Reply |
Message 1 of 17 on the subject |
|
Background
The theory of relativity originated from Albert Einstein, first in 1905 with his paper on special relativity and then with his work on general relativity from 1907 to 1915. Relativity is a mathematical model that accurately describes the energy of matter, gravity and much more. Some of the strange concepts to arise out of relativity are:
- the notion of spacetime where three-dimensional space and time are merged together
- a speed limit that nothing can go faster than the speed of light
- the mass of an object increases as its speed increases – referred to as relativistic mass
- the length of an object decreases as its speed increases – referred to as length contraction
- the clock (time) of an object slows as its speed increases – referred to as time dilation
Relativistic mass, length contraction and time dilation are hardly noticeable at low speeds, but at relativistic speeds closer to the speed of light, they become very apparent.
Explanation
Most of the strange cases in relativity can be explained by the principle that longitudinal waves travel the universe and are reflected off particles (wave centers). An object, which consists of particles, experiences the Doppler effect. In the example below, the radar source on the left sees a different frequency/wavelength of waves when reflected off the moving plane.
Doppler Effect on Wavelength – Object in Motion
Spacetime
Longitudinal waves travel the universe in three spatial dimensions. The frequency of these waves is constant for an object at rest (note that transverse frequencies – photons – are variable). The longitudinal wave frequency was derived here. Time is integrated very much into space and in all of the equations, as it is longitudinal waves that travel a three-dimensional universe at a given frequency.
Universal Speed Limit
Waves travel the universe at a defined speed limit – the speed of light. The density property of the aether governs this speed, much like how the speed of sound has a limit based on the density of air. From a particle’s perspective, when it reflects a longitudinal wave, it reflects back at the same speed, regardless of motion. The wave has a speed limit.
Relativistic Mass
Due to the Doppler effect, the longitudinal wavelengths of a particle on the leading and lagging edges of a particle change. The particle’s wavelength is the geometric mean of these modified wavelengths due to motion. This was proven in energy wave theory with the natural inclusion of the Lorentz factor when deriving Einstein’s energy-momentum equation.
Length Contraction
The orbitals of atoms are calculated as the number of wavelengths where attractive and repelling forces are zero. Below is an illustration of an atom and where the electron may reside, at a specific number of wavelengths from the atom’s core. Whether stationary or in motion, the electron is always at the same specified number of wavelengths.
In the stationary atom, the electron is fixed at a distance X. For the purpose of illustration only, this is locked in at eight wavelengths from the proton (actual wavelength count from the proton to the electron would greatly exceed eight cycles). In the atom in motion, the electron is still locked in at eight wavelengths, but now at a distance Y, which is shorter than X. In fact, the proton itself is also smaller. This is because the wavelengths are now compressed due to the Doppler effect for the particle in motion.
The atom has been compressed in the direction of motion. Furthermore, all atoms in the molecules that make up the object traveling at high speeds are subject to the same compression. Thus the length of the object is contracting – only on the axis in the direction of travel – because the Doppler effect shortens the wavelengths that bring the atoms of the molecules closer together. This is length contraction at relativistic speeds.
Time Dilation
Time dilation was explained in the Time page. In short, time is based on the frequency of the longitudinal waves that a particle reflects. Like length contraction, it experiences the Doppler effect which changes the perception of frequency relative to the observer.
https://energywavetheory.com/explanations/what-is-relativity/
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 3 of 17 on the subject |
|
24.4 Time in General Relativity
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Describe how Einsteinian gravity slows clocks and can decrease a light wave’s frequency of oscillation
- Recognize that the gravitational decrease in a light wave’s frequency is compensated by an increase in the light wave’s wavelength—the so-called gravitational redshift—so that the light continues to travel at constant speed
General relativity theory makes various predictions about the behavior of space and time. One of these predictions, put in everyday terms, is that the stronger the gravity, the slower the pace of time. Such a statement goes very much counter to our intuitive sense of time as a flow that we all share. Time has always seemed the most democratic of concepts: all of us, regardless of wealth or status, appear to move together from the cradle to the grave in the great current of time.
But Einstein argued that it only seems this way to us because all humans so far have lived and died in the gravitational environment of Earth. We have had no chance to test the idea that the pace of time might depend on the strength of gravity, because we have not experienced radically different gravities. Moreover, the differences in the flow of time are extremely small until truly large masses are involved. Nevertheless, Einstein’s prediction has now been tested, both on Earth and in space.
