B Measuring Light's Brightness & Power Flux Relative to Observer's Speed

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on how an observer's speed relative to a light source affects the measured brightness and power flux density of light. It highlights that as the observer approaches the speed of light, the Lorentz transformation alters the energy and momentum of the light waves, resulting in a change in the observed power flux density. The mathematical analysis suggests that while theoretically, an observer could receive an immense amount of energy from distant light sources, practical limitations arise due to the destructive effects of high-energy photons at relativistic speeds. Additionally, the concept of converting received light energy into kinetic energy is deemed impractical due to the extreme conditions involved. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities of relativistic effects on light measurement.
alan123hk
Messages
817
Reaction score
450
TL;DR
The relationship between the movement speed of the observer's measuring instrument and the measured brightness and/or power flux density.
Assuming that the observer moves along the direction of the light, does the speed of the observer's measuring instrument relative to the light source (which may be close to the speed of light) affect the brightness and/or power flux density measured by the observer?

I'm not sure about this, thanks for helping.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Just consider a plane wave and Lorentz boost it from the restframe of the source to the rest frame of the observer. You'll get a plane wave again with changed ##\omega## and ##\vec{k}##, from which you get the Poynting vector the observer measures.
 
  • Like
Likes alan123hk and Ibix
And qualitatively, imagine you 10m behind me coming towards me at 10m/s. At the end of one second you'll be next to me, so you'll have received all the light that I have, plus the bit that had passed me but not reached you at the start of the second. It's not a particularly significant effect unless you are doing a large fraction of light speed.
 
vanhees71 said:
Just consider a plane wave and Lorentz boost it from the restframe of the source to the rest frame of the observer. You'll get a plane wave again with changed ω and k→, from which you get the Poynting vector the observer measures.
Thank you for your concise, direct and valuable reply.
 
For the sake of simplicity, only the momentum of light is considered. Applying the Lorentz Transformation of the Momentum-Energy Four Vectors of Light (https://hepweb.ucsd.edu/ph110b/110b_notes/node54.html).

If the movement direction of the observer is opposite to the direction of the light

$$ E'_x = \gamma \left( E_x - \beta c \vec P_x \right) = \gamma \left( E_x + \beta E_x \right) = \gamma E_x \left( 1+ \beta \right) $$ $$ \text {Therefore,}~~~ E_x'=E_x \left( \frac {1+\frac{v}{c} }{\sqrt{1-\frac {v^2}{c^2}}} \right)~~~~\Rightarrow~~~~\frac {\text {Power Flux Density'}} {\text {Power Flux Density}} =
\frac {1+\frac{v}{c}} {\sqrt{1-\frac {v^2}{c^2}}} $$
I believe that even if the above calculation is not very complete and strict, there should be no serious errors.

From the above mathematical formula, although the observer needs infinite energy to accelerate his spacecraft to close to the speed of light, it seems that he can receive infinite energy from a distant light source at the same time. For example, a huge distant galaxy. The question is whether it can operate like wind power, that is, convert the received light energy into kinetic energy and let it move in the direction opposite to the direction of the received light. :-p

Edit: - I admit that the above idea is very impossible to realize, because when the spacecraft is close to the speed of light, the infinite light pressure received by the spacecraft will destroy it, and those high-energy photons will also completely kill the lives on the spacecraft .🤔 😓
 
Last edited:
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...

Similar threads

Replies
72
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K