A Scenic Trip as a Spaceship at 0.999...c, and questions that arise

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter IroAppe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spaceship
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of traveling in a spaceship at speeds approaching the speed of light (0.999...c) and the resulting effects on perception of the universe, particularly in relation to the cosmological event horizon and observable universe. Participants explore various theoretical scenarios and questions regarding time dilation, the nature of the universe's expansion, and the implications of relativistic travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether traveling to Andromeda at 0.999...c would allow for a different observable universe, given the same distance into all directions.
  • Another participant raises the idea that traveling through the voids of space might create the illusion of slowing down relative to galaxies moving away at high speeds.
  • There is a discussion about whether a traveler would be stationary relative to distant galaxies upon arrival, despite having traveled at relativistic speeds.
  • Some participants propose that if a traveler reaches distant galaxies, they might observe new galaxies that are not within Earth's cosmological event horizon, questioning the implications of this scenario.
  • Concerns are expressed about the nature of the cosmological event horizon and whether it applies differently to a traveler compared to an observer on Earth.
  • One participant emphasizes that the expansion of space is not a speed but an expansion rate, which complicates the understanding of distances and travel at relativistic speeds.
  • There is a suggestion that the paradox of reaching new galaxies and their associated horizons creates confusion about the nature of the universe's expansion and the limits of travel.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of relativistic travel and the nature of the cosmological event horizon. There is no consensus on how these concepts interact from the perspective of a traveler versus an observer on Earth, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their understanding, particularly regarding the application of general relativity and the nature of inertial reference frames. There are mentions of misconceptions that may affect the analysis of relativistic travel and the cosmological horizon.

  • #31
Okay, that's very fascinating.
PeterDonis said:
Please take some time to learn the basics. You have very fundamental misunderstandings.
I will do exactly that. You have given me many impulses today, education on the types of reference frames, coordinate systems, especially comoving coordinates, Lorentz Transformations, four-vectors and invariant quantities.

I've learned, that most videos on the topic seem to skip many of these important concepts that are incredibly useful to describe those scenarios. I have learned, that before, I thought I knew at least most of the concepts conceptually, now I understand that there are concepts that I haven't even touched that could answer a lot of my questions.

But still, thank you a lot for those last few answers! They answered a lot of what I have to learn to understand cosmology better. And I'm more intrigued than ever before.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
IroAppe said:
One thing I like to do is, stop the acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe. Because these statements still have to hold true, if the expansion rate remains constant.
There is no cosmological horizon without accelerated expansion.
 
  • #33
IroAppe said:
I will do exactly that. You have given me many impulses today, education on the types of reference frames, coordinate systems, especially comoving coordinates, Lorentz Transformations, four-vectors and invariant quantities.
You could do much worse than starting with Taylor and Wheeler’s book “Spacetime Physics” - the first edition is available free online.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: IroAppe and Klystron
  • #34
PAllen said:
There is no cosmological horizon without accelerated expansion.
Aren't objects far away still moving away faster even with a constant expansion of space-time? Isn't the rate of expansion the speed at which two points at a defined distance move away from each other? If you take points at twice that distance, and per one unit of that distance the expansion rate is constant, then those two units-distanced points will still move away from each other twice as fast.

Or another analogy, if you stretch the ends of a rubber band at 10 times the speed of light, then the point exactly in the middle will still stay stationary, and the more you move to one of the ends of the band, the faster your motion will be. The point in the middle of the band is us, and all the other points are the objects that we see moving away from us. (Of course, this applies for every point in this universe).

Am I confusing acceleration and speed here?
 
Last edited:
  • #35
IroAppe said:
Or another analogy, if you stretch the ends of a rubber band at 10 times the speed of light,
There is a well known problem that envisions a rubber band that is one light year long. One end is held stationary. The other end moves away at an extremely high speed. Such as 10 times the speed of light.

An ant begins crawling on the rubber band at a speed of one centimeter per year. Can the ant ever reach the far end of the rubber band? The surprising answer is "Yes".

The ant is carried along with the expansion. If he gets a fraction of the way there, he stays at least that fraction of the way there.

If you analyze the ant's motion for this it is the sum of a harmonic series. He gets some fraction of the way in the first year (goal 1 light year away). He gets another 1/11 of that fraction on the second year (goal 11 light years away). He gets another 1/21 of that fraction on the third year (goal 21 light years away). He gets another 1/31 of that fraction in the next year. And so on. That is roughly a harmonic series. The sum of a harmonic series is infinite. So no matter how small a fraction he gained on that first year, he eventually makes it to 100%. The partial sums of a harmonic series increase roughly as the logarithm of the number of terms. So it takes exponentially many years to get there. Something like ##e^{\frac{1}{\text{first year fraction}}}##. Don't wait up.

For an exponential expansion (fixed expansion rate in velocity per unit time per unit distance) the ant can never get there. After one year, he is looking at the same problem, but the goal line is 10 light years minus one centimeter farther away.

The infinite series thing does not save us this time. The infinite sum of a decaying geometric series is finite.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK, Halc, PAllen and 1 other person
  • #36
IroAppe said:
Aren't objects far away still moving away faster even with a constant expansion of space-time?
Yes. The rubber band thing illustrates that pretty well. The post by jbriggs444 just above is spot on. Constant expansion is like the end of the rubber band moving away at constant speed.

The current rate of expansion is something near 70 km/sec/mpc. Constant expansion does not mean that the rate expressed that way is constant. It means that something a megaparsec away moving away at 70 km/sec will continue to move away at 70 km/sec forever, even though its 2 mpc away in 14 billion more years. Accelerating expansion means that some distant galaxy will gain recession speed from us.

So the expansion rate might be 70 km/sec/mpc now, and will eventually go down to something like 57 km/sec/mpc and become a constant of sorts, which will indicate exponential expansion, not linear expansion.
IroAppe said:
If you take points at twice that distance, and per one unit of that distance the expansion rate is constant, then those two units-distanced points will still move away from each other twice as fast.
As measured in cosomological coordinates (comoving frame, proper distance/speed), yes. In such coordinates, speed is more of a rapidity and adds with normal addition (*), not relativistic velocity addition like you'd use with inertial coordinates. So there's nothing funny about recession rates at arbitrarily high multiples of c.

(*) Not as simple as that, but it works for objects with negligible peculiar velocity like pretty much any galaxy.
 
  • #37
IroAppe said:
Am I confusing acceleration and speed here?
I think you are confusing points of space with objects moving locally relative to them.

Here is the rubber band scenario for non-accelerated expansion, where you can always reach any point, given enough time, no matter how much faster than your local speed it initially recedes from your start point (as mentioned by @jbriggs444):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_on_a_rubber_rope
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
870
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K