Calculating Radiation Measured from Moving Star

  • Thread starter Thread starter asras
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Radiation Star
asras
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
My problem is how to calculate the radiation measured from a moving star. I figure there's two ways to do it, both of which I go through below, but they do not produce the same answer!

For the first part everything is in the rest frame, \mathcal{O}, of the star.

The star emits N photons of frequency \nu each second. The total energy radiated per second is thus L := Nh\nu. It can be shown the stress-energy tensor in this case has entries for events (t,x,0,0):
T^{00} = T^{0x} = T^{x0} = T^{xx} = \frac{L}{4\pi x^2},
and all other entries zero.

We now move to the frame of the observer, \overline{\mathcal{O}}, who moves with speed v in the positive x-direction and who is also located on the x-axis. The components of the stress-energy tensor in this frame are given by (using the usual rules for tensor transformation):
T^{\overline{\alpha} \overline{\beta} } = \Lambda^{\overline{\alpha}}_{\mu} \Lambda^{\overline{\beta}}_{\nu} T^{\mu \nu}
Now if the coordinate of reception is x in the star's frame it must be R = (1-v)\gamma x in the observer's frame (with \gamma = (1-v^2)^{-1/2}). Thus we have that
T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}} = \frac{L}{4\pi x^2} (1-v)^2 \gamma^2,
T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}} = \frac{L}{4\pi R^2} (1-v)^4 \gamma^4.

So this gives the radiation the observer measures. However if we approach the problem using doppler-shift of the photons we get \nu' = (1-v)\gamma \nu, R = (1-v)\gamma x, and we have

T^{\overline{0} \overline{x}}= \frac{Nh\nu}{4\pi R^2} (1-v)^3 \gamma^3.


So which is correct? I'm fairly sure the first method is correct, but I can't figure out exactly what I'm missing in the second calculation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the second method, you transformed x, did you forget to transform t as well? N, the "number of photons per second", will change.
 
Bill, wouldn't that just be equivalent to
N \rightarrow N/\gamma,
due to time dilation? (If it were N \rightarrow N/((1+v)\gamma) I would be happy!)
 
It's not just time dilation. Like you say it's γ(1 + v/c), the same as the Doppler shift factor. It's the number of photons you're intercepting per second. One way to see the need for the (1 + v/c) factor is that N will be different depending on whether the star is moving toward you or away from you, which changes the sign of v.
 
Ah, I see. If we imagine two emission events (lets just say that one photon is emitted at each event) separated in the rest frame of the star by \Delta \tau the rate of emission is L = 1/\Delta \tau. In the frame of the observer the events are separated in time by
\Delta t = \Delta \tau \gamma.
However the star has moved v\Delta t to the left so the rate of emission in the observers frame becomes
L' = \frac{1}{\Delta t + v\Delta t /c } = \frac{1}{\Delta \tau} \frac{1}{(1+v/c) \gamma} = \frac{L}{(1+v/c)\gamma}.
(I included the c because I feel it makes it clearer.)

Thanks!
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top