Relativistic Density - Check My Work & Learn Methods

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the relativistic density of a cube moving at 0.95c, with initial confusion over the application of length contraction and mass changes. Participants clarify that only the dimension parallel to the motion experiences length contraction, while mass increases due to relativistic effects. The correct approach involves using the formulas for relativistic mass and length contraction, leading to a new density calculation. Ultimately, a density of approximately 20.5 kg/m^3 is suggested as the correct answer, emphasizing that the density must increase due to the effects of relativistic motion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the underlying physics principles in these calculations.
LilRubyKinz
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Consider a cube to have a density of 2.0kg/m^3. What is its relativistic density at 0.95c?
Relevant Equations
Lm = Ls/(1-v^2/c^2)^ - 1/2
mm = ms/(1-v^2/c^2)^ - 1/2
Density = mass/volume
We never learned how to use these formulas, so I'm pretty much grasping for straws. I got 2.04 kg/m^3. Can anyone check my work/teach me proper methods if I'm wrong? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wait that's definitely wrong... Now I'm getting 42.3. Is that right?
 
LilRubyKinz said:
Wait that's definitely wrong... Now I'm getting 42.3. Is that right?

Can you explain what you're doing?
 
Yes. I'll attach a picture.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8575.JPG
    IMG_8575.JPG
    39.5 KB · Views: 232
I wrote the last division statement wrong (switch numerator and denominator) but yes I get 42.3 or 45 if I don't round.
 
LilRubyKinz said:
Homework Statement: Consider a cube to have a density of 2.0kg/m^3. What is its relativistic density at 0.95c?
Homework Equations: Lm = Ls/(1-v^2/c^2)^ - 1/2
mm = ms/(1-v^2/c^2)^ - 1/2
Density = mass/volume
Typesetting those equations for you. See this link to see how it was done.

$$L_m = \frac{L_s}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$
$$m_m = \frac{m_s}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}$$

One assumes that ##L_m## is the length of the moving cube and ##L_s## is its length as measured from a frame where it is stationary. Similarly, ##m_m## would be the relativistic mass of the moving cube and ##m_s## is its mass as measured from a frame where it is stationary.

Did you forget to square something?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
If I can understand what you're doing, you are length contracting all three dimensions of of the cube.
 
PeroK said:
If I can understand what you're doing, you are length contracting all three dimensions of of the cube.
Yes I think that's what I'm doing. Am I not supposed to? Is this the wrong formula?
 
Length contraction is only in the direction of relative motion.
 
  • #10
So what formula should I be using to get the new volume?
 
  • #11
LilRubyKinz said:
So what formula should I be using to get the new volume?
Same one they taught you in grade school. Volume = length * width * height.
 
  • #12
Okay, so I don't need to change anything about length? Just mass changes?
 
  • #13
LilRubyKinz said:
Okay, so I don't need to change anything about length? Just mass changes?
What makes you think that length contraction does not apply?
 
  • #14
jbriggs444 said:
Length contraction is only in the direction of relative motion.

I confuse easily, sorry. I thought this meant not to use it.

Can you please walk me through the correct process of calculating the new mass and lengths?
 
  • #15
LilRubyKinz said:
I confuse easily, sorry. I thought this meant not to use it.

Can you please walk me through the correct process of calculating the new mass and lengths?
You already quoted the correct formula for length contraction. By what factor has the length of the cube contracted?

This factor is also known as gamma (##\gamma##).
 
  • #16
Okay here's the problem. The square root of 1 - (0.95c)^2 / c^2 should be 0.312. I calculated this wrong.

I'm going to try again with this new value; I'll let you know what I get
 
  • #17
LilRubyKinz said:
Okay here's the problem. The square root of 1 - (0.95c)^2 / c^2 should be 0.312. I calculated this wrong.

I'm going to try again with this new value; I'll let you know what I get
Put your calculator away and start thinking instead!
 
  • #18
Is only one side length affected by length contraction or all three?
 
