Why doesn't my solution work?

  • Thread starter VortexLattice
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Work
In summary: Let's say you have two objects with velocities V1 and V2. V1 is moving in the +x direction and V2 is moving in the -x direction. If you use the simple velocity addition formula, you will get V1+V2=V3, which is not true because V1 and V2 are not moving in a straight line. You can't just add V1 and V2 together because they are not moving at the same speed]
  • #1
VortexLattice
146
0
Hi all,

I'm doing a practice problem and I thought I had a good solution, but it turns out I'm wrong and I'd like to know exactly why. The book seems to do it in different way, but I don't see why theirs is the right way.

The problem is this:

1vXRr.png


LrD10.png


So, here's the process I tried doing:

-Find what the y component of the package velocity with respect to S1 (S1 is rocket 1's frame), using the velocity addition rule since we have the velocity of S with respect to S1 and the velocity of the package with respect to S

-Find the velocity of rocket 2 with respect to S1, using the velocity addition rule since we have the velocity of S with respect to S1 and the velocity of rocket 2 with respect to S

-Then, to make it so the package hits rocket 2 as it goes across the gap, we set these two velocities equal.

This is where the solution and I seem to disagree, the solution says that the y component of the package velocity and the velocity of rocket 2 should match in frame S, not rocket 1's frame! I guess I don't actually see why one is preferable over the other, but theirs must be right. If I had to guess I'd say it's something involving proper time or proper velocity, but I don't see what exactly.

Any help would be great, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Working in the S frame:

You have two trajectories for the package (P) and the second ship (2), which are

[itex]s_p = \frac{4}{\sqrt{5}} \lambda \left(e_t + \frac{3}{4} [e_x \cos \alpha + e_y \sin \alpha ] \right) \\
s_{(2)} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}} \tau \left(e_t + \frac{1}{2} e_y \right)\tau + d e_x[/itex]

where [itex]\lambda, \alpha, \tau[/itex] are scalars. Perhaps by setting all 3 components equal you can solve this problem in the S frame and then take the package's four-velocity and boost it into ship (1)'s frame?

It's easier to work in the S frame because you already know [itex]\beta = 3/4[/itex] for the package in the S frame.
 
  • #3
Muphrid said:
Working in the S frame:

You have two trajectories for the package (P) and the second ship (2), which are

[itex]s_p = \frac{4}{\sqrt{5}} \lambda \left(e_t + \frac{3}{4} [e_x \cos \alpha + e_y \sin \alpha ] \right) \\
s_{(2)} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}} \tau \left(e_t + \frac{1}{2} e_y \right)\tau + d e_x[/itex]

where [itex]\lambda, \alpha, \tau[/itex] are scalars. Perhaps by setting all 3 components equal you can solve this problem in the S frame and then take the package's four-velocity and boost it into ship (1)'s frame?

It's easier to work in the S frame because you already know [itex]\beta = 3/4[/itex] for the package in the S frame.

Thanks, but I see how they did it in the solution. I just don't know why theirs gives the right answer and mine doesn't.
 
  • #4
When you did this:

-Find what the y component of the package velocity with respect to S1 (S1 is rocket 1's frame), using the velocity addition rule since we have the velocity of S with respect to S1 and the velocity of the package with respect to S

I suspect this is the problem. Boosting four-velocities that have out-of-plane components can be tricky with the velocity addition formula. Could you show what you did for this part?
 
  • #5
VortexLattice said:
Hi all,

I'm doing a practice problem and I thought I had a good solution, but it turns out I'm wrong and I'd like to know exactly why.

Did you take into account that "simultaneous in frame S" is not the same as "simultaneous in the frame of rocket 1"?

If you look at the problem in rocket 1's frame, the one that's launching the package, you need to account for both the relative velocity of rocket 2 changing (which you did), and the definition of simultaneity being different in frame S and frame R1 - which as far as I can tell, you did not,.
 
