Finding the Strongest Low-Density Material

  • Thread starter jhami
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Material
In summary: I would say that technically, anything is possible for an infinitely advanced civilization, so there's no real upper limit. However, since this is a science fiction forum, I think it's best to stick to plausible explanations for why this material would be so strong.
  • #1
jhami
12
1
What would be the strongest possible material that has a density under 10,000 g/cm^3?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
A. "strongest" is vague. Tensile? Shear? Compressive?
B. Why is this science fiction?
C. Did you make any effort to find this out on your own?
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #4
Diamond has a density of a mere 3.5g/cm3, yet can withstand compressions up to 60GPa.
 
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #5
1. "Strongest", as in the best combination of Melting Point, Hardness, Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, Toughness, and Stiffness.
2, As I am asking how an infinitely advanced civilization would create this (only limited by the laws of physics)
3. I know that researchers are creating new and more strong materials every year (like this https://futurism.com/mit-unveils-new-material-thats-strongest-and-lightest-on-earth), but i want to know the upper limit to the strength of a material that is composed of baryonic matter (so not including neutronium, quark matter, etc.)
 
  • #8
jhami said:
... how an infinitely advanced civilization would create this (only limited by the laws of physics)
Well that's the sticky bit isn't it?

A fabulously advanced civilization will have laws of physics that violate what we know today, so there's no real upper limit.

For all we know, they could have molecules that are strengthened through some sort of charge in ways we cannot begin to fathom. Heck, they could make stronger molecules by adding phantom atoms in the other seven dimensions of string theory.

That's your job as a science-fiction writer - to envision future technology the rest of us can't imagine.
 
  • Like
Likes dsaun777
  • #9
jhami said:
1. "Strongest", as in the best combination of Melting Point, Hardness, Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, Toughness, and Stiffness.

That's even vaguer. Who is to say what "best" is? If you aren't willing to put in the effort to ask a clear question, how do you expect to get a clear answer?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Vanadium 50 said:
That's even vaguer. Who is to say what "best" is?
I'd say he is asking us to make some assumptions about that for the sake of story.

I think unpacking the word "best" would result in "most plausible in terms of an useful material to a fabulously advanced civilization."
 
  • #11
I think we must not use the same standards in the science fiction section as in technical forums. Everybody knows it's Duranium.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #12
The OP must ask himself what every sci-fi writer must: how much detail do I need to put in?
Does it need to be scientifically accurate, or does it just need to be plausible?

I mean - it can't be accurate, since the first condition is that it is science fabulously far in advance of our own. Thus is is merely a matter of how far toward plausible is required?

Ultimately, the I think the best answer we can give the OP is: We can't tell you what the limits are for a civilization that advanced. That's up to you.
 
  • #13
jhami said:
Yes but diamond is not the upper limit to the strength of a material sevral other materials have been discovered which are harder like https://futurism.com/mit-unveils-new-material-thats-strongest-and-lightest-on-earth
That's actually showcasing strength-per-unit-density. i.e. density - and thus total mass - of the material is a constraining factor.

"...10 times stronger than steel, with only five percent of its density "

The OP grants a fabulously generous density limit for his material, meaning we're really just looking for absolute strength before we'll ever even have to consider density factoring in.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
The OP must ask himself what every sci-fi writer must: how much detail do I need to put in?
Does it need to be scientifically accurate, or does it just need to be plausible?

I second this sage observation by @DaveC426913 every time.

@jhami you've stated your story has an "infinitely advanced civilization," so we're way beyond our mundane physics and into the world of handwaviun, unobtanium, and (new to me, thanks, @fresh_42), duranium. Which means it is counter productive to your narrative to include actual science to answer your question. You'll undermine your story, because if it's within the realms of our possible, then how "infinitely advanced" can this culture really be?
 
  • #15
Tghu Verd said:
... if it's within the realms of our possible, then how "infinitely advanced" can this culture really be?
A good point.
 
  • #16
only limited by the laws of physics.
 
  • #17
jhami said:
only limited by the laws of physics.
...the laws of physics... as understood by 21st century Earth, who only invented heavier-than air flight 12 decades ago.
 
  • #18
I'll go along with @DaveC426913.
You seem to be asking :

"What is the most wonderous thing that we don't know about?"

Which is a real contradiction of logic.
 
  • #19
That said, you might look at Graphene.
The drawbacks are that we know about it and the present cost is around 118 000 USD per ton.
 
  • #20
jhami said:
only limited by the laws of physics.

I think @DaveC426913 and @Tom.G have appropriately made the point that your scenario seems inconsistent, @jhami, which does make it hard to reasonably respond, but please check out this Forbes article from last year. There may be something you can use in your story.
 
  • #21
I mean the current laws of physics.
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #22
Making the same point again does not change the answer, @jhami. The Forbes article is "current physics", and that's the best we know with our materials science. Other atomic configurations will be developed, but we don't know what they are yet.