  • #19
LilRubyKinz said:
Is only one side length affected by length contraction or all three?

Who says the cube is moving parallel to one of its edges? But, let's assume it is, what do you think?
 
  • #20
Yes?
 
  • #21
LilRubyKinz said:
Yes?

There is no length contraction in directions perpendicular to the motion.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #22
PeroK said:
There is no length contraction in directions perpendicular to the motion.

So does that mean I'm right? Sorry I'm not great at this!
 
  • #23
LilRubyKinz said:
So does that mean I'm right? Sorry I'm not great at this!
Right about what?
 
  • #24
LilRubyKinz said:
So does that mean I'm right? Sorry I'm not great at this!

Yes, only one side is contracted.
 
  • #25
PeroK said:
Yes, only one side is contracted.

Okay thank you!

Now one more thing I don't understand.

mm = 2 / 0.312 = 6.4 m
Lm = 1 / 0.312 = 3.2 kg

6.4 / 3.2(1)(1) = 2

Why am I still getting 2 as the answer? Does the density not change?
 
  • #26
LilRubyKinz said:
Okay thank you!

Now one more thing I don't understand.

mm = 2 / 0.312 = 6.4 m
Lm = 1 / 0.312 = 3.2 kg

6.4 / 3.2(1)(1) = 2

Why am I still getting 2 as the answer? Does the density not change?
Can you compare your formula for length contraction to the one in the book? When length "contracts", does it get larger or smaller?

I am also concerned about your units. Your contracted length is expressed in kilograms?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #27
So I am supposed to multiply there, not divide? Making the new length 0.312?

Making the answer 20.5?

Or is density supposed to be unchanged??

My brain hurts.
 
  • #28
jbriggs444 said:
Can you compare your formula for length contraction to the one in the book? When length "contracts", does it get larger or smaller?

I am also concerned about your units. Your contracted length is expressed in kilograms?

Sorry, swap kg and m there. Copied it wrong.

But the book shows Lm and Ls reversed from what I have here...

So 20.5 should be the answer? Or 2?
 
  • #29
Go back to basics.

Moving objects appear to be shortened. Short objects have lower volume. Lower volume means higher density.

Moving objects gain relativistic mass. [Note that relativistic mass is a deprecated concept that would better be left untaught]. More mass means higher density.

Both effects call for an increased density. So an answer of 2.0 kg/m3 could not be correct.

20.5 kg/m3 matches what I get. Though you might want to consider rounding to an appropriate number of significant figures.
 
  • Like
Likes LilRubyKinz
  • #30
jbriggs444 said:
Both effects call for an increased density. So an answer of 2.0 kg/m3 could not be correct.

Okay, getting a little bit of mixed messages here... But I think 20.5 makes the most sense to me. Thank you very much! I will fix significant digits now.
 
  • #31
I think @PeroK and myself are on the same page here. If you perceive a conflict, either of us can probably clarify it away.
 
  • #32
Okay thank you!
 
  • #33
jbriggs444 said:
I think @PeroK and myself are on the same page here. If you perceive a conflict, either of us can probably clarify it away.

Yes, I agree.

I was distracted trying to find a way to show that it's true in general, even when motion is not in the same direction as one side of the cube. Which I've just spotted!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes LilRubyKinz
  • #34
PeroK said:
I was distracted trying to find a clever way to show that it's true in general, even when motion is not in the same direction as one side of the cube. Which I've just spotted!
I was taking it as an obvious geometric property -- scale down one dimension by a factor of ##\gamma## and the volume clearly goes down proportionately.

I gave a moment's though to Terrell rotation, but it does not apply.
 
  • #35
jbriggs444 said:
I was taking it as an obvious geometric property -- scale down one dimension by a factor of ##\gamma## and the volume clearly goes down proportionately.

Yes, I was only thinking about cubes, parallelopipeds and the triple scalar product! Then, I realized ...

o:)
 
Back
Top