Time at 1 g acceleration to travel 100 000 light yearsMaybe I can't really reach the speed of light, but how close could I get?Is there good estimates/measures on the variables that make up the Fermi paradox?A laser can propel a spacecraft to 20% of light speed, time shorter on spacecraft?Can we speed up spacecraft to suitable interstellar travel speed using oscillating gravity assists on planets on opposite sides of the solar system?How long would it take to travel to Proxima b?Time when traveling around the speed of lightHow to get from the perturbative acceleration formula to the acceleration on the 3 axis in the case of the oblate Earth, considering j2?Outgassing as a viable explanation of Oumuamua acceleration excessBackwards time dilation paradoxDuring interstellar travel, does time dilation make the trip shorter?

What happens when your group is victim of a surprise attack but you can't be surprised?

Is this one of the engines from the 9/11 aircraft?

What are the benefits of using the X Card safety tool in comparison to plain communication?

Why is the Turkish president's surname spelt in Russian as Эрдоган, with г?

Why doesn't a marching band have strings?

Abel-Jacobi map on symmetric product of genus 4 curve

Alphabet completion rate

Isn't this a trivial corollary?

Importance of the principal bundle in Chern-Simons theory

Require advice on power conservation for backpacking trip

Fedora boot screen shows both Fedora logo and Lenovo logo. Why and How?

Peace Arch without exiting USA

Why is C++ initial allocation so much larger than C's?

Is it damaging to turn off a small fridge for two days every week?

Story-based adventure with functions and relationships

What sort of mathematical problems are there in AI that people are working on?

Why is the G major to Bb major resolution so strong?

How can I repair scratches on a painted French door?

Animation advice please

Using “sparkling” as a diminutive of “spark” in a poem

How well known and how commonly used was Huffman coding in 1979?

How to split an equation over two lines?

Would a two-seat light aircaft with a landing speed of 20 knots and a top speed of 180 knots be technically possible?

Change CPU MHz from Registry



Time at 1 g acceleration to travel 100 000 light years


Maybe I can't really reach the speed of light, but how close could I get?Is there good estimates/measures on the variables that make up the Fermi paradox?A laser can propel a spacecraft to 20% of light speed, time shorter on spacecraft?Can we speed up spacecraft to suitable interstellar travel speed using oscillating gravity assists on planets on opposite sides of the solar system?How long would it take to travel to Proxima b?Time when traveling around the speed of lightHow to get from the perturbative acceleration formula to the acceleration on the 3 axis in the case of the oblate Earth, considering j2?Outgassing as a viable explanation of Oumuamua acceleration excessBackwards time dilation paradoxDuring interstellar travel, does time dilation make the trip shorter?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








23












$begingroup$


How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Brockington
    Jun 14 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 15:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    Jun 14 at 17:38






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 20:20







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jun 15 at 6:54


















23












$begingroup$


How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Brockington
    Jun 14 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 15:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    Jun 14 at 17:38






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 20:20







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jun 15 at 6:54














23












23








23


6



$begingroup$


How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?







interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jun 16 at 23:04









uhoh

44.8k22 gold badges175 silver badges580 bronze badges




44.8k22 gold badges175 silver badges580 bronze badges










asked Jun 14 at 15:11









Roger P JonesRoger P Jones

1191 silver badge3 bronze badges




1191 silver badge3 bronze badges







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Brockington
    Jun 14 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 15:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    Jun 14 at 17:38






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 20:20







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jun 15 at 6:54













  • 4




    $begingroup$
    With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Brockington
    Jun 14 at 15:26










  • $begingroup$
    Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 15:28






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
    $endgroup$
    – Eth
    Jun 14 at 17:38






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
    $endgroup$
    – peterh
    Jun 14 at 20:20







  • 7




    $begingroup$
    A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jun 15 at 6:54








4




4




$begingroup$
With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 14 at 15:26




$begingroup$
With or without taking relatavistic effects into account?
$endgroup$
– Mike Brockington
Jun 14 at 15:26












$begingroup$
Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 14 at 15:28




$begingroup$
Note, you can accelerate only on half the way. After that, you will need to decelerate, also with 1G - except if you don't want to explode on arrival like an antimatter-bomb.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 14 at 15:28




4




4




$begingroup$
@peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Jun 14 at 17:38




$begingroup$
@peterh Antimatter bomb would be at .92 c - this would be so, so much worse... In fact, if you are close enough to c, the mass-equivalent of your kinetic energy may be enough to make you appear as a black hole to an external observer.
$endgroup$
– Eth
Jun 14 at 17:38




