Calculating Distance for Equivalence of Gamma Ray and Solar Radiation Power

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the distance required for the power from a gamma ray burst to match the solar constant of 1300 watts/m², given the immense energy released if the Sun were to vaporize. Participants note that the energy would radiate uniformly in all directions, suggesting a spherical distribution. The challenge arises from the instantaneous nature of the energy release, leading to complications in determining a finite distance due to the concept of infinite power over zero time. One participant ultimately resolves the problem by calculating the energy as 5 x 10^46 J over a duration of 120 seconds. The conversation highlights the complexities of equating gamma ray bursts with solar radiation in terms of distance and power.
Stephen_D
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Given the energy if sun were to instantly vaporize (using E = mc^2) = 2.7 x 10^47 J
( E = (mass of sun) * c^2)

how far would one have to be from a gamma ray burst is order for the average power from it to be equivalent to the average power from the sun's radiation at the Earth (solar constant, 1300 watt/m^2)

I understand the problem, but I can't seem to find a formula that would solve for distance using units of the solar constant. The only thought I have is using the potential energy formula, but that is joules. Any hints on what formula to use? or solving it could also be helpful :-)

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is weird, I don't think the problem is solvable as written.

I guess the idea here is that the energy would be radiated evenly in all directions. So at a distance r from the sun, the energy is spread evenly over a spherical surface of radius=r.

However, if the vaporization takes place "instantly", that implies Δt is zero hence infinite power.
 
ahh yes sorry, I miss read the question but your technique is correct. I ended up getting the solution, the energy was 5 * 10^46 and it lasts for 120 seconds.

I didnt get around to editing the post, sorry about that.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top