Photons follow null geodesics. Their trajectory is determined both by the timelike and spacelike parts of the metric. In contrast, the "Newtonian" trajectory for a photon would only be governed by the timelike part of the metric; the spacelike part would play no role. This is the reason why, in general relativity, the predicted bending of light is twice that which would be predicted in a Newtonian theory.

Dear Toth

If we looked to the problem from another side. The null geodesics is relative to us and not relative to photons. because if the photons observe a null geodesics they won't be bent. My question is what the photon really encounter during their path is it space curvature or time curvature or both. Your answer is according to what we observe. The observation don't give the real reason, it gives an indication on what's going on but it doesn't give the reason of the phenomenon.

Sadeem: geodesics are not "relative" to anybody. They are relativistic invariants. All observers agree on the geodesic structure of a spacetime.

"All observers agree on the geodesic structure of a spacetime"

That's true for all observers, just for photons the matter is different because the light wave don't suffer from frequency change only suffer from space bending. I think we all agree that the change in frequency of the observed waves in different gravitational potential is due to observers clock rate affecting, but no one said the frequency of the light wave is really changed, otherwise the GR equations must be changed.

Mozafar and Aleksei have given complete and correct answers.

In Periodic Relativity theory, both space and time are imaginary concepts. They do not have physical existence but they exist only in human minds. In periodic relativity bending of light is calculated by bending the energy wave. This happens due to the component of the gravitational acceleration which causes the rotation of the velocity vector about an axis which is perpendicular to the plane of motion. This axis of rotation is parallel to the angular orbital momentum vector h.

Article Periodic relativity: Basic framework of the theory

Dear all

From the view of GR and SR that's right. But the singularity at the speed of light should not prevent us from keep asking. If we stopped asking our knowledge will be frozen. I simply want to trigger thinking in the subject. GR and SR always take the subject from the view of classical and non zero rest mass particles. But there is a missing ring which is the view of photons. No one dear to think about it. I think the photons have their own frame, even if we still cann’t describe it, but at least we can predict what's going on in these velocity ranges. Or at least evaluate the equations of null geodesics.

I will return to the equation of null geodesics. As its well known light is bending near massive objects, Why? One may say the gravity curves the space time and light is following the geodesics, Ok that’s fine. Now How the GR deals with that? The GR assumes null geodesics and express the bending of light by saying light is following the space time curvature, Now the null geodesics is true for SR, but I doubt it’s applicable with foundation of gravity. I know you say the results are so close to experimental, but if we can express a better form of gravity using a better metric then the formulation will be more compatible with Q.Mec. as SR is. The null geodesics actually involves neglecting what happens in between the points of space time. By taking small intervals of course your results will be close to experimental, but if any one tries to sum using wide intervals s/he will get a clear anomaly from experiments. So the null geodesics is only an approximation that is applicable in short ranges of space time only.

Dear Sadeem,

Personally I have stopped accepting relativity theories as a frame for cosmological conclusions, see me recent work:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264357957_Why_relativity_theories_cannot_serve_as_a_cosmological_paradigm

If you read it, you will find that what we, quietly, live now is the End of Physics, like the End of History (F. FUkuyama, 1989,1994) and I do agree with you that "If we stopped asking our knowledge will be frozen."

Yes, the End of Physics: Everything are well done, except from some minor little-problems:

Of course I do not wait to start discussing about new theories... since everything is so fine done...

PS And of course I do not wait to be accepted by professionals in GR books writing...

Article Why relativity theories cannot serve as a cosmological paradigm

Dear Bykov 

You can cheque by yourself with any expert in GR. 

Dear Mozafar

In photons there is no rest frame. As you said you can't assume SR or GR applicable at speed of light due to singularity in trasformations. I meant singularity in trasformations from the first comment its by defualt. 

