Transmission Line in Accelerating Frame: Energy Conservation Puzzle

In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of finding the transmitted power drawn from a battery at the stern of a rigid accelerating spaceship, with a proper acceleration of g and a transmission line of proper length d running from the stern to the bow. The received power at the bow is 1 watt, steady-state direct current, as measured by an observer at the bow. The conversation also considers various assumptions and simplifications for solving the problem, including energy conservation arguments and the use of Maxwell's equations. Ultimately, the conversation concludes that the transmitted power is equal to 1 / (1 - gd/c^2) times the received power.
  • #1
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
10,302
1,472
While I believe I have an answer to this problem, I think it's an interesting one and counter-intuitive. I think it might spark some interesting discussions.

The bow of a Born rigid accelerating spaceship has a proper acceleration of g. There is a transmission line running from the stern to the bow of proper length d. There is a battery at the stern of the ship supplying power to the bow via the transmission line. The received power at the bow of the space-ship is 1 watt, steady-state direct current, with no time variations, as measured locally by an observer at the bow. What is the transmitted power drawn from the battery at the stern of the spaceship as measured by a local observer?

I don't believe it is necessary to make other assumptions to solve the problem, I believe that energy conservation arguments should be sufficient. But if it makes the problem simpler, feel free to make or suggest additional simplifying, clarifying, or convenient assumptions.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and etotheipi
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think this is a complete answer, so spoilered.
Use the current at the bow to power a laser pointing back down the ship and use a photocell in the stern to recharge the battery. Assuming 100% efficiency everywhere this is a closed loop, so the answer to the question is equal to the power received from the laser.

In the lapse ##\Delta t## of bow time the laser emits energy ##P\Delta t##, where ##P=1\mathrm{W}## is the laser power. This is gravitationally blue shifted by some factor ##f## so arrives with energy ##fP\Delta t##, and does so in the lapse ##\Delta t'=\Delta t/f## of stern time. Thus, if I'm not mistaken, the power received is ##f^2## times the power emitted.

I don't know ##f## off the top of my head. If the rocket is short (length ##l\ll c^2/g##) it will be ##\approx 1+gl/c^2##. I'd need to do some maths for an exact answer - it's the ratio of proper times along the bow and stern Rindler hyperbolae.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
  • #3
Ibix said:
Thus, if I'm not mistaken, the power received is ##f^2## times the power emitted.
I agree. Reason: ##P=I^2R##, with ##I=dq/d\tau##.
Ibix said:
If the rocket is short (length ##l\ll c^2/g##) it will be ##\approx 1+gl/c^2##. I'd need to do some maths for an exact answer
I see no reason, why this should not be also the exact answer (at least on front of the Rindler horizon), reason:
Sagittarius A-Star said:
Yes. Gron derives in his book the following equation (4.50):
$$d\tau = dt\sqrt {(1+ \frac{g\,x} {c^2})^2 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$
 
Last edited:
  • #4
At the bow charge a battery by energy ##E=UC##. (Volts times Coulombs)

Then lower the energy and the battery to the stern, getting out of the elecric energy this much mechanical energy: ##mgh = gh*(E/c^2)##Then get the all the remaining electric energy back trough the electric wire. You should now have the original energy E, so the elecric energy you got back must be: ##E - gh*(E/c^2) ##.Using E=UC and realising that the Coulombs can not change, we come to the conclusion that the voltage U must have changed, by factor of ##1-(gh*c^2)##. When voltage changes by that factor, then power changes by that factor squared.

By voltage changing by some factor I mean that voltages measured at the bow and at the stern differ by that factor.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Sagittarius A-Star said:
I see no reason, why this should not be also the exact answer (at least on front of the Rindler horizon), reason:
I don't agree. The factor ##1+gl/c^2## doesn't go to infinity as the stern approaches the horizon, which the exact factor must do.

I did the complete maths. Imagine that the bow emits a light pulse received at the stern. Let us work in an inertial frame where the origin is the focus of the Rindler hyperbolae and the stern received the light pulse at the moment it is instantaneously at rest. In this frame, the factor ##f## is the kinematic Doppler effect due to the velocity of the bow at the time it emitted the pulse. We can write the worldline of the bow$$x^2-c^2t^2=\frac{c^2}g$$and the light pulse$$x=\left(\frac{c^2}g-l\right)-ct$$and note by differentiating the former that the velocity, ##v=dx/dt##, of the bow satisfies ##vx=c^2t##. This system solves to give us the velocity at emission as $$v=cgl\frac{gl-2c^2}{(gl-2c^2)^2-2c^4}$$Note that this velocity is negative. Thus to get a blueshift we want to plug it into the Doppler shift expression $$\begin{eqnarray*}f&=&\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}\\&=&\frac 1{1-gl/c^2}\end{eqnarray*}$$This does indeed behave as ##1+gl/c^2## for small ##l##, but also has the expected infinity at ##l=c^2/g## when the rocket's stern is at the Rindler horizon.

There seem to be some typos in what @jartsa wrote, but assuming that he intends his factor to be ##1-gh/c^2## (he uses ##h## instead of ##l##) and a divisor rather than a multiplier we agree.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and Sagittarius A-Star
  • #6
...and I've just noticed that @pervect specified the length of the rocket as ##d## in the OP. Oh well!
 
