Length Contraction: Calculate Observed Length w/o and w/ Theory of Relativity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the perceived length of a stick moving at half the speed of light, both without and with the theory of relativity. Without relativity, the observer perceives the stick as shorter due to the time it takes for light from both ends to reach them, requiring calculations based on the relative speeds of light and the stick. The second part involves using Lorentz transformations to derive the contracted length, ultimately leading to the formula for length contraction: l = l_{o}√(1 - v²/c²). The conversation highlights the complexity of accurately determining perceived length and the necessity of understanding light emission timing. Overall, both methods converge on the same conclusion regarding the stick's observed length.
Icheb
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
A stick of 1m in length travels at v = 1/2 c along its axis away from the observer.

Question 1:
Show that the observer perceives the length of the stick to be shorter without theory of relativity. Calculate the length as perceived by him if he calculates it by the difference in length between both ends which have been photographed at the same time.

Question 2:
Use theory of relativity to solve the first question.

Regarding 1:
The light emitted by the far end of the stick has to be emitted a little bit sooner so that it reaches the observer at the same time as light from the front end of the stick. Since light travels at c towards the observer and the stick travels at 1/2 c away, it's necessary to know how fast 1/2 c (the difference between the speed of light and the speed of the stick) needs to cover 1m. The time it takes for this determines how much later the front end has to emit a photon so that it reaches the observer at the same time as a photon emitted by the far end.

Is that correct so far?

Now I'm not sure how to calculate the perceived length. I guess I have to find out where the photon of the far end has to be emitted relative to the front end, but how would I do that?

Regarding 2:
I'm not sure about the approach. I know how to use Lorentz transformation to get the new length, but would I include the effect calculated for question 1 as well or not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
for question 2, you can use lorentz position transformations to find this but it is more difficult than to use the length contraction relation (if you have studied it). Ultimately, though, they will reduce to the same thing, and you will find:
l = l_{o}\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}
If you use the lorentz transofmrations, be sure to remember that some relations must cancel (\Delta ? = 0 -- i leave the question mark for you to fill in) based on the way you must make measurements.
 
Last edited:
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top