Query: I’ve been thinking about spaceship travel near speed of light and have some questions. Let’s start by acceleration implications. Is 2Gs acceleration too much for the average person?
Answer: The average person can tolerate 2G (about 19.6 m/s²) of acceleration for short durations—typically minutes to hours—without severe issues, especially if they're in a reclined position to minimize blood pooling and cardiovascular strain (e.g., like astronauts during launch). However, for sustained periods like days or longer, 2G would likely be too much for most people, leading to significant discomfort and potential health risks. These include increased body weight sensation (making movement difficult), drooping of facial and soft tissues, higher pressure on the lower body, elevated heart rate, and possible long-term effects like musculoskeletal strain or cardiovascular fatigue. Experiments have shown humans can handle 1.5G for up to a week with no immediate ill effects, but extrapolating to 2G over extended time is risky, and no long-term studies exist beyond brief exposures. In the context of spaceship travel, this means 2G constant acceleration might work for brief boosts but isn't ideal for prolonged journeys to near-light speeds, where 1G is often considered the comfortable baseline for human physiology.
Q: Interesting, since we are talking about a very long time, let’s consider accelerating at 1G. I want to know how much time it will take to reach 99.99% the speed of light if you accelerate from at 1G from rest.
A: To determine the time required for a spaceship to accelerate from rest to 99.99% of the speed of light (v = 0.9999c) under constant proper acceleration of 1g (where g ≈ 9.80665 m/s² is the standard gravity on Earth), we must use special relativity. This is because Newtonian mechanics fails at speeds approaching c, the speed of light (c ≈ 2.99792458 × 10⁸ m/s).
Constant proper acceleration means the acceleration felt by the occupants is steady at 1g, accounting for relativistic effects. There are two relevant times:
- Proper time (τ): The time experienced on the spaceship (what the crew measures).
- Coordinate time (t): The time measured by a stationary observer (e.g., on Earth).
Step 1: Define Key Parameters
- β = v/c = 0.9999 (dimensionless).
- Lorentz factor γ = 1 / √(1 - β²) ≈ 70.71244595.
Step 2: Calculate the Rapidity (φ)
The rapidity φ is a relativistic measure that simplifies calculations: φ = artanh(β) = (1/2) ln[(1 + β)/(1 - β)].
Compute the natural log: (1 + β) = 1.9999, (1 - β) = 0.0001, so (1 + β)/(1 - β) = 19999. ln(19999) ≈ 9.90348755. Thus, φ ≈ (1/2) × 9.90348755 ≈ 4.951743775.
Step 3: Proper Time (τ)
The formula for proper time is: τ = (c / g) × φ.
First, c / g ≈ 2.99792458 × 10⁸ / 9.80665 ≈ 3.05586 × 10⁷ seconds (about 0.968 years). Then, τ ≈ 3.05586 × 10⁷ × 4.951743775 ≈ 1.51376 × 10⁸ seconds.
Convert to years (using 1 year ≈ 365.25 × 24 × 3600 = 3.15576 × 10⁷ seconds): τ ≈ 1.51376 × 10⁸ / 3.15576 × 10⁷ ≈ 4.80 years.
Step 4: Coordinate Time (t)
The formula for coordinate time is: t = (c / g) × sinh(φ), where sinh(φ) = (e^φ - e^{-φ})/2.
Since sinh(φ) = βγ (from relativistic identities): sinh(φ) ≈ 0.9999 × 70.71244595 ≈ 70.70537. Thus, t ≈ 3.05586 × 10⁷ × 70.70537 ≈ 2.16149 × 10⁹ seconds ≈ 68.49 years.
Summary of Results
- From the spaceship's perspective (proper time), it takes approximately 4.80 years to reach 0.9999c.
- From a stationary observer's perspective (coordinate time), it takes approximately 68.49 years.
For context, the distance traveled (from the stationary frame) would be about (c² / g) × (γ - 1) ≈ 67.53 light-years, but this wasn't asked. These calculations assume ideal conditions with no external forces or fuel limits.
