Relativity correction to GPS
About points...
We associate a certain number of points with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as points for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit the number of points for the exercise in the collection independently, without any effect on "points by default" as represented by the number here.
That being said... How many "default points" should you associate with an exercise upon creation?
As with difficulty, there is no straight forward and generally accepted way.
But as a guideline, we tend to give as many points by default as there are mathematical steps to do in the exercise.
Again, very vague... But the number should kind of represent the "work" required.
About difficulty...
We associate a certain difficulty with each exercise.
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
When you click an exercise into a collection, this number will be taken as difficulty for the exercise, kind of "by default".
But once the exercise is on the collection, you can edit its difficulty in the collection independently, without any effect on the "difficulty by default" here.
Why we use chess pieces? Well... we like chess, we like playing around with \(\LaTeX\)-fonts, we wanted symbols that need less space than six stars in a table-column... But in your layouts, you are of course free to indicate the difficulty of the exercise the way you want.
That being said... How "difficult" is an exercise? It depends on many factors, like what was being taught etc.
In physics exercises, we try to follow this pattern:
Level 1 - One formula (one you would find in a reference book) is enough to solve the exercise. Example exercise
Level 2 - Two formulas are needed, it's possible to compute an "in-between" solution, i.e. no algebraic equation needed. Example exercise
Level 3 - "Chain-computations" like on level 2, but 3+ calculations. Still, no equations, i.e. you are not forced to solve it in an algebraic manner. Example exercise
Level 4 - Exercise needs to be solved by algebraic equations, not possible to calculate numerical "in-between" results. Example exercise
Level 5 -
Level 6 -
Question
Solution
Short
Video
\(\LaTeX\)
Need help? Yes, please!
The following quantities appear in the problem:
The following formulas must be used to solve the exercise:
No explanation / solution video to this exercise has yet been created.
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Visit our YouTube-Channel to see solutions to other exercises.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel, like the videos and leave comments!
Exercise:
GPS satellites move at about vO. Show that a good GPS receiver needs to correct for time dilation if it is to produce results consistent with atomic clocks accurate to one part in ppmO.
Solution:
SolQtyp/ppmX SolQtygtvX^/nccX^ The Lorentz factor corresponding to the velocity of a GPS satellite is: gamma fracsqrt-fracv^c^ g && textnot accurate enough &approx -fracfracv^c^ && textTaylor &approx -frac gt gamma - dg If we denot the time passed on Earth's atomic clock with t and the time passed on the satellites atomic clock with t_ the time error relative to the time passed on the satellites clock is: fract-t_t_ fracgamma t_-t_t_ gamma - dg fracppm p Time dilation if not accounted for would roduce an error of about part in numpre which is numpr times greater than the precision of atomic clocks. Not correcting for time dilation means a receiver could give a much poorer position accuracy. GPS devices must make other corrections as well including effects associated with General Relativity. This effect is even bigger. medskip textbfApproximation with Taylor expansion: The binomial expansion of pm x^n approx mp nx for xll . With n-frac we get -x^-frac -frac x.
GPS satellites move at about vO. Show that a good GPS receiver needs to correct for time dilation if it is to produce results consistent with atomic clocks accurate to one part in ppmO.
Solution:
SolQtyp/ppmX SolQtygtvX^/nccX^ The Lorentz factor corresponding to the velocity of a GPS satellite is: gamma fracsqrt-fracv^c^ g && textnot accurate enough &approx -fracfracv^c^ && textTaylor &approx -frac gt gamma - dg If we denot the time passed on Earth's atomic clock with t and the time passed on the satellites atomic clock with t_ the time error relative to the time passed on the satellites clock is: fract-t_t_ fracgamma t_-t_t_ gamma - dg fracppm p Time dilation if not accounted for would roduce an error of about part in numpre which is numpr times greater than the precision of atomic clocks. Not correcting for time dilation means a receiver could give a much poorer position accuracy. GPS devices must make other corrections as well including effects associated with General Relativity. This effect is even bigger. medskip textbfApproximation with Taylor expansion: The binomial expansion of pm x^n approx mp nx for xll . With n-frac we get -x^-frac -frac x.
Meta Information
Exercise:
GPS satellites move at about vO. Show that a good GPS receiver needs to correct for time dilation if it is to produce results consistent with atomic clocks accurate to one part in ppmO.
Solution:
SolQtyp/ppmX SolQtygtvX^/nccX^ The Lorentz factor corresponding to the velocity of a GPS satellite is: gamma fracsqrt-fracv^c^ g && textnot accurate enough &approx -fracfracv^c^ && textTaylor &approx -frac gt gamma - dg If we denot the time passed on Earth's atomic clock with t and the time passed on the satellites atomic clock with t_ the time error relative to the time passed on the satellites clock is: fract-t_t_ fracgamma t_-t_t_ gamma - dg fracppm p Time dilation if not accounted for would roduce an error of about part in numpre which is numpr times greater than the precision of atomic clocks. Not correcting for time dilation means a receiver could give a much poorer position accuracy. GPS devices must make other corrections as well including effects associated with General Relativity. This effect is even bigger. medskip textbfApproximation with Taylor expansion: The binomial expansion of pm x^n approx mp nx for xll . With n-frac we get -x^-frac -frac x.
GPS satellites move at about vO. Show that a good GPS receiver needs to correct for time dilation if it is to produce results consistent with atomic clocks accurate to one part in ppmO.
Solution:
SolQtyp/ppmX SolQtygtvX^/nccX^ The Lorentz factor corresponding to the velocity of a GPS satellite is: gamma fracsqrt-fracv^c^ g && textnot accurate enough &approx -fracfracv^c^ && textTaylor &approx -frac gt gamma - dg If we denot the time passed on Earth's atomic clock with t and the time passed on the satellites atomic clock with t_ the time error relative to the time passed on the satellites clock is: fract-t_t_ fracgamma t_-t_t_ gamma - dg fracppm p Time dilation if not accounted for would roduce an error of about part in numpre which is numpr times greater than the precision of atomic clocks. Not correcting for time dilation means a receiver could give a much poorer position accuracy. GPS devices must make other corrections as well including effects associated with General Relativity. This effect is even bigger. medskip textbfApproximation with Taylor expansion: The binomial expansion of pm x^n approx mp nx for xll . With n-frac we get -x^-frac -frac x.
Contained in these collections:
-
GPS und Relativitätstheorie by TeXercises
-