Where Is the Mistake in the Relativity Problem with Moving Rods?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alvaros
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mistake
alvaros
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Referring to the attached drawing:
Two rods 3m long. Rod A is moving at 0,866 c from right to left.
The pictures are taken from the point of view of rod B.

( 1 )In 1 a ray of ligth reaches the end of both rods. It happens that the reading of the clocks at rod A and rod B is 0.
Because v = 0.866 *c -> l´= l * 0.5 , that's why the left end of rod A is at the middle point of rod B.

( 2 )In 2 after 10 ns ( at clocks on rod B ) the light reaches the left end of rod B, assuming c = 30 cm/ns.
Rod A has moved 0.866 * c * 30 ns/cm = 260 cm.

But, because t'= t *0.5, the reading on clocks at rod A is 5 ns. So the light has moved, in the frame of reference of A, 150 cm -> the light must be at the middle of rod A, and it isn't according to the explained in ( 2 ). Where is the mistake ?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
alvaros said:
Where is the mistake ?
You have the wrong formula for t'. The correct formula is:

t' = γ(t-vx/c²)

Your formula neglects the relativity of simultaneity.
 
Thank you for the answer. I made a google search and I found your formula, but I don't know how to apply it ( what does x mean ? )

Could you resolve the problem with numbers ?
Is the drawing 1 correct ? ( the left end of rod A is at the middle of rod B ? )
Where is the right end of rod A when the ligth reaches the left end or rod B ?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top