Q: Ok. That turn out better than I expected. My second concern is about the effect of travel at 0.9999c speed. It seems to me it will not only affect the passage of time relative to the crew, it will also affect the mass of the crew. Is that a correct statement?
A: Yes, your statement is partially correct but requires some nuance from special relativity to clarify fully.
First, regarding time: At 0.9999c (β = 0.9999), time dilation is significant. The Lorentz factor γ ≈ 70.71 means that for every second experienced by the crew (proper time), about 70.71 seconds pass for a stationary observer (like on Earth). This is a real effect, leading to the "twin paradox" where the traveling crew ages less than those left behind.
Now, on mass: In older interpretations of relativity, we spoke of "relativistic mass" (m_rel = γ m_0, where m_0 is the rest mass), which increases with velocity. At 0.9999c, the crew's effective mass from an external observer's perspective would be about 70.71 times their rest mass, making it harder to accelerate further (requiring exponentially more energy).
However, in modern physics, we prefer to keep mass as the invariant rest mass (m_0), which doesn't change—it's a fundamental property of the particles making up the crew. What "increases" is the relativistic momentum (p = γ m_0 v) and total energy (E = γ m_0 c²). The crew themselves wouldn't notice any change in their mass or weight; from their inertial frame, they're at rest, and physics feels normal. The mass increase is only apparent to outside observers trying to interact with or accelerate the spaceship.
So, while travel at such speeds affects the effective mass in interactions (e.g., collision impacts or acceleration requirements), it doesn't alter the crew's intrinsic mass or how they experience their own bodies.
Q: Interesting. So, the crew is safe while traveling at 0.9999c. Now my concern is regarding gravity. If we are on a big ship that would weight let’s say 100,000tons with the crew included. Will it affect (attract) any object that it passes close by at 0.9999c?
A: Yes, a spaceship with a rest mass of 100,000 tons (approximately 10^8 kg) traveling at 0.9999c would gravitationally attract nearby objects it passes close to, but with relativistic modifications that make the effect different—and in some senses stronger—than if it were moving slowly or at rest.
In general relativity, gravity is sourced by the entire stress-energy tensor, which includes not just the rest mass but also the ship's kinetic energy (total energy E ≈ γ m c², where γ ≈ 70.71) and momentum (p ≈ γ m v). This means the gravitational field is influenced by the ship's high speed: the field is Lorentz-contracted along the direction of motion, leading to an enhancement of the gravitational pull in the perpendicular (transverse) direction by a factor of approximately γ, analogous to how the electric field of a fast-moving charge is boosted transversely. For a close flyby where the relative displacement is mostly perpendicular to the ship's velocity, the attraction could be roughly 70 times stronger than the Newtonian prediction based on rest mass alone. Additionally, the momentum introduces gravitomagnetic effects (like frame-dragging), which can twist spacetime and cause slight rotational influences on nearby objects.
However, a few caveats:
-
The ship's rest mass is tiny on cosmic scales (comparable to a large building, not a planet), so its gravitational influence—even boosted by γ—would only noticeably affect very small or very close objects, like dust particles or tiny asteroids within meters or kilometers, depending on the exact "close by" distance. For larger bodies or greater separations, the effect would be negligible.
-
The interaction time during the passage would be very brief due to the high speed, so the net deflection or perturbation might be limited despite the stronger field.
-
From the crew's perspective (their rest frame), the ship's gravity is unchanged, and it's the external objects that appear relativistic, but the question seems to ask from the viewpoint of stationary observers or the affected objects.
Overall, while the attraction exists and is relativistically enhanced, it wouldn't pose major risks in empty interstellar space unless passing extremely close to something substantial.
Q: Perfect! Now let’s talk about time dilation. After reaching 0.9999c (now traveling at constant speed), how will time pass relative to an observer at rest?
A: Time dilation is one of the core predictions of special relativity, and at 0.9999c, it's dramatically pronounced. Here's how it works, step by step, for your scenario where the spaceship has reached constant velocity (no more acceleration, so we're in an inertial frame).
