B Measuring Rest Length While Moving

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the complexity of measuring the rest length of an object while moving at a significant speed. A proposed method involves calculating the time taken for signals emitted in both directions, factoring in time dilation effects. However, some participants question the necessity of this approach, suggesting that simply stopping to measure in the rest frame or using Lorentz transformations could yield simpler solutions. The conversation highlights a preference for straightforward methodologies in physics calculations. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the balance between accuracy and simplicity in measuring relativistic effects.
phyti
Messages
452
Reaction score
8
I don't remember seeing this solution to the question.

Imagine an object of length d with a reflector on the far end (x=4).
A moves past the object at speed a, emitting a signal at the origin in the positive x direction. A makes one pass in the +x direction, reverses and makes one pass in the -x direction.
Relative to U, with c=1, a=.4:
time out is the same for both passes, t0=d/c.
return time-pass 1, t1=t0(1-a)/(1+a)
return time-pass 2, t2=t0(1+a)/(1-a)
with time dilation for A;
total time-pass 1, T1=2t0*sqrt ((1-a)/(1+a))
total time-pass 2, T2=2t0*sqrt ((1+a)/(1-a))
t0=.5sqrt(T1*T2)
Example:
d=.5sqrt(5.24*12.16) = 4.0

measuring rest length.gif
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks right, but the methodology seems overly complex to me. I am required to decelerate from +a to -a. Why not just stop at zero and measure in the rest frame? Or just use the Lorentz transforms, given that I need to know the velocity precisely enough to sign flip it?
 
Ibix said:
Looks right, but the methodology seems overly complex to me. I am required to decelerate from +a to -a. Why not just stop at zero and measure in the rest frame? Or just use the Lorentz transforms, given that I need to know the velocity precisely enough to sign flip it?
I agree with simplicity. Was just making calculations for doppler effects, and thought this would work, but needed another opinion.
Thanks.
 
I've been thinking some more about the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theorem and was wondering if you could help me gain a better understanding of the assumptions they made when they wrote it, in 1970. In Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time (chapter 3, page 25) he writes.... In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 166 ·
6
Replies
166
Views
14K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K