Terminal Velocity in a bottomless vacuum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of terminal velocity for a massive object falling through a bottomless vacuum, particularly in the context of constant forces such as gravity. Participants explore the implications of special and general relativity on the object's acceleration and velocity, as well as the calculations involved in determining terminal velocity under these conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that in Newtonian mechanics, an object would continue to accelerate indefinitely without reaching a terminal velocity, while others introduce the concept of relativistic effects that prevent reaching the speed of light.
  • There is a suggestion that if a constant force is applied, the object's mass increases due to kinetic energy, which could lead to a decrease in acceleration, complicating the notion of terminal velocity.
  • One participant proposes a scenario involving a solar-powered engine attached to a massive object, questioning if terminal velocity could be calculated given the constant force and static mass.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the object's velocity approaches the speed of light as a limit, rather than reaching a finite terminal velocity.
  • Some participants discuss the need to specify the force as a function of time to accurately calculate velocity, with references to power and kinetic energy in the context of constant forces.
  • A riddle about weighing a plane without scales is introduced, leading to suggestions involving mass spectrometry and electromagnetic forces to determine mass indirectly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and calculation of terminal velocity in a vacuum, with some arguing that it does not exist in the traditional sense while others explore the implications of relativistic effects. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, particularly under relativistic conditions. There is also a lack of consensus on how to approach the calculations involved in determining terminal velocity.

Anttech
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
How would you calculate the terminal velocity of a massive object falling through a bottomless vacuum?

As nothing can go faster than the speed of light the object must have a terminal velocity also due to E=mc^2, and A=F/M...

I am just wondering if you can calculate the terminal velocity from the objects static mass.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sorry I should have added, with a constant force acting on the object, like g on earth...

:smile:
 
Well, gravity isn't constant on the surface of earth, just close to constant.

In Newtonian mechanics, the object goes faster and faster forever.

In Special Relativity, if the force is constant, the mass that the object gains through kinetic energy will decrease the acceleration preventing it from ever getting to c.

In General Relativity (which I'm not familiar with) it might be possible to demonstrate that a constant acceleration (not constant force) path like that leads into a black hole.

For more information, you should look into information on particle accelerators.
 
Thanks, Yep I understand special relativty, however I was wondering if there was a formula for calculating what the terminal velocity would be, If you know the constant force accelerating the object and the static mass of the object...

Here is the scenario I have conjered up:

An object of know mass, has a solar powered engine of knowen mass attached to it and has a thrust of know quantity applied to the system when knowing the total mass of the system could you calculate the terminal velocity in a vacuum...

:)
 
There is no terminal velocity in the sense of a velocity which the object reaches after a finite time.

The objects velocity approaches c as a limit.

If you wanted to calculate the velocity as a function of time, you would have to specify the force as a function of time.
 
Force as a function of time, is this not power... or am I missing the point...
 
Originally posted by HallsofIvy
There is no terminal velocity in the sense of a velocity which the object reaches after a finite time.

The objects velocity approaches c as a limit.

If you wanted to calculate the velocity as a function of time, you would have to specify the force as a function of time.

Sorry I am not with you 100%... How can the velocity approach C if the mass increase as the KE increases, surely there must be a point where the mass approaches infinite and therefore the acceleration becomes 0 if you are applying a constant force (a=f/m)...

can you explain what you said with a little more depth?

thx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Anttech
Force as a function of time, is this not power... or am I missing the point...
Yes, I think you missed the point - Hurkyl gave you the answer: C.

And power is force times distance times time.
 
What Hall of Ivy means is that you have to specify f(t) = F, though looking at your first post you have specified F = k, where k is a constant.

From your point of view you would just keep on accelrating under this force, as after all it is a constant force, but if we take an observer who was in your rest frame when the force was applied he would view your velocity appraoching c as time approaches infinity.
 
  • #10
by K you mean Kinetic energy, well if my velocity increase how can K be constant...

Forgive me if I am coming over as stupid :)
 
  • #11
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, I think you missed the point - Hurkyl gave you the answer: C.

And power is force times distance times time.

Russ: Power is force times distance over time, or Force times velocity.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Anttech
by K you mean Kinetic energy, well if my velocity increase how can K be constant...

Forgive me if I am coming over as stupid :)

I just used k as a generic constant, i.e. the force is always constant and always equal to some fixed value k
 
  • #13
ok let me rephraze my initial post, I was looking for a solution to a riddle which I thought you could do this way but obviously not exactly (I am sure by approximizing you could) The initial Riddle I was asked was,

"How would you "weight" a plane without scales?" If you can think of any other way you could do this I would be much obliged...

thx
 
  • #14
I do know that the terminal velocity would not be c. The object would continue to accelerate until the downward acceleration force balanced out with the increase in mass due to special relativity (I might not have phrased that clearly, but hopefully someone will understand). I don't have the skills to do the math, but I'm sure someone on this site does.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Anttech
"How would you "weight" a plane without scales?" If you can think of any other way you could do this I would be much obliged...

How about mass spectrometry?
 
  • #16
Originally posted by krab
Russ: Power is force times distance over time, or Force times velocity.
Oops. I do that sometimes.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by NateTG
How about mass spectrometry?

Good idea! :)
 
  • #18
Without probing the plane with gravity (eg a scale or some sort) you would have to use EM forces to probe the exact mass.

Eg count all the constituent particles, go ot the rest frame, add up the energies presto mass.

You can do it with gravity too, for instance, measure the curvature of space that the plane induces on the metric. Eg, measure light deviation the plane causes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
18K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
23K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K