3




3




$begingroup$
@Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 14 at 20:20





$begingroup$
@Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 14 at 20:20





7




7




$begingroup$
A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jun 15 at 6:54





$begingroup$
A useful rule of thumb is that 1G acceleration is about the same order of magnitude as 1 light-year in relativistic units. This means that anyone going a lot more than 1 light-year while accelerating at 1G is basically going at the speed of light, while anyone going a lot less than 1 light-year doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic effects.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jun 15 at 6:54











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















74












$begingroup$

Nonrelativistic solution



The variables used will be




  • $x$ for the distance travelled


  • $v$ for velocity


  • $a$ for acceleration ($1~mathrmg$)


  • $t$ for the time


  • $c$ for the speed of light.

Non braking



Assuming the velocity you arrive at does not matter we take the equation



$$x = frac12 a t^2 .$$



Solve for $t$:



$$t = sqrtfrac2xa .$$



(Let’s discard the negative solution here)



Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha gives us



$$1.389 times 10^10~mathrms ,$$
or just over 440 years.



The velocity the object would be arriving at is be calculated by



$$v = a cdot t approx 1.362times 10^11~fracmathrmmmathrms .$$



About 454.4 times the speed of light.



So no we cannot neglect relativistic effects.



Braking



If you want to arrive at that location with reasonable speeds you’d have to accelerate half the way and brake the other half. We compute $t$ the same way we did above and get



$$9.822 times 10^9~mathrms ,$$



or just over 311 years. After that time you would only have gone half the way and need to turn your spacecraft around and decelerate which takes the same time again, giving you a total of 622 and a half years. But you would stop next to your target and not shoot past it at extreme speeds. Your maximum speed (at the turning point) would now be



$$9.632times 10^10~mathrms ,$$



just over 321 times the speed of light.



Relativistic effects



Going anywhere near the speed of light (or close to a great source of gravity like a black hole for that matter) will yield a huge variety of relativistic effects, making time and space not be the same for every person.



The calculation including the relativistic effects is quite complicated.



The important thing to note here is that the traveling object and an external observer will measure the time differently.



External observer



From the perspective of an external observer (so seen from earth, the target or any other relatively static point in the universe) it would take you 100000 years to travel 100000ly at light speed (that’s kind of the definition), but the object will not be traveling faster than the speed of light:



Plugging into the equation from the linked answer:



$$t=sqrtfracx1~mathrmly^2 + 2
frac
x / 1~mathrmly

a / fracmathrmlymathrmy^2
cdot 1~mathrmy .$$



I told you it’d be complicated. Plugging it in we get 100001 years. Not surprising: as discussed above: traveling at light speed for about 100000 years plus a bit for accelerating to that speed.



This is the non-braking variant. Braking however would not take a lot longer. About 100002 years in total. So one year of accelerating to the speed of light and one year of braking – simply said.



Perspective of the traveling object



From the perspective of the object the primary effect to consider here would be length contraction. It makes the distance to the target appear smaller and smaller the faster you are going. From the perspective of that object it would thus take less than duration calculated in the nonrelativistic solution above:



Using the other answer as reference again:



$$t = fracca mathrmacoshleft(fracxcdot ac^2 + 1right)$$



We get a result of



$$3.741times10^8~mathrms ,$$



about 12 years.



Taking braking into account again we get 11.18 year for each half, so about 22.4 years in total.



Conclusion



Relativistic effects are important here. While it would be totally doable for an astronaut to complete that mission in their lifetime by the time they get there everyone they know will have died 100000 years ago. They would receive that information during the flight. Any communication sent after arrival would have a round trip time of 200000 years.



Visualisation



The other answer by user Punintended links a wonderful tool you can try out that visualizes these effects. Don't worry about the fuel parts. You can see the rocket become very short (relativistic length contraction) and time progressing at different speeds for the traveller and the observer. When choosing a less extreme example (like $100~mathrmm$) you can see the traveller accelerate and decelerate.



viz






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:25






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:27






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
    $endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Jun 15 at 14:27






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jun 16 at 11:33






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger - time dialation
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    Jun 17 at 4:57


















4












$begingroup$

Welcome to the site!



