Length contraction??? (1 Viewer)

NightShadow

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
79
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ok what was the wording of the question?? did the question say that the distance travelled was 0.24m in the reference frame of the particle?
 

yankyfly

New Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
26
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
the question said from the particles frame of reference the length appears 0.24. what is it from the labaratories frame of reference.

that confusion has resulted because some poeple believe every frame of reference will see contraction because that is the way this thing works. That is a misinterpretation of the equation. The laboratory will see the length of the electron contract, but the length of the space it is traveling in will be its normal expanded self.

thus. .24 = L x (1 - 0.36)^1/2

.24 = L x 0.8

therefore L = .30

There is NO DOUBT that the length is .30 cm. If you think otherwise you are worng
 

gamecw

Member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
242
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
then what about the one with mass? dilated or contracted
 

SL33pY

ceo of the banana factory
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
68
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ROFL NOOBS!! who said it got smaller?!!
seriously this was one of the easier questions in the paper,,, 0.3m is correct,,

the bogans got pwned by this one it seems..
 

gamecw

Member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
242
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ok i did this question in a very random way..

1stly i used the WRONG formula... used time dialtion instead of length, and i stated the formula on the sheet aswell... then i plug in the value into proper time n foud answer to be 0.3m yep that was really random.. do i still get a mark for getin the right answer? lol

and what is the mass one then? i cant seem to remember but i pretty sure what i got was heavier than the proper mass of electron
 

jed.hamers

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
9
Location
.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2020
Uni Grad
2009
Yay, i got it right. Got 0.3m. You had to find m0, instead of mv.
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
oy genius
if u are travelling as the electron u will not see your mass increase, time will pass normally relative to you, and you cant see your length contract, u can believe you got it right but im telling u its wrong, good luck anyway with that mate, lo is .24 x .8 = .192, suck it up and read ur notes boys, 3 marks down the drain, u may get one for effort. it is impossible for an object to see a contraction in length, because to it the craft appears normal, we see the contraction, take it.
 

edward88

New Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2
Location
Alstonville
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
yorky is rite on. all u lads who think the answer is .3, u got it all wrong. no matter how many of u support a wrong answer it doesnt make it correct. the value given is for within the electrons frame of reference or in relation to the formula lo. therefore it is .24 (given) x 0.8 = 0.192. the length as given within the frame of ref appears to contract for an observer outside the frame of ref. this is correct, u blokes/lasses r all full of shit. think about it. feel free to correct urself at any stage?
 

shinji

Is in A State Of Trance
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,733
Location
Syd-ney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
it's 2 marks :p

yeah i put .192 but it's wrong.
sure, it may have no contraction in the electron's frame of refernece [wtf?] allowing it to measure .24m

however, in the external frame of reference of by scientists, the electron is 'squished' [in easier terms :p] so tht it has to cover a greater distance.
hence, the length is greater.


*boy im hope im wrong though :p*
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
NightShadow said:
I'm sorry yorky but: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

you got fucking owned...

I didn't read the question properly and i thought that 0.24m was the distance as observed by us...fuck i so bombed that paper..whY god do you have to be like thaT
sorry to burst ur bubble fuckbags but unfortunately u are dip shits. the theory of relativity states that it is impossible to determine whether an object is in relative motion or stationary. and as .6c is a constant velocity, let me know if im going to fast douche bags, a measurement of lenght contraction from the electron would tell that electron that it was moving, but this is impossible, the lenght measured by the electron in relative motion is the same as its rest length relative to it, or lo, so again i say suck it, you lose, how do u dickheads say pwned or sum sht, im pretty sure u realise u are now wrong because none of u blokes/girls are smart enough to challenge einstein and if u were u probably would have got this right.
 

shinji

Is in A State Of Trance
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,733
Location
Syd-ney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
yorky said:
sorry to burst ur bubble fuckbags but unfortunately u are dip shits. the theory of relativity states that it is impossible to determine whether an object is in relative motion or stationary. and as .6c is a constant velocity, let me know if im going to fast douche bags, a measurement of lenght contraction from the electron would tell that electron that it was moving, but this is impossible, the lenght measured by the electron in relative motion is the same as its rest length relative to it, or lo, so again i say suck it, you lose, how do u dickheads say pwned or sum sht, im pretty sure u realise u are now wrong because none of u blokes/girls are smart enough to challenge einstein and if u were u probably would have got this right.
wat bout in reply to what i had? o_O
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
ur on the right track but not really, it is squished, but that means a width increase, length contracts in the direction of motion, congratulations ur answer of .1912 is correct, the constant motion frame of reference is the same as rest, and therefore measurement of .24m relative to electron in constant motion is its god damn rest lenght, an observer in relative motion i.e. stationary lv, is going to see the length contraction .1912m, if u dickheads dont understand this then no wonder u got it wrong
 
Last edited:

shinji

Is in A State Of Trance
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,733
Location
Syd-ney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
edward88 said:
check this shit then
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/physics/core/space/9_2_4/924net.html#net15
owned biatches
if u werent before, u r now
note, tht's onli the train undergoing contraction.

hence, it must travel a longer distance in comparison to the distance that inside the frame of reference travelling.

hypothetically;
normal train travels 100m [at, lets say, 60ms-1]
inside a train travelling at 0.9c, it travels 100m
however, to an observer, the train is squished and hence, it must cover a larger amount of distance. therefore, it travels a distance greater than 100m

yeah, plays with ur head but yeah. lol
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
pls any of the previous .3m cocky ppl, justify ur answer in light of his fundamental flaw and stupidity
 

shinji

Is in A State Of Trance
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
2,733
Location
Syd-ney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
yorky said:
ur on the right track but not really, it is squished, but that means a width increase, length contracts in the direction of motion, congratulations ur answer of .1912 is correct, the constant motion frame of reference is the same as rest, and therefore measurement of .24m relative to electron in constant motion is its god damn rest lenght, an observer in relative motion i.e. stationary lv, is going to see the length contraction .1912m, if u dickheads dont understand this then no wonder u got it wrong
yeah .. so lets use a diagram:

normal train; with velocity to the right at a low speed
|<---------------------------------->|

train undergoing velocity of 0.9c going to the right
|<-------->| [hypothetically]

therefore, wouldn't it cover a larger distance? o_o
 

Lizcat

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
109
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
this is how i thought of it, and i got 0.19
its like any normal Q, pretent the electron is in the space craft, and the laboratory is the observer on earth.

so that means that 0.24 is the proper length, so we want to measure Lv,
so its 0.24x0.8 =0.19m
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Lizcat said:
this is how i thought of it, and i got 0.19
its like any normal Q, pretent the electron is in the space craft, and the laboratory is the observer on earth.

so that means that 0.24 is the proper length, so we want to measure Lv,
so its 0.24x0.8 =0.19m
thank u finnaly sum1 with sumthing intelligent to say, u and eddy are the only decent comments on this thread, thanks liz, smart girl
 

yorky

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
shinji said:
yeah .. so lets use a diagram:

normal train; with velocity to the right at a low speed
|<---------------------------------->|

train undergoing velocity of 0.9c going to the right
|<-------->| [hypothetically]

therefore, wouldn't it cover a larger distance? o_o
dude ur overthinking it, it contracts, but only observers in different frame of reference can see contraction
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top