What is the relationship between relativity and the Doppler effect?Relativistic Doppler effect derivationRelativistic Doppler Effect compared with Classical Doppler EffectThe Equivalence principle of General Relativity and the Doppler EffectDoppler effect via reflectionDoes Doppler Effect violate Galilean relativity?Spectral lines and the Doppler effectTransverse Doppler effect (classical)What is the difference between these formulas? (Doppler effect)Doppler Effect and RelativityWhat is this connection between clocks and the Doppler effect?Doppler Effect and Speed relativity

How could a scammer know the apps on my phone / iTunes account?

I got the following comment from a reputed math journal. What does it mean?

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Official degrees of earth’s rotation per day

How difficult is it to simply disable/disengage the MCAS on Boeing 737 Max 8 & 9 Aircraft?

Do I need life insurance if I can cover my own funeral costs?

Is it true that good novels will automatically sell themselves on Amazon (and so on) and there is no need for one to waste time promoting?

New passport but visa is in old (lost) passport

What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?

Instead of a Universal Basic Income program, why not implement a "Universal Basic Needs" program?

Employee lack of ownership

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

Is it insecure to send a password in a `curl` command?

Why does overlay work only on the first tcolorbox?

The German vowel “a” changes to the English “i”

How do you talk to someone whose loved one is dying?

This word with a lot of past tenses

How are passwords stolen from companies if they only store hashes?

What is the adequate fee for a reveal operation?

Happy pi day, everyone!

Brexit - No Deal Rejection

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

What exactly is this small puffer fish doing and how did it manage to accomplish such a feat?



What is the relationship between relativity and the Doppler effect?


Relativistic Doppler effect derivationRelativistic Doppler Effect compared with Classical Doppler EffectThe Equivalence principle of General Relativity and the Doppler EffectDoppler effect via reflectionDoes Doppler Effect violate Galilean relativity?Spectral lines and the Doppler effectTransverse Doppler effect (classical)What is the difference between these formulas? (Doppler effect)Doppler Effect and RelativityWhat is this connection between clocks and the Doppler effect?Doppler Effect and Speed relativity













4












$begingroup$


My sister just watched this video about space contraction (Spanish), and asked me if this is related to doppler effect.



In the clip they also introduce the idea that a bat would be affected by similar effects when measuring an object's length, due to the time it takes for sound to propagate.



I told her that:




Doppler effect is about alteration of the perceived frequency of a
signal produced by the relative movement between transmitter and
receiver. The quoted video is about relativity, which is a "deeper" effect.
Maybe doppler effect can be understood as the effect of relativity on
a wave phenomena.




Now I'm wondering about her intuition. If she's right, should I be able to take a sin function, apply a Lorentz transform to it, and arrive to same results as with the doppler formula? Unfortunately, the maths are beyond my skills.



Can someone shed some light about the relation between doppler and relativity, if any? Can be doppler effect explained by relativity/Lorentz alone?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
    $endgroup$
    – Chair
    3 mins ago















4












$begingroup$


My sister just watched this video about space contraction (Spanish), and asked me if this is related to doppler effect.



In the clip they also introduce the idea that a bat would be affected by similar effects when measuring an object's length, due to the time it takes for sound to propagate.



I told her that:




Doppler effect is about alteration of the perceived frequency of a
signal produced by the relative movement between transmitter and
receiver. The quoted video is about relativity, which is a "deeper" effect.
Maybe doppler effect can be understood as the effect of relativity on
a wave phenomena.




Now I'm wondering about her intuition. If she's right, should I be able to take a sin function, apply a Lorentz transform to it, and arrive to same results as with the doppler formula? Unfortunately, the maths are beyond my skills.



Can someone shed some light about the relation between doppler and relativity, if any? Can be doppler effect explained by relativity/Lorentz alone?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
    $endgroup$
    – Chair
    3 mins ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$


My sister just watched this video about space contraction (Spanish), and asked me if this is related to doppler effect.



In the clip they also introduce the idea that a bat would be affected by similar effects when measuring an object's length, due to the time it takes for sound to propagate.



I told her that:




Doppler effect is about alteration of the perceived frequency of a
signal produced by the relative movement between transmitter and
receiver. The quoted video is about relativity, which is a "deeper" effect.
Maybe doppler effect can be understood as the effect of relativity on
a wave phenomena.




Now I'm wondering about her intuition. If she's right, should I be able to take a sin function, apply a Lorentz transform to it, and arrive to same results as with the doppler formula? Unfortunately, the maths are beyond my skills.



