Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading


PD wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
PD wrote:
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.


I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.


Tell us PD, what shift is observed by a freely falling receiver?
(That shift is 0 according to eveybody, perhaps not according to
you).

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The answer is simple: the Doppler blue shift gH/c^2 is exacty cancelled
by a redshift of -gh/c^2 due to the loss of energy of the photons as
they "overcome the gravitational attraction of the Earth?
Do you reject such answer? Why?

Marcel Luttgens

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.

Marcel Luttgens

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ... Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation ... frequency of the propagating photon change with height, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ... Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ... Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ... Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ... Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)