How does GR impact acceleration and reaching the speed of light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of General Relativity (GR) and Special Relativity (SR) on the acceleration of an object and its approach to the speed of light. Participants explore the differences between these theories in the context of constant acceleration and the effects on reaching relativistic speeds over time.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references a video claiming that accelerating at one g for 10 years would not allow reaching the speed of light due to GR effects, while another participant argues that SR is sufficient for this analysis.
  • Some participants emphasize the distinction between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration, noting that proper acceleration is what is felt by an observer and is measured by an accelerometer.
  • There is a discussion on the mathematical treatment of constant proper acceleration, indicating that while the velocity approaches the speed of light, it never actually reaches it.
  • One participant provides a mathematical derivation using the relativistic velocity addition formula to illustrate how velocity changes under constant acceleration.
  • A later reply reiterates the initial claim about the video, suggesting that the results differ based on the frames of reference used for measuring velocity and acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of GR versus SR for analyzing the problem, with some asserting that SR suffices while others maintain that GR is relevant. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of each theory on the scenario presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the definitions of coordinate and proper acceleration, as well as the role of different reference frames in the calculations. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the application of GR and SR in this context.

DiracPool
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
514
I just watched a video whereby the man says that you could accelerate at a constant one g for 10 years and not reach the speed of light due to GR effects. I did a non-GR calculation and found that you would hit c at about one year. Could someone tell me specifically how GR affects this rate? Here's the vid, see the last 5 min.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think that you need GR to analyze this; SR is more than adequate as it can handle constant acceleration. For starters, you can't travel at the speed of light!

Here is a link (From the Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation) with a similar http://apps.nrbook.com/relativity/index.html and solution. Type in page 14 for the problem and page 169 for the solution.

This should give you some idea of what's going here.
 
As long as tidal gravity is not significant you can use SR only, there is no need to use GR in this scenario.

The first thing to understand is the difference between coordinate acceleration and proper acceleration. Proper acceleration is the amount of acceleration that you "feel", it is measured by an accelerometer. Coordinate acceleration is just the second time derivative of your position.

At any point in time there is a special reference frame called the momentarily comoving inertial frame. In that frame for that instant the proper acceleration equals the coordinate acceleration.

If you work out the math you find that curves of constant proper acceleration asymptotically approach c, but never reach or exceed it. As they get close to c the coordinate acceleration goes to 0.
 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html has the equations of motion.

To get some insight, consider the Newtonian formula

[itex]v(\tau+d\tau) = v(\tau) + g*d\tau[/itex]

and replace the addition of velocities with the relativistic velocity addition formula

[tex]v_1 + v_2 = \frac{v_1+v_2}{1+v_1\,v_2/c^2}[/tex]

giving

[tex]v( \tau+d\tau ) = \frac{v(\tau) + g d\tau}{1+ (g/c^2)\,v(\tau)\,d\tau} \approx v(\tau) + \frac{g d\tau}{1-v^2(\tau)/c^2 }[/tex]

(The approximate answer can be derived with a taylor series, among other methods, using calculus).

You can use a spreadsheet or calculus to find [itex]v(\tau)[/itex] this way, and compare it to the exact known results in the sci.physics.faq.
Not that [itex]\tau[/itex] here is proper time, what the spaceship's clock measures.

If you are familiar with 4 velocites and 4-accelerations, MTW's textbook "Gravitation" has a more formal derivation.

It turns out that the 4-velocity is [itex][\cosh g\tau, \sinh g\tau][/itex]
while the 4-acceleration is its derivative [itex][g \sinh g\tau, g \cosh g\tau][/itex]
and the 4-position its integral [itex][(1/g) \sinh g\tau, (1/g) \sinh g\tau + K][/itex]

Once you know that the magnitude of the 4 velocity must be -1 (with MTW's sign convention), and the 4-acceleration must be perpendicular to the 4-velocity, plus the fact that the 4-acceleratio is just the derivative of the 4-velocity with respet to proper time [itex]\tau[/itex] its pretty easy to solve the equations of motion. Realizing why all of these are true will require some familiarity with 4-vectors and their application to relativity.

This sort of motion is also known as "hyperbolic motion", See the wiki
 
Last edited:
DiracPool said:
I just watched a video whereby the man says that you could accelerate at a constant one g for 10 years and not reach the speed of light due to GR effects. I did a non-GR calculation and found that you would hit c at about one year.

You result is correct in a single frame of reference. The result in the video is correct, if velocity v and acceleration a are measured in different frames of reference - v in the original inertial rest frame and a in inertial frames moving with v.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K