Goodbye

What is the minimum amount of energy required to irreversibly blow up our lovely planet into smithereens?

Details and assumptions

  • Input your answer in Joules

  • Model the Earth as sphere of uniform volume density composed of tiny neutral pieces of mass.

  • The radius of the Earth is R e = 6371 k m R_e=6371km .

  • The mass of the Earth is M e = 5.972 × 1 0 24 k g M_e = 5.972\times 10^{24} kg

  • Newton's gravitational constant is G = 6.673 × 1 0 11 m 3 k g 1 s 2 G=6.673\times10^{-11} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}


The answer is 2.241E+32.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

5 solutions

Thaddeus Abiy
Feb 28, 2015

image image

This hopefully fills out the details in Gautam's great solution above. First from the problem statement let us convince ourself that it is asking for the potential energy of the system and that this is equivalent to the gravitational binding energy. If we bash it out and write the equation for bringing each infinitesimal mass to infinity, we will discover that U U is independent of the order in which the masses were disassembled. Since it is independent also of the route by which the masses were brought, U U must be a unique property of the final configuration of the masses. Thus U U is just the gravitational potential energy of this system. This can be found by just finding the energy of assembly and taking the negative.

Now for the actual problem, consider the diagram above. We can assemble the planet by bringing in thin shells of mass d m dm to our partially assembled mass m m of radius r r . This partial mass will cause a potential ϕ ( r ) = r G m r ^ d r r 2 = G m r \phi(r) = -\int_{\infty}^r \! \frac{Gm\hat{r} dr}{r^2} = \frac{-Gm}{r}

The energy required to bring the thin shell from infinity d u du is

d U = ϕ ( r ) d m dU = \phi(r) dm We also know that ρ \rho is constant, thus m = ρ 4 π r 3 3 m = \rho \frac{4\pi r^3}{3} and d m = ρ d V = ρ 4 π r 2 d r dm = \rho dV = \rho 4 \pi r^2 dr

Substituting these two expressions in our first , we get

d U = 16 3 G ρ 2 π 2 r 4 d r dU = \frac{16}{3} G\rho^2 \pi^2 r^4 dr

Integrating this from 0 0 to R R and simplifing , we get

U = 3 G m 2 5 R U = \frac{3Gm^2}{5R}

As an extra fun exercise, think about how we to attack this problem using just dimensional analysis.

I must say that the gif is great !!! Would you mind adding it to the note Brilliant GIFs by Julian Poon ?

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Thank you. I found it after a few google searches. Sure, feel free to add it. The GIF on this problem was also popular a year back.

Thaddeus Abiy - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks :)

Yeah , about the other question , I won't comment abt the GIF , but it sure is a damn good question .

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member Wow. I completely forgot about that note. :D. I've added it already btw

Julian Poon - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Julian Poon Oops , I had forgotten to add the GIF ! Thanks for adding it .

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Nice explanation and thanks for appreciation. Picture is really KABOOM.

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Would dimensional analysis give us the constant 3 5 \frac{3}{5} ? Is it possible to solve it just using dimensional analysis?

Raj Magesh - 6 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

nope, no way

William G. - 4 years, 3 months ago

Dimensional analysis never gives you the value of any constant.

Adhiraj Dutta - 1 year, 5 months ago

Lovely lsolution I am finally able to solve thisafter so long.

Mardokay Mosazghi - 5 years, 5 months ago

Wasn't your location Addis Ababa some time ago, now you're in the USA ?

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago
Gautam Sharma
Feb 24, 2015

"The energy required to irreversibly blow up our lovely planet into smithereens" should be equal to self-gravitation potential energy of sphere because it is written that earth is made of neutral particles. From energy conservation \text{From energy conservation} Self gravitational potential enrgy+Energy supplied=0 \text{Self gravitational potential enrgy+Energy supplied=0} At infinity GPE of a body is treated as zero hence it will be irreversible. Self GPE = 3 G M 2 5 R \text{Self GPE}=-\frac{3GM^2}{5R} (for proof see this )

Hence 3 G M 2 5 R = e n e r g y s u p p l i e d \frac{3GM^2}{5R}=energy\space supplied substitute values and we get answer 2.241 × 1 0 32 2.241\times 10^{32}

Hi , how about you use this . 2.241\cdot 10^{32} to get 2.241 1 0 32 2.241\cdot 10^{32} ?

It'll look better :)

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks!!Done.

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

You are welcome :)

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

This avoids confusion between decimal and multiplication:

2.24 × 1 0 32 2.24\times10^{32}

Nishant Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Yeah, I thińk that. Your idea is even better .

