See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291350060

Lorentz transformation and relativistic Doppler effect

Conference Paper · November 2015

CITATION READS
1 658

1 author:

Shukri Klinaku
University of Prishtina
45 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Extension of Galilean relativity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shukri Klinaku on 22 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Lorentz transformation and the relativistic Doppler effect

Shukri Klinaku
University of Prishtina
Sheshi Nëna Terezë, Kosova
klinaku@uni-pr.edu

Abstract: The relativistic Doppler effect (RDE) equation and Lorentz transformations (LT) are compared
and their derivation reviewed. It is evident that the structure of the transformations of length, time and
frequency in relative motion according to the theory of special relativity (TSR) is identical. From this
comparison we derive two conclusions: first, the velocity addition formula according to TSR is
unsustainable even within TSR; and second, the LT and RDE are nothing other than a “double Doppler
effect”.

Keywords: Relativistic Doppler effect, Lorentz transformation, velocity addition formula

Derivation of the relativistic Doppler effect

In many works [e.g. 1-3] we can see that the equation of RDE is:

𝑐+𝑣
𝜈′ = 𝜈√ (1)
𝑐−𝑣

where 𝜈′ and 𝜈 are the received and emitted frequencies, 𝑐 is the velocity of light and 𝑣 is the velocity of
relative motion between two frames of reference. For the derivation of equation (1) the system of equations
which according [4] express the light postulate is used:

𝑥
𝑐=
𝑡
𝑥′} (2)
𝑐=
𝑡′

and specifically, in the LT equations the substitution 𝑥 = 𝑐𝑡 or 𝑥′ = 𝑐𝑡′ [1-3] is used. This substitution is
correct, because the initial condition of obtaining the LT (2), is substituted in a phase of operation with it.
However, let us see the consequences of this substitution.

The Lorentz transformation in the works of Einstein and Born

Explicitly in Einstein and Born's works [4-5] and beyond we can see that LT equations can be written in
this form:

𝑐+𝑣
𝑥 = 𝑥′√ (3)
𝑐−𝑣
 𝑐+𝑣
𝑡 = 𝑡′√ . (4)
𝑐−𝑣

Einstein derived this form of the LT arguing that system (2) is valid for both frames of reference [4]. While
on Born’s way to deriving the LT, we can see the form of equations (3) and (4). After a very tiring reasoning
about the physics of the problem Born manages to set out this system of equations:

𝛼𝑥 = 𝑥 ′ + 𝑣𝑡 ′ (5)
}
𝛼𝑥 ′ = 𝑥 − 𝑣𝑡

where 𝛼 is a proportional parameter that must be found [5]. Then Born has substituted the system of
𝑣2
equations (2) in (5), multiplied the equations of system (5), obtained the parameter: 𝛼 = √1 − 𝑐 2 , and
finally, from (5) has obtained the standard LT for the length 𝑥. However, if we divide the equations of
system (5) (with the assumption that 𝛼𝑥′ ≠ 0, as is ensured by the existence of relative motion [6]), we
obtain the equations (3) and (4). As noted, the equations (3) and (4) represent the LT too, but without the
𝑣2
fetish √1 − .
𝑐2

Discussion and Conclusions

The RDE (1) and LT – the equations (3) and (4) – are structurally identical. This fact brings us to two
conclusions. The first is that by the division of equations (3) and (4) we do not obtain the velocity addition
formula in TRS:

𝑢′ + 𝑣
𝑢= (6)
𝑢′𝑣
1+ 2
𝑐

but what we obtain is what must be obtained – the condition of system (2). This has fatal consequences for
all TSR. The second conclusion is that the LT and RDE represent a “double Doppler effect". This
conclusion is based on the existence of the same path of derivation for the RDE and the LT – by introducing
the Lorentz factor to the Doppler effect and to the Galileo transformations (equations 5), which already
represent the Doppler effect in another form [7]. Further support for this conclusion is that, as seen from
equations (1) (3) and (4), the transformation of length, time and frequency has identical structure. A fuller
argument for the second conclusion will follow in another paper.

References

[1] A. Einstein (1905). Zur elektrodynamik bewegter körper, Annalen der Physik, 322 (10), 1905.
[2] The Feynman lectures on physics (1977). Volume 1, (R. B. Leighton and M. Sands), 1977.
[3] J. Jackson (1999). Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. , Wiley, 1999.
[4] A. Einstein (1920). Relativity, special and general, 3rd ed. , London, 1920.
[5] M. Born (2001). Die Relativitätstheorie Einsteins, 6th ed. , Springer, 2001.
[6] Sh. Klinaku (2014). Condition of existence of the relative motion, Physics Essays, Volume 27, 2014.
[7] Sh. Klinaku (2015). The three main questions of relative motion, Physics Essays, Volume 28, 2015.

View publication stats