Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Relativity and space travel - what's the problem?

  1. May 10, 2004 #1
    it seems to me that relativity (or at least the constant, impassable c) has had a stifling effect on science fiction and on our conceptualizations of space travel...i think the popular notion is that, because nothing can move faster than c, even with very advanced technology most of the galaxy is unreachable...

    but this is all bull***t is it not? the speed of light is only impassable from another intertial reference frame...time and mass make the accomodation to maintain the appearance of an unbreachable speed of light...

    in other words, it is perfectly possible for a space ship to cover a distance of 10 light years (as measured from earth) in what he feels is only one year...all he needs is constant acceleration, since there is no drag in space he doesn't have to worry about any 'speed barriers'...in fact, with constant acceleration, his time lengthens and space shrinks, i can't see that there would be any limit to how far in the universe he can travel in a certain amount of time...again, we watch him from earth and judge that he is taking longer (his clock ticks slower) and our constant and impassable 'c' is maintained...

    so then, really the only obstacles that an interstellar traveller faces are a) a source of constant acceleration, and b) the willingness to say a last 'goodbye' to family and relatives as time dilation will mean he travels forward in time relative to the earth...

    what is the problem here?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 10, 2004 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As a traveler approaches the speed of light, he will actually measure, by his own watch, that it only takes milliseconds to be anywhere in the universe. In the limit as he approaches the speed of light, it takes zero time to be anywhere. You could say that "time stops" aboard the ship.

    The problem, of course, is that it's a one-way ticket. If you came back to Earth, you'd find that it had aged billions of years in the meantime.

    - Warren
     
  4. May 11, 2004 #3
    right, i'm not denying that billions of years is not a big deal, i'm just saying that there is a common misconception that things like settling other star systems, for instance, is distance-prohibitive when in fact it's nothing of the kind...

    and, speaking for myself, if i had the chance to gambol around the universe and settle some strange new space colony, i would be willing to say goodbye to everyone i know...and wouldn't it be neat to see what happened to the dear old earth in 10 billion years anyway?
     
  5. May 11, 2004 #4

    DW

    User Avatar

    I don't know about that. In 10 billion years you'd likely be thrown in a zoo as a lower life form as reckoned by whatever neosapien race dominates the planet if it even still exists as a living planet at that time.
     
  6. May 11, 2004 #5
    Remember also - the traveler does not get the benefit of living longer and enjoying a longer life - when he returns he will have eaten the same number of meals and enjoyed the same amount of time in contemplating physics problems as if he stayed home - his advantage is that he gets to see a lot more of the universe during his 75 year lifetime - it isn't much different than being frozen for a long trip - you don't get much enjoyment in an ice box - but when your thawed out you can explore some new world .
     
  7. May 11, 2004 #6

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But is is distance prohibitive, but not from a time stand point, but an energy one. Before you even can close to that 10 billion years to 1 ratio you would need to use up the equivalent of the Solar system in mass for fuel.
     
  8. May 11, 2004 #7

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    So what?
    Since we won't see our folks again, can't we just use'm for fuel along with the rest of the solar system?
     
  9. May 11, 2004 #8
    janus, you're probably right that it is distance prohibitive at the moment from fuel...but surely appropriate fuels can be developed...cold fusion would be nice, or even more efficient use of solar energy...
     
  10. May 11, 2004 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To get even a single digit percentage of C in a spaceship with people on it will require a propulsion system unlike any yet concieved. 1% C is 6.7 million miles an hour or about 380x orbital velocity. Getting a human to Alpha Centuari before he dies (much less return him to earth) would require at least 10% C. Current propulsion technology is a good 3-5 orders of magnitude below what is required for interstellar travel. IMO, no amount of technology will make it possible: there just isn't anything available with the energy required to do it.
     
  11. May 11, 2004 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What about "generation ships"?
     
  12. May 11, 2004 #11

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Even with a fusion drive you would have to burn a mass of approx. 1/5 that of the Moon for every kilogram you would want to deliver at another star system , traveling at only .25c!
     
  13. May 11, 2004 #12
    if we, on the earth, were watching this spacecraft, then yes, i'm not checking your calculations but since the craft's speed cannot exceed c, apparent time and mass dilation are in effect...

    but this mass increase is relative! it doesn't affect the ship as its own inertial reference point...if a ship can maintain a constant acceleration of, say, 9.8m/s^2 then it can continue speeding up in relation to the earth...if relativity holds, then there is no point at which - within the ship's inertial reference frame - acceleration becomes more of a burden...

    am i misinterpreting einstein's theory?
     
  14. May 11, 2004 #13

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe you should check his calculations.

    - Warren
     
  15. May 12, 2004 #14

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Reduces the energy requirement - for propulsion anyway. All sorts of other problems of course, but perhaps more to do with maintaining a stable 'on-board' society.

    In addition to the problems to do with a source of propulsion energy for a relativistic interstellar manned ship, there's the small matter of avoiding collisions. While the density of interstellar dust grains is low - at least in our solar neighbourhood - it's not zero; how to protect the ship and inhabitants against a collision with milligram dust grain?
     
