Time as a function of distance for constant a

In summary: X. The amount of difference depends on how the traveler is accelerated. But the ratio of the proper distance to the distance recorded by a reflecting light beam is always less than or equal to one.In summary, the conversation discusses creating a calculator to determine the time elapsed for a given distance with a given acceleration and deceleration. It also delves into the concept of proper time and proper distance in relation to Earth time and distance. The necessary equations and information can be found on a specific webpage.
  • #1
DaveC426913
Gold Member
22,480
6,147
I want to make a little calculator that will
- take a distance (such as, say, 20.7 light years) and,
- with a given acceleration (say, 1g) followed by deceleration,
spit out the time elapsed.

I don't know how to fold Lorentz' velocity function into the formula for t as a function of d and a.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The information should be extractable from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

You'll be piecing together two trips, one for acceleration and the other for deceleration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
[tex]d=[\sqrt{1+a^2t^2}-1]/a].[/tex]
Solve for t.
 
  • #4
DaveC426913 said:
I want to make a little calculator that will
- take a distance (such as, say, 20.7 light years) and,
- with a given acceleration (say, 1g) followed by deceleration,
spit out the time elapsed.
Do you want the time elapsed by clocks on the ship, or in the frame where the ship was at rest at the beginning and end of the journey?
 
  • #5
JesseM said:
Do you want the time elapsed by clocks on the ship, or in the frame where the ship was at rest at the beginning and end of the journey?

Yes! :biggrin:

(Both)

And nertz to me for neglecting to say so up front...
 
  • #6
Meir Achuz said:
[tex]d=[\sqrt{1+a^2t^2}-1]/a].[/tex]
Solve for t.

As Jesse wisely asks, is that ship time? or Earth time?
 
  • #7
Just look at the page robphy pointed you to, all the terms are defined, and the equations you need are there. They say:
The acceleration of the rocket must be measured at any given instant in a non-accelerating frame of reference traveling at the same instantaneous speed as the rocket (see relativity FAQ on accelerating clocks). This acceleration will be denoted by a. The proper time as measured by the crew of the rocket (i.e. how much they age) will be denoted by T, and the time as measured in the non-accelerating frame of reference in which they started (e.g. Earth) will be denoted by t. We assume that the stars are essentially at rest in this frame. The distance covered as measured in this frame of reference will be denoted by d and the final speed v. The time dilation or length contraction factor at any instant is the gamma factor γ.
So you want to find the equations on that page which give you t or T if you already know d and a. Those would be:

t = sqrt[(d/c)^2 + 2d/a]

and

T = (c/a) ch-1 [ad/c^2 + 1]

These equations are for continuous uniform acceleration, so if you want to accelerate for half the trip and then decelerate for the second half, that's equivalent to double the time it would take to accelerate uniformly for half the distance. So the equations would become:

t = 2 * sqrt[([d/2]/c)^2 + 2d/a]

and

T = 2 * (c/a) ch-1 [a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

ch-1 is the inverse hyperbolic cosine function, acosh. Here is an online calculator which understands the function acosh(x), but if you want to program your own calculator, this page says that [tex]acosh(x) = log[x + \sqrt{x^2 - 1}][/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #8
robphy said:
The information should be extractable from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

You'll be piecing together two trips, one for acceleration and the other for deceleration.

OK, so I kind suck at advanced math, making me the world's worst physics geek.

So I made a connect-the-dots graph from the data they provided. See attached. Four whole data poiints... But it gets me a number within 10%.

So, a 20.7ly journey is actually two symmetrical 10.35ly journeys, and a 10.35ly journey at 1g shows 3.2 years elapsed shiptime.

Thus, the whole journey lasts 6.4 years shiptime, while by Earth-time the journey lasts just a little more than 21 years.

Cool.
 

Attachments

  • PF070508timedilation.gif
    PF070508timedilation.gif
    16.9 KB · Views: 648
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
On an loosely-related note, that page clears up some things I was never quite sure about in relativistiic travel.

It's a staple of sci stories that have long space journeys where they return to an Earth that's a zillion years older than when they left.

I'd never quite gotten the idea of whether something weird is happening to Earth-time, or ship-time or both. As if, by virtue of their trip, Earth-time had gone into overdrive and they had "missed" all those years.

