How Fast is a Galaxy Receding When Hydrogen Light Frequency Changes?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster presents a physics problem related to the Doppler effect, specifically concerning the frequency change of light emitted by hydrogen atoms in a receding galaxy. The observed frequency is lower than the emitted frequency, prompting a question about calculating the speed of the galaxy's recession in relation to the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the relativistic Doppler shift formula and question the equivalence of velocities in the equation. There are attempts to manipulate the formula to isolate the variable representing speed.

Discussion Status

Several participants are engaged in exploring algebraic manipulations of the Doppler shift equation. Some have provided hints and approximations to guide the calculations, while others express confusion about the algebra involved. There is a recognition of the proximity of calculated values to expected results, indicating a productive exploration of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the challenge of working with the relativistic Doppler shift and the implications of approaching the speed of light in their calculations. There is also mention of homework constraints, as the original poster has a deadline for submission.

.cfg
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey all. I've got a physics question due tonight (Friday) at 11pm CST and I'm stumped. Any input at all would be helpful, thanks!

A hydrogen atom, when vigorously perturbed, can emit light with a frequency of 6.16·10^14 Hz. When the same light from hydrogen atoms in a distant galaxy is observed on earth, the frequency is 5.16·10^14 Hz. Calculate the speed at which the galaxy is receding from the Earth (in units of the speed of light, c).

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You just need to muck around with the formula for (special, I assume with the information given) relativistic Doppler shift

[tex]z+1 = \sqrt{\frac{1 + \frac{v}{c}}{1- \frac{v}{c}}}[/tex]

Where

[tex]z+1 = \frac{\lambda'}{\lambda}[/tex]
 
Thanks for the reply

Err.. are both velocities in the doppler shift equation equivalent or are they different? IE. would one of the velocities be zero because the receiving planet does not move?
 
There both the same.
 
I calculated lambda prime/lambda to be 1.1938. How am I to solve with two of the same variable :o

No matter what equation I use, it seems I keep getting an answer of 5.79*10^7.. which is pretty unrealistic seeming (and also incorrect).
 
Last edited:
I've got the same.

Just plug z + 1 = 1.1938 into the equation (as we want v as a fraction of c anyway we can say v = v/c):

[tex](z+1)^2 = \frac{1 + v}{1-v}[/tex]

Now it's simple algerbra to re-argange it to find v


edited to add: here's a clue: a good approximation for v at non-relativistic speeds is cz, which in this case is about 0.19c, so that's the kind of figure you should be looking for (though not that exact figure as the speed is close enough to relativistic to effect the answer).
 
Last edited:
Yea, I got that far.. it seems I'm having a brainfart with the 'simple algebra'.

EDIT: working on it with your hint
EDIT2: bleh. something's just not clicking.
5.79*10^7 is pretty close to .19c, is that telling me anything?
 
Last edited:
Okay :

If we re-arrange the equation in my last post we get:

[tex](z +1)^2(1-v) = 1 + v[/tex]

mutiply out:

[tex](z+1)^2 - v(z+1)^2 = 1 + v[/tex]

Add v(z+1)2 - 1 to both sides:

[tex](z+1)^2 -1 = v + v(z +1)^2[/tex]

divide both sides by v:

[tex]\frac{(z+1)^2 - 1}{v} = (z+1)^2 + 1[/tex]

Now just re-arrange that to get v:

[tex]v = \frac{(z+1)^2 -1}{(z+1)^2 + 1}[/tex]
 
jcsd you just saved my ass. It was kind of you to help so much.

Thank you very, very much!
 
  • #10
The answer you should get is about 0.17c which as you can see is pretty close to the value of 0.19c (which was obtained without the relativistic correction), though as v approaches c this approximation gets less and less accurate.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
16K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K