The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Is red-shift caused by width contraction of the moving body?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is red-shift caused by width contraction of the moving body?

  • 1 Replies
  • 3386 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest39538

  • Guest
Is red-shift caused by width contraction of the moving body?
« on: 03/02/2016 10:59:19 »
relative to an observer an object moving away will contract in dimensions, it is said an object red shifts moving away from an observer at the near speed of light,

are the two connected?


(no father ted jokes please)

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The reflected light becomes narrower?

* contraction.jpg (85.34 kB, 1152x648 - viewed 796 times.)
Logged
 



Marked as best answer by on 28/05/2025 10:26:41

Offline evan_au

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 11035
  • Activity:
    9%
  • Thanked: 1486 times
  • Undo Best Answer
  • Re: Is red-shift caused by width contraction of the moving body?
    « Reply #1 on: 03/02/2016 17:55:39 »
    Quote
    are the two connected?
    Short answer: No.

    Quote
    an object moving away will contract in dimensions ...at the near the speed of light
    This is true. It is called Lorentz contraction, but you have to be going very fast for it to be detectable.

    At "normal" speeds (< 1 million km/h), it can be effectively ignored.

    c:  3.00E+08   m/s   
             

    v/c   v (m/s)   v (km/h)   Lorentz Factor

    0.001   3.00E+05   1.08E+06   0.9999995
    0.01    3.00E+06   1.08E+07   0.999949999
    0.1     3.00E+07   1.08E+08   0.994987437
    0.5     1.50E+08   5.40E+08   0.866025404
    0.75    2.25E+08   8.09E+08   0.661437828
    0.9     2.70E+08   9.71E+08   0.435889894
    0.99    2.97E+08   1.07E+09   0.14106736
    0.999   3.00E+08   1.08E+09   0.044710178

    Quote
    it is said an object red shifts moving away from an observer
    This is true. It is called Doppler shift, and it is quite detectable even at the speed your car travels in residential areas (maybe 40km/h to 60km/h). That is how police use radar and laser to check your speed.
    It is also used to measure the wobble on a massive star due to the orbit of its much smaller planets - a disturbance that equates to a walking speed.
    At these low velocities, Lorentz contraction can be totally ignored.

    Quote
    are the two connected?
    Long Answer: Yes and No.
    No: When objects are approaching you, Doppler effect gives a "blue shift". Time dilation can only produce a red shift. So the effects are quite separate (and opposite).

    Yes: There is a relativistic version of the Doppler shift which takes into account time dilation of the moving object which emitted the light.
    - This is not the length contraction of the object which emitted the light.
    - Time dilation follows the same Lorentz factor as length contraction.

    The relativistic correction would only really matter in particle accelerators and distant cosmological objects that are traveling faster than 0.1% of the speed of light relative to us.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
    Logged
     



    • Print
    Pages: [1]   Go Up
    « previous next »
    Tags:
     
    There was an error while thanking
    Thanking...
    • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
      Privacy Policy
      SMFAds for Free Forums
    • Naked Science Forum ©

    Page created in 0.247 seconds with 26 queries.

    • Podcasts
    • Articles
    • Get Naked
    • About
    • Contact us
    • Advertise
    • Privacy Policy
    • Subscribe to newsletter
    • We love feedback

    Follow us

    cambridge_logo_footer.png

    ©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.