The Tests of Time
An ingenious experiment in 1959 used the most accurate atomic clock known to compare time measurements on the ground floor and the top floor of the physics building at Harvard University. For a clock, the experimenters used the frequency (the number of cycles per second) of gamma rays emitted by radioactive cobalt. Einstein’s theory predicts that such a cobalt clock on the ground floor, being a bit closer to Earth’s center of gravity, should run very slightly slower than the same clock on the top floor. This is precisely what the experiments observed. Later, atomic clocks were taken up in high-flying aircraft and even on one of the Gemini space flights. In each case, the clocks farther from Earth ran a bit faster. While in 1959 it didn’t matter much if the clock at the top of the building ran faster than the clock in the basement, today that effect is highly relevant. Every smartphone or device that synchronizes with a GPS must correct for this (as we will see in the next section) since the clocks on satellites will run faster than clocks on Earth.
The effect is more pronounced if the gravity involved is the Sun’s and not Earth’s. If stronger gravity slows the pace of time, then it will take longer for a light or radio wave that passes very near the edge of the Sun to reach Earth than we would expect on the basis of Newton’s law of gravity. (It takes longer because spacetime is curved in the vicinity of the Sun.) The smaller the distance between the ray of light and the edge of the Sun at closest approach, the longer will be the delay in the arrival time.
In November 1976, when the two Viking spacecraft were operating on the surface of Mars, the planet went behind the Sun as seen from Earth as shown in Figure 1. Scientists had preprogrammed Viking to send a radio wave toward Earth that would go extremely close to the outer regions of the Sun. According to general relativity, there would be a delay because the radio wave would be passing through a region where time ran more slowly. The experiment was able to confirm Einstein’s theory to within 0.1%.
Time Delays for Radio Waves near the Sun.
Figure 1. Radio signals from the Viking lander on Mars were delayed when they passed near the Sun, where spacetime is curved relatively strongly. In this picture, spacetime is pictured as a two-dimensional rubber sheet.
Gravitational Redshift
What does it mean to say that time runs more slowly? When light emerges from a region of strong gravity where time slows down, the light experiences a change in its frequency and wavelength. To understand what happens, let’s recall that a wave of light is a repeating phenomenon—crest follows crest with great regularity. In this sense, each light wave is a little clock, keeping time with its wave cycle. If stronger gravity slows down the pace of time (relative to an outside observer), then the rate at which crest follows crest must be correspondingly slower—that is, the waves become less frequent.
To maintain constant light speed (the key postulate in Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity), the lower frequency must be compensated by a longer wavelength. This kind of increase in wavelength (when caused by the motion of the source) is what we called a redshift in Radiation and Spectra. Here, because it is gravity and not motion that produces the longer wavelengths, we call the effect a gravitational redshift.
The advent of space-age technology made it possible to measure gravitational redshift with very high accuracy. In the mid-1970s, a hydrogen maser, a device akin to a laser that produces a microwave radio signal at a particular wavelength, was carried by a rocket to an altitude of 10,000 kilometers. Instruments on the ground were used to compare the frequency of the signal emitted by the rocket-borne maser with that from a similar maser on Earth. The experiment showed that the stronger gravitational field at Earth’s surface really did slow the flow of time relative to that measured by the maser in the rocket. The observed effect matched the predictions of general relativity to within a few parts in 100,000.
These are only a few examples of tests that have confirmed the predictions of general relativity. Today, general relativity is accepted as our best description of gravity and is used by astronomers and physicists to understand the behavior of the centers of galaxies, the beginning of the universe, and the subject with which we began this chapter—the death of truly massive stars.
Relativity: A Practical Application
By now you may be asking: why should I be bothered with relativity? Can’t I live my life perfectly well without it? The answer is you can’t. Every time a pilot lands an airplane or you use a GPS to determine where you are on a drive or hike in the back country, you (or at least your GPS-enabled device) must take the effects of both general and special relativity into account.
GPS relies on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the Earth, and at least 4 of them are visible from any spot on Earth. Each satellite carries a precise atomic clock. Your GPS receiver detects the signals from those satellites that are overhead and calculates your position based on the time that it has taken those signals to reach you. Suppose you want to know where you are within 50 feet (GPS devices can actually do much better than this). Since it takes only 50 billionths of a second for light to travel 50 feet, the clocks on the satellites must be synchronized to at least this accuracy—and relativistic effects must therefore be taken into account.
The clocks on the satellites are orbiting Earth at a speed of 14,000 kilometers per hour and are moving much faster than clocks on the surface of Earth. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the clocks on the satellites are ticking more slowly than Earth-based clocks by about 7 millionths of a second per day. (We have not discussed the special theory of relativity, which deals with changes when objects move very fast, so you’ll have to take our word for this part.)
