Radius of a planet, given the density

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the radius of a newly discovered planet with a mass of 5.5 times that of Earth and a density equivalent to Neptune's, which is 1.76 g/cm³. The user initially calculated the planet's mass and attempted to find its radius using the density and volume formulas. However, they encountered an error in unit conversion from kilograms to grams, leading to an incorrect radius calculation. After receiving guidance on the conversion issue, the user successfully corrected their mistake and arrived at the correct answer. The thread highlights the importance of accurate unit conversions in physics problems.
s.dyseman
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hello! I'd like to thank everyone in advance for any help I receive!

Homework Statement




In January 2006, astronomers reported the discovery of a planet comparable in size to the Earth orbiting another star and having a mass of about 5.5 times the Earth's mass. It is believed to consist of a mixture of rock and ice, similar to Neptune. Take mEarth=5.97×10^24kg and rEarth=6.38×10^6m.

If this planet has the same density as Neptune (1.76 g/cm3), what is its radius expressed in kilometers?


Homework Equations



density=m/v

volume(of a sphere)=4/3(pi)r^3

The Attempt at a Solution



I calculated the mass of the new planet (n) as (5.5)5.97*10^24kg=3.28*10^25kg

I set the given density of 1.76 g/cm3 equal to the found mass of 3.28*10^22g divided by the formula for the volume of a sphere, shown below:

1.76 g/cm3 = 3.28*10^22g/[4/3(pi)r^3]

I simplify until I reach r^3=4.46*10^21 cm3, then take the cubic root.

The answer I reach is 16456067.27 cm or 164.56 km (165 to three significant figures). I'm not sure why this answer is incorrect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From 3.28*10^25kg to 3.28*10^22g is a bit strange. 1 kg = 1000 g, so I would expect 10^28 .
Everything else is just fine.
 
Hi s.dyseman :smile:

welcome to PF

You have just gone wrong at conversions.
 
Thanks everyone! I was able to correctly answer the problem after you pointed out my mistake.Thanks again
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top