If an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Feynman Lectures on Physics - Vol I:
The atoms are 1 or $2 times 10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ in radius. Now $10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ is called an angstrom (just as another name), so we say they are 1 or 2 angstroms (AÃÂ) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.
How does this hold true?
Let us assume the radius of an average apple is about $6 rm cm$ ($0.06 rm m$). The radius of earth is about $6371 rm km$ ($6371000 rm m$). Therefore, a $frac6371000 mathrmm0.06 mathrmm = 106183333.33$ magnification, i.e., a magnification of about $10^-8$ times is required to magnify an apple to the size of the earth.
If we magnify an atom of size say 1 angstrom ($10^-10 rm m$) by $106183333.33$ times, we get $0.0106 rm m$ or $1.06 rm cm$ only. The atom has not been magnified to the size of the original apple. How does the quoted statement in the book hold good?
atomic-physics atoms estimation textbook-erratum order-of-magnitude
New contributor
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Feynman Lectures on Physics - Vol I:
The atoms are 1 or $2 times 10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ in radius. Now $10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ is called an angstrom (just as another name), so we say they are 1 or 2 angstroms (AÃÂ) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.
How does this hold true?
Let us assume the radius of an average apple is about $6 rm cm$ ($0.06 rm m$). The radius of earth is about $6371 rm km$ ($6371000 rm m$). Therefore, a $frac6371000 mathrmm0.06 mathrmm = 106183333.33$ magnification, i.e., a magnification of about $10^-8$ times is required to magnify an apple to the size of the earth.
If we magnify an atom of size say 1 angstrom ($10^-10 rm m$) by $106183333.33$ times, we get $0.0106 rm m$ or $1.06 rm cm$ only. The atom has not been magnified to the size of the original apple. How does the quoted statement in the book hold good?
atomic-physics atoms estimation textbook-erratum order-of-magnitude
New contributor
20
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
33
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
4
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
2
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
4
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Quoting from the Feynman Lectures on Physics - Vol I:
The atoms are 1 or $2 times 10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ in radius. Now $10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ is called an angstrom (just as another name), so we say they are 1 or 2 angstroms (AÃÂ) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.
How does this hold true?
Let us assume the radius of an average apple is about $6 rm cm$ ($0.06 rm m$). The radius of earth is about $6371 rm km$ ($6371000 rm m$). Therefore, a $frac6371000 mathrmm0.06 mathrmm = 106183333.33$ magnification, i.e., a magnification of about $10^-8$ times is required to magnify an apple to the size of the earth.
If we magnify an atom of size say 1 angstrom ($10^-10 rm m$) by $106183333.33$ times, we get $0.0106 rm m$ or $1.06 rm cm$ only. The atom has not been magnified to the size of the original apple. How does the quoted statement in the book hold good?
atomic-physics atoms estimation textbook-erratum order-of-magnitude
New contributor
Quoting from the Feynman Lectures on Physics - Vol I:
The atoms are 1 or $2 times 10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ in radius. Now $10^âÂÂ8 rm cm$ is called an angstrom (just as another name), so we say they are 1 or 2 angstroms (AÃÂ) in radius. Another way to remember their size is this: if an apple is magnified to the size of the earth, then the atoms in the apple are approximately the size of the original apple.
How does this hold true?
Let us assume the radius of an average apple is about $6 rm cm$ ($0.06 rm m$). The radius of earth is about $6371 rm km$ ($6371000 rm m$). Therefore, a $frac6371000 mathrmm0.06 mathrmm = 106183333.33$ magnification, i.e., a magnification of about $10^-8$ times is required to magnify an apple to the size of the earth.
