A very interesting question whose subtlety escaped me until just the other day.  It is, I believe, related NOT to the direction (in this case vertical) of propagation, but to the distinction, if any, between zero rest mass and massive particle propagation, which is also evident in propagation in the tangential direction.

(A parenthetical note: tangential propagation doesn't remain that way, but immediately begins moving into the radial, making comparisons based on equivalence setups and "falling" light rays practically useless.)

So the related question I found was, are the following two paths the same, and if not exactly what is the difference in a simple configuration that I can understand:

The second reference also gives Weinberg's derivation of geodesics from equivalence, which suggests that #1 and #2 above should approach each other in the specified limit operations.  If someone could explain simply how that works, it would be useful, or if not true, what does it mean exactly?

A massive particle clearly loses energy as it rises.  So the above question, regarding whether there is a fundamental difference in interaction with the gravitational field, is essential to answer first before addressing whether a photon gives up energy or the time dilation should be interpreted another way, which is what Stefano seems to be asking.

I apologize if my post seems naive to anyone.  Actually I have thought I understood this for many years, and the careful wording of Stefano's question just days after I encountered the geodesic puzzle has thrown me off balance.

  My opinion is that there is no gain or loss of  total energy of the radiation by the gravitational redshift. If one satellite (or the Moon) with height h0 wrt earth surface, emits or reflects monochromatic radiation with frequency f --, which arrives to the earth surface with frequency f, then from the energy conservation,  we have:

T--+U-- = T+U -> h f --- h f = U-U-- (f ---  f )/f -- =-gh0/c2

So,  f > f -- and indeed the electromagnetic energy that arrives at the earth surface is more than the electromagnetic energy that  have been emitted or reflected by the satellite. The phenomenon is  exactly  free fall, but instead of kinetic energy, there exist electromagnetic energy. I cannot think a way or a set of devices producing energy, based on this phenomenon.

Please have a look at the below link of previous discussion. The link has your answers, I believe.

Also, in most cases the energy gained and energy lost by a particle in climbing down and climbing up in a gravitational potential is the same and therefore compensated.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_to_photon_energy_as_the_universe_expands_and_photons_are_subject_to_the_cosmological_redshift/1

Vikash,

I once tried to explain the presence of the vacuum energy as it is right  now, and allows the QFT to work, as the energy of the primordial PLANCK photons which was captured by the spacetime framework and caused the fast expansion  which made them colder till the level of the CMBR which is supposed to be the relic radiation.

I got a value of the density of the energy which was well above the one predicted by GRT and well below the one predicted by QM, was in the middle...

The NASA report of the experiment of Vessot and Levine helped me to clarify if the frequency difference was attributed or not to the clock hypothesys. I found that I was due only to the clock hypothesys and that there was no room at all for any gravitational potential energy of photons which lose energy climbing out a graviatational field.

In any case the photon is very different from a massive particle, or rather there is a huge difference between bounded energy and free energy. The huge difference is testified by the presence of a science: quantum mechanics  based on the transformation between radiant to bounded energy and viceversa.

The presence of the wrong interpretation still in mind of many, is the sign which makes you understand the contradictions still present in a matter which had to be clear since the 70's.

Dear Robert,

the only one I found credible, among the very first minds  talking about this subject,  was Eddington who in the 40's left the problem open, if light as radiation had a weigth or not. He dedicated a chapter in his book of space time and gravitation about the "weight of the light" and said that it was not possible according to him to affirm, with the data at disposal , which one was  correct.

Experiments of the 60's and 70's confirmed the clock hypothesys (HK and VL) and confirmed the value of the gravitational Redshift as being the shift created by the clock hypothesys,  Eddington would be happy to make his choice.

The fact that this problem has been  in the air for most who still think that both are valid alternatives,  testifies a certain superficiality.  The impossibility to merge an incomplete theory of gravitation into Quantum electro dynamics is served.

The clock hypotesys explanation of the photon which excludes the gravitational potential of photons is also a blow to the Einstein Equivalence principle as formulated by him and used in the paper of 1911 in order to show that the photons redshifted. In that case the E EP was used in a non local fashion and in GRT the SEP is used instead in a local fashion, but has very important limitations.

