How Does Relativistic Motion Affect Star Brightness?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of relativistic motion on the apparent brightness of stars, specifically comparing a stationary star to a receding star moving at 0.8c. Participants explore various relativistic effects, including time dilation and Doppler shifts, while seeking to understand how these factors influence perceived luminosity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that time dilation reduces the power output of the receding star, making it appear fainter.
  • Another participant mentions that light from the moving star is beamed forward due to aberration, contributing to its reduced brightness from the observer's perspective.
  • A participant proposes that both time dilation and aberration effects can be considered as manifestations of the Doppler shift, with light from an approaching star being blue-shifted and light from a receding star being red-shifted.
  • One participant calculates a formula for the transformed brightness, incorporating factors for time dilation and the inverse square law, and seeks confirmation of its correctness.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of a previous calculation regarding the brightness perceived by a moving observer and suggests an alternative perspective on how brightness changes when the observer moves towards or away from a star.
  • A different approach is introduced, analyzing the electromagnetic wave properties and their transformation under relativistic conditions, leading to a relationship that resembles the relativistic Doppler shift formula.
  • References to the surface brightness theorem are made, suggesting that intensity observed is related to the emitted intensity adjusted by redshift factors.
  • Concerns are raised about whether certain definitions of intensity account for energy received over a fixed time interval, questioning the applicability of some derived relations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and interpretations of relativistic effects on brightness, with no consensus reached on the correct approach or final equations. Multiple competing models and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations rely on specific assumptions about the motion of the observer and the source, and there are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the transformations involved. The discussion also highlights the complexity of relating different definitions of intensity and brightness in the context of relativistic motion.

  • #31
Antenna Guy said:
...

IMO, if we were to construct a spherical surface of radius ct within the ineterial frame of the moving star, the power density integrated over that surface should equal the power radiated by the star at t=0. This integrated power should hold for the same surface transformed into any other inertial reference frame.

Regards,

Bill

The attenuation of power radiated per unit area of the star only occurs at the rear of the star as seen by an observer who sees the star as receding from him. This is compensated by the amplification of the power radiated per unit area at the front of the star, as seen by an observer that sees the star as aproaching him. However, the total power radiated per unit time by the star is attenuated by time dilation and the stars burns for longer according to obserers that see the star moving relative to them. The focusing and concentrating of power at the front is seen in blazars that eject double jets of luminous material at relativistic velocities with one jet coming towards us. The time dilation effect is seen in 1a type supernovae. They typically shine brightly for one week, but at high recession velocities they shine brightly for two weeks or more.

After working out the power radiated per unit time by the star by allowing for time dilation, the radiated energy is simply redistributed and more concentrated at the front and more diluted at the rear by relativistic aberration but the total radiated power per unit time remains the same.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Bill,
regarding your last post, I can only say that Peebles is working in the most general background, where gravity can cause lensing, in which case \Omega and A are independent. In the purely SR background they can probably be elided into one differential.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to study this thread very closely - just dropping in and out.

M
 
  • #33
Mentz114 said:
Bill,
regarding your last post, I can only say that Peebles is working in the most general background, where gravity can cause lensing, in which case \Omega and A are independent. In the purely SR background they can probably be elided into one differential.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to study this thread very closely - just dropping in and out.

M

If you find the time to think about it: If \Omega and A are separable, what two independent surfaces might they relate to?

Regards,

Bill

P.S. I'll be off-line for ~ a week, so there's no rush... :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
638
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K