Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Jul 2006 14:07:59 -0700
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: okun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, selivano@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail: valentine.telegdi@xxxxxxx
Excerpt:
"ABSTRACT
The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.
On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.
We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."
This proof falsifies Einstein's view:
Excerpt:
"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.
I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.
PD
For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".
Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.
The photon doesn't propagte. Its light does.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
That is why the Mossbauer
experments are intepreted as changes in nuclear resonance.
R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
accurate measurement with Snider.
Just consider that the moving masses in the atoms have to
follow more curved paths near the planets surface and that
robs the oscillation of energy, reducing its frequency.
Then you don't get into all the causality issues created by
propagation effects that are patently absurd.
Sue...
Marcel Luttgens
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: tha still wrongness of relativity
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
- Previous by thread: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
- Next by thread: Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