It is peculiar that Vladimir Fock said that it was valid only for low speeds, if it was...it is not very hard to show that it is rigurously valid only when nothing moves.

“…The gravitational Redshift is a phenomenon which is directly related to the time dilation of the atomic clocks…”

- this phrase contains the principal flaw:

if one uderstands (unlike to the authors of the relativity theories) what is the time [and the space], (s)he undertstands also that there principally cannot be  any space/time/ spacetime “transformations”, including the “time dilation”.

When a changing of  the rate of internal  states’ changing in some material object, if this object is impacted by some external material force, indeed is possible – including a change of a clock's tick rate if it is impacted by gravity.

At that the impacted object could be not a usual clock, in any object its internal “tick rate” diminishes if the gravity potential grows, and increases if the potential is lesser then in previous position. That is a trivial consequence of the mass defect that occurs at any interaction if the binding energy is negative.

From what follows that the predicted by the GR “gravitational time dilation” isn’t correct, since from its prdicted value follows the gravitational mass defect value that is twice larger then the possible [and, of course, correct] “Newtonian” value.

From what – and from the Pound and Rebka experimental results – follows also that radiation, in this case photons, decrese/increase their energy when move between point with different gravity potentials (above – moving up or down in the PR experiments). In the PR experiments, because of instead of clocks the “radiating/ recieviong tools” were used the atoms, the observed effect “confirming the GR”  occurs just as the sum of the two effects above.

To make more clear this problem is enough to measure  the just clock tick rates in different ptentials directly, and such experiment is fairly simple and cheap  – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

1-2 $1 000 000 and the problem is closed…

Cheers

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

STEFANO,

When the electron leaves its orbit, is its mass the same or there a little bit loss in the mass, and also when the proton or the neutron leaves the nucleus, are their  masses the same or there are loss in the masses??? 

In gravitational field, same, If an object leaves gravity, there must be a loss in the mass, same as in atom...This is what called redshift.

Dear all,

I cited EDDINGTON and   Robert suggested (in private conversation) that I gave a precise account for it: page 103, WEIGHING LIGHT, from SPACE TIME GRAVITATION.

"But it was shown by experiments with the Eotvos torsion-balance that the ratio of weight to mass for uranium is the same as for all other substances; so the

energy of radio-activity has weight. Still even this experiment deals only

with bound electromagnetic energy, and we are not justified in deducing

the properties of the free energy of light."

"It is easy to see that a terrestrial experiment has at present no chance of

success. If the mass and weight of light are in the same proportion as for

matter, the ray of light will be bent just like the trajectory of a material

particle."

Stefano,

After that you prove my equivalence principle and photon mediates gravitation !!!! This is the consequence of the wave-particle duality. But Lorentz transformation not working in this case.

Stefano, thanks, however I'm having trouble finding it.  Using the 1920 version of the title at http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/eddington-space-time-grav.pdf the page numbers might be different.  However, I scanned the entire chapter for keywords like possible or disposal and could not find it.  Can you point it out in this version, or provide a link to the version you used?

Robert,

in the edition you have is at the bottom of page 102.

"Hitherto mass and weight have always been found associated in strict

proportionality. One very important test had already shown that this proportionality

is not confined to material energy. The substance uranium

contains a great deal of radio-active energy, presumably of an electromagnetic

nature, which it slowly liberates. The mass of this energy must be

an appreciable fraction of the whole mass of the substance. But it was

shown by experiments with the E¨otv¨os torsion-balance that the ratio of

weight to mass for uranium is the same as for all other substances; so the

energy of radio-activity has weight. Still even this experiment deals only

with bound electromagnetic energy, and we are not justified in deducing

the properties of the free energy of light."

and continues in 103.

Stefano,

Thanks!  I read this comment a bit differently than you do, and find Eddington's treatment overall quite lacking and not saying much of anything.  He titles the chapter "Weight of light" and after the paragraph you quote, goes on to say "If the mass and weight of light are in the same proportion as for matter, the ray of light will be bent just like the trajectory of a material particle."

