Reader Mail - Rockets and Relativity

Reader Scott writes in with a good question that I've heard posed by several people in various places, because it really goes to the core of the counterintuitive nature of relativity.

Okay, let's assume I'm in a spacecraft moving at a speed of c-1 m/s. That's one m/s less than the speed of light. Would I be able to move from the back of the ship to the front at 1 m/s? Would I even be able to survive at that speed?

Here's my reply, extended a bit to include the relevant equations and go into a little more detail. The derivations will all wait until later:

Yes indeed. The question at issue is your speed with respect to a particular reference frame. Let's pretend that you're on an airplane flying at 500 mph with respect to the ground. There's nothing stopping you from walking forward at 1 mph with respect to the plane. And that also happens to mean that you're walking at 501 mph with respect to an observer on the ground. Assuming the plane ride is nice and smooth and the windows are closed, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between that and walking in a plane parked on the runway. This is fundamental in modern physics: there's no preferred inertial reference frame, the laws of physics work the same way in all of them.

An inevitable consequence of this are the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction. This implies that in fact velocities don't add in such a simple way. So when you walk at 1 m/s in a ship going 299999999 m/s with respect to the ground (pretending the speed of light is exactly 300000000 m/s for simplicity), you appear to yourself to be walking at 1 m/s inside the ship, just as in any other case. The guy on the ground will (crunching some numbers) see you as walking at about 299999999.00000000667 m/s. This comes from the Einstein velocity addition formula, which for a guy walking at speed v in a plane with speed u means his velocity s with respect to the ground is

i-d4bb9fe09d6b78eb832985821d8a307f-1.png

The "why" for all of this is tricky, but within reach for an interested person with a decent grasp of algebra. Of course there's lots of good websites, but it's probably hard to beat Einstein's own book "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory". And I myself will write up the derivations here one of these days.

Thanks for reading!

Matt

More like this

Back in the "Uncomfortable Questions" thread, Thony C suggested that I should do running updates on the course I'm teaching now. I meant to get to this sooner, but last weekend's bout with norovirus kind of got in the way... I like the idea, though, so below the fold are a bunch of comments on the…
Here is a question. It's a sort of subtle question, but one that can be answered with freshman-level physics. But it's an excellent test of understanding. I'm not promising that the question itself is not in some sense a "trick" question, but the trick is in how you might think about the physics…
Isaac Newton was a total nutjob. Did you know that he tried to pop his own eyeball out with a knitting needle as a part of an experiment? That he nearly blinded himself staring into the sun? That he was an avid alchemist? Why do we pay so much respect to a person who was clearly mentally…
I was reading an article on Slashdot the other day about a recent discovery of what might be a MECO. A [MECO][wiki-meco] is a "magnetospheric eternally collapsing object"; if this were true, it would be a big deal because according to relativity, either black holes exist and MECOs don't, or MECOs…

And there's the interesting case when u=c => s=c. (I suppose not really that interesting as that's axiomatic, but nice and tidy!)

By Fergus Gallagher (not verified) on 07 Jan 2009 #permalink

The length contraction would also make the ship appear extremely short, would it not? I wonder - would the relativistic changes keep the time it takes to traverse the ship constant?

... and of course you'd be fried by the microwave background radiation blue-shifted into bullet-hard gamma rays.

Of course, from the POV of you in the spaceship, the spaceship is not moving at 299999999 ms/s - it is *stationary*. And full-length.

Surely, we can protect ourselves from bullet hard gamma rays! Oth, just what do ordinary bullet hard gamma rays become?

To pick up on your aircraft example, do the laws of conservation of momentum not mean that if you were to accelerate yourself forwards to say 1mph, then there would be a corresponding DECREASE in the ground speed of the aircraft?

Not a big change for an average human in a Jumbo Jet, but possibly far more important in a space craft?