The key quantity is the Lorentz factor γ, which quantifies the dilation:
γ = 1 / √(1 - v²/c²) = 1 / √(1 - β²), where β = v/c = 0.9999.
As calculated earlier, γ ≈ 70.71.
For two observers—one at rest (e.g., on Earth) and one moving at constant velocity v (the crew)—the proper time interval Δτ (measured by the moving crew's clocks) relates to the coordinate time interval Δt (measured by the stationary observer) as:
Δt = γ Δτ.
This means:
-
Time passes slower for the crew relative to the stationary observer.
-
Specifically, for every 1 second that ticks by on the spaceship (Δτ = 1 s), approximately 70.71 seconds pass for the Earth observer (Δt ≈ 70.71 s).
-
From the crew's perspective: Their onboard clocks, biological processes, and everything feels perfectly normal—1 second is 1 second to them. They don't "feel" the dilation.
-
From the stationary observer's perspective: The crew appears to age much more slowly. If the crew experiences 1 year of travel time, Earth observers would see about 70.71 years go by.
-
Over a long journey: Suppose the ship coasts at 0.9999c for a proper time of 10 years (as felt by the crew). Earth time elapsed would be ~707 years. This asymmetry is resolvable because the crew must accelerate/decelerate to turn around (the full "twin paradox"), but during constant-speed coasting, it's straightforward dilation.
Start with the Lorentz transformation for time in special relativity. For an event at the crew's position (x' = 0 in their frame), the time coordinate transforms as t = γ (τ + (v/c²) x'), which simplifies to t = γ τ when x' = 0. The infinitesimal version, dt = γ dτ, integrates to the formula above for clock rates.
This effect has been experimentally verified countless times, from muon decay in particle accelerators to GPS satellites (where relativistic corrections are routine). At 0.9999c, it's just scaled up enormously, making interstellar travel a potential "time machine" to the future for the crew—though one-way, as they'd return to a much older Earth.
Q: Nice. So the way I see it. It is feasible for a young crew of average 25years of age to travel to a planet located at 400 light-years distance considering 8 years proper time for acceleration and deceleration to and from 0.9999c and less than 6 years of proper time for traversing less than 400 light-years of distance.
A: Your intuition is spot on—this kind of relativistic journey is theoretically feasible for a young crew, and the numbers you're sketching out align remarkably well with the physics. Let's break it down step by step to validate and refine your scenario, assuming the same 1g proper acceleration (≈9.8 m/s²) for accel/decel phases and a round-trip to a planet 400 light-years away. I'll use the relativistic rocket equations to make it concrete, focusing on proper time (τ, what the crew experiences) and coordinate time (t, from Earth's frame).
-
To reach 0.9999c (β = 0.9999, γ ≈ 70.71) at 1g from rest takes ~4.80 years of proper time (as we calculated earlier).
-
The same applies to deceleration at the destination (or acceleration back up to speed for the return leg).
-
For a full round-trip (accel to speed → coast → decel at target → accel back up → coast → decel at Earth), that's 4 phases × 4.80 years = ~19.2 years of proper time just for accel/decel. But you're proposing a more efficient one-way outbound leg with accel + decel in 8 years proper time, which fits if we assume ~4 years each way (accel out, decel in). That's realistic and crew-friendly—equivalent to a long PhD program or two Olympic cycles.
-
At constant velocity, the distance covered in the Earth frame (coordinate distance) during coasting is d_coast = v × Δt_coast ≈ 0.9999c × Δt_coast.
-
But due to length contraction, the crew perceives the distance as contracted: d_proper = d_coast / γ ≈ d_coast / 70.71.
-
Your estimate of <6 years proper time for traversing "<400 light-years" is a smart approximation. Let's calculate precisely:
- Total one-way distance in Earth frame: 400 ly.
- Accel phase distance (Earth frame): During accel to 0.9999c, the ship covers ~ (c²/g) (cosh(φ) - 1), where φ ≈ 4.95 (rapidity from before). This works out to ~67.5 ly.
