Doppler shift of a signal reflected in a mirror moving away from the observer.

yuiop
Messages
3,962
Reaction score
20
I have re-written this as as I accidently deleted my original post. I was wondering if the relativistic Doppler shift of a reflection from a mirror moving away from the observer was the same as the Newtonian equation in the special case that the mirror is orthogonal to the direction of motion.

I referred to equation (13) in this paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409014.pdf and set theta to zero for this special case.

I now think I have figured out the answer to my own question.

The equation I gave in my my first post:

f = f_0 \frac{1-2v/c+v^2/c^2}{1-v^2/c^2}

Can be re-arranged:

f = f_0 \frac{(1-v/c)(1-v/c)}{(1-v/c)(1+v/c)}

and simplified:

f = f_0 \frac{(1-v/c)}{(1+v/c)}

and this is exactly the same as the none relativistic equation for Doppler radar.

Length contraction and time dilation is not involved in this special case of reflection in a moving mirror.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, this is kind of a trivial result though. You can just move to the coordinates of the mirror and argue that because of symmetries (light beam coming in 90 degrees wrt the mirror), outgoing angle must be same as incoming angle.
 
clamtrox said:
Yes, this is kind of a trivial result though. You can just move to the coordinates of the mirror and argue that because of symmetries (light beam coming in 90 degrees wrt the mirror), outgoing angle must be same as incoming angle.

The question was not about angles but about red shift of a reflected signal. I chose the 90 degree angle wrt the mirror to eliminate complications due to relativistic aberration. I was inspired to ask the question because in another thread there was originally some doubt about whether time dilation or red shift are factors in the signal reflected from a mirror moving parallel to the observer. I am now fairly sure that they are not factors in that scenario.
 
yuiop said:
The question was not about angles but about red shift of a reflected signal. I chose the 90 degree angle wrt the mirror to eliminate complications due to relativistic aberration. I was inspired to ask the question because in another thread there was originally some doubt about whether time dilation or red shift are factors in the signal reflected from a mirror moving parallel to the observer. I am now fairly sure that they are not factors in that scenario.

So more explicitly (if you want to think in terms of length contractions), you get a relativistic correction because the Lorentz transform from mirror coordinates to observer coordinates changes the angle of the mirror. If the mirror is perpendicular to the beam, you can just trivially transform to mirror coordinates and you have a moving observer observing a beam (bouncing off a stationary mirror, but you know what happens there already).
 
clamtrox said:
So more explicitly (if you want to think in terms of length contractions), you get a relativistic correction because the Lorentz transform from mirror coordinates to observer coordinates changes the angle of the mirror. If the mirror is perpendicular to the beam, you can just trivially transform to mirror coordinates and you have a moving observer observing a beam (bouncing off a stationary mirror, but you know what happens there already).

Thanks, yes it helpful to think of it in that context. :smile:
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
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