Can someone shed some light about the relation between doppler and relativity, if any? Can be doppler effect explained by relativity/Lorentz alone?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




My sister just watched this video about space contraction (Spanish), and asked me if this is related to doppler effect.



In the clip they also introduce the idea that a bat would be affected by similar effects when measuring an object's length, due to the time it takes for sound to propagate.



I told her that:




Doppler effect is about alteration of the perceived frequency of a
signal produced by the relative movement between transmitter and
receiver. The quoted video is about relativity, which is a "deeper" effect.
Maybe doppler effect can be understood as the effect of relativity on
a wave phenomena.




Now I'm wondering about her intuition. If she's right, should I be able to take a sin function, apply a Lorentz transform to it, and arrive to same results as with the doppler formula? Unfortunately, the maths are beyond my skills.



Can someone shed some light about the relation between doppler and relativity, if any? Can be doppler effect explained by relativity/Lorentz alone?







special-relativity waves doppler-effect






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 4 mins ago









Chair

4,39072241




4,39072241






New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









jjmontesjjmontes

1214




1214




New contributor




jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






jjmontes is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
    $endgroup$
    – Chair
    3 mins ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
    $endgroup$
    – Chair
    3 mins ago















$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
$endgroup$
– Chair
3 mins ago




$begingroup$
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/61946
$endgroup$
– Chair
3 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

The ordinary Doppler effect is independent of relativity; it's basically just a fact of kinematics. It's not even really a wave phenomenon; it also applies to particles. For example, the Doppler effect explains why your car windshield gets wetter faster when you're driving than when you're parked.



The formula for the Doppler effect is
$$f_o = fracv - v_ov - v_s f_s$$
where $f_o$ is the observed frequency, $f_s$ is the source's emitted frequency, and $v_0$ and $v_s$ are the velocities of the observer and source. These are absolute velocities; they have to be defined with respect to the medium, e.g. the air for a sound wave. Relativity adds a correction to this formula because both the source and the observer will experience time dilation, so we should really have
$$gamma_0 f_0 = fracv - v_ov - v_s gamma_s f_s.$$
This is a very small correction assuming the speeds are small.



When people talk about the relativistic Doppler effect, they usually mean the Doppler effect for light waves specifically, with full relativistic corrections. Light waves are exceptional because they have no medium, so we aren't tied to a specific frame. It's instead more convenient to go to the observer's frame, where we naively have
$$f_o = fracc - v_rc f_s$$
where $v_r$ is the relative velocity. Relativity corrects this formula in two ways. First, velocities don't quite add linearly, so $v_r neq v_o - v_s$ in general. Second, we have to remember the time dilation factor for the source,
$$f_o = fracc - v_rc gamma_s f_s = sqrtfrac1 - v_r/c1 + v_r/c f_s.$$
There is no time dilation factor for the observer, because we're in the observer's frame, where they are at rest. This last formula is what people usually call "the relativistic Doppler effect", but again it's pretty close to the nonrelativistic result as long as $v_r ll c$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$

    There is a Doppler effect even without Special or General Relativity, just arising from Galilean relative motion. For example, neither of these theories is necessary to explain the fact that the pitch of an ambulance siren changes as it passes by.



    However, relativity does have to be taken into account when calculating the Doppler effect for a fast-moving object or one in a strong gravitational field. In other words, there are relativistic corrections to the Doppler effect.



    If you use a Lorentz transformation to derive the Doppler effect, you will get the right answer for any velocity, but you won’t get the Doppler effect for a gravitational field.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      jjmontes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466848%2fwhat-is-the-relationship-between-relativity-and-the-doppler-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      7












      $begingroup$

      The ordinary Doppler effect is independent of relativity; it's basically just a fact of kinematics. It's not even really a wave phenomenon; it also applies to particles. For example, the Doppler effect explains why your car windshield gets wetter faster when you're driving than when you're parked.



      The formula for the Doppler effect is
      $$f_o = fracv - v_ov - v_s f_s$$
      where $f_o$ is the observed frequency, $f_s$ is the source's emitted frequency, and $v_0$ and $v_s$ are the velocities of the observer and source. These are absolute velocities; they have to be defined with respect to the medium, e.g. the air for a sound wave. Relativity adds a correction to this formula because both the source and the observer will experience time dilation, so we should really have
      $$gamma_0 f_0 = fracv - v_ov - v_s gamma_s f_s.$$
      This is a very small correction assuming the speeds are small.



