Planck relation, relativistic doppler effect, and relativistic mass

In summary: When I graphed these, the laser's observed energy was 300% of original at 0.8c, but the mass was only 166% of rest mass... something seems wrong to me. Are my assumptions just flat wrong?Thanks again, folks. I'm new here, so please be kind :)In summary, your calculations could be correct, but the method of collecting energy from the laser shining from your destination won't work as you think because the light has momentum.
  • #1
alphawolf50
22
0
I've been trying to graph an idea I had, but frankly I don't understand SR well enough to ensure my assumptions are correct, and that I'm using the correct formulas. I would appreciate any input/corrections you folks could give. Here's the idea, which I'll follow with my assumptions:

Idea: Place a powerful laser in space at a location you'd like to travel to quickly. Let's say near Epsilon Eridani because Wikipedia says it has a planet and is approx. 10 light years away. Now build a space vessel with a dish to collect this laser light from the front of the vessel, and convert it into usable energy for the propulsion system. The closer the vessel approaches c, the higher it observes' the laser's frequency to be. Since the energy of light is a function of its frequency, the vessel should receive more energy the faster it goes, helping it maintain constant acceleration despite its mass also increasing.

Assumptions:
1. While the energy of the laser light doesn't actually increase, the vessel should encounter more wave fronts/sec., which I'm equating to an observed increase in energy. If we combine Planck's relation with the relativistic doppler shift, we get:

[tex]E=h\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}\right)f_{s}[/tex]

(Note: I've reversed the signs above because we're heading toward the source, so I'm looking for the "blue shift" rather than the "red shift". This allowed me to use positive fractions of c rather than negative.)

2. This is correct formula for determining an object's mass at relativistic speeds?

[tex] m_{\mathrm{rel}} = { m \over \sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}}[/tex]

Results:
When I graphed these, the laser's observed energy was 300% of original at 0.8c, but the mass was only 166% of rest mass... something seems wrong to me. Are my assumptions just flat wrong?

Thanks again, folks. I'm new here, so please be kind :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi alphawolf,

your calculations could be correct. Why do think they are wrong ?

But your method of collecting energy from the laser shining from your destination isn't going to work the way you think because the light has momentum, and the beam will resist your motion.
 
  • #3
alphawolf50 said:
I've been trying to graph an idea I had, but frankly I don't understand SR well enough to ensure my assumptions are correct, and that I'm using the correct formulas. I would appreciate any input/corrections you folks could give. Here's the idea, which I'll follow with my assumptions:

Idea: Place a powerful laser in space at a location you'd like to travel to quickly. Let's say near Epsilon Eridani because Wikipedia says it has a planet and is approx. 10 light years away. Now build a space vessel with a dish to collect this laser light from the front of the vessel, and convert it into usable energy for the propulsion system. The closer the vessel approaches c, the higher it observes' the laser's frequency to be. Since the energy of light is a function of its frequency, the vessel should receive more energy the faster it goes, helping it maintain constant acceleration despite its mass also increasing.

Assumptions:
1. While the energy of the laser light doesn't actually increase, the vessel should encounter more wave fronts/sec., which I'm equating to an observed increase in energy. If we combine Planck's relation with the relativistic doppler shift, we get:

[tex]E=h\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}\right)f_{s}[/tex]

(Note: I've reversed the signs above because we're heading toward the source, so I'm looking for the "blue shift" rather than the "red shift". This allowed me to use positive fractions of c rather than negative.)

2. This is correct formula for determining an object's mass at relativistic speeds?

[tex] m_{\mathrm{rel}} = { m \over \sqrt{1-{v^2\over c^2}}}[/tex]

Results:
When I graphed these, the laser's observed energy was 300% of original at 0.8c, but the mass was only 166% of rest mass... something seems wrong to me. Are my assumptions just flat wrong?

Thanks again, folks. I'm new here, so please be kind :)

The answer is that there is no relationship between the "relativistic" mass of the laser and the relativistic total energy of the light it is emitting. The two entities have no connection.
 
  • #4
Mentz114 said:
Hi alphawolf,

your calculations could be correct. Why do think they are wrong ?

But your method of collecting energy from the laser shining from your destination isn't going to work the way you think because the light has momentum, and the beam will resist your motion.

Hi Mentz,

Thanks for responding -- After I reread my post I was worried it would come off in the "speculative" category, and not be responded to. I considered re-writing it to just ask about the concepts and confirm my math, which was the true intention of the post.

I thought my calculations were wrong because I am inexperienced with the concepts involved, and because the graph of the energy increase from the beam was outpacing the mass gain of the vessel by quite a bit -- I had predicted these would either match or the beam's energy would increase at a slower rate. But, as you said, I didn't take into account the momentum of the light itself. I'll rework this with that in mind. Thanks again!
 
  • #5
starthaus said:
The answer is that there is no relationship between the "relativistic" mass of the laser and the relativistic total energy of the light it is emitting. The two entities have no connection.

Hi Starthaus -- I was actually referring to the relativistic mass of the vessel. The laser is "fixed", and the vessel is undergoing acceleration. That being said, yes, there also isn't a connection between the relativistic mass of a vessel and the relativistic energy of a separate energy source -- but I assumed they would change at nearly the same rate. Now that I look at it again, I see that my assumption was faulty since the doppler effect has nothing to do with relativity, except that it has to be calculated differently at very high speeds.

Thank you for your input -- it helped me see another flaw in my concept :)
 

What is the Planck relation?

The Planck relation, also known as the Planck-Einstein relation, is a fundamental equation in quantum mechanics that relates the energy of a photon to its frequency. It is given by the equation E = hf, where E is the energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency.

What is the relativistic Doppler effect?

The relativistic Doppler effect is a phenomenon in which the observed frequency of a wave is affected by the relative motion between the source of the wave and the observer. In the case of light, this means that the frequency and wavelength of the light will appear to change depending on the relative motion of the source and the observer.

How does the relativistic mass differ from the classical mass?

The concept of relativistic mass is a result of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which states that the mass of an object increases as its velocity approaches the speed of light. In contrast, classical mass is a constant value that does not change with velocity.

What is the significance of the speed of light in these concepts?

The speed of light, denoted by the symbol c, is a fundamental constant in physics that plays a crucial role in the Planck relation, relativistic Doppler effect, and relativistic mass. It is the maximum speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel in the universe according to Einstein's theory of special relativity.

How do these concepts impact our understanding of the universe?

The Planck relation, relativistic Doppler effect, and relativistic mass are all fundamental concepts in modern physics that have greatly expanded our understanding of the universe. They have helped us to explain the behavior of particles and waves at high velocities and have played a crucial role in the development of theories such as quantum mechanics and special relativity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
830
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
924
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
896
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
Back
Top