If we magnify an atom of size say 1 angstrom ($10^-10 rm m$) by $106183333.33$ times, we get $0.0106 rm m$ or $1.06 rm cm$ only. The atom has not been magnified to the size of the original apple. How does the quoted statement in the book hold good?
atomic-physics atoms estimation textbook-erratum order-of-magnitude
atomic-physics atoms estimation textbook-erratum order-of-magnitude
New contributor
New contributor
edited Oct 1 at 13:09
Chair
3,06651833
3,06651833
New contributor
asked Oct 1 at 13:03
Lone Learner
258135
258135
New contributor
New contributor
20
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
33
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
4
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
2
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
4
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01
 |Â
show 8 more comments
20
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
33
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
4
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
2
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
4
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01
20
20
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
33
33
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
4
4
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
2
2
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
4
4
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01
 |Â
show 8 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
80
down vote
accepted
In "back of the envelope" calculations like this, all you can really do is look at orders of magnitude. As others have pointed out, not all apples have the same size, and not all atoms have the same "size". All we can then work with is orders of magnitude, so $1 rm cm$ and $6 rm cm$ (although many people in the comments are saying $3 rm cm$) should be considered to be the "same", since we could be dealing with apples and atoms of various sizes.
Indeed, if an apple's radius is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, and if the Earth's radius is on the order of $10^6 rm m$, then our "conversion factor" (or as you say magnification factor) is on the order of $10^8$.
If our atom radius is on the order of one Angstrom, or $10^-10 rm m$, then applying our conversion factor when we blow up our apple, we get that the atom is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, which is what we were trying to show in the first place.
You have to keep in mind that this is quoted as "a way to remember their size". Therefore, if we did not know the size of an atom, we could take the size of an apple, the size of the earth, and then use the derived $10^8$ factor to find that the estimated size of an atom is on the order of $10^-10 rm m$.$^*$
Feynman is not saying "Take any apple and blow it up to the size of the earth. You will find that the larger atoms are exactly the same size as the original apple". This is purely a memory tool, or it is also a way to describe the size of an atom using more familiar objects. Also the book even uses the word "approximately", so if you take all of this into account I would say the book is correct.
$^*$Although I have to admit, I tend to remember the size of an atom, and I can't seem to keep in my head the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius. So I might use this memory tool the other way around to remember that the size of the earth is about 8 orders of magnitude larger than an apple.
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
Your question starts out with questioning whether the numbers match up very well, and then you proceed to throw away all the accuracy in your numbers to demonstrate that they don't.
While throwing away accuracy in-favor of considering just the orders of magnitude is useful for approximating (and is what the other answers are explaining is okay), it turns out if you just run the numbers through as-written, you actually get a pretty accurate correspondence.
Taking atomic radius as $1.5 times 10^-10~textm$ (average of range given above) and the radius of Earth as $6371000~textm$ (given above), the correspondence is exact when the radius of the object is $approx 30.91~textmm$ (or diameter $61.83~textmm$). The size of an apple varies by climate, variety, and harvest time, but this figure is consistent with an ordinary "175-grade" apple, albeit most apples sold in the United States are slightly larger.
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
When dealing with such orders of magnitude, a factor of 6 does not greatly affect the overall picture. Furthermore, note that apples have radii that are often smaller than $6$ cm (see for instance here). If we take an apple with a radius of $3$ cm and an atom with a radius of $2$ angstrom, the "Feynman comparison" (as per your numbers) comes out to be fairly good.
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let's test that by figuring out the size of an atom by that comparison.
Wikipedia says:
Commercial growers aim to produce an apple that is 2 3âÂÂ4 to 3 1âÂÂ4 in (7.0 to 8.3 cm) in diameter, due to market preference.
So we use an average radius of $3.825~textcm$ or $0.03825~textm$ and the radius of the earth of $6371000~textm$ for the calculation.
Then the radius of an atom is calculated as:
$$
r_atom = fracr_apple^2r_earth = frac0.03825^2~textm^26371000~textm
$$
As a result we get $2.296 times 10^-10~textm$ which is fairly close.
New contributor
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
80
down vote
accepted
In "back of the envelope" calculations like this, all you can really do is look at orders of magnitude. As others have pointed out, not all apples have the same size, and not all atoms have the same "size". All we can then work with is orders of magnitude, so $1 rm cm$ and $6 rm cm$ (although many people in the comments are saying $3 rm cm$) should be considered to be the "same", since we could be dealing with apples and atoms of various sizes.
