GREPhysics.NET
GR | # Login | Register
   
  GR8677 #69
Problem
GREPhysics.NET Official Solution    Alternate Solutions
Verbatim question for GR8677 #69
Special Relativity}Length Contraction

Things moving relative to a particular rest frame appear shorter, i.e., contracted. Knowing that \gamma > 1, one can deduce this relation without remembering much about special relativity (other than the hackneyed phrase length contraction) L_{rest}=\gamma L_{moving}. So, one has 5=\gamma 3 for the car, where it is seen to be moving in the reference frame of the garage. This implies that \gamma=5/3\approx 1.6=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\beta)^2}}. Recall the following useful table to memorize, for relating \beta=v/c and \gamma


One has \gamma \approx 1.6 \Rightarrow \beta > 0.75c (but less than c). Choice (C) works best.

See below for user comments and alternate solutions! See below for user comments and alternate solutions!
Alternate Solutions
ben
2006-07-19 15:54:53
i think an easier way to do it that gives the exact answer without having to memorize a table is to simply solve for v explicitly in the equation 3/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=5. just square both sides and you'll find that v^2/c^2=16/25 at which point the answer is obvious.Alternate Solution - Unverified
Comments
barefoot0
2006-11-27 12:23:00
But 16/25 is .64 not .8 so you would get answer B instead. But ETS said answer C is correct.
barefoot0
2006-11-27 12:25:13
never mind I forgot to take the square root.
Answered Question!
nitin
2006-11-21 04:19:22
trombone,

I think you need to check yourself out. You're acting like a kid, and your aim is clearly to insult me, which is a shame since I did not address you in anyway. Your attitude is that of a moron, and Lubos Motl has given a good definition of it.
NEC
nitin
2006-11-16 11:25:38
Another nonsensical solution...

Ben is right, and I simply don't understand why you decide to change from the fractional form "\frac{5}{3}" to the decimal form "\approx1.6", which drives you into a long mess!
trombone
2006-11-18 19:16:45
The only nonsensical thing here is you bitching about the method that was used. Post a better solution if you have one, otherwise stop whining.
NEC
tera
2006-08-13 07:38:59
The comment of ben is quite correct iti isd very simply because the square roots become precise

NEC
ben
2006-07-19 15:54:53
i think an easier way to do it that gives the exact answer without having to memorize a table is to simply solve for v explicitly in the equation 3/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=5. just square both sides and you'll find that v^2/c^2=16/25 at which point the answer is obvious.Alternate Solution - Unverified

Post A Comment!
You are replying to:
The comment of ben is quite correct iti isd very simply because the square roots become precise

Username:
Password:
Click here to register.
This comment is best classified as a: (mouseover)
 
Mouseover the respective type above for an explanation of each type.

Bare Basic LaTeX Rosetta Stone

LaTeX syntax supported through dollar sign wrappers $, ex., $\alpha^2_0$ produces .
type this... to get...
$\int_0^\infty$
$\partial$
$\Rightarrow$
$\ddot{x},\dot{x}$
$\sqrt{z}$
$\langle my \rangle$
$\left( abacadabra \right)_{me}$
$\vec{E}$
$\frac{a}{b}$
 
The Sidebar Chatbox...
Scroll to see it, or resize your browser to ignore it...
Chat Archives | Delete left banner ad | Donate
(Click to view chat.)

Anonymous:

Hate being Anonymous? Login or Register

EssayEdge.com Admissions Essay Help Poser 7 - Complete 3D Figure Design

Upgrade to Poser 7 Now

Huge Textbook Selection, Low Prices – Phat Campus.

Google