PHYS 6553 Fall 2016

Problem Set 1 Solution

Amir Tajdini
at734@cornell.edu

Hartle: Chapter 2 Problem 9

The surface of the Earth is not a perfect sphere. One quarter of the circumference around a
great circle passing through the poles is 9, 985.16 km This is slightly less than one quarter of
the equatorial circumference, 10, 018.75 km, meaning the Earth is slightly squashed. Suppose
the surface of the Earth is modeled by an axisymmetric surface with a line element of the
kind



2
ds2 = a2 d2 + sin2 1 +  sin2 d2
(1.1)
for some small . What values of a and  would best fit the known polar and equatorial
circumferences?

solution due to John Stout

A quarter of the circumference of a great circle passing through the equator is given
by
Z
1
1 2
a (1 + )
Ceq =
d a(1 + ) =
= 10, 018.75 km
(1.2)
4
4 0
2
while a quarter of the circumference of a great circle passing through the poles is
given by
Z
2
1
a
Cpol = a
d =
= 9, 985.16 km.
(1.3)
4
2
0
Solving for a and  yield
a = 6, 356.75 km

and

 = 0.003.

(1.4)

Hartle: Chapter 4 Problem 3

A 20 m pole is carried so fast in the direction of its length that it appears to be only 10 m
long in the laboratory frame. The runner carries the pole through the front door of a barn
10 m long. Just at the instant the head of the pole reaches the closed rear door, the front
door can be closed, enclosing the pole within the 10 m barn for an instant. The rear door
opens and the runner goes through. From the runners point of view, however, the pole
is 20 m long and the barn is only 5 m! Thus the pole can never be enclosed in the barn.
Explain, quantitatively and by means of spacetime diagrams the apparent paradox.

FIG. 1: Layout of the pole in the barn paradox.

barn

barn

po

Q
le

po

le

Figure 1. Layout of the pole in the barn paradox.

Solution due to Steve Drasco

tA
t

B
tB
A qualitative solution to the pole in the barn paradox
is given in Figs. 1 and
2. For
an observer in the barn frame the pole is inside the barn with both doors closed
tA
t AB
(instantaneously
at time tAB on the left, and for
a finite time tB tA on the right).
From the runners point of view, the door at A is closed (t0 = t0A ) after the door
at B has opened (t0 = t0B ). By examining the diagrams see if you can answer the
following questions: Does one runner go faster than the other (as measured in the
tB Are the rest-lengths of the poles or Q
tA frame)?
barn
barnsP theA same inB both panels?
Spacetime
diagrams
can
be
a
powerful
tool.
However, one must be careful to
FIG. 2: Spacetime diagrams for the pole in the barn paradox. Worldlines for Q, P , A, and B, are drawn in bold. The worldlines
obey
the
rules
when
drawing
For
an and
excellent
review,
see are
part
10The
of David
Merfor the
doors
at A
and B
are solid
when thethem.
doors are
closed
dashed when
the doors
shut.
fine dotted
lines are
lines of constant t and t . The left panel corresponds to the scenario in Hartle. The right panel corresponds to a scenario where
mins
notes
on
special
relativity
(http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/lassp_data/
a barn-frame observer sees the pole enclosed in the barn for a finite time.
master.pdf).
We now give a quantitative explanation for Hartles scenario. Consider the
worldline
P answer
intersects
worldline
of B
worldline
ofthan
(t =two
tB ). spacetime
By examiningevents
the diagrams
see if youofcan
the following
questions:
Doesand
one runner
go faster
the other
(as
measured
in
the
barn
frame)?
Are
the
rest-lengths
of
the
poles
or
barns
the
same
in
both
panels?
Q intersects worldline of A. In the barn-frame, these events are simultaneous
Spacetime diagrams can be a powerful tool. However one must be careful to obey the rules when drawing them.
t
= 0, and
separated
space by
the
of the barn
xwhich
= 10them.diagrams
The invariant
For an excellent
review
see Davidin
Mermins
notes
on length
special relativity
[1] (from
in Fig. 2 were
adapted).
spacetime interval between these two events is

We now give a quantitative explanation for Hartles scenario. Consider the two spacetime events worldline of P
intersects worldline of B and worldline of Q intersects
worldline
of A. In the barn-frame these events are are
2
= 100
m2barn
. x = 10 m. The invariant spacetime
(2.1)
simultaneous t = 0, and separated in space by s
the length
of the
interval
between these two events is

From the runners point of view, the events

are separated in space by the length of
s2 = 100 m2 .
(3.1)
the pole x0 = 20 m, so we have
From the runners point of view the events are separated in space by the length of the pole x  = 20 m, so we have
0 2
s2s=2 =(ct
) + 400 m2 .
(ct )2 + 400 m2 .

