Energy Conservation Violated by Doppler Effect
Energy Conservation Violated by Doppler Effect - A Discovery To Be Accepted
Rongqing Dai
Abstract
Doppler effect of light provides an important mechanism to violate energy conservation due to the fact that the Doppler effect that causes the change in light energy involves no interaction force at all, while as it is known since ?milie du Ch?telet proposed the law of conservation of energy more than two hundred years ago, energy conversion must be achieved through some form of interaction. This paper introduces the process of how the violation of energy conservation was discovered and reaffirmed through thought experiments. The real difficulties for people to understand this paper will be neither the complexity in its language nor the difficulty in its theoretical analysis, but rather in the stereotyped belief held by most readers that it is impossible to violate the energy conservation as they have been taught in school. So the most important precondition for the audience to accept the discovery discussed in this paper is to open their minds and change their attitudes.
Keywords: Doppler Effect, Light, Energy Conservation, Mirror, Microscopic and Macroscopic
1. Introduction
In 2021 I proposed that the Doppler effect of light in the macroscopic world could randomly break the law of conservation of energy [[1]]. When I posted my writing on that subject online, I didn't receive any challenge at that time. However, when I reiterated that theory in more organized way during the preparation for the later published Metaphysical Symphony Book One [[2]] in 2025 and posted the new writing [[3]] online, I was challenged by some critics who claimed that as long as the motion of light is observed from different coordinate systems, there will be no violation of energy conservation caused by the Doppler effect. They said that although the frequency (color) of the light beam emitted from a source A when it hits the receiver B, which is moving relative to A, is different from the frequency (color) when it was emitted from A, the color of the light beam never changes if you observe it from the respective coordinate systems of A and B — this is because the redshift or blueshift caused by the Doppler effect between two objects moving at a constant relative velocity does not change over time.
Despite they obviously ignored the essence of the problem, I was genuinely taken aback by their argument for many reasons and one important reason was that when I investigated the issues in 2021, I did not considered the problem from the perspective of changing the observer's coordinate system. Therefore, I was momentarily confused by their criticism and began to waver in my initial conclusions. I even modified the abovementioned online post, which was originally focused on the conclusion that I made in 2021, and rewired it to focus on the energy imbalance between macroscopic and microscopic processes as will be discussed later in this writing. It was then collected into my Metaphysical Symphony Book One.
However, shortly afterward, Didier Viel, a seriously thoughtful and highly experienced Italian physicist, stepped in. He wrote a paper (Viel, 2026) [[4]] specifically discussing my theory that the Doppler effect of light leads to a non-conservation of energy. He believed my argument itself was sound, but he didn't think energy conservation could be broken, so he proposed a bolder hypothesis: the Doppler effect of light simply doesn't exist. He thought that this resolved the contradiction between the logical correctness of my argument and the reliability of energy conservation. One of his logical points for disproving the Doppler effect of light was a thought experimental scenario: two mirrors moving towards each other, with a beam of light bouncing back and forth between them. He argued: if the Doppler effect of light existed, then according to my analysis, the energy of the light beam reflecting back and forth between the two mirrors would increase infinitely.
However, to his surprise, after reading his thought experiment, I was amazed by the fact that instead of invalidating the Doppler effect of light (since he could not prove that light is not a wave while Doppler effect is fundamental to all waves), Viel's thought experiment excellently succeeded in confirming the correctness of my theory, and thus completely dispelling my doubts about the theory I proposed in 2021.
2. Frequency law of reflection at the interface of two media
From childhood, we've all come to know this basic fact: when you look in a mirror, provided the mirror is of high quality and clean enough, the colors of everything you see in the mirror (including yourself) are the same as the colors of everything you see in the real world when you turn your head. The law behind this phenomenon could be named as the frequency law of reflection at the interface of two media[[5]], which tells that the frequency (i.e. color) of light remains unchanged after reflection from a high-quality (uncontaminated) mirror.