Using this tool:



  • Observer time: 100001 years


  • Traveler time: 22.4 years


Edit: Time is fixed, I blame the google calculator






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:40










  • $begingroup$
    to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:50


















4












$begingroup$

Let's start by assuming you don't decelerate halfway. Work in units with $c=1$. With a constant acceleration of $a$, the rapidity $phi=atau$ at a proper time $tau$ after you start from rest, so $$beta=tanh atau,,gamma=cosh atau,,dx=beta dt=betagamma dtau=sinh atau dtau,$$where $x$ is the distance travelled and $dt=gamma dtau$ is the infinitesimal time that time-dilates to $dtau$. After a proper time $tau$ we have $$t=int_0^taugamma(tau^prime)dtau^prime=frac1asinh atau,,x=frac1aleft(cosh atau-1right)=sqrtt^2+frac1a^2-frac1a.$$Or if we want to get either $t$ or $tau$ from $x$,$$t=sqrtleft(x+frac1aright)^2-frac1a^2,,tau=frac1atextarcosh(1+ax).$$You can easily put the powers of $c$ back in, of course. For example, the time elapsed on the ship after 100 kLy is$$fraccgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgxc^2right),$$which I'll leave you to calculate. Of course, if you do decelerate halfway you need to double the 50 kLy time, giving $frac2cgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgx2c^2right)$.



When $gxgg 2c^2$, the latter formula approximates $frac2cglnfracgxc^2$. But $c/g$ approximates $0.969$ years, while for $x$ equal to one light year $gx/c^2$ approximates $1.03$. In other words, the time taken in years, if you decelerate halfway, is approximately twice the natural logarithm of the number of light years. This is a convenient rule of thumb due to how the length of Earth's year compares to the Earth's surface gravity.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "508"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36750%2ftime-at-1-g-acceleration-to-travel-100-000-light-years%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    74












    $begingroup$

    Nonrelativistic solution



    The variables used will be




    • $x$ for the distance travelled


    • $v$ for velocity


    • $a$ for acceleration ($1~mathrmg$)


    • $t$ for the time


    • $c$ for the speed of light.

    Non braking



    Assuming the velocity you arrive at does not matter we take the equation



    $$x = frac12 a t^2 .$$



    Solve for $t$:



    $$t = sqrtfrac2xa .$$



    (Let’s discard the negative solution here)



    Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha gives us



    $$1.389 times 10^10~mathrms ,$$
    or just over 440 years.



    The velocity the object would be arriving at is be calculated by



    $$v = a cdot t approx 1.362times 10^11~fracmathrmmmathrms .$$



    About 454.4 times the speed of light.



    So no we cannot neglect relativistic effects.



    Braking



    If you want to arrive at that location with reasonable speeds you’d have to accelerate half the way and brake the other half. We compute $t$ the same way we did above and get



    $$9.822 times 10^9~mathrms ,$$



    or just over 311 years. After that time you would only have gone half the way and need to turn your spacecraft around and decelerate which takes the same time again, giving you a total of 622 and a half years. But you would stop next to your target and not shoot past it at extreme speeds. Your maximum speed (at the turning point) would now be



    $$9.632times 10^10~mathrms ,$$



    just over 321 times the speed of light.



    Relativistic effects



    Going anywhere near the speed of light (or close to a great source of gravity like a black hole for that matter) will yield a huge variety of relativistic effects, making time and space not be the same for every person.



    The calculation including the relativistic effects is quite complicated.



    The important thing to note here is that the traveling object and an external observer will measure the time differently.



    External observer



    From the perspective of an external observer (so seen from earth, the target or any other relatively static point in the universe) it would take you 100000 years to travel 100000ly at light speed (that’s kind of the definition), but the object will not be traveling faster than the speed of light:



    Plugging into the equation from the linked answer:



    $$t=sqrtfracx1~mathrmly^2 + 2
    frac
    x / 1~mathrmly

    a / fracmathrmlymathrmy^2
    cdot 1~mathrmy .$$



    I told you it’d be complicated. Plugging it in we get 100001 years. Not surprising: as discussed above: traveling at light speed for about 100000 years plus a bit for accelerating to that speed.



    This is the non-braking variant. Braking however would not take a lot longer. About 100002 years in total. So one year of accelerating to the speed of light and one year of braking – simply said.



    Perspective of the traveling object



    From the perspective of the object the primary effect to consider here would be length contraction. It makes the distance to the target appear smaller and smaller the faster you are going. From the perspective of that object it would thus take less than duration calculated in the nonrelativistic solution above:



    Using the other answer as reference again:



    $$t = fracca mathrmacoshleft(fracxcdot ac^2 + 1right)$$



    We get a result of



    $$3.741times10^8~mathrms ,$$



    about 12 years.



    Taking braking into account again we get 11.18 year for each half, so about 22.4 years in total.



    Conclusion



    Relativistic effects are important here. While it would be totally doable for an astronaut to complete that mission in their lifetime by the time they get there everyone they know will have died 100000 years ago. They would receive that information during the flight. Any communication sent after arrival would have a round trip time of 200000 years.



    Visualisation



    The other answer by user Punintended links a wonderful tool you can try out that visualizes these effects. Don't worry about the fuel parts. You can see the rocket become very short (relativistic length contraction) and time progressing at different speeds for the traveller and the observer. When choosing a less extreme example (like $100~mathrmm$) you can see the traveller accelerate and decelerate.



    viz






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:25






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:27






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
      $endgroup$
      – nick012000
      Jun 15 at 14:27






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
      $endgroup$
      – Hagen von Eitzen
      Jun 16 at 11:33






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger - time dialation
      $endgroup$
      – slebetman
      Jun 17 at 4:57















    74












    $begingroup$

    Nonrelativistic solution



    The variables used will be




    • $x$ for the distance travelled


    • $v$ for velocity


    • $a$ for acceleration ($1~mathrmg$)


    • $t$ for the time


    • $c$ for the speed of light.

    Non braking



    Assuming the velocity you arrive at does not matter we take the equation



    $$x = frac12 a t^2 .$$



    Solve for $t$:



    $$t = sqrtfrac2xa .$$



    (Let’s discard the negative solution here)



    Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha gives us



    $$1.389 times 10^10~mathrms ,$$
    or just over 440 years.



    The velocity the object would be arriving at is be calculated by



    $$v = a cdot t approx 1.362times 10^11~fracmathrmmmathrms .$$



    About 454.4 times the speed of light.



    So no we cannot neglect relativistic effects.



    Braking



    If you want to arrive at that location with reasonable speeds you’d have to accelerate half the way and brake the other half. We compute $t$ the same way we did above and get



    $$9.822 times 10^9~mathrms ,$$



    or just over 311 years. After that time you would only have gone half the way and need to turn your spacecraft around and decelerate which takes the same time again, giving you a total of 622 and a half years. But you would stop next to your target and not shoot past it at extreme speeds. Your maximum speed (at the turning point) would now be



    $$9.632times 10^10~mathrms ,$$



    just over 321 times the speed of light.



    Relativistic effects



    Going anywhere near the speed of light (or close to a great source of gravity like a black hole for that matter) will yield a huge variety of relativistic effects, making time and space not be the same for every person.



    The calculation including the relativistic effects is quite complicated.



    The important thing to note here is that the traveling object and an external observer will measure the time differently.



    External observer



    From the perspective of an external observer (so seen from earth, the target or any other relatively static point in the universe) it would take you 100000 years to travel 100000ly at light speed (that’s kind of the definition), but the object will not be traveling faster than the speed of light:



    Plugging into the equation from the linked answer:



    $$t=sqrtfracx1~mathrmly^2 + 2
    frac
    x / 1~mathrmly

    a / fracmathrmlymathrmy^2
    cdot 1~mathrmy .$$



    I told you it’d be complicated. Plugging it in we get 100001 years. Not surprising: as discussed above: traveling at light speed for about 100000 years plus a bit for accelerating to that speed.



    This is the non-braking variant. Braking however would not take a lot longer. About 100002 years in total. So one year of accelerating to the speed of light and one year of braking – simply said.



    Perspective of the traveling object



    From the perspective of the object the primary effect to consider here would be length contraction. It makes the distance to the target appear smaller and smaller the faster you are going. From the perspective of that object it would thus take less than duration calculated in the nonrelativistic solution above:



    Using the other answer as reference again:



    $$t = fracca mathrmacoshleft(fracxcdot ac^2 + 1right)$$



    We get a result of



    $$3.741times10^8~mathrms ,$$



    about 12 years.



    Taking braking into account again we get 11.18 year for each half, so about 22.4 years in total.



    Conclusion



    Relativistic effects are important here. While it would be totally doable for an astronaut to complete that mission in their lifetime by the time they get there everyone they know will have died 100000 years ago. They would receive that information during the flight. Any communication sent after arrival would have a round trip time of 200000 years.