But I'm beginning to see that even the ship's occupants can be sure that Earth's clock is "the right one" (forgive me Einstein).

A spaceship is scheduled for Star X, which everyone agrees is 83ly away. The spaceship occupants, once they get up to speed, see that their measurement of the distance to Star X is not fixed - it is not a journey of 83 light years, it is a journey of merely 5 years. Yet when they get to Star X, they see that Sol is once again 83ly away.

So, even *they* agree that the journey should - and did - take 83 years from a PoV stationary to both Sol and Star X.

So I can lay to rest my confusion. A journey of 100ly takes ~100 years - by Sol time AND by Star X time. The ship occupants acknowledge that it was they who slowed to a crawl while 83 years elapsed normally.

Or looking at it the other way, when the Niven's Rammer did his loop around the galactic core and came back "two million years in Earth's future", he really did make a trip (and one that he could plot and measure on a galactic map) whose duration should have been - and was - 2 million years.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
As Jesse wisely asks, is that ship time? or Earth time?
In the equation I gave, t is the Earth time.
 
  • #11
It's all in the proper quantities

DaveC426913 said:
I'd never quite gotten the idea of whether something weird is happening to Earth-time, or ship-time or both. As if, by virtue of their trip, Earth-time had gone into overdrive and they had "missed" all those years.

But I'm beginning to see that even the ship's occupants can be sure that Earth's clock is "the right one" (forgive me Einstein).
Good thing!

The proper distance, which is the actual distance traveled by a traveler, is always smaller than the distance as measured by a reflecting light beam. So in other words, if the distance between two planets is X then any traveler must record a distance smaller than X.
Gives an interesting spin on Zeno's paradox doesn't it? :wink:

Proper acceleration changes proper distance, which is the reason that travelers traveling between two events can record a different proper time. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Thus, the whole journey lasts 6.4 years shiptime, while by Earth-time the journey lasts just a little more than 21 years.
I got 6.1 years and 22.6 years...one thing to remember is that, as noted on the relativistic rocket page, if you're using units of years for time and light-years for distance, then 1G acceleration is 1.03 ly/y^2.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
JesseM said:
equivalent to double the time it would take to accelerate uniformly for half the distance. So the equations would become:

t = 2 * sqrt[([d/2]/c)^2 + 2d/a]

and

T = 2 * (c/a) ch-1 [a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

ch-1 is the inverse hyperbolic cosine function, acosh. Here is an online calculator which understands the function acosh(x), but if you want to program your own calculator, this page says that [tex]acosh(x) = log[x + \sqrt{x^2 - 1}][/tex].

Wow thanks! That first one works perfectly.

The second one I'm trying to massage. This is what I get:

n = a*(d/2)/c^2 + 1
m = Math.log(n+Math.sqrt(n*n-1))
Te = 2 * (c/a) * m

Unfortunately, that spits out a number in the millions.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
Wow thanks! That first one works perfectly.

The second one I'm trying to massage. This is what I get:

n = a*(d/2)/c^2 + 1
m = Math.log(n+Math.sqrt(n*n-1))
Te = 2 * (c/a) * m

Unfortunately, that spits out a number in the millions.
Hmm, try having your program print out n and m as well as Te to give you a better idea of where it's going wrong. If I use your example of d = 20.7, then with a=1.03 and c = 1 I get:

n = 11.6605
m = 3.1475 (BTW, make sure you're using the natural log function 'ln' rather than log base 10)
Te = 6.11
 
  • #15
Math.log(x) returns the natural log (base E) of x

What units is c in? I set it to 300000.


a = 1.03
d = 20
c = 300000;
n = a*(d/2)/c^2 + 1
ch1 = Math.log(n+Math.sqrt(n*n-1))
Te = 2 * (c/a) * ch1
alert(" Te:" + Te + " n:"+n +" ch1:"+ ch1 );


yields
Te:1026843.0140033511 n:3 1.7627417
 
Last edited:
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Math.log(x) returns the natural log (base E) of x

