Relativistic rocket - where is the relativistic mass?

In summary: The modern treatment is simpler, more general, with no special cases or exceptions, and with more powerful tools (i.e., tensors). Unfortunately, the old-fashioned terminology is still used in many textbooks. Fortunately, there are now many excellent textbooks that do not use it.
  • #1
spica
5
0
A simple problem with a constant acceleration, ignoring mass of the fuel.

The velocity of a rocket, which moves withe a constant acceleration g, is equal:
v(t) = gt

but I want to keep the const acceleration inside the rocket, not in the absolute sense.

An acceleration has a dimension: L/T^2 [m/s^2];
and in a moving rocket the meter is contracted gamma times,
and a time is dilated gamma times too,
so finally the absolute acceleration must be: ##g / \gamma^3##

therefore:
##dv=\frac{g}{\gamma^3}dt##

which can be easili integrated:
##\gamma^3dv = gdt\to\, v\gamma = gt\to\, \frac{v}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}=gt##

finally:
##v(t) = \frac{gt}{\sqrt{1+(gt)^2}}##

Is this a correct speed of the relativistic rocket?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
spica said:
The velocity of a rocket, which moves withe a constant acceleration g, is equal:
v(t) = gt

Not in relativity.

Read this:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html

spica said:
Is this a correct speed of the relativistic rocket?

I think the expression you end up with for ##v(t)## is consistent with what is in the article I linked to above; but your derivation is hand-waving, whereas that article does it using the correct relativistic starting point.
 
  • #3
What a hand-waving?

It's rather obvious, that an absolute acceleration of the rocket should be equal to: g / gamma^3, to keep a constant 'gravity' inside the rocket.

[m/s^2]
the length contraction: +1, and dilation of time: +2 = 3.

But it's strange somewhat for me, because there is nothing about the relativistic mass increase.
Probably the relativistic mass is irrelevant.
 
  • #4
I can use a reversed version of the relativistic rocket, using the g = const in the absolute sense.

In general: for an absolute acceleration a, the acceleration measured in the rocket is: a' = a x gamma^3, thus the standard work-energy equation is now:

##dE = Fdx = m a\gamma^3dx##
but: ##a = dv/dt## thus:

##dE=m\gamma^3\frac{dv}{dt}dx=\gamma^3 vdv=m\gamma == mc^2 \gamma##

The result is still correct without any relativistic mass usage!
 
  • #5
spica said:
What a hand-waving?

You started with

spica said:
The velocity of a rocket, which moves withe a constant acceleration g, is equal:
v(t) = gt

and then used the term "constant acceleration in an absolute sense" to describe this. That's not correct. The only "absolute" (in the sense of invariant) acceleration in relativity is proper acceleration, which is what you called "constant acceleration inside the rocket". There is no such thing as "acceleration in an absolute sense" other than that. So the concept you started from is not valid. It just happened to lead you to the correct answer (because ##v = g t## happens to be the non-relativistic limit of the correct formula).

spica said:
It's rather obvious, that an absolute acceleration of the rocket should be equal to: g / gamma^3, to keep a constant 'gravity' inside the rocket.

This is another example of the same conceptual issue: g / gamma^3 is not the relativistic version of "absolute acceleration inside the rocket". It's just the coordinate acceleration in a particular inertial frame when the proper acceleration is g.

spica said:
Probably the relativistic mass is irrelevant.

Yes. Relativistic mass is really an outdated concept; you don't need to use it at all.
 
  • #6
I know from the school and other, more advanced literature, the acceleration is the real quantity, probably because it's a second derivative.

And if the relativistic mass is outdatet, then why it's still used in the relativity?

For example: p = gamma mv, what is this?

further:
F-relativistic = dp/dt = ... what is this?
a transversal vs longitudinal force - what is a purpose still to use these fantastic ideas?
 
  • #7
##p=\gamma mv## is the relativistic momentum. What we don't do is write ##p=mv## where ##m=\gamma m_0## is the relativistic mass. This is because all sorts of different "relativistic masses" are needed in different circumstances.
 
