The Doppler Effect and the Velocity of Light in Einstein's Theory

[Ingvar Astrand]

“Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light.”

To David (I like your energy) and other interested.

Redshift is not a recession velocity question. The kinematic mechanism behind is the entropy-effect that Clausius coined for the notion he invented when he searched the cause and reason to why heat-radiation moved to equilibrium.

Planck and his colleagues found the cause and reason but didn’t understand how to interpret the constant fractional increasing change between the electrodynamical wave-units. Desperate Planck tried to interpret the value that was measured as differences between wavelengths as continuing change in energy. To do so he inverted the fractional value to the temperature’s change over the frequency spectrum. Wien and Stefan–Boltzmann laws have showed that there is a relation between temperature and wavelengths, but Planck had got lost in his derivation. Einstein later suggested (postulated) that this mathematical artifact “must” be interpreted as quantum-unit.

Planck’s measured value 6.626 x 10^-34 tells us how much an electrodynamical wave is extended from wave to wave or proportional to the distance. This is the simple formula (redshift = constant x distance). So the distance to this 6.3 (6.28) quasar that is redshifted from (1216 to 7636 Angstrom) is: (6.420 x 10^-10 km) / (6.626 x 10^-34) = 9.7 x 10^23 km. The distance defined as light-years -- that is 0.95 x 10^13 km per light-year -- to this 6.28-quasar is near 1000 billion light years.

A quasar’s energy that we receive is proportional to the redshift (energy = z^4). So this 6.28 quasar emits at the wavelength 1216 Angstrom 1555 times more energy than we receive at 7636 Angstrom. This energy drives the light (waves) forward.

When electrodynamic waves increase their lengths their velocities also increase to this simple formula [c + (2c x redshift)^-2]. So the 6.3 quasar’s wavelength of 7636 Angstrom that we receive moves [(2 x 3 x 10^5 x 7.636^-10)^-2] km/s = 0.045 km/s faster than c.

The light-spectrum that we se as stroboscope-frozen moves at the velocity of light, but we can not see that the waves increase their speed with their wave-displacement. But we can understand it when we see the increasing wavelengths between the water-rings from the pebble that is thrown in the water.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden

 

[terrabyte]

Note also that an observer traveling just behind one of those photons, just under C, still sees each photon traveling at C.

"Separation velocity" isn't a velocity that has any SR implications. Its just geometry.

If I may change the thought experiment slightly to make it resolvable...

Take 3 observers, x, Y, & Z starting out next to each other:

XYZ

X and Z move away from Y at just under the speed of light.

X<----Y---->Z

Observer X measures both Y and Z to be moving away from him at just under the speed of light - Z is just a little closer to the speed of light than Y. Observer Z measures the same thing about X and Y. Observer Y measures both to be just under C.

Geometrically adding the speeds gives X and Z a "separation velocity" of just under 2C from the frame of reference of Y. But that doesn't in any way imply that Z or X will measure their own velocity with respect to each other at just under 2c.

Hmm?

Assuming a start of:

XYZ

and then a process of:

X<------Y------>Z

given 1 second with seperations speeds of c all around X is 300,000 from Y which is 300,000 from Z.

i'm not seeing how you're saying from X's perspective Y is 290,000 from X and Z is 300,000 from X :|

are you sure you know what you're doing?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Einstein revoked his ?constancy? postulate in 1912. In 1907 he said that objects really don?t ?geometrically? contract due only to ?relative motion?.

David,

If you could quote these two things verbatim for us, I think it would be of great interest to everyone.

Were these published statements, or things he said in letters, or just things he had in his notes?

 

[russ_watters]

given 1 second...

1 second according to whom? X,Y, and Z will not agree on when that second has passed.

And those distances: according to whom? X,Y, and Z will not agree on the distances traveled.

 

[jcsd]

Hey, Mr. X-Ray, look at this:

“Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light.”

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

Hey, the 99 year old hoax is over.

It's this kind of buffonery that makes it obvious, that it's you're understanding of special relativity not special relativity itself that is flawed. Notrice that the special relativistic interpreation gives an answer of below c, in fact it is impossible using purely special rleatyivity to interpet a redshift as a relative velocity of above c, if this is the case you start to get imagibnary numbers for physical quantities that can be directly observed.

The effect is general relativistic

 

[terrabyte]

...that doesn't sound very convenient at all.

supposing we have a "stationary" length of matter. 600,000 km long with huge metal plates on either end. we have a light source at the midpoint Y. given 1 second "according to Y" will the light have reached both the plates on either ends 300,000 km distant? (for simplicity assume 300,00km/s is light speed)

 

[Doc Al]

supposing we have a "stationary" length of matter. 600,000 km long with huge metal plates on either end. we have a light source at the midpoint Y. given 1 second "according to Y" will the light have reached both the plates on either ends 300,000 km distant? (for simplicity assume 300,00km/s is light speed)

Observers in the Y frame (who are at rest with respect to those metal plates) would say yes. So, according to Y frame measurements, the light arrives at each plate simultaneously. Of course, observers in other frames (that are moving with respect to Y) will measure the light to arrive at each plate at different times according to their clocks.

 

[terrabyte]

so you're saying the moving people's clocks are screwed up, but in reality the light does reach the plates in 1 second...

 

[Doc Al]

time is frame dependent

so you're saying the moving people's clocks are screwed up, but in reality the light does reach the plates in 1 second...

Not at all. Everyone is perfectly entitled to view themselves to be at rest and the others as moving. No one is entitled to say that they are the one who is really at rest. Measurements of time, length, and simultaneity are frame-dependent. Measurements made by X or Z are just as useful and valid as any made by Y.