    Visualisation



    The other answer by user Punintended links a wonderful tool you can try out that visualizes these effects. Don't worry about the fuel parts. You can see the rocket become very short (relativistic length contraction) and time progressing at different speeds for the traveller and the observer. When choosing a less extreme example (like $100~mathrmm$) you can see the traveller accelerate and decelerate.



    viz






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:25






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:27






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
      $endgroup$
      – nick012000
      Jun 15 at 14:27






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
      $endgroup$
      – Hagen von Eitzen
      Jun 16 at 11:33






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger - time dialation
      $endgroup$
      – slebetman
      Jun 17 at 4:57













    74












    74








    74





    $begingroup$

    Nonrelativistic solution



    The variables used will be




    • $x$ for the distance travelled


    • $v$ for velocity


    • $a$ for acceleration ($1~mathrmg$)


    • $t$ for the time


    • $c$ for the speed of light.

    Non braking



    Assuming the velocity you arrive at does not matter we take the equation



    $$x = frac12 a t^2 .$$



    Solve for $t$:



    $$t = sqrtfrac2xa .$$



    (Let’s discard the negative solution here)



    Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha gives us



    $$1.389 times 10^10~mathrms ,$$
    or just over 440 years.



    The velocity the object would be arriving at is be calculated by



    $$v = a cdot t approx 1.362times 10^11~fracmathrmmmathrms .$$



    About 454.4 times the speed of light.



    So no we cannot neglect relativistic effects.



    Braking



    If you want to arrive at that location with reasonable speeds you’d have to accelerate half the way and brake the other half. We compute $t$ the same way we did above and get



    $$9.822 times 10^9~mathrms ,$$



    or just over 311 years. After that time you would only have gone half the way and need to turn your spacecraft around and decelerate which takes the same time again, giving you a total of 622 and a half years. But you would stop next to your target and not shoot past it at extreme speeds. Your maximum speed (at the turning point) would now be



    $$9.632times 10^10~mathrms ,$$



    just over 321 times the speed of light.



    Relativistic effects



    Going anywhere near the speed of light (or close to a great source of gravity like a black hole for that matter) will yield a huge variety of relativistic effects, making time and space not be the same for every person.



    The calculation including the relativistic effects is quite complicated.



    The important thing to note here is that the traveling object and an external observer will measure the time differently.



    External observer



    From the perspective of an external observer (so seen from earth, the target or any other relatively static point in the universe) it would take you 100000 years to travel 100000ly at light speed (that’s kind of the definition), but the object will not be traveling faster than the speed of light:



    Plugging into the equation from the linked answer:



    $$t=sqrtfracx1~mathrmly^2 + 2
    frac
    x / 1~mathrmly

    a / fracmathrmlymathrmy^2
    cdot 1~mathrmy .$$



    I told you it’d be complicated. Plugging it in we get 100001 years. Not surprising: as discussed above: traveling at light speed for about 100000 years plus a bit for accelerating to that speed.



    This is the non-braking variant. Braking however would not take a lot longer. About 100002 years in total. So one year of accelerating to the speed of light and one year of braking – simply said.



    Perspective of the traveling object



    From the perspective of the object the primary effect to consider here would be length contraction. It makes the distance to the target appear smaller and smaller the faster you are going. From the perspective of that object it would thus take less than duration calculated in the nonrelativistic solution above:



    Using the other answer as reference again:



    $$t = fracca mathrmacoshleft(fracxcdot ac^2 + 1right)$$



    We get a result of



    $$3.741times10^8~mathrms ,$$



    about 12 years.



    Taking braking into account again we get 11.18 year for each half, so about 22.4 years in total.



    Conclusion



    Relativistic effects are important here. While it would be totally doable for an astronaut to complete that mission in their lifetime by the time they get there everyone they know will have died 100000 years ago. They would receive that information during the flight. Any communication sent after arrival would have a round trip time of 200000 years.



    Visualisation



    The other answer by user Punintended links a wonderful tool you can try out that visualizes these effects. Don't worry about the fuel parts. You can see the rocket become very short (relativistic length contraction) and time progressing at different speeds for the traveller and the observer. When choosing a less extreme example (like $100~mathrmm$) you can see the traveller accelerate and decelerate.



    viz






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Nonrelativistic solution



    The variables used will be




    • $x$ for the distance travelled


    • $v$ for velocity


    • $a$ for acceleration ($1~mathrmg$)


    • $t$ for the time


    • $c$ for the speed of light.

    Non braking



    Assuming the velocity you arrive at does not matter we take the equation



    $$x = frac12 a t^2 .$$



    Solve for $t$:



    $$t = sqrtfrac2xa .$$



    (Let’s discard the negative solution here)



    Plugging this into Wolfram Alpha gives us



    $$1.389 times 10^10~mathrms ,$$
    or just over 440 years.



