Calculating Relativistic Doppler Shift for Moving Radar

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the relativistic Doppler shift for a radar operating at a frequency of 2 × 10^9 Hz, with a car approaching at a speed of 135 km/h. The formula used is μ = μ₀ √(1 - v²/c²) / (1 - v/c), where μ₀ is the original frequency. The initial calculation yielded an unrealistic frequency shift of 1.024 × 10^{13} Hz, prompting a suggestion to apply a Taylor expansion for small values of v/c to achieve a more accurate result.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, specifically the Doppler effect.
  • Familiarity with the formula for relativistic Doppler shift.
  • Basic knowledge of unit conversion from km/h to m/s.
  • Experience with Taylor series expansions for approximating functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the relativistic Doppler shift formula.
  • Learn how to convert speeds from km/h to m/s accurately.
  • Explore Taylor series expansions and their applications in physics.
  • Investigate practical examples of Doppler shift in radar technology.
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, engineers working with radar systems, and anyone interested in understanding the effects of relativistic speeds on frequency measurements.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286

Homework Statement


A car is getting closer to a radar as a speed of 135 km/h. If the radar works at a 2 \times 10 ^{9} Hz, what difference of frequency is observed for the radar?

Homework Equations


\mu=\frac{\mu _0 \sqrt {1- \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{1-\frac{v}{c}}

The Attempt at a Solution


I converted 135 km/h into m/s, which gave me \frac { 1350 m }{36 s}.
Then I applied the formula and \mu - \mu _0 gave me 1.024 \times 10^{13} Hz which seems WAY too big to be realistic. Am I missing something? Is it a wrong formula?!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula is correct and I agree the number is way too large. Can you show how you got it? A word of caution: v/c is too small to plug in a calculator and expect something other than μ0, i.e. no frequency shift. I suggest that you try a Taylor expansion for small values of v/c.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K