(2.2)(3.2)

Equating
(3.1) and
(3.2)two
shows
that from the
runners perspective
thefrom
time between
the events
is t  = 5.8 the
108 s.
Equating
these
spacetime
intervals
shows that
the runners
perspective

time between the events is t0 = 5.8 108 s.

IV.

HARTLE CHAPTER 4, PROBLEM 13 (8 POINTS)

Consider two inertial frames with coordinates (t, x) and (t , x ) related by a Lorentz boost in the x-direction. In
the unprimed frame, event A and is at (tA , xA ), and event B is at (tA , xA + x), where x = 3 m. In the primed
3frame
Hartle:
13where t = 108 s. We wish to determine
, xA ), and B is4atProblem
(tA + t , xB ),
A is at (tAChapter


x = xB xA . at a distance of 3 m apart. In a frame

(4.1)
In an inertial frame two events occur simultaneously
moving with respect to the laboratory frame, one event occurs later than the other by 108 s.
By what spatial distance are the two events separated in the moving frame? Solve this
problem in two ways: first by finding the Lorentz boost that connects the two frames, and
second by making use of the invariance of the spacetime distance between the two events.

FIG. 1: Layout of the pole in the barn paradox.

barn

le

po

barn

le

po

tA
tB

tB
tA

t AB

tA

tB

FIG. 2: Spacetime diagrams for the pole in the barn paradox. Worldlines for Q, P , A, and B, are drawn in bold. The worldlines
for the doors at A and B are solid when the doors are closed and dashed when the doors are shut. The fine dotted lines are
Figure
2. Spacetime diagrams for the pole in the barn paradox. Worldlines for Q, P , A, and B,
lines of constant t and t . The left panel corresponds to the scenario in Hartle. The right panel corresponds to a scenario where
area barn-frame
drawn in observer
bold. The
worldlines
forin the
doors
A and
sees the
pole enclosed
the barn
for at
a finite
time.B are solid when the doors are closed and
dashed when the doors are shut. The fine dotted lines are lines of constant t and t0 . The left panel
corresponds to the scenario in Hartle. The right panel corresponds to a scenario where a barn-frame
observer
sees
pole enclosed
in the
for answer
a finite
(t = tB ).
By the
examining
the diagrams
see ifbarn
you can
thetime.
following questions: Does one runner go faster than

the other (as measured in the barn frame)? Are the rest-lengths of the poles or barns the same in both panels?
Spacetime diagrams can be a powerful tool. However one must be careful to obey the rules when drawing them.
For an excellent review see David Mermins notes on special relativity [1] (from which the diagrams in Fig. 2 were
adapted).
We now give a quantitative explanation for Hartles scenario. Consider the two spacetime events worldline of P
intersects worldline of B and worldline of Q intersects worldline of A. In the barn-frame these events are are
simultaneous t = 0, and separated in space by the length of the barn x = 10 m. The invariant spacetime interval
between these two events is
s2 = 100 m2 .

(3.1)


From the runners point of view the events are separated in space by the length of the pole x = 20 m, so we have
s2 = (ct )2 + 400 m2 .

(3.2)

Equating (3.1) and (3.2) shows that from the runners perspective the time between the events is t  = 5.8 108 s.
IV.

HARTLE CHAPTER 4, PROBLEM 13 (8 POINTS)

Consider two inertial frames with coordinates (t, x) and (t , x ) related by a Lorentz boost in the x-direction. In
the unprimed frame, event A and is at (tA , xA ), and event B is at (tA , xA + x), where x = 3 m. In the primed
frame A is at (tA , xA ), and B is at (tA + t , xB ), where t = 108 s. We wish to determine
x = xB xA .

(4.1)

Solution due to Steve Drasco

Consider two inertial frames with coordinates (t, x) and (t0 , x0 ) related by a Lorentz
boost in the x-direction. In the unprimed frame, event A and is at (tA , xA ), and
event B is at (tA , xA + x), where x = 3 m. In the primed frame A is at (t0A , x0A ),
and B is at (t0A + t0 , x0B ), where t0 = 108 s. We wish to determine
x0 = x0B x0A .

