Calculating Relative Time and Distance for Spaceship Catch-Up

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the time it takes for Spaceship #2 to catch up with Spaceship #1, considering both classical and relativistic approaches. The initial calculations suggest that using a classical method yields 25 seconds, while a relativistic approach gives approximately 21.6 seconds. Participants emphasize the importance of using the Lorentz transformation for accurate results, particularly in determining time in different reference frames. There is some confusion regarding the correct application of gamma factors and relative velocities, but overall, the discussion clarifies the need for careful consideration of relativistic effects. The final consensus indicates that the Lorentz transformation is the preferred method for this problem.
bethany555
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Spaceship #1 moves with a velocity of .2c in the positive x direction of reference frame S. Spaceship #2, moving in the same direction with a speed of .6c is 3 x 10^9 m behind. At what times in reference frames S, and in the reference frame of ship #1, will 2 catch up with 1.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



vrelevative = .6c-.2c / (1-.6(.2)) = .455c
Then, 10 light seconds / .455c = 22.0s

Or...is it done classically .6-.2 = .4, making it 25s?

For the second part, is it done like so?

beta = 1/(sqrt (1-.2)) = 1.02
Then t = 22/1.02 = 21.6s or if it was 25s, 25/1.02 = 24.5s

Can someone explain to me which of these two (if either) are correct? I am not sure if it is done classically or with relativity, so can you explain why it is either.

Thank you very much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hi bethany555! welcome to pf! :smile:
bethany555 said:
Or...is it done classically .6-.2 = .4, making it 25s?

yes … in any one frame, speed etc works just the way it should! :biggrin:

(you only need those pesky gammas if you're having to convert measurements from another frame first :wink:)
For the second part, is it done like so? …

(btw, that's called gamma, not beta … beta is v/c :wink:)

imo, it's always safest to use the original lorentz transformation formulas

(rather than use short-cut contraction formulas which usually work only for rigid separations)

in this case, you know that (in frame S) t = 25, x = … , so t' = … ? :smile:
 
Thank you very much!

For the second part, would it be the following --

Vrelative = .455c (as shown above)

L = 10c seconds (sqrt(1-.45^2)) = 8.93

8.93/.455 = 19.6s

I'm not sure if I'm using the correct v for all parts, would you be able to tell me if I did this correct? Thank you again so much!
 
bethany555 said:
(sqrt(1-.45^2))

no, your gamma should be for the relative speed between your two frames,

ie between S and the frame of the 1st ship (0.2 c)

and i really think you should use the t' = γt - γvx formula from the Lorentz transformation
 
tiny-tim said:
no, your gamma should be for the relative speed between your two frames,

ie between S and the frame of the 1st ship (0.2 c)

and i really think you should use the t' = γt - γvx formula from the Lorentz transformation

Thanks! So would it be 9.80cs / .455 = 21.5s?

When I use the Lorenz equation, I get
t' = (1/(sqrt(1-.2^2)) ) * 25 - (1/(sqrt(1-.2^2)) ) .2 * 10, I get 23.47?
 
bethany555 said:
Thanks! So would it be 9.80cs / .455 = 21.5s?

what is this? :confused:
When I use the Lorenz equation, I get
t' = (1/(sqrt(1-.2^2)) ) * 25 - (1/(sqrt(1-.2^2)) ) .2 * 10, I get 23.47?

yes, that looks ok :smile:

(i haven't checked the actual figures)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top