Is My Intuition About Event Timing on a Moving Airplane Wrong?

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
An event occurred at point A

(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0)

and Point B

(-500*10^3,0,0,0)

simultaneously on earth.

An airplane flies along the line (in space) connecting A and B with velocity 12/13v. The airplane is between B and S and is moving towards S. Which event occurred first. How much earlier did it occur.

Okay. I get that event B occurred first with by 0.01733 seconds. This defies all of my intuition because A and the plane are moving closer togethor while B and the plane are moving farther apart. I would think that this means the plane would perceive event A as "closer" than it really is and event B "farther" than it really is. Is my intuition that wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
An event occurred at point A

(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0)

and Point B

(-500*10^3,0,0,0)

simultaneously on earth.

An airplane flies along the line (in space) connecting A and B with velocity 12/13v. The airplane is between B and S and is moving towards S. Which event occurred first. How much earlier did it occur.

the notation isn't clear on your velocity: What is 12/13v?

You also never define the point S.
 
ehrenfest said:
An event occurred at point A

(x,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0)

and Point B

(-500*10^3,0,0,0)

simultaneously on earth.

An airplane flies along the line (in space) connecting A and B with velocity 12/13v. The airplane is between B and S and is moving towards S. Which event occurred first. How much earlier did it occur.

Okay. I get that event B occurred first with by 0.01733 seconds. This defies all of my intuition because A and the plane are moving closer togethor while B and the plane are moving farther apart. I would think that this means the plane would perceive event A as "closer" than it really is and event B "farther" than it really is. Is my intuition that wrong?

well the question is, was Earth moving with respect to either A or B? two events that happened simultaneously in one frame doesn't imply that the observer is stationary with respect to them or lie in the middle.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top