Supernova 100,000 Light Years Away: Agree on Time?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vampyr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Supernova Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of a supernova event 100,000 light years away as observed from Earth versus a spaceship traveling at 0.99c. While the Earth observer concludes the event occurred 100,000 years ago, the spaceship observer experiences Lorentz contraction, leading to a different perception of the event's timing. The consensus emphasizes the necessity of using Lorentz transformations to accurately analyze such scenarios, as neglecting the relativity of simultaneity can lead to incorrect conclusions about the timing of events.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with special relativity concepts, including time dilation and length contraction
  • Knowledge of the relativity of simultaneity
  • Basic grasp of spacetime diagrams
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Lorentz transformations in detail
  • Explore the implications of the relativity of simultaneity in different reference frames
  • Analyze spacetime diagrams to visualize relativistic effects
  • Investigate practical applications of special relativity in astrophysics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on relativity, astrophysics, and anyone interested in the implications of high-speed travel on observational astronomy.

Vampyr
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
If on Earth we detect the light from a supernova 100,000 light years away, we can say that the supernova happened 100,000 years ago (ignoring any dust etc. that might slow down the light). However, would all observers agree that the event happened 100,000 years ago? If a spaceship was traveling in the direction of the supernova at 0.99c at the same distance as the Earth, what would they see?

By my thinking, they see light still traveling at c, and they observe no difference in their own clock. However, they would see the distance to the supernova Lorentz contracted. Since the light traveled a shorter distance from the spaceship's perspecitive, the supernova happened sooner from the spaceship's perspective than the Earth's perspective. I.e. the spaceship sees the supernova less than 100,000 light years away but no other changes that offset this.

Is my thinking correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, draw a spacetime diagram {t,x} indicating the rest frame of the supernova and earth, neglecting the expansion of space. Put the Earth in its origin. Now introduce a second observer moving with v w.r.t. earth, having a frame {t',x'} with t=t'=0 coinciding. Let the supernova explode at t=-T. What is T'?
 
Depends what you mean. Your reasoning is correct if you want to ask where the supernova remnant is now using the spaceship's frame. But the explosion itself happened in the past and the star/remnant is moving very fast in this frame, so was a lot further away when it went off.

It's much safer to use the Lorentz transforms than the special cases of length contraction and time dilation.
 
Vampyr said:
If on Earth we detect the light from a supernova 100,000 light years away, we can say that the supernova happened 100,000 years ago (ignoring any dust etc. that might slow down the light). However, would all observers agree that the event happened 100,000 years ago? If a spaceship was traveling in the direction of the supernova at 0.99c at the same distance as the Earth, what would they see?

By my thinking, they see light still traveling at c, and they observe no difference in their own clock. However, they would see the distance to the supernova Lorentz contracted. Since the light traveled a shorter distance from the spaceship's perspecitive, the supernova happened sooner from the spaceship's perspective than the Earth's perspective. I.e. the spaceship sees the supernova less than 100,000 light years away but no other changes that offset this.

Is my thinking correct?
Relativity is not about the delay in light (or other) signals reaching an observer. That has no bearing on the time of an event in a reference frame. To obtain the time of the event in the spaceship frame you must use the Lorentz Transformation.
 
Vampyr said:
Is my thinking correct?

No, because you're leaving out relativity of simultaneity. You cannot correctly analyze any relativity problem using length contraction and time dilation if you ignore relativity of simultaneity. Or, you could take the advice @Ibix gave in post #3 and just use the Lorentz transformations instead, since that automatically takes everything into account.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K