It's just that I am more in the habit of using cdot instead of times , so you see :)

@GAUTAM SHARMA

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

seems good to me .

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

But, Shouldn't we also take Earth's translational and rotational kinetic energies into consideration????

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

but who knows earths rotational and translational kinetic energy,they are dependent on frame of reference.Then we can say universe is expanding and hence it will be irrelevant to consider kinetic energy here and secondly as frame of reference is not given and as well as not the angular and translational speeds we shall not consider it.

Pls ask if any doubts . your question was good .i didn't give it a thought in that way( may be because of jee pattern preparation ->"if you are not given a certain thing you shall not consider it")

Note : self GPE is independent of reference frame.

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

No..i do get about the GPE!! But, see...if you even consider the expansion of space, and that too at the speeds at 90% the speed of light. Will the blasted remains ever have zero potential energy???

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member Yeah! that is the point that's why i will not consider KE. there is uncertainity. what KE would you take?

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma See, since the initial state is the Earth's revolution and Earth's rotation...So it's total ke is ...It's translational KE around SUN + It's rotational KE around SUN + It's rotational KE around it's own axis which will be equal to zero as they have asked for minimum, and all the particles will come to rest, in the final state...

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member What about revolution of milky way? why sun only and what about gpe due to other planets? maybe particles will collide on their way to infinity(pun intended.)

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma If you take all these measures in mind, then i say, that the given answer is also not correct! Because, we know that our universe is infinite. That means the potential energy will be zero only at that point...Agreed?

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member Yeah that's why i have taken total energy =0 at infinity. Agreed it should be mentioned in the question that earth is stationary. But while solving we have that in our mind as nothing data about that is given.

question -'What is the minimum amount of energy required to irreversibly blow up our lovely planet into smithereens?" HAHA lol i know it will arise that it is not given that we cannot take it because we have sir google

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma Hahaha...I get it! it's alright...but i'm debating about the GPE!!You say that you have taken the GPE of every particle to be 0 at infinity. But, my question, is that , theoretically, will any particle be able to reach this infinity??

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member Theoretically yes (every thing is possible in theory like air resistance goodbye), practically not at all(but remember nothing is impossible).

Sir newton took this convention and infinity is the limiting case by infinity we mean that when the gravitation pull is that small that it is relevant against when the particles are at some finite distance with appreciable gravitational pull or gpe.

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma Yea!! But, the gravitational pull will never be that irrelevant!! See, everything is expanding further and further away...So, when the particles flew off, they all move into a new section of space, the next moment. So, according to this theory, all the planets in that section also move with the same speed. Techincally, the gravity on the particles, will never be zero.

And this has been proved by Einstein! Newton, was after all wrong!!

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member my point was when earth is considered as a stationary sphere. But lemme think its particles mutual attraction these processes can be simultaneous A "rough" energy conservation

selfgpe + energy given \text{selfgpe}+\text{energy given} +expansionenergy=expansionenergy particles have extra energy

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma Well, i guess, in the end, the energy receivd in the answer will be every less than the actual answer. Anyways, it was nice debating with u man. It's nice to make new friends on here!!

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member true and bye .my pleasure . True

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma Btw, how much do you know about quantum mechanics?? Coz if you do...i would really like u to check my note on Quantum tunnelling...Please...thanks!

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@A Former Brilliant Member A lil bit ok i will check.

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma And i want to know how will KE contribute to disintegration(just asking)?

Gautam Sharma - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Gautam Sharma Suppose we consider the kinetic energy of translation, as an exmple. That means all the particles are movin in one direction with one linear velocity. But, after the disintegration, this might not be true. so, some energy would surely be lost to change this parameter...

A Former Brilliant Member - 6 years, 3 months ago

"The energy required to irreversibly blow up our lovely planet into smithereens" should be equal to self-gravitation potential energy of sphere because it is written that earth is made of neutral particles. We can assemble the planet by bringing in thin shells of mass to our partially assembled mass of radius . This partial mass will cause a potential

Ed Sirett
Oct 10, 2016

The energy is just under the entire output of the Sun in a week. Or the total energy from the Sun arriving at the Earth during about 4 Million Years.

Venture Hi
Mar 28, 2015

A megaton of TNT yields about 4.184E15 Joules of energy. A thermonuclear warhead is equivalent to about 6 times amount of energy. So, to blow up Earth , we would need about 8.93E15 warheads of that size.

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...