Regarding a 1 g rocket that "the amount you accelerate would be less due to relativity". Does that mean that from the crew's time dilated perspective, they would experience less acceleration than we observe in our frame of reference? Could a ship be accelerated at say, 10 g from our frame of reference on Earth, while the crew of the ship only experiences 1 g of acceleration in theirs? If this were possible, how far can we take this, and how quickly?

ohgodamnitw0 2022-09-27 Answered
Regarding a 1 g rocket that "the amount you accelerate would be less due to relativity". Does that mean that from the crew's time dilated perspective, they would experience less acceleration than we observe in our frame of reference? Could a ship be accelerated at say, 10 g from our frame of reference on Earth, while the crew of the ship only experiences 1 g of acceleration in theirs? If this were possible, how far can we take this, and how quickly?
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (2)

Erika Gomez
Answered 2022-09-28 Author has 4 answers
No, the crew’s proper acceleration (the acceleration they feel) is greater than the coordinate acceleration (the derivative of their velocity in our frame) that we observe. They can continue at 1 g proper acceleration indefinitely, whereas we see their coordinate acceleration approach 0 g as they approach c.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access
dansleiksj
Answered 2022-09-29 Author has 2 answers
There is no frame of reference in SR in which an acceleration can stay constant at a non zero value for an infinite amount of time. This would inevitably lead to a velocity that is greater than the speed of light.
It is well-known that when two frames S and S move relative to each other with velocity v and a velocity is w in S then in S it is
w = w v 1 v w / c 2 .
To calculate the relations for the accelerations is straightforward:
w ˙ = w ˙ 1 v 2 / c 2 ( 1 v w / c 2 ) 2 .
Note that w ˙ = d w / d t and therefore, d w / d t = γ d w / d t = d w / d t 1 v 2 / c 2 . It follows that
d w d t = d w d t 1 v 2 / c 2 ( 1 v w / c 2 ) 2 .
It is easy to see that for very small w the acceleration in S is less than the one in S which is probably what your citation meant.
Did you like this example?
Subscribe for all access

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-05-09
Imaging that the speed of that spacecraft is almost the speed of light " c 1   m/s". But no acceleration. Meaning it's an inertial frame of reference right? Will you be able to throw a ball in the direction of movement? What about the direction inverse to the movement? Does that means that there is a direction of movement in an inertial frame of reference?
asked 2022-07-22
What is a (spatial) frame of reference in quantum mechanics?
When we make a transformation e.g. in a H-atom from the proton frame of reference to the electron frame of reference. The whole point of QM is that the electron cannot be treated as a dot somewhere in space but that it has an associated wavefunction and only acquires a certain position when I make an appropriate measurement. So how can I transform to the electron frame of reference making the origin to be the position of the electron if I don't know it?
asked 2022-05-09

If all solid blocks have the same mass, which solid has the smallest density?

asked 2022-08-14
According to the equivalence principle, gravity and inertial forces are similar. And according to general Relativity, If there’s a large object in space-time, it warps the space time’s geometry and causes the light to bend ( or to be seen as if it was coming from a different source). Now, if there’s an observer in an accelerating frame of reference and there’s no mass, will the observer still see the light to be coming from a different source considering the frame’s acceleration to have the same effect as that of a mass according to the principle of equivalence?
asked 2022-07-16
Let’s assume we have 2 different observers. Observer 1 sits in space and observer 2 sits in a space lab which is in a free fall state toward the Earth. We further assume that observer 2 in the space lab does not have any information regarding its surrounding.
1. Is there anyway that observer 2 can figure out whether any frame attached to the space lab can be regarded as an inertial or non-inertial frame?
2. Lets assume there is a 1kg ball inside the space lab which is also free falling together with the space lab? Observer 1 (with its true inertial frame) can measure the acceleration of the ball and deduce that 9.8Newton force is acting on the ball. On the other hand, observer 2 measures the acceleration of the ball as 0, and hence, deduces that the net force acting on the ball is 0. As the observer 2 has no way of knowing that space lab is not an inertial frame, he will not have any doubt about his force measurement. Does this mean that definition of force is dependent on the frame of reference?
asked 2022-05-10
What is the coordinate in this system then and how do they all connect to each other? I've read the mentioning of an observer and the observer's state of motion and I don't understand how that relates to a frame of reference.
asked 2022-10-02
Suppose a neutrino is seen travelling so fast that its Lorentz gamma factor is 100,000. It races past an old, no longer active neutron star, narrowly missing it. As far as the neutrino is concerned, it is the neutron star that is moving at extreme speed, & its mass is 100,000 times larger than 2 solar masses. Therefore, from the speeding neutrino's perspective, the neutron star should appear to be a black hole definitely large enough to trap the neutrino. So how come the speeding neutrino continues its travel right past the old stellar remnant? Is there an agreed name for this question or paradox?

New questions