Relativistic Density of Cube Moving at 90% Speed of Light

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic density of a cube moving at 90% of the speed of light. Participants explore how the cube's density changes due to relativistic effects, particularly length contraction and the concept of relativistic mass.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the effects of relativistic motion on the cube's dimensions and density, questioning whether mass remains invariant and how to compute the contraction factor. Some explore the implications of using relativistic mass versus invariant mass.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing various calculations and questioning the assumptions behind their approaches. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of relativistic mass and its implications for density calculations, but no consensus has been reached on the correct interpretation or final answer.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing debate about the relevance of relativistic mass in contemporary physics, with some participants suggesting that it is an outdated concept. The discussion also highlights potential confusion regarding definitions of mass and density in relativistic contexts.

Xaspire88
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
A cube has a density of 2000 kg/m^3 while at rest in the laboratory. What is the cube's density as measured by an experimenter in the laboratory as the cube moves through the laboratory at 90% of the speed of light in a direction perpendicular to one of its faces?

It's the dimensions of the cube that change not the mass correct? if this is the case would i use the equation
L = L^1 \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}

This would give me how the dimensions of the cube would change. This new length equals .316 m. And so the density would be 2000 kg/.316 m^3? and then in kg/m^3 would be 6324.56 kg/m^3? does this seem logical?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you compute the contraction factor?

If they define density as invariant mass over volume, then your approach (but not your answer) is correct.
 
In addition to length contraction and time dilation, another consequence of Special relativity is that mass of a moving object appears to increase with speed. This increase is actually proportional to the time dilation factor at very high speeds.

the mass at high speeds is given by

m = m0 / \sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}



where m0 is your rest mass, so you need to factor this in too i think.

Hope that helps. EK
 
I think i forgot to square my velocity initially. The answer should be 2000 kg/ .436m^3 or
4588.31 kg/ m^3?
 
Xaspire88 said:
I think i forgot to square my velocity initially. The answer should be 2000 kg/ .436m^3 or
4588.31 kg/ m^3?
Right. (Assuming the standard usage where mass means invariant mass; if so-called "relativistic" mass is meant, then the answer will be even higher.)
 
More than likely it is the relativistic mass. In which case i would need to solve for the relative mass of the particle while moving at .9c as well as the contraction factor of the cube..

2000/square root(1-0.9^2)= 4588.31 kg
and the calculated relative dimensions of the cube were calculated to be .436m
So the density of the cube would then be 4588.31kg/.436m^3 or 10526.3 kg/ m^3?
 
Xaspire88 said:
More than likely it is the relativistic mass.
The use of relativistic mass is a bit old-fashioned.
In which case i would need to solve for the relative mass of the particle while moving at .9c as well as the contraction factor of the cube..
Right. Just tack on another gamma factor.
2000/square root(1-0.9^2)= 4588.31 kg
and the calculated relative dimensions of the cube were calculated to be .436m
So the density of the cube would then be 4588.31kg/.436m^3 or 10526.3 kg/ m^3?
Yep.
 
You say old-fashioned. Do they now use it in the way relating it to the Energy of the particle. Such as in the case of the E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K