After describing the details of the eclipse measurements, he states "The evidence of the Principe plates is thus just about sufficient to rule out the possibility of the 'half-deflection,' and the Sobral plates exclude it with practical certainty."

So, he has not directly come back to the question of light vs. matter.  One might be tempted to imply from the reference to half-deflection that Eddington is saying light weighs twice as much as matter (a state of confusion that plagued me for some time) which would outright violate equivalence, so I think it is safe to say that is not what Eddington means.  He simply does not address the deflection of matter under similar circumstances (e.g. particles traveling at near light speed).

He also seems to describe a "light falling" experiment on earth, points out why that is infeasible, and transfers the experiment to the sun where it becomes a bending not a falling experiment.  The difference is  huge.  Even at the surface of the sun, light initially traveling tangentially will soon pull away from the surface, since the surface turns away from the tangent much faster than light would fall.  Therefore we don't have ever the possibility of comparing the falling of light to some material object.

You mention bound EM energy.  I don't see a reason to treat it differently.  Do you have one?  

First, bound is a relative term.  All EM energy is bound in the universe, one might say.  

Second, if one looks at any of the matter-as-trapped-light theories such as Asif's or Zampino's (both linked below), it is apparent that it is most natural to let their behavior in a gravitational field be explained as one of bending of the trapped light.  That most naturally accounts for the identicality of the effect of gravity on light and matter (i.e. if matter is light and no separate effect is involved).  It also nicely allows us to identify time dilation geodesic bending with Newtonian falling, and spatial geodesic bending with the v2/c2 dependent term having to do with traveling through the  spatially affected space-time.

Research A model of the Electron Based on a Standing Electromagnetic Wave

Article De Broglie wave and electromagnetic travelling wave model of...

Electromagnetic field is one thing, the waves are quite different and They are a side effect of the transitories. Free energy or radiant energy is totally different than bound energy...The difference is testified by quantum mechanics.

Robert Shuler,

One might be tempted to imply from the reference to half-deflection that Eddington is saying light weighs twice as much as matter (a state of confusion that plagued me for some time) which would outright violate equivalence.

light weighs twice as much as matter that is only because he did the calculations according to the GR which is dealing with classical escape velocity and the strength of the gravitational field. But if he considered the relativistic escape velocity as in my fomula and  the redshift depending on the square of the Lorentz of factor during the motion in gravitational field as (1-GM/c^2r)^2 , in this case the result is light weighs as matter not twice. Test my theory and all calculations are exact. The problem is same the problem of when you compute the phase velocity and the group velocity in case nonlinear dispersion, in this case the classical velocity is given according to the group velocity not the phase velocity.

YOU SAID: It also nicely allows us to identify time dilation geodesic bending with Newtonian falling, and spatial geodesic bending with the v2/c2 dependent term having to do with traveling through the  spatially affected space-time.

I THINK THIS IDEA IS TAKEN FROM MY THEORY, BUT INSTEAD TRYING TO APPEAR IT AS IT IS MOVING ACCORDING TO CONTINUUM, BY HIDING THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE WHICH LEADING TO TRANSFORM FROM NEWTON'S FALLING TO spatial geodesic bending with the v2/c2  DURING THE FALLING. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS IDEA WITH MY THEORY ROBERT!!! ALL COPY RIGHT IS RESERVED! SINCE YEAR 1996.  

Robert and Stefano,

"The geodesic of a massive particle even in the case of limit as m→0 and v→c, given by gμν(dxμ/ds)(dxν/ds)=-1" or any sort of this "m→0" and "v→c" is fallacious and not convincing, since for light "v=c" not "v→c".  A photon starts at "c" and stops at "0" velocity obeying the law of energy-momentum conservation. When a photon "stops", it is no more a photon or it is photon with rest mass equal to its mass when it was moving with speed "c". It get surprised when I see a number of relativity books arriving at the equation well tested "E^2 = (PC)^2 + m^2C^" by this "m→0 and v→c" approach.  I have no idea of other approaches to get "E^2 = (PC)^2 + m^2C^" that does not follow "m→0 and v→c". 