The orbits of the satellites are 20,000 kilometers above Earth, where gravity is about four times weaker than at Earth’s surface. General relativity says that the orbiting clocks should tick about 45 millionths of a second faster than they would on Earth. The net effect is that the time on a satellite clock advances by about 38 microseconds per day. If these relativistic effects were not taken into account, navigational errors would start to add up and positions would be off by about 7 miles in only a single day.
Key Concepts and Summary
General relativity predicts that the stronger the gravity, the more slowly time must run. Experiments on Earth and with spacecraft have confirmed this prediction with remarkable accuracy. When light or other radiation emerges from a compact smaller remnant, such as a white dwarf or neutron star, it shows a gravitational redshift due to the slowing of time.
Glossary
- gravitational redshift
- an increase in wavelength of an electromagnetic wave (light) when propagating from or near a massive object
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/astronomy1105/chapter/24-4-time-in-general-relativity/ |
|
|
Reply |
Message 4 of 17 on the subject |
|
Wavelength to Frequency Calculation and Equation
A simple equation relates wavelength and frequency to the speed of the wave.
The wavelength to frequency and frequency to wavelength calculations are important in physics and engineering. Here is the equation relating wavelength and frequency, example calculations, and a table of common values.
Relationship Between Wavelength and Frequency
A simple equation relates wavelength to frequency:
v = λf
- v = wave velocity (how fast the wave propagates in a medium)
- λ = wavelength (distance over which a wave shape repeats)
- f = wave frequency (number of waves per unit of time)
For light and other electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum, the wave velocity is the speed of light (c):
c = λf
But, the wave speed is different for other kinds of waves and for light passing through a medium.
- Light in air or vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second
- Light in water: 224,901,000 m/s
- Sound in air: 343.2 m/s
- Sound in water (20 °C): 1,481 m/s
Wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional. As wavelength increases, frequency decreases. As frequency increases, wavelength decreases.
How to Calculate Wavelength From Frequency
Rearrange the equation and calculate wavelength from frequency:
λ = v/f
For example, find the wavelength of the musical note A4, which has a frequency of 440 Hz.
The only tricky part in the calculation is keeping the units straight. Usually, you work with meters and Hertz and then convert to other units (e.g., nanometers, THz, GHz). In this problem, the wave velocity is the speed of sound in air (343.2 m/s). The frequency is 440 Hz. One hertz unit equal one cycle (wave) per second, so a frequency of 440 Hz is 440 s-1.
λ = v/f λ = (343.2 m/s)/(440 s-1) λ = 0.78 m or 78 cm
As another example, find the frequency of the green light of the aurora borealis, which has a frequency of 5.38 x 1014 Hz.
Here, the equation is:
λ = c/f λ = (3 x 108 m/sec)/(5.38 x 1014 s-1) λ = 5.576 x 10-7 m = 557.6 nm
How to Calculate Frequency From Wavelength
Rearrange the equation and calculate frequency from wavelength:
f = v/λ
For example, find the wavelength of orange light with a frequency of 4.8×1014 Hz.
f = v/λ (but v is c for light) f = c/λ f = (3.00 × 108 m/s)/(4.8×1014 s-1) f = 6.2 x 10-7 m = 620 nm
Wavelength to Frequency Chart
This chart shows the wavelength to frequency relationship for electromagnetic radiation:
Electromagnetic Radiation |
Wavelength |
Frequency |
Gamma radiation |
1 pm |
300 EHz |
X-ray |
1 nm |
300 PHz |
Ultraviolet |
100 nm |
3 PHz |
Visible light |
400-700 nm |
430-750 THz |
Infrared |
100 μm |
3 THz |
EHF (Extremely high frequency) |
1 mm |
300 GHz |
SHF (Super high frequency) |
1 cm |
30 GHz |
UHF (Ultra high frequency) |
1 dm |
3 GHz |
VHF (Very high frequency) |
10 m |
30 MHz |
ELF (Extremely low frequency) |
100,000 km |
3 Hz |
References
- Avison, John (1999). The World of Physics. Nelson Thornes. ISBN 978-0-17-438733-6.
- Cassidy, David C.; Holton, Gerald James; Rutherford, Floyd James (2002). Understanding Physics. Birkhäuser. ISBN 0-387-98756-8.
- Hecht, Eugene (1987). Optics (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-11609-X.
https://sciencenotes.org/wavelength-to-frequency-calculation-and-equation/ |
|
|
Reply |
Message 5 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 6 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 7 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 8 of 17 on the subject |
|
Relativistic Doppler effect
Figure 1. A source of light waves moving to the right, relative to observers, with velocity 0.7 c. The frequency is higher for observers on the right, and lower for observers on the left.
