Proving EM Doppler Shift Ratio: v/c = (r^2 - 1) / (r^2 +1)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SkovBriscombe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a formula related to the electromagnetic Doppler shift, specifically the relationship between the velocity of an object and the frequency ratio. Participants explore methods to manipulate given equations to derive the desired expression.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on proving the formula v/c = (r^2 - 1) / (r^2 + 1) using the relativistic Doppler frequency equation.
  • Another participant suggests substituting the frequency equation into the ratio definition to find a direct relation between r and f, proposing to calculate (r^2 - 1) / (r^2 + 1) to show it equals v/c.
  • A different participant challenges the validity of the original equation, asserting that it is incorrect and recommending an algebraic approach to isolate v/c from the equation ((c+v) / (c-v)) = r.
  • This participant provides a step-by-step method to manipulate the equation, ultimately leading to the expression v/c = (r - 1) / (r + 1), differing from the original claim.
  • Another comment emphasizes that the question is fundamentally a mathematical one, despite its physical context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the correctness of the original equation to be proven. Some participants propose methods to derive the expression, while one participant asserts that the equation is wrong, leading to different conclusions about the approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of confidence in the correctness of the original equation and the methods proposed for proving it. There are unresolved mathematical steps and differing interpretations of the problem's nature.

SkovBriscombe
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I have some exams later this month, and some of the previous exam questions are to prove a formula given another formula fx here with EM doppler shift:

define ratio: r= f/ f0
using relativistic doppler frequency for EM: f = square root of: ((c+v) / (c-v)) * f0

Show:

v/c = (r^2 - 1) / (r^2 +1)


Are there any general methods or ways to go about such a question as there are quite a few of them and i find it hard to know where to start, i usually try and rearrange and substitute into each other using the equations given, but never seem to get them right... Please help me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So if you plug the equation for f into the equation for r, you will get a direct relation between r and f.

To show the identity, it is probably easiest to substitute for the variable which you have isolated, i.e. calculate (r2 - 1) / (r2 + 1) and show that you get v/c.
That is usually easier than trying to rework the equation for r to an equation for v.
 
SkovBriscombe said:
Hi there,

I have some exams later this month, and some of the previous exam questions are to prove a formula given another formula fx here with EM doppler shift:

define ratio: r= f/ f0
using relativistic doppler frequency for EM: f = square root of: ((c+v) / (c-v)) * f0

Show:

v/c = (r^2 - 1) / (r^2 +1)

You won't be able to show that equation because it's wrong. In general though the answer to proving something like that is just algebra, algebra and practice.

You've got ((c+v) / (c-v)) = r and you want to find v/c, so start by dividing num and denom on the LHS by c. This gives you,

[tex]\frac{1+v/c}{1-v/c} = r[/tex]

Straight away it looks much easier to handle, you've now got an equation with just got one variable (v/c) to isolate. From this point onward we will keep all "v/c" terms together as if they were just one variable.

So now just mulitply by (1-v/c) and collect the v/c terms.

[tex]1+v/c =r - r v/c[/tex]

[tex](1+r) v/c =r - 1[/tex]

[tex]v/c = \frac{r-1}{r+1}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
BTW. I should add. This is a maths question pure and simple. The equation chosen was motivated by physics but this is not really a physics question.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
602
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K