Is the Muon's Perception of Distance Correct in Relativity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Oxymoron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observer
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perception of distance by a muon in the context of special relativity, particularly focusing on its decay time and the implications of length contraction. Participants explore calculations related to the muon's travel distance from its frame of reference compared to that of an observer on Earth, raising questions about who is correct regarding the muon's interaction with the ground.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • A muon created 3km above the Earth travels 647m in its own frame before decaying, while an Earth observer measures its lifetime as longer due to time dilation.
  • Some participants calculate that the muon perceives the distance to the ground as 597m due to length contraction, while the Earth observer measures it as 3.5km.
  • There is a discussion about whether the muon hits the ground, with some arguing that both frames agree the muon survives long enough to reach the Earth.
  • One participant suggests using the invariance of the spacetime interval to analyze the situation, emphasizing the importance of isolating key events like the muon's creation and decay.
  • Several participants advocate for the use of spacetime diagrams to clarify the concepts involved in special relativity.
  • There is a mention of differing opinions on the best approach to solve problems in special relativity, with some favoring mathematical formulations while others prefer physical interpretations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best methods to analyze the problem, with some advocating for the spacetime interval approach and others focusing on the relativistic behavior of moving objects. While there is some agreement that the muon hits the Earth, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of the calculations and the implications of different frames of reference.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of adjusting for length contraction and the potential for misinterpretation of calculations. The discussion also reflects varying levels of comfort with the mathematical and conceptual aspects of special relativity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying special relativity, particularly students and enthusiasts seeking to understand the implications of time dilation and length contraction in different frames of reference.

Oxymoron
Messages
868
Reaction score
0
A muon is created 3km above the Earth's surface heading downward at a speed of [itex]0.98c[/itex]. It is able to survive [itex]2.2\mu s[/itex] in its own frame before it decays.

(1) The muon travels a distance of 647m before it decays in its frame

[tex]d = vt = (0.98\times 3\times 10^8m/s)(2.2\times 10^{-6}s) = 647m[/tex]

(2) To an observer on Earth the muon's lifetime is longer. To the Earth observer, [itex]11.2\mu s[/itex] have passed in the time it took for the muon to decay.

[tex]\gamma_{v} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{(0.98)^2c^2}{c^2}}} = 5.03[/tex]

[tex]\Delta t = \gamma_{v}\Delta t_0 = 5.03 \times 2.2\times 10^{-6}s = 11.1\mu s[/tex]

(3) To the Earth observer the muon now travels a distance of 3.25km

[tex]d = vt = (0.98\times 3 \times 10^8m/s)(11.1\times 10^{-6}s) = 3.25km[/tex]

From these calculations, the muon actually hits the Earth in the observer's frame on Earth. But in the muon's frame it doesn't travel far enough. Who is right? If this happened in real life, would the muon hit the ground or not (to an observer on the ground or to a muon).

Lets take this a little further.

Does the muon actually percieve the distance to the ground as being 3.5km? To the observer on the ground the distance is well and truly 3.5km. But length contraction says that length contracts in the direction of motion. So the observer measures the length to be 3.5km in his frame, but that is simply because he is not moving relative to the distance.

The muon, however, IS moving relative to the distance. In fact the muon thinks that the distance to the ground is 597m, NOT 3.5km!

[tex]L = \frac{L_0}{\gamma_{v}} = \frac{3km}{5.03} = 597m[/tex]

So according to the muon, the distance to the ground is only 597m, which it will travel through in a mere [itex]2.03\mu s[/itex].

[tex]t = \frac{L}{u} = \frac{597m}{0.98\times 3\times 10^8m/s} = 2.03\mu s[/tex]

Therefore, according to the muon it hits the Earth.

If all my reasoning is correct here, my initial problem of discerning who was right (did the muon hit or not?) was incomplete. I hadn't adjusted for length contraction for the moving object. I this the reason why I had my dilemma?

Is it safe to say that the muon is at rest and the Earth is moving toward it at [itex]0.98c[/itex], in the muons frame? If so, I should get the same answer right?

Forgive my elementary-ness, I've only just begun studying this stuff!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oxymoron said:
A muon is created 3km above the Earth's surface heading downward at a speed of [itex]0.98c[/itex].

I strongly believe (Many people disagree with me!) that questions of this type should be handled using invariance of the spacetime interval, i.e., the metric.

Isolate the key events - here creation and decay of the muon - and use the metric to determine what happens.

See my comments (and comments by others) in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106450" about a similar problem.

Regards,
George
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oxymoron said:
From these calculations, the muon actually hits the Earth in the observer's frame on Earth. But in the muon's frame it doesn't travel far enough. Who is right? If this happened in real life, would the muon hit the ground or not (to an observer on the ground or to a muon).
You have misinterpreted your first calculation: The 647m is how far the muon would travel in its lifetime according to the muon's frame. But in the muon's frame, the distance to the Earth is only [itex]L_0/\gamma[/itex] = 3,000/5.03 = 596m. So everyone agrees that the muon survives long enough to hit the earth.

If all my reasoning is correct here, my initial problem of discerning who was right (did the muon hit or not?) was incomplete. I hadn't adjusted for length contraction for the moving object. I this the reason why I had my dilemma?
Right!

Is it safe to say that the muon is at rest and the Earth is moving toward it at , in the muons frame? If so, I should get the same answer right?
Right. And you do: Both frames agree that the muon hits the earth.
 
Last edited:
George Jones said:
I strongly believe (Many people disagree with me!) that questions of this type should be handled using invariance of the spacetime interval, i.e., the metric.
Isolate the key events - here creation and decay of the muon - and use the metric to determine what happens.
See my comments (and comments by others) in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106450" about a similar problem.
Regards,
George
..and a spacetime diagram should be drawn!

Then, many problems in special relativity reveal themselves to be a problem in [Minkowskian] geometry... often solvable with the intuition and analogues of methods learned in Euclidean geometry and trigonometry. In my opinion, this takes away some of the mystery and misunderstanding of the various "relativistic formulas".

"A spacetime diagram is worth a thousand words."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
robphy said:
..and a spacetime diagram should be drawn!
...
"A spacetime diagram is worth a thousand words."
Absolutely!

I think true understanding of special relativity comes only with the mastery of the spacetime diagram and the invariant interval. Nonetheless, one should also be able to "explain" things in terms of the relativistic behavior of moving rods and clocks.
 
Doc Al said:
Absolutely!
I think true understanding of special relativity comes only with the mastery of the spacetime diagram and the invariant interval. Nonetheless, one should also be able to "explain" things in terms of the relativistic behavior of moving rods and clocks.
I'll admit that I have had trouble thinking in terms of the "relativistic behavior of moving rods and clocks"... that's why I try to do problems invariantly first, then interpret physically. In other words, I put my faith in the mathematical reformulation of the physical problem, do some math, then reinterpret the physics. In some sense, I'm trying to use the geometry to develop my physical intuition. When I first appreciated the "geometric viewpoint" [in graduate school], relativity made so much more sense to me.
 
George Jones said:
I strongly believe (Many people disagree with me!) that questions of this type should be handled using invariance of the spacetime interval, i.e., the metric.

I agree. Using "getting the right answer" as a judgement about which approach is best, the approach using the invariance of the space-time interval to solve SR problems seems to be the most reliable.

At the very least, it is an extremely simple "double check". You compute the Lorentz interval in one reference frame, and make sure that you get the same number in the second.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K