Intro special relativity problem regarding time dilation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a problem involving time dilation in special relativity, specifically regarding a muon traveling at nearly the speed of light. The initial assumption that the muon travels at the speed of light (c) is used to simplify calculations, leading to an approximate velocity of .999978c. Participants clarify that this approximation is acceptable due to the high precision of the values involved, but it would not be valid for slower speeds. The conversation emphasizes the importance of checking the reasonableness of results and suggests exploring variations in distance to further understand the implications of the approximation. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the balance between precision and practicality in solving relativistic problems.
RagedFountain25
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
The problem says that a muon with a proper lifetime of 2.2 microseconds is produced 100 km above the ground in the reference frame of Earth. We need to find the minimum speed the muon must travel that allows it to reach the ground in time before the end of its life.
Relevant Equations
time dilation equation: delta t from Earth frame of reference = (delta t from muon frame of reference) / Sqrt[1-(u/c)^2]
This example is worked out in the book, and at the beginning, they make the assumption that the muon is traveling at c, and then find the change in time from the Earth reference frame using delta t=100km/c. Then delta t is plugged into the time dilation equation on the left side and we solve for u. We then find that u is .999978c. My issue is I don't understand how we are able to assume that the muon was traveling at c from the beginning only to find that it was actually traveling at .999978c. Is this just an issue of approximation or is there something to the method I have misunderstood here?

This is my first post, so I'm sorry if I've done anything wrong in posting this question. I've also attached a screenshot of the problem for clarity.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (27).png
    Screenshot (27).png
    77.9 KB · Views: 146
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming light speed gives approximately the time it takes for the muon to reach Earth relative to the Earth frame. In this case it is close enough, with 5 digits of precision. Divide that time by 2.2 usec and you get a gamma (dilation factor) needed. 333.33usec/2.2 usec is essentially the same (only 2 digits of precision were given for the decay) as 333.34/2.2usec

Your point is noted. The approximation would not work for something moving significantly slower.
 
  • Like
Likes RagedFountain25
In your idea time consumed for muon to arrive alive is
\frac{L}{v}=\frac{t_M}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
where L=100km,##t_M##=2.2 ##\mu## sec. We get solution v
\frac{v}{c}=... (1) I will leave it for your homework.

In the way you quote
\frac{L}{c}=\frac{t_M}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}
\frac{v}{c}=1-\frac{c^2t_M^2}{L^2}...(2)

Exact solution (1) is larger than the approximate one (2) in the order of ##(\frac{c t_M}{L})^4=(6.6 \times 10^{-3})^4##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes RagedFountain25
Halc said:
Assuming light speed gives approximately the time it takes for the muon to reach Earth relative to the Earth frame. In this case it is close enough, with 5 digits of precision. Divide that time by 2.2 usec and you get a gamma (dilation factor) needed. 333.33usec/2.2 usec is essentially the same (only 2 digits of precision were given for the decay) as 333.34/2.2usec

Your point is noted. The approximation would not work for something moving significantly slower.
Ok I understand. So it is just about precision. And of course for something that is moving far slower than c, you couldn't start the problem with that assumption, (which was what threw me off from the beginning). Thank you very much.
 
You can do it formally correctly - say the muon velocity is ##v## then ##\Delta t=100\mathrm{km}/v## and solve. But how precise to you reckon that 100km figure is? And the 2.2##\mu##s? How much difference do you reckon ##100/c## versus ##100/v## will make to (a) the answer, and (b) the maths?

You should, of course, check that your result is reasonable. Is the ##v## you get actually near ##c##? You might, as an exercise, do the same with a distance of 500m and see what ##v## you get using the approximation. Is ##v\approx c## reasonable? Then try using the full method.

Edit: too slow, I see
 
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...
Back
Top