How long will it take an electromagnetic wave to reach a satellite

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the time it takes for an electromagnetic wave to reach a satellite 127.2 km away, moving at 12.0 km/s, which is determined to be approximately 10.6 seconds. Participants emphasize the importance of using the speed of light rather than the satellite's speed in these calculations. There is also debate regarding the accuracy of the Doppler shift formula applied, with suggestions to use the relativistic formula for better precision, especially for future problems involving higher speeds. Some contributors note that for practical purposes, rounding to the nearest GHz may suffice, while others advocate for maintaining accuracy. Overall, the conversation highlights the significance of selecting the appropriate formulas in physics problems involving satellite communications.
aChordate
Messages
76
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



GPS determines your distance from a satellite by measuring how long it takes an electromagnetic wave to travel from the satellite to you. Imagine that a satellite is located at a distance of 127.2km and is moving away from you at a speed of 12.0km/s.
a)how long will it take an electromagnetic wave emitted by the satellite to reach you?
b)if the frequency of the wave emitted by the satellite is precisely 10.0 GHz, what is the frequency difference between this frequency and the frequency that you observe?

Homework Equations



fo=fs(1+/-vrel/c) if vrel<<c


The Attempt at a Solution



d=127.2km=127.2*103m
v=12km/s=12*103m/s
fs= 10GHz= 10*10^9Hz
c=3.00*108m/s

Part A: 10.6 seconds
Part B:

f0=10*109 Hz (1-(12*103m/s/3.00*108m/s))=10*109 Hz
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aChordate said:

Homework Statement



GPS determines your distance from a satellite by measuring how long it takes an electromagnetic wave to travel from the satellite to you. Imagine that a satellite is located at a distance of 127.2km and is moving away from you at a speed of 12.0km/s.
a)how long will it take an electromagnetic wave emitted by the satellite to reach you?
b)if the frequency of the wave emitted by the satellite is precisely 10.0 GHz, what is the frequency difference between this frequency and the frequency that you observe?

Homework Equations



fo=fs(1+/-vrel/c) if vrel<<c


The Attempt at a Solution



d=127.2km=127.2*103m
v=12km/s=12*103m/s
fs= 10GHz= 10*10^9Hz
c=3.00*108m/s

Part A: 10.6 seconds
Part B:

f0=10*109 Hz (1-(12*103m/s/3.00*108m/s))=10*109 Hz

For Part A, don't you think the time will have rather more to do with the speed of light than the speed of the satellite? For Part B, don't you think keeping more accuracy in the answer might be useful?
 
In addition to the problems pointed out in post #2 you have the wrong formula for the Doppler shift.

It's based on the theory of relativity so don't try to derive it. Look it up.
 
rude man said:
In addition to the problems pointed out in post #2 you have the wrong formula for the Doppler shift.

It's based on the theory of relativity so don't try to derive it. Look it up.

Depends on how much accuracy you need. It certainly doesn't matter if you round to the nearest GHz, like aChordate. But if I use the nonrelativistic formula and compare the results with the relativistic the frequency shifts are the same to 4 decimal places.
 
Dick said:
Depends on how much accuracy you need. It certainly doesn't matter if you round to the nearest GHz, like aChordate. But if I use the nonrelativistic formula and compare the results with the relativistic the frequency shifts are the same to 4 decimal places.

I doubt that the OP was aware of that. In any case, he/she might as well use the correct formula in case a future problem involves speeds closer to c.

EDIT: I have to admit that, if the emphasis was on satellites, the OP might never encounter the relativisic formula, so on second thoughts I think you were right to point out what you did.
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top