A very busy day today so I thought I’d just do a quick post to give you a chance to test your brains with some more order-of-magnitude physics problems. I like using these in classes because they get people thinking about the physics behind problems without getting too bogged down in or turned off by complicated mathematics. If there’s any information missing that you need to solve the problem, make an order-of-magnitude estimate!
Give order of magnitude answers to the following questions:
What is the tension in a violin string?
By how much would the temperature of the Earth increase if all its rotational energy were converted to heat?
What fraction of the Earth’s water is in its atmosphere?
How much brighter is sunlight than moonlight?
What is the mass of water in a soap bubble?
There’s no prize involved, but feel free to post answers through the comments box. It would be helpful if you explained a bit about how you arrived at your answer!
I’m currently stuck in the office while my third year students are tackling an exam I set. I have to wait by the telephone in case there’s a problem with the paper that I have to sort out.
As a quick diversion I thought I’d give my blog readers a little test of their own. Try this little poser:
It’s been a while since I posted any cute physics problems, so here’s a little one to amuse you this rainy Thursday morning.
In the following the notation A(a,b)B means the reaction a+A→b+B. The atomic number of Oxygen is 8 and that of Fluorine is 9.
The Q-value (i.e. energy release) of the reaction 19O(p,n)19F is 4.036 MeV, but the minimum energy of a neutron which, incident on a carbon tetrafluoride target, can induce the reaction 19F(n,p)19O is 4.248 MeV. Account for the difference between these two values.
I’ve spent all day either teaching or writing draft grant applications and am consequently a bit knackered, so in lieu of one of my usual rambling dissertations here is another example from the file marked Cute Physics Problems, this time from thermodynamics. It’s quite straightforward. Or is it? Most people I’ve asked this question in private have got it wrong, so let’s see if the blogosphere is smarter:
Three identical bodies of constant heat capacity are at temperatures of 300, 300 and 100 K. If no work is done on the system and no heat transferred to it from outside, what is the highest temperature to which any one of the bodies can be raised by the operation of heat engine(s)?
A very busy day today so I thought I’d wind down by giving you a chance to test your brains with some order-of-magnitude physics problems. I like using these in classes because they get people thinking about the physics behind problems without getting too bogged down in or turned off by complicated mathematics. I’ve also kept some of these in archaic units just to annoy people who can only do things in the SI system. I think it’s good to practice swapping between systems, especially for us astro-types who use all kinds of bizarre units, so if you don’t know the units, look them up! And if there’s any information missing that you need to solve the problem, make an order-of-magnitude estimate!
Give order of magnitude answers to the following questions:
What is the mass of a body whose weight is equivalent to the total force exerted by a 40 mph gale on the side of a house 40 ft long and 20 ft high? Express your answer in tons.
What is the power required to keep in the air a helicopter of mass 500 kg whose blades are 3m long? Express your answer in kilowatts.
The base of the Great Pyramid is 750 ft square and its height is 500ft. How much work was done building it? Express your answer in Joules.
How high would the jet of a fountain reach if it were aimed vertically up and supplied by a water main in which the pressure is 3 atmospheres? Express your answer in feet.
There’s no prize involved, but feel free to post answers through the comments box. It would be helpful if you explained a bit about how you arrived at your answer!
From time to time I like to post nice physics problems on here. Here is a quickie that I used to use in my first-year Astrophysical Concepts course which has now been discontinued, so I don’t need to keep it to myself it any longer.
A simple way to travel from one planet in the solar system to another is to inject a spacecraft into an elliptical transfer orbit, like the one shown by the dashed curve, which is described by Kepler’s Laws in the same way that the planetary orbits (solid curves) are.
Kepler’s Third Law states that the period of an elliptical orbit is given by where is the semi-major axis of the ellipse. Assuming that the orbits of Earth and Mars are both approximately circular and the radius of Mars’ orbit is 50% larger than Earth’s, and without looking up any further data, calculate the time taken to travel in this way from Earth to Mars.
You will have noticed that, in recent weeks, I’ve been posting divers physics problems on here. They seem to be quite popular so I thought I’d try another, which I found this morning in an old A-level physics textbook:
A diving bell of internal volume 6 m3 is lowered into a freshwater lake until the volume of the contained air is 4 m3. The height of a water barometer at the surface is 10 m. Assume that the temperature of the air in the bell does not change as the bell is lowered.
In physics we often have to resort to computer simulations in which continuously varying quantities are modelled on a discrete lattice. We also have recourse from time to time to model physical properties of a system as random quantities with some associated probability distribution. The following problem came up in a conversation recently, and I think it’s rather cute so thought I’d post it here.
Consider a regular three-dimensional Cartesian grid, at each vertex of which is defined a continuous variable which varies from site to site with the same probability distribution function at each location. The value of at any vertex can be assumed to be statistically independent of the others.
Now define a local maximum of the fluctuating field defined on the lattice to be a point at which the value of is higher than the value at all surrounding points, defined so that in dimensions there are neighbours.
What is the probability that an arbitrarily-chosen point is a local maximum?
Solution
Well, the most popular answer is in fact the correct one but I’m quite surprised that a majority got it wrong! Like many probability-based questions there are quick ways of solving this, but I’m going to give the laborious way because I think it’s quite instructive (and because I’m a bit slow).
Pick a point arbitrarily. The probability that the associated value lies between and is , where is the probability density function. According to the question there are neighbours of this point. The probability that all of these are less than is 26 times, i.e. becauses they are independent. Note that this is a continuous variable so the probability of any two values being equal is zero. The probability of the chosen point being a local maximum with a given value of is therefore . The probability of it being a local maximum with any value of is obtained by integrating this expression over all allowed values of , i.e. . But the integrand can be re-written
because at the upper limit of integration and at the bottom.
So you don’t need to know the form of – but the calculation does rely on it being a continuous distribution.
This long-winded method demonstrates the applicability of the product rule and the process of marginalising over variables, but the answer should tell you a much quicker way of getting there. The central point and the 26 neighbours constitute a set of 27 points. The probability that any particular one is the largest of the set is just 1/27, as each is equally likely to be the largest. This goes for the central value too, hence the answer.
Going by the popularity of the little physics problem I posted last week, I thought some of you might be interested in this little conundrum which dates back to the 17th Century (to Galileo Galilei, in fact). It’s not a problem to which there’s a snappy answer, so no poll this time, but I think it’s quite a good one to think about – and please try to resist the temptation to google it!
The above figure shows a large circular wheel, which rolls from left to right, without slipping, on a flat surface, along a straight line from P to Q, making exactly one revolution as it does so. The distance PQ is thus equal to the circumference of the wheel.
Now, consider the small circle, firmly fixed to the larger circle with the two centres coincident. The small circle also makes one complete revolution as the wheel rolls, and it travels from R to S. Similarly, therefore, the distance RS must be the circumference of the small circle.
Since RS is clearly equal to PQ it follows that the circumferences of the large wheel and the small circle must be equal!
Since the radii of the large and small circles are different, this conclusion is clearly false so what’s wrong with the argument?
The views presented here are personal and not necessarily those of my employer (or anyone else for that matter).
Feel free to comment on any of the posts on this blog but comments may be moderated; anonymous comments and any considered by me to be vexatious and/or abusive and/or defamatory will not be accepted. I do not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with the opinions or statements of any information or other content in the comments on this site and do not in any way guarantee their accuracy or reliability.