Redshifting Help - Understand the Doppler Effect of Light Waves

  • Thread starter Evolver
  • Start date
In summary, redshifting is a phenomenon that occurs when light or sound waves are observed from a moving body. This is due to the Doppler effect, where the frequency of the waves appears lower when the emitter is moving away and higher when it is approaching. While this concept is consistent with relativity, it is not fully understood in the context of cosmology, as the expansion of space alone cannot explain the increase in separation between wavecrests in a cosmological redshift. Time dilation also plays a role in redshifting, but is not necessary for the effect to occur.
  • #36
JesseM said:
Of course. But you seemed to be saying earlier that the classical (non-relativistic) Doppler shift can be derived from energy/momentum considerations, which is not supported by the Moriconi paper. Anyway, if you're done with this topic then I'm fine letting it be.

Phew! That was quite the debate there. After all that, my head is spinning, do you think you could do me a favor and have another pass at it's description please? I sort of became tangled up in the discussion and lost the straight and forward description.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Evolver said:
Phew! That was quite the debate there. After all that, my head is spinning, do you think you could do me a favor and have another pass at it's description please? I sort of became tangled up in the discussion and lost the straight and forward description.

Thanks!

I recommend you simply do not worry about all the back and forth there. It is all a bit beyond your original question. It is also a nutgeb exchange, and without meaning to give offense, I would suggest that a beginner is best to ignore that. Nutgeb's proposed answers are often a little bit ... unusual, and frequently unclear, and (IMO) often seem to include misconceptions or at least can lead you off in the directions where misconceptions lie. Definitely not recommended for a beginner. Some folks might take up the an exchange to try and sort out the problems and issues, but what you want is a simple answer to the original post.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, the response [post=2333168]msg #3[/post] is more what you are after; and you shouldn't really worry about the rest of the thread where Jesse and nutgeb try to figure out what precisely they are talking about.

I don't think message #3 is the best possible answer to your original post; if you get an answer from someone like George Jones, then you should ignore my posts also, and just focus on his answer.

Cheers -- sylas
 

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
495
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
965
Replies
3
Views
446
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
313
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
990
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
Back
Top