Why Do Equations for Doppler Effect Differ for Moving Source and Observer?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differing equations for the Doppler effect when the source or observer is moving. It highlights that while both scenarios involve relative motion, the equations yield slightly different results due to their foundational approaches: one considers apparent wavelength for a moving source, while the other considers the apparent velocity of the wave for a moving observer. The confusion arises from the expectation that both equations should be identical, given their relative nature. However, the presence of a medium, such as air, affects the wave's speed relative to the observer, leading to the observed discrepancies. Ultimately, the equations reflect the distinct mechanics at play in each scenario, emphasizing the importance of the medium in wave propagation.
Terocamo
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
I have just read about the principle of Doppler effect.
However there is a point which seemed a bit tricky.
According to the book, when the source of wave is moving the apparent frequency to a stationary observer is given by the equation:
f'=true frequency*speed of wave/(speed of wave + speed of source)

On the other hand, if an observer is moving towards a stationary source, the frequency is given by:
f'=original frequency * (speed of wave - speed of observer)/(speed of wave)

But referring to the basic principle of displacement, the velocity of the observer and that of source is a relative value. So theoretically there is no difference whether is the source moving or the observer moving, because its only relative motion.
However, with respect to the equation, they are not exactly equal (very close though).

What I want to know is the reason behind this or is there something that I missed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the speed at which the two are approaching each other is the same in both reference frames, therefor the equation is the same in both cases. no?
 
In the first equation, if you consider the speed of the source to be a negative value it will work out just fine.
In the second equation, if you also consider the speed of the observer to be a negative value (which is then multiplied by -1) it too will also work out fine.
 
Fact is the equation is not the same.
The apparent frequency of a moving source differs from the that of a moving observer. This is what I am puzzled by the two equation.

To be more detail, the two equation is based on two different approach.
For a moving source, the apparent wavelength is first considered. But for a moving observer, the apparent velocity of the traveling wave is first considered.
These give rise to two different equation as stated in the first post. This two equation give different values.
 
billslugg said:
In the first equation, if you consider the speed of the source to be a negative value it will work out just fine.
In the second equation, if you also consider the speed of the observer to be a negative value (which is then multiplied by -1) it too will also work out fine.


My true confusion is not about the direction of the velocity vector. It is about the phenomenon that the two equation give two very close but not the identical (which I think should be) regardless that there is no difference whether the source is moving or the observer is moving.
 
Terocamo said:
But referring to the basic principle of displacement, the velocity of the observer and that of source is a relative value. So theoretically there is no difference whether is the source moving or the observer moving, because its only relative motion.
That would be true if there was no medium, as is the case for light in a vacuum. But here the speed of the wave is with respect to the air (presumed stationary). The speed of the wave with respect to the observer depends on whether the observer moves with respect to the air.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top