The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency, wavelength and amplitude[1] of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect, first proposed by Christian Doppler in 1842[2]), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity.
The relativistic Doppler effect is different from the non-relativistic Doppler effect as the equations include the time dilation effect of special relativity and do not involve the medium of propagation as a reference point. They describe the total difference in observed frequencies and possess the required Lorentz symmetry.
Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches). This article concerns itself only with Doppler shifts.
Summary of major results
[edit]
In the following table, it is assumed that for �=�/�>0 the receiver � and the source � are moving away from each other, � being the relative velocity and � the speed of light, and �=1/1−�2.
Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect
[edit]
Relativistic Doppler shift for the longitudinal case, with source and receiver moving directly towards or away from each other, is often derived as if it were the classical phenomenon, but modified by the addition of a time dilation term.[3][4] This is the approach employed in first-year physics or mechanics textbooks such as those by Feynman[5] or Morin.[6]
Following this approach towards deriving the relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect, assume the receiver and the source are moving away from each other with a relative speed � as measured by an observer on the receiver or the source (The sign convention adopted here is that � is negative if the receiver and the source are moving towards each other).
Consider the problem in the reference frame of the source.
Suppose one wavefront arrives at the receiver. The next wavefront is then at a distance ��=�/�� away from the receiver (where �� is the wavelength, �� is the frequency of the waves that the source emits, and � is the speed of light).
The wavefront moves with speed �, but at the same time the receiver moves away with speed � during a time ��,�, which is the period of light waves impinging on the receiver, as observed in the frame of the source. So,��+���,�=���,�⟺��=���,�(1−�/�)⟺��,�=1��(1−�),where �=�/� is the speed of the receiver in terms of the speed of light. The corresponding ��,�, the frequency of at which wavefronts impinge on the receiver in the source's frame, is:��,�=1/��,�=��(1−�).
Thus far, the equations have been identical to those of the classical Doppler effect with a stationary source and a moving receiver.
However, due to relativistic effects, clocks on the receiver are time dilated relative to clocks at the source: ��=��,�/�, where �=1/1−�2 is the Lorentz factor. In order to know which time is dilated, we recall that ��,� is the time in the frame in which the source is at rest. The receiver will measure the received frequency to be
- Eq. 1: ��=��,�� =1−�1−�2�� =1−�1+���.
The ratio
- ����=1+�1−�
is called the Doppler factor of the source relative to the receiver. (This terminology is particularly prevalent in the subject of astrophysics: see relativistic beaming.)
The corresponding wavelengths are related by
- Eq. 2: ����=����=1+�1−�,
Identical expressions for relativistic Doppler shift are obtained when performing the analysis in the reference frame of the receiver with a moving source. This matches up with the expectations of the principle of relativity, which dictates that the result can not depend on which object is considered to be the one at rest. In contrast, the classic nonrelativistic Doppler effect is dependent on whether it is the source or the receiver that is stationary with respect to the medium.[5][6]
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 9 of 17 on the subject |
|
Transverse Doppler effect
[edit]
Suppose that a source and a receiver are both approaching each other in uniform inertial motion along paths that do not collide. The transverse Doppler effect (TDE) may refer to (a) the nominal blueshift predicted by special relativity that occurs when the emitter and receiver are at their points of closest approach; or (b) the nominal redshift predicted by special relativity when the receiver sees the emitter as being at its closest approach.[6] The transverse Doppler effect is one of the main novel predictions of the special theory of relativity.[7]
Whether a scientific report describes TDE as being a redshift or blueshift depends on the particulars of the experimental arrangement being related. For example, Einstein's original description of the TDE in 1907 described an experimenter looking at the center (nearest point) of a beam of "canal rays" (a beam of positive ions that is created by certain types of gas-discharge tubes). According to special relativity, the moving ions' emitted frequency would be reduced by the Lorentz factor, so that the received frequency would be reduced (redshifted) by the same factor.[p 1][note 1]
On the other hand, Kündig (1963) described an experiment where a Mössbauer absorber was spun in a rapid circular path around a central Mössbauer emitter.[p 3] As explained below, this experimental arrangement resulted in Kündig's measurement of a blueshift.
Source and receiver are at their points of closest approach
[edit]
Figure 2. Source and receiver are at their points of closest approach. (a) Analysis in the frame of the receiver. (b) Analysis in the frame of the source.
