A question about constant acceleration close to the speed of light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of constant acceleration on a spaceship approaching the speed of light, specifically whether a pilot would still feel 1g of acceleration in such conditions. Participants explore concepts of relativity, the perception of acceleration, and the nature of velocity in different reference frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a pilot would continue to feel 1g of acceleration even as the spaceship approaches the speed of light, as the thrust remains constant.
  • Others argue that the pilot's perception of acceleration does not change in empty space, following the principle that absolute velocity cannot be determined without a reference.
  • A participant questions the assumption that an accelerating object is "catching up" to the speed of light, stating that it remains just as far from the speed of light regardless of the duration of acceleration.
  • Some participants highlight that from the pilot's perspective, the speed of light remains constant at 'c', while from an earthbound observer's perspective, the spaceship's speed approaches the speed of light.
  • There is a discussion about relativistic velocity addition, with some participants suggesting that the speed of light is always measured as 'c' by the pilot, regardless of acceleration.
  • One participant notes that the direction of acceleration can affect how speed is perceived in different inertial frames, leading to varying interpretations of the spaceship's speed relative to the speed of light.
  • Several participants express confusion about the implications of acceleration and speed in different reference frames, indicating a need for further clarification on these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the effects of acceleration near the speed of light, and participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of their arguments.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the relationship between acceleration, perceived speed, and the speed of light, highlighting the complexities of relativistic motion and reference frames.

ledopmi
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
If a spaceship was to accelerate forever, at a constant rate that allowed the pilot to feel 1g, would he still feel 1g when the spaceship was close to the speed of light?
I know that it will never reach the speed of light so the acceleration must slow as the ship speeds up, so I assume that close to the speed of light the pilot will be mostly weightless.

Is this true or will he still feel the same acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ledopmi said:
If a spaceship was to accelerate forever, at a constant rate that allowed the pilot to feel 1g, would he still feel 1g when the spaceship was close to the speed of light?
I know that it will never reach the speed of light so the acceleration must slow as the ship speeds up, so I assume that close to the speed of light the pilot will be mostly weightless.

Is this true or will he still feel the same acceleration?
Your question is most likely based on the incorrect assumption that an accelerating object is in some way "catching up" with the speed of light.

It is not, even if it accelerates for 10 million years with 1G, it is still just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before. :smile:

Contrary to what is often claimed, even in the limit (except when we decrease the mass to zero) it would not reach the speed of light!
 
Last edited:
ledopmi said:
I know that it will never reach the speed of light so the acceleration must slow as the ship speeds up, so I assume that close to the speed of light the pilot will be mostly weightless.

Is this true or will he still feel the same acceleration?

No, the pilot continues to "feel" the same acceleration, and his ship's rocket engines continue to produce the same amount of thrust (burn fuel at the same rate), even though in any inertial reference frame his speed asymptotically approaches the speed of light and becomes nearly constant.
 
As others have already stated, the pilot won't notice anything different in empty space. This follows from the basic principle that there is no way to determine one's "absolute" velocity without something to compare it to.

The standard reference with detailed formulas for velocity vs 'time' is http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
(there are actually a couple of types of time that are interesting, proper time and coordinate time).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jtbell said:
...even though in any inertial reference frame his speed asymptotically approaches the speed of light and becomes nearly constant.
It actually depends on the direction of acceleration.
To some intertial frames his speed can even approach zero. :smile:
 
MeJennifer said:
Your question is most likely based on the incorrect assumption that an accelerating object is in some way "catching up" with the speed of light.

It is not, even if it accelerates for 10 million years with 1G, it is still just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before. :smile:

Contrary to what is often claimed, even in the limit (except when we decrease the mass to zero) it would not reach the speed of light!

I do not understand. I realize that it will never reach the speed of light but I do not understand how it will be just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before it started to accelerate.
 
ledopmi said:
I do not understand. I realize that it will never reach the speed of light but I do not understand how it will be just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before it started to accelerate.

If the observer on the hypothetical spaceship measures the speed of light from any source, including a source that was initially stationary with respect to him when he began accelerating, he will measure the speed of light from that source as being equal to 'c' (using his local clocks and rulers).

Therefore he is just as far away from the speed of light as he ever was, even after he accelerates. Before he accelerates, the light was coming towards him at 'c'. After he accelerates, the light is still coming towards him at 'c'.

