What Color Would a Light Beam Appear While Chasing It at 0.999c?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the theoretical implications of chasing a light beam at 0.999c, specifically regarding the observable color due to the Doppler effect. Participants clarify that if one were to chase a light beam, the light would appear infinitely redshifted, effectively rendering it invisible. The Doppler shift equation, particularly the relativistic Doppler shift formula, is highlighted as essential for understanding frequency changes based on relative velocity. Ultimately, the consensus is that observing a light beam moving at the speed of light is not feasible.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Doppler effect in physics
  • Familiarity with special relativity concepts
  • Knowledge of time dilation and its implications
  • Basic mathematics involving square roots and ratios
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the relativistic Doppler shift formula in detail
  • Explore the implications of time dilation in special relativity
  • Investigate the concept of redshift in astrophysics
  • Learn about the limitations of observing light at relativistic speeds
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the effects of high-speed motion on light perception.

Quantum1332
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
This might be a stupid question, but it came to me the other day while reading. Since the speed of light is the same in all frames what would happen if you were chasing a light beam at .999% c, so you were heading right for it (but could never catch it) and it is ahead of you traveling at c. If you were to include the doppler effect what color would the light beam appear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since you'd never catch up with the light, you'd never see it at all!
 
I don't understand the scenario. If the "light beam" is moving away from you, you won't see it at all.

[jtbell beat me too it!]
 
if it were possible to see it?
 
Quantum1332 said:
if it were possible to see it?
The doppler shift equation is based partly on the time dilation of the source in your frame--in other words, if a source is emitting wave peaks at a frequency of 5*10^14 per second (visible light) in its own rest frame, then because of time dilation, when it's moving with respect to you it will emit less peaks per second in your frame. In the limit as the velocity of a clock in your frame approaches c, the time between ticks of the clock approaches infinity, no matter how long between ticks in the clock's own frame...so analogously, in the limit as a source's velocity relative to you approaches c, the time between peaks of any signal it emits in your direction approaches infinity too. So I think the answer you're looking for is that the light from a source moving at c would be infinitely redshifted, even though that only makes sense as a statement about limits since a massive light-emitting source cannot actually move at c.
 
Last edited:
Quantum1332 said:
if it were possible to see it?

Black.

Black is black,
But I want my baby back.
For grey is is grey,
Since you went away.
 
If you were heading away from the source emmiting light of a known frequency at .999c, so that the light from the source could catch up with you, then you would just use the relativistic doppler shift formula to convert the velocity into a redshift:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html

You would compute

<br /> \sqrt{\frac{1+\beta}{1-\beta}}<br />

to get sqrt(.001/1.999) and a redshift frequency factor of .022 (or a wavelength incrase of 44.7).

As various posters have pointed out, it doesn't make any sense to ask what the frequency is if you can't observe it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K