If you are writing sci-fi, your options are:
  1. Use what's known - the answer of which, on PF at least, does not seem to be acceptable to you.
  2. Make stuff up - this is the essence of science fiction and it is a large part of the reason people read it.
An alternative to PF is to reach out directly to materials science experts - you can find them in University staff lists, for example - and ask them, or post on Quora or Reddit.
 
  • #23
This thread reminded me of a paper I saw recently that I rather enjoyed:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5082739
The main argument is that bulk modulus is dependent on binding energy in the crystal and ultimately valence electron density, which reaches its maximum in diamond (and the closely related cubic boron nitride), such that at ambient pressure, materials with significantly higher bulk modulus (more than about 25% or so) are physically impossible under known laws of materials science.
 
  • Like
Likes member 656954
  • #24
I think he is trying to ask “what is the strongest multi-purpose material possible to ever make?” Which is still unanswerable because we do not know what that limit would be because we have not reached that limit. It is a lot like if a person from the colonial era asked what is the fastest a flying craft could ever be? This is because like that colonist we do not yet know what that limit is because we have not reached the limit (although we still haven’t reached the aircraft limit but it paints a good picture).
 
  • #25
The heaviest material on Earth is osmium, with a density of 22.61 g/cm3. So I assume you are asking for a density under 10, not under 10,000 (using ',' rather than '.'). Is that right?
 
  • #26
jhami said:
I mean the current laws of physics.
Which would include fabrication, alloys, heat treating, etc.

Even if the physics behind the strongest material says "that's the one", the technological hurdles to make something out of it is a challenge.

Having said that we already know that certain shapes are stronger than others for the amount of material used.
Metal posts are tubes and not solid. Bridges are made with a system of triangular support beams. Cardboard boxes are corrugated,
The weight savings by having empty spaces within a structure means that the structure is "stronger" by not having to support its own dead weight.
That's one way.

Using composite materials is another, such as for skis, and one can get flexibility with strength.
 
  • #27
Heh heh.

So the military was flight testing their new design aircraft. And they had a huge failure. The left wing of their prototype broke off the plane. The pilot was exceptionally lucky to be able to eject and parachute to the ground. He was banged up a little, but nothing worse than a few bruises.

So they got another prototype from the manufacturer. And the test pilot took it up to put it through the paces. And again, the left wing broke off. This time the pilot got a broken arm and a concussion.

So they got a third prototype. But this time, they called in the top aircraft engineer from a competing aircraft company to give it a look. And The Great Man (TGM) carefully inspected the aircraft. And TGM made many "hums" and "hems" and "hmmphs" while the team of pilots and generals watched.

Then TGM turned to the assembled group and declared: Bring me a hammer and a chisel!

The pilots looked puzzled. But he was TGM. So they brought him a hammer and chisel. And TGM proceeded to punch a neat row of holes in the wing just where it joined the body of the plane.

When he was done TGM turned to the crowd and declared: It will fly as advertised!

There was a certain amount of excited discussion. But the result was that TGM insisted they test the plane.

So their lead pilot suited up. And cautiously at first, then with more confidence, he took the plane through its designated maneuvers. And it was perfect.

Back on the ground, the excited pilots gathered around TGM. "How did you know? How did you know?"

"Well" said TGM. "It's just like when you want to separate one stamp off a roll. The only place it won't tear is in the row of little holes."

The strongest thing by weight is the material in the holes in a roll of stamps.
 
  • Haha
Likes Tom.G and member 656954

1. What is the definition of low-density material?

Low-density materials are substances that have a low mass per unit volume. This means that they are lightweight and have a high strength-to-weight ratio.

2. Why is it important to find the strongest low-density material?

Finding the strongest low-density material is important because it can lead to the development of stronger and lighter materials for various applications, such as in the aerospace and automotive industries. This can result in improved fuel efficiency, reduced costs, and increased performance.

3. How do scientists determine the strength of a low-density material?

Scientists determine the strength of a low-density material by conducting various tests, such as tensile, compression, and flexural tests. These tests measure the material's ability to withstand forces and stresses without breaking or deforming.

4. What are some examples of strong low-density materials?

Some examples of strong low-density materials include carbon fiber composites, titanium alloys, and aerogels. These materials have high strength-to-weight ratios and are commonly used in industries that require lightweight and strong materials.

5. What are the potential applications of the strongest low-density material?

The strongest low-density material can have a wide range of applications, including in the aerospace industry for aircraft and spacecraft components, in the automotive industry for lightweight and fuel-efficient vehicles, in construction for strong and lightweight building materials, and in sports equipment for improved performance and durability.

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
12
Views
729
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
341
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
426
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
11
Views
646
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
0
Views
553
Replies
19
Views
1K
Back
Top