3. How the Light Beam Bouncing between Two Moving Mirrors Breaks Energy Conservation
When a beam of light strikes an object moving relative to the light source in space, the Doppler effect, caused by the relative motion between the observer and the light source, causes the frequency of the beam to change from its emission frequency, resulting in a redshift or blueshift. According to the Einstein-Planck formula for the energy of light, the energy of light is determined by its frequency. Therefore, my theory, proposed in 2021, is that from the moment the light is emitted until it strikes another object, its energy decreases or increases without any external force, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. Considering that everything in the universe constantly emits various visible and invisible lights, including infrared radiations, and that there exists perpetual, mostly unrelated, random relative motion between all things in the universe, energy in the universe is constantly created and lost due to the Doppler effect.
As mentioned above, that theory of mine was challenged by the critics because the frequencies observed by both source and target will not change as long as their velocities do not change. However, the condition set by Viel regarding two mirrors in relative motion completely shatters the logic of those critics. This is because when the beam of light emitted from A strikes the mirror on B and is reflected, according to frequency law of reflection at the interface of two media introduced earlier, its reflection frequency is the frequency that strikes the mirror on B, which is different from the frequency at which A emitted it. When the light beam is reflected back from B to A, B becomes the light source, and A becomes the observer receiving the light. If B and A are moving towards each other, then the light seen by A returning from B is already darker (meaning blue shifted) than when it was emitted, even darker than what B sees, because it has undergone two blueshifts; and when the light beam strikes the mirror on A and is reflected back to B, the color seen by B is even darker than before, because it has undergone another blueshift... Therefore, as this beam of light reflects back and forth between two mirrors moving towards each other, its color darkens constantly, indicating its energy increases constantly. This energy increase cannot be denied by changing the observer's coordinate system at all.
If A and B are moving away from each other, the color of the light beam reflected back and forth between them will become lighter and lighter (redshifted), and its energy will continuously decrease.
3.1. Discussion
(I) The key point here is that the Doppler effect that causes the change in light energy has absolutely nothing to do with the movement of light itself. This is the key to break the law of conservation of energy. This is because as it is known since the ?milie du Ch?telet proposed the law of conservation of energy more than two hundred years ago, energy conversion must be achieved through some form of interaction, while the energy change caused by the Doppler effect discussed here involves no interaction force at all.
If you try to calculate how the mirror's interaction with photons causes a change in light energy, like calculating the reflection of a ping-pong ball on a mirror in mechanics, you are merely adding an extra energy input to the photons. This energy input cannot alter the energy change caused by the Doppler effect at all[[6]].
(II) In case the momentum of the photon is calculated using the energy of photon like people are doing these days, the violation of energy conservation would certainly lead to the violation of the momentum conservation due to the Doppler effect of light. This cannot be corrected by any trick of shifting the frame of reference between the observer and the observed because as it is known since Newton’s time that the change of momentum depends on interaction and no interaction force involved at all for the Doppler effect.
(III) The importance of the thought experiment proposed by Viel, involving two mirrors moving towards each other, lies in highlighting the essence of the Doppler effect of light. This effect is imperceptible in everyday life because a single instance of its effect would fall within the range of measurement error due to the object's speed being much less than the speed of light. However, in the context of the entire universe, its ensemble effect at every moment cannot be ignored.
(IV) Then, will the energy of a light beam reflecting back and forth between two mirrors moving towards each other really increase infinitely, as Viel worried in his paper? The answer should be no.
There are two factors that prevent the energy of the light beam from increasing infinitely, and both factors are related to the quality of the mirrors: a) unless the mirrors are of exceptionally high quality, according to the existing theory, when the beam hits the mirror, some photons are absorbed. Therefore, after many reflections, the initially emitted photons are pretty much exhausted and replenished by newly emitted photons and so on. However, the number of reflections experienced by these new photons is not big enough, so their energy increase will be limited; b) if the mirrors are of exceptionally high quality, some photons might survive hundreds of thousands or even millions of reflections. In this case, such photons would become X-rays or gamma rays that directly pass through the mirrors if not absorbed by the mirrors during their penetration.
4. Doppler Effect Breaks Energy Conservation between Macroscopic and Microscopic Worlds
The fact that the Doppler effect breaks the energy conservation between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds is easier to understand than the discussion above regarding the Doppler effect breaking energy conservation in the macroscopic world. The basic principle here is that the macroscopic motion of an observer does not change the microscopic state within the observed object. For example, birds flying in the sky do not cause changes in your body temperature or blood pressure, let alone changes in the movement of cells in your body—this is the common sense.