I am still pondering over the photon-gravity interaction.  Is spin-gravity interaction an answer to the massless photon-gravity interaction? Does a photon create gravitational field because of its energy?  If yes, can we have "photonic  star" like "neutron star" and under what conditions?

A massive body can escape the gravitational field of a source when its velocity exceeds the escape velocity. And certain amount of work is done in doing so. Once the massive body is free, no more work is required to be done. In case of light, the photon travel at a constant velocity c and there is no such thing as escape velocity of light. But certain amount of work is required to be done in order to escape the gravitational field of the source. This work done is proportional to the energy loss of the photons. With respect to the wave particle duality, if photons are imagined as succcessive bullets fired along the direction of the ray, then as photons move away from the source, they lose their relativistic mass which is equivalent to their kinetic energy. This loss of kinetic energy is utilized in doing the necessary work for photon to escape (at constant velocity c) the gravitational field of the source. The

interesting part is that two successive photons must also have gravitational attraction between them. So as they lose their mass, the attraction between them also becomes less. This causes increased wavelength and reduced frequency of the light wave, which is perceived as the red shift. Once the photons escape the gravitational field of the source their relativistic mass, wavelength and frequency remain constant. For measurement of the light frequency you must keep your atomic clock stationary in the coordinate system of the source of gravitation. Therefore there is no need to talk about time dialation. This is also reasonable from the point of view that time is an imaginary concept and only provides a relative reference.

A travelling photon cannot “lose or gain energy to the gravitational field” because it is in free fall (its trajectory is a geodesic). Any object freely falling in a gravitational field does not feel the effect of the field. That is the essence of the equivalence principle.

 There is no essential difference between this question of gravitational frequency shift and the ordinary Doppler effect. These are just two aspects of the same phenomenon; light of frequency ν emitted by a source is, in general, received as light of a different frequency ν′ simply because the local inertial frame of the source and the local inertial frame of the receiver are different. Frequency is not a Lorentz-invariant it is the “time component” of a four-vector ki (the wave vector). Similarly, energy is not a Lorentz-invariant it is the “time component” of the energy-momentum four-vector pi. We have pi = hki and p′ i = hk′ i. Those two formulae refer to the emitted photon and the same photon when it is detected.  They are related by a Lorentz transformation.

Eric,

Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift are very different things : 

the Doppler effect  always implies an additional energy and momentum transfer which adds up or subtracts to the actual energy of the photon...

v1=v0[-beta/(beta+1)] if referred to the same RF, half of the Einstein moving mirror frequency shift in the reference frame of the emitter so that Delta E=-E0(beta/(1+beta)), referring all the quantities to the RF of the emitter.

The Gravitational redshift is something which does not imply any motion between the source and the observer and does not imply any additional energy transfer, the wavelength is preserved, the frequency is just perceived different, but the energy is the same. 

That gravitational redshift and the first order doppler effect provoke approximately the same frequency shift, given the acceleration, it is true, the ratio is infact (1+gh/c2), but this does not  imply that these are the same things. These are phenomena which compensated each other during the HT experiments  in order to make the upper receiver absorb the photons coming from the emitter below, being them same atoms (Fe). These phenomena compensate since globally obey the least action principle which prevents the infringement of the conservation laws accoring to the Noether theorem.

The gravitational redshift is based on how the same EM quantum is seen from different gravitational potentials, with no additional net energy transfer. 

The doppler shift in accelerated frame deals with how the electromagnetic energy of the force which provokes the acceleration of the frames, gets transferred back and forth (blueshift and redshift) from matter to radiation.

In one case the frequency shift is due to an energy and momentum shift of the travelling photons, in the other case is due to the shifted states of the energy and momentum of the atoms at different gravitational potential.

Dear Hariar,

"I am still pondering over the photon-gravity interaction.  Is spin-gravity interaction an answer to the massless photon-gravity interaction? Does a photon create gravitational field because of its energy?  If yes, can we have "photonic  star" like "neutron star" and under what conditions?"