    The velocity the object would be arriving at is be calculated by



    $$v = a cdot t approx 1.362times 10^11~fracmathrmmmathrms .$$



    About 454.4 times the speed of light.



    So no we cannot neglect relativistic effects.



    Braking



    If you want to arrive at that location with reasonable speeds you’d have to accelerate half the way and brake the other half. We compute $t$ the same way we did above and get



    $$9.822 times 10^9~mathrms ,$$



    or just over 311 years. After that time you would only have gone half the way and need to turn your spacecraft around and decelerate which takes the same time again, giving you a total of 622 and a half years. But you would stop next to your target and not shoot past it at extreme speeds. Your maximum speed (at the turning point) would now be



    $$9.632times 10^10~mathrms ,$$



    just over 321 times the speed of light.



    Relativistic effects



    Going anywhere near the speed of light (or close to a great source of gravity like a black hole for that matter) will yield a huge variety of relativistic effects, making time and space not be the same for every person.



    The calculation including the relativistic effects is quite complicated.



    The important thing to note here is that the traveling object and an external observer will measure the time differently.



    External observer



    From the perspective of an external observer (so seen from earth, the target or any other relatively static point in the universe) it would take you 100000 years to travel 100000ly at light speed (that’s kind of the definition), but the object will not be traveling faster than the speed of light:



    Plugging into the equation from the linked answer:



    $$t=sqrtfracx1~mathrmly^2 + 2
    frac
    x / 1~mathrmly

    a / fracmathrmlymathrmy^2
    cdot 1~mathrmy .$$



    I told you it’d be complicated. Plugging it in we get 100001 years. Not surprising: as discussed above: traveling at light speed for about 100000 years plus a bit for accelerating to that speed.



    This is the non-braking variant. Braking however would not take a lot longer. About 100002 years in total. So one year of accelerating to the speed of light and one year of braking – simply said.



    Perspective of the traveling object



    From the perspective of the object the primary effect to consider here would be length contraction. It makes the distance to the target appear smaller and smaller the faster you are going. From the perspective of that object it would thus take less than duration calculated in the nonrelativistic solution above:



    Using the other answer as reference again:



    $$t = fracca mathrmacoshleft(fracxcdot ac^2 + 1right)$$



    We get a result of



    $$3.741times10^8~mathrms ,$$



    about 12 years.



    Taking braking into account again we get 11.18 year for each half, so about 22.4 years in total.



    Conclusion



    Relativistic effects are important here. While it would be totally doable for an astronaut to complete that mission in their lifetime by the time they get there everyone they know will have died 100000 years ago. They would receive that information during the flight. Any communication sent after arrival would have a round trip time of 200000 years.



    Visualisation



    The other answer by user Punintended links a wonderful tool you can try out that visualizes these effects. Don't worry about the fuel parts. You can see the rocket become very short (relativistic length contraction) and time progressing at different speeds for the traveller and the observer. When choosing a less extreme example (like $100~mathrmm$) you can see the traveller accelerate and decelerate.



    viz







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jun 15 at 8:28

























    answered Jun 14 at 16:33









    HansHans

    2,5226 silver badges22 bronze badges




    2,5226 silver badges22 bronze badges







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:25






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:27






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
      $endgroup$
      – nick012000
      Jun 15 at 14:27






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
      $endgroup$
      – Hagen von Eitzen
      Jun 16 at 11:33






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger - time dialation
      $endgroup$
      – slebetman
      Jun 17 at 4:57












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:25






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 15 at 8:27






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
      $endgroup$
      – nick012000
      Jun 15 at 14:27






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
      $endgroup$
      – Hagen von Eitzen
      Jun 16 at 11:33






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @alexdriedger - time dialation
      $endgroup$
      – slebetman
      Jun 17 at 4:57







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:25




    $begingroup$
    @Omnifarious You are completely right. What I was for some reason thinking of was an information sent at the same time as the traveller arrives at the destination.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:25




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:27




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger from the perspective of the traveller the entire universe appears to be compressed so the distance to the target becomes smaller. (For the traveller only)
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 15 at 8:27




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
    $endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Jun 15 at 14:27




    $begingroup$
    What I find interesting is that, from the perspective of the rocket, relativistic effects make the trip go by faster than if was working on purely Newtonian physics, even though the latter would be going faster than the speed of light.
    $endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Jun 15 at 14:27




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jun 16 at 11:33




    $begingroup$
    Also worth noting: If the onboard navigation system switches to braking mode 5 minutes (board time) too early or too late, you end up 1 ly away from the destination, and it will take you about a year to correct this afterwards - or live with a "slight" deviation from 1g during the non-relativistic deceleration phase
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    Jun 16 at 11:33




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger - time dialation
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    Jun 17 at 4:57




    $begingroup$
    @alexdriedger - time dialation
    $endgroup$
    – slebetman
    Jun 17 at 4:57













    4












    $begingroup$

    Welcome to the site!



