks you through the equations and such. It's really NOT hard to understand. I found it in my high school when I was a kid and really fell in love with the whole concept. It really rocks.
In the book it points out that the concept was tested with the Mercury probe that NASA sent way back (Mariner-10) in that they used the solar panels to get a spin from light pressure (iirc, it's in the book and I haven't read it in 10 years...)
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
The black vanes on the spinning apparatus absorb light more efficently than the white ones.
This absorption of energy causes the black side of the vane to be hotter (by a very small amount, i'm sure) than the white side.
The heat radiating off of the dark side of the vanes works much in the same manner as a jet engine (without the need for a compression chamber). Note that the reason it's in a glass bulb is to impose a partial vacuum is to reduce air friction which would keep the vanes from moving. Also the use of a needle point piviot further reduces the friction.
So, in a word no. The solar sail intends to gather energy by photons bouncing off of a sheet, while your example is really just a simple heat engine.
You can verify this independantly with a little obseration and thought. After all wouldn't the white side of the vanes be providing the thrust if the energy was harnessed from potons bouncing off of it?
There's no conflicts here with comet tails. Comet tails form because the solar wind (which no-one doubts exists) causes a *temperature* change in the frozen particles, just like the black side of the blade in a radiometer. If the comets were hot enough not to be heated by the radiation, or were 100% reflective, the tail wouldn't exist.
As for the tail pointing from the comet, that's true for one of the tails. There's at least three for each comet:
1: The radial tail, which points away from the sun.
2: The debris tail, pointing in the wake of the comet.
3: The plasma/ion tail, which is caused by heavier particles sent out by the sun.
(4): Some even claim a fourth tail, pointing towards the sun, which is interesting, because the release of that matter would be a newtonian force pushing the comet further away.
And no, there is no
5: Profit!
Anyhow, there's been no tests showing that a solar sail *could* work, unless it can bleed off material and retain a cold temperature like a comet does.
Comet tails.
Comet tails *always* point away from the sun.
Must be something pushing the tail particles away.
QED
www.christopherlewis.com
You are correct that the Carnot efficiency cannot be calculated for this case, as it is not returning to it's original position. However, in the postulated case of a perfect mirror, there is no heat sink, as the photons will be reflected back towards the sun, and not radiated from the back of the sail. If the photons are absorbed by the sail, then some are radiated to the heat sink, and the expansion is no longer adiabatic (which is consistent with the lower momentum transfer). Note that if the mirror ~was~ returned to its original position, and the sun was insulated against losses in directions other than towards the sail, you would have an adiabatic expansion and then compression of the photons, leaving you with no net change in energy.
Gold complains in his paper of physicists not treating photons thermodynamically. That's funny - I seem to remember working out a problem using an adiabatic expansion of a photon "gas" in my undergraduate days. I don't remember the equation of state off the top of my head, but I guarantee you can find it in Callen or any other thourough thermo book.
Yes, IAAP. I also think that slashdotters should note that this was published in the Arxiv, which is NOT a peer reviewed publication (although I must say that the Arxiv rocks!). The Arxiv is sort of like an open source scientific journal, or a BBS for scientific papers. I highly recommend wandering around in it for a few hours, but remember to take everything in there with a grain of salt.
Darn. I was going to try NOT posting to slashdot today. Oh, well. Feed the addiction (sticks needle labeled "/." in arm).
Um, sorry, no. Photons have no mass. You need the full form of the equation: E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 which for a massless photon (m=0) would become E=pc. p in this case is momentum, which photons do have.
When the photon strikes the sail it imparts momentum to it. LOTS of photons=lots of momentum and near the Sun there are a LOT of photons. Bear in mind the sail will need to be HUGE. Also momentum has direction (vector not scalar).
