Series of Special Relativity Questions

In summary, the person is preparing for an examination in special relativity and has four questions on the topic. The first question is about the proper time between flashes of a lighthouse for an observer traveling at 0.4c with respect to the lighthouse. The second question is about deriving the Lorentz transformation for the x component of momentum. The third question is about calculating the minimum kinetic energy for a reaction between two protons resulting in the creation of a positive pion and the conversion of one proton to a neutron. The fourth question is about estimating the difference in age for a cosmonaut orbiting above Earth due to time dilation and gravitational effects.
  • #1
insynC
68
0
I've got an examination in special relativity in a couple of days and I've got four questions that have been bugging me. I thought it would be better to lump them all together as they're all on the same topic, but sorry if it's a big read! If you reckon I'd be better off posting them as four questions, let me know and I'll fix things up. Any help you could give me with any of the questions would be greatly appreciated.

Question 1

Homework Statement



The proper time between flashes of a lighthouse is 2.0 secs. What is the the measured interval between flashes for an observer traveling at 0.4c with respect to the lighthouse?

The Attempt at a Solution



This one has been bugging me the most, every time I think I'm on top of time dilation it gets me again. I'm not particularly interested in the numerical solution, more on whether the 'moving' observer will see a period of greater or less than 2.0 secs. In my class my lecturer said it will be less than 2.0 secs, but I'm not convinced.

I am able to convince myself just about anything with t = [tex]\gamma[/tex] [tex]\tau[/tex], so I'll set out what I'm thinking in terms of a more heuristic (aka hand waving) argument:

There is something in the lighthouse that determines when 2.0 secs has passed to let out another light pulse, so let that be a light clock (photon bouncing between two walls, each bounce is a tick = unit of time). With respect to the spaceship the lighthouse and consequently the light clock is moving. Thus the photon has to travel further between each 'tick' and so each tick in the lighthouse frame is slower than the proper time for the observer. Thus for 2.0 seconds worth of ticks to pass in the lighthouse frame now will take longer than 2.0 secs in the observer frame. Thus I expect the period to be greater than 2.0 secs.

Just to check, in the lighthouse frame of reference the pulses are let out every 2.0 seconds as normal. But the lighthouse sees time in the passing observer frame to be slower (by same light clock argument as above) thus it will expect the observer to measure greater than 2.0 seconds for the time in between pulses.

I realize this is a really fundamental SR question, but this course is my first introduction to the topic. Am I right in my argument, or was my lecturer right all along? If the latter, what is leading me astray in my reasoning?

Question 2

Homework Statement



Derive the Lorentz transformation for the x component of momentum, i.e.

Px' = [tex]\gamma[/tex] (Px - vE/(c[tex]^{}2[/tex]))

I've used Px = x component of momentum (not very good with latex, sorry!)

Homework Equations



I thought the best place to start was the Lorentz transformation for velocity (which was given):

ux' = [ux - v] / [1 + v ux/(c[tex]^{}2[/tex])]

The Attempt at a Solution



Applying this, I used the fact Px = [tex]\gamma[/tex] m0 ux - where m0 is rest mass - and then fiddled around with it.

I was able to almost get the answer, except on the RHS I got what is required multiplied by a factor of:

1 / [ [tex]\gamma[/tex] - [tex]\gamma[/tex] ux v /(c[tex]^{}2[/tex]) ]

Unfortunately I couldn't show this was equal to 1 and am not even convinced it is. Was the approach I took the easiest way to the answer? I've tried it again and got the same problem, so maybe there is a better way to tackle it.

Question 3

Homework Statement



A collision between two protons can result in the creation of a positive pion and the conversion of one proton to a neutron:

p[tex]^{}+[/tex] + p[tex]^{}+[/tex] --> p[tex]^{}+[/tex] + n + [tex]\pi[/tex] [tex]^{}+[/tex]

(The last one is a positive pion, again sorry about my bad use of latex.)

Calculate the minimum kinetic energy (in MeV) for the protons in this reaction if the two protons have equal energy.

Homework Equations



I think conservation of energy and momentum are the key to solving this question.

The Attempt at a Solution



The fact the two initial protons means that as they have the same rest mass, they will have the same momentum and so the momentum of the initial system, and hence the final system, must be zero.

Thus while maintaining the total momentum as zero, I know I have to adjust the velocities of the three final particles to minimise the total energy of the system.

As momentum is proportional to v [tex]\gamma[/tex] and energy is proportional to [tex]\gamma[/tex], my thought is that the gamma factor for the more massive particles (neutron and proton) need to be minimised whilst the gamma for the pion needs to be maximised, as conceptually this should provide the minimum energy whilst still conserving momentum.

Nonetheless actually putting this into action has not led me to any success. I'm not sure if this is the right way to approach the problem, but I have the proton and neutron heading off perpendicularly (say in an x-y plane the proton in the -x direction and the neutron in the -y direction) whilst the pion is at some angle in the first quadrant (where x & y are positive).

Trying to solve the equations though are not only horrendous, but I end up with two variables in the one equation: [tex]\theta[/tex] (angle pion makes with x axis) and the gamma factor for the pion.

Is there a better way to approach this problem?

Question 4

Homework Statement



A cosmonaut spends a few years in an orbit above the Earth. We would like to estimate how his age will differ from his age if he had stayed on Earth. We will consider two separate effects.

