Fuel per unit distance decreasing?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between fuel consumption and distance traveled by a rocket as its velocity approaches the speed of light, incorporating concepts from relativistic physics. Participants explore the implications of time dilation and proper time on fuel requirements during travel at relativistic speeds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that as velocity approaches the speed of light, the fuel required to travel a distance approaches zero due to time dilation effects.
  • Another participant counters that in the rocket's frame of reference, time does not stop, and thus the fuel consumption does not go to zero.
  • There is a discussion about the concept of proper time and how it relates to the perception of time for the rocket compared to an outside observer.
  • Some participants clarify that fuel is only needed for acceleration, not for maintaining constant velocity, which complicates the original assertion about fuel per distance.
  • One participant expresses confusion about how time dilation affects the engine's operation and fuel consumption as velocity increases.
  • Another participant states that no finite distance is sufficient to accelerate to the speed of light, implying that infinite distance would be required.
  • It is noted that the fuel/distance relationship is not exclusive to relativistic physics, as it also applies under Newtonian physics for constant thrust scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of time dilation for fuel consumption and the mechanics of traveling at relativistic speeds. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the initial claim about fuel requirements decreasing to zero.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities of relativistic effects and proper time, indicating that assumptions about time and fuel consumption may not hold under different frames of reference. The discussion also touches on the distinction between fuel needed for acceleration versus travel at constant velocity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in relativistic physics, particularly in relation to space travel, fuel consumption, and the effects of high velocities on time perception.

RobinSky
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
I was reading a link i found here on physicsforums called "The relativistic rocket".
There was lots of calculations of the required fuel for certain distances and such.

However, I understand that time→0 when our velocity v→c.
And that will mean we travel a larger distance for a shorter amount of time in our (he/she who travels) frame of reference, right?
During that time though, we are using fuel, so my question is, or maybe I should call this a statement, however. Doesn't this mean that the fuel required to travel a distance d also goes to zero?
Fuel required→0 when v→c because t→0
.
I mean, the engine "stops" in it's frame of reference (as time is felt for the engine) when v is c, right? Let's now say it's possible to reach the velocity c.
Let's say v is now (9999999999999/10000000000000)*c. If statement above is true, this velocity will give a very large distance traveled for a minimal used up fuel.
Or is all this nonsense?

Very thanks in advance.
/Robin Andersson
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Doesn't this mean that the fuel required to travel a distance d also goes to zero?

no, not in the frame of the rocket ship.

the engine "stops" in it's frame of reference (as time is felt for the engine) when v is c, right?

no, not in the frame of the rocket ship.
 
Naty1 said:
no, not in the frame of the rocket ship.



no, not in the frame of the rocket ship.


Could you care to explain how this could not be the case? I mean time stops for me because I move at a velocity close to c, so is the rocket ship, why wouldn't time decrease for the ship?
 
RobinSky said:
Could you care to explain how this could not be the case? I mean time stops for me because I move at a velocity close to c, so is the rocket ship, why wouldn't time decrease for the ship?
"Time for you" is called "proper time". Your proper time rate has not slowed down if you go fast relative to something else. Instead, it's the time rate of clocks that move fast relative to you that you interpret as being slowed down, if you presume that you are in rest.
 
RobinSky said:
I mean, the engine "stops" in it's frame of reference (as time is felt for the engine) when v is c, right? Let's now say it's possible to reach the velocity c.

No, the engine keeps working at the same rate always, in its own reference frame. It's slower only relative to someone else (say, someone staying on Earth).

RobinSky said:
During that time though, we are using fuel, so my question is, or maybe I should call this a statement, however. Doesn't this mean that the fuel required to travel a distance d also goes to zero?


You don't need fuel to travel. You only need fuel to accelerate. So "the fuel required to travel a distance d" doesn't make much sense.
 
someGorilla said:
No, the engine keeps working at the same rate always, in its own reference frame. It's slower only relative to someone else (say, someone staying on Earth).



You don't need fuel to travel. You only need fuel to accelerate. So "the fuel required to travel a distance d" doesn't make much sense.

Sorry for not beting clear, I ment that this distance d was not enough to accelerate to the speed of light. In my concept I'm trying to accelerate to the speed of light, and I was thinking how the engine would behave as time slows down as I reach the speed of light.
But now I'm just more confused since I thought everything slowed down, since you age much slower and such at such velocities relative a person, let's say, a person on earth...
 
RobinSky said:
Sorry for not beting clear, I ment that this distance d was not enough to accelerate to the speed of light. In my concept I'm trying to accelerate to the speed of light, and I was thinking how the engine would behave as time slows down as I reach the speed of light.
But now I'm just more confused since I thought everything slowed down, since you age much slower and such at such velocities relative a person, let's say, a person on earth...
No distance is enough to accelerate to the speed of light. In other words, you need d=∞.
And we both already explained the error you made for v<c.

The simplest explanation that may help to end your confusion is based on common sense: if you compare your watch with a reference clock on board, and if they were running at the same pace before take-off and they are not sensitive to acceleration, then they should still run in pace (that's what is meant with "proper time"). So, that kind of "time for you" must remain the same - it can't be any different. :smile:
 
Note that this fuel/distance effect is not specifically a relativistic effect. Under Newtonian physics the fuel per unit distance is monotonically decreasing also for constant thrust.
 
Ah yeah now I understand! This was actuall an answer to another question that I had in mind, thanks a lot for the help I appreciate it a lot. I remember a friend to me asking this sort of question while I explained the basics of relativity for him, how time slows down and such.
The question was if I will feel any difference in time, we both thought about it and came to a no actually, interesting though that I didn't apply this to the engine.

Thanks a lot! This is interesting!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K