      When people talk about the relativistic Doppler effect, they usually mean the Doppler effect for light waves specifically, with full relativistic corrections. Light waves are exceptional because they have no medium, so we aren't tied to a specific frame. It's instead more convenient to go to the observer's frame, where we naively have
      $$f_o = fracc - v_rc f_s$$
      where $v_r$ is the relative velocity. Relativity corrects this formula in two ways. First, velocities don't quite add linearly, so $v_r neq v_o - v_s$ in general. Second, we have to remember the time dilation factor for the source,
      $$f_o = fracc - v_rc gamma_s f_s = sqrtfrac1 - v_r/c1 + v_r/c f_s.$$
      There is no time dilation factor for the observer, because we're in the observer's frame, where they are at rest. This last formula is what people usually call "the relativistic Doppler effect", but again it's pretty close to the nonrelativistic result as long as $v_r ll c$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$

















        7












        $begingroup$

        The ordinary Doppler effect is independent of relativity; it's basically just a fact of kinematics. It's not even really a wave phenomenon; it also applies to particles. For example, the Doppler effect explains why your car windshield gets wetter faster when you're driving than when you're parked.



        The formula for the Doppler effect is
        $$f_o = fracv - v_ov - v_s f_s$$
        where $f_o$ is the observed frequency, $f_s$ is the source's emitted frequency, and $v_0$ and $v_s$ are the velocities of the observer and source. These are absolute velocities; they have to be defined with respect to the medium, e.g. the air for a sound wave. Relativity adds a correction to this formula because both the source and the observer will experience time dilation, so we should really have
        $$gamma_0 f_0 = fracv - v_ov - v_s gamma_s f_s.$$
        This is a very small correction assuming the speeds are small.



        When people talk about the relativistic Doppler effect, they usually mean the Doppler effect for light waves specifically, with full relativistic corrections. Light waves are exceptional because they have no medium, so we aren't tied to a specific frame. It's instead more convenient to go to the observer's frame, where we naively have
        $$f_o = fracc - v_rc f_s$$
        where $v_r$ is the relative velocity. Relativity corrects this formula in two ways. First, velocities don't quite add linearly, so $v_r neq v_o - v_s$ in general. Second, we have to remember the time dilation factor for the source,
        $$f_o = fracc - v_rc gamma_s f_s = sqrtfrac1 - v_r/c1 + v_r/c f_s.$$
        There is no time dilation factor for the observer, because we're in the observer's frame, where they are at rest. This last formula is what people usually call "the relativistic Doppler effect", but again it's pretty close to the nonrelativistic result as long as $v_r ll c$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          The ordinary Doppler effect is independent of relativity; it's basically just a fact of kinematics. It's not even really a wave phenomenon; it also applies to particles. For example, the Doppler effect explains why your car windshield gets wetter faster when you're driving than when you're parked.



          The formula for the Doppler effect is
          $$f_o = fracv - v_ov - v_s f_s$$
          where $f_o$ is the observed frequency, $f_s$ is the source's emitted frequency, and $v_0$ and $v_s$ are the velocities of the observer and source. These are absolute velocities; they have to be defined with respect to the medium, e.g. the air for a sound wave. Relativity adds a correction to this formula because both the source and the observer will experience time dilation, so we should really have
          $$gamma_0 f_0 = fracv - v_ov - v_s gamma_s f_s.$$
          This is a very small correction assuming the speeds are small.



          When people talk about the relativistic Doppler effect, they usually mean the Doppler effect for light waves specifically, with full relativistic corrections. Light waves are exceptional because they have no medium, so we aren't tied to a specific frame. It's instead more convenient to go to the observer's frame, where we naively have
          $$f_o = fracc - v_rc f_s$$
          where $v_r$ is the relative velocity. Relativity corrects this formula in two ways. First, velocities don't quite add linearly, so $v_r neq v_o - v_s$ in general. Second, we have to remember the time dilation factor for the source,
          $$f_o = fracc - v_rc gamma_s f_s = sqrtfrac1 - v_r/c1 + v_r/c f_s.$$
          There is no time dilation factor for the observer, because we're in the observer's frame, where they are at rest. This last formula is what people usually call "the relativistic Doppler effect", but again it's pretty close to the nonrelativistic result as long as $v_r ll c$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The ordinary Doppler effect is independent of relativity; it's basically just a fact of kinematics. It's not even really a wave phenomenon; it also applies to particles. For example, the Doppler effect explains why your car windshield gets wetter faster when you're driving than when you're parked.



          The formula for the Doppler effect is
          $$f_o = fracv - v_ov - v_s f_s$$
          where $f_o$ is the observed frequency, $f_s$ is the source's emitted frequency, and $v_0$ and $v_s$ are the velocities of the observer and source. These are absolute velocities; they have to be defined with respect to the medium, e.g. the air for a sound wave. Relativity adds a correction to this formula because both the source and the observer will experience time dilation, so we should really have
          $$gamma_0 f_0 = fracv - v_ov - v_s gamma_s f_s.$$
          This is a very small correction assuming the speeds are small.



          When people talk about the relativistic Doppler effect, they usually mean the Doppler effect for light waves specifically, with full relativistic corrections. Light waves are exceptional because they have no medium, so we aren't tied to a specific frame. It's instead more convenient to go to the observer's frame, where we naively have
          $$f_o = fracc - v_rc f_s$$
          where $v_r$ is the relative velocity. Relativity corrects this formula in two ways. First, velocities don't quite add linearly, so $v_r neq v_o - v_s$ in general. Second, we have to remember the time dilation factor for the source,
          $$f_o = fracc - v_rc gamma_s f_s = sqrtfrac1 - v_r/c1 + v_r/c f_s.$$
          There is no time dilation factor for the observer, because we're in the observer's frame, where they are at rest. This last formula is what people usually call "the relativistic Doppler effect", but again it's pretty close to the nonrelativistic result as long as $v_r ll c$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 5 hours ago

























          answered 6 hours ago









          knzhouknzhou

          45k11122218




          45k11122218





















              2












              $begingroup$

              There is a Doppler effect even without Special or General Relativity, just arising from Galilean relative motion. For example, neither of these theories is necessary to explain the fact that the pitch of an ambulance siren changes as it passes by.



              However, relativity does have to be taken into account when calculating the Doppler effect for a fast-moving object or one in a strong gravitational field. In other words, there are relativistic corrections to the Doppler effect.



              If you use a Lorentz transformation to derive the Doppler effect, you will get the right answer for any velocity, but you won’t get the Doppler effect for a gravitational field.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                2












                $begingroup$

                There is a Doppler effect even without Special or General Relativity, just arising from Galilean relative motion. For example, neither of these theories is necessary to explain the fact that the pitch of an ambulance siren changes as it passes by.



                However, relativity does have to be taken into account when calculating the Doppler effect for a fast-moving object or one in a strong gravitational field. In other words, there are relativistic corrections to the Doppler effect.



                If you use a Lorentz transformation to derive the Doppler effect, you will get the right answer for any velocity, but you won’t get the Doppler effect for a gravitational field.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  There is a Doppler effect even without Special or General Relativity, just arising from Galilean relative motion. For example, neither of these theories is necessary to explain the fact that the pitch of an ambulance siren changes as it passes by.



                  However, relativity does have to be taken into account when calculating the Doppler effect for a fast-moving object or one in a strong gravitational field. In other words, there are relativistic corrections to the Doppler effect.



                  If you use a Lorentz transformation to derive the Doppler effect, you will get the right answer for any velocity, but you won’t get the Doppler effect for a gravitational field.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  There is a Doppler effect even without Special or General Relativity, just arising from Galilean relative motion. For example, neither of these theories is necessary to explain the fact that the pitch of an ambulance siren changes as it passes by.



                  However, relativity does have to be taken into account when calculating the Doppler effect for a fast-moving object or one in a strong gravitational field. In other words, there are relativistic corrections to the Doppler effect.



                  If you use a Lorentz transformation to derive the Doppler effect, you will get the right answer for any velocity, but you won’t get the Doppler effect for a gravitational field.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 6 hours ago

























                  answered 6 hours ago









                  G. SmithG. Smith

                  8,98611427




                  8,98611427




















                      jjmontes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      jjmontes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      jjmontes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      jjmontes is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f466848%2fwhat-is-the-relationship-between-relativity-and-the-doppler-effect%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

                      Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"

                      inputenc: Unicode character … not set up for use with LaTeX The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEntering Unicode characters in LaTeXHow to solve the `Package inputenc Error: Unicode char not set up for use with LaTeX` problem?solve “Unicode char is not set up for use with LaTeX” without special handling of every new interesting UTF-8 characterPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character ² (U+B2)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. acroI2C[I²C]package inputenc error unicode char (u + 190) not set up for use with latexPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char u8:′ not set up for use with LaTeX. 3′inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeX with G-BriefPackage Inputenc Error: Unicode char u8: not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ́ (U+301)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. includePackage inputenc Error: Unicode char ̂ (U+302)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. … $widehatleft (OA,AA' right )$Package inputenc Error: Unicode char â„¡ (U+2121)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX. printbibliography[heading=bibintoc]Package inputenc Error: Unicode char − (U+2212)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode character α (U+3B1) not set up for use with LaTeXPackage inputenc Error: Unicode characterError: ! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char ⊘ (U+2298)(inputenc) not set up for use with LaTeX