Average distance between asteroids in the asteroid belt

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the average distance between asteroids in the asteroid belt, particularly addressing the challenges of converting area calculations into distance. Participants suggest neglecting the size of individual asteroids due to their large separation and recommend treating the asteroid distribution as a three-dimensional volume rather than a flat area. It is advised to calculate the volume of the "doughnut" shaped region and then determine the average volume per asteroid to find the average separation. The approximation of the number of asteroids allows for a simplified solution, emphasizing that a rough estimate is sufficient for this problem. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for a more accurate approach to understanding asteroid distribution in space.
ananonanunes
Messages
19
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
Summary: The highest concentration of asteroids is in a doughnut shaped region between the Kirkwood gaps at radii of 2.06AU and 3.27AU from the Sun. There are an estimated 10^9 asteroids of radius 100m or larger. What's the average distance between asteroids?
Relevant Equations
-
What I did was find the total area of the space between the Kirkwood gaps and the area occupied by the asteroids (assuming they all had a 100m radius). I subtracted the two to get the area that is empty in that region. To find the average empty area between asteroids I divided this by the estimated number of asteroids. I don't know how to convert this area into a distance. I tried assuming the area was a square and just finding the lenght of the side or the diagonal of the square, which definetely feels like a big assumption to make, but this results in a much too low number. (The solution is approximately 400 000km)
20230309_172817.jpg


I'm at a loss as to what to do so any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ananonanunes said:
What I did was find the total area of the space between the Kirkwood gaps
You seem to be assuming that the asteroids are arranged in a flat ring-shaped zone exactly on the plane of the ecliptic. You have calculated the area of this zone.

But the problem describes a volume rather than an area: "The highest concentration of asteroids is in a doughnut shaped region"

I would suggest that you neglect the size of the individual asteroids. The separation between the asteroids is large enough that the distinction between a surface-to-surface measure and a center-to-center measure is irrelevant.

Fine-tuning the calculation to account for the average separation with a random or non-uniform tesselation (or even properly defining the "average separation") would be a rather advanced exercise. Assuming that the asteroids fall into a grid or matrix seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed.

Consider Googling "crystal structure" for possible three dimensional regular arrangements. But plain old "cubic" is likely what the problem setter has in mind.
 
  • Like
Likes ananonanunes
jbriggs444 said:
You seem to be assuming that the asteroids are arranged in a flat ring-shaped zone exactly on the plane of the ecliptic. You have calculated the area of this zone.

But the problem describes a volume rather than an area: "The highest concentration of asteroids is in a doughnut shaped region"

I would suggest that you neglect the size of the individual asteroids. The separation between the asteroids is large enough that the distinction between a surface-to-surface measure and a center-to-center measure is irrelevant.

Fine-tuning the calculation to account for the average separation with a random or non-uniform tesselation (or even properly defining the "average separation") would be a rather advanced exercise. Assuming that the asteroids fall into a grid or matrix seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed.

Consider Googling "crystal structure" for possible three dimensional regular arrangements. But plain old "cubic" is likely what the problem setter has in mind.
Thank you so much for your help!
 
In addition to what @jbriggs444 has said, can I add this…

The number of asteroids is only given to the nearest order of magnitude. This implies only an approximate solution is needed. (That's why the official answer is given to only 1 sig. fig.)

ananonanunes said:
I don't know how to convert this area into a distance. I tried assuming the area was a square and just finding the lenght of the side or the diagonal of the square
As already noted by @jbriggs444, you shouldn't be working with areas. But if you were, for this sort of very approximate calculation the side-length of the square would be acceptable - there would be no need to find the length of the diagonal.

Find the volume of the ‘doughnut’ (e.g. imagine it is cut and straightened out to a simple cylinder).

Then find the average volume occupied per asteroid. You should then be able to find the average separation.
 
  • Like
Likes ananonanunes and jbriggs444
Steve4Physics said:
In addition to what @jbriggs444 has said, can I add this…

The number of asteroids is only given to the nearest order of magnitude. This implies only an approximate solution is needed. (That's why the official answer is given to only 1 sig. fig.)As already noted by @jbriggs444, you shouldn't be working with areas. But if you were, for this sort of very approximate calculation the side-length of the square would be acceptable - there would be no need to find the length of the diagonal.

Find the volume of the ‘doughnut’ (e.g. imagine it is cut and straightened out to a simple cylinder).

Then find the average volume occupied per asteroid. You should then be able to find the average separation.
Thanks for the help!
 
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top