Indeed, if an apple's radius is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, and if the Earth's radius is on the order of $10^6 rm m$, then our "conversion factor" (or as you say magnification factor) is on the order of $10^8$.
If our atom radius is on the order of one Angstrom, or $10^-10 rm m$, then applying our conversion factor when we blow up our apple, we get that the atom is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, which is what we were trying to show in the first place.
You have to keep in mind that this is quoted as "a way to remember their size". Therefore, if we did not know the size of an atom, we could take the size of an apple, the size of the earth, and then use the derived $10^8$ factor to find that the estimated size of an atom is on the order of $10^-10 rm m$.$^*$
Feynman is not saying "Take any apple and blow it up to the size of the earth. You will find that the larger atoms are exactly the same size as the original apple". This is purely a memory tool, or it is also a way to describe the size of an atom using more familiar objects. Also the book even uses the word "approximately", so if you take all of this into account I would say the book is correct.
$^*$Although I have to admit, I tend to remember the size of an atom, and I can't seem to keep in my head the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius. So I might use this memory tool the other way around to remember that the size of the earth is about 8 orders of magnitude larger than an apple.
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
80
down vote
accepted
In "back of the envelope" calculations like this, all you can really do is look at orders of magnitude. As others have pointed out, not all apples have the same size, and not all atoms have the same "size". All we can then work with is orders of magnitude, so $1 rm cm$ and $6 rm cm$ (although many people in the comments are saying $3 rm cm$) should be considered to be the "same", since we could be dealing with apples and atoms of various sizes.
Indeed, if an apple's radius is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, and if the Earth's radius is on the order of $10^6 rm m$, then our "conversion factor" (or as you say magnification factor) is on the order of $10^8$.
If our atom radius is on the order of one Angstrom, or $10^-10 rm m$, then applying our conversion factor when we blow up our apple, we get that the atom is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, which is what we were trying to show in the first place.
You have to keep in mind that this is quoted as "a way to remember their size". Therefore, if we did not know the size of an atom, we could take the size of an apple, the size of the earth, and then use the derived $10^8$ factor to find that the estimated size of an atom is on the order of $10^-10 rm m$.$^*$
Feynman is not saying "Take any apple and blow it up to the size of the earth. You will find that the larger atoms are exactly the same size as the original apple". This is purely a memory tool, or it is also a way to describe the size of an atom using more familiar objects. Also the book even uses the word "approximately", so if you take all of this into account I would say the book is correct.
$^*$Although I have to admit, I tend to remember the size of an atom, and I can't seem to keep in my head the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius. So I might use this memory tool the other way around to remember that the size of the earth is about 8 orders of magnitude larger than an apple.
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
80
down vote
accepted
up vote
80
down vote
accepted
In "back of the envelope" calculations like this, all you can really do is look at orders of magnitude. As others have pointed out, not all apples have the same size, and not all atoms have the same "size". All we can then work with is orders of magnitude, so $1 rm cm$ and $6 rm cm$ (although many people in the comments are saying $3 rm cm$) should be considered to be the "same", since we could be dealing with apples and atoms of various sizes.
Indeed, if an apple's radius is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, and if the Earth's radius is on the order of $10^6 rm m$, then our "conversion factor" (or as you say magnification factor) is on the order of $10^8$.
If our atom radius is on the order of one Angstrom, or $10^-10 rm m$, then applying our conversion factor when we blow up our apple, we get that the atom is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, which is what we were trying to show in the first place.
You have to keep in mind that this is quoted as "a way to remember their size". Therefore, if we did not know the size of an atom, we could take the size of an apple, the size of the earth, and then use the derived $10^8$ factor to find that the estimated size of an atom is on the order of $10^-10 rm m$.$^*$
Feynman is not saying "Take any apple and blow it up to the size of the earth. You will find that the larger atoms are exactly the same size as the original apple". This is purely a memory tool, or it is also a way to describe the size of an atom using more familiar objects. Also the book even uses the word "approximately", so if you take all of this into account I would say the book is correct.
$^*$Although I have to admit, I tend to remember the size of an atom, and I can't seem to keep in my head the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius. So I might use this memory tool the other way around to remember that the size of the earth is about 8 orders of magnitude larger than an apple.
