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;
$begingroup$
How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?
interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket
$endgroup$
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?
interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket
$endgroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?
interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket
$endgroup$
How long would it take to go 100,000 light years at a constant 1 g acceleration?
interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket
interstellar-travel mathematics relativistic-rocket
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
|
show 8 more comments
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
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
$endgroup$
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
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
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.
New contributor
edited Jun 16 at 13:46
New contributor
answered Jun 16 at 13:39
J.G.J.G.
1412 bronze badges
1412 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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