Energy conservation for a relativistic doppler shifted pulse

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the apparent contradiction between energy conservation and the behavior of Doppler shifted pulses in the context of special relativity. The original poster questions how a Doppler shifted pulse, which maintains amplitude but experiences frequency changes, aligns with the energy equation E=hf. Responses clarify that while energy and momentum differ across reference frames, conservation laws hold true within each frame. The conversation emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of energy-momentum conservation and the Lorentz transformation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Familiarity with the energy-frequency relationship (E=hf)
  • Basic knowledge of energy-momentum conservation principles
  • Concept of Doppler effect in the context of light and sound
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Lorentz transformation on energy and momentum
  • Explore the concept of energy-momentum conservation in special relativity
  • Investigate the Doppler effect for light and its mathematical formulation
  • Read "Spacetime Physics" by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler for a foundational understanding of relativity
USEFUL FOR

Students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those interested in special relativity, energy conservation, and the Doppler effect in light. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of relativistic physics concepts.

Ham
I am new to the field of relativity. I read the Lorentz transformation
between different system of coordinates. I have a question. Let's
suppose that we have a Doppler shifted pulse in frequency (time
dilation). This pulse has the same amplitude as the pulse seen by a
moving observer. That is strange for me while it contradict with
energy conservation. Even in an easier way E=hf. When the frequency is
changing the energy is changing so we have more energy as the one
generated! I also looked into energy-momentum conservation but I
could not digest the point. Can anybody describe it to me please?

[[Mod. note -- From past discussions in this newsgroup, I think the
type of problems you're having may be too subtle to be fully resolved
in a newsgroup discussion. I strongly recommend that, in addition
to whatever you learn from this newsgroup, you also read some other
relativity books: Another book will often explain things just enough
differently from the one(s) you started with that things "click".
My personal favorites among relativity books at roughly the right
level are

Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler
"Spacetime Physics", 2nd Ed.
W. H. Freeman, 1992,
ISBN 0-7167-2326-3 (hardcover)
0-7167-2327-1 (paperback)

N. David Mermin
"Space and Time in Special Relativity"
McGraw-Hill, 1968
Waveland Press, 1989
ISBN 0-88133-420-0 (paperback)

and (even though it's nominally about general relativity, it also has
a lot of insights into special relativity)

Robert Geroch
"General Relativity from A to B"
University of Chicago Press, 1978,
ISBN 0-226-28863-3 (hardcover),
0-226-28864-1 (paperback)

-- jt]]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
On Jan 23, 4:28 am, Ham <nejatiha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am new to the field of relativity. I read the Lorentz transformation
> between different system of coordinates. I  have a question. Let's
> suppose that we have a Doppler shifted pulse in frequency (time
> dilation). This pulse has the same amplitude as the pulse seen by a
> moving observer. That is strange for me while it contradict with
> energy conservation. Even in an easier way E=hf. When the frequency is
> changing the energy is changing so we have more energy as the one
> generated! I also looked into energy-momentum conservation but I
> could not digest the point. Can anybody describe it to me please?[/color]

I'll have a go at this. The point is that the energy, the momentum,
and
other quantities of particles (eg, their speeds), can be different
from one
reference frame to the next. However, the laws of motion for these
quantities take the same form in every reference frame.

For example, energy is conserved in each reference frame for
collisions
between particles:
E1 + E2 = E1' + E2',
(where ' denotes a quantity after the collision),but the energy
values
E1, E2, etc actually depend on the frame of reference being used.
Similarly for momentum conservation.

This is not surprising, as it is the same in Newtonian mechanics. For
two Newtonian observers moving at different relative velocities, if a
particle is at rest relative to one observer, with zero kinetic
energy, then
it will be moving relative to the other observer, with non-zero
kinetic
energy.

The main differences between Newtonian (more properly Galilean)
relativity and special relativity, in the above respect, is that
energy
and momentum are somewhat differently defined in the two cases,
and that the transformations between reference frames mix space
and time (and hence momentum and energy components, and electric
and magnetic field components).
 
I believe the original responder has altogether misinterpreted the original questioner's question. Please allow me to restate the original question more succinctly:

If the predictions of special relativity are compared to those of a simple flat nonrelativistic light medium that is "stationary" in the observer’s frame (“classical theory”), SR’s physical predictions of what an observer sees are ALWAYS "redder" by the Lorentz factor.

Because E=hf, we may infer that any photon received by an observer which is in motion relative to the emitter is less energetic than was that same photon when it was emitted.

Imagine a closed system composed of a collection of dynamically moving objects which are emitting and absorbing radiation, such as a hot gas. Each time a photon is transmitted from one molecule to another, the aggregate energy of the system is reduced by the Lorentz factor as applied to the energy of that particular photon.

How can this be reconciled with the principle of conservation of energy?

Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K