If you read the FAQ entry I quoted earlier, you'll see a lot more info, including some interesting things about what parts of the universe the accelerating observer can and cannot see.

Any light that the observer on the rocket can see, however, will always be measured as traveling at 'c', no matter how long he accelerates.
 
ledopmi said:
I do not understand. I realize that it will never reach the speed of light but I do not understand how it will be just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before it started to accelerate.

It depends on whose point of view (reference frame) you're talking about. From an earthbound observer's point of view (or indeed any other inertial observer), the ship's speed gets closer and clooser to the speed of light. From the pilot's point of view, the speed of any light pulse, including the one he's "chasing", is still c.

Have you learned about relativistic "velocity addition" yet?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

The relativistic velocity addition equation not only guarantees that the relative velocity of two material objects can never exceed c, it also guarantees that the speed of a light pulse relative to any inertial observer is always c. Let one of the velocities being "added" be c, and calculate the result.
 
Can i think in this way??

In the instantaneous co-moving frame of the spaceship, the pilot feels his acceleration (1g). However, he never admit that his speed has become closer to the speed of light as the relative speed he measure between light and him is always c.

In the Earth-frame, um...how can i think for it more iteratively?:confused:
 
  • #10
jtbell said:
From an earthbound observer's point of view (or indeed any other inertial observer), the ship's speed gets closer and clooser to the speed of light.
Sorry jtbell, but as I wrote a few posting earlier, what you write is simply not true.

For some intertial observers that is the case but you cannot say that that is the case for all observers. For some inertial observers the ship's speed will actually approach zero.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
ledopmi said:
I do not understand. I realize that it will never reach the speed of light but I do not understand how it will be just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before it started to accelerate.
You are always at rest with respect to a photon. If you weren't, you wouldn't always measure C to be C.
In the instantaneous co-moving frame of the spaceship, the pilot feels his acceleration (1g). However, he never admit that his speed has become closer to the speed of light as the relative speed he measure between light and him is always c.

In the Earth-frame, um...how can i think for it more iteratively?
The word "admit" seems strange there, but in any case, if a spacecraft accelerates away from Earth at 1g (according to the pilot), an observer on Earth will see him get closer and closer to C without ever reaching it and the pilot will look back at Earth and see it receeding at closer and closer to C without ever reaching it. But he'll still always measure light to travel at C.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
MeJennifer said:
jtbell said:
...even though in any inertial reference frame his speed asymptotically approaches the speed of light and becomes nearly constant.
It actually depends on the direction of acceleration.
To some intertial frames his speed can even approach zero. :smile:

I assumed that ledopmi is talking about a ship that is accelerating in the direction of its motion. Most people who haven't been thoroughly indoctrinated into the physicist's mindset, use "decelerate" when referring to acceleration in the opposite direction. :wink:
 
  • #13
ledopmi said:
I do not understand. I realize that it will never reach the speed of light but I do not understand how it will be just as far removed from the speed of light as it was before it started to accelerate.
Motion in relativity is a relative concept not an absolute one. You can only move relative to something else, and that something else must have mass.

Suppose you are the only ship in the universe, nothing else but you, and you would accelerate for say 10 billion years. Then what is your motion in space-time? The answer is that there is no point in even asking that question, since you have no way to measure your motion against.

What about your position? You position is in the middle of the universe! You are always in the middle, wherever you go.

Space seen as a 3 dimensional hypersurface of space-time is not Euclidean but hyperbolic. Hyperbolic space is "weird" for instance you can pack an infinite number of spaceships with an equal distance from each other inside a sphere with a radius the size of the distance traveled by a photon of a given time interval. The volume of this region is infinite!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Bell's Spaceship Paradox, Born Rigidity, and the 1-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
High School Why Do Events Freeze For Me at the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Relativistic Space Travel: Optimizing Proper Time [Project Hail Mary]
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
High School Questions about the Speed of Light, Time, etc.
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K
Undergrad Twin paradox for (accelerated) dummies?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Undergrad A matter of time dilation: how much time has actually passed?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad I want a good reference to a discussion of the meaning of "the speed of light is constant"
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
Undergrad SR flat Lorentzian manifold and Anderson simultaneity convention
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Calculating Time taken to reach speed with Time Dilation
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K