In "back of the envelope" calculations like this, all you can really do is look at orders of magnitude. As others have pointed out, not all apples have the same size, and not all atoms have the same "size". All we can then work with is orders of magnitude, so $1 rm cm$ and $6 rm cm$ (although many people in the comments are saying $3 rm cm$) should be considered to be the "same", since we could be dealing with apples and atoms of various sizes.
Indeed, if an apple's radius is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, and if the Earth's radius is on the order of $10^6 rm m$, then our "conversion factor" (or as you say magnification factor) is on the order of $10^8$.
If our atom radius is on the order of one Angstrom, or $10^-10 rm m$, then applying our conversion factor when we blow up our apple, we get that the atom is on the order of $10^-2 rm m$, which is what we were trying to show in the first place.
You have to keep in mind that this is quoted as "a way to remember their size". Therefore, if we did not know the size of an atom, we could take the size of an apple, the size of the earth, and then use the derived $10^8$ factor to find that the estimated size of an atom is on the order of $10^-10 rm m$.$^*$
Feynman is not saying "Take any apple and blow it up to the size of the earth. You will find that the larger atoms are exactly the same size as the original apple". This is purely a memory tool, or it is also a way to describe the size of an atom using more familiar objects. Also the book even uses the word "approximately", so if you take all of this into account I would say the book is correct.
$^*$Although I have to admit, I tend to remember the size of an atom, and I can't seem to keep in my head the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius. So I might use this memory tool the other way around to remember that the size of the earth is about 8 orders of magnitude larger than an apple.
edited yesterday
answered Oct 1 at 13:53
Aaron Stevens
4,0401624
4,0401624
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
28
28
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
Speaking of mass comparisons, "a man is the geometric mean of an atom and the Sun".
â Joker_vD
Oct 1 at 15:21
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
And the book also mentions that atoms are 1-2 Angstrom, so he's already allowing for a factor of 2 error. OTOH, couldn't he have easily picked a smaller fruit like a plum or cherry? Just as familiar as an apple, but the ratio would be closer.
â Barmar
Oct 1 at 15:28
1
1
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
@Joker_vD Now we need to relate the energy gained from a man eating an apple to some sort of cosmic number... Something like "A man eating an apple is like a black hole eating ____" Although I wouldn't like to think about large scale GR while eating fruit :)
â Aaron Stevens
Oct 1 at 15:29
2
2
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
It's the internet, we need a way to relate another popular "masculine average" metric. Let's see, does the geometric mean between an AU and the Planck distance get us in the ballpark?
â Beanluc
Oct 1 at 20:55
1
1
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
@PhilipOakley how was original meter defined? ;)
â mathreadler
2 days ago
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
Your question starts out with questioning whether the numbers match up very well, and then you proceed to throw away all the accuracy in your numbers to demonstrate that they don't.
While throwing away accuracy in-favor of considering just the orders of magnitude is useful for approximating (and is what the other answers are explaining is okay), it turns out if you just run the numbers through as-written, you actually get a pretty accurate correspondence.
Taking atomic radius as $1.5 times 10^-10~textm$ (average of range given above) and the radius of Earth as $6371000~textm$ (given above), the correspondence is exact when the radius of the object is $approx 30.91~textmm$ (or diameter $61.83~textmm$). The size of an apple varies by climate, variety, and harvest time, but this figure is consistent with an ordinary "175-grade" apple, albeit most apples sold in the United States are slightly larger.
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
24
down vote
Your question starts out with questioning whether the numbers match up very well, and then you proceed to throw away all the accuracy in your numbers to demonstrate that they don't.
While throwing away accuracy in-favor of considering just the orders of magnitude is useful for approximating (and is what the other answers are explaining is okay), it turns out if you just run the numbers through as-written, you actually get a pretty accurate correspondence.