On the other hand, when a beam of light is emitted from system A, system A must have consumed a certain amount of energy, and this energy will not change due to the macroscopic motion of B; but due to the Doppler effect, the energy (color) of the light observed by B is different from the energy (color) of the light emitted by A, so the energy between the two is mismatched. Since A and B belong to the same universe, the energy in the entire universe is not conserved whether viewed from the coordinate system of A or the coordinate system of B.
5. Final Remarks
The real difficulties for people to understand this paper will be neither the complexity in its language nor the difficulty in its theoretical analysis, but rather in the stereotyped belief held by most readers that it is impossible to violate the energy conservation as they have been taught in school. So the most important precondition for the audience to accept the discovery discussed in this paper is to open their minds and change their attitudes.
附录 在academia.edu的交锋 （https://independent.academia.edu/s/e99a80cac4?source=link）
Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking paper.
What I find most valuable is not necessarily the conclusion itself, but the way the argument is constructed through explicit thought experiments designed to expose potential tensions between well-established principles. The discussion involving moving mirrors and repeated Doppler shifts is particularly interesting because it forces us to examine carefully where energy accounting actually resides within relativistic systems.
Whether the final conclusion ultimately survives detailed physical scrutiny or not, I believe the paper succeeds in raising an important methodological question: are there situations where concepts that appear self-evident become less obvious when examined from a different perspective?
One aspect that I think deserves further development is a fully explicit treatment of the complete system:
Photon + Moving Mirror + Momentum Transfer
In my view, this may be the critical point. If the energy increase or decrease of the photon cannot be fully accounted for by momentum and energy exchange with the moving mirrors, then the argument for a genuine violation of energy conservation would become significantly stronger. On the other hand, if the full system remains energy-conserving, then the effect may represent an energy redistribution rather than a true violation.
I also appreciate that the work attempts to identify a concrete mechanism and follows its implications logically rather than relying purely on philosophical speculation. Challenging deeply rooted assumptions is an essential part of scientific progress, provided the proposed ideas remain open to rigorous analysis and experimental testing.
Thank you again for presenting an unconventional and stimulating perspective.
Best regards,
Ali Alhawarat
Unlike
Dear Ali,
Welcome to the discussion and thanks for your comments.
1) You said [What I find most valuable is not necessarily the conclusion itself, but the way the argument is constructed through explicit thought experiments designed to expose potential tensions between well-established principles. The discussion involving moving mirrors and repeated Doppler shifts is particularly interesting because it forces us to examine carefully where energy accounting actually resides within relativistic systems.]
Well, i) I also value very much the idea of using a pair of moving mirrors to capture the critical essence of Doppler effect which had never been thought about by anyone in the world! That is the ingenious idea of Didier Viel as I clearly pointed out in the post. It is so powerful that it makes Didier assume that Doppler effect of light should not exist in order to save energy conservation since he has more faith in the latter.
Nevertheless, sadly to Didier, Doppler effect exists and energy conservation is violated.
ii) What amazes me is that since the end of 2025, those who have been strongly challenging my 2021 analysis and conclusion are relativistic scholars like yourself, while this issue has nothing to do with relativity at all. I think what makes you and other relativistic scholars think that you can deny the conclusion here by defending relativity is because it has been a passion among relativistic scholars that whenever they have difficulties to explain something with clear and straight logic, they resort to the change of observation coordinates between the observer and observed----I was confused by this relativistic trick in 2025 when they started to challenge my conclusion with this trick (which they did not bother to do in 2021), but then Didier's idea completely shatters this trick once and for good.
2) You said [are there situations where concepts that appear self-evident become less obvious when examined from a different perspective?]
Well. I have to say it is sad that the decline of the mainstream philosophy and the disparagement of philosophy in science especially in physics have ruined the confidence of the academia in correct logical thinking, especially among theoretical physicists, as I pointed out in "When Philosophy Is Disparaged" in 2024....
