How Long Will It Take to Travel 65 Light-Years at Relativistic Speeds?

AI Thread Summary
Traveling to a star 65 light-years away at a speed that makes the distance appear as 25 light-years involves understanding relativistic effects like length contraction and time dilation. The user initially attempted to calculate the velocity using the length contraction equation but encountered an error in applying the time dilation formula, resulting in an incorrect time estimate of 25 years instead of the expected 27 years. Clarification was provided that if the distance and velocity are known, time can be calculated simply with the formula t = d/v. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly applying relativistic equations to avoid confusion. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that understanding the relationship between distance, velocity, and time is crucial in solving such problems.
persephoneia
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose you decide to travel to a star 65 light-years away at a speed that tells you the distance is only 25 light-years. How many years would it take you to make the trip?

Homework Equations


∆t=∆t0/(√ (1−v2/c2 )) / ∆t0 = ∆t √(1−v2/c2)
L=L0√ (1−v2/c2)

The Attempt at a Solution


I've attempted to use the length contraction equation to find the velocity (v=c√(1-(25/65)^2) but when I plug that into the time dilation equation I don't get the correct answer. I get 25 when the answer should be 27. Where am I going wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
persephoneia said:

Homework Statement


Suppose you decide to travel to a star 65 light-years away at a speed that tells you the distance is only 25 light-years. How many years would it take you to make the trip?

Homework Equations


∆t=∆t0/(√ (1−v2/c2 )) / ∆t0 = ∆t √(1−v2/c2)
L=L0√ (1−v2/c2)

The Attempt at a Solution


I've attempted to use the length contraction equation to find the velocity (v=c√(1-(25/65)^2) but when I plug that into the time dilation equation I don't get the correct answer. I get 25 when the answer should be 27. Where am I going wrong?

If you know the distance in your frame and the velocity in your frame, what do you need time dilation for?
 
PeroK said:
If you know the distance in your frame and the velocity in your frame, what do you need time dilation for?
I don't. I wasn't thinking that light years is also a distance because I looking at an example for the problem that combined the two equations (length contraction & time dilation) which threw me off. It's basically t=d/v after you figure out velocity right?
 
persephoneia said:
I don't. I wasn't thinking that light years is also a distance because I looking at an example for the problem that combined the two equations (length contraction & time dilation) which threw me off. It's basically t=d/v after you figure out velocity right?

Right!
 
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