View Full Version : Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues


Rosnet
07-30-05, 12:45 PM
<!--- Don't waste your time looking at this tooltip. Come in and look at the whole thing. --->
<Font face= "verdana">
<Table width= "100%" height= "100%" cellpadding= "15"><Tr>
<Td bgcolor= "#F0F0FF" valign= "top" align= "left">
<Font face= "times new roman" size= "4"><B>Length Contraction - I</B></Font><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is the second of my posts introducing Special Relativity. The first one sought to introduce the postulates, and use them to arrive at time dilation. This one deals with Length Contraction, mainly. I also make a small analogy of space-time with the idea of rotations in a plane.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Special theory of Relativity denies the notions of absolute Space and absolute Time. Both of these are relative, depending on who makes the observation. But they are tied up with each other. If one of them changes, the other also changes. In other words, Relativity 'merges' Space and Time into Spacetime.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here, I'll demonstrate how the idea of 'length', is tied up with that of time. There are different ways to arrive at this result. First, I'll do it my favorite way. This is one in which length contraction is shown to 'cancel out' time dilation. The thought behind is so simple that it makes length conraction appear as an obvious result of time dilation.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Imagine that Einstein is standing near a railway track, while James Watt goes by in a train moving at uniform speed " v ". The same picture, seen through the eyes of Watt, will be different. Watt will see the ground, and Einstein who is standing on the ground, move past him (and the train) with a constant speed " v ". In Watt's frame he and the train are stationary. It is the ground that is moving.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For the past few days, Einstein has been hearing Quantum Mechanists all around him yelling that nothing exists until it is measured. "Poor James", he thinks, "If I don't do something quick and measure him, he will cease to exist". So he decides to measure the length of Watt's train. He remembers that he's left his ruler at home. Moreover how could he possibly take the length of a speeding train with a tiny ruler, even if he had one? Fast thinker that he is, he whips out his timer, and clocks the time that the length of the train takes to pass by him.<Br>
<Img src= "http://www.geocities.com/virusmakermad/einstein.gif"></Img><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the diagram, the first section shows the moment t<Sub>0</Sub> = 0 on Einstein's timer, when the train's front is directly in front of him. The train is moving with a speed " v ". The second section shows the moment t<Sub>0</Sub> = t<Sub>0</Sub>, when the back end of the train is in front of Einstein. So the length of the train is given by " l = vt<Sub>0</Sub> ". The subscript "0" attached to a quantity (time, here) means that it pertains to the measurement of (or by) an object which is at rest in the frame under consideration. Here, the time " t<Sub>0</Sub> " is measured by a timer which is at rest in this frame. But " l " is the length of the moving train, and hence does not have the subscript.<Br>
<Img src= "http://www.geocities.com/virusmakermad/watt.gif"></Img><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This diagram shows the situation as Watt sees it. As noted earlier, Watt will deem himself and the train stationary, and will see Einstein, who is holding the timer, moving backwards (to the right, in the picture) with a speed " v ". This means that in Watt's frame, Einstein's timer is dilated. Therefore, by the time the timer registers a time interval of t<Sub>0</Sub>, Watt's clock, which is ticking faster than the timer, will have registered a time " t = γt<Sub>0</Sub> ". The dilation factor γ (gamma) is given by γ = (1 - v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup>. Remember that in this frame, " t " is the actual time that elapses according to Watt. You have to be careful not to inconsistently mix frames. So this gives the length of the train as seen by Watt. Since the train is at rest in this frame, we'll call the length " l<Sub>0</Sub> ". And since, according to Watt, Einstein (who, in this frame, is moving with speed " v ") took a time " t " to cross the length of the train, we have the relation " l<Sub>0</Sub> = vt ".<Br>
In summary, we have the following relations:<Br>
l = vt<Sub>0</Sub><Br>l<Sub>0</Sub> = vt<Br>
Dividing the first equation by the second,<Br>
l/l<Sub>0</Sub> = t<Sub>0</Sub>/t<Br>l = l<Sub>0</Sub>t<Sub>0</Sub>/t<Br>
<B>l = l<Sub>0</Sub>/γ </B><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The length of an object which is moving with uniform speed is contracted in the direction of motion, by the same factor (γ ) by which its clock slows down. As its speed approaches light speed, γ approaches infinity. Which implies that its length approaches zero, and its clock takes longer and longer time to tick. We can see here how length contraction is inevitably connected to time dilation.
</Td></Tr></Table></Font>
<Style>
sup {font-size: 12px;}
sub {font-size: 12px;}
</Style>

