Calculating Relative Time and Distance for Spaceship Catch-Up

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves two spaceships moving at relativistic speeds, with the goal of determining when one spaceship will catch up to the other in different reference frames. The context is rooted in special relativity, specifically dealing with relative velocities and time dilation.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore both classical and relativistic approaches to calculate the time it takes for spaceship #2 to catch up to spaceship #1. There is discussion about using relative velocities and Lorentz transformations, with some questioning which method is appropriate for the scenario.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with each other's calculations and reasoning, providing feedback on the use of Lorentz transformations and the correct application of gamma factors. There is a mix of agreement and clarification on the methods being discussed, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the correct application of relativistic equations versus classical ones, indicating a potential lack of clarity in the problem setup or assumptions regarding the frames of reference.

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)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K