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)
 
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