Solving the Paradox of the Frame of Reference

shaner-baner
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Here is a question one of my physics teachers mentiones a long time ago.
Say you have a 10 ft. car and a 10 ft. barn, so the car will just barely fit. Now say the car saw traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, and you are traveling next to the car, on the line perendicular between the car and the barn. It appears to you that the barn is smaller than 10 ft., and the car won't fit in the barn. Now imagine the same situation, but you are standing next to the barn. The car now looks less than 10ft. long, so it should fit in the barn with room to spare.
I can understand things like simultaniety being an illusion. But how can the car both fit and not fit in the barn? Thanks ahead of time, and I hope this isn't to stupid of a question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not that simultaneity is an illusion, it is just that different frames will disagree. Same with time, time is well-defined in every frame but different frames disagree. So the key to this "paradox" is just that in the barn's frame the rear of the car enters the barn before the front of the car leaves, while in the car's frame the front of the car leaves first.

Here is a more detailed explanation: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/polebarn.html#c1

-Dale
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top