Can anyone show me the calculation to prove this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hyde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
hyde
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Please show me the calculation to prove this statement:

"...if an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a (super) string would be the size of a tree" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/scale.html

I can't prove this, and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Here's my work:

assume:
length of string = 10^-35 m
length of atom = 10^-10 m
length of tree = 10^0 m
length of solar system = 10^13 m

magnification from atom to solar system: 10^23 times

magnification from string to tree: 10^35 times

They don't match! Am I doing something wrong or is it the statement that's wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Size of a String

You might consider that PBS as good as it is tends to do what we term Popular Science shows. Popular Science at times makes generalized statements that may or may not be fully accurate when it comes to trying to work things out by math. I would suggest that the comment was strickly giving an approximation, as often shows up in popular science books also. The math, worked out would then give you a far more accurate scale or size discription.
 
Planck length & string length

Originally posted by hyde
Please show me the calculation to prove this statement:

"...if an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a (super) string would be the size of a tree" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/scale.html

I can't prove this, and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Here's my work:

assume:
length of string = 10^-35 m
length of atom = 10^-10 m
length of tree = 10^0 m
length of solar system = 10^13 m

magnification from atom to solar system: 10^23 times

magnification from string to tree: 10^35 times


They don't match! Am I doing something wrong or is it the statement that's wrong?

You have assumed the size of a string is the Planck length ~ 10^-35 m. But that is not necessarly the case, indeed string physics does not treat the Planck length particularly but assumes continuity, and indeed analyticity in the string environment.


So maybe 10^-23 m for the string is correct.
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.09804 From the abstract: ... Our derivation uses both EE and the Newtonian approximation of EE in Part I, to describe semi-classically in Part II the advection of DM, created at the level of the universe, into galaxies and clusters thereof. This advection happens proportional with their own classically generated gravitational field g, due to self-interaction of the gravitational field. It is based on the universal formula ρD =λgg′2 for the densityρ D of DM...
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
Many of us have heard of "twistors", arguably Roger Penrose's biggest contribution to theoretical physics. Twistor space is a space which maps nonlocally onto physical space-time; in particular, lightlike structures in space-time, like null lines and light cones, become much more "local" in twistor space. For various reasons, Penrose thought that twistor space was possibly a more fundamental arena for theoretical physics than space-time, and for many years he and a hardy band of mostly...
Back
Top