Mass estimate only through mass rate of change

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FranzS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the mass of objects based solely on how their mass changes with varying dimensions, particularly when the objects have non-homogeneous density. Participants explore the implications of this approach, including the challenges posed by unknown constants and the nature of the mass change over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in estimating mass due to the non-homogeneous density of objects and suggests that this might lead to an indefinite integral problem with an unknown constant.
  • Another participant interprets the problem as a differential equation related to the rate of mass change, noting that without knowing the mass at a specific time, the solution will be a family of functions differing by a constant.
  • A participant proposes that more accurate mass estimates for larger dimensions could be used to correct less accurate estimates for smaller dimensions, questioning whether this intuition is flawed.
  • One participant argues against the intuition, stating that regardless of the initial conditions (pure steel vs. steel with air bubbles), the addition of known amounts of steel would not allow for the determination of the initial mass.
  • Another participant agrees with the critique of the intuition, emphasizing that without knowing the initial mass, using estimates from larger dimensions would lead to incorrect conclusions about the initial mass.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of using larger dimension estimates to correct smaller dimension estimates. There is no consensus on whether the initial intuition about mass estimation is correct or flawed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of their approaches, including the dependence on knowing specific initial conditions and the challenges posed by non-homogeneous density in mass estimation.

FranzS
Messages
86
Reaction score
26
TL;DR
How to estimate the mass of partially non-homogeneous bodies.
Hello,

do you ever get the feeling that you cannot grasp an apparently easy concept? Like setting up the problem, writing down some equations and not knowing how to go on?
Well, I'm in that situation right now.

So, I would like to estimate the mass of certain objects by knowing only and precisely how the mass changes when the object dimensions change. The problem is the objects do not have a homogeneous density.
This smells like solving an indefinite integral and getting stuck with an unknown ##+C##, so to speak.
Therefore, a part of my intuition tells me I have no chance of finding a solution (not even an approximate one).

However, I'll explain what another part of my intuition tells me with the following simplified example.
Let's suppose I have a cylinder (meant as the basic geometrical shape) with base radius ##R## and height ##x_0##. The cylinder is made of steel but has some holes ("air bubbles") inside, hence I cannot calculate its exact mass ##m_0## using its outside volume (and the steel density ##\rho_s##). I can only give a rough estimate of it, and I'll call it ##\tilde{m}_0##.
Then, I can somehow extend this cylinder to a height ##x>x_0##, thus making it longer/taller by an amount ##\Delta x = x - x_0##, and I'll do that by adding pure steel to the original cylinder.
Therefore, I'm adding an exact mass ## \Delta m (x) = \rho_s \cdot \left( \pi R^2 \Delta x \right) ## and my estimate for the overall mass of the extended cylinder will be ##\tilde{m} (x) \approx \tilde{m}_0 + \Delta m (x) ##, whereas the actual mass is ##m(x) = m_0 + \Delta m (x)##.
Now, as I extend the cylinder more and more, always by adding pure steel, the overall mass will be approximately equal to the added mass only. In other words:
$$
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{\tilde{m}(x)}{m(x)} = 1
$$
On the ##x, y## plane (with ##y## being the mass), ##\tilde{m}(x)## and ##m(x)## would be two parallel lines that always differ by the quantity ## \lvert \tilde{m}_0 - m_0 \rvert ## and it's only the relative/percentage error between ##\tilde{m}(x)## and ##m(x)## that decreases as ##x## increases.

However, as said above, part of my intuition tells me that I should be able to use the more accurate values of ##\tilde{m}(x \gg x_0)##, which are acceptable estimates, in order to correct the less accurate values ##\tilde{m}(x \sim x_0)##, in a sort of feedback / retrofit style.
Is my intuition wrong?

Thanks to everyone who'll be willing to chime in.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FranzS said:
So, I would like to estimate the mass of certain objects by knowing only and precisely how the mass changes when the object dimensions change. The problem is the objects do not have a homogeneous density.
This smells like solving an indefinite integral and getting stuck with an unknown +C, so to speak.
Therefore, a part of my intuition tells me I have no chance of finding a solution (not even an approximate one).
In essence, the problem you're trying to solve is a differential equation of the form ##\frac {dm}{dt} = \text{some function of t}##. (I'm assuming that the rate of change of mass is with respect to time t.) The solution will be a family of functions that differ from each other by a constant. To nail down the precise function you need to know the mass at some specific time.
 
FranzS said:
... However, as said above, part of my intuition tells me that I should be able to use the more accurate values of ##\tilde{m}(x \gg x_0)##, which are acceptable estimates, in order to correct the less accurate values ##\tilde{m}(x \sim x_0)##, in a sort of feedback / retrofit style.
Is my intuition wrong?
I believe it is wrong. Consider two example cases for the initial cylinder of length ##x_0##:
1) the cylinder is made pure steel;
2) the cylinder is made of steel with air bubbles.

In both cases, adding known amounts of extra pure steel will increase the total length in exactly the same way.

So, knowing only the added mass of steel and the new length, there is no way to distinguish between 1) and 2). You can never find ##m_0## this way.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FranzS
Mark44 said:
In essence, the problem you're trying to solve is a differential equation of the form ##\frac {dm}{dt} = \text{some function of t}##. (I'm assuming that the rate of change of mass is with respect to time t.) The solution will be a family of functions that differ from each other by a constant. To nail down the precise function you need to know the mass at some specific time.
Thanks for offering this point of view. In this case, not knowing ##m(t_0) = m_0##, it makes no sense to use ##m(t \gg t_0) \approx \Delta m(t \gg t_0)## as an estimate for the value at a certain point, because I would conclude that ##m_0 =0## and that's useless.
 
Steve4Physics said:
I believe it is wrong. Consider two example cases for the initial cylinder of length ##x_0##:
1) the cylinder is made pure steel;
2) the cylinder is made of steel with air bubbles.

In both cases, adding known amounts of extra pure steel will increase the total length in exactly the same way.

So, knowing only the added mass of steel and the new length, there is no way to distinguish between 1) and 2). You can never find ##m_0## this way.
Thanks for your reply. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that my intuition was completely wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Steve4Physics

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K