Derive time for relativity (i know how but not sure what to do i got a idea

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving time in the context of relativity using specific equations related to Lorentz transformations. The user attempts to solve for time using the relationship d=vt but encounters difficulties with their calculations involving the transformation equations. They express confusion over the correct approach to derive dx/dv and seek clarification on the Lorentz relation for length contraction. Additionally, it's noted that while spatial contractions occur along the direction of relative velocity, time dilation is expected in all directions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the spatial and temporal relationships defined by the Lorentz transformations.
seto6
Messages
248
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


25tugk5.jpg



Homework Equations



equation 37.23 37.30 are the following

37.23
x'=gama(x-vt) x= gamma(x'+vt')
t=gamma(t-vx/c2) t'=gamma(t'+vx'/c2)

37.30
u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c2) u=(u'+v)/(1+uv/c2)

The Attempt at a Solution



i tried the following...

since d=vt... i solved fot t=d/v

so (x'/u')=gama(x-vt) /((u-v)/(1-uv/c2)) but its not working can someone tell me where I am going wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
but... now i see that i would have to derive instead dividing

like...dx'/du'

but I am not sure how..
 
any1
 
could soneone help me set up dx/dv pls
 
If you know the Lorentz relation for the length contractions, you can substitute one into the other and solve for a relation between t and t' (you should also end up with a spatial dependence in there).

For the second part, you would not expect spatial contractions along the y-direction since it is orthogonal to the direction of the relative velocity. Though, you could still expect a time dilation; so the derivation for uy to uy' would be the same way as done with ux to ux', except that you do not need to take into account a length contraction for the y-direction.
 
can you tell me what this is Lorentz relation for the length contractions..mean the formula
 
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