Calculating Time in Special Relativity: Proper Time vs. Observer's Frame

In summary, the meterstick moves past the observer in 5/3 seconds using the proper time/length equation, gamma, but if you use the v = L/t = l/[(gamma)t] equation, gamma is in the denominator and the answer is the same.
  • #1
AriAstronomer
48
1

Homework Statement


The question goes: A meter stick with a speed of 0.8c moves past an observer. In the observer’s reference frame, how long does it take the stick to pass the observer ?

Homework Equations


Special Relativity: where T and L = proper time/length, t, l are not:

t = T(gamma)
l(gamma) = L


The Attempt at a Solution


So I calculate gamma = 5/3. Here's where I got messed:

I figured there are two ways to approach the time, one way is to do
v = l/T = l(gamma)/t. If you plug and chug with this though, you get the wrong answer, gamma is on the top.

If you use v = L/t = l/[(gamma)t], you get the right answer, since gamma is in the denominator here but in the numerator with the other equation. What makes you decide to use this one over the other one?? Is there something I'm messing up and they should yield the same answer??

Thanks,
Ari
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You messed up in the first part since T = (gamma)*t. You get the same answer in both cases.
 
  • #3
Sorry for the non-latex. I'm looking at a definition right now for special relativity, and it says

[ tex ] t = \frac{ \tau}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \gamma \tau [ /tex ] where tau is proper time.

Thus, by using this method, [tex]\gamma = 5/3[/tex], [tex]t = 5/3 \tau[/tex], or [tex]\tau = 3/5 t[/tex].

Thus, (where L = proper length) in [tex]v = \frac{d}{t} = \frac{L}{\tau} = \frac{1}{(3/5) t}[/tex],
we're going to end up with:
[tex]t = \frac{5}{3v}[/tex], which will give you the wrong answer...what am I doing wrong??

Why isn't my latex working??
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Let's be clear about which frame is measuring a proper time.

Let the rest frame of the meterstick be the unprimed frame. The length in that frame is L (of course). Let's call the time Δt. Note that measurement of Δt requires readings from two synchronized clocks (one at each end of the stick) so it is not a proper time.

Let the frame of the observer be the primed frame. The length of the stick in that frame is L/γ. The time in that frame is Δt'. Note that Δt' is a measurement made on a single clock, so it is a proper time.

The relationship between the times is Δt = γΔt'.

You can use either frame to solve for Δt' and you should get the same answer.
 
  • #5
[tex] t = \frac{ \tau}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} = \gamma \tau [/tex]

There it is... the spaces inside the brackets were the problem.

Can't help you with relativity :P
 
  • #6
Ahhh crap. Yeah makes sense. I stupidly assumed that L and T must correspond to the same frame, but whoever is making the measurement is T...

Thanks.
 

1. What is "Stupid Special Relativity"?

"Stupid Special Relativity" is a satirical term used to refer to a simplified and exaggerated version of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, which is a fundamental concept in physics that explains the relationship between space and time.

2. How is "Stupid Special Relativity" different from the actual theory of special relativity?

"Stupid Special Relativity" simplifies and exaggerates the concepts of time dilation and length contraction, which are key principles of special relativity. It also ignores the complexities and mathematical equations involved in the actual theory.

3. Is there any scientific value to "Stupid Special Relativity"?

No, "Stupid Special Relativity" is not a scientifically valid theory. It is simply a humorous exaggeration of the concepts of special relativity and should not be taken seriously in the context of scientific research.

4. Why is "Stupid Special Relativity" still mentioned in scientific discussions?

Some scientists may use the term "Stupid Special Relativity" as a way to make complex concepts more accessible to a wider audience. However, it should be made clear that it is not a scientifically accurate theory and should not be used in serious scientific discussions.

5. Can "Stupid Special Relativity" be used to disprove the actual theory of special relativity?

No, "Stupid Special Relativity" is not a valid scientific theory and cannot be used to disprove the actual theory of special relativity. The actual theory is supported by extensive research and evidence, while "Stupid Special Relativity" is simply a satirical concept.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
431
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
837
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top