Calculating Radiation Measured from Moving Star

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter asras
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiation Star
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the radiation measured from a moving star, exploring different methods to account for relativistic effects such as Doppler shift and time dilation. Participants examine the implications of these effects in both the star's rest frame and the observer's frame.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two methods for calculating radiation from a moving star, noting that they yield different results.
  • The first method involves using the stress-energy tensor in the star's rest frame and transforming it to the observer's frame, leading to a specific expression for radiation measured by the observer.
  • The second method applies Doppler shift to the frequency of emitted photons, resulting in a different expression for the radiation measured by the observer.
  • Another participant questions whether the time transformation was considered in the second method, suggesting that the number of photons per second (N) would change due to relativistic effects.
  • A subsequent reply proposes that N should transform as \( N \rightarrow N/\gamma \) due to time dilation, but expresses uncertainty about the correct transformation factor.
  • Further clarification is provided that the transformation is not solely time dilation, but also involves the Doppler shift factor, which depends on the direction of the star's motion relative to the observer.
  • One participant elaborates on the emission rate in the observer's frame, incorporating the effects of both time dilation and the star's motion, leading to a refined expression for the observed radiation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to calculating the radiation, with no consensus reached on which method is definitively correct. The discussion highlights competing interpretations of relativistic effects on photon emission and reception.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved aspects regarding the transformation of time and the implications of the Doppler effect, as well as the dependence on the direction of the star's motion.

asras
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
My problem is how to calculate the radiation measured from a moving star. I figure there's two ways to do it, both of which I go through below, but they do not produce the same answer!

For the first part everything is in the rest frame, [itex]\mathcal{O}[/itex], of the star.

The star emits [itex]N[/itex] photons of frequency [itex]\nu[/itex] each second. The total energy radiated per second is thus [itex]L := Nh\nu[/itex]. It can be shown the stress-energy tensor in this case has entries for events [itex](t,x,0,0)[/itex]:
[tex]T^{00} = T^{0x} = T^{x0} = T^{xx} = \frac{L}{4\pi x^2},[/tex]
and all other entries zero.

We now move to the frame of the observer, [itex]\overline{\mathcal{O}}[/itex], who moves with speed [itex]v[/itex] in the positive [itex]x[/itex]-direction and who is also located on the x-axis. The components of the stress-energy tensor in this frame are given by (using the usual rules for tensor transformation):
[tex]T^{\overline{\alpha} \overline{\beta} } = \Lambda^{\overline{\alpha}}_{\mu} \Lambda^{\overline{\beta}}_{\nu} T^{\mu \nu}[/tex]
Now if the coordinate of reception is [itex]x[/itex] in the star's frame it must be [itex]R = (1-v)\gamma x[/itex] in the observer's frame (with [itex]\gamma = (1-v^2)^{-1/2}[/itex]). Thus we have that
[tex]T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}} = \frac{L}{4\pi x^2} (1-v)^2 \gamma^2,[/tex]
[tex]T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}} = \frac{L}{4\pi R^2} (1-v)^4 \gamma^4.[/tex]

So this gives the radiation the observer measures. However if we approach the problem using doppler-shift of the photons we get [itex]\nu' = (1-v)\gamma \nu[/itex], [itex]R = (1-v)\gamma x[/itex], and we have

[tex]T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}}= \frac{Nh\nu}{4\pi R^2} (1-v)^3 \gamma^3.[/tex]


So which is correct? I'm fairly sure the first method is correct, but I can't figure out exactly what I'm missing in the second calculation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the second method, you transformed x, did you forget to transform t as well? N, the "number of photons per second", will change.
 
Bill, wouldn't that just be equivalent to
[tex]N \rightarrow N/\gamma,[/tex]
due to time dilation? (If it were [itex]N \rightarrow N/((1+v)\gamma)[/itex] I would be happy!)
 
It's not just time dilation. Like you say it's γ(1 + v/c), the same as the Doppler shift factor. It's the number of photons you're intercepting per second. One way to see the need for the (1 + v/c) factor is that N will be different depending on whether the star is moving toward you or away from you, which changes the sign of v.
 
Ah, I see. If we imagine two emission events (lets just say that one photon is emitted at each event) separated in the rest frame of the star by [itex]\Delta \tau[/itex] the rate of emission is [itex]L = 1/\Delta \tau[/itex]. In the frame of the observer the events are separated in time by
[tex]\Delta t = \Delta \tau \gamma.[/tex]
However the star has moved [itex]v\Delta t[/itex] to the left so the rate of emission in the observers frame becomes
[tex]L' = \frac{1}{\Delta t + v\Delta t /c } = \frac{1}{\Delta \tau} \frac{1}{(1+v/c) \gamma} = \frac{L}{(1+v/c)\gamma}.[/tex]
(I included the c because I feel it makes it clearer.)

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K