Resolve Paradox: Relativistic Snake Cut or Unhurt?

In summary, the student and the snake have conflicting views on the outcome of the cleaver bouncing experiment due to the effects of relativity. The paradox can be resolved by using the Lorentz transformation to determine when, in the snake's frame, the two cleavers cut. It is found that the cleavers miss the snake and do not cause it harm due to the difference in time and distance intervals between the two frames.
  • #1
runevxii
7
1
A relativistic snake, of proper length 100cm is traveling across a table at V = 0.6c. To tease the snake, a student holds two ends of a cleaver 100cm apart and plans to bounce them simultaneously on so that the left one lands just behind the snake's tail. The student reasons, "the snake is moving with Beta=0.6 so its length is contracted by the factor gamma=5/4 and its length measure in my frame is 80cm. Therefore, the cleaver in my right hand bounces well ahead of the snake, which is unhurt. The snake reasons "the cleavers are approaching me at B=0.6 so the distance between them is contracted to 80cm, and I shall certainly be cut. Use the Lorentz transformation to resolve this paradox.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
runevxii said:
A relativistic snake, of proper length 100cm is traveling across a table at V = 0.6c. To tease the snake, a student holds two ends of a cleaver 100cm apart and plans to bounce them simultaneously on so that the left one lands just behind the snake's tail. The student reasons, "the snake is moving with Beta=0.6 so its length is contracted by the factor gamma=5/4 and its length measure in my frame is 80cm. Therefore, the cleaver in my right hand bounces well ahead of the snake, which is unhurt. The snake reasons "the cleavers are approaching me at B=0.6 so the distance between them is contracted to 80cm, and I shall certainly be cut. Use the Lorentz transformation to resolve this paradox.
You have to use the Lorentz transformation to determine when, in the snake's frame, the two cleavers cut.

[tex]t' = (t \pm vx/c^2)\gamma[/tex]

If t is the same for each cleaver (ie. in the rest frame) we can see that the t' is different for each of the two events because x differs by 1 m. So the time difference between the cuts in the snakes frame is:

[tex]\Delta t' = \gamma vx/c^2 = 1.25 * .6 * 1/c = .75/c[/tex]

In that time interval, the cleavers move x' = v\Delta t' = .75 * .6 = .45 m. Add this to the separation observed by the snake (.8 m) to give the distance between cuts (1.25 m) so the cleavers miss the snake at both ends.

AM

[Edit: I was using the reciprocal of gamma instead of gamma. Now corrected]
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I actually have the same problem as well. But when I do out the problem, I don't get the same numbers you do and I don't see what I did wrong.

I call one cleaver A and another B and set A as the origin in both inertial frames so that it's described by the 0 vector in both frames. Then B in the boy's frame is (t, x, y, z) = (0, 1, 0, 0). So if I do the Lorentz Transform with the 4x4 matrix lambda:
(B = beta, y = gamma)
[y -By 0 0]
[-By y 0 0]
[0 0 1 0]
[0 0 0 1]
then I end up with B in the snake's frame = (-By, y, 0, 0). By my calculations, t' = -By/c = -2.5 E -9 sec. I don't understand where the 0.48/c = 1.6 E-9 sec that you got came from.

I also see that I end up with x' = y = 1.25m, but it should be 0.8m I believe. Did I do something wrong and if so, what?
 
  • #4
Jibobo said:
I actually have the same problem as well. But when I do out the problem, I don't get the same numbers you do and I don't see what I did wrong.

I call one cleaver A and another B and set A as the origin in both inertial frames so that it's described by the 0 vector in both frames. Then B in the boy's frame is (t, x, y, z) = (0, 1, 0, 0). So if I do the Lorentz Transform with the 4x4 matrix lambda:
(B = beta, y = gamma)
[y -By 0 0]
[-By y 0 0]
[0 0 1 0]
[0 0 0 1]
then I end up with B in the snake's frame = (-By, y, 0, 0). By my calculations, t' = -By/c = -2.5 E -9 sec. I don't understand where the 0.48/c = 1.6 E-9 sec that you got came from.

I also see that I end up with x' = y = 1.25m, but it should be 0.8m I believe. Did I do something wrong and if so, what?
I was using the reciprocal of [itex]\gamma[/itex] so my numbers were not quite right (now corrected). The answer is 1.25 m. That is the distance between cleaver chops in the snake's frame. That distance is greater than the separation between the cleavers observed by the snake because in the snake's frame the cleavers are moving and the chops are NOT synchronous. Fortunately for the snake it is also greater than the snake's length.

AM
 

1. What is the "Relativistic Snake Cut" paradox?

The "Relativistic Snake Cut" paradox is a thought experiment that explores the consequences of special relativity on the physical properties of an object. It involves a hypothetical scenario where a snake is cut in half and the two halves are then moved away from each other at high speeds. According to special relativity, time and space are relative, meaning that an observer moving at a different speed will perceive time and space differently. This leads to a paradox where the two halves of the snake can both be considered the "original" half, depending on the observer's frame of reference.

2. How does special relativity explain the paradox?

Special relativity explains the paradox by stating that there is no absolute frame of reference in the universe. This means that the perception of time and space is relative to the observer's frame of reference. In the scenario of the "Relativistic Snake Cut" paradox, each observer will perceive their own version of reality, where the two halves of the snake are both considered the "original" half.

3. What is the "Unhurt" solution to the paradox?

The "Unhurt" solution to the paradox is a resolution proposed by physicist Albert Einstein. It suggests that, in order for the paradox to be resolved, the two halves of the snake must remain connected by some sort of physical connection, such as a string. This connection ensures that the two halves are always considered part of the same object, regardless of the observer's frame of reference.

4. How does the "Unhurt" solution affect our understanding of reality?

The "Unhurt" solution challenges our traditional understanding of reality, as it suggests that there is no universal truth or absolute reality. Instead, reality is relative and dependent on the observer's frame of reference. This concept is further supported by experiments, such as the famous "twin paradox", which demonstrate the effects of special relativity on the perception of time and space.

5. Are there any real-life applications of the "Relativistic Snake Cut" paradox?

While the "Relativistic Snake Cut" paradox may seem like a purely theoretical concept, it actually has real-life applications in fields such as space travel and particle physics. Special relativity is essential for understanding and predicting the behavior of particles at high speeds, and the paradox serves as a reminder that our perception of reality is not always absolute.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top