Length Contraction: Why Must dx be Measured in the Prime Frame?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the length contraction formula using the Lorentz transformation, specifically addressing why dx must be measured in the prime frame. It highlights that when converting from dx to dx', the time component must be zero, leading to the equation dx' = gamma(dx). The confusion arises when considering whether dx can represent an object's length in the unprimed frame, as this would yield an incorrect longer measurement by the primed observer. The key point is that dx must reflect the length measured in the prime frame to maintain consistency with the principles of relativity. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly applying the concept of length contraction in relativistic contexts.
Pezz
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
The Lorentz transformation for motion in the same direction along the x-axis of two frames can be used to derive the length contraction formula. Say we are converting from dx to dx'. The t would obviously have to be 0. That would leave us with dx'=gamma(dx). My question is why dx here has to be the length measured in the prime frame? If we do pick an object in the prime frame we get a longer length that the prime observer measures. However what happens if we pick dx to be an object length in the unprimed frame? Then again it turns out that the primed observer would get a longer measurement but I know this isn't correct. I'm just trying to find the reason as to why dx has to be the length of an object measured in the PRIME frame with a relative velocity and why it cannot be a stationary object.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I mean why can I not measure the object instantaneously in my own frame and enter it as dx.
 

Thread 'Struggling to understand the concept of this question (ice cube in water optics question)'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Rolling without slipping on a curved surface'

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 .
View full post »

Similar threads

Relativistic motion and length contraction
Replies
44
Views
2K
Confused by Lorentz transformation equation
Replies
36
Views
3K
Deriving length contraction using spacetime
Replies
13
Views
2K
Special relativity (length contraction, velocity composition) problem
Replies
2
Views
1K
Time dilation and length contraction for a rocket
Replies
12
Views
3K
Special Relativity - Length Contraction
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculating Time Difference and Length Contraction in Train Overtaking Scenario
Replies
11
Views
3K
Punching a hole in a tape moving at relativistic speed
Replies
26
Views
1K
Simple Special Relativity Problem of Length Contraction
Replies
1
Views
2K
Distance and Time for a Moving Muon
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top