Faster than Light

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

Falling towards the gravity source always implies INCREASE in speed and frequency (this is more than obvious so to claim the opposite is tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5):

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."

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho,

Thanks for engaging in this dialectic and for the references.

Yes, 2+2 will equal 5, if light is assumed to be an object and not a wave. Objects fall, waves are propagated.

"...a falling object will increase ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING". I fully agree.So I fully agree with "WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT" if, and only if, light is also an object. The question is, is light falling or is it propagated? That is why I am challenging you to prove to me that light is an object, then we will be on the same page. I already used the machine gun (emitter) and bullet analogy to show light behaviour is different from that of an object when an earth-based observer and emitter are moving but stationary to each other.

Do you agree that gravity slows light transit? If you do, the more the gravity, then the more the slowing of light transit?, and light may even 'stand still' in the extreme gravity of hypothesized black holes.

Apart from photo-electricity what other evidence do you have that light is an object?

RE: "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."

Does gravity increase the Period or reduce the period? That is, is it escaping or entering a gravitational field that results in time dilation?

With these, I hope to persuade you to give the wave picture a more favourable consideration over emission theory.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

You claim that, as the light falls towards the source of gravity, its frequency decreases (redshift). The rest of the world, both relativists and antirelativists, claim that the frequency increases (blueshift). And this is not a matter of opinion - the increase in frequency has been measured countless times.

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho, Akinbo,

May we really consider gravitation as an effect of falling in a homogeneous field? While I prefer considering light a wave, I will try and find an equivalent description in terms of photons. Imagine a bundle of photons continuously propagating with constant velocity towards a center of gravity. Doesn't the shrinking width of this bundle correspond to an increased number of photons measurable at a closer to the center, e.g. of the earth, area of the same size? This may illustrate the increase of frequency measured by Pound and Rebka without an increase of c.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho, Eckard,

I will get back with a more comprehensive reply.

Pentcho,

There is a ambiguity on this topic in the relativity and anti-relativity community and I will get appropriate literature to buttress my position. You will see the ambiguity when you google the topic. In the meantime meditate on the following. I am not asking for answer.

What does clock run slower in a gravitational field mean? Do stronger fields have faster or slower running clocks? Is a gravitational field stringer near its source or further away taking cognizance of the inverse square law?

When a clock at infinity in the gravitational field falls to earth, does the clock run faster or slower? Does clock run slower mean, increased or decreased frequency?

Regards,

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

"There is a ambiguity on this topic in the relativity and anti-relativity community and I will get appropriate literature to buttress my position. You will see the ambiguity when you google the topic."

There may be some sloppiness in dealing with the sign of the potential term phi in c'=c(1+phi/c^2) and f'=f(1+phi/c^2) but, insofar as the physical picture is concerned, there can be no ambiguity: As light falls towards the source of gravity, its frequency INCREASES in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2), where phi is POSITIVE.

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

As a layman in this topic I nonetheless feel now convinced that you are correct on that frequency increases when light propagates toward a source of gravity. I don't question Einstein's equation (2) on p. 901. However his equation (3) on p. 903 is certainly misleading.

In all, I guess Einstein's 1911 paper already anticipates his much more difficult to read GR, and it seems to me that it's main idea is correct even if SR is perhaps questionable.

Eckard

Akinbo Ojo

Pentcho, Eckard et al.

First I am surprised that Pentcho can call the interchangeable use of +/- sign, the interchangeable use of proper time and coordinate time, sometimes in the same papers and sometimes substituting these with "time measured by a remote observer and "time measured where the gravitational potential is С„". This is not sloppiness but sometimes the sleight of hand which Pentcho knows quite well is rampant in Einsteiniana. An observer can only measure the time where he is, at other places he can only infer what the time is. Anyway, let me leave that issue for now and post what I had earlier intended before seeing Pentcho's suggestion that we should overlook the way +/- is used which has prompted this preamble.

-------------------------------------------------

*My original post.

I have a few references demonstrating the ambiguous interpretation of the influence of gravity on light frequency in Einsteiniana. These I can post later. But as this will not resolve the issue as they may be deemed selective since there are counter references in Einsteiniana, I decided to post this first so that we can reason in Steps 1-3 together and make sure 2+2 does not equal to 5 as Pentcho frequently says, taking one step at a time.

Step 1). Let's have a switch we can move left or right to reduce or increase the Earth's gravity respectively

- в†ђ O в†' +

If gravity is increased, what happens to light frequency on Earth? That is, does it increase (blueshift) or is it reduced (redshift)?

Step 2). On a mountain, is gravity higher or lower than in the valley?

Step 3). From 1) and 2), if light is beamed from the mountain top to the valley, what will happen to its initial frequency at the top as it descends?

Divine Albert himself did not help matters mathematically although he was clear in other places on what he had in mind. For instance in Eq.(1a),:

which can be written E1 = E2 (1+С„/C2)

since С„ is -GM/r

with E2 the energy from a source, S2 at a higher gravitational potential arriving at S1, it follows from his own equation that given С„ is -GM/r (which MINUS sign IS what actually makes the gravitational potential at S2 HIGHER than at S1), that E2 > E1. The minus sign is not negotiable or interchangeable with a Plus sign.

But 'Divine Albert' says the energy E1 arriving at S1 is greater than the energy E2, measured by the same means, which was emitted from S2. From that Eq.1a, can this be mathematically correct?

As another example, see "For measuring time at a location which, relative to the origin of the co-ordinates, has the gravitation potential С„, we must employ a clock which - when transferred to the co-ordinate origin - goes (1 + С„ /c2) times more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-ordinates". What is the difference between 'origin of coordinates' and 'origin of coordinates''?

The following references may however help us decipher what Einstein was pondering over despite the confusion:

[link:www.gutenberg.org/files/36276/36276-pdf.pdf]"the rate of a clock is accordingly slower the greater is the mass of the ponderable matter in its neighbourhood", p.97 and "We therefore conclude that spectral lines which are produced on the Sun's surface will be displaced towards the red, compared to the corresponding lines produced on the earth, by about 2вЂў10^-6 of their wavelengths..."[/link], both on p.97.

Best regards and happy weekend.

Akinbo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

"I don't question Einstein's equation (2) on p. 901. However his equation (3) on p. 903 is certainly misleading. In all, I guess Einstein's 1911 paper already anticipates his much more difficult to read GR..."

The equation (Einstein took it from Newton's emission theory) is:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2)

and it cannot be "misleading" but can be wrong of course. One would expect the 1915 final version of general relativity to give the correct equation but that is not the case - there Einstein offers the absurdity:

c' = c(1 2gh/c^2)

which says that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling matter.

Einsteinians know that the 1915 equation is absurd and teach that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field:

c' = c

although this is not the general relativity result. There is no reaction in the scientific community because nobody cares.

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

To avoid the common interchangeable use of symbols in Einsteiniana, I assume Pentcho's c' = c and his c = co, which corresponds to the equation (3).

Before the equation, we see the statement that... for a clock at "the co-ordinate origin"...times goes more slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the "origin of co-ordinates". As I mentioned in an earlier post there is need to clarify the ambiguity between the co-ordinate origin and origin of co-ordinates. Nearly everyone seems to agree that gravity slows clocks as I did not see any dissent to the poser I raised on this. Therefore at infinity in the gravitational field, clocks run faster.

Therefore, Pentcho's c' is the velocity at a location with the gravitation potential ф, while his c is the velocity in free space far from gravity.

Akinbo

Pentcho Valev

"Therefore, Pentcho's c' is the velocity at a location with the gravitation potential phi, while his c is the velocity in free space far from gravity."

No, Akinbo, this is somewhat misleading. Let us stick to the setup of the Pound-Rebka experiment: c is the initial (relative to the emitter) speed of light emitted downwards by the top of the a tower of height h, and c' is the speed of the light as measured by an observer/receiver on the ground:

c' = c(1 gh/c^2) (emission theory, Einstein 1911)

c' = c(1 2gh/c^2) (general relativity)

c' = c (what today's Einsteinians teach)

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo Ojo

Okay, to avoid confusion even though I think it is better to use GM/h2 in place of g (maybe we use that later after clearing this point) and r in place of h:

What Einsteinians teach and what Divine Albert says as I have shown on my posts do not correspond in many places and amount to misinterpreting Albert. And you have not volunteered an answer to my query of how gravity affects clocks because this would have made things clearer. Nevertheless, from the equations you post and to avoid mixing up + and -, let me assume without conceding that they are correct:

Both c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) or c' = c(1 + 2gh/c^2) (emission theory, not Einstein 1911 who uses ф/c^2 more), with c as the initial (relative to the emitter) speed of light emitted downwards by the top of the a tower of height h, and c' is the speed of the light as measured by an observer/receiver on the ground indicate that what you claim that light speed increases as it falls will hold and in addition frequency will increase (blueshift). How consistent is this picture even within emission theory given that for a photon, E = hf ( E is energy, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency). When a particle is at a higher gravitational potential, its energy is higher and as it falls it loses energy. Although I am not trying to force you to change your emission theory, your particle is rather gaining energy as it is falling. Which is where we need to be mindful of how the + and - sign is used. If you look at what Einstein says concerning the reducing effect of gravity on frequency (clocks) and what Pound and Rebka stated, I believe it is a typo given that they set out to buttress Einstein you see a contradiction that clocks move faster as they approach the source of gravity.

For Eckard, who knows a lot but claims to be a layman, when you take g as GM/r2 and escape velocity on a planet as 2GM/r, what the equation simply means is that [Velocity of light on a planet]2 = [Velocity of light in free space]2 - [Escape velocity on planet]2.

Regards,

Akinbo

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

As I didn't expect him to do, Einstein did of course not credit Newton for gh/c2 but quoted his own Ann. d. Phys. 17, p. 913-914, 1905. There I found only different equations with minus v/c.

It is indeed confusing that there are several coefficients to gh/c2 that seem to be mutually contradicting each other: plus or minus, 2, 1, or even 0.

I would like to trust in the observed deflection of light toward a mass, i.e., seeming deflection away from it (lensing).