(a) First calculate the effect due to time dilation from Special Relativity. Let the cosmonaut be orbiting in a circular orbit at a height 200 km above the Earth's surface. Assume that the velocity at the Earth's surface is negligible. What is the ratio of the cosmonaut's time interval compared to the time interval at the Earth's surface?

(b) The second effect is due to gravitational redshift. Write down an expression for the ratio between the time intervals at the surface of the Earth and in the cosmonaut's spaceship. What is the value of this ratio for the values given in the previous part of the question?

(c) In part (a) we assumed that the velocity at the Earth's surface was negligible. Explain why this is a reasonable assumption.

[You may take the radius of the Earth to be 6380km.]


Homework Equations



Doppler shift equation:

[tex]\lambda[/tex]1 / [tex]\lambda[/tex]2 = 1 + z = sqrt[(1 +v/c)/(1-v/c)]

Gravitational redshift:

[tex]\lambda[/tex] / [tex]\lambda[/tex]0 = 1 + z = [1 - 2GM/(c[tex]^{}2[/tex]R)]^(-1/2)

The Attempt at a Solution



I know time is proportional to 1/frequency, so I'm going to need to use the Doppler shift equation in part (a) and the Gravitational redshift equation for part (b).

The fact I am given a [tex]\Delta[/tex]R (200km) as the distance above the Earth makes me think I'm going to need to apply calculus to these equations. But I'm not exactly sure how to approach this

For (a) I think I might need to use the radial velocity equation to determine v, then perhaps differentiate this. But I am not sure whether this is the right approach, and even if it is how to go about it.

I am not sure at all about (c)

Conclusion

Again many apologies for such a long post and many thanks to anyone who can help me with any of these problems.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
insynC said:
I've got an examination in special relativity in a couple of days and I've got four questions that have been bugging me. I thought it would be better to lump them all together as they're all on the same topic, but sorry if it's a big read! If you reckon I'd be better off posting them as four questions, let me know and I'll fix things up. Any help you could give me with any of the questions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi insynC! :smile:

Yes, definitely post separate questions … people will be put off by the thought of having to answer so many, and once one question has been answered, the thread no longer has 0 replies, and far fewer people are likely to look at it.

(I think you have 24 hours in which to edit)

The proper time between flashes of a lighthouse is 2.0 secs. What is the the measured interval between flashes for an observer traveling at 0.4c with respect to the lighthouse?

This one has been bugging me the most, every time I think I'm on top of time dilation it gets me again. I'm not particularly interested in the numerical solution, more on whether the 'moving' observer will see a period of greater or less than 2.0 secs. In my class my lecturer said it will be less than 2.0 secs, but I'm not convinced.

I am able to convince myself just about anything with t = [tex]\gamma[/tex] [tex]\tau[/tex], so I'll set out what I'm thinking in terms of a more heuristic (aka hand waving) argument:

There is something in the lighthouse that determines when 2.0 secs has passed to let out another light pulse, so let that be a light clock (photon bouncing between two walls, each bounce is a tick = unit of time). With respect to the spaceship the lighthouse and consequently the light clock is moving. Thus the photon has to travel further between each 'tick' and so each tick in the lighthouse frame is slower than the proper time for the observer. Thus for 2.0 seconds worth of ticks to pass in the lighthouse frame now will take longer than 2.0 secs in the observer frame. Thus I expect the period to be greater than 2.0 secs.

Just to check, in the lighthouse frame of reference the pulses are let out every 2.0 seconds as normal. But the lighthouse sees time in the passing observer frame to be slower (by same light clock argument as above) thus it will expect the observer to measure greater than 2.0 seconds for the time in between pulses.

I realize this is a really fundamental SR question, but this course is my first introduction to the topic. Am I right in my argument, or was my lecturer right all along? If the latter, what is leading me astray in my reasoning?

The question is slightly ambiguous … it could mean how long is it between the times the observer sees two flashes … in which case, it depends on whether he's going towards or away from the lighthouse.

Assuming it means the observer's time of the light leaving the lighthouse, then, yes, your teacher is wrong. :frown:

"A moving clock appears to be slower" is the phrase to remember … and to throw back at your teacher! Nobody will contradict it.

The flash is a clock, so the observer must say it's going slow, so it's taking more than 2 seconds!

Your proof was very nice, btw. :smile:
 
  • #3
Thanks for that, I'll post the other questions separately.
 

FAQ: Series of Special Relativity Questions

What is special relativity?

Special relativity is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905 that describes how objects move at high speeds, close to the speed of light. It is based on the idea that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion.

What is the difference between special relativity and general relativity?

Special relativity deals with objects moving at constant speeds in a straight line, while general relativity also takes into account the effects of gravity and non-uniform motion. General relativity is a more comprehensive theory that builds upon the principles of special relativity.

What is the theory of time dilation in special relativity?

Time dilation is the idea that time passes slower for objects moving at high speeds. This is due to the fact that as an object's velocity increases, its mass also increases, and time appears to pass slower for an observer on the object compared to someone who is stationary.

How does special relativity explain the Twin Paradox?

The Twin Paradox is a thought experiment that shows the effects of time dilation on two twins, one who stays on Earth and one who travels at high speeds. According to special relativity, the twin who travels at high speeds will experience time passing slower and will return to Earth younger than their twin.

Is special relativity proven?

Special relativity has been extensively tested and has been confirmed by numerous experiments and observations. Its predictions have been verified through experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Hafele-Keating experiment. It is considered a fundamental principle of modern physics.

Similar threads

Back
Top