How Does the Relativistic Doppler Shift Equation Simplify for Low Velocities?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relativistic Doppler shift equation for light, expressed as f' = [√(1+(v/c))/√(1-(v/c))] * f, simplifies to Δf/f = -v/c when the velocity v is much less than the speed of light c. By expanding the square roots and neglecting higher-order terms, users can derive the approximate relationship. The discussion highlights the importance of correctly identifying terms that can be dropped in the expansion process to achieve the desired simplification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the relativistic Doppler effect
  • Familiarity with Taylor series expansions
  • Basic knowledge of algebraic manipulation of equations
  • Concept of light frequency and wavelength
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the relativistic Doppler shift equation in detail
  • Learn about Taylor series and their applications in physics
  • Explore the implications of the Doppler effect in astrophysics
  • Investigate the differences between classical and relativistic Doppler shifts
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of physics, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of the relativistic Doppler effect and its applications in various fields such as astrophysics and cosmology.

gnome
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
1
relativistic doppler shift

I'm trying to show that this equation for the doppler shift for light:
f' = [√(1+(v/c))/√(1-(v/c))] * f
reduces to
&Delta;f/f = -v/c for v<<c

So I expanded (1+v/c)^(1/2) = 1 + v/(2c)
and (1-v/c)^(1/2) = 1 - v/(2c)
dropping higher order terms on the assumption that they are negligible.
Now I have
f' = [(1+v/(2c))/(1-(v/(2c))] * f
&Delta;f = f' - f = f * [(1+v/(2c))/(1-(v/(2c)) - 1]
&Delta;f/f = (2c + v)/(2c - v)

That doesn't look like -v/c.

On the other hand, if I multiply the original equation by &radic;(1-(v/c))/&radic;(1-(v/c)) I get
f' = [&radic;(1-(v^2/c^2))/(1-(v/c))] * f
and then expand &radic;(1-(v^2/c^2)) = 1-v^2/(2c^2)
then
f' = [(1-v^2/(2c^2))/(1-(v/c))] * f
&Delta;f/f = (1-v^2/(2c^2))/(1-(v/c)) - 1
= (2c^2 - v^2)/(2c^2 - 2cv) - 1
= (2cv - v^2)/(2c^2 - 2cv)
= v(2c - v)/(c(2c - 2v))

Close but no cigar.

Or, can I just claim that (2c-v)/(2c-2v) &sim; 1?

(The minus sign can be attributed to how we define &Delta;f.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Starting here:

Originally posted by gnome

&Delta;f = f' - f = f * [(1+v/(2c))/(1-(v/(2c)) - 1]
&Delta;f/f = (2c + v)/(2c - v)

Can't you say:

[tex]\frac{\Delta f}{f} = \frac{1+\frac{v}{2c}}{1-\frac{v}{2c}} - 1[/tex]
[tex]\frac{\Delta f}{f} = \frac{2\frac{v}{2c}}{1-\frac{v}{2c}}[/tex]

and since v<<c, 1>>v/2c --> 1-v/2c ~ 1, and then you've proven it.

Or can you expand again at that point, so that: 1/(1+x) ~ 1 - x (for x close to zero), then:


[tex]\frac{\Delta f}{f} = \frac{v}{c}(1-\frac{v}{2c})[/tex]

drop the second order terms and you've got the answer.

I'm not sure if that's all right, but that'd be my guess; hope it helps.
 
I guess that's it. I'm always uncertain as to which terms I can legitimately "drop", but I don't see any other argument that works here.

Thanks, James.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K