Relativistic Doppler Effect: Explaining the Equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic Doppler effect and the associated equations for frequency shifts when a source is moving towards or away from an observer. Participants explore the nuances of the equations, the interpretation of variables, and the implications of sign conventions in the context of wave frequency changes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the equation for the relativistic Doppler effect, particularly regarding the signs in the numerator and denominator and their implications for the motion of the source relative to the observer.
  • Another participant corrects the initial equation, suggesting that the exponent should be 1/2 instead of 2, and asserts that the numerator cannot be negative.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the interpretation of signs: some participants propose that a negative numerator indicates the source is moving away from the observer, while a positive numerator indicates the source is approaching.
  • One participant suggests that it may be easier to remember the physical implications of the Doppler effect rather than the mathematical details, emphasizing the relationship between wavelength and frequency changes as the source approaches or recedes.
  • There is a discussion about defining the variable β, with some suggesting it should represent the absolute rate of separation, while others propose using a sign convention to simplify the equations.
  • Multiple formulations of the Doppler effect equations are presented, with variations depending on the chosen sign convention for β.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to defining β or the most effective way to remember the equations. There are competing views on the interpretation of signs and the formulation of the equations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the universally accepted conventions for the Doppler effect equations and the implications of different sign choices. There are also unresolved aspects regarding the clarity of the mathematical expressions used.

I'mnotarobot
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
[mentor's note - lightly edited to fix the Latex]
Hi there,

I was hoping if someone could clear my small misconception for this equation.

f' = f \left( \frac{ 1- \beta }{ 1+\beta } \right)^2

I had thought if the numerator is negative and denominator is positive that means the signal of light or what ever would be moving away from the source. But recently I have come across a question which shows the numerator be positive as the source moves away relative to a reference frame.

Was hoping if someone could tell me a bit more about this topic as it seems to be a bit confusing. I hope that made sense as well haha, if not I can try to explain it better/ give the problem.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello norobo, :welcome:

1 I don't think there's a square in the expression. Power ##{1\over 2}## is what I find, e.g. here
2 there's no way ##1-\beta## can be negative
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: I'mnotarobot, PeterDonis and m4r35n357
Hey thanks for the reply!

Sorry about that it should be 1/2, what I was trying to say is not that it's negative but when the signs are -/+ it means the source is moving apart from the receiver and when the signs are switched the source is going towards the receiver, where f' is the source and f is receiver. Is this true or do I have this backwards? Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
I'mnotarobot said:
Hwhat I was trying to say is now that it's negative but when the signs are -/+ it means the course is moving apart from the receiver and when the signs are switched the source is going towards the receiver, where f' is the source and f is receiver. Is this true or do I have this backwards? Thanks again!

As you've written it (and after fixing the square root thing) positive ##\beta## is moving apart. Remembering this is much too much trouble though o_O - it's easier to just remember that when the source is approaching the wave crests get squished closer so the frequency increases and put the smaller or the larger quantity in the numerator and denominator accordingly.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: I'mnotarobot
Ah gotcha, so I want to see if I understand it. If f' is the source and f is the receiver.
Say a car is approaching past you (at a speed close to light haha) the source being the car, as it approaches the WAVELENGTH is getting smaller hence the frequency increases, so we have f' = f \left( \frac{ 1+\beta }{ 1-\beta } \right)^{1/2} and as it goes away the WAVELENGTH is getting larger so the frequency decreases and we have f' = f \left( \frac{ 1-\beta }{ 1+\beta } \right)^{1/2}
 
You can do what you have done, which is to define ##\beta## as the absolute rate of separation between source and receiver. Then you need your two formulae (which I agree with in this context), one for red-shift and one for blue.

Alternatively you can give ##\beta## a sign, and make it positive for approaching sources and negative for receding sources (or vice versa). Then you only need one of those formulae - which one depends on your sign convention. I do not know if there is a universally agreed approach to this. You might find it easier to remember that $$f'=f\left( \frac{1\pm\beta}{1\mp\beta}\right)^{1/2}$$and figure out which one is appropriate using Nugatory's menmonic.
 
Or, ##f'=f\left( \frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}\right)^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory
Indeed. Who says algebra isn't fun?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K