    Using this tool:



    • Observer time: 100001 years


    • Traveler time: 22.4 years


    Edit: Time is fixed, I blame the google calculator






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:40










    • $begingroup$
      to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:50















    4












    $begingroup$

    Welcome to the site!



    Using this tool:



    • Observer time: 100001 years


    • Traveler time: 22.4 years


    Edit: Time is fixed, I blame the google calculator






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:40










    • $begingroup$
      to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:50













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Welcome to the site!



    Using this tool:



    • Observer time: 100001 years


    • Traveler time: 22.4 years


    Edit: Time is fixed, I blame the google calculator






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Welcome to the site!



    Using this tool:



    • Observer time: 100001 years


    • Traveler time: 22.4 years


    Edit: Time is fixed, I blame the google calculator







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jun 14 at 17:14

























    answered Jun 14 at 16:18









    PunintendedPunintended

    2944 bronze badges




    2944 bronze badges











    • $begingroup$
      Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:40










    • $begingroup$
      to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:50
















    • $begingroup$
      Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:40










    • $begingroup$
      to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
      $endgroup$
      – Hans
      Jun 14 at 16:50















    $begingroup$
    Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:40




    $begingroup$
    Your tool actually assumes you want to slow down: take a look at the animation. Also you somehow mistyped the observer time.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:40












    $begingroup$
    to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:50




    $begingroup$
    to clarify: choose a shorter distance like 100 meters and see the animation clearly speed up and slow down again. This also is the reason why the rocket expands to its full length again at the end: it is not moving at relativistic speeds anymore, but standing.
    $endgroup$
    – Hans
    Jun 14 at 16:50











    4












    $begingroup$

    Let's start by assuming you don't decelerate halfway. Work in units with $c=1$. With a constant acceleration of $a$, the rapidity $phi=atau$ at a proper time $tau$ after you start from rest, so $$beta=tanh atau,,gamma=cosh atau,,dx=beta dt=betagamma dtau=sinh atau dtau,$$where $x$ is the distance travelled and $dt=gamma dtau$ is the infinitesimal time that time-dilates to $dtau$. After a proper time $tau$ we have $$t=int_0^taugamma(tau^prime)dtau^prime=frac1asinh atau,,x=frac1aleft(cosh atau-1right)=sqrtt^2+frac1a^2-frac1a.$$Or if we want to get either $t$ or $tau$ from $x$,$$t=sqrtleft(x+frac1aright)^2-frac1a^2,,tau=frac1atextarcosh(1+ax).$$You can easily put the powers of $c$ back in, of course. For example, the time elapsed on the ship after 100 kLy is$$fraccgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgxc^2right),$$which I'll leave you to calculate. Of course, if you do decelerate halfway you need to double the 50 kLy time, giving $frac2cgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgx2c^2right)$.



    When $gxgg 2c^2$, the latter formula approximates $frac2cglnfracgxc^2$. But $c/g$ approximates $0.969$ years, while for $x$ equal to one light year $gx/c^2$ approximates $1.03$. In other words, the time taken in years, if you decelerate halfway, is approximately twice the natural logarithm of the number of light years. This is a convenient rule of thumb due to how the length of Earth's year compares to the Earth's surface gravity.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor



    J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





    $endgroup$

















      4












      $begingroup$

      Let's start by assuming you don't decelerate halfway. Work in units with $c=1$. With a constant acceleration of $a$, the rapidity $phi=atau$ at a proper time $tau$ after you start from rest, so $$beta=tanh atau,,gamma=cosh atau,,dx=beta dt=betagamma dtau=sinh atau dtau,$$where $x$ is the distance travelled and $dt=gamma dtau$ is the infinitesimal time that time-dilates to $dtau$. After a proper time $tau$ we have $$t=int_0^taugamma(tau^prime)dtau^prime=frac1asinh atau,,x=frac1aleft(cosh atau-1right)=sqrtt^2+frac1a^2-frac1a.$$Or if we want to get either $t$ or $tau$ from $x$,$$t=sqrtleft(x+frac1aright)^2-frac1a^2,,tau=frac1atextarcosh(1+ax).$$You can easily put the powers of $c$ back in, of course. For example, the time elapsed on the ship after 100 kLy is$$fraccgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgxc^2right),$$which I'll leave you to calculate. Of course, if you do decelerate halfway you need to double the 50 kLy time, giving $frac2cgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgx2c^2right)$.



