Calculating Time Dilation: Apollo's Record-Breaking Speed and Earth's Clocks

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the time dilation experienced by the Apollo X module during its record speed return from the moon. The user attempts to determine the percent difference between the Apollo clocks and Earth's clocks using the Lorentz transformation but arrives at an incorrect answer. They correctly calculate the speed of Apollo in meters per second and the time elapsed in the spaceship frame but struggle with the time dilation calculation. A key point raised is the importance of correctly converting the spacecraft's speed from miles per hour to meters per second, as well as ensuring accurate calculations within the Lorentz transformation. The user seeks assistance in identifying the error in their logic or calculations.
Quelsita
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Question:

The record for the fastest speed at which anyone has ever traveled, relative to the Earth, is held by the Apollo X modue at 24,791 mi/h on their return trip from the moon.
At this speed, what is the percent difference between the clocks on the Apollo and the clocks on Earth?

OK, I think I understand how to do the problem, but I'm not getting the answer that our text gives.

I set the moving IRF as the Apollo and the stationary frame as the Earth.
I then found the time elapsed in the frame of the spaceship by using d=vt and the given velocity and the distance from the Earth to the moon.
So:

VApollo=V=24,791mi/h=11082.3m/s
d(Earth to Moon)=3.84x10^8 m

With no time dilation for the ship, the time elapsed then is:
from d=vt: tApollo=t'=3.84x10^8 m/11082.3m/s = 34649.85 s

I then found the time dilation for the time elapsed in Earth's reference frame using Lorentz tranformation:
t=t'/\sqrt{1-(V/c)^2}

gives an elapsed time in Earth' IRF of 346449.85s

and 346449.85s/34649.85s = 9.985%

The correct answer is 6.82x10^-8 s

Could someone help me figure out where I went wrong? I went over the math a few times, so it must be my logic...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't have a calculator handy, but something went wrong in that square root calc. Did you note that the spacecraft speed is in mph, so in the same units c = 186000*3600 ?

Doubtless that square root is well within 1% of 1.
 
Yeah, I actually converted the velocity to m/s I just skipped the conversion work.
 
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...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...

Similar threads

Back
Top