{"id":213,"date":"2010-04-14T15:49:10","date_gmt":"2010-04-14T20:49:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2010\/04\/14\/v-is-not-equal-to-dxdt\/"},"modified":"2010-04-14T15:49:10","modified_gmt":"2010-04-14T20:49:10","slug":"v-is-not-equal-to-dxdt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2010\/04\/14\/v-is-not-equal-to-dxdt\/","title":{"rendered":"v is not equal to dx\/dt"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a <a href=\"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2010\/04\/08\/more-on-the-cosmological-redshift\/#comments\">discussion<\/a> of David Hogg&#8217;s and my <a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/0808.1081\">quixotic quest<\/a> to convince people that it&#8217;s OK to think of the redshifts of distant galaxies as being due to the galaxies&#8217; motion (that is, as a Doppler shift), Phillip Helbig writes<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I think we all must agree on the following statement: Using the relativistic Doppler formula to calculate the velocity of an object at high redshift does not yield a meaningful answer in the the velocity so derived is not the temporal derivative of ANY distance used for other purposes in cosmology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I replied to him in the comments, but I think that this point needs a longer response and might be of more general interest.<\/p>\n<p>I agree with the beginning and end of Phillip&#8217;s statement, but not the middle.\u00a0 To be precise, I agree that the velocity derived from the Doppler formula is not the derivative of a distance, but I don&#8217;t agree that that means it&#8217;s not a meaningful velocity.<\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s right: I&#8217;m saying a velocity is not necessarily the rate of change of a distance.\u00a0 That sounds crazy: isn&#8217;t that the definition of velocity?<\/p>\n<p>Well, sometimes.\u00a0 But there are other times in astrophysics when a Doppler shift is measured, and nobody objects to calling the resulting quantity a velocity, even though that quantity is not the rate of change of a distance (or more generally of a position).\u00a0 The clearest example I know of is a binary\u00a0 star.<\/p>\n<p>Here&#8217;s a cartoon spacetime diagram of an observation of a binary star.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/files\/2010\/04\/binaryspacetime1.png\" title=\"Binary star spacetime diagram\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/files\/2010\/04\/binaryspacetime1.png\" alt=\"Binary star spacetime diagram\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Time increases upward on this diagram.\u00a0 The blue curve represents the Earth.\u00a0 The curve wobbles back and forth as the Earth orbits the Sun.\u00a0 The red curve represents a star, which is orbiting another star (not shown).\u00a0 The dashed curve shows the path of a photon going from the star to the observer.<\/p>\n<p>This is a situation that occurs all the time in astronomy.\u00a0 The observer sees the photon (many photons, actually), measures a redshift, and calls the result the velocity of the star relative to us.<\/p>\n<p>Now riddle me this: What is the position function <em>x<\/em>(<em>t<\/em>) such that this velocity is <em>dx<\/em>\/<em>dt<\/em>?\u00a0 For that matter, at what <em>t<\/em> should this derivative be evaluated?<\/p>\n<p>There is no good answer to this question.\u00a0 The velocity in question is not equal to the time derivative of a position, in any useful sense.\u00a0 The main reason is that the velocity in question is a relative velocity, relating motion at two different times.<\/p>\n<p>If you insist on describing the measured velocity of the star as a <em>dx<\/em>\/<em>dt<\/em>, here&#8217;s the best way I can think of to do it.\u00a0 Define an inertial reference frame in which the Earth is at rest at the moment of observation.\u00a0 Then the measured velocity is <em>dx<\/em>\/<em>dt<\/em>, where (<em>x<\/em>,<em>t<\/em>) are the coordinates of the star in this frame, and the derivative is evaluated at the time of emission.\u00a0 But this doesn&#8217;t meet Phillip&#8217;s criterion: the quantity <em>x<\/em> in this expression is not a &#8220;distance used for any other purpose.&#8221;\u00a0 It&#8217;s certainly not in any sense the distance from the Earth to the star, for instance: at the time the derivative is evaluated, the Earth was nowhere near the right location for this to be true.<\/p>\n<p>The velocity of the Earth, in some chosen reference frame, is a <em>dx<\/em>\/<em>dt<\/em>, and the velocity of the star is also a <em>dx<\/em>\/<em>dt<\/em>.\u00a0 (Each of these two is represented by an arrow in the picture above.)\u00a0 But the relative velocity of the two isn&#8217;t.\u00a0 If you&#8217;re unwilling to call this quantity a velocity, then I guess you should be unwilling to call the quantity derived from a cosmological redshift a velocity.\u00a0 But this seems to me a bit of a <a href=\"http:\/\/quotationsbook.com\/quote\/45047\/\">Humpty Dumpty way to talk<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a discussion of David Hogg&#8217;s and my quixotic quest to convince people that it&#8217;s OK to think of the redshifts of distant galaxies as being due to the galaxies&#8217; motion (that is, as a Doppler shift), Phillip Helbig writes I think we all must agree on the following statement: Using the relativistic Doppler formula &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2010\/04\/14\/v-is-not-equal-to-dxdt\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">v is not equal to dx\/dt<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}