In this scenario, the point of closest approach is frame-independent and represents the moment where there is no change in distance versus time. Figure 2 demonstrates that the ease of analyzing this scenario depends on the frame in which it is analyzed.[6]
- Fig. 2a. If we analyze the scenario in the frame of the receiver, we find that the analysis is more complicated than it should be. The apparent position of a celestial object is displaced from its true position (or geometric position) because of the object's motion during the time it takes its light to reach an observer. The source would be time-dilated relative to the receiver, but the redshift implied by this time dilation would be offset by a blueshift due to the longitudinal component of the relative motion between the receiver and the apparent position of the source.
- Fig. 2b. It is much easier if, instead, we analyze the scenario from the frame of the source. An observer situated at the source knows, from the problem statement, that the receiver is at its closest point to him. That means that the receiver has no longitudinal component of motion to complicate the analysis. (i.e. dr/dt = 0 where r is the distance between receiver and source) Since the receiver's clocks are time-dilated relative to the source, the light that the receiver receives is blue-shifted by a factor of gamma. In other words,
- Eq. 3: ��=���
Receiver sees the source as being at its closest point
[edit]
Figure 3. Transverse Doppler shift for the scenario where the receiver sees the source as being at its closest point.
This scenario is equivalent to the receiver looking at a direct right angle to the path of the source. The analysis of this scenario is best conducted from the frame of the receiver. Figure 3 shows the receiver being illuminated by light from when the source was closest to the receiver, even though the source has moved on.[6] Because the source's clock is time dilated as measured in the frame of the receiver, and because there is no longitudinal component of its motion, the light from the source, emitted from this closest point, is redshifted with frequency
- Eq. 4: ��=���
In the literature, most reports of transverse Doppler shift analyze the effect in terms of the receiver pointed at direct right angles to the path of the source, thus seeing the source as being at its closest point and observing a redshift.
Point of null frequency shift
[edit]
Figure 4. Null frequency shift occurs for a pulse that travels the shortest distance from source to receiver.
Given that, in the case where the inertially moving source and receiver are geometrically at their nearest approach to each other, the receiver observes a blueshift, whereas in the case where the receiver sees the source as being at its closest point, the receiver observes a redshift, there obviously must exist a point where blueshift changes to a redshift. In Fig. 2, the signal travels perpendicularly to the receiver path and is blueshifted. In Fig. 3, the signal travels perpendicularly to the source path and is redshifted.
As seen in Fig. 4, null frequency shift occurs for a pulse that travels the shortest distance from source to receiver. When viewed in the frame where source and receiver have the same speed, this pulse is emitted perpendicularly to the source's path and is received perpendicularly to the receiver's path. The pulse is emitted slightly before the point of closest approach, and it is received slightly after.[8]
One object in circular motion around the other
[edit]
Figure 5. Transverse Doppler effect for two scenarios: (a) receiver moving in a circle around the source; (b) source moving in a circle around the receiver.
Fig. 5 illustrates two variants of this scenario. Both variants can be analyzed using simple time dilation arguments.[6] Figure 5a is essentially equivalent to the scenario described in Figure 2b, and the receiver observes light from the source as being blueshifted by a factor of �. Figure 5b is essentially equivalent to the scenario described in Figure 3, and the light is redshifted.
The only seeming complication is that the orbiting objects are in accelerated motion. An accelerated particle does not have an inertial frame in which it is always at rest. However, an inertial frame can always be found which is momentarily comoving with the particle. This frame, the momentarily comoving reference frame (MCRF), enables application of special relativity to the analysis of accelerated particles. If an inertial observer looks at an accelerating clock, only the clock's instantaneous speed is important when computing time dilation.[9]
The converse, however, is not true. The analysis of scenarios where both objects are in accelerated motion requires a somewhat more sophisticated analysis. Not understanding this point has led to confusion and misunderstanding.
Source and receiver both in circular motion around a common center
[edit]
Figure 6. Source and receiver are placed on opposite ends of a rotor, equidistant from the center.
Suppose source and receiver are located on opposite ends of a spinning rotor, as illustrated in Fig. 6. Kinematic arguments (special relativity) and arguments based on noting that there is no difference in potential between source and receiver in the pseudogravitational field of the rotor (general relativity) both lead to the conclusion that there should be no Doppler shift between source and receiver.
In 1961, Champeney and Moon conducted a Mössbauer rotor experiment testing exactly this scenario, and found that the Mössbauer absorption process was unaffected by rotation.[p 4] They concluded that their findings supported special relativity.
