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).
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top