Rosnet
07-30-05, 12:46 PM
<Font face= "verdana">
<Table width= "100%" height= "100%" cellpadding= "15"><Tr>
<Td bgcolor= "#F0F0FF" valign= "top" align= "left">
<Font face= "times new roman" size= "4"><B>Length Contraction- II</B></Font><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The derivation given above makes use of the fact the observer inside the moving train sees the timer of the observer on the ground as being dilated, and also that the speed " v " that the ground observer ascribes to the train equals the speed that the observer in the train ascribes to the ground observer. Even though these are actual facts, and can be proved as well as verified, a few members here, like MacM, refuse to accept length contraction as a real effect, arguing that reciprocity of time dilation is false, and that the speed which the train observer measures is greater than the speed which the ground observer measures. So I'll just provide another derivation which does not make use of either of these facts. This method, however, isn't as intuitional as the other one.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Our old friends, Peter and Paul, from the Twin Paradox, get together again in an attempt to verify Length Contraction. Paul, who went on the trip last time, is already younger than Peter. So they decide that this time, <I>Peter</I> will go, in order that they may get back to being twins. Peter boards a train and accelerates till he almost reaches light speed. After he reaches a uniform speed, he sends out a light ray to the back of the train, from where, after hitting a mirror, it comes back to the front end. If the length of the train is l<Sub>0</Sub>, according to Peter, then the light ray will have taken a time of t<Sub>0</Sub>=l<Sub>0</Sub>/c to go to the back end, and another t<Sub>0</Sub> to return. Hence, 2l<Sub>0</Sub>=2ct<Sub>0</Sub>. That is, l<Sub>0</Sub> = ct<Sub>0</Sub>. Note that in this frame the speed of light is still " c ". This claim is based on the second postulate.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to Paul, who, as we recall, is standing on the ground, the time in Peter's frame is dilated. But the light ray has the speed " c " itself, in accordance with postulate (ii). The events, as seen by Paul, are shown in the diagram below.<Br>
<Img src= "http://www.geocities.com/virusmakermad/paul.gif"></Img><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The light ray (Red) sent out from the front of the train (Black) will travel a distance ct<Sub>1</Sub>, in time t<Sub>1</Sub>. But by this time, the train will have moved forward a distance of vt<Sub>1</Sub>. So the distance covered by the ray, as shown in the diagram, is ct<Sub>1</Sub> = l - vt<Sub>1</Sub>. The length of the train in this frame of reference is taken as " l ", not " l<Sub>0</Sub> ", because we don't know whether they are equal. Now, t<Sub>1</Sub>(c+v) = l. That is, t<Sub>1</Sub> = l/(c+v). Similarly, on the return journey of the ray, it has to travel an extra distance vt<Sub>2</Sub>, since the train would've moved forward. Here t<Sub>2</Sub> is the time that the ray takes to get from the back end to the front end. This is shown in the second part of the diagram. The distance, in this case, is ct<Sub>2</Sub> = l + vt<Sub>2</Sub>. And t<Sub>2</Sub>(c-v) = l, so that t<Sub>2</Sub> = l/(c-v). Thus the total time is<Br>
t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> = l/(c+v) + l/(c-v)<Br>t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> = l(c+v+c-v)/[(c+v)(c-v)]<Br>t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> = 2lc/(c<Sup>2</Sup>-v<Sup>2</Sup>)<Br>
Since t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> is the time that elapses in Paul's frame, and the
corresponding time interval in Peter's frame is 2t<Sub>0</Sub>, we can use the time dilation equation to say that<Br>t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> = 2t<Sub>0</Sub>(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup><Br>
We can further state, from our earlier relation l<Sub>0</Sub> = ct<Sub>0</Sub>, that<Br>t<Sub>1</Sub> + t<Sub>2</Sub> = 2(l<Sub>0</Sub>/c)(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup><Br>
Hence, we have,<Br>
2lc/(c<Sup>2</Sup>-v<Sup>2</Sup>) = 2(l<Sub>0</Sub>/c)(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup><Br>l = (l<Sub>0</Sub>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)(c<Sup>2</Sup>-v<Sup>2</Sup>)(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup><Br>l = l<Sub>0</Sub>(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>-1/2</Sup><Br>
<B>l = l<Sub>0</Sub>(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>1/2</Sup></B><Br>
Using the symbol (gamma)γ = 1/(1-v<Sup>2</Sup>/c<Sup>2</Sup>)<Sup>1/2</Sup><Br> <B>l = l<Sub>0</Sub>/γ<Br>
Thus we see that the moving train is shorter than the train at rest. And note that we haven't used reciprocity anywhere.
</Td></Tr></Table></Font>
<Style>
sup {font-size: 12px;}
sub {font-size: 12px;}
</Style>

