Constant acceleration from accelerated observer's perspective

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of constant acceleration from the perspective of an observer in a spaceship, specifically exploring how long it would take for that observer to reach 50% of the speed of light under constant acceleration. The inquiry is motivated by a fictional scenario and involves calculations related to relativistic effects and proper acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their attempt to calculate the time it would take to accelerate to 0.5c under a constant acceleration of approximately 10g, expressing doubts about their initial result of 2.5 weeks.
  • The same participant formulates the problem in terms of acceleration as measured from Earth and questions the validity of their derived expression for acceleration.
  • Another participant suggests looking into "Rindler coordinates" as a relevant concept for the situation described.
  • A third participant introduces the concept of hyperbolic motion, providing equations that describe the trajectory and velocity of an object undergoing constant proper acceleration, noting that velocity approaches the speed of light as time approaches infinity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the calculations or the validity of the expressions presented. Multiple viewpoints and approaches are discussed without resolution.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of acceleration and relativistic effects, but these assumptions are not fully explored or agreed upon. The mathematical expressions presented may depend on specific definitions and conditions that are not clarified.

Whovian
Messages
651
Reaction score
3
First, an unnecessary short introduction of why I'm asking this question in the first place. Due to some doubts about a certain plot device in a science-fiction novel, I'm trying to figure out how long it would take to accelerate someone to, say, 50% of the speed of light under constant acceleration from their own reference frame (for various reasons, I'm assuming about 10*g.) Due to this being a small ameteur project, I'll probably be using Wolfram Alpha.

In any case, I got the outrageously small answer of about 2.5 weeks, which doesn't sound even close to right to me. I think I've isolated my problem to how I formulate this in terms of acceleration as measured from Earth. If this bit's correct, yes, I'll post the rest of my work in a hope of others finding a minor mistake.

So, now for a formulation of the problem. Say Bob's in a spaceship and accelerating with acceleration ##100\ \dfrac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}^2}\approx 10\cdot g## in his own reference frame. How long, measured in seconds from Earth, will it take for him to be moving at .5c with respect to Earth?

Now, after a large amount of squandering about with exhaust-based engines in which the exhaust has mass << the spaceship which resulted in very ugly expressions for momentum (##\dfrac{1\ \mathrm{m}^3\cdot\delta\cdot\frac{v-r}{1-\frac{v\cdot r}{c^2}}}{\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\frac{v-r}{1-\frac{v\cdot r}{c^2}}}{c}\right)^2}}##, for instance,) I decided to stop and just come out with what my intuition told me the acceleration as measured from Earth is, which is ##100\ \dfrac{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{s}^2}\cdot\sqrt{1-\left(\dfrac vc\right)^2}##. Solving this differential equation yields the nutters result of a periodic function. So, clearly, something's wrong with this expression. But what, exactly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Google for "Rindler coordinates" - they were invented for exactly this situation.
 
The trajectory of an object undergoing constant proper acceleration is called hyperbolic motion. Because, I guess, it can be expressed in terms of hyperbolic functions. :wink: An equivalent but simpler result is

x = (1/a)√(1 + a2t2) - 1
v = dx/dt = at/√(1 + a2t2)

EDIT: Should point out that this is with c = 1, and sure enough, v → 1 as t → ∞.
 
Last edited:
Okay, thanks, guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K