According to Albert Einstein himself in his "MEANING OF RELATIVITY" (I prefer to follow him rather that other's interpretations), the bending of light trajectory is explicable only through the SPACE-TIME curvature due to the interaction between the masses and the SPACE-TIME fabric. In this way he calculated the curvature of light as a function of masses distribution which is in most cases a faithful representation of the stress energy-momentum tensor. The gravitational potential is an approximation of the stress energy-momentum tensor outside massive objects. It is responsible   of time and length variation and unifies the effects of gravity and inertia. The Schwartshild metric represents a good approximation of the GR metric outside the masses and can be used as well to predict the light bending. Any Newtonian gravitational attraction of photons has simply to be discarded, and wasn't ever mentioned in the GR book of Einstein.

Hello, Sadeem,

Thank you for starting the blog. Causatively, there is no connection (yet) between gravity, other energies of the Universe, and space-time.

The origin and formation of Gravity has been totally unknown, for instance, how it is created, how it relates to the other energies. All of the present models that I am aware of, including Einstein’s, start with gravity. Thus in their models, gravity is non-causative and its true property and evolution cannot be derived.

I did apply my knowledge of crystallization to model the formation of particles from the pre-Big-Bang energy-singularity and to the formation and decay of the Universe. Unforeseen, the model led causatively to the discovery that gravity is anti-energy. I just published the manuscript on my site on ResearchGate. The title is:

Here is the link to the manuscript. As a physicist, you should not have much difficulty to follow the modeling. You can down-load the manuscript and study it for yourself. Maybe, it can help you in your studies.

’ Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and the Evolution of Gravity’

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264339506_Formation_of_the_Universe_as_a_Crystallization_Process_and_the_Evolution_of_Gravity?ev=prf_pub

Cheers, Ingo

Article Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and t...

To clarify: relativity theory is indeed applicable to photons. However, photons have no "rest frame". There is no Lorentz transformation that would take a coordinate system in which the photon is moving at the speed of light to a coordinate system in which the photon is sitting at rest. For this reason, it is not very meaningful to talk about things from the photon's perspective. Another way of looking at it is that at v = c, the Lorentz transformation becomes degenerate; what this means is that from the photon's point of view, past, present and future collapse into a single instance of time. (As far as the photon is concerned, no matter how far it travels, it arrives at its destination at exactly the same instance as it left its point of origin. The photon's time coordinate collapses into a single point.)

The question was about the photon's trajectory and what influences it: spatial curvature or space-time curvature. This question really only makes sense if we specify a rest frame; typically, this would be the rest frame in which the gravitational field itself does not change (i.e., the rest frame of the star that is bending the photon's path). Otherwise, if an arbitrary coordinate system is used, we can always transform spatial components of the metric into timelike components of the metric and vice versa. So what is "spatial" for one observer will be "spacetime" for another observer, but they are really describing the same thing using two different coordinate systems: the geodesic structure of spacetime, specifically null geodesics along which photons travel. And this structure is independent of the choice of observer or coordinate system.

As I said above, there is no rest frame associated with the photon. However, you can associate rest frames with ultrarelativistic observers who are moving at speeds very close to the speed of light. These observers would also see the same set of geodesics as any other observer, they'd just use a different set of coordinates to describe them.

Dear Mozafar and  Bykov

Dear all

Thank you for your comments

I think there is misunderstanding to my comment about non applicability of GR and SR on photons, I meant you can't assume a rest frame of photons as these theories assume for other particles. This is not the main point of this question.

If you have non singular transformations then you can talk about the photons frame. If I'm talking about photon frame, the transformations are not reversible as its in SR. In other words the moving observer can't be assumed stationary one and vice versa. I already derived a non singular transformations you can cheque in my publication on research gate. The difference between the new theory (time of events theory) and SR is: time dilation is found due to any movement relative to the dynamic space time so its not only a relative issue between two observers. In the new theory you can't assume the stationary observer a moving one as in the transformations of SR, in other words the transformations can differentiate between a moving observer and a stationary one. Accordingly you can't assume a rest frame for photons in such theory, because the choosing of the moving and stationary observers are not reversible. 

I want to return to the null geodesics, specially the last comment of Prof. Toth.

"This question really only makes sense if we specify a rest frame; typically, this would be the rest frame in which the gravitational field itself does not change "

If you want to work on a theory that describes the space time geometry without any needing to follow the space time curvature in short intervals, just choose the right metric. This can make the problem easier in description. Let me give you an example if you have a road that can be described by certain equation with good precision and also can be described by giving random points on it what's more effective to choose?

I think the good precision equation is more effective. That's exactly what GR is doing its follows the points of the geodesics, because it assumes the null geodesics for photons. While choosing non null geodesics could gives better description to metric and accordingly give an equation that describes the geodesics with no need to assume short intervals in applying the GR equations.

The "bending" of light can be derived entirely from time dilation.  Spatial curvature is not needed.  See 2011 Shuler - "Isotropy, Equivalence and the Laws of Inertia" section VII. Light Bending.  http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/203-7-pdf-robert-l-shuler-jr-isotropy-equivalence-and-the-laws-of-inertia.html (full text available on my RG profile)

The falling of light is another matter.  Just this morning I have come to realize that the apparent remotely viewed "bending" of light has two components, falling plus bending.  Now GR enthusiasts will immediately say the falling part is due to spatial curvature.  Since GR allows arbitrary coordinates, this is hard to dispute.

@Shuler: "Now GR enthusiasts will immediately say the falling part is due to spatial curvature"

Strange view. A GR enthusiast would rather say the bending part is due to spatial curvature and the falling part is due to the equivalence principle.

Sadeem,

Further clarification: The question that you have posted is based on Einstein’s decision to paste gravity on mass, and of suggesting that this bends space. Basically, Einstein did not know where gravity comes from and why it works as it does. There is a simpler and more fundamental answer.

First, the measurement of double the deflection of photons by the Sun is not a theoretical, but an experimental result. The theoretical derivation is based on the use of the speed of light for photons. However, the simplest explanation is that photons have twice the gravity compared to particles containing the same energy.

This suggestion is supported by the causative derivation that gravity is anti-energy (see URL below). This negates Einstein’s approach. The gravity = anti-energy model still causes mass and gravity to be permanently bound.

As a result, the question of ‘does the bending of light describe the curvature of space-time or the curvature of space relative to photons?’ is outdated and mute. Anyway, thank you for your GR-model caused question. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264339506_Formation_of_the_Universe_as_a_Crystallization_Process_and_the_Evolution_of_Gravity?ev=prf_pub

Cheers, Ingo

Article Formation of the Universe as a Crystallization Process and t...

Dear all

I think the equivalence principal is only a local sign of space time curvature. So we can't just say; Oh the light is bending due to equivalence principal. But the problem is the GR is so localized that their metric are only local metric unlike SR which its metric can be generalized on the whole space time.I think this leads to these contradictions in interpreting the bending of light phenomenon. 

Dear all, the equivalence priciple I think has to be profoundly reviewed being impossible to use it for light, since light does not gravitate.

Dear all

I want to ask a question, which is close to this thread:

Is the bending of light represents a localized effect like equivalence principal or its only appeared at long ranges of space time?

Dear All,

I have followed this discussion with great interest, particularly since the Einstein law for light deviation in a gravitational field has been poorly investigated and confusingly explained.

I think Sadeem should be complemented for raising the question in defiance of light’s response to gravity and its physical interpretation.

The problems emerge when the argument of the Equivalence Principle is applied to photons. The Principle essentially states that free fall and inertial motion are physically equivalent. In more detail, one distinguishes between the weak, the Einstein and the strong equivalence principles, the latter incorporating all effects from free fall to universal features of general relativity.

Here the most flagrant violation notably sticks out, i.e. that the bending of a light ray in an accelerated box will be half as large as the bending in a box at rest in a gravitational field.

The standard explanation, often given, is that the “second half” of the bending comes from the amount of space curvature, notwithstanding the fact that this space curvature should already be a consequence of the (strong) Equivalence Principle.

To me the simplest way out of this conundrum is to formulate the general physical problem as a secular like operator equation in terms of energy and momenta (cf. the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations), adjoined with the conjugate operators in terms of time and position. The interconnected form, of the space-time- and matter-momentum formulation, therefore, in principle includes the specific tensor traits of gravitational interactions, see my RG page for more details

The physical interplay between the conjugate partners automatically takes care of the space-time “dependence”. This imparts the Schwarzschild gauge, the Einstein laws of general gravity etc., all in commensuration with the strong equivalence principle.

The formulation in its simplicity yields Einstein relativity (note however that the “physical” interpretation becomes quite different allowing both quantum operator and classical variable representations) and thus gives a non-contradictory theory for the presently discussed light deflection in a gravitational field as well as the perihelion motion of the planet Mercury (in agreement with experiments).

Although a massive collection of inconsistencies and mistakes made in this area, has been pointed out and examined, see e.g. A. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1924) and J. L. Synge, Relativity, The General Theory (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam,1960) even Einstein himself made mistakes in his derivations, see also Hans Ohanian, Einstein’s Mistakes, W.W,. Norton & Company (2008), the general consensus appears to be that Einstein was to all intents and purposes essentially correct.

Dear Brandas

"The interconnected form, of the space-time- and matter-momentum formulation, therefore, in principle includes the specific tensor traits of gravitational interactions, see my RG page for more details"

Can you refer these papers more specifically. 

Thanks

Dear Sadeem,

I have sent you separately one of my recent papers on the subject.

Best

erkki

The principle strong of equivalence (EEP) is valid where there is no curvature (Einstein). Where there is curvature is impossible to eliminate it (Logunov) therefore EEP does not applies . And where there is no curvature EEP is not valid (author, see http://www.cirjap.com/ojs/index.php/jap/article/view/66N/pdf_45)

 We really think that two free falling object don't feel curvature at all??

Just because they don't feel acceleration they should not feel curvature??

Dear Gomez 

Is this a special case or can be considered as a general one?

Dear all

There are some issues that are related to this question are discussed in other questions. 

One of them the relation between the equivalence principal and bending of light. There is one interesting paper by Rafael Ferraro which is referred previously by Robert this is its link

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0209028.pdf

the paper simply states that "the bending predicted by the equivalence principle is fulfilled in general relativity and other alternative metric theories of gravity"

But there is something that puzzled me at the end of the paper which is written before equation (20)

"so the deflection angle after a small displacement ∆x is

φ ≃ gc−2∆x ,   (20)"

 The point I want to discuss on the light of this note, that some of the researchers and professors stated that bending of light needs a large distance to be recognized in comparison with equivalence principal while the latter is locally appeared. The paper stated that the deflection is happened after small displacement. This means that the bending of light is also occurred at a scale of some locality. 

Sadeem,

Back to your earlier statement:

... That's true for all observers, just for photons the matter is different because the light wave don't suffer from frequency change only suffer from space bending. I think we all agree that the change in frequency of the observed waves in different gravitational potential is due to observers clock rate affecting, but no one said the frequency of the light wave is really changed, otherwise the GR equations must be changed.

Aleksei then commented:

... There is no "actual" changement of frequency, because it can be changed in one cooridnate system and constant in another...

In fact, doesn't each observer detect photons of specific actual wavelength that has been physically determined by the gravitational contraction of spacetime that it has traversed? Each observer simply detects different photons, emitted from the same source, whose wavelength is actually distinct from the wavelength of photons observed by others whose frame of reference differs...

I can't comment on the mathematics, but I think that each observer's frame of reference does determine the physical wavelength of light (photons detected) that they observe.

Dear Sadeem,

Thanks for providing the Ferraro paper! I agree with you that it is puzzling regarding the scales involved in the discussion. It is indeed an interesting contribution, but it is nevertheless not very convincing to me.

First Ferraro is using an approximation to the Schwarzschild solution (Ø(r) small). He appears to have switched the components of the static metric, but it does’nt seem to influence his end result.

Second the strategy used amounts to estimating the bendings as separate contributions from the spatial and temporal parts of the metric and then comparing the results. It does not become clear in this portrait, why the force felt by a non-zero rest mass particle would be different from light as both "particles" are subject to the same gravitational field.

In my own work I make use of the exact Schwarzschild gauge, see paper enclosed separately. From this follows the Einstein laws including light bending, perihelion of Mercury etc. as direct consequences of the formulation without any approximations of the metric as well as efforts to separate contributions from the temporal and the spatial parts. Einstein’s time delay and the gravitational redshift follows, however, one should note that the interpretation is here completely different from the features of the special theory.

James we are agree with you, there is no difference with that.

Dear Erkki J. Brändas

until now I couldn't get the paper.

Dear Erkki J. Brändas

Thank you so much, I will read it as soon as possible.

Sadeem,

Hmm, I must be misunderstanding these declarations then, because "... but no one said the frequency of the light wave is really changed..." and "... There is no "actual" changement of frequency" seem to contradict the statement that each observer detects photons from a single light source whose frequency is actually different from the photons detected by other observers.  The frequencies of the light are physically different for each observer!

Physically different due to clock delay of the higher gravitational potential observer.

The frequency perceived changes, according to space-time curvature. This is what was affrimed by Einstein in his GR book and what was later affirmed by LEV OKUN in his gravitation, photons and clocks.

from the equivalence principle which applies locally higher curvature means higher delay

Then I do say that 'the frequency of the light wave is really changed'.

Dear James it's really changed relative to observer. I think you misunderstood me when I said that the frequency of light is not changed relative to the light wave frame itself. That's what I meant. The wave frame frequency is not changed, but the observers only detect different frequency due to differences in their clock rates in different gravitational potentials.

Dear Sadeem,

Thanks for explaining.  I don't really understand the context of the 'light wave frame' in regard to the frequency of light, or the 'wave frame frequency'.

More to the heart of your question, while time dilation may be considered separately from length contraction (which produces the effect of spatial curvature) in evaluations, can time dilation ever really occur in the absence of length contraction - or vice versa? I understood that the two effects are inseparable in general relativity...

Dear James,

time shift and lenght sihft have to be considered when there is different curvature of ST between two reference systems, but light does not feel time at all, (it  follows a null geodesic), only matter feels it. The conversion factor of lenght is the same for light and matter, while the conversion factor of time is present for matter and identically 1 for light. This is the reason why time dilation factor is so important and determines the "apparent" frequency shift of light..

Regards.

Dear James

as Stefano Quattrini commented before, for matter they are inseparable but for light time represents the limit that you can't cross over. This is logical until now, but I also can conclude it from the derived equations of time of events theory, Its there on my research gate profile.

Dear Stefano,

The gravitational redshift of detected EMR photons is definitively a physical, not just 'apparent' or illusionary phenomena - the photons' frequency is physically altered as it traverses length contracted, time dilated spacetime.  Gravitational redshift is imparted to light not just at the detector's location, but at its emission source. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2009 for example.  Emission source gravitational redshift is necessarily the result of physical change to the frequency of light, as there is no other remote 'clock signal' transmitted - it is not the product of any metaphysical 'spooky action at a distance'.

It seems that even the differential gravitational frequency shift (slightly greater nearer the source of gravitational potential) of a propagating wave obliquely traversing a strong gravitational field must also contribute to its curvature...  This has been predicted and definitively observed for long wavelength EMR - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Light_travel_time_delay_testing - and their references.

According to somebody authoritative like Lev Okun and J.A.Wheeler, the gravitational Redshift is only based on the clock hypothesys, light does not gravitate, As also shown from the experimental evidence of the gravity probe A.

