Length contraction??? (1 Viewer)

[NightShadow]

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]

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]

then what about the one with mass? dilated or contracted

 

[SL33pY]

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]

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]

Yay, i got it right. Got 0.3m. You had to find m0, instead of mv.

 

[yorky]

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.

 

[NightShadow]

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

 

[edward88]

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]

it's 2 marks

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 ] so tht it has to cover a greater distance.
hence, the length is greater.


*boy im hope im wrong though *

 

[edward88]

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

 

[yorky]

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]

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?

 

[yorky]

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

 

[shinji]

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]

pls any of the previous .3m cocky ppl, justify ur answer in light of his fundamental flaw and stupidity

 

[shinji]

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]

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]

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]

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