Time to travel at relativistic speed

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the time required for a spaceship traveling at 0.90 times the speed of light over a distance of 80 light years. The initial method proposed, which adds 80 years and 10% of 80 years, leads to an incorrect conclusion of 88 years. The correct calculation using the formula t = d/v results in approximately 88.89 years, aligning with relativistic principles. Participants clarify that the discrepancy arises from misunderstanding the factors involved in relativistic travel. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate calculations in physics, especially when referencing textbook examples.
jl1642
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I have a relatively simple problem that I'm having trouble with.
A ship is going at 0.90 c, over a distance of 80 light years. In my text the method for determining the time spent traveling is:

80 years + (0.1 * 80) = 88 years
This method seems logical, at 0.9 of the speed of light this trip should take 80 years plus that missing 0.1 of the speed of light.

I tried t = d/v :
t = 80 years / (0.9 light years per year)
t = 88.888889

I'm not sure what is going on, I see no logical error with either approach. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jl1642 said:
80 years + (0.1 * 80) = 88 years
This method seems logical, at 0.9 of the speed of light this trip should take 80 years plus that missing 0.1 of the speed of light.
This does not make sense to me. This was in your textbook?

You are going slower than lightspeed by a factor of 1/.9 = 1.111..., not 1.10. So it should take you 80 years + 0.111...*80 = 88.88...

I tried t = d/v :
t = 80 years / (0.9 light years per year)
t = 88.888889
This makes sense. (Note that it's equivalent to what I said above.)
 
Thanks! I thought I was right, it just messed me up that the textbook was wrong.
 
Did your textbook say it was equal to 88 years or approximately equal to 88 years?

Recall the sum of a geometric series:

1+x+x^2+\hdots = \frac{1}{1-x}

If x is small, you can use the approximation

\frac{1}{1-x}\cong 1+x

where you truncate the series after one term without introducing much error. That may be what your book was doing. If it says the time was exactly 88 years, though, it's wrong.
 
No, the textbook introduces the method with an example question, exactly as I wrote above, with 80 + (0.1*80).
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top