B Redshift of a light pulse between 2 accelerating rockets

Click For Summary
In the discussion, participants analyze the scenario of two accelerating rockets, focusing on the emission of a light pulse from the trailing rocket. The light pulse is expected to reach the leading rocket after a time of z/c, but concerns are raised about the leading rocket's movement during that time, suggesting the pulse must cover a greater distance. The conversation clarifies that this is a first-order approximation, where the effects of the leading rocket's acceleration are considered negligible for short time intervals. The logic presented in the referenced book is confirmed, emphasizing that higher-order terms can be ignored under certain conditions. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities of relativistic effects in accelerating frames.
sphyrch
Messages
37
Reaction score
9
I'm reading book from here. Suppose two rockets are accelerating with the same acceleration ##a## and are separated by some distance ##z##. At time ##t_0## the trailing rocket emits a light pulse. The book tells that pulse reaches leading box after time ##z/c## as seen in background frame. But won't the pulse actually have to cover a distance more than ##z## to reach the front rocket since the front rocket would've moved forward in that time? This on pg 65
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is a first order approximation.
 
Dale said:
Yes, that is a first order approximation.
It like this? If front ship moved extra ##x## dist by the time (say ##t##) light reached, then ##ct-z=ut+at^2/2##. and then we say ##u<<c## so we ignore, and we say that time taken is super short so we ignore ##t^2## too. So every thing gets ignored and we get ##ct-z=0##. This the author logic?
 
More or less, yes. The only other thing is that usually they choose the reference frame where ##u=0##. So the displacement due to acceleration is 2nd order (##at^2/2##)
 
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...

Similar threads