Why Can't I Use Time Dilation to Calculate Relative Time for the Ball?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tanzl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Java
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with a, b, and c1.

I'm not sure about c2, it might be correct. I would have used the relativistic velocity-addition formulas.

When I used to work out these kinds of problems, I would write down values of any gamma factors I calculate along the way. That saves time, not having to recalculate it when they often get used repeatedly. It's also an intermediate check, when I'd end up with a wrong answer and am tracking down where the mistake was.
 
Yea. Velocity transformation is another way of doing it. But the answer is different. Why I can't use time dilation to calculate the relative time taken for the ball to travel in this case?
 
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