This conclusion generated some controversy. A certain persistent critic of relativity[who?] maintained that, although the experiment was consistent with general relativity, it refuted special relativity, his point being that since the emitter and absorber were in uniform relative motion, special relativity demanded that a Doppler shift be observed. The fallacy with this critic's argument was, as demonstrated in section Point of null frequency shift, that it is simply not true that a Doppler shift must always be observed between two frames in uniform relative motion.[10] Furthermore, as demonstrated in section Source and receiver are at their points of closest approach, the difficulty of analyzing a relativistic scenario often depends on the choice of reference frame. Attempting to analyze the scenario in the frame of the receiver involves much tedious algebra. It is much easier, almost trivial, to establish the lack of Doppler shift between emitter and absorber in the laboratory frame.[10]
As a matter of fact, however, Champeney and Moon's experiment said nothing either pro or con about special relativity. Because of the symmetry of the setup, it turns out that virtually any conceivable theory of the Doppler shift between frames in uniform inertial motion must yield a null result in this experiment.[10]
Rather than being equidistant from the center, suppose the emitter and absorber were at differing distances from the rotor's center. For an emitter at radius �′ and the absorber at radius � anywhere on the rotor, the ratio of the emitter frequency, �′, and the absorber frequency, �, is given by
- Eq. 5: �′�=(�2−�2�2�2−�′2�2)1/2
where � is the angular velocity of the rotor. The source and emitter do not have to be 180° apart, but can be at any angle with respect to the center.[p 5][11]
Motion in an arbitrary direction
[edit]
Figure 7. Doppler shift with source moving at an arbitrary angle with respect to the line between source and receiver.
The analysis used in section Relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect can be extended in a straightforward fashion to calculate the Doppler shift for the case where the inertial motions of the source and receiver are at any specified angle.[4][12] Fig. 7 presents the scenario from the frame of the receiver, with the source moving at speed � at an angle �� measured in the frame of the receiver. The radial component of the source's motion along the line of sight is equal to �cos��.
The equation below can be interpreted as the classical Doppler shift for a stationary and moving source modified by the Lorentz factor �:
- Eq. 6: ��=���(1+�cos��).
In the case when ��=90∘, one obtains the transverse Doppler effect:
- ��=���.
In his 1905 paper on special relativity,[p 2] Einstein obtained a somewhat different looking equation for the Doppler shift equation. After changing the variable names in Einstein's equation to be consistent with those used here, his equation reads
- Eq. 7: ��=�(1−�cos��)��.
The differences stem from the fact that Einstein evaluated the angle �� with respect to the source rest frame rather than the receiver rest frame. �� is not equal to �� because of the effect of relativistic aberration. The relativistic aberration equation is:
- Eq. 8: cos��=cos��−�1−�cos��
Substituting the relativistic aberration equation Equation 8 into Equation 6 yields Equation 7, demonstrating the consistency of these alternate equations for the Doppler shift.[12]
Setting ��=0 in Equation 6 or ��=0 in Equation 7 yields Equation 1, the expression for relativistic longitudinal Doppler shift.
A four-vector approach to deriving these results may be found in Landau and Lifshitz (2005).[13]
In electromagnetic waves both the electric and the magnetic field amplitudes E and B transform in a similar manner as the frequency:[14]
- ��=�(1−�cos��)��
- ��=�(1−�cos��)��.
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 10 of 17 on the subject |
|
Figure 8. Comparison of the relativistic Doppler effect (top) with the non-relativistic effect (bottom).
Fig. 8 helps us understand, in a rough qualitative sense, how the relativistic Doppler effect and relativistic aberration differ from the non-relativistic Doppler effect and non-relativistic aberration of light. Assume that the observer is uniformly surrounded in all directions by yellow stars emitting monochromatic light of 570 nm. The arrows in each diagram represent the observer's velocity vector relative to its surroundings, with a magnitude of 0.89 c.
- In the relativistic case, the light ahead of the observer is blueshifted to a wavelength of 137 nm in the far ultraviolet, while light behind the observer is redshifted to 2400 nm in the short wavelength infrared. Because of the relativistic aberration of light, objects formerly at right angles to the observer appear shifted forwards by 63°.
- In the non-relativistic case, the light ahead of the observer is blueshifted to a wavelength of 300 nm in the medium ultraviolet, while light behind the observer is redshifted to 5200 nm in the intermediate infrared. Because of the aberration of light, objects formerly at right angles to the observer appear shifted forwards by 42°.
