With moving source, power shift?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of power shift in relation to a moving source and its impact on the observer. When a source emits a signal and moves towards the observer, the received power increases due to the reduced travel time of the waves, alongside the well-known Doppler frequency shift. While the intensity of the signal generally increases due to the source's proximity, the velocity of the source can also contribute to power shifts, particularly in cases involving distant stars moving at high speeds. The relationship between power and frequency is highlighted, suggesting that higher-energy photons arrive at an increased rate, potentially leading to a compounded power shift effect. This nuanced understanding of power shifts remains less discussed, possibly due to the dominance of geometric intensity changes in most scenarios.
monade
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
When the source is moving with respect to the observer, the emitted wave undergoes this well-known frequency shift (Doppler shift). But isn't there also a power shift?

Let a source emit a signal (sound or light) with constant power, say P_0, and moves towards the observer with constant speed. So, the distance between source and obs decreases. Now, the emitted wave travels with a finite speed. So, the traveling duration of the signal decreases with time. So at the observer the energy arrives with an increased rate. So, similar to the frequency, the received power P_r is increased: P_r = P_0 + dP.

It is here of course assumed that there is no free-space (geometrical) loss. That is, the emitted power is entirely received by the observer, no matter what the separation distance is.

If there is indeed a power shift, why is this effect so rarely mentioned? Could it be because the power shift is generally negligible compared to the power changes caused by separation-distance changes (just like a point source gets brighter as it gets nearer)?

Thanks for your comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting analysis, but we are no longer talking about the power emitted by the source, but rather the power received by the observer. But this received power is equal to the product of the intensity and the area of the detector, and since the intensity is increasing geometrically this is by far the dominant effect i.e. the sound gets louder primarily because the source is getting closer, and only in by a very small amount does the velocity make the sound louder then it would otherwise be (in the absence of a more subtle mitigating effect having to do with the medium of propagation).
 
But the intensity variations caused by the changing geometry of the power transmission may not always be "by far the dominant effect". In some cases, the relative velocity may induce significant intensity/power shifts. Let us consider a star which is far away and moves very fast with respect to the observer. I didn't do any calculation but I can imagine significant shifts.

In fact, for light, power shift may be directly related to frequency shift through the photon model: the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency.
But here I still have a problem since, in my representation, photons would arrive to the observer at an increased rate (for a source moving towards observer). So, we would have a double power-shift effect: photons with higher energy arriving at an increased rate... But I guess this last problem belongs more to the atronomy forum or the quantum-physics forum.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top