Oh, and the effect of the odd hydrogen atom should be very small in comparison to the LOTS of photons constantly (alright, discretely if you're delving into duality) striking the surface of the sail. It will be slowed down slightly by atoms floating through space but if the sail is large enough and light enough then theory says it should be able to break free of the Sun's gravity (of course that's what the original argument is about). Do you really think one or two little hydrogen atoms will be much of a problem?
No numbers were harmed during the course of this diatribe, but a few ego's were bruised...
If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
Well, I am a physicist (PhD MIT '97) and unless I'm missing something *really* subtle, Gold's argument is just plain wrong. As earlier posters pointed out, this is not a system in equilibrium, nor is it closed. Conservation of momentum (which applies perfectly well to photons with the relations
energy=speed of light * momentum or e=c*p or p=e/c
and
energy=planck's constant*frequency=h*nu=h*c/lambda
p=e/c=h*c/lambda/c=h/lambda
When I reflect a photon from an object the total momentum of the system = photon + object must remain constant (if we're scattering elastically)...
Inelastic scattering effects (doppler, etc.) don't change the basic story here. SOME momentum will get transferred to the mirror with each photon bounce...
Also, there's no reason I can't reflect the photons from the solar sail at a slight angle to the sun (just like tacking into the wind) at the cost of losing some of the momentum kick from the photons, the photons now travel off into empty space (as opposed to the sun) making the system clearly open... It will continue to be accelerated so long as photons hit it (albeit with decreasing numbers of photons/sec as it gets farther out...)
In the way of background, note that Gold is the same Gold of the Bondi-Holye-Gold steady state cosmological model, proposed in the 1940s and 1950s as an attempt to "fix problems" with the big bang model, and has long held non-conventional views on light. Gold and others invoked "tired light" -- photons which became redder from their point of emission, even though doing so contradicted momentum-energy conservation. It's a archetypical example of a theory trashing a fundamental principle in order to exaplain last week's cosmological observations. We should always be wary of our assumptions, but all too often, cosmological theorists will attempt to make a splash by abandoning them in favor of explaining very tenuous and often incorrect observations.
Gold has always been an outsider in the astrophysics community, but has done some very good work over the years; including some seminal work on pulsars. He was Peter Goldreich's (major figure in theoretical astrophysics, for those not familiar) Ph.D. advisor.
Those interested in the history of the steady-state model, including attempts to resurrect it, and the many errors it commits, can check out this page.
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Can you expand on this? I've never heard of this, and I can't think of anything in my 40+ years of layman's reading on physics that could be expressed this way.
Here's a few links. Google for "gravitational redshift" and you'll get lots more.
Link.
Link.
To summarize, the gravitational redshift (or blueshift, for light falling into a gravitational potential well) is a real effect. It was demonstrated by Pound and Rebka at Harvard University in 1960. They used essentially monochromatic gamma ray photon sources at the top and bottom of an elevator shaft, and measured the shift in frequency for photons traversing the shaft each direction. Kudos to Einstein--General Relativity gets another check mark.
~Idarubicin
Disagree. IWAP, when I left University. Thermally, the sail will heat up and will imet equal numbers of photons either side. There will therefore be, as the paper concedes, a short period while acceleration is higher as it absorbs photons until it reaches equilibrium. However, the disagreement is whther the final situation has residual thrust.
It doeds, because the important photons are those which are reflected. Hypothesize that the mirrore is perfect: 100% of all photons are reflected, none absorbed, and the mirror does not heat up at all. The paper would assert that the mirror therefore feels no force at all. And yet, on one side it is being battered by photons, whcih come in with a momentum vector one way and leave with the vector reversed. ISTM that this purely theoretical mirror must feel some force. The question is whether a real mirror can come close enough to the theoretical to get perceptible thrust. The thermal mechanism described is in fact a leakage mode of the system - a defect to be minimoised.