In fact, you just brought up a serious problem that is rampant in nowadays academic philosophy and theoretical physics that speculation almost completely expels rigorous reasoning in supposedly logic-based philosophizing that ancient philosopher tried hard to cling to,...While Whitehead claimed that philosophy is a business of speculation, he forgot that philosophers should resort to speculation only when rigorous logical reasoning can no longer move further because of the limitation of the scientific knowledge at the moment rather than to treat the whole business of philosophizing as a creative speculation as 20th century theoretical physicists obsessed to do.
I believe that anyone who really understand the logic in this writing and agree with it will not dream to find another logic to defy it if he believes that logic is always consistent to each other. In Didier's case he believed the logic in my argument as well as the energy conservation so that he had to assume that Doppler effect of light should not exist.
3) You said [One aspect that I think deserves further development is a fully explicit treatment of the complete system:
Photon + Moving Mirror + Momentum Transfer
In my view, this may be the critical point. If the energy increase or decrease of the photon cannot be fully accounted for by momentum and energy exchange with the moving mirrors, then the argument for a genuine violation of energy conservation would become significantly stronger. On the other hand, if the full system remains energy-conserving, then the effect may represent an energy redistribution rather than a true violation.]
Well, this passage of you comment is once again the reflection of your relativistic dream of the miracle by shifting the coordinates system between the observer and the observed because that is the only hope for the relativistic scholars to change energy or momentum without involving interaction of any force against the basic concept of energy or momentum variation since Eilie proposed the conservation of energy in 1740s and Newton proposed his theory earlier. However, as I mentioned above, Didier's idea has completely shattered this dream of yours.
In fact, the existing theoretical system cannot even work out the momentum of photons without the energy formula of Einstein and Planck, which is based on frequency and thus vulnerable to Doppler effect, as I discussed in details in the following link:
https://www.academia.edu/165676666/Discord_between_Doppler_Effect_of_Light_and_Photon_Energy
4) You said [I also appreciate that the work attempts to identify a concrete mechanism and follows its implications logically rather than relying purely on philosophical speculation. Challenging deeply rooted assumptions is an essential part of scientific progress, provided the proposed ideas remain open to rigorous analysis and experimental testing.]
Well, first I do not consider this paper is speculation because the writing is logical reasoning. I personally do NOT like speculation at all unless I am limited by the existing scientific knowledge, while this writing is completely based on the existing scientific knowledge.
I can fully understand that it is extremely difficult for nowadays theoretical physicists to read a paper like this one because they have been used to building their complete theory on speculation such as assuming gravity to be the reaction to change of equilibrium and leads to the so-called anti-vacuum. Speculation makes them comfortable because they are weak in thinking in logically rigorous way.
I am not Whitehead whom is so madly loved by many nowadays philosophers.
The following links might make it easier for you to grasp this writing:
https://www.academia.edu/165676666/Discord_between_Doppler_Effect_of_Light_and_Photon_Energy
https://www.academia.edu/165465021/Testing_Doppler_Effect_of_Light_with_a_Pair_of_Mirrors
Thanks again for your comments.
Cheers,
Ron
相关链接：
[[1]] Dai, R. (2021). The Random Energy Loss and Creation in a Nonexpanding Universe. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/45545428/The_Random_Energy_Loss_and_Creation_in_a_Nonexpanding_Universe
[[2]]Dai, R. (2026). Metaphysical Symphony, Book One, The Cracking Scientific Foundation. Amazon. 2026. Paperback ISBN: 979-8249046958, ASIN: B0GPPD2ZHM. eBook ASIN: B0GQX9G6TV.
[[3]]Dai, R. (2025). An Energy Dilemma Created When Quantum Physics Started. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/145680993/An_Energy_Dilemma_Created_When_Quantum_Physics_Started
[[4]]Viel, D.F. (2026). Photon Doppler Effect Doesn't Exist. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/165321534/Photon_Doppler_Effect_Doesnt_Exist
[[5]]Dai, R. (2026). Testing Doppler Effect of Light with a Pair of Mirrors. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/165465021/Testing_Doppler_Effect_of_Light_with_a_Pair_of_Mirrors
[[6]]Dai, R. (2026). Discord between Doppler Effect of Light and Photon Energy. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/165676666/Discord_between_Doppler_Effect_of_Light_and_Photon_Energy