Taking atomic radius as $1.5 times 10^-10~textm$ (average of range given above) and the radius of Earth as $6371000~textm$ (given above), the correspondence is exact when the radius of the object is $approx 30.91~textmm$ (or diameter $61.83~textmm$). The size of an apple varies by climate, variety, and harvest time, but this figure is consistent with an ordinary "175-grade" apple, albeit most apples sold in the United States are slightly larger.
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
24
down vote
up vote
24
down vote
Your question starts out with questioning whether the numbers match up very well, and then you proceed to throw away all the accuracy in your numbers to demonstrate that they don't.
While throwing away accuracy in-favor of considering just the orders of magnitude is useful for approximating (and is what the other answers are explaining is okay), it turns out if you just run the numbers through as-written, you actually get a pretty accurate correspondence.
Taking atomic radius as $1.5 times 10^-10~textm$ (average of range given above) and the radius of Earth as $6371000~textm$ (given above), the correspondence is exact when the radius of the object is $approx 30.91~textmm$ (or diameter $61.83~textmm$). The size of an apple varies by climate, variety, and harvest time, but this figure is consistent with an ordinary "175-grade" apple, albeit most apples sold in the United States are slightly larger.
Your question starts out with questioning whether the numbers match up very well, and then you proceed to throw away all the accuracy in your numbers to demonstrate that they don't.
While throwing away accuracy in-favor of considering just the orders of magnitude is useful for approximating (and is what the other answers are explaining is okay), it turns out if you just run the numbers through as-written, you actually get a pretty accurate correspondence.
Taking atomic radius as $1.5 times 10^-10~textm$ (average of range given above) and the radius of Earth as $6371000~textm$ (given above), the correspondence is exact when the radius of the object is $approx 30.91~textmm$ (or diameter $61.83~textmm$). The size of an apple varies by climate, variety, and harvest time, but this figure is consistent with an ordinary "175-grade" apple, albeit most apples sold in the United States are slightly larger.
answered Oct 1 at 18:18
imallett
563413
563413
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
add a comment |Â
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
Thank you. It makes sense now. If $ x $ is the radius of the apple, then $ frac6371000x = fracx1.5 times 10^-10 $ indeed leads to $ x = 0.03091 $ or $ 30.91 $ mm.
â Lone Learner
Oct 2 at 2:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
When dealing with such orders of magnitude, a factor of 6 does not greatly affect the overall picture. Furthermore, note that apples have radii that are often smaller than $6$ cm (see for instance here). If we take an apple with a radius of $3$ cm and an atom with a radius of $2$ angstrom, the "Feynman comparison" (as per your numbers) comes out to be fairly good.
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
When dealing with such orders of magnitude, a factor of 6 does not greatly affect the overall picture. Furthermore, note that apples have radii that are often smaller than $6$ cm (see for instance here). If we take an apple with a radius of $3$ cm and an atom with a radius of $2$ angstrom, the "Feynman comparison" (as per your numbers) comes out to be fairly good.
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
When dealing with such orders of magnitude, a factor of 6 does not greatly affect the overall picture. Furthermore, note that apples have radii that are often smaller than $6$ cm (see for instance here). If we take an apple with a radius of $3$ cm and an atom with a radius of $2$ angstrom, the "Feynman comparison" (as per your numbers) comes out to be fairly good.
When dealing with such orders of magnitude, a factor of 6 does not greatly affect the overall picture. Furthermore, note that apples have radii that are often smaller than $6$ cm (see for instance here). If we take an apple with a radius of $3$ cm and an atom with a radius of $2$ angstrom, the "Feynman comparison" (as per your numbers) comes out to be fairly good.
edited Oct 2 at 14:20
answered Oct 1 at 13:24
lr1985
426112
426112
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
add a comment |Â
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
1
1
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I take issue with "a factor of 6 can easily be disregarded". An order of magnitude is purposefully vague, but in all common definitions (just the exponent in the a*10^b notation, all values within (0.5x, 5x] and so on) the order changes for most values if you multiply or divide by 6.
â Peter A. Schneider
Oct 2 at 8:44
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I don't disagree with you. In fact, the term "disregard" might be a bit too strong. I'll reword the answer so as to "weaken" the first sentence. Cheers!
â lr1985
Oct 2 at 14:16
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
I would also point out that the OP is running fast and loose with precision. That 106,183,333.33 number comes from two values precise to maybe 1.5 and 4 digits, so the most you can really say is that the magnification is about 1.1E8 (1.1 x 10 ^ 8). Suddenly the apple gets a little bigger.
â Tom Hundt
Oct 3 at 5:25
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let's test that by figuring out the size of an atom by that comparison.
Wikipedia says:
Commercial growers aim to produce an apple that is 2 3âÂÂ4 to 3 1âÂÂ4 in (7.0 to 8.3 cm) in diameter, due to market preference.
So we use an average radius of $3.825~textcm$ or $0.03825~textm$ and the radius of the earth of $6371000~textm$ for the calculation.
Then the radius of an atom is calculated as:
$$
r_atom = fracr_apple^2r_earth = frac0.03825^2~textm^26371000~textm
$$
As a result we get $2.296 times 10^-10~textm$ which is fairly close.
New contributor
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Let's test that by figuring out the size of an atom by that comparison.
Wikipedia says:
Commercial growers aim to produce an apple that is 2 3âÂÂ4 to 3 1âÂÂ4 in (7.0 to 8.3 cm) in diameter, due to market preference.
So we use an average radius of $3.825~textcm$ or $0.03825~textm$ and the radius of the earth of $6371000~textm$ for the calculation.
Then the radius of an atom is calculated as:
$$
r_atom = fracr_apple^2r_earth = frac0.03825^2~textm^26371000~textm
$$
As a result we get $2.296 times 10^-10~textm$ which is fairly close.
New contributor
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Let's test that by figuring out the size of an atom by that comparison.
Wikipedia says:
Commercial growers aim to produce an apple that is 2 3âÂÂ4 to 3 1âÂÂ4 in (7.0 to 8.3 cm) in diameter, due to market preference.
So we use an average radius of $3.825~textcm$ or $0.03825~textm$ and the radius of the earth of $6371000~textm$ for the calculation.
Then the radius of an atom is calculated as:
$$
r_atom = fracr_apple^2r_earth = frac0.03825^2~textm^26371000~textm
$$
As a result we get $2.296 times 10^-10~textm$ which is fairly close.
New contributor
Let's test that by figuring out the size of an atom by that comparison.
Wikipedia says:
Commercial growers aim to produce an apple that is 2 3âÂÂ4 to 3 1âÂÂ4 in (7.0 to 8.3 cm) in diameter, due to market preference.
So we use an average radius of $3.825~textcm$ or $0.03825~textm$ and the radius of the earth of $6371000~textm$ for the calculation.
Then the radius of an atom is calculated as:
$$
r_atom = fracr_apple^2r_earth = frac0.03825^2~textm^26371000~textm
$$
As a result we get $2.296 times 10^-10~textm$ which is fairly close.
New contributor
New contributor
answered Oct 3 at 9:45
ShakesBeerCH
414
414
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Lone Learner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Lone Learner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Lone Learner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Lone Learner is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f431861%2fif-an-apple-is-magnified-to-the-size-of-the-earth-then-the-atoms-in-the-apple-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
20
I would say that is is still a quite good approximation. It would be a great way to visualize it (for me) if I had any real sense of the size of the Earth.
â user190081
Oct 1 at 13:11
33
6 cm radius is an enormous apple, nearly a liter in volume. That is more the size of a cantaloupe. If you go with a 3 cm radius (more the size of a tennis ball) the ratio comes out right within a factor of of better than 2.
â Ben51
Oct 1 at 18:21
4
*we live in the Eastern U.S.A., so what we call "mountain", some people call "green hill."
â besmirched
Oct 1 at 18:37
2
@Ben51 and if you choose the Van der Waals radius of a carbon atom in the apple, you get 1.7 Ã and you're basically spot on.
â jkej
Oct 1 at 19:56
4
@l0b0 You're probably thinking of Fermi problem. (Often referred to as Fermi estimation or Fermi approximation.) Feynman probably used this often too, and he had better PR. ;)
â jkej
Oct 1 at 20:01