Relativistic Doppler effect (for sound?)

one_raven
Messages
200
Reaction score
0
A while back I was involved in a discussion regarding the difference between the classic Doppler Effect equation and the Relativistic Doppler Effect equation explaining red/blue shift in stars.
I went looking for how to derrive both formulas and came across this interesting article that explains how there is actually no difference between the two.

My math skills are quite lacking, and I would be the wrong person to judge the paper's accuracy.

Accodring to the author, the commonly used formula for standard Doppler Shift is an approximation that is accurate enough for the low speed of sound wave propagation, but fails at higher speeds (presumably due to the exponentially increasing shift, but as some of the math is beyond me, I have just breezed the article so far).

I would very much like to know if it is correct, and was hoping some here (who's math has exceded the High School level) would also find the article interesting enough to read it and share their opinions on its accuracy (and maybe point out where the author went wrong if it is not).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
99 views and no replies?
Does that mean it is that stupid of a question, or no one has wanted to read the link?
 
one_raven said:
99 views and no replies?
Does that mean it is that stupid of a question, or no one has wanted to read the link?
I took a look at that page and the first equation (non-relativistic) did not look familiar to me. For slow speeds, if one were to take the relativistic version and apply the approximation

(1+d)^n \approx 1+nd

Then I'd expect to see a factor of 1/2 in from of the velocity ratios in both the numerator and denominator.

Sorry I couldn't help more.

Pete
 
I haven't read through the page you linked to.

However, I do know that there are "unified" ways of deriving the Doppler Effect for light (in Minkowski spacetime) and for sound (in Galilean spacetime). (For example http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/31/6/014 .) Unfortunately, every unified derivation I've seen seems more complicated than necessary.

The diagram on that page you linked works equally well for light and for sound... of course, when you pay attention to scales, the actual slopes for light and for sound would differ. The functional differences between the two cases shows up when you compare the time-intervals using the appropriate spacetime.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top