How fast must this star be moving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joyeuse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Star
AI Thread Summary
To determine how fast a star must be moving for the light frequency received to be 11% higher than emitted, the Relativistic Doppler Effect formula should be used. The relationship indicates that if the observed frequency is 1.11 times the emitted frequency, the source must be moving towards the observer. The calculation involves finding the ratio of the relative velocity to the speed of light (β). Using this method, the calculated speed of the star is approximately 0.099 times the speed of light, but adjustments may be needed for accuracy. Understanding the distinction between classical and relativistic effects is crucial for precise results.
Joyeuse
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



How fast (as a percentage of light speed) would a star have to be moving so that the frequency of the light we receive from it is 11.0% higher than the frequency of the light it is emitting?


Homework Equations



(f_L)= (f_s)*(v+v_L)/(v+v_s)

The Attempt at a Solution



Okay, so, if the frequency of light we receive is 11% higher than emitted, then that means that (f_L)/(f_s) = 1.11, right? I know that for the frequency of the star, which is the source in this case, to be less than the frequency we receive, it has to be moving toward us. So, the sign on v_s is negative. The Earth's speed is really, really small relative to the speed of the star, so the listener (the Earth) is effectively 0 in this case, right? So, I had:

1.11 = v/(v-v_s)

I calculated v_s to be 0.099*c, where c is the speed of light (3.00*10^8 m/s). I also used the speed of light for v in the above calculations. The thing is, it tells me that my answer is close, but not close enough to count as correct.

So, my thoughts were: a) do we have to take the Earth's speed into account (and if so, how?), or b) is there some facet that I'm missing (like, is there some sort of reflection of the wave that I have to take into account)? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Joyeuse said:

Homework Statement



How fast (as a percentage of light speed) would a star have to be moving so that the frequency of the light we receive from it is 11.0% higher than the frequency of the light it is emitting?

Homework Equations



(f_L)= (f_s)*(v+v_L)/(v+v_s)

The Attempt at a Solution



Okay, so, if the frequency of light we receive is 11% higher than emitted, then that means that (f_L)/(f_s) = 1.11, right? I know that for the frequency of the star, which is the source in this case, to be less than the frequency we receive, it has to be moving toward us. So, the sign on v_s is negative. The Earth's speed is really, really small relative to the speed of the star, so the listener (the Earth) is effectively 0 in this case, right? So, I had:

1.11 = v/(v-v_s)

I calculated v_s to be 0.099*c, where c is the speed of light (3.00*10^8 m/s). I also used the speed of light for v in the above calculations. The thing is, it tells me that my answer is close, but not close enough to count as correct.

So, my thoughts were: a) do we have to take the Earth's speed into account (and if so, how?), or b) is there some facet that I'm missing (like, is there some sort of reflection of the wave that I have to take into account)? Thank you!

You need to use the Relativistic Doppler Effect formula.

It's given by \frac{f_s}{f_o} = \sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}

where s is source, o is observer, β is the ratio of the relative velocity between source and observer to c, the speed of light. In this equation, source and observer are assumed to be moving away from one another. If you solve it and get a negative value for β, you'll know they were moving toward each other.

In Special Relativity, what matters is the relative velocity between two bodies (source and observer, in this case), so there's no point in distinguishing source and observer movement as in the Classical Doppler formula.

Applying this will give you an answer that's distinct, but close (less than 5% error) to what you got with the Classical Doppler application.

This site will tell you more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

(BTW, this is more correctly called the Longitudinal Relativistic Doppler Effect, as it applies when the source and observer are approaching or receding in a direct line to each other. There's another effect called the Transverse Relativistic Doppler Effect that applies to light emissions when the source and observer are moving at right angles to each other. There's no Classical analogue to the latter).
 
Last edited:
Curious3141 said:
You need to use the Relativistic Doppler Effect formula.

It's given by \frac{f_s}{f_o} = \sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}

where s is source, o is observer, β is the ratio of the relative velocity between source and observer to c, the speed of light. In this equation, source and observer are assumed to be moving away from one another. If you solve it and get a negative value for β, you'll know they were moving toward each other.

In Special Relativity, what matters is the relative velocity between two bodies (source and observer, in this case), so there's no point in distinguishing source and observer movement as in the Classical Doppler formula.

Applying this will give you an answer that's distinct, but close (less than 5% error) to what you got with the Classical Doppler application.

This site will tell you more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

(BTW, this is more correctly called the Longitudinal Relativistic Doppler Effect, as it applies when the source and observer are approaching or receding in a direct line to each other. There's another effect called the Transverse Relativistic Doppler Effect that applies to light emissions when the source and observer are moving at right angles to each other. There's no Classical analogue to the latter).

Ah, so, since the frequency of the observer is 11% greater than the frequency of the source, (f_s)/(f_o) = 1/1.11, correct? Then, just solve for beta and report the absolute value of it (wikipedia is telling me that beta is the velocity of the observer/speed of light)?
 
Joyeuse said:
Ah, so, since the frequency of the observer is 11% greater than the frequency of the source, (f_s)/(f_o) = 1/1.11, correct? Then, just solve for beta and report the absolute value of it (wikipedia is telling me that beta is the velocity of the observer/speed of light)?

Yes.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top