The fallacy is that a sail is a heat engine. It is not. Heat is disorganised energy - atoms flying around in random directions. Heat engines convert disorganised energy - the random motion of atoms - into organised energy. One example of such an engine is the Stirling engine, which converts hot gas into rotary motion - and obeys Carnot's law. Solar radiation is organised energy - and the sail converts one form of organised energy into another; it is a form of gearbox, if you will, and can approach 100% efficiency. The analog is to the sail, not the Stirling engine. A sailing boat can convert wind into movement as long as the wind lasts. (The fact that the wind is created by a heat engine is irrelevant - the wind is organised and they thermodynamic price has been paid before it reaches the sail.)
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Gold says that as the sail is a perfect mirror the light is reflected at the same temperature and so Carnot's law applies. But of course, if the light were reflected at the same temperature it wouldn't be losing any energy so a working solar sail would violate conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics would be the least of our problems.
Gold's problem is that he forgets both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. What happens is that as the sail is kicked forward (gaining both energy and momentum) the photon is reflected with slightly less energy than it arrived with (ie is cooler) and conservation of momentum, conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics still apply.
My back of an envelope calculations tell the fractional energy loss is E/(M*c*c) where E is the photon energy and M the sail mass.
You will notice that Gold's article doesn't appear in a refereed journal: this is because most referees have heard of conservation of energy.
Dr John Rowe
School of Physics
Exeter
UK
A supernova is really just a switchover phase for the star from being supported by electron to neutron pressure. Stars supported by photon pressure do not exist so far as I know. I would guess that any body sufficiently light that photons could compensate for gravity are too light to radiate in the first place. Electron pressure and neutron pressure work so well because they're both spin 1/2 particles, which resist compression much more strongly than bosons like photons (photons actually like being in the same state with other bosons, which is how Bose-Einstein condensates are formed. In contrast fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle and can thus exert a degeneracy pressure) The photon pressure talked about with solar sails is different than degeneracy pressure, which is really a response to being compressed.
Stars up to 1.44 times the mass of the sun (calculated first by Chandrasekar, a really nifty guy who wasn't believed at all at the time) are supported by electron pressure. When that star gets too big, a big supernova results, electrons and protons in the star fuse into neutrons in the biggest atom ever, a neutron star, which I think has a mass-limit of three times the mass of the sun before it becomes a black hole (in theory).
The light can only reflect losslessly when the sails are still (in a particular frame of reference). In the frame of reference of the bomb, as the sails accelerate they begin to redshift the photons a little bit at each bounce because the sail is moving, so the sail becomes less and less efficient. In the frame of the reference of the sail, it is the flash from the bomb which is becoming redder and redder and less and less efficient as it recedes faster and faster. Since the bomb produces a finite supply of photons, this setup gives a finit acceleration. The sun, however, produces an "infinite" supply of photons which are discarded (slightly reddened) after one use.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I recommend a good simple relativity textbook or a class. I'm not really sure anything that anyone can say on slashdot will sufficiently convince anyone else that the E=mc^2 that is thrown around so liberally is an incomplete picture. All I can say is the post above quoting the equation E^2=p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 is the correct one.
I'd highly recommend Helliwell's Relativity, though I think it's only sold through the Claremont colleges bookstore, so I doubt that's very helpfull. Beyond that, I Feynman's lectures have a good section on it, and can usually be picked up used. Other than that, the Schaum's outline series is really good for more advanced stuff, so I bet their intro books are very readable, too, though not as detailed as full texts on the subject. Looks like they don't have a special volume devoted to it, but their College Physics volume has one chapter on it.
Light does indeed do both. As it drops deeper into a gravitational potential, it blueshifts; as it emerges, it redshifts. Its path will also appear to be bent by the gravitational field. (I could introduce you to a number of physicists who will adamantly insist that the light follows a straight path along curved space, but that's getting awfully picky.)
Light cannot emerge from a blackhole because any photons emitted inside the event horizon get redshifted down to nothing on their journey out. They may indeed follow a curved path while they do so, but this is not essential to the process. Some physicists speculate that this bending has an interesting consequence right near the event horizon. In principle, photons on the right trajectories could orbit the black hole--kind of a neat thought experiment. Of course, any speculation about what goes on inside a black hole is merely that, since actual observations are rather difficult to come by.