Einstein borrowed from Riemann and  some others the idea of an hypermedium whose tension is the responsible of  the forces in 3D.  Gravitation is just a offspring of what this hypermedium does in reaction of the tension to the masses which are inside of it and determined by the Higgs field. For the least action principle , the tension exerted by the Hypermedium is such that the masses tend to approach if we follow the sequence of the ticks of a clock (time arrow).

I exclude that the photon is source of any local curvature hence no source of gravitation. The fields have a gravitational weight since they are associated to local energies. The outcome of the transitory of the EM filed, the photon,  might only have a gravitational wave associated with it.

In any case it is only the bound energy to give any kind of local curvature to the hypermedium: the ELECTROMAGNETIC fields (for the nucleus the YANG mills fields) refferred to specific fermions. The radiant energy is something different and the relations of the two is only  described accurately by QED.

Light  follows geodesics and though its trajectory is curved in presence of mass, it does not affect  the structure of the hypermedium while being guided through it.

Robert Shuler,

YOU SAID: It also nicely allows us to identify time dilation geodesic bending with Newtonian falling, and spatial geodesic bending with the v2/c2 dependent term having to do with traveling through the  spatially affected space-time.

You got this idea from my theory. I think I need a clarification for that, and it is my right as I'm the owner of this idea. 

All copy right is reserved.

Hi Sefano ~

I do not agree that “Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift are very different things”.

 It its most general form we have a single problem type:

 We have two trajectories (worldlines): that of the an emitter and that of a receiver. A photon with energy-momentum pi is emitted, and it is received as a photon with energy-momentum p′ i. The energy-momentum has been parallelly transported. The components of those 4-vectors are different because they are referred to two different (local) inertial frames, not because “something has happened to to photon” while in transit!

 There are two very special cases of this very general problem: (1) the pure Doppler problem in which spacetime is flat and one can argue that the change in energy/frequency is due relative velocity of emitter and receiver; (2) the purely gravitational effect in which emitting and receiving events are located at different positions in a gravitational field. In the general case such a distinction has no meaning.

Dear Eric,

"the components of those 4-vectors are different because they are referred to two different (local) inertial frames, not because “something has happened to to photon” while in transit!"

Ok at least there is agreement that nothing happens to the energy of the photon referred to the source while in transit in the case of  the gravitational redshift. Or rather the energy is  conserved not because partly gets stored as gravitaitonal potential energy but because the photons do not lose any.

Regarding the Doppler shift  of light, it is not so difficult to demonstrate instead, and you can see it also in a paper of American Journal of Phisics that the photon in the case of approaching emitter/observer rises its energy or lowers in the case of departing.

The conclusions of the 4 vectors are the same as the RDE or the LT but may be  misleading because they are suitable for inertial reference frames.

The LT or the 4 vectors momentum can be applied riguorusly only  in the case when there is not  radiation exchanged. Somebody may think that in the case of the RDE in principle there is no net energy transfer, but even in such case from simple calculations of the Einstein moving mirror it comes out that there is.

The RDE never occurs rigourosly because  the inertiality, which is a request of the RDE and LT, never occurs in presence of exchanged radiation.

I know that what I am saying sounds a bit strange but I think it is worth to take some time to be explained better if it is not clear..

Robert,

"First, bound is a relative term. All EM energy is bound in the universe, one might say."

yes it is bound because it does not have infinite speed, it is bound by the speed of light which is imposed by the HIggs field. But energy bound in matter or energy in nuclei, atoms or atomic bonds is relegated to stay in a finite space and is at rest .

 Azzam,

the problem is not only the relativistic speed in Itself , but the fact that the SCHW solution cannot be applied for free falling bodies because the geodesic motion of massive bodies in a gravitational field simply violates the energy conservation law, the geodesic motion can work only with massless entities.

Yes Stefano, you are right!!!

Here there must be a connection point between the location of the free falling bodies at a certain point in space in the gravitational field which depending on the gravitational potential at this point in space, and when the particle changes his position from this point in space in the gravitational  field because of  the effect of free falling. This connection point must related to the uncertainty principle, because here we are dealing with energy (gravitational potential) at a certain point in space at the gravitational field and the changing of the location of the object from the certain point in space in the gravitational field. Here if we want to consider time dilation where t' not equal to t. In this case space must be invariance but that is in contradiction with SCHW. 

The violation of energy conservation law is resulted  from the violation of the reciprocity principle in Lorentz transformation, when computing the proper time when we considering time dilation. in this case we consider the Lorentz length contraction in one side ( for one observer) and then we  ignoring the Lorentz length contraction in the other side (for the other observer), and after that we proposing the objectivity and continuity in the macro world implicitly, and that violates the reality in the reciprocity principle in the Lorentz transformation. The  objectivity and then the continuity and the reciprocity principle in Lorentz transformation are one thing. There is no objectivity and then no continuity without the reciprocity principle in Lorentz transformation.

To solve this problem. we must consider space is invariant, and we must look for a transformation considering space is invariant.

Because of that Lorentz transformation does not describe the physical reality well neither in gravity nor in quantum physics. 

A next time: if somebody understands – what are  space, time, and spacetime, this somebody immediately understands also that any material body, independently on – it has or not a rest mass, by any means cannot  transform, including “to curve”, the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime. And conversely -  the spacetime by any means cannot impact on material bodies and their interactions, including gravity; and, including – the spacetime by any means cannot  control motions of the bodies forming their so called “geodesics”.

As well as any photon moving in a gravitational field between points with different potentials losses/ obtains energy, practically as that happens with a brick when it moves between these points; though there is a difference – photon, in contrast to the brick,  doesn’t change its speed – that is impossible - and so changes its frequency. Just therefore in the Pound and Rebka experiments  mesured “gravitational shift” of nuclear levels of “radiating” and “receiving” 57Fe atoms was twice more then  its correct value.

Again, for those, who doubt in this evident fact, it is possible to make rather simple and cheap experiment , where the direct measurement  of the gravitational impact  on tick rates  of a pair of clocks in different points with different gravitational potentials could be made (see the RG link in the SS post on 1-th page).

 And  the result of this experiment will be twice lesser then predicted by the general relativity value – and quite naturally it will be equal to the real shift of energy levels of atoms in these points; just so Pound and Rebka had measured the sum of of those two effects

(the atoms level’s shift and the photons” frequence shift),

they obtained the “gravitational time dilation” “in accordance with the GR”.

Again – such experiment is rather simple and cheap, no more then 1-2 $millions – thausand time cheaper then, say,  the Gravity Probe 2 experiment and  handreds cheaper then, say,  LISA pathfinder mission, when, in contrast to these actions, it has quite certain result that has quite certain interpretation…

Cheers

Let’s for the moment forget about Einstein’s theories and and photons. In Newtonian physics a source emits (ie. throws) an object (eg. a brick) and it is received (ie, caught) by a receiver. If the emitter and the receiver have a relative velocity or are at a different “potential” in a gravitational field, then the kinetic energy of the object (the brick) at ‘emitter’ and ‘receiver’ are not the same. Nobody finds that strange or puzzling. Why, then, when we replace Newtonian physics by Einsteinian physics and replace the brick by a “photon”, do people start making a big controversy out of it??

ERIC,

The problem is not as you describe it, I interested with the explanation of Ni Ge in his post Could light have no aberration and only fields have one? Could the constancy of light be suitable with Galilean transformations?

  In fact he is right!

 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_light_have_no_aberration_and_only_fields_have_one3

That is not working according to the Lorentz transformation. But if we want to understand how is that according to the view point of Copenhagen school, then the objectivity and continuity is destroyed in macro world, and that what proponents of relativity do not want. While objectivity and continuity are destroyed in relativity at the moment of computing the proper time as a result of destroying the reciprocity principle at this moment, and you say macro world is moving according to objectivity and continuity....how is that....that is only an  illusion. Review my paper and you will understand everything http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

Dear All,

What about of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3V5mdF2fPE&feature=youtu.be

The wrong direction was given two centuries ago to the electrical current.

A similar error occured with the magnetic field of electrons presently postulated with a dipole topology within the standard model, although there is no experimental proof.

The electron magnetic field has in fact the inverse topology: it has a rotational structure. 

One of the consequences of this new approach is that the speed of light is not an absolute and not even a limit.

Among other consequences the redshift is not a result of receding of galaxies but only of an evolution of atom kernels with time. We see today on the Earth the status of these kernels in galaxies when they emitted light billions years before so that the Big Bang never existed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3V5mdF2fPE&feature=youtu.be

Eric,

"Let’s for the moment forget about Einstein’s theories and and photons. In Newtonian physics a source emits (ie. throws) an object (eg. a brick) and it is received (ie, caught) by a receiver."

"If the emitter and the receiver have a relative velocity or are at a different “potential” in a gravitational field, then the kinetic energy of the object (the brick) at ‘emitter’ and ‘receiver’ are not the same"

If you talk about ordinary matter exchanged from a RF to another RF  I have nothing to say. But this is what Einstein thought in his paper of 1911 he could apply to light. Unfortunately this was wrong with light, why?

If I admit that photons behave approximately like bricks and are attracted along their path by  the gravitational field, this would mean that the redshift  is a consequence of the gravitational potential of photons: climbing a gravitational field, there is an actual "mass defect" of the photons referred to the source.

The time dilation in a static gravitational potential, which is a daily tested phenomenon with atomic clocks, instead affirms that the redshift is a local perceived phenomenon due to  same oscillators at a different gravitational potential. Atomic clocks tick at different rates and perceive the same frequency emitted from below as  redshifted.

The clock hypothesys about the frequency shift of photons is the only explanation in the Vessot and Levine experiment:

by getting rid of the direct dynamical effects at the first order (as specified in the NASA report of the GRAVITY PROBE A experiment) of the Doppler effect, they isolated the relativistic effects(KINETIC + POTENTIAL).

When the ground base clock and the free falling clocks were in sync, according to the SCHW solution, no redshift at all was detected.   The gravitational potential  which is supposed to be  the reason for the redshift  was present between the source and the observer, since these were at different level on the ground, but there  not redshift at all was present if only the relativistic effects were considered.

There is no way you can treat the photon as a massive object. GRT is quite good at treating it correctly when no NET energy exchange is present.

We do not know exactly what photons are and we do not know the emission and absorption mechanisms. We have some ideas, such as the fact that photons must be solutions of some homogeneous second order partial differential equation and that the carried energy is proportional to the frequency. Several candidates exist. These questions must first be answered before you can talk about what red shift means. By the way, how is red shift measured for photons that are incoming over a travel of billions of light years?

“…The time dilation in a static gravitational potential, which is a daily tested phenomenon with atomic clocks,….”

- so what is this “tested time dilation” value now? (a notion – in the Okun’s paper that you attached it [relative value] is equal to gh/c2…)

Cheers

DEAR STEFANO, 

what is your opinion about this RG question 

Is there some contradiction between Feynman's path integral and the relativity?

A well known formula in Feynman's path integral formalism is

(1) K(rA, rB) = ∫ K(rA, rC) K(rC, rB) drC,

where K(rA, rB) is the amplitude of probability to reach the position rB at the timetB, given that at the time tA the system was at the position rA.  rC is the position of the system at a given intermediary time tC between tA and tB.

A strange fact is, however, that the integral in (1) is from -∞ to ∞. That means, the point C sweeps all the space, even out of the region [rA, rB]. A contradiction with the relativity is hidden here, because for jumping from a finite position in space, rA, to infinity, in a finite interval of time tC - tA, implies an infinite velocity. But the theory of relativity sets an upper bound to velocities, the light velocity.

Is there a remedy for this problem? Or, alternatively, the path integral theory admits indeed, faster-than-light velocities?

I think now everything becomes clear.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_some_contradiction_between_Feynmans_path_integral_and_the_relativity

Stefano ~

You, and others in this kind of discussion, get into difficulties by insisting on employing the inappropriate Newtonian  concept of "gravitational potential". In Einstein's theory there is no such thing as "gravitational potential". According to Einstein's theory, gravitation is not a force field. According to the theory, massive particles and massless particles ("photons" ) are not essentially different. They move along geodesics. Everything follows from that. 

Dear Eric,

Do you remember when we were discussing about the London-Paris problem, and the plane which moving in constant speed 0.87c, and I asked  you when the observer on the ground sees the plane on Paris now according to his time clock t, then what about for the observer on the moving plane. At that time you answered for the observer on the moving plane the plane must be on Paris too, but in time t'. At that time I told you that is impossible, the plane for the observer on the moving plane -during the motion- must be on the middle distance between Paris and London now according to his time t', but when the plane stops on Paris and its velocity becomes 0, yes the observer on the plane will find himself on Paris, and thus for him in this case the plane transformed from the middle distance between London and Paris to Paris at zero time separation. This is exactly what named in quantum "entanglement". But it is hidden in relativity because you consider when computing the proper time the plane for the observer on the moving plane is on Paris implicitly, and thus according to that you keep on objectivity and continuity same as in classical physics, and thus you hide the uncertainty principle, and the wave-particle duality during the motion.

Now you can understand why there is a contradiction between Feynman's path integral and the relativity. In fact the contradiction resulted from this point of view in London-Paris problem, and it is solved in my theory.

And according to that you say:

You, and others in this kind of discussion, get into difficulties by insisting on employing the inappropriate Newtonian  concept of "gravitational potential". In Einstein's theory there is no such thing as "gravitational potential".

Dear Eric,

When I proposed my exact solution of the Pioneer anomaly in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058 which is resulted from the SHWR, I face the same problem with the editor of Physical Review D, and also when I was discussing with team of the paper  Slava G. Turyshev, Viktor T. Toth, Gary Kinsella, Siu-Chun Lee, Shing M. Lok, Jordan Ellis (11 April 2012). "Support for the thermal origin of the Pioneer

anomaly".arXiv:1204.2507 in which proposing the thermal origin of the Pioneer anomaly. At that moment they wondered how my solution is exact???? 

The question was why light speed decreased by gravity, while massive object speed does not decrease under gravity according to GR. Now everything becomes clear, and from where the Error comes. That is related to the energy momentum problem in GR, and now it is solved!!!!!

Eric, the problem comes right from what you regards as the solution. I will show you in the Next days. Now I am in a trip and no time for suitable a demonstration. 

Dear Stefano Quattrini,

Quantum mechanics be shown to be an effect of a relativistic system. That what I proved. 

Serghey,

the tested time dilation factor is (1+delta(phi)/c2) , a function of the gravitational potential. Such time dilation is tested nowadays with atomic clocks till 30 cm one on top of the other.

There is a very recent paper.. I don't know why they performed the experiment with Hydrogen maser in this case, since there are more accurate atomic clocks.

Article Method for Experimental Verification of the Effect of Gravit...

Thanks, Stefano!

The paper is rather interesting to me, and the author proposes just the same as my proposition – to measure direct "gravitational time dilation" of clocks [and not atoms+photons]. But it doesn’t contain any measurement data now – the paper considers only a possible method of the measurement.

So let’s wait the results – if this Russian team will make the experiment (though practically any other team can do that, of course, that is no more 1-2 $1000 000); and with the great probability the result will be (1+delta(phi)/2c2)   - i.e. twice lesser then the predicted by GR delta value; again - because of the GR claims the gravitational defect mass value that is twice larger then real [“Newtonian”] value.

Cheers

Caro Stefano

I don’t agree with the initial part of your question because the gravitational red shift may be explained at least by two different contradictories theories. Which one is the correct one is today an open question.

I) if we accept Einstein’s conjecture (curved space-time), the phenomenon is explained by time dilation.

As Eric Lord correctly wrote “gravitation is not a force field” in GR.

So, gravity cannot produce mechanical work (dW=F.ds=0). This shows us a controversial aspect of the theory, which is the impossibility of GR to satisfy the conservation of energy and momentum.

In order