  • #6
VortexLattice said:
-Find what the y component of the package velocity with respect to S1 (S1 is rocket 1's frame), using the velocity addition rule since we have the velocity of S with respect to S1 and the velocity of the package with respect to S

I see a big problem right here. The package is moving at an angle to x-axis in S to get from rocket 1 to rocket 2. The normal velocity addition formula is only valid for colinear velocities. You can derive a more general formula, but it is easier to solve a problem like this all in one frame (e.g. S), then Lorentz transform to S'.

I used different symbols than Muphrid, but the same general idea. You derive α in S, then Lorentz transform the package trajectory equation, and compute α' in the rocket(1) frame.

[edit: I thought it would be good to give a simple example of why the simple velocity addition formula cannot be used on components of non-colinear velocities. Suppose frame F1 is moving at .99c in the x direction relative to F0. Suppose some object is moving at .99c at 45 degree angle to x in F1. You propose to apply velocity addition to x components (and I assume believe y component is unaffected). So you get that x component of object velocity in F0 is nearly c and y component is .99c/√2. This is absurd since the result is a speed way over c.]
 
Last edited:
  • #7
pervect said:
Did you take into account that "simultaneous in frame S" is not the same as "simultaneous in the frame of rocket 1"?

If you look at the problem in rocket 1's frame, the one that's launching the package, you need to account for both the relative velocity of rocket 2 changing (which you did), and the definition of simultaneity being different in frame S and frame R1 - which as far as I can tell, you did not,.

Damn, that makes sense. I forgot that even though the package is launched at the passing point in S, it's not the same time in R1... Thanks!
 
  • #8
PAllen said:
I see a big problem right here. The package is moving at an angle to x-axis in S to get from rocket 1 to rocket 2. The normal velocity addition formula is only valid for colinear velocities. You can derive a more general formula, but it is easier to solve a problem like this all in one frame (e.g. S), then Lorentz transform to S'.

I used different symbols than Muphrid, but the same general idea. You derive α in S, then Lorentz transform the package trajectory equation, and compute α' in the rocket(1) frame.

[edit: I thought it would be good to give a simple example of why the simple velocity addition formula cannot be used on components of non-colinear velocities. Suppose frame F1 is moving at .99c in the x direction relative to F0. Suppose some object is moving at .99c at 45 degree angle to x in F1. You propose to apply velocity addition to x components (and I assume believe y component is unaffected). So you get that x component of object velocity in F0 is nearly c and y component is .99c/√2. This is absurd since the result is a speed way over c.]

Yeah, damn... I vaguely realized this afterwards. I think I just set it up in a way that makes it miserable to solve, and I didn't solve it right clearly. Thanks!
 

1. Why is my solution not producing the expected results?

There could be a variety of reasons why your solution is not producing the expected results. It could be due to a mistake in your code, incorrect assumptions, or faulty experimental design. It's important to thoroughly review your methodology and troubleshoot any potential errors.

2. How do I determine the root cause of the problem in my solution?

To determine the root cause of the problem, it's important to carefully examine each step of your solution and identify any potential issues. Consider replicating the problem and making small changes to your methodology to identify where the issue may lie.

3. What should I do if my solution consistently fails to work?

If your solution consistently fails to work, it's important to seek input from others. Reach out to colleagues or experts in the field for their insights and suggestions. It's also helpful to take a step back and approach the problem from a different angle.

4. Are there any common mistakes that could be causing my solution to fail?

Yes, there are several common mistakes that could be causing your solution to fail. These include incorrect or missing data, coding errors, and not considering all variables that may impact the outcome. It's important to carefully review your methodology and seek input from others to identify any potential mistakes.

5. How can I improve my problem-solving skills to prevent future failures?

Improving problem-solving skills takes practice and a willingness to learn from mistakes. It's important to approach problems with a systematic and analytical mindset, and to always be open to feedback and new perspectives. Additionally, staying up-to-date on the latest research and techniques in your field can help improve your problem-solving abilities.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
585
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
805
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
841
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
991
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
1K
Back
Top