Article NASA GP-A REVIEW UPDATED VERSION

Stefano,

I did not dispute that time dilation is the cause of physical changes to light's frequency. I dispute your repeated assertion that the frequency changes are merely 'apparent' to an observer and somehow not actually changed.

That light is curved by strong gravitational fields - as predicted by GR - is evidence that it can be be affected by and responds to the effects of gravity.

I think Stefano meant the frequency of light does not change from the frame of light itself and that's true if he meant it. Because the light wave frame has no extra time dilation above what both observers (emitter and receiver) already suffering from. But light is affecting by gravity through bending following the space curvature.

Dear Sadeem, James and Charles,

light is affected by the curvature of the space-time and this is not under discussion. The curvature of the space-time is provoked by confined energy  and interacts with other curvatures generated in the same way.  The gravitational filed in itself is a result of the interaction between curvatures displaced on 3D space. Light is time independent and being not localised is not a source of a curvature. That light does not gravitate is proved also in the experiment GP-A review, you can find attached. It is not possible to exert a "classical force" on light. Two ways are possible according to my opinion for bending light:

a) the energy-momentum of light emerges only when detected (quantum physically) , then time also emerges. Light follows the null geodesics naturally in the space-time, it curves without the need of any "force". It can be regarded as a quantum physics  effect (like the electrons moving in atoms but not emitting radiation).

b) the Space time acts as a Whole on the light beams, like an infinite massive and rigid guide exerting a sort of a "quantum force", the way no energy is exchanged during the curvature of the beams. This can be classified like another "quantum physics" effect of the space-time. This saves the momentum conservation.

You are invited to find a third.

It's is by now impossible for me to conceive that gravitation "attracts" light, or part of the light bending is due to the equivalence principle. This was what the first Einstein before the GR theory thought, after he made a quantum leap from which it is very hard to step back.

Article NASA GP-A REVIEW UPDATED VERSION

Article "SPEED OF CLOCKS IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD" A FEYNMAN’S LECTU...

I had a look.

Einstein in 1907 formulated the equivalence priciple: "we assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corrisponding acceleration of the reference system".  The main Einstein argument is that I cannot notice the difference between the effect of a static gravitational filed and a dynamic acceleration in empty space, if I'm in a black box. But if into the box I carry two atomic clocks displaced one on top of the other in the gravitaitional field, I can notice that there is a delay between them (curved space time). In case of a mechanical acceleration in a flat space time according to the clock hypothesys (STRESS TENSOR) , since there is no difference in curvature, there is no possibility of difference in the clock rates.

I suppor the Synge's idea:"The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but… I suggest that the midwife be now buried with appropriate honors and the facts of absolute space-time faced".

Charles is right. He saved me time.

There is no drect effect of "acceleration" on the clock rate whatsoever.  The clock rate is determined by the curvature OF THE SPACE-TIME which, in the Schwarzschild metric of GR, is the gravitational potential. This is the tested clock hypothesys experimetally verified, I don't mind about conjectures.

The curvature is not  at all the gravitational potential, you are right I expressed me in a unproper way, but in the schwartshild metric it depends strictrly on it.

Lev Okun and others in their paper, you can find attached, clarified many aspects. What emerges from the link you proposed (also in the list below) is  that photons lose or gain energy interacting with gravitational field. It is  according to Okun's and J.A Wheeler point of view, a big mistake. This is reinforced considering  the interpretation of the results of the GP-A experiment.

https://www.researchgate.net/go.Deref.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Frqgravity.net%2FTheEquivalencePrinciple%23TheEquivalencePrinciple

Article Gravitation, photons, clocks

Charles in your link there is a mention about photons which lose energy in a gravitational filed, which is incorrect. "The change in frequency of radiation in a gravitational field is known as gravitational redshift. It can also be understood as a loss of energy due to a gravitational potential"

So it's not the case  to write; "  It can also be understood as a loss of energy due to a gravitational potential" . Okun says that photons do not gravitate, everything depends on the clock hypothesys and on how the atoms behave at different gravitational potential.

Dear Charles

The problem with GR is it evaluates the physical phenomena of gravity from the view of classical observers. Light is not a classical observer; so when any one interpret the bending of light as due to what classical observers see of time dilation and clock rate changing, this is actually not an explanation. This is only a guess of GR, because it can't describe what really light see when it's moving in a gravitational field from the view point of light.

The problem is even if the worked equations in GR fits the experimental data, but from the physical point of view if something happened in quantum mechanics we don't interpret it as it happened due to observations of a classical observer, we put an explanation first from the view of these micro particles then we transfer the phenomenon to classical frames through the probability language. In GR I note the reverse is happened we interpret what's happened to the quantum particles like photons according to what the classical observers see. This type of explanation misses the cause and effect, what causes what? Is light bending is happened due to the clock rate changing of classical observers watches or in fact light bending is describing the origin of what classical observers really see at their frames?

I think that observers do not in any sense cause light to bend.  The properties of photons detected by any observer are determined by the large scale characteristics of the spacetime those photons traversed - from their emission source to their detection destination.

Dear James 

"I think that observers do not in any sense cause light to bend"

I didn't say that nor mean it. This is over simplification of the matter.  I will restate it in another words:

Usually the bending of light is explained using time dilation and space curvature. How GR concluded that time dilation is affecting light? through what happened to clocks of classical observers in a gravitational field. Do you think this is a logical explanation!!

generalizing what occurs to classical observers on quantum particles that are propagated at a limit speed c!

I think this is not logical at all.

There is a physical explanation to bending of light and GR is over simplify it by assuming what happened to classical observers is applied also to light which has the speed limit!

TIme dilation is an effect of the SPACE-TIME curvature too. Einstein in his book "The meaning of Relativity" calculated the deflection of light in terms only of the variable speed of light which is strictly derived from the curvature of ST. Only after Einstein's Death the variable speed of light was investigated experimentally with the Shapiro Delay and confirmed.

Dear Sadeem,

You do say:

generalizing what occurs to classical observers on quantum particles that are propagated at a limit speed c!

I think this is not logical at all.

I think that the curvature of light is a physical effect imparted to perpetually propagating EM waves that effectively traverse spacetime at the relativistic limit and even, to a lesser extent, to relativistically accelerated particles such as electrons and protons that traverse vast distances of spacetime {including cosmic 'rays').

The effects of GR physically imparted to light that has traversed spacetime at astronomical scales of distance are not imposed by the interpretations of local observers - even though relativistic effects also minutely affect local observations.

As I understand, these physical effects are not the products of quantum scale particle-particle interactions.

Personally, I suspect that the equations of GR (energy–momentum tensor) used to describe its effects physically describe an unidentified contraction of (some aspect of) vacuum energy that directly corresponds to GR's spacetime coordinates. I also suspect that virtual particles are an abstraction imposed on the effects of this energy imparted to imaginary quantum particles - so that they can be considered in the context of quantum theory. These minute effects (of vacuum energy), systematically applied over vast distances at high energies, produce the well-observed effects of GR.

I also suspect that GR effects that can be described by time dilation alone could just as well be described by length contraction - as they are both aspects of the same geometric effects imparted to spacetime coordinate systems. Unfortunately I'm not capable of fully evaluating, mathematically demonstrating or explaining in any detail, however...

IMO, there is a strong tendency for quantum theorists to consider that quantum theory is complete and that GR should be fit into its fundamental precepts. I think that, instead, quantum theory describes the interactions of condensed matter fields and requires extension to adequately describe the spacetime of the intervening vacuum. I think that gravity and GR are not fundamental 'forces' or interactions of condensed matter but the effects of residual, non-condensed vacuum energy.

I think the effects of GR are quite logical unless one attempts to force them into the precepts of existing quantum theory...