Difference between relativistic doppler effect and classical one?

lightconstant
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
When I ask for differences I am not meaning mathematical ones since that it is obvious:
We have a phenomenon p, p can be described by Galilean Relativity (GR)
and by Einsten Relativity (ER).
ER(p)!=GR(p)
The math expression that describes this phenomenon is different.
Then the doppler effect will have another mathematical expression
ER(dp)!=GR(p)
Maybe someone wants to say that GR is like a subset of ER for small velocities in reality It is not It looks similar but It is not, well let us get to the point.
Sound can be described by the classical doppler effect GR(d_e) by addition and substration of velocities though we know the velocity is constant due to the medium.
My question can we do the same with light? can we explain it mathematically with the addition of c+v, c-v?
I hope I have expressed myself clearly, I know c is a constant and We can not add velocities, what am I asking is if by using galilean relativity the doppler effect of light can be explained adding velocities, after all sound has a constant velocity and we add it.
Let us put it another way, is there any physical not mathematical proof, evidence, observation, meaning... that the doppler effect of light is different than the sound one?
Or Is It just the way It is expressed mathematically.
Because I see this applet:
http://webphysics.davidson.edu/applets/applets.html
and the phenomenon looks the same.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lightconstant said:
When I ask for differences I am not meaning mathematical ones since that it is obvious:
We have a phenomenon p, p can be described by Galilean Relativity (GR)
and by Einsten Relativity (ER).
ER(p)!=GR(p)
The math expression that describes this phenomenon is different.
Then the doppler effect will have another mathematical expression
ER(dp)!=GR(p)
Maybe someone wants to say that GR is like a subset of ER for small velocities in reality It is not It looks similar but It is not, well let us get to the point.
Sound can be described by the classical doppler effect GR(d_e) by addition and substration of velocities though we know the velocity is constant due to the medium.
My question can we do the same with light? can we explain it mathematically with the addition of c+v, c-v?
I hope I have expressed myself clearly, I know c is a constant and We can not add velocities, what am I asking is if by using galilean relativity the doppler effect of light can be explained adding velocities, after all sound has a constant velocity and we add it.
Let us put it another way, is there any physical not mathematical proof, evidence, observation, meaning... that the doppler effect of light is different than the sound one?
Or Is It just the way It is expressed mathematically.
Because I see this applet:
http://webphysics.davidson.edu/applets/applets.html
and the phenomenon looks the same.

Much of what you say is not comprehensible. Classic doppler has no provision for transverse doppler (change in frequency of light emitted by a moving source exactly perpendicular to the receiver). This has been observed with light.

See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation
 
Thank you PAllen I saw that somewhere but did not know it was only light related,
I guess the phenomenon It is not the same since one has transverse doppler and the other one does not.
Let me look at it and see what is about.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top