Please explain Dopler effect of light

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thetexan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Doppler effect of light, particularly in the context of how light frequency can shift due to relative motion between a light source and an observer. Participants explore the implications of special relativity, the nature of light waves, and the effects of cosmic expansion on observed light frequencies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how light frequency can shift if the speed of light is constant, suggesting that all waves should arrive at the same speed.
  • Another participant clarifies that while the speed of light is constant, frequency and wavelength can vary due to relative motion, as explained by special relativity.
  • Animations are referenced to illustrate how a moving light source affects the spacing of light waves, leading to compression for an observer moving towards the source and stretching for one moving away.
  • A participant describes a scenario where a distant star blinks on and off, and how the expansion of the universe affects the frequency of light received on Earth, leading to redshift or blueshift depending on the observer's motion.
  • One participant acknowledges the clarity of the animations and provides additional context about the nature of light waves and the distinction between Doppler shift and frequency shift due to cosmic expansion.
  • Another participant notes that light is emitted in discrete quanta (photons) rather than continuous waves, which complicates the analogy with classical waves.
  • There is mention of gravitational redshift as a related phenomenon, suggesting further exploration of this concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views and interpretations regarding the nature of light, the Doppler effect, and the implications of cosmic expansion. Participants do not reach a consensus on all points, particularly regarding the nuances of light behavior and the relationship between Doppler shift and other frequency shifts.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the precise distinctions between different types of frequency shifts, such as those caused by the Doppler effect versus those due to the expansion of space. There are also unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of light waves and their emission.

thetexan
Messages
271
Reaction score
14
How can there be any shifting of light frequency due to dopler effect? Frequency is just a fancy way of stating 'wave' or, as depicted on all explanitory diagrams, a sinusoidal wave. Each cycle of the wave represents one part of the total waves measured in a given amount of time which is the frequency of the light. To have a dopler effect the waves must either arrive farther apart or closer together than they were when they were originated. If the speed of light is universal how can there be a difference?

If the star were to blink on then off for one second you would have one second's worth of light coming from the point of origin. This would be a measurable, distinct and determinable length based on the speed of light. Within this length would be a fixed number of waves. The front of the main group of waves arrives at Earth at the speed of light as does the back of the main group. Doesnt each wave within the group also arrive at that same speed? If this is true then the only other factor would be that the entire length of the main group of 1 second's worth of light is longer at arrival than when it left.

But if light speed is universal how can there be any lengthening?

tex
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
See: Special Relativity

thetexan said:
Frequency is just a fancy way of stating 'wave' or, as depicted on all explanitory diagrams, a sinusoidal wave.
While frequency is universally a proper of a wave, it is certainly not synonymous with 'wave'---and applies to any type of wave (sinusoidal or otherwise).
Frequency is the rate at which a wave oscillates, which is not the same thing as the wave's velocity. The simplest way to measure or describe frequency, is to count the number of wave-crests (or any repeating element) which pass by a given point, in a given amount of time. The frequency is related to the velocity by the equation [tex]v = \nu \lambda[/tex].

thetexan said:
To have a dopler effect the waves must either arrive farther apart or closer together than they were when they were originated. If the speed of light is universal how can there be a difference?
Good point, and good question. While the speed of light is constant, the other 2 elements of the above equation are not: the frequency (the inverse of the 'period' or duration for a single oscillation), and the wavelength (length of the wave) are both not constant, because of special relativity (for example).
As the special relativity article (linked above) explains, an observer at rest will measure a different length and different time duration than another observer at a constant velocity with respect to the first. There are also other (similar) causes of doppler effects.

thetexan said:
If the star were to blink on then off for one second you would have one second's worth of light coming from the point of origin. This would be a measurable, distinct and determinable length based on the speed of light. Within this length would be a fixed number of waves.
If the star 'measures' one second during which it is 'on', a moving observer would measure a longer duration of time. Similarly, if the star 'measures' the wave traveling 1 light year before it is measured; a moving observer would measure a shorter distance. These two effects conspire together to make the product of the frequency and the wavelength constant---the speed of light.
 
Consider the following animations. The first shows waves of light emitted by a source stationary to the two dots. The waves expand out as circles from the source.

doppler1.gif


The second shows what happens if the source moves. The waves still expand out as circles from the point of emission, but now, between the emission of the front of the wave to the back of the wave, the source has moved closer to the blue dot and further from the Red dot. Since the ends of the waves travel at c and the back of the wave has a shorter distance to travel, it takes a shorter time to reach the blue dot (and conversely, a longer time to reach the Red). Thus, to the blue observer, the wave is compressed and the for the red observer, it is stretched out. All without the speed of light changing at all.

doppler2.gif
 
Well, this is what I understand. Please tell me if I am correct.

http://davidskidmore.com/images/waveimage.jpg

A star, very far away, blinks on then off sending out a 7 cycle burst of light(the center image)...at the speed of light.

It arrives, after billions of years of travel, at the Earth which, due to expansion, is receding from the star at a very great rate of speed. Due to the observer's speed the original burst is elongated, or appears so, which causes the entire 7 cycle burst to arrive at a lower frequency thus causing the redish color. If there were a situation where we were getting closer to a star the bottom image would be the case and the star would seem blueish. This stretching of the waves is what is referred to as Dopler. Is that right?

tex
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonderfully clear animations of the Doppler Effect! Thanks, Janus.
 
thetexan said:
A star, very far away, blinks on then off sending out a 7 cycle burst of light(the center image)...at the speed of light.

It arrives, after billions of years of travel, at the Earth which, due to expansion, is receding from the star at a very great rate of speed. Due to the observer's speed the original burst is elongated, or appears so, which causes the entire 7 cycle burst to arrive at a lower frequency thus causing the redish color. If there were a situation where we were getting closer to a star the bottom image would be the case and the star would seem blueish. This stretching of the waves is what is referred to as Dopler. Is that right?

tex

Without going in depth, yes.

However, there is a critical piece or two that you are missing here. The standard picture of a light wave being 1 or 2 squiggly lines is NOT what light is. The up and downs of that picture represent a shift from positive to negative and back to positive of the lights electric and magnetic fields. Your statement, "A star emits a 7 cycle burst..." is not what happens. Light is only emitted or absorbed in discrete quanta called Photons. In spite of this, it still behaves extremely similar to any other wave, such as a water or sound wave, and does in fact exhibit doppler shift.

Another problem is that frequency shift due to the expansion of space is similar to, but not exactly like the Doppler Effect. (At least to my knowledge) As far as I know the expansion of space actually "stretches" out the light wave as it travels, resulting in a frequency shift. Whether there is any technical difference between the two is beyond me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K