|
GR0177 #34 |
|
|
|
|
Alternate Solutions |
thebigshow500 2008-10-12 16:10:18 | Just Check out Griffiths p.502 - "The invariant interval." Everything is super clear there.
Mr. Griffiths derives the result of interval between two events as I = 
I < 0 refers to timelike interval. Two events occur simultaneously.
I > 0 refers to spacelike interval. Two events occur at the same place.
I = 0 refers to lightike interval. Two events are connected by a signal traveling at c!
For this question, I > 0, so the term dominates . One can deduct the answer (C)!!
|  | ivalmian 2008-03-25 19:02:24 | You can also show this through a little math.
We know that for 2 arbitrary reference frames and , the time intervals between the two events is:

Plugging in , , , and we get:

If in the event is perceived as simultaneous, then . Thus we get:

Dividing by we get:

Adding to both sides we get:

And taking square root we get:

And since this means:

|  |
|
|
Comments |
thebigshow500 2008-10-12 16:10:18 | Just Check out Griffiths p.502 - "The invariant interval." Everything is super clear there.
Mr. Griffiths derives the result of interval between two events as I = 
I < 0 refers to timelike interval. Two events occur simultaneously.
I > 0 refers to spacelike interval. Two events occur at the same place.
I = 0 refers to lightike interval. Two events are connected by a signal traveling at c!
For this question, I > 0, so the term dominates . One can deduct the answer (C)!!
thebigshow500 2008-10-12 16:15:53 |
Correction:
I < 0 refers to timelike interval. Two events occur at the same place.
I > 0 refers to spacelike interval. Two events occur simultaneously.
|
thebigshow500 2008-10-12 16:17:15 |
Correction:
I < 0 refers to timelike interval. Two events occur at the same place.
I > 0 refers to spacelike interval. Two events occur simultaneously.
|
|  | ivalmian 2008-03-25 19:02:24 | You can also show this through a little math.
We know that for 2 arbitrary reference frames and , the time intervals between the two events is:

Plugging in , , , and we get:

If in the event is perceived as simultaneous, then . Thus we get:

Dividing by we get:

Adding to both sides we get:

And taking square root we get:

And since this means:

joe35 2008-06-27 14:56:42 |
This is a nice solution. It might help to clarify that and refer to the Lorentz scalar distance, between two events, which is the same in all inertial reference frames.
|
|  | keflavich 2005-11-10 12:22:03 | should be squared, I think. You can also remember that for an observer to say that two events happened at the same time, they can't have a causal relationship, and therefore their spatial separation has to be greater than . i.e. if (if you use a Minkowski diagram with time on the y-axis, these signs are correct)
yosun 2005-11-10 12:34:06 |
keflavich: thanks for the typo-alert; the typo is now corrected.
i'm planning on posting diagrams sometimes during winter break.meanwhile, here's an open call to other users for submitting diagrams... email them as gif/jpg attachments to yosun(at)nusoy(dot)com.
|
|  |
|
|
|
|
The Sidebar Chatbox...
Scroll to see it, or resize your browser to ignore it... |
|
|
|