Can anyone show me the calculation to prove this?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hyde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation to compare the magnification of an atom to the solar system and the corresponding size of a superstring. The user presents their calculations, assuming a string length of 10^-35 meters, an atom length of 10^-10 meters, a tree length of 10^0 meters, and a solar system length of 10^13 meters. The magnification factors calculated are 10^23 times for the atom to the solar system and 10^35 times for the string to the tree, leading to a discrepancy. A participant suggests that the assumed size of the string may be incorrect, proposing a potential size of 10^-23 meters instead of the Planck length.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly atomic and string theory.
  • Familiarity with magnification calculations and scientific notation.
  • Knowledge of the Planck length and its significance in theoretical physics.
  • Ability to interpret approximations in popular science literature.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Planck length in string theory.
  • Learn about the differences between classical and quantum scales in physics.
  • Explore the concept of magnification in scientific contexts.
  • Investigate how popular science communicates complex scientific ideas.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators in science, and anyone interested in the relationship between quantum mechanics and macroscopic scales.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K