- Decel phase distance: Similarly ~67.5 ly (symmetric).
- So coast distance needed: 400 - 67.5 - 67.5 ≈ 265 ly (Earth frame).
- Proper time for coast: τ_coast = Δt_coast / γ, and Δt_coast = d_coast / v ≈ 265 years (since v ≈ c).
- Thus, τ_coast ≈ 265 / 70.71 ≈ 3.75 years—well under your 6-year buffer!
- Total one-way proper time: 4.80 (accel) + 3.75 (coast) + 4.80 (decel) ≈ 13.35 years. For a round-trip, double it to ~26.7 years, but if you're thinking one-way colonization, it's even better.
- Starting at average 25 years old:
- One-way: Crew arrives at ~38.35 years old (13.35 years proper).
- Round-trip: Back at ~51.7 years old (26.7 years proper).
- This is incredibly feasible biologically—plenty of time for a full career, family, or even retirement on the new world. The crew would be in their prime, with no extreme aging effects onboard. Meanwhile, Earth ages ~800 years (400 ly out + 400 back, at near-c), so they'd return to a vastly futuristic society (the full twin paradox payoff).
-
Energy/Fuel: Relativistic travel demands enormous energy (E_total ≈ γ m c², ~70x rest energy), but advanced tech like antimatter or laser sails could make it plausible.
-
Hazards: Interstellar dust at 0.9999c is like relativistic bullets—need robust shielding (e.g., magnetic fields or ablative armor).
-
Psychology: 13+ years in a tin can? Isolation and monotony are bigger hurdles than physics, but rotating crews or AI companions could help.
-
Exact Tweaks: If you dial v to 0.99999c (γ ≈ 223.6), coast time drops to ~1.2 years proper for the same distance, but accel phases stretch to ~15 years each—trade-offs!
In short, yes—your 25-year-olds could pull this off, emerging not just alive but thriving on a distant world, while Earth becomes ancient history. It's the stuff of golden-age sci-fi, but the math checks out. What's your next worry—communication lag, or the return trip ethics?
Q: This is turning out much better than I expected. The only major challenge left to consider is that from the perspective of the destination planet, more than 400 years would pass. In that time the planet will itself move a long distance from the location it was at the moment the spaceship trip started. The ship would need to predict the location of the planet at arrival time and make any additional adjustments as it approaches the planet.
A: You're absolutely right—this is a valid concern in relativistic interstellar navigation, often overlooked in casual discussions but well-explored in astrophysics and mission planning literature. The destination planet (and its star system) isn't static; over the ~400 years of coordinate time (from Earth or the destination's rest frame), stellar motions will displace it from its observed position today. However, while it's a challenge, it's far from insurmountable. With accurate astronomical data and onboard systems, the ship can predict the future position reliably and make real-time adjustments as it nears the target. Let's break this down step by step, including some estimates to quantify the issue.
-
What we observe now is outdated: The light from a star 400 light-years away shows its position and state as it was 400 years ago. By the time the ship arrives (~400 years later in the rest frame), the star will have moved based on its velocity relative to Earth.
-
Types of motion:
- Proper motion: The star's transverse (sideways) velocity across the sky, typically measured in arcseconds per year. Average stars have proper motions of ~0.01–0.1 arcsec/yr, though outliers like Barnard's Star reach ~10 arcsec/yr.
- Radial velocity: Motion toward or away from us, ~10–50 km/s typically.
- Orbital motion around the galactic center: Stars like our Sun orbit at ~220 km/s, but relative to each other, this results in nearly straight-line paths over "short" timescales like 400 years (galactic orbits take ~200 million years).
- Planetary orbit: The planet circles its star (e.g., ~1 AU radius for an Earth-like world at 30 km/s), but this is predictable and minor compared to the star's overall displacement— the ship targets the star system first, then fine-tunes for the planet.
Using typical values for a star at 400 ly (~123 parsecs):
-
Assume an average proper motion of 0.05 arcsec/yr (conservative for distant stars; nearby ones are higher).
-
Over 400 years, total angular shift: 0.05 × 400 = 20 arcsec.
-
Convert to linear displacement: Angular size in radians θ = 20 / 206265 ≈ 9.7 × 10^{-5} rad.
-
Distance displaced d ≈ θ × 400 ly ≈ 0.039 ly (or ~0.012 parsecs, ~2.5 × 10^{15} km, or ~16,700 AU).
-
For radial motion at 20 km/s: Displacement along the line of sight ≈ 20 km/s × 400 yr ≈ 0.027 ly (similar scale).
This is tiny compared to the 400 ly journey—about 0.01% of the total distance—but at near-light speeds, even small offsets mean missing by trillions of km if uncorrected. For a high-motion star (e.g., 1 arcsec/yr), the displacement could be ~0.78 ly, still manageable but requiring more precise planning.
-
Initial planning from Earth: Modern missions use data from observatories like Gaia, which maps billions of stars with proper motions accurate to ~0.02 microarcsec/yr (for bright stars). This allows predictions centuries ahead with errors of just milliarcseconds (e.g., position uncertainty <0.001 ly over 400 years). Models incorporate general relativity, galactic dynamics, and even perturbations from nearby masses.
-
The light delay advantage: The ship's trip time matches the light travel time, so predictions are based on the same "vintage" data. As the ship accelerates and coasts, relativistic effects like time dilation mean the crew experiences only ~13 years, but they can still compute the target's extrapolated path using onboard catalogues.
This is where the "major" part dissolves— the ship doesn't fly blind:
-
Onboard autonomous navigation: Using instruments like star trackers or sextants, the ship measures angular positions of reference stars. Relativistic effects (aberration shifts stars' apparent positions by up to arcsin(v/c) ≈ 4.95 radians or ~284 degrees at 0.9999c, but formulas correct for this).
-
Updating en route: As the ship closes the distance, the light delay shrinks. At 200 ly out, it sees the target as it was 200 years ago—fresher data for refining trajectory. Iterative methods (e.g., Markov Chain Monte Carlo) compare observed star fields to catalogues, solving for position, velocity, and time with errors as low as 0.3 AU in position and 0.2 km/s in velocity (using ~20-100 stars with 0.1 arcsec accuracy).
-
Corrections for relativity: Aberration and Doppler shifts help infer the ship's exact velocity; parallax (apparent star shifts due to position) pins down location. Proper motion is folded in via updated catalogues assuming linear stellar paths (accurate over 400 years for most stars).
-
Thruster tweaks: During coasting, minor burns (at <<1g) adjust course. Near the target (e.g., last few ly), deceleration phase allows precise homing using the star's light directly.
-
No, with foreseeable tech: Papers on relativistic navigation (e.g., methods using astrometric catalogues) show accuracies sufficient for missions to nearby stars like Proxima Centauri (4 ly), scaling to 400 ly with more stars observed. The main limits are measurement precision (e.g., 1 arcsec errors yield ~3 AU positional accuracy), but AI-enhanced telescopes could hit 0.1 arcsec or better.
-
Bigger hurdles elsewhere: Compared to energy requirements, radiation shielding, or dust impacts at 0.9999c, this is solvable. Historical analogs: Voyager probes navigate using star fixes over billions of km; scale that up with relativity-aware algorithms.
-
Edge cases: If the target has unpredictable motion (e.g., a binary star or galactic perturbations), errors grow, but we'd pick stable systems. For planets, onboard telescopes resolve orbits upon approach.
In summary, yes, the planet moves, but the displacement is predictable and correctable—think of it like leading a target in archery, but with supercomputers and self-updating sights. Your young crew could absolutely handle this with a robust navigation suite. If we're colonizing, they'd arrive to a world that's evolved 400 years, but that's a societal bonus (or risk) rather than a nav issue. What's next—fuel logistics or ethical dilemmas of time-skipping civilizations?