Answer:
Approximating the Milky Way as a disk and using the density in the solar neighborhood, there are about 100 billion stars in the Milky Way.
Explanation:
Since we are making an order of magnitude estimate, we will make a series of simplifying assumptions to get an answer that is roughly right.
Let's model the Milky Way galaxy as a disk.
The volume of a disk is:
V
=
π
⋅
r
2
⋅
h
Plugging in our numbers (and assuming that
π
≈
3
)
V
=
π
⋅
(
10
21
m
)
2
⋅
(
10
19
m
)
V
=
3
×
10
61
m
3
Is the approximate volume of the Milky Way.
Now, all we need to do is find how many stars per cubic meter (
ρ
) are in the Milky Way and we can find the total number of stars.
Let's look at the neighborhood around the Sun. We know that in a sphere with a radius of
4
×
10
16
m there is exactly one star (the Sun), after that you hit other stars. We can use that to estimate a rough density for the Milky Way.
ρ
=
n
V
Using the volume of a sphere
V
=
4
3
π
r
3
ρ
=
1
4
3
π
(
4
×
10
16
m
)
3
ρ
=
1
256
10
−
48
stars /
m
3
Going back to the density equation:
ρ
=
n
V
n
=
ρ
V
Plugging in the density of the solar neighborhood and the volume of the Milky Way:
n
=
(
1
256
10
−
48
m
−
3
)
⋅
(
3
×
10
61
m
3
)
n
=
3
256
10
13
n
=
1
×
10
11
stars (or 100 billion stars)
Is this reasonable? Other estimates say that there are are 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way. This is exactly what we found.
They are incline hope this helps!
This question apparently wants you to get comfortable
with E = m c² . But I must say, this question is a lame
way to do it.
c = 3 x 10⁸ m/s
E = m c²
1.03 x 10⁻¹³ joule = (m) (3 x 10⁸ m/s)²
Divide each side by (3 x 10⁸ m/s)²:
Mass = (1.03 x 10⁻¹³ joule) / (9 x 10¹⁶ m²/s²)
= (1.03 / 9) x (10⁻¹³ ⁻ ¹⁶) (kg)
= 1.144 x 10⁻³⁰ kg . (choice-1)
This is roughly the mass of (1 and 1/4) electrons, so it seems
that it could never happen in nature. The question is just an
exercise in arithmetic, and not a particularly interesting one.
______________________________________
Something like this could have been much more impressive:
The Braidwood Nuclear Power Generating Station in northeastern
Ilinois USA serves Chicago and northern Illinois with electricity.
<span>The station has two pressurized water reactors, which can generate
a net total of 2,242 megawatts at full capacity, making it the largest
nuclear plant in the state.
If the Braidwood plant were able to completely convert mass
to energy, how much mass would it need to convert in order
to provide the total electrical energy that it generates in a year,
operating at full capacity ?
Energy = (2,242 x 10⁶ joule/sec) x (86,400 sec/day) x (365 da/yr)
= (2,242 x 10⁶ x 86,400 x 365) joules
= 7.0704 x 10¹⁶ joules .
How much converted mass is that ?
E = m c²
Divide each side by c² : Mass = E / c² .
c = 3 x 10⁸ m/s
Mass = (7.0704 x 10¹⁶ joules) / (9 x 10¹⁶ m²/s²)
= 0.786 kilogram ! ! !
THAT should impress us ! If I've done the arithmetic correctly,
then roughly (1 pound 11.7 ounces) of mass, if completely
converted to energy, would provide all the energy generated
by the largest nuclear power plant in Illinois, operating at max
capacity for a year !
</span>
Answer: c living in a camber in an under water habitat
Explanation:
