Eckard, John M, Pentcho, Peter, Tom et al,
I enumerate here some reasons why I think there may be no time and energy by residents of Einsteiniana, both relativitists and anti-relativitsists to thoroughly examine Pound and Rebka's experiment which reports a reducing frequency as light falls, as theoretically predicted by Einstein but conversely ended up with the statement that frequency increases as light falls. In the experiment, the minus sign indicates that the frequency at the emitter is lower than that at the absorber. In the measurements taken, the minus sign was more when the emitter was at the bottom (-19.7) than when at the top (-15.5). Thus on the "Difference of averages" light frequency at the bottom was lower than at the top of the tower by - 4.2 (see Table 1), corrected for temperature - 5.13. This compares well with the theoretically predicted - 4.92. However, either due to what Pentcho calls sloppiness or deliberate sleight of hand, the minus sign indicating that frequency at the bottom of the tower is lower than at the top, i.e. a redshift with clocks running slower nearer the source of gravity was changed overnight to a positive sign by dividing the -5.13 found in the experiment by the -4.92 predicted by Einstein, and using the words "as expected" to catch the undiscerning unawares of what had just been done to enable the statement "... the frequency increases in falling,...". In comparing the -5.13 found with Einstein's -4.92, what ought to be done is to deduct the experimental from the theoretical and stating that "...the result agrees with the predicted value as -4.92 +/- 0.04, as expected".
If there is a conspiracy theory, here are possible motives for the different parties:
(1). The experimental findings that on the "Difference of averages" light frequency at the bottom is lower than at the top of the tower will support Einstein's contention that Section 4, p.903, "the velocity of light in the gravitational field is a function of the location".
(2). From Einstein's contention above, the velocity of light will reduce as light falls and approaches the source of gravity. Falling even to zero, if the source is a blackhole. This will violently conflict with photon/emission theory, as particles increase in speed as they fall. A rigorous and open review of Pound and Rebka's experiment will therefore bring up an inconsistency in the particle behaviour for light and may necessitate a recourse to the wave nature.
(3). A revisit of the wave nature may unwittingly lead to resurrecting the notion of a medium, which can interact gravitationally, an anathema to many in the mainstream.
(4). Since the height, h is the same for γ-rays going up or down and the findings suggest earlier arrival for light going up and later arrival for light coming down the same distance, the Special relativity postulate that velocity of light is constant between fixed source and observer will further lose whatever value may be remaining it, after Einstein's forecast, pg.89 that we can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena.
(5). Other phenomena, based on the assumption that photons have weight, such as the bending of light grazing the surface of a celestial body may come to be viewed as refraction in a medium due to a change in the speed of light.
(6). Light not demonstrating a particle behavior may lead to the photo-electric effect being re-visited with much loss of face.
(7). Light having a particle behavior has a crucial role in sustaining the foundations of Quantum theory. Anything that discredits the particle picture will affect the monumental investments in time and energy by Quantum mechanics in wave-particle duality theories and the quintessential two-slit experiment used to justify it. These in turn have given birth to new businesses like EPR paradox, proofs and disproofs of Bell's theorem, etc.
(8). Since aether is not a matter-medium that can be gravitationally bound nor its density gravitationally enhanced near a celestial body, aether advocates and other anti-relativitists are either unconcerned that relativitists are contradicting themselves or are ready to be willing accomplices since their motto is "an aether or nothing else can take its place".
Given, the widely acclaimed importance of Pound and Rebka's experiment as one of the classical tests of general relativity, nothing contained therein must be swept under the carpet if we desire to reach a final theory.
Regards,
Akinbo