What units is c in? I set it to 300000.
You can use whatever units you want, you just have to be consistent. If you want 1G acceleration, the a = 1.03 figure assumes you're using units of years for time and light-years for distance, in which case c = 1. If you want to use c = 300000, that means you're using units of kilometers for distance and seconds for time, in which case 1G acceleration would mean a = 0.0098 kilometers/second^2.
DaveC426913 said:
a = 1.03
d = 20
c = 300000;
This would mean a distance of 20 kilometers and an acceleration of 1.03 km/s^2 = 105G, which is not what you wanted. But even with these numbers, something seems to be going wrong with your program's math:
DaveC426913 said:
]n = a*(d/2)/c^2 + 1
ch1 = Math.log(n+Math.sqrt(n*n-1))
Te = 2 * (c/a) * ch1
alert(" Te:" + Te + " n:"+n +" ch1:"+ ch1 );yields
Te:1026843.0140033511 n:3 1.7627417
If n = a*(d/2)/c^2 + 1, then you can just plug this into your calculator to see a*(d/2)/c^2 = 1.03*(10)/(300000)^2 = 1.144 * 10^-10, so n should be very close to 1. Have you checked the programming language's rules for entering equations? Maybe you need to have [d/2] instead of (d/2) of something minor like that. Anyway, I'd suggest entering different simple numbers (like a=1, d=1, c=1) to try to figure out what equation it's actually calculating, or break the equation up into more intermediate variables (like x = d/2, y = a*x, z = y/c^2) which it can print out so you can get a better idea of just where it's going wrong by double-checking the results with a calculator.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I wish to verify something:

This:
T = 2 * (c/a) ch-1 [a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

is actually
T = 2 * (c/a) * ch-1[a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

Right?
 
  • #18
Nope.I can't reconcile these two statements:

T = 2 * (c/a) h(a(d/2)/c^2 + 1)
where h(x) = log(x+x^2-1)
 
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
I wish to verify something:

This:
T = 2 * (c/a) ch-1 [a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

is actually
T = 2 * (c/a) * ch-1[a(d/2)/c^2 + 1]

Right?
That's right.
DaveC426913 said:
Nope.I can't reconcile these two statements:

T = 2 * (c/a) h(a(d/2)/c^2 + 1)
where h(x) = log(x+x^2-1)
h(x) is supposed to be log(x + sqrt(x^2 - 1)). So just calculate the value of a(d/2)/c^2 + 1, and let that be x in the second equation. For example, if d = 20.7, a=1.03 and c = 1, then a(d/2)/c^2 + 1 = 1.03*10.35 + 1 = 10.6605 + 1 = 11.6605, so according to this calculator acosh(11.6605) = 3.14751047236, and log(11.6605 + sqrt(11.6605^2 - 1)) = log(11.6605 + 11.6175) = log(23.278) = 3.1475.
 
Last edited:

What is "Time as a function of distance for constant a"?

"Time as a function of distance for constant a" refers to the mathematical relationship between time and distance when acceleration (a) remains constant. This means that the rate of change in velocity remains the same throughout the entire journey.

How is "Time as a function of distance for constant a" calculated?

The formula for calculating time as a function of distance for constant a is t = √(2d/a), where t represents time, d represents distance, and a represents acceleration. This formula is derived from the equation v = u + at, where v is final velocity, u is initial velocity, and a is acceleration.

What is the significance of "Time as a function of distance for constant a" in physics?

The relationship between time and distance for constant acceleration is a fundamental concept in physics. It helps us understand how objects move and change their position over time, which is essential in studying motion and forces.

How does "Time as a function of distance for constant a" differ from time as a function of distance for variable acceleration?

When acceleration is variable, the rate of change in velocity is not constant, meaning the object's acceleration is changing. This results in a more complex relationship between time and distance. On the other hand, when acceleration is constant, the relationship is simpler and can be represented by a straight line on a distance-time graph.

Can "Time as a function of distance for constant a" be used in real-world applications?

Yes, the concept of time as a function of distance for constant acceleration is used in many real-world applications, such as in the design of roller coasters, rockets, and other vehicles. It also helps in calculating the time it takes for an object to fall or the time it takes for a car to reach a certain distance with a constant acceleration, such as during a drag race.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
702
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
123
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
89
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
963
Back
Top