  • #8
spica said:
I know from the school and other, more advanced literature, the acceleration is the real quantity, probably because it's a second derivative.

You may think you "know" that, but it isn't true. The only invariant acceleration in relativity is proper acceleration. Coordinate acceleration, the second derivative of position with respect to time, is not invariant; it can change depending on your choice of coordinates.

If you have any references (textbooks or peer-reviewed papers) that you think support your claim, please post them.

spica said:
if the relativistic mass is outdatet, then why it's still used in the relativity?

It almost never is in modern sources. If you are seeing it in sources you are using, they are probably older ones.
 
  • #9
The sense of an absolute quantity doesn't mean it's invariant automaticaly for any observer.
The absolute means the thing is a real only, but the real things are not invariant, in the relativistic sense at least!

What is invariant in the reality?
Nothing is invariant, maybe a pure numbers only:
for example: there are seven flies in my garden.
The number 'seven' is preserved everywhere.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
##p=\gamma mv## is the relativistic momentum. What we don't do is write ##p=mv## where ##m=\gamma m_0## is the relativistic mass.

We use term "mass" for ##m_0## only. That's all. It makes no difference if we write ##p=\gamma m_0 v## or ##p=mv## whith ##m=\gamma m_0##. Both variants are identical. And it doesn't matter how we name m or if we name it at all.
 
  • #11
spica said:
The absolute means the thing is a real only, but the real things are not invariant, in the relativistic sense at least!
...
What is invariant in the reality?
"Invariant" has a precise meaning in relativity: A quantity is invariant if its value is the same no matter which frame you use to calculate it.
spica said:
F-relativistic = dp/dt = ... what is this?
That's the standard definition of force since Newton's day. ##F=ma## is the simplified version that we teach in high school physics when the students are not yet familiar with calculus, so not ready for the more complete and generally useful ##F=\frac{dp}{dt}##.
A transversal vs longitudinal force - what is a purpose still to use these fantastic ideas?[/QUOTE]
None. The advantage of the modern treatment of relativity based on invariants such as proper acceleration is that it eliminates the need to use these clumsy ideas.
 
  • #12
spica said:
The absolute means the thing is a real only, but the real things are not invariant, in the relativistic sense at least!

What is invariant in the reality?
Nothing is invariant, maybe a pure numbers only:
for example: there are seven flies in my garden.
The number 'seven' is preserved everywhere.

None of this is physics. The physics question you asked has been answered. Thread closed.
 

1. What is the relativistic mass in a relativistic rocket?

The concept of relativistic mass refers to the increase in an object's mass as it approaches the speed of light. In a relativistic rocket, the mass of the spaceship and its contents would increase as it accelerates due to the effects of relativity.

2. How is the relativistic mass calculated?

The equation for relativistic mass is m = m0 / √(1 - v2/c2), where m0 is the object's rest mass, v is its velocity, and c is the speed of light. This equation takes into account the effects of time dilation and length contraction at high speeds.

3. Does the relativistic mass always increase as the rocket accelerates?

Yes, the relativistic mass will continue to increase as the rocket accelerates. However, the increase becomes less significant as the velocity reaches a larger fraction of the speed of light. At the speed of light, the relativistic mass would theoretically become infinite.

4. What are the implications of relativistic mass in a relativistic rocket?

The increase in relativistic mass means that more energy is required to accelerate the rocket to higher speeds. This can make it more difficult to achieve speeds close to the speed of light. Additionally, the increase in mass could also affect the stability and maneuverability of the rocket.

5. Is the concept of relativistic mass universally accepted in physics?

The concept of relativistic mass is a controversial topic in physics, with some scientists arguing that it is a misleading concept and should not be used. Instead, many prefer to use the concept of relativistic momentum, which takes into account both the object's mass and its velocity. However, relativistic mass is still commonly used in many equations and explanations of relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
973
Back
Top