How Can a Rocket Travel Faster Than the Speed of Light?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Aaron_Shaw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a rocket traveling faster than the speed of light, specifically examining the implications of relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation. Participants explore the theoretical framework of special relativity in relation to a hypothetical journey from Earth to a star 4.5 light years away at a speed of 8.66 times the speed of light.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that when the rocket reaches its speed, the distance to the star contracts to about 2.3 light years, allowing for a journey time of approximately 3 years, which raises questions about traveling faster than light.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of using a consistent reference frame for measuring distance and time, noting that mixing frames can lead to misleading conclusions about speed.
  • Some participants discuss the concept of proper velocity (or celerity) as a useful quantity derived from mixing different reference frames, while asserting that no observer sees anything moving faster than light.
  • A participant explores the idea that the rocket experiences three frames of reference: stationary at the start, moving at light speed, and stationary at the end, leading to confusion about the implications of length contraction and time dilation.
  • Questions arise regarding the nature of length contraction and whether it occurs due to the rocket's motion or the effects of acceleration and deceleration during the journey.
  • Another participant raises the possibility that time dilation occurs in the moving rocket frame, but the effects may appear offset due to the rocket's acceleration, complicating the understanding of time experienced by observers on Earth versus those on the rocket.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of relativistic effects, particularly regarding the interpretation of speed, distance, and time in various reference frames. There is no consensus on the correct understanding of these concepts, and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misunderstanding of reference frames, the effects of acceleration on time dilation, and the assumptions surrounding the calculations of distance and speed. The discussion does not resolve these complexities.

Aaron_Shaw
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Rocket flies from Earth to a star, 4.5 light years away, at 8.66C (the actual numbers are irrelavent, so they might be wrong). When the rocket gets up to speed, instantly, the distance between Earth and the star contracts to about 2.3 light years. So the journey only takes about 3 years. Bargain.
Then, when the rocket reaches the star and stops, the distance ebtween the star and Earth expands back to normal size - 4.5 light years.

So, the rocket has traveled 4.5 light years in only 3 years. I.e. faster than the speed of light.
This is what i don't understand. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks : )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So, the rocket has traveled 4.5 light years in only 3 years. I.e. faster than the speed of light.
Just make sure that you take distance and time from the same reference frame. An important point: there is no "reference frame of the rocket", as SR allows only inertial frames. Choose either the "moving" frame or the "stationary" frame, but don't mix them.
 
Aaron_Shaw said:
So, the rocket has traveled 4.5 light years in only 3 years. I.e. faster than the speed of light.
As Ich says, if you stick to a single frame of reference for measuring both distance and time you'll always find that the speed is less than light speed. No one observes anything moving at greater than light speeds.

But the quantity that you calculated by mixing Earth frame distance with moving rocket frame time does have its uses--it's called proper velocity (or celerity).
 
Doc Al said:
As Ich says, if you stick to a single frame of reference for measuring both distance and time you'll always find that the speed is less than light speed. No one observes anything moving at greater than light speeds.

But the quantity that you calculated by mixing Earth frame distance with moving rocket frame time does have its uses--it's called proper velocity (or celerity).
Thanks for the replies guys. Took a break from replying because i had the lurgy and couldn't concentrate.

So... maybe i get it now. Rocket has 3 frames. Stationary at start, moving at C, and stationary at end.

At the start and end nothing is moving, so no speed. In the moving rocket frame the length contracted universe appears to be moving at 8.66C. No problemo.

So, in the stationary rocket frame at the end, the universe has expanded and it appears that a much greater distance has been travelled. This results in an apparent 'proper' speed greater than C?

And does this mean that given speed close enough to C we could cover huge distances in much less time than we'd expect when calculating distance/speed from a stationary point of view?

And then, as the rocket's moving frame is non-intertial, do we assert that the Earth is stationary, and therefore not experiencing time-dilation, so back on Earth everyone is about 5 years older, while the rocket is only 3 years older. And on Earth the observe the same as to them the rocket IS moving and therefore experiencing time dilation.

If, somehow, this is correct so far, then the only thing that's getting me now is why the distance covered experiences length contraction if we've already asserted that the rocket is in motion and the Earth + destination point are stationary.
 
Aaron_Shaw said:
. When the rocket gets up to speed, instantly, the distance between Earth and the star contracts to about 2.3 light years.

Thanks : )

Why do they contract?
 
I just had a thought...

Is it that the time dilation DOES occur with regards to the moving rocket frame observing earth, BUT, the clocks are offset by the rocket accelerating up to speed (instantly in this case) and decelerating to a stop, so that the end result looks like there was no time dilation?

Ta.
 
akarian said:
Why do they contract?

Are you asking why I think they contract, because you don't think they would? or just asking about length contraction in general?
 
Aaron_Shaw said:
Rocket flies from Earth to a star, 4.5 light years away, at 8.66C (the actual numbers are irrelavent, so they might be wrong). When the rocket gets up to speed, instantly, the distance between Earth and the star contracts to about 2.3 light years. So the journey only takes about 3 years. Bargain.
Then, when the rocket reaches the star and stops, the distance ebtween the star and Earth expands back to normal size - 4.5 light years.

So, the rocket has traveled 4.5 light years in only 3 years. I.e. faster than the speed of light.
This is what i don't understand. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks : )

If by C you mean the speed of light, then you mean the rocket is moving at 0.866c because the velocity of anything with mass is always less than c.

Now if the distance is 4.5 lightyears in the Earth frame, then in the rocket frame the distance is 4.5*sqrt(1-0.866^2/c^2) = 2.25 lightyears.

The time taken according to the Earth frame is 4.5/0.866 = 5.196 years.

The time taken in the rocket frame taking time dilation into account is 5.196*sqrt(1-0.866^2/c^2) = 2.595 years.

The velocity according to the observer on the rocket is then 2.25/2.598 = 0.866c

Both agree the velocity is 0.866c and no one sees the velocity as greater than c.

He could reason that while he was traveling his clock was ticking slower than when he was stationary OR he could reason that the distance was length contracted while he travelling, but he can not be sure which.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K