Time dilation (special relativity) problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in special relativity involving time dilation and the concept of proper time and proper length. The scenario describes a plane traveling between two cities, with participants exploring the implications of different reference frames on time and distance measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of time and distance from different reference frames, questioning the definitions of proper time and proper length. There is an exploration of why the time calculated from the ground frame differs from that calculated from the plane's frame.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the concept of proper time and the necessity of using synchronized clocks in different frames. There is an acknowledgment of the asymmetry in time measurements between the moving plane and the stationary ground observers.

Contextual Notes

Participants note confusion stemming from terminology and the differences in perspective between reference frames, as well as the impact of educational resources on their understanding of relativity concepts.

palex3
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


This is a pretty classical problem. A plane goes from city A to city B. The distance between the two cities (measured on the ground) is 500 km. The plane is traveling at 0.2c. How long does the trip take for the pilot and what is the distance between the two cities for the pilot?

Homework Equations


I know that
[tex]L = L_0/\gamma[/tex]
and
[tex]\Delta T = \gamma \Delta T_0[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


The proper distance is 500 km, so I can work out that the pilot sees a distance of approximately 489.9 km. My problem is with the time. I know that I can divide 489.9 by 0.2c to get the time for the pilot: 0.00817 seconds. This is the correct answer. But why is it wrong for me to divide 500 km by 0.2 c (=0.00833s) and consider that the proper time, after which I transform it by multiplying by gamma (the result is 0.0085018 s)? I noticed that if I consider the time on the ground to be the "moving" time and the time for the pilot to be the proper time, using the formula gives me the correct time. But it doesn't make sense to me, since I started considering the ground as the rest frame. Why the switch? My guess would be that it has something to do with needing two clocks on the ground and one in the air, but I still don't really understand the asymetry.

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One common idea for proper time is that it is the time interval between two events in the reference frame at which they both occur at the same position coordinate.

Do you see how this means we can't set 0.00833 to be the proper time? (What are the x coordinates for the two events (plane is at A) and (plane is at B) in the ground reference frame? What are the x coordinates for the two events in the planes reference frame?)
 
palex3 said:
My guess would be that it has something to do with needing two clocks on the ground and one in the air, but I still don't really understand the asymetry.
That's it exactly. The two events in this problem are: (1) Plane passes city A, and (2) Plane passes city B. On the plane, the time between those events is measured on a single clock. To the earth, that plane clock is moving and the "time dilation" formula can be applied. ("Moving clocks run slow.")

On the earth, the times of those events are measured on two different clocks. According to the plane observer, those Earth clocks are not synchronized (clock B is ahead of clock A), so the plane observer disagrees with the Earth observers as to how much time elapsed on Earth clocks during his trip.

But Distance = speed * time always works, as long as you stick to a single frame. :wink:
 
That clears it up, thanks a lot to both of you!
My problem was that I didn't see the difference between proper time (and lenght). Or rather, I didn't see what was special about it. In my head, time was time, no matter where you measure it (as long as it's in the same reference frame). Part of the cause for that missunderstanding is the naming convention in my physics book, part was me not being completely in the ''relativity'' mindset and part was my teacher using youtube videos to try to explain the issue.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
965
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K