  16. May 12, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thanks. I soooo hate doing the math myself, I was hoping someone would do it for me.. :biggrin:
     
  17. May 12, 2004 #16
    russ and janus - i don't see how these figures apply at all! they have nothing to do with the inertial reference frame of the travelling spaceship...they have to do with our earthbound observers watching that spaceship and using the equivalence of mass and energy and the pliability of time as a spacial dimension to maintain a local, observed constant of c...that's all...

    if i've misinterpreted einstein's theory, please tell me how!

    nereid has pointed out something i think is more relevant...

    first of all, this addresses a fundamental challenge to the philosophical implications of the principle of relativity...the cosmic microwave background radiation issues a similar challenge...if we can make quantitative measurements of increased incidents of exposure to 'cosmic dust' and measurements of motion in relation to the tiny assymetries of the background radiation, then does the principle of relativity hold?

    the practical implications to high-speed space travel are even more salient - at very high speeds, say in relation to an earthbound measurement of distance over a spacebound measurement of time giving 10x the speed of light, tiny dust particles (possibly even neutrinos, if they have mass) would become so massive that there would need to be some sort of shield - perhaps this is the technological requirement that is farthest beyond our abilities at the moment...
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2004
  18. May 12, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes, you have misinterpreted Einstein. Relativity doesn't give anybody a free ride (well, until you get into wormholes and Alcubierre warps!). Your space ship has to accelerate up to its speed - in this case c/4. To do that it has to throw mass out the back and rely on Newton's reaction force. There is no other way known to produce acceleration in empty space. No the Lorentz tranformation doesn't give you any help on the mass. This has nothing to do with "fuel" incidentally, it is reaction mass. And to get to c/4 requires a reaction mass of about 1/5 the mass of the moon (according to Janus' calculation, which I haven't checked).
     
  19. May 12, 2004 #18
    selfAdjoint - thank you for answering me directly...i admit i do not understand your objections...

    are you telling me that the faster you accelerate, the more proportional mass (in rocket fuel, or whatever) you need to further accelerate? this completely contradicts the principle of relativity! if we could figure out how much more mass we now need to maintain a constant acceleration if we are travelling at high speed we could easily calculate our absolute motion!

    the increase in mass is a relative effect! e=mc^2 and time dilation balance the books to maintain both a constant c and an apparently impassable c...
     
  20. May 12, 2004 #19

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem is like this:

    Imagine that you have a rocket with A 1 kg payload, and it takes 1 kg of fuel/reaction mass to give it a delta v of 1 m/s. How much fuel would it take to get it up to 2 m/s? 2 kg ? No, more like 3.

    To understand why, think about the state of the rocket at the point when it is 1 m/s short of its 2 m/s final velocity. It consists of the 1kg payload and the 1 kg of fuel needed to give the payload that extra 1 m/s of velocity. If it takes 1 kg of fuel to accelerate 1kg 1 m/s, it will take 2 kg of fuel to accelerate the above 2kg up to 1 m/s. giving a total of 3 kg of fuel you need to start with.

    To get up to 3 m/s, you need the 3kg of fuel to accelerate the last 2 m/s, and 4 more kg to acclerated this fuel and payload the first 1 m/s. This gives a total of 7 kg of fuel.

    Following the same pattern, it takes 15 kg of fuel to reach 4 m/s, 31 for 5 m/s, 63 for 6 m/s, etc. Notice that the fuel usage goes up almost exponentially.

    This example gives you a rough idea what you are up against. And that is just 1/2 of the problem. In a situation where you want to deliver a spaceship to another star system for example, you are going to have to slow down when you get there. So you must provide the fuel to accelerate the fuel you are going to use to slow down

    Thus, using the 5 m/s figures, It will take 31 kg of fuel to come to rest at the end of your voyage, which means you will have to accelerate 32 kg of mass up to 5 m/s to start. At 31 kg of fuel per kg, this means that you need a total of 992 kg of fuel to deliver 1kg of payload to its destination.

    Generally, the higher the velocity of your rocket exhaust, the better this fuel to payload ratio will be.
     
  21. May 12, 2004 #20
    yes, of course, janus, i perfectly understand the difficulties regarding fuel...but you're not addressing my point about relative speed...suppose we ignore the fuel difficulty, we have a future technology that allows us constant acceleration without fuel, say cold fusion or elf-power, doesn't matter...at what point in our acceleration curve does the energy we need to put in to maintain our uniform acceleration become greater than it was? at what point do we need more elves? we don't, if the principle of relativity holds...if ever we found we were going too fast and needed more elves, the elves could say "blimey, we are now going at 7-elf speed" - which is a measure of absolute motion...

    i'm saying that if we had a source of propulsion that gave a certain mass (the mass of our spaceship) a constant acceleration there would be no speed limit and no local mass dilation...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Relativity and space travel - what's the problem?
  1. Space Travel Scenario (Replies: 5)

  2. Bacteria space travel (Replies: 3)

Loading...