      When $gxgg 2c^2$, the latter formula approximates $frac2cglnfracgxc^2$. But $c/g$ approximates $0.969$ years, while for $x$ equal to one light year $gx/c^2$ approximates $1.03$. In other words, the time taken in years, if you decelerate halfway, is approximately twice the natural logarithm of the number of light years. This is a convenient rule of thumb due to how the length of Earth's year compares to the Earth's surface gravity.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor



      J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$















        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Let's start by assuming you don't decelerate halfway. Work in units with $c=1$. With a constant acceleration of $a$, the rapidity $phi=atau$ at a proper time $tau$ after you start from rest, so $$beta=tanh atau,,gamma=cosh atau,,dx=beta dt=betagamma dtau=sinh atau dtau,$$where $x$ is the distance travelled and $dt=gamma dtau$ is the infinitesimal time that time-dilates to $dtau$. After a proper time $tau$ we have $$t=int_0^taugamma(tau^prime)dtau^prime=frac1asinh atau,,x=frac1aleft(cosh atau-1right)=sqrtt^2+frac1a^2-frac1a.$$Or if we want to get either $t$ or $tau$ from $x$,$$t=sqrtleft(x+frac1aright)^2-frac1a^2,,tau=frac1atextarcosh(1+ax).$$You can easily put the powers of $c$ back in, of course. For example, the time elapsed on the ship after 100 kLy is$$fraccgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgxc^2right),$$which I'll leave you to calculate. Of course, if you do decelerate halfway you need to double the 50 kLy time, giving $frac2cgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgx2c^2right)$.



        When $gxgg 2c^2$, the latter formula approximates $frac2cglnfracgxc^2$. But $c/g$ approximates $0.969$ years, while for $x$ equal to one light year $gx/c^2$ approximates $1.03$. In other words, the time taken in years, if you decelerate halfway, is approximately twice the natural logarithm of the number of light years. This is a convenient rule of thumb due to how the length of Earth's year compares to the Earth's surface gravity.






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor



        J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        $endgroup$



        Let's start by assuming you don't decelerate halfway. Work in units with $c=1$. With a constant acceleration of $a$, the rapidity $phi=atau$ at a proper time $tau$ after you start from rest, so $$beta=tanh atau,,gamma=cosh atau,,dx=beta dt=betagamma dtau=sinh atau dtau,$$where $x$ is the distance travelled and $dt=gamma dtau$ is the infinitesimal time that time-dilates to $dtau$. After a proper time $tau$ we have $$t=int_0^taugamma(tau^prime)dtau^prime=frac1asinh atau,,x=frac1aleft(cosh atau-1right)=sqrtt^2+frac1a^2-frac1a.$$Or if we want to get either $t$ or $tau$ from $x$,$$t=sqrtleft(x+frac1aright)^2-frac1a^2,,tau=frac1atextarcosh(1+ax).$$You can easily put the powers of $c$ back in, of course. For example, the time elapsed on the ship after 100 kLy is$$fraccgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgxc^2right),$$which I'll leave you to calculate. Of course, if you do decelerate halfway you need to double the 50 kLy time, giving $frac2cgtextarcoshleft(1+fracgx2c^2right)$.



        When $gxgg 2c^2$, the latter formula approximates $frac2cglnfracgxc^2$. But $c/g$ approximates $0.969$ years, while for $x$ equal to one light year $gx/c^2$ approximates $1.03$. In other words, the time taken in years, if you decelerate halfway, is approximately twice the natural logarithm of the number of light years. This is a convenient rule of thumb due to how the length of Earth's year compares to the Earth's surface gravity.







        share|improve this answer










        New contributor



        J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.








        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jun 16 at 13:46





















        New contributor



        J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.








        answered Jun 16 at 13:39









        J.G.J.G.

        1412 bronze badges




        1412 bronze badges




        New contributor



        J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.




        New contributor




        J.G. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36750%2ftime-at-1-g-acceleration-to-travel-100-000-light-years%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

            Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

            Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?