~Idarubicin
It is obvious that if he is at the Cornell Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, then he is not an actual physicist there. I actually suspect some ulterior motive behind this.
There is no thermodynamic problem with radiation pressure and solar sails, Carnot, Maxwell and Einstein are correct, and Thomas Gold is wrong.
The photons that leave from the Sun are at a Maxwellian distribution at the temperature of the Solar photosphere, many thousands of degrees.
The photons which are re-emitted by the heat of the sail are at the temperature of the sail, which is obviously less than the temperature of the Sun.
There is a temperature gradient, hence work is done.
Gold is also obviously uneducated in physics because of his assertions about how momentum is 'E/c' and how 'E' is a scalar but momentum is a vector, blah blah blah.
The correct way to do an electromagnetic problem like this in purely classical E&M (which is all that is necessary to solve this problem) is to use the stress energy tensor, which is certainly non-zero for propagating electromagnetic waves.
You then use this to find the forces on material bodies, e.g. dielectrics or conductors. You have to think about the stress-energy tensor on both sides of the material body and add up forces.
(interesting note, you can also get angular momentum out of this too, appropriately polarized electromagnetic waves can exert a torque).
I learned this in my sophomore year physics class.
Actually, this sounds like a good problem set problem. "Hmmm....now that you ask about it--------yes, it WILL be on the final exam! muahahha."
Given a plane wave source of incoming radiation with flux F_0, with a certain amount of it R1 reflected and the remainder absorbed, what would be the net acceleration in the direction of the radiation of the solar sail with emissivity E once it has reached thermal equilibrium, accounting for all radiation forces. Assume space is at 0 degrees.
What you would do is to put in on the incoming side, the stress energy tensor for the incoming radiation, the outgoing radiation, plus, on both sides, radiation emitted from a black body.
You first get the energy balance right, and then solve for the acceleration.
If you want to be tricky, you would go into the accelerating frame of the sail, and then appropriately red-shift down the incoming frequency of the radiation.
Here is my suspected ulterior motive. This thermodynamic fallacy is exactly the same one that creationists use to deny the obvious explanation for why plants live and complex life evolved.
Namely that the Sun has been providing input energy at 10,000 degrees and the Earth has been re-emitting energy at 300 degrees K and the temperature difference over 4 billion years can do a fair amount of work.
Professor Gold is not only the progenitor of the primordial mantle methane, errrr, hypothesis, he is also the progenitor of the idea that the Lunar landings would not have been feasible because the surface dust was not solid enough to support the weight of a lander.
This idea is rumored to have prompted the entire "Ranger" series of spacecraft (at umpteen million dollars) primarily to demonstrate that the Lunar surface was solid.
Oh, and the supporting statements by Steven Soter in the New Scientist article regarding the thermodynamics of photonic momentum-transfer? Three guesses who was Steven Soter's Ph.D. adviser...
Just repeat after me: "Tenure is *good* for science. Tenure is *good* for science. Tenure is *good* for science."
This guys argument is based on the fact that after a certain time, the light is no longer absorbed because the mirror is at it's equilibrium temperature. This proves that he does not grasp simple physics. The equilibrium means that the material emits as much light as it absorbs. The reason the sail works is that the light is emitted equally in the forward and backward direction, but is only absorbed from the back. This means there is a net momentum transfer.
Now, one obvious remark would be that there is no energy transfer, because as many photons are emitted as there are photons absorbed. This means that the energy of the mirror cannot change and therefore we have a contradiction (mirror gains more momentum, but not more energy). However, this all works out if you take into account the Doppler shifts of the emitted radiation with respect to the absorbed radiation.
This stuff is all understood, I cannot understand where this guy gets his ideas. His arguments can equally well be applied to laser cooling and we know that that works!
-- Please put this in your sig if you think