Wanna ask bout dimensional analysis

AI Thread Summary
Dimensional analysis cannot provide the numerical values of constants of proportionality in algebraic systems; it can only indicate the necessary units and general forms. For example, while the area of any plane figure can be expressed as A = L^2, the specific shape requires a dimensionless constant, leading to different area formulas for various shapes. The discussion also touches on estimating the size of Earth's matter if all space were removed, suggesting that one could calculate this by using Earth's mass and average density compared to the density of nuclear matter. A method is provided to find the volume of compressed Earth and its radius based on these principles. Overall, dimensional analysis is a useful tool for understanding relationships in physics but has limitations in determining specific numerical constants.
pcfighter
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
any body know...
question:
true or false??
dimensional analysis can give you the numerical value of constants of propotionality that may appear in a algebra system...

and can u give the reason too...??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
False. Dimensional analysis can tell you what units you need and lead you to the general form but cannot tell you what the numerical value of constants must be.
 
An example of this would be finding the area of a plane figure by dimensional analysis. Area has units of square meters (m^2) [or square inches, or whatever length units you prefer]. So the simplest possible expression for the area is A = L^2 .

But what shape is this? As far as dimensional analysis is concerned, it doesn't matter: any plane figure will have an area given by the product of two lengths. A specific shape will have an area which includes a "dimensionless" constant related to the shape. (Also, the shape may have an area involving a product of two distinct lengths.)

So you can have

square: A = 1 \cdot x^2

rectangle: A = 1 \cdot xy

triangle: A = \frac{1}{2}bh

circle: A = \pi R^2

ellipse: A = \pi ab

It will be much the same in dealing with any physical quantity by dimensional analysis.
 
how big would the entire matter of the Earth be if all space was removed so just matter remained??

there are approximately, 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms that comprise earth, but i don't know enough of atomical dimensions(how much of a proton/neutron etc are comprised of space??), to work this out.
 
azzkika said:
how big would the entire matter of the Earth be if all space was removed so just matter remained??

there are approximately, 133,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms that comprise earth, but i don't know enough of atomical dimensions(how much of a proton/neutron etc are comprised of space??), to work this out.


First off, a tip: new questions, especially if they're unrelated to the original question starting the thread, should be asked by starting a new thread.

Here's a quick way to find an estimate. You can take the mass of the Earth and divide it by the volume of the Earth (volume of a sphere with Earth's radius) to get an average density for the Earth. The typical density of nuclear matter (just protons and neutrons with "no space between" -- and the electrons hardly count...) is around 10^14 gm/(cm^3). So the volume of the "compressed Earth" would be given by

Compressed volume / Volume of Earth = average density of Earth / density of nuclear matter .

That would give you the volume of the ball of protons and neutrons. If you want to find its radius, solve the equation for the volume of this sphere for the new radius.

I haven't checked your number of atoms, but the approximate diameter of a nucleon (proton or neutron) is about 10^-15 m.
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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