(3.1)

We could use the Lorentz transformation relating two frames (Eqs. (4.21) from
Hartle)

vxA 
(3.2a)
t0A = tA 2
c
x0A = (xA vtA )
(3.2b)


v(xA + x)
t0A + t0 = tA
(3.2c)
c2
x0B = (xA + x vtA )
(3.2d)
where = (1 v 2 /c2 )1/2 . The equations for x0A and x0B give x0 = x. The
remaining equations give


2
ct0 2
=
,
(3.3)
x
1 2
where = v/c. Solving this, we find 2 = 0.499654, = 1.41372, and lastly
x0 = 4.2412 m.

(3.4)

Since we all hate Lorentz transformations, we now solve this problem by invoking the
invariance of the spacetime interval between the events (x)2 = (ct0 )2 + (x0 )2 .
By solving for x0 , we recover Eq. 3.4.

Carroll: Chapter 1 Problem 6

In Euclidean three-space, let p be the point with coordinates (x, y, z) = (1, 0, 1).
Consider the following curves that pass through p:
xi () = (, ( 1)2 , )

xi () = (cos , sin , 1)
i

(4.1)

x () = ( , + , )

(a) Calculate the components of the tangent vectors to these curves at p in the coordinate
basis {x , y , z }.
(b) Let f = x2 + y 2 yz. Calculate df /d , df /d, and df /d.

(a) at point p, = 1, = 0, = 1.
d~x
d~x
= (1, 2( 1), 1)
|=1 = (1, 0, 1) x z
d
d
d~x
d~x
= ( sin(), cos(), 1)
|=0 = (0, 1, 1) y + z
d
d
d~x
d~x
= (2, 3 2 + 2, 1)
|=1 = (2, 1, 1) 2x + y + z
d
d

(4.2)

(b) In each case, the tangent to the curve is given by:

f dxi
df (xi ())
=
= 43 92 + 10 3
d
xi d
df (xi ())
|=1 = 2
d
df (xi ())
f dxi
=
= (1 ) cos() sin()
d
xi d
df (xi ())
|=0 = 1
d
df (xi ())
f dxi
=
= 6 5 + 10 4 + 4 3 3 2
d
xi d
df (xi ())
|=1 = 3
d

(4.3)

This also can be written for parametrization as (similar expression for and ):
df (xi ())
= X[f ]p
d

dxi
X = Xi
(X i =
|p )
xi
d

(4.4)

Carroll: Chapter 2 Problem 7

Prolate spheroidal coordinates can be used to simplify the Kepler problem in celestial mechanics. They are related to the usual cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) of Euclidean three-space
by
x = sinh sin cos
y = sinh sin sin

(5.1)

z = cosh cos
Restrict your attention to the plane y = 0 and answer the following questions.
0
(a) What is the coordinate transformation matrix x /x relating (x, z) to (, )?
(b) What does the line element ds2 look like in prolate spheroidal coordinates?

(a) y = 0 means = 0 plane. Matrix relating (x, z) to (, ):



x
cosh() sin() sinh() cos()
=
J=
sinh() cos() cosh() sin()
x0

(5.2)

(b) Metric in cartesian coordinates when y = 0 is ij = diag(1, 1)

The relation between two metric is the following:

 

0
cosh2 sin2 + sinh2 cos2
g g
T
=
g=J J =
g g
0
sinh2 cos2 + cosh2 sin2
(5.3)
So line element in prolate spheroidal coordinates at = 0 is given by:
ds2 = (sin2 + sinh2 )(d2 + d2 )

(5.4)

Metric on S 2

Show that for a 2-sphere with radius r, the line element is given by
ds2 = r2 (d2 + sin2 d2 )

(6.1)

(The 2-sphere with radius r is defined by {(x, y, z) R3 : x2 + y 2 + z 2 = r2 }. To derive ds2 ,

draw a picture and compute the distance between two nearby points on the surface of the
sphere.)

We parametrize sphere with coordinates (, )

x = r sin cos
y = r sin sin

(6.2)

z = r cos
By considering two close points on sphere with coordinates (, ) and ( +
d, + d)
ds2 =dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2
= r2 (cos cos d sin sin d)2

+ r2 (cos sin d + sin cos d)2 + r2 ( sin d)2

(6.3)

= r2 (d2 + sin2 d2 )
Which is the same as applying Pythagoras theorem to triangle shown in Fig.
3:
ds2 = r2 d2 + r2 sin2 d2

(6.4)

Figure 3. On the sphere, Pythagoras theorem says: purple2 = blue2 + red2