  • Like
Likes Sagittarius A-Star
  • #7
Ibix said:
$$\begin{eqnarray*}f&=&\sqrt{\frac{c-v}{c+v}}\\&=&\frac 1{1-gl/c^2}\end{eqnarray*}$$This does indeed behave as ##1+gl/c^2## for small ##l##, but also has the expected infinity at ##l=c^2/g## when the rocket's stern is at the Rindler horizon.
Yes, I was incorrect. An easier deviation is possible in the accelerated frame (with ##x=0## for the bow, which has the porper acceleration ##g##) from:
Sagittarius A-Star said:
Yes. Gron derives in his book the following equation (4.50):
$$d\tau = dt\sqrt {(1+ \frac{g\,x} {c^2})^2 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$
The stern has a negative ##x##-coordinate and the velocity ##v=0##, and you get:
$$dt = d\tau / \sqrt {(1+ \frac{g\,x} {c^2})^2 - \frac{0}{c^2}} = d\tau / (1- \frac{g\,d} {c^2})$$
This becomes close to infinite, if the stern (with finite proper time ##\tau##) is close to the Rindler horizon.
$$f = dt/d\tau$$.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #8
I agree with the ##1/(1-gd/c^2)## answer. It's also compatible with a longer analysis I did for the voltage in a transmission line with zero current using Maxwell's equations - the transmission line with zero current being replaced with a parallel plate capacitor as the inductance doesn't matter.
 
  • #9
Ibix said:
The factor ##1+gl/c^2## doesn't go to infinity as the stern approaches the horizon, which the exact factor must do.
The factor you give goes to zero as the stern approaches the horizon, since "approaches the horizon" means ##l \rightarrow - c^2 / g##. (The bow is at ##l = 0## in these coordinates.) This is to be expected since the factor you give is the time dilation factor for the observer at the stern, relative to the observer at the bow--it is, heuristically, the rate at which the bow observer calculates the stern observer's clock to be running, relative to his own.

The reciprocal of this factor is what is needed to solve the problem posed in the OP. With proper attention to signs, this agrees with the formula ##1 / \left( 1 - g d / c^2 \right)##.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
There seem to be some typos in what @jartsa wrote
Yes typos. Can't edit the post anymore.

As there seems to exist a redshift effect of DC-voltage, does a moving tram observe a changed voltage of the overhead wire, because of the motion?
 
  • #11
pervect said:
While I believe I have an answer to this problem
...
The received power at the bow of the space-ship is 1 watt, steady-state direct current, with no time variations, as measured locally by an observer at the bow.

What is the transmitted power drawn from the battery at the stern of the spaceship as measured by a local observer?
pervect said:
I agree with the ##1/(1-gd/c^2)## answer.
That is not the answer, we gave to your question. The given answers were the square of it as factor for the power:
Ibix said:
Thus, if I'm not mistaken, the power received is ##f^2## times the power emitted.
Sagittarius A-Star said:
I agree. Reason: ##P=I^2R##, with ##I=dq/d\tau##.
jartsa said:
##1-(gh*c^2)##. When voltage changes by that factor, then power changes by that factor squared.
Do you agree to the "square-answers"?
 
  • #12
Sagittarius A-Star said:
That is not the answer, we gave to your question. The given answers were the square of it as factor for the power:
Do you agree to the "square-answers"?

Yes I agree.

-----------------

How does an inertial observer explain all of this stuff? The battery does some work on the spaceship increasing its kinetic energy? And as it takes an increasing amount of time to transmit a parcel of energy through the line, the energy stored in ithe transmission line increases. So then the rate at which the parcels of energy arrive at the bow is decreased, and the usable electric energy of each parcel is decreased?
 
  • #13
jartsa said:
How does an inertial observer explain all of this stuff? The battery does some work on the spaceship increasing its kinetic energy? And as it takes an increasing amount of time to transmit a parcel of energy through the line, the energy stored in ithe transmission line increases.
This depends on, which inertial frame you choose, and at which time you valuate the quantities. If you choose for example a "co-moving" inertial frame, in which the center-of-momentum of the spaceship is at rest at a certain point in time, then at this point in time the kinetic energy of the spaceship is zero. Before this point in time, the spaceship moved into the opposite direction as in which it accelerates and had therefore some kinetic energy.

jartsa said:
So then the rate at which the parcels of energy arrive at the bow is decreased, and the usable electric energy of each parcel is decreased?
Yes. Frequency (=rate) and electromagnetic energy in vacuum transform each according to the Doppler formula (in an inertial frame). For the usable electric power via a constant current, it should be overall the same effect (Doppler formula squared in an inertial frame).
 
Last edited:

1. How does energy conservation apply to a transmission line in an accelerating frame?

Energy conservation still applies in an accelerating frame, but the way it is calculated and observed may be different. In a transmission line, energy is transferred through electric and magnetic fields. In an accelerating frame, these fields may change due to the acceleration, but the total energy of the system will remain constant.

2. How does the energy conservation puzzle arise in a transmission line in an accelerating frame?

The energy conservation puzzle arises because the total energy of the system appears to change when observed from different reference frames. This is due to the changing electric and magnetic fields in an accelerating frame, which can lead to discrepancies in the calculations of energy conservation.

3. Can the energy conservation puzzle be resolved in a transmission line in an accelerating frame?

Yes, the energy conservation puzzle can be resolved by taking into account the effects of relativity and considering the changing electric and magnetic fields in an accelerating frame. By using the correct equations and accounting for all factors, energy conservation can still be observed in a transmission line in an accelerating frame.

4. How does the speed of the accelerating frame affect the energy conservation puzzle in a transmission line?

The speed of the accelerating frame can affect the energy conservation puzzle in a transmission line because it can change the relative strength and direction of the electric and magnetic fields. This can lead to different calculations of energy conservation when observed from different reference frames.

5. Is the energy conservation puzzle unique to transmission lines in an accelerating frame?

No, the energy conservation puzzle can arise in other systems as well, such as in electromagnetic waves or particle accelerators. It is a result of the changing electric and magnetic fields in an accelerating frame and can be resolved by considering the effects of relativity and using the correct equations.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
128
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
4
Views
985
Replies
6
Views
773
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
981
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top