In the modern literature there is stated that according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, massive objects like black holes distort space and time, which both magnifies the light and forces it to travel on a different path than it would otherwise — this is known as gravitational lensing. These effects are claimed to be observable and have been documented. The problem arises - Does gravitational lensing really prove general relativity?
Is this statement nowadays actual: "Gravitational lensing was one of the key techniques used to prove General Relativity. "In 1919, a solar eclipse was observable in some countries in the Southern Hemisphere and the Hyades star cluster happened to be in the same view range as the Sun.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/articles/gravitational-lensing
Dear Anatolij K. Prykarpatski ,
the lensing effect is also explainable with a variable refractive index of vacuum (as Eddington did in his famous book) or as a variation of the gravitational potential, which has, as a consequence, the variation of the speed of light in 3D euclidean space.
It is interesting in this regard to have a look at the interpretation of the experiment Shapiro about the time delay which includes also the phenomenon of bending of light.
Preprint SHAPIRO TIME-DELAY, Curved 4D space-time or Variable speed of light
The short answer is, No, because the lensing effect simply expresses the fact that spacetime isn’t flat. A ``refractive index of the vacuum" just uses different words that mean the same thing.
I have also introduced a refractive index for empty space near a massive object using special relativity theory. In this case, the beam of light is "refracted" rather than being "deflected" grazing the surface of a massive object like the sun.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bIIQ3IyfM1eDEwAgvuJWnKAES988Ou7m/view
https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Density-Alternative-Relativity-Mass-Charge/dp/147101066X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Dear Anatolij K. Prykarpatski
Everything that is changing in our universe is directly related to the structure of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field (QFT). Because the electromagnetic field represents energy and energy is change in position and time. The universal electric field is a 3D topological field so it is impossible to state that another imaginary field is super positioned on the universal electric field. Only distinct vector fields can be super positioned (vectors are 1-dimensional).
Now there is a conceptual problem because the force of gravity is also responsible for observable/detectable changes. If Einstein’s theory of General relativity isn’t a model but represents “ultimate reality” we have to solve the problem that there cannot exist 2 topological fields that occopy exactly the same volume. In the past meta-physicists had argued that the absence of a relation between 2 phenomena means that each phenomenon is not aware of the existence of the other phenomenon. A kind of reasoning that is part of mathematics since Cantor (set theory).
Unfortunately gravitational lensing is created by the electromagnetic field under influence of the gravitational force (the curvature of the trajectory of electromagnetic waves by the concentration(s) of matter, like e.g. galaxies). So there exists a mutual relation (we can exclude the idea of 2 topological fields "inside" the same volume). Einstein himself argued that curved spacetime doesn’t exist if there is no matter in the universe (Leiden lectures 1920). Eric Verlinde (2011) proved that Newtonian gravity is an emergent force field too, in line with Einstein’s opinion about the creation of the curvature of spacetime.
If we use logic instead of a blind belief in the text books we have to consider the idea that gravity is a vector force field that is created at the moment that a local concentration of energy forces a scalar of the flat Higgs field to decrease its magnitude (Higgs mechanism). It isn’t a strange spin off of high energy particle physics because the decrease of the magnitude of the gravitational vectors at increasing distance from a celestial body shows the same geometrical curvature as Einstein’s curved spacetime.
The consequence is that gravity is a vector force that is super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field in vacuum space (flat Higgs field). And because of the local decreased scalars of the Higgs field the gravitational vectors are felt as a push force from vacuum space around. In line with the experiments of Philip Tattersall and Louis Rancourt (shielding gravity with the help of a sheet of light; see their RG accounts).
In other words, it is resonable that the trajectory of electromagnetic waves that enters a strong gravitational field are influenced by the gravitational vectors. Because the universal electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields. If the vectors of the magnetic field are changed by the super positioned gravitational vectors the direction of the transfer of quanta will change too.
It is understandable that the description above will generate more questions than it solves. But that can be discussed.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Anatolij K. Prykarpatski ,
it is interesting the position of Maxwell which by the way with the expected energy density of vacuum is gaining credibility:
THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL
https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf
"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.
As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equiUbrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than
1/8pi *R2
where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.
The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.
As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."
Basically the ray bend when some energy is missing from the background due to the gravitational field...
It could said that GR is the best picture we have to explain this phenomenon, but it is not complete and is not consistent whit the rest of physic. For example is particullarly inconsistent with QM. There are another approximations to gravitation that are more consistent, for example the theory of Anatoly Logunov, but it is a theory partially developed. Is to say, to the present day we lack of the a fully consistent gravitation theory.
The problem with GR is the space-time curvature, because in a curved space is not fulfilled some fundamental principles of the physic, such as energy and momentum conservation. In fact, the Logunov's picture point out that the geometry of space-time is pseudoeuclidean and the gravity is a physic field such as EM field.
But the action of gravity on the interacting bodies can be represented as if these ones are moving in a curved space.
In the case of light bending by a massive object, in the GR approach, the energy and momentum of the beam-massive object system is not conserved. We need to develop a picture of gravity that can to solve this shortcomings.
Dear Stefano Quattrini
The quote of Maxwell is interesting. I am surprised by his opinion that negative energy doesn’t exist in space (“As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy.”). Because the qualification positive/negative isn’t absolute, it represents the choice of the “observer” to create a point of view.
Einstein’s E = m c2 shows that we only can create mass (a local surplus of energy) if we concentrate free energy, actually creating a deficit of energy around because of the local surplus of energy. If we choose to qualify the average energy density before the concentration as not positive, not negative (neutral) the act of concentration creates positive energy and negative energy in space (electric charge).
Nevertheless, the idea that the gravitational field is an energy field is fortunately outdated. Because a force is only understandable if it is the result of the action of vectors (a force has a direction and a magnitude). The whole idea of the non-locality of our universe is crazy if we propose that influence – force – is restricted to the constant speed of light (the transfer of the quantum of energy in vacuum space). Experiments have showed that this cannot be correct (Noble prize physics 2022).
I have included an image to underscore your last sentence (not part of Maxwell's quote).
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm ,
it is written "negative intrinsic energy", meaning negative definite.
Dear Stefano Quattrini
Of course, I agree with your interpretation of Maxwell’s opinion. However, Maxwell’s opinion is based on the limited conceptual framework of classic physics. The question of Anatolij K. Prykarpatski is about modern physics. The existence of the law of conservation of energy shows that every change in the local density of energy creates a positive and a negative “region” and both “regions” have a different position in space. Energy is constantly redistributed, without being created or dissolved. Thus at the end it seems that our opinion about positive or negative is the choice for a certain point of view.
Anyway, I suppose that there is enough information from all the answers to give Anatolij K. Prykarpatski the reasons to make a choice.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Anatolij K. Prykarpatski ,
the FGT is not GR but has the same prediction power...
Article Einstein's Geometrical versus Feynman's Quantum-Field Approa...
- Badges
- Science topic