Rosnet
07-30-05, 12:47 PM
Muon Experiment. Coming soon

Rosnet
07-30-05, 12:47 PM
<Font face= "verdana">
<Table width= "100%" height= "100%" cellpadding= "15"><Tr>
<Td bgcolor= "#F0F0FF" valign= "top" align= "left">
<Font face= "times new roman" size= "4"><B>Spacetime</B></Font><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Many people feel uncomfortable with Special Relativistic effects like Time Dilation and Length Contraction. They find it difficult to let go of their usual notions of absolute space and time, which is all they've seen during their life. A small analogy may prove helpful in understanding Relativity. The diagram below shows two coordinate systems, and a line segment, in a plane.<Br>
<Img src= "http://www.geocities.com/virusmakermad/rotation.gif"></Img><Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For someone looking from the point of view of the <Font face= "times new roman" color= "#0000FF">OXY</Font> coordinate system, the line segment appears to be <Font face= "times new roman" color= "#0000FF">x</Font> units "wide", and <Font face= "times new roman" color= "#0000FF">y</Font> units "deep". The <Font face= "monotype corsiva" color= "#FF0000">OX'Y'</Font> has the same origin ' O ' as the <Font face= "times new roman" color= "#0000FF">OXY</Font> coordinate system, but it is tilted in the counter-clockwise direction. For an observer in this system, the same line segment will appear to be <Font face= "monotype corsiva" color= "#FF0000">x'</Font> units "wide", and <Font face= "monotype corsiva" color= "#FF0000">y'</Font> units deep, as shown in the diagram. Thus, the width and depth are not absolutes with regard to rotations. Both these sets of values belong to observers in the same plane. It is senseless to ask how there can be two "realities" at the same time.<Br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I guess you've already grasped the significance of this analogy. From our study of relativity, we've come to understand that space and time are related to each other in a manner very similar to the relation between the "width" and "depth" that we saw in this example. Moving at different velocities in spacetime is analogous to looking from different angles in a plane. Length and time intervals are somewhat like the width and depth in this analogy. Just as the two observers in the same plane percieve different widths and depths for the same object, two observers in the same spacetime see different values of length and time for the same thing. There is no contradiction here. Reciprocity is not nonsensical. The only disagreement is between what we think of as common sense, and what is actually true. Discard our prejudices about absolute space and time, and we're free to understand Relativity.
</Td></Tr></Table></Font>
<Style>
sup {font-size: 12px;}
sub {font-size: 12px;}
</Style>

Rosnet
08-04-05, 05:54 AM
MacM, if you've looked at the second post, read the last post too.