The first calculation
We needed to make several rough approximations, of which perhaps the
roughest was saying that the meteor looked about as bright as an average star
(and about the same colour), so it looks about as bright as the Sun (an
ordinary star) would look if it were 10 light years away, ie reasonably close
by stellar standards. We then reasoned as follows:
The intensity of sunlight – solar power received per square metre – is 1.4
kW/m2. (This constant is well known because one needs it for
solar energy, ecology, architecture etc). The Sun is 8 light minutes away. If
it were 10 light years away, then its intensity, I, would be given by the
inverse square law:
I = (1.4 kW/m2) * (500 light seconds/300 million light
seconds)2 = 4 nW/m2
Suppose the meteor is up where the Earth's atmosphere is rather thin, say
100 km away, so its radiated power, P, is spread over a sphere of radius 100
km, so
P = (area of sphere) * (4 nW/m2) = 2πr2 = 500 W
It burns at its brightest (comparable to brightish stars) for about one second,
so its energy is E = Pt = 500 J.
Another rough assumption (justified in an appendix calculation below) is that this
energy is roughly equal to the initial kinetic energy of the meteor.
Now Earth is 8 light minutes from the Sun, so it travels 3000 light seconds
per year around the sun = 30 km/s. The meteor has 'fallen' from the outer
solar system, so it is going faster than the Earth, and we strike it at an angle.
We put the collision speed at 60 km/s, which is no rougher than some of the
other approximations. So
½mv2 = 500 J gives
m ~ 0.3 mg
Now make it a sphere with radius r and density ρ = 2000 kg/m3, m ~ 4ρr3
This gives a radius of 0.3 mm – about the size of a grain of sand. On our return, we were happy to see that this
was broadly in line with information from other sources, such as satellite
measurements.
Does it really convert most of its kinetic energy into light?
At room temperature of 300 K, molecules travel a bit faster than sound due
to their thermal motion. An object travelling at 200 times the speed of sound
would therefore have enough kinetic energy in collisions to raise its
temperature to ~2002 times room temperature, ie 12 million K.
Objects vaporise and ionise at temperatures of thousands of K, so the
meteorite needs only about 0.1% of its kinetic energy to vaporise and ionise,
and nearly all of the rest is emitted as radiation. Most of this radiation will be
emitted when it is vaporised and ionised, ie at temperatures of several
thousand K, roughly the surface temperature of the sun, so a lot of that
radiation will be in the visible. So the implicit assumption that it converts its
energy to light with the same efficiency as does the sun is rough but not
bad.
Alternative calculation: can we work it out directly from the brightness
and the colour?
Again we imagine the meteor as a little ball heated by air drag to a sun-like
temperature, and again suppose it is about 100 km away from us. How big
should it be to appear similar in brightness to a sun-like star 10 light years
away from us?
The intensity of radiation it emits is proportional to its radius squared, and
inversely proportional to the square of distance to it. So:
diameter of meteor = diameter of the sun * (100 km/10 light years)
The angular size of the sun is about 0.5 degree ~ 1/120 radian, so its
diameter is then 150 * 106 km /120, and we get :
diameter of meteor = (1 * 109)(105)/((10 light years) *
(3*107 seconds/year) * (3*108 m/s)) metres
= approximately 1 mm
This number is bigger than the previous one: ~3 times the diameter, or ~30
times the volume. But this is the size of the shining meteor, not the cold hard
lump flying through space. It is quite reasonable that the shining ball of
plasma is larger than the original cold dust grain, after its surface heats up
and evaporates. But there are also several crude approximations in both
calculations. (The guesses about the temperature are particularly serious,
because the radiated energy depends on T to the fourth power.)
An order of magnitude is as good as one can hope for in such calculations:
for more precision, one needs better data, more careful calculations – and a
calculator!
Some links: