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?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?continuous acceleration in spaceHow long would it take to travel to Proxima b?Outgassing as a viable explanation of Oumuamua acceleration excessDuring interstellar travel, does time dilation make the trip shorter?About non-FTL travel and realitivistic effect for a hard sci fi novel

Do dead weight 'components' exist?

how can I enforce the prohibition on love potions?

Why does telnet on a non existent port not directly reject, but time out?

Does the original Game Boy game "Tetris" have a battery memory inside the cartridge?

There are polygons with only right angles which have an odd number of corners

Graph with cropped letters

Fast symmetric key cryptography class

Were mixed race kids theorized to look like zebras?

Can I say: “The train departs at 16 past every hour“?

Adding coordinate constant to file in QGIS

Creating cryptographic algorithms at runtime

Remove folder if it has another folder with the same started numbers

How could Thanos survive this attack?

How do I disable vim from producing backup files?

English equivalent of the Malayalam saying "don't stab/poke the dead body"?

How to deal with a 6 year old who was "caught" cheating?

If someone orders a pizza in the US and doesn't pay for it, could they be arrested?

Is it possible to be admitted to CS PhD programs (in US) with scholarship at age 18?

What is the speed of "electricity"?

Would rocket engine exhaust create pockets of gas in space which could hinder further space exploration?

How did composers "test" their music?

How can you castle legally in Chess960 when the castling rook is on the king's destination square?

If I am just replacing the car engine, do I need to replace the odometer as well?

How do I stop my colleague trying to convince me that I'm trans?



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?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?continuous acceleration in spaceHow long would it take to travel to Proxima b?Outgassing as a viable explanation of Oumuamua acceleration excessDuring interstellar travel, does time dilation make the trip shorter?About non-FTL travel and realitivistic effect for a hard sci fi novel






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

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








27














$begingroup$


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










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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


















27














$begingroup$


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










share|improve this question












$endgroup$










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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














27












27








27


9



$begingroup$


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

55.7k26 gold badges219 silver badges698 bronze badges




55.7k26 gold badges219 silver badges698 bronze badges










asked Jun 14 at 15:11









Roger P JonesRoger P Jones

1392 silver badges3 bronze badges




1392 silver badges3 bronze badges










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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













  • 5




    $begingroup$
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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.
    $endgroup$
    – user259412
    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








5




5




$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
– user259412
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.
$endgroup$
– user259412
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.
$endgroup$
– user259412
Jun 14 at 20:20





$begingroup$
@Eth I think $frac1sqrt1-fracv^2c^2=2$ solves to $v=fracsqrt32c$. It is only 0.86c.
$endgroup$
– user259412
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


















79
















$begingroup$

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






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @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






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    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






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Jun 17 at 8:31


















5
















$begingroup$

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


















5
















$begingroup$

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












$endgroup$
















    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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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









    79
















    $begingroup$

    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






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @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






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      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






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
      $endgroup$
      – JollyJoker
      Jun 17 at 8:31















    79
















    $begingroup$

    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






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @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






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      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






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
      $endgroup$
      – JollyJoker
      Jun 17 at 8:31













    79














    79










    79







    $begingroup$

    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

    2,6797 silver badges23 bronze badges




    2,6797 silver badges23 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






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @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






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      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






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
      $endgroup$
      – JollyJoker
      Jun 17 at 8:31












    • 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






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      @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






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      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






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
      $endgroup$
      – JollyJoker
      Jun 17 at 8:31







    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




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    @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




    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    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




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Jun 17 at 8:31




    $begingroup$
    @nick012000 The real mind blowing part is that you can get about anywhere in the visible universe in a human lifetime
    $endgroup$
    – JollyJoker
    Jun 17 at 8:31













    5
















    $begingroup$

    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















    5
















    $begingroup$

    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













    5














    5










    5







    $begingroup$

    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

    3141 silver badge4 bronze badges




    3141 silver badge4 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











    5
















    $begingroup$

    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












    $endgroup$



















      5
















      $begingroup$

      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












      $endgroup$

















        5














        5










        5







        $begingroup$

        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












        $endgroup$



        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















        share|improve this answer




        share|improve this answer








        edited Jun 16 at 13:46

























        answered Jun 16 at 13:39









        J.G.J.G.

        1512 bronze badges




        1512 bronze badges































            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

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?Where does the concept of infected people turning into zombies only after death originate from?Where does the motif of a reanimated human head originate?Where did the notion that Dragons could speak originate?Where does the archetypal image of the 'Grey' alien come from?Where did the suffix '-Man' originate?Where does the notion of being injured or killed by an illusion originate?Where did the term “sophont” originate?Where does the trope of magic spells being driven by advanced technology originate from?Where did the term “the living impaired” originate?