2
$\begingroup$

Is there any mathematical formula which shows that there are approximately $\pi \times 10^7$ seconds in one year. I understand that the pi is probably due to the earth's circular orbit, but am not sure where the rest could come from .

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\pi$ has nothing to do with it. Where did you find that? To find the number of seconds in a year, multiply 1 year by 365.25 days by 24 hours by 60 minutes by 60 seconds. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Sep 21 '14 at 14:54
  • $\begingroup$ I know, but pi*10^7 is sometimes given as a rough approximation to be used if you dont have a calculator $\endgroup$ – user58953 Sep 21 '14 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For example: physics.corpus.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/… $\endgroup$ – user58953 Sep 21 '14 at 15:00
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It works fine, but it seems to be a coincidence, unlike, say, the distance the Earth travels in one year. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Sep 21 '14 at 15:01
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ **Why does a nano century equate to $\pi$ seconds? ** Either cesium atoms know about earth's trajectory around sun, can compute $\pi$, and play a trick on us. Or... This is an (approximate) coincidence. Fait vos jeux... $\endgroup$ – Johannes Sep 21 '14 at 15:44
11
$\begingroup$

It's a unit conversion: $$ 1\,{\rm yr}=\frac{365\,{\rm days}}{\rm year}\times\frac{24\,{\rm hrs}}{1\,{\rm day}}\times\frac{3600\,{\rm sec}}{1\,{\rm hour}}=3.1556926\times10^7\,{\rm sec} $$ Since $3.1557$ is (somewhat) close to $\pi\sim3.1416$, we use the approximation you cite.

Technically, the year is actually 365.25 days long, so using that gives a slightly better approximation that gets one to $3.15576\times10^7\,{\rm sec}$, though most sources I've seen simply use 365 days. Both values are still less than half a percent off of the $\pi\cdot10^7$ value.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ obligatory xkcd link $\endgroup$ – Floris Sep 21 '14 at 14:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Floris: In this case, the xkcd link should really be the answer, not just an obligatory joke comment. $\endgroup$ – R.. Sep 21 '14 at 19:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @R.. Except that the original cartoon didn't have this expression, and Randall subsequently got it wrong by a factor 10 in the subtitle... But yes it's a great one! $\endgroup$ – Floris Sep 21 '14 at 19:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1, but it would be better if you changed that 365 to 365.25. That value is something every physicist should know. For one thing, 365.25 days is 1/100 of an astronomical century, which is something every astronomer knows by heart. For another, a year of 365.25 years was good enough for humanity for over a thousand years. (And it's obviously still good enough for astronomers!) $\endgroup$ – David Hammen Sep 21 '14 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidHammen: Most every source I have seen use 365 days & get the same value I have, even Google does it. I will add the extra pair of decimal places to the answer though $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 21 '14 at 20:25
1
$\begingroup$

The observation that "π seconds is a nanocentury" is attributed to Tom Duff, who is known to computer programmers as the inventor of "Duff's Device". There's nothing magical about the fact that 1/10,000,000 of a planetary orbit should equal roughly π/86400 of a planetary day (not the same thing as a planetary rotation, btw, since the orientation of the side of the earth facing the sun changes during the orbit); if the earth turned at a slightly different speeds, then one might say "e seconds is a nanocentury", but it would be no more meaningful.

$\endgroup$

protected by Qmechanic Sep 21 '14 at 21:34

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.