(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

This problem is from "Relativity" by Rindler, second edition, problem 3.4:

Use a Minkowski diagram to establish the following result: Given two rods of equal length [tex]l_1[/tex] and [tex]l_2[/tex] ([tex]l_2 < l_1[/tex]), moving along a common line with relative velocity [tex]v[/tex], there exists a unique inertial frame [tex]S'[/tex] moving along the same line with velocity [tex]c^2 \frac{l_1-l_2/\gamma (v)}{l_1 v} [/tex] relative to the longer rod, in which the two rods have equal lengths, provided [tex] l^2_1 (c-v) < l^2_2(c+v) [/tex].

2. Relevant equations

[tex] \tan \Theta = \frac{v}{c} [/tex] : (1)

3. The attempt at a solution

I have denoted the velocity of [tex]S'[/tex] relative the rod [tex]l_1[/tex] as [tex]v'[/tex]. By use of (1) I identify that [tex]tan \Theta = \frac{v'}{c} = c \frac{l_1-l_2/\gamma (v)}{l_1 v} [/tex] : (2). When I saw this I thought I should be able to find a trigonometric relation in my diagram satisfying that relation.

I drew the diagram with [tex]l_1[/tex] along the principal x-axis, identified a side with length [tex]l_1-l_2/\gamma(v) [/tex] in the figure, found through similarity that [tex] \Theta [/tex] was in that triangle and calculated through Pyth. theorem the cathetus remaining (denoted [tex]X[/tex] in the figure) to be [tex]X = l_2 \sqrt{ 1 - \frac{1}{\gamma (v) ^ 2} } = l_2 \sqrt{ 1-(1-v^2/c^2) } = l_2 \frac{v}{c} [/tex]. Had it been [tex] l_1 \frac{v}{c} [/tex] I would have been done I believe since that would have shown (2). What am I missing?

I also don't see the what effect the last constraint [tex] l^2_1 (c-v) < l^2_2(c+v) [/tex] has on the problem.

EDIT: Right now I'm thinking that I am using the Minkowski diagram incorrectly. When trying to find the length of [tex]l_2[/tex] on the principal x-axis I shouldn't draw a line perpendicular to the x-axis but instead parallell to the time axis corresponding to the inertial frame in which [tex]l_2[/tex] is at rest, right? That makes my geometry wrong, and more complicated I guess.

EDIT 2: But when I'm looking at the figures in the book it seems like I interpretated the diagrams correctly the first time, and I'm back at my previous problem again. Or more precisely, I'm more lost than before. Is it the calibrating hyperbolas I am missing? How do they affect my drawing?

EDIT 3: If I calculate my [tex]X[/tex] another way, by denoting the angle between [tex]l_1[/tex] and [tex]l_2[/tex] as [tex]\alpha[/tex] and using that [tex]\tan \alpha = \frac{v}{c} [/tex] I get [tex]X = \frac{v l_2}{c \gamma(v)}[/tex] which gives [tex] v' = c^2 ( l_1 - \frac{l_2}{\gamma(v)} ) \frac{\gamma(v)}{v l_2 } [/tex], a different result. In this case, if [tex]\frac{l_2 }{\gamma (v) } = l_1 [/tex] the given expression for [tex]v'[/tex] would have been fulfilled. The fact that I get different results depending on which relation I use to calculate [tex]X[/tex] clearly indicates that I have misunderstood something.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Homework Help: Spec Rel: Proof concerning IF through Minkowski diag

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**