relativity question

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

relativity question

Postby zenten » Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:46 pm UTC

Ok, lets supposing I'm hanging out somewhat near some huge gravitation body (say a super large sun, or a black hole, or something), velocity relative to that body is stationary. I see an object moving toward that body at close the speed of light, and is of course accelerating. If I were measuring with Newtonian mechanics, it would be accelerating to past the speed of light before it hits any sort of event horizon, or the object itself.

So, question is, with Relativity, from my perspective is the acceleration lessening before it hits the speed of light?

User avatar
Oort
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 pm UTC

Postby Oort » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

I think so, yes. But hopefully a more knowledgeable physicist will back me up.

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:00 am UTC

Postby QuantumTroll » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:54 pm UTC

So, question is, with Relativity, from my perspective is the acceleration lessening before it hits the speed of light?


Correct. Assuming constant Force (not true if you're heading towards a black hole, of course, but this makes the math simpler), your acceleration ends up as

a = F/m * (1 - v^2)

Where v is the (speedof object)/(speed of light). As v->1, a-> 0. I remember this result from my Modern Physics class, 'cause I thought it was wonderfully elegant. The internet provides a derivation.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:13 pm UTC

Why does the force get divided by mass though, if we're talking about a falling object?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:24 am UTC

Basically, it's because the mass itself goes up as you approach light speed. So the same force is going to have less and less of an effect on acceleration.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:28 am UTC

Basically, it's because the mass itself goes up as you approach light speed. So the same force is going to have less and less of an effect on acceleration.


Why? As was pointed out in another thread, two objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate, when falling.

User avatar
ArmonSore
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:40 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, United States
Contact:

Postby ArmonSore » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:30 am UTC

So you're basically saying that the acceleration of an object due to gravity is independent of that object's mass. So then I wonder how accelerations due to gravity are restricted so that they can't bring something up to the speed of light.

Edit:
accelerations due to gravity according to GR*
I was useful Yesterday.
-Paul McCartney.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:40 am UTC

So you're basically saying that the acceleration of an object due to gravity is independent of that object's mass. So then I wonder how accelerations due to gravity are restricted so that they can't bring something up to the speed of light.


That question is why I created the thread in the first place.

Karrion
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, AU

Postby Karrion » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:56 am UTC

zenten wrote:
Basically, it's because the mass itself goes up as you approach light speed. So the same force is going to have less and less of an effect on acceleration.


Why? As was pointed out in another thread, two objects of different mass will accelerate at the same rate, when falling.


The short answer is because that thread was talking about non-relativistic objects, so used classical/Newtonian physics, which doesn't work once you have things moving at relativistic velocities.

User avatar
ArmonSore
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:40 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, United States
Contact:

Postby ArmonSore » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:12 am UTC

Karrion wrote:The short answer is because that thread was talking about non-relativistic objects, so used classical/Newtonian physics, which doesn't work once you have things moving at relativistic velocities.


But GR still assumes that all objects move through a given gravitational field in exactly the same way, independent of its mass. So I'd prefer the long answer.
I was useful Yesterday.

-Paul McCartney.

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:32 am UTC

F=Force
a=Acceleartion
m=mass of object
M=Mass of other object (sun etc)
G=Graviational constant
r=Distance of seperation

F=ma (Newton's second law)
F= GMm/r^2 (Law of universal graviation)

Let those be equal. Solve for a.
a=GM/r^2. so the mass of the object "falling" is irrelevant in figuring out its acceleration.
Now when two object "fall" towards each other you would have to consider both accelerations but since the earth accelerates VERY VERY little (and thats what the mass of the first object is relevant for) it doesn't really matter.

Now why does acceleration "lessen"

Well it follows from the lorentz transforms and relativistic mass.
The formula in Newtonian Mechanics is F=ma
so a=F/m
In relativity though, we get F=[m/[(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)]][a/(1-v^2/c^2)]
F=ma/So a=(F/m)*[(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)]

[(1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)] is 1 at v=0 and 0 at v=c.
It is safe to say that when v is close to c it is also zero and when it is small compared to c, it is also 1.

These are just transforms of some formulas when relativity is involved, they should be covered in a text about relativity.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Karrion
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, AU

Postby Karrion » Sat Jun 30, 2007 4:37 am UTC

ArmonSore wrote:But GR still assumes that all objects move through a given gravitational field in exactly the same way, independent of its mass. So I'd prefer the long answer.


Well, I'm no relativistic physicist, so someone else'll have to correct me in the (quite likely) case that I'm wrong. But:

I don't think it has to do with mass at all. It's all down to space/time-dilation. Basically (in the observer's frame of reference) time runs slower for the moving object. Since acceleration = distance/time^2, the acceleration measured gets less and less the more time slows down, as it gets closer to the speed of light.

Alternatively, in the falling object's frame of refernce, space is dilated so that the distance travelled is reduced, again reducing the acceleration measured.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests