Example & Question: What Will Clock 3 Count?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ghost11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example
ghost11
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi guys
is the example true?
what will the clock 3 count when the light reach it

new17p.png
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF! Move towards the light!

Hi ghost11! Welcome to PF! :smile:

Yes, the diagrams are correct …

the lamp and the clocks are stationary, and the plane is going half as fast as the light, so in the clocks' frame (middle diagram), the plane will reach the first clock at the same time as the light reaches the second clock.

And in the plane's frame (bottom diagram), a ray of light is moving left, and the clocks are moving right, half as fast as the light …

(and of course they're closer together, but that won't make any difference)

so when the first clock reaches the plane, the third clock will have moved towards the light.
ghost11 said:
what will the clock 3 count when the light reach it

You do the maths (no square-roots needed! :wink:) …

what equations do you get?

Hint: move towards the light, ghost11! :smile:
 
thank you tiny-tim
in the second and third diagram the clocks count 1 second!
in the second diagram it will take 1.5 second for the light to reach clock 3
in the third diagram it will take 1 second for the light to reach clock 3
what the clock will count for real??
please explane more ... cause iam little slow .. o:)
 
Clock 3 will show 1.5s when the light reaches it. The third diagram is a bit confusing. It shouldn't say "clocks 1s". It should say that the clock on the plane shows 1s. Also, it shouldn't say that the plane's speed is c/2. It should say that the speed of the light bulb and the clocks in the picture is c/2.
 
Fredrik thank you a lot
I didn't see it that way ... i understand now
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Back
Top