Relative velocity of Electromagnetic waves

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the relative velocity of a galaxy based on observed and source frequencies of electromagnetic waves emitted by oxygen atoms. The initial calculation yielded an incorrect answer of 3.3641 * 10^6 m/s, while the correct answer is 6.724 * 10^6 m/s. Participants point out a misunderstanding regarding the formula used, specifically the presence of a factor of 2 in the denominator. Clarifications indicate that the formula should not include this factor, and discrepancies in references to the formula are acknowledged. The conversation highlights the importance of accurate formula interpretation in astrophysical calculations.
Eng67
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I have a problem that I cannot get the correct answer.

An Astronomer observes electromagnetic waves emmitted by oxygen atoms in a distant galaxy that have a frequency of 5.71 *10^14 Hz. On earth, oxygen atoms emit waves that have a freq. of 5.841 *10^14. What is the relative velocity of the galaxy with respect to the astronomer on earth.

Vrel = [(F(observed) - F(Source))/(2*F(Source))] * c

Vrel = [(5.710*10^14 - 5.841*10^14)/(2*5.841*10^14)] * (3.00 *10^8)

answer = 3.3641 *10^6 m/s


What is wrong with my calculations?

The correct answer is 6.724 * 10^6 m/s

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Notice your answer is off by a factor of 1/2. Recheck the formula you used and you'll see there should be a 2 in the denominator.
 
By the way- your title, "Relative velocity of Electromagnetic waves", is very misleading! Obviously the velocity of electromagnetic waves (light) is, relative to anything, the speed of light, c. What you see different from another observer is the frequency which is what allows you to calculate the velocity of the source relative to you.
 
Vrel = [(F(observed) - F(Source))/(2*F(Source))] * c

This formula already has the 2 in the denominator. To get the correct answer, It would need to be 4*F(Source)?

I cannot find anything to support this.
 
Eng67 said:
Vrel = [(F(observed) - F(Source))/(2*F(Source))] * c
This formula already has the 2 in the denominator. To get the correct answer, It would need to be 4*F(Source)?
I cannot find anything to support this.
I mistyped, obviously I meant there shouldn't be a two in the denominator. Check your reference.
 
Thanks.

I finally found the correct reference for this formula. Many sources have this listed differently.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top