- In both cases, the monochromatic stars ahead of and behind the observer are Doppler-shifted towards invisible wavelengths. If, however, the observer had eyes that could see into the ultraviolet and infrared, he would see the stars ahead of him as brighter and more closely clustered together than the stars behind, but the stars would be far brighter and far more concentrated in the relativistic case.[15]
Real stars are not monochromatic, but emit a range of wavelengths approximating a black body distribution. It is not necessarily true that stars ahead of the observer would show a bluer color. This is because the whole spectral energy distribution is shifted. At the same time that visible light is blueshifted into invisible ultraviolet wavelengths, infrared light is blueshifted into the visible range. Precisely what changes in the colors one sees depends on the physiology of the human eye and on the spectral characteristics of the light sources being observed.[16][17]
Doppler effect on intensity
[edit]
The Doppler effect (with arbitrary direction) also modifies the perceived source intensity: this can be expressed concisely by the fact that source strength divided by the cube of the frequency is a Lorentz invariant[p 6][note 2] This implies that the total radiant intensity (summing over all frequencies) is multiplied by the fourth power of the Doppler factor for frequency.
As a consequence, since Planck's law describes the black-body radiation as having a spectral intensity in frequency proportional to �3�ℎ���−1 (where � is the source temperature and � the frequency), we can draw the conclusion that a black body spectrum seen through a Doppler shift (with arbitrary direction) is still a black body spectrum with a temperature multiplied by the same Doppler factor as frequency.
This result provides one of the pieces of evidence that serves to distinguish the Big Bang theory from alternative theories proposed to explain the cosmological redshift.[18]
Experimental verification
[edit]
Since the transverse Doppler effect is one of the main novel predictions of the special theory of relativity, the detection and precise quantification of this effect has been an important goal of experiments attempting to validate special relativity.
Ives and Stilwell-type measurements
[edit]
Figure 9. Why it is difficult to measure the transverse Doppler effect accurately using a transverse beam.
Einstein (1907) had initially suggested that the TDE might be measured by observing a beam of "canal rays" at right angles to the beam.[p 1] Attempts to measure TDE following this scheme proved to be impractical, since the maximum speed of a particle beam available at the time was only a few thousandths of the speed of light.
Fig. 9 shows the results of attempting to measure the 4861 Angstrom line emitted by a beam of canal rays (a mixture of H1+, H2+, and H3+ ions) as they recombine with electrons stripped from the dilute hydrogen gas used to fill the Canal ray tube. Here, the predicted result of the TDE is a 4861.06 Angstrom line. On the left, longitudinal Doppler shift results in broadening the emission line to such an extent that the TDE cannot be observed. The middle figures illustrate that even if one narrows one's view to the exact center of the beam, very small deviations of the beam from an exact right angle introduce shifts comparable to the predicted effect.
Rather than attempt direct measurement of the TDE, Ives and Stilwell (1938) used a concave mirror that allowed them to simultaneously observe a nearly longitudinal direct beam (blue) and its reflected image (red). Spectroscopically, three lines would be observed: An undisplaced emission line, and blueshifted and redshifted lines. The average of the redshifted and blueshifted lines would be compared with the wavelength of the undisplaced emission line. The difference that Ives and Stilwell measured corresponded, within experimental limits, to the effect predicted by special relativity.[p 7]
Various of the subsequent repetitions of the Ives and Stilwell experiment have adopted other strategies for measuring the mean of blueshifted and redshifted particle beam emissions. In some recent repetitions of the experiment, modern accelerator technology has been used to arrange for the observation of two counter-rotating particle beams. In other repetitions, the energies of gamma rays emitted by a rapidly moving particle beam have been measured at opposite angles relative to the direction of the particle beam. Since these experiments do not actually measure the wavelength of the particle beam at right angles to the beam, some authors have preferred to refer to the effect they are measuring as the "quadratic Doppler shift" rather than TDE.[p 8][p 9]
Direct measurement of transverse Doppler effect
[edit]
The advent of particle accelerator technology has made possible the production of particle beams of considerably higher energy than was available to Ives and Stilwell. This has enabled the design of tests of the transverse Doppler effect directly along the lines of how Einstein originally envisioned them, i.e. by directly viewing a particle beam at a 90° angle. For example, Hasselkamp et al. (1979) observed the Hα line emitted by hydrogen atoms moving at speeds ranging from 2.53×108 cm/s to 9.28×108 cm/s, finding the coefficient of the second order term in the relativistic approximation to be 0.52±0.03, in excellent agreement with the theoretical value of 1/2.[p 10]
Other direct tests of the TDE on rotating platforms were made possible by the discovery of the Mössbauer effect, which enables the production of exceedingly narrow resonance lines for nuclear gamma ray emission and absorption.[19] Mössbauer effect experiments have proven themselves easily capable of detecting TDE using emitter-absorber relative velocities on the order of 2×104 cm/s. These experiments include ones performed by Hay et al. (1960),[p 11] Champeney et al. (1965),[p 12] and Kündig (1963).[p 3]
Time dilation measurements
[edit]
The transverse Doppler effect and the kinematic time dilation of special relativity are closely related. All validations of TDE represent validations of kinematic time dilation, and most validations of kinematic time dilation have also represented validations of TDE. An online resource, "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?" has documented, with brief commentary, many of the tests that, over the years, have been used to validate various aspects of special relativity.[20] Kaivola et al. (1985)[p 13] and McGowan et al. (1993)[p 14] are examples of experiments classified in this resource as time dilation experiments. These two also represent tests of TDE. These experiments compared the frequency of two lasers, one locked to the frequency of a neon atom transition in a fast beam, the other locked to the same transition in thermal neon. The 1993 version of the experiment verified time dilation, and hence TDE, to an accuracy of 2.3×10−6.
Relativistic Doppler effect for sound and light
[edit]
Figure 10. The relativistic Doppler shift formula is applicable to both sound and light.
First-year physics textbooks almost invariably analyze Doppler shift for sound in terms of Newtonian kinematics, while analyzing Doppler shift for light and electromagnetic phenomena in terms of relativistic kinematics. This gives the false impression that acoustic phenomena require a different analysis than light and radio waves.
The traditional analysis of the Doppler effect for sound represents a low speed approximation to the exact, relativistic analysis. The fully relativistic analysis for sound is, in fact, equally applicable to both sound and electromagnetic phenomena.
Consider the spacetime diagram in Fig. 10. Worldlines for a tuning fork (the source) and a receiver are both illustrated on this diagram. The tuning fork and receiver start at O, at which point the tuning fork starts to vibrate, emitting waves and moving along the negative x-axis while the receiver starts to move along the positive x-axis. The tuning fork continues until it reaches A, at which point it stops emitting waves: a wavepacket has therefore been generated, and all the waves in the wavepacket are received by the receiver with the last wave reaching it at B. The proper time for the duration of the packet in the tuning fork's frame of reference is the length of OA while the proper time for the duration of the wavepacket in the receiver's frame of reference is the length of OB. If � waves were emitted, then ��=�|��|, while ��=�|��|; the inverse slope of AB represents the speed of signal propagation (i.e. the speed of sound) to event B. We can therefore write:[12]
- ��=��−����−�� (speed of sound)
- ��=−���� ��=���� (speeds of source and receiver)
- |��|=��2−(��/�)2
- |��|=��2−(��/�)2
�� and �� are assumed to be less than ��, since otherwise their passage through the medium will set up shock waves, invalidating the calculation. Some routine algebra gives the ratio of frequencies:
- Eq. 9: ����=|��||��| =1−��/��1+��/��1−(��/�)21−(��/�)2
If �� and �� are small compared with �, the above equation reduces to the classical Doppler formula for sound.
If the speed of signal propagation �� approaches �, it can be shown that the absolute speeds �� and �� of the source and receiver merge into a single relative speed independent of any reference to a fixed medium. Indeed, we obtain Equation 1, the formula for relativistic longitudinal Doppler shift.[12]
Analysis of the spacetime diagram in Fig. 10 gave a general formula for source and receiver moving directly along their line of sight, i.e. in collinear motion.
Figure 11. A source and receiver are moving in different directions and speeds in a frame where the speed of sound is independent of direction.
Fig. 11 illustrates a scenario in two dimensions. The source moves with velocity �� (at the time of emission). It emits a signal which travels at velocity � towards the receiver, which is traveling at velocity �� at the time of reception. The analysis is performed in a coordinate system in which the signal's speed |�| is independent of direction.[8]
The ratio between the proper frequencies for the source and receiver is
- Eq. 10: ����=1−|��||�|cos(��,��)1−|��||�|cos(��,��)1−(��/�)21−(��/�)2
The leading ratio has the form of the classical Doppler effect, while the square root term represents the relativistic correction. If we consider the angles relative to the frame of the source, then ��=0 and the equation reduces to Equation 7, Einstein's 1905 formula for the Doppler effect. If we consider the angles relative to the frame of the receiver, then ��=0 and the equation reduces to Equation 6, the alternative form of the Doppler shift equation discussed previously.[8]
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 11 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 12 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 13 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 14 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 15 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 16 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
Reply |
Message 17 of 17 on the subject |
|
|
|
First
Previous
3 a 17 de 17
Next
Last
|