Adding Spheres: How to find the new radius?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Goatsenator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radius Spheres
AI Thread Summary
When adding together eight identical spheres, the new radius can be calculated using volume, which is additive. The volume of the combined spheres equals (4/3)π(R)^3 for the new radius R, leading to the conclusion that R is twice the radius of an individual sphere. However, surface area is not additive; when calculating surface area, the new radius results in R*2*√(2) due to the loss of surface area where the spheres merge. This discrepancy arises because while volume increases proportionally with mass conservation, surface area does not grow at the same rate. Understanding this difference clarifies the calculations for combining spheres.
Goatsenator
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Okay this seems like a really simple question. Basically I'm adding together 8 spheres (like raindrops coalescing into one bigger drop) and I'm getting two different answers for the new radius.

Each individual drop is identical.

I start by expressing the new volume in terms of the individual drops' radii, and then the new radius. The individual drops' radii are R.


Volume = (4/3)∏(R)^3 * 8 = (4/3)pi(Rf)^3

I work it all out and find that the new radius is 2 times the radius of an individual drop. This is true according to a solution given.

But when I try this with surface area...

S.A. = 4∏(R)^2 * 8 = 4∏(Rf)^2

4∏ cancels,
then the new radius comes out as R*2*√(2)

What am I missing here? Is Surface area not additive, or am I making some calculation error?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Surface area is not additive. Imagine if you took two rectangular prisms and joined them together at a common side: each rectangular prism has lost a side to the interior of the combined object, so the surface area is NOT double the surface area of an individual block. The case with the spheres is similar. The volume should be additive, however. The reason is that, thinking physically, the mass of all the spheres is conserved, so unless the density were to change during the process of joining the droplets together, the volume increases by the same factor as the increase in mass.
 
Last edited:
Oh, okay that makes sense. How did I make it this far? lol Thanks for the help!
 
Two raindrops, each of radius r, have volume (4/3)\pi r^3 each. If they "coalesce", because mass is conserved, and the density of water is a constant, the volume will be (8/3)\pi r^3. Solve (4/3)\pi R^3= (8/3)\pi r^3 for the new radius, R.
 
Surface area doesn't grow proportionately to volume, hence Bergmann's rule.
 
Volume is additive. Add the volumes and derive the radius.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top