Fundamental Misunderstanding of SR…?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 545369
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Sr
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a space explorer traveling at 0.9c to a star 4 light years away, where the explorer calculates the distance and time experienced. The initial calculation for distance is correct at 1.7 light years, but the time calculation leads to confusion. The explorer mistakenly calculates the proper time, Δt₀, and applies the Lorentz factor incorrectly, resulting in an incorrect time of 10.2 years instead of the correct 1.9 years. The explorer ultimately realizes the error in their thought process. The focus remains on understanding the miscalculation rather than seeking alternative solving methods.
member 545369

Homework Statement


A space explorer travels in a spaceship with v = 0.9c. She goes from Earth to a distant star that is 4 light years away (again, measured from Earth). What is the distance measured by the explorer and how long will she say it took her to get there?

Homework Equations


##L=\frac {L_0} {\gamma}## , ##\Delta t = \Delta t_0 \gamma##

The Attempt at a Solution


I solved the first part perfectly fine and got the answer of ##L = 1.7## light years. When solving for ##\Delta t## I realized that I didn't have ##\Delta t_0##. No problem! I just solved the equation ##\frac {L_0} v## for ##\Delta t_0## and got a value of ##\frac {40} {9}## years. Since ##\gamma \approx 2.3## I just multiplied ##2.3## by ##\frac {40} {9}## and got a value of ##10.2## years. The actual value is 1.9 years, which happens to also be ##\frac {\Delta t_0} {\gamma}## but I don't see why I'm wrong!

NOTE: I know that there is another solution to this problem and perhaps it is a bit simpler. I would like to focus on what's wrong with my thought process and fix THAT rather than try to adapt to another method of solving.

EDIT: Figured out my mistake :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
EDIT: Figured out my mistake :)
Well done - what was it?
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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