Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
LIGHT FALLS LIKE ANY MATERIAL BODY: IMPLICATIONS FOR RELATIVITY?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 25, 2013, 3:46:55 AM5/25/13
to
http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
The assumption that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:
http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/lectures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Consider the following argument:
If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Is the above argument valid? In order to answer the question, one could use the important result dc/dh=g/c deduced here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."
Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v
where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."
http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."
The assumption that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment:
http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/lectures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Consider the following argument:
If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies like the speed of any material body, then, in gravitation-free space, it varies with the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Is the above argument valid? In order to answer the question, one could use the important result dc/dh=g/c deduced here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."
Integrating dc/dh=g/c gives:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
Equivalently, in gravitation-free space where a rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g, a light signal emitted by the front end will be perceived by an observer at the back end to have a speed:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v
where v is the speed the observer has at the moment of reception of the light relative to the emitter at the moment of emission. Clearly, the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
May 25, 2013, 12:01:23 PM5/25/13
to
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2). On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well."
This implies that, in the earth frame (or in an equivalent accelerating frame, in gravitation-free space), the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light, in accordance with Newton's emission theory:
c' = f'L = f'(c/f) = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)
where L is the wavelength.
Pentcho Valev
Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2). On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well."
This implies that, in the earth frame (or in an equivalent accelerating frame, in gravitation-free space), the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light, in accordance with Newton's emission theory:
c' = f'L = f'(c/f) = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)
where L is the wavelength.
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages