Length contraction??? (1 Viewer)

[mlinger]

Did anyone get an answer around 0.3m???

 

[watkinzez]

Seeing as the original length was 0.2m, that's a pretty strange contraction.

 

[Roobs]

tbut 0.24 was the contracted length

 

[Ioup]

A got a number much greater for the length.lol. Not sure I f Im right or not.
But the length the electron sees was contracted because it was travelling at high speed. The length seen by the laboratory frame of ref should be greater.

 

[Shady01]

I did same got 0. somthing or other, but my friend said there was no contraction becuase only the particle was moving at speed of light not the discharge tube? does that sound wacked to you? it scared me.

 

[bboyelement]

Did anyone get an answer around 0.3m???

yeh i did

the originally length should be greater than the contracted... proper length that is.

 

[bottle01]

i got 0.3m as well!!!

 

[mojo_rising]

Yer i got .3 metres too, i changed my answer a couple times and suppose i guessed the right one.

 

[Irskin]

Hey yeah i got 0.3m too.
Because the length contraction occurs in the electron's frame of reference so relative to the electron the distance will be shorter (0.24m). However, in the laboratory the actual distance will be 0.3m. I was stressing over this question cos i didnt know in which frame of reference the length contraction occured. The other possible answer was 0.192m if you used lv and lo around the other way.

 

[----Josh-E----]

the original length was 0.24 metres. I got 0.19 metres for observers. Did you ppl who got 30 remember to times the square root of 0.64 rather than divide like time dilation

 

[ianc]

The relativity questions were good because there was no confusion about which frame of reference stuff was in or anything like that

 

[doraemon]

it was divide, not times = 0.3

 

[XcarvengerX]

the original length was 0.24 metres. I got 0.19 metres for observers. Did you ppl who got 30 remember to times the square root of 0.64 rather than divide like time dilation

I did the exact same thing there, but still confuse which frame of reference is supposed to be shorter because I looked at the wording of the question, and it is the exact same phrase as part (b), mass dilation one; I thought my answer for mass is increasing so length should be decreasing judging by the formulae used.

 

[markus123456789]

Yeh i got .3 meters aswell. Ahh i got out of the exam and all the really smart people were like it had to be shorter.. and i was like hmm.. nah from frame of reference, but they didnt believe me.. whoop i got it right Or so i hope ^^

 

[Sober]

You do not need to hope, it was definantly 0.3. An accellerated particle will see objects around them thinner than they really are, hence 0.24 is less than the real length. Most people I spoke to in my class got it wrong.

 

[red802]

how do u get mark for this question, do u get one mark for stating the formula, and another for the right answer

 

[afghanknight]

Yes i got 0.3 m. Tricky question though. But physics is like that. U got to think logically and mathematically to the right answers.

 

[RingerINC]

0.3 becaue of frame of reference...

Hah they fooled you stooges.

 

[yorky]

You do not need to hope, it was definantly 0.3. An accellerated particle will see objects around them thinner than they really are, hence 0.24 is less than the real length. Most people I spoke to in my class got it wrong.

the lenght contracts, but if you are in the frame of reference there is nothing you can see to tell you whether u are stationary or moving with constant veloity, moving at .6C and therefore in the frame of reference of travel the length appears normal or .24m, an external observer however can see that the length has contracted .3m is wrong

 

[RingerINC]

the lenght contracts, but if you are in the frame of reference there is nothing you can see to tell you whether u are stationary or moving with constant veloity, moving at .6C and therefore in the frame of reference of travel the length appears normal or .24m, an external observer however can see that the length has contracted .3m is wrong

the thing you are measuring is in YOUR reference frame, NOT THE ELECTRONS.

the electrons view the CONTRACTED LENGTH because they are viewing it from a different frame.

You view the REAL LENGTH.

[/pwned]