Introductory relativity question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a space probe traveling to Proxima Centauri at 0.99c and the time experienced by both the Earth clock and the probe's clock upon its return. The Earth clock records approximately 8.48 years for the round trip, while the probe's clock, accounting for time dilation, shows about 1.2 years due to length contraction effects. Participants clarify that both time dilation and length contraction can occur simultaneously in different frames of reference, especially in scenarios involving changes in inertial frames, like the probe's slingshot maneuver around the star. The calculations confirm that the probe's perceived distance is contracted, resulting in a shorter travel time from its perspective. The methods discussed for determining elapsed time on the probe's clock yield consistent results, reinforcing the principles of relativity.
CAF123
Gold Member
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
87

Homework Statement


A space probe is sent from Earth to collect samples of gas from our nearest neighbour star, Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 ly away. The probe accelerates rapidly to a speed of 0.99c, cruises at this speed until very close to the star, slingshots around the back of the star collecting the sample and then returns back to Earth. Only when close to Earth does it rapidly decelerate.

Synchronised clocks are placed on the probe and at mission control. What times do they read the moment the probe returns to Earth?

The Attempt at a Solution



Earth's clock: Relative to Earth, distance to Proxima Centauri is 4.2 ly. This means the time for the probe to reach the star is simply (4.2)/(0.99) ≈ 4.24 yrs. It is the exact same calculation on the way back so the Earth clock reads ≈ 2(4.24) = 8.48 yrs.

Probe's clock: As the ship approaches the star, since v ~ c, in a frame stationary relative to the probe ( i.e an observer standing on the probe), the distance to the star is contracted by a factor of ##\gamma##. This means ##l = l_o/\gamma = 4.2/\gamma,## where ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(0.99)^2} ≈ 7.1 ##. So the distance to the star from the ship's perspective is just ≈ 4.2/7.1 = 0.6 ly. Is this good? Am I right in saying I can't get the time on the probe's clock by using this method? - the approach I should have taken was one involving time dilation? So on the ship, time is shorter by a factor of γ. The time to the star from Earth is ~ 4.24 yrs => time on ship ~ 4.24/7.1 = 0.6 yrs. Same on the way back so the probe clock reads 2(0.6) ~ 1.2 yrs. Is it okay?

I have some questions: Isn't time dilation and length contraction supposed to be complementary effects, that is if time dilation occurs in one frame then length contraction occurs in some other frame? Here, I have the ship experiencing both length contraction and time dilation?

Many thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CAF123 said:
Probe's clock: As the ship approaches the star, since v ~ c, in a frame stationary relative to the probe ( i.e an observer standing on the probe), the distance to the star is contracted by a factor of ##\gamma##. This means ##l = l_o/\gamma = 4.2/\gamma,## where ##\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(0.99)^2} ≈ 7.1 ##. So the distance to the star from the ship's perspective is just ≈ 4.2/7.1 = 0.6 ly. Is this good? Am I right in saying I can't get the time on the probe's clock by using this method?

This method is fine :smile:. In the ship frame, the distance is less so it takes less "ship time" to get there compared to Earth time.

- the approach I should have taken was one involving time dilation? So on the ship, time is shorter by a factor of γ. The time to the star from Earth is ~ 4.24 yrs => time on ship ~ 4.24/7.1 = 0.6 yrs. Same on the way back so the probe clock reads 2(0.6) ~ 1.2 yrs. Is it okay?

That's also a valid way to get the answer. :smile: From the Earth frame, the ship's clocks run slow so the ship time is less than the Earth time. Same result.

I have some questions: Isn't time dilation and length contraction supposed to be complementary effects, that is if time dilation occurs in one frame then length contraction occurs in some other frame? Here, I have the ship experiencing both length contraction and time dilation?

For two inertial frames in relative motion, each frame will measure the other frames clocks as running slow (time dilation) and each frame will measure fixed distances in the other frame as contracted. However, there's a complication that comes into the round trip scenario. The ship changes inertial frames when swinging around the distant star. This requires special care. This is an example of the famous "twin paradox". Nevertheless, the two methods that you indicated for solving the problem are valid.
 
TSny said:
This method is fine :smile:. In the ship frame, the distance is less so it takes less "ship time" to get there compared to Earth time.

How would I get the time elapsed on the probe's clock though using the length contraction method? What I have is 0.6 ly and not 0.6 yrs which is what I had when I considered time dilation.

Thanks!
 
You can imagine a stick connecting Earth and the star. From the ship frame, that stick is contracted and moving relative to the ship at 0.99c. How much time would it take a stick that is 0.6 ly long to pass you if it is traveling at 0.99c?
 
TSny said:
You can imagine a stick connecting Earth and the star. From the ship frame, that stick is contracted and moving relative to the ship at 0.99c. How much time would it take a stick that is 0.6 ly long to pass you if it is traveling at 0.99c?

I see, so that is just ##0.6/0.99## which is approximately## 0.6 yrs## still?
 
Yes. The two methods will give exactly the same result if you avoid round off error.
 
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