A mistake in theory by a factor two did not surprise me.

I do also not exclude that the experiment by Pound and Rebka suffers from a wrong interpretation that was not yet revealed. My belonging ideas were shots in the dark. I consider Akinbo's question justified: Are there further and newer experiments on the issue?

Einstein finally wrote (p903): "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to the theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity." While he was a PhD and a Professor, he had no teaching obligations, and Eddington reportedly asked Silberstein for the third person understanding his theory. Michelson did not believe Einstein.

Eckard

Pentcho Valev

Akinbo,

Some taking on faith is unavoidable - one has neither the time nor the energy to check everything. So I don't question the results of the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments as they are given in the literature (but may question the interpretations of course). This is not fatal for a discussion - one can always reason deductively, e.g.

"Let us ASSUME that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct. Then..."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard,

"It is indeed confusing that there are several coefficients to gh/c2 that seem to be mutually contradicting each other: plus or minus, 2, 1, or even 0."

Yes relativity is inconsistent but this is its strength, not weakness. Try to find and read Peter Hayes' paper (here is an excerpt):

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho,

"In the early years after Einstein's theory was published, Sir Arthur Eddington lent his considerable prestige in the British scientific establishment in an effort to champion the work of this German scientist. Because the theory was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein,[17] during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is. - Wikipedia"

Errare humanum est. Provided a tenet is understandable to a sufficient number of independently thinking experts, then it rarely turns out being so correct as desired but also rarely as incorrect as feared. Nature is always correct.

Eckard

John Merryman

Pentcho,

That is quite interesting. I've long thought that in the future, it will be the psychologists who have a field day with the whole spacetime paradigm, while the physicists will try to pretend it never happened. That the reality is that evident and yet it persists says so much about crowd psychology and the power of indoctrination. Given the strength of religions, nationalisms, ideologies, etc, this is overwhelmingly evident, yet science is supposed to be objective and clear headed. It doesn't seem logic can overcome tradition very easily, so I guess it's a matter of waiting until the patchs can no longer cover the holes, not matter how fantastical. A long time ago, I had hopes the Hubble Telescope would show the universe to be far older than theory could accommodate, but they still shoehorn it all in. Here's to hoping the James Webb will see the shadows of ever more distant galaxies in that background radiation.

Epicycles 2.0

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

Pentcho, John M,

I prefer easily understandable arguments and dislike mere speculations.

Eckard

John Merryman

Eckard,

While Pentcho's link didn't specify why clocks are an issue, I don't have problems with varying clock rates, but rather with the spacetime explanation for them. As I keep pointing out, time is due to the changing configuration of what is, ie, future potential becoming past residual, rather then Einstein's effort to modify Newton's intuitional flow from past to future and ending up with blocktime. So each clock is its own action, in its own context and will record change according to conditions.

If time were really a vector from past to future, then the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. It ages/burns/processes faster and so moves into the past more rapidly.

As points of perspective, we simply experience time as a sequence of events and physics further reduces this to blank measures of the process of change, ie, duration, but duration doesn't transcend the present state. It is the dynamics of what occurs between the occurrence of the measured start and stop events.

As an effect of change, it is similar to temperature, not space. It is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

What makes it asymmetric is the physical inertia of the process on which it is based.

Regards,

John M

Eckard Blumschein

"It's worth emphasizing that the Sagnac effect is purely a classical, not a relativistic phenomenon" and "a pure Sagnac apparatus does not discriminate between relativistic and pre-relativistic theories (although it does rule out any conceptually coherent ballistic theory)" and "quite problematic for any non-relativistic ether-based interpretation".

Read my endnotes as to see that non-relativistic does not necessarily mean pre-relativistic, and my definition of the speed of light is not ether-based.

While I appreciate that the MathPages are easily understandable, this does not mean that I will accept the arguments they uttered.

To Peter J: (copied from http://mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm)

"Lorentz's letter also included a rough analysis of the amount of deflection that would be expected due to ordinary refraction in the gas surrounding the Sun. His calculations indicated that a suitably chosen gas density at the Sun's surface could indeed produce a deflection on the order of 1", but for any realistic density profile the effect would drop off very rapidly for rays passing just slightly further from the Sun. Thus the effect of refraction, if there was any, would be easily distinguishable from the relativistic effect."

While MathPages is strongly biased and omits here the question of constant c, it is nonetheless easily understandable and provides important details.

Eckard

John Merryman

Pentcho, Akinbo,

An interesting consideration might be as to what gravity is. Rather than simply an effect of mass, what if it is an effect of radiation turning into mass? We are all well aware that when mass turns to energy, it creates pressure, since that's what has powered human industry, so wouldn't the reverse process create a vacuum, as the equivalent mass occupies far less space than the matching energy?

Then consider why light seems to contract, ie, blueshift and clocks run slower, in a stronger gravity field, since gravity would not simply be an effect on the light, but an effect of the light starting the process.

Given the current assumption is that it's a curvature of 'spacetime,' with all its conceptual baggage, it might be something worth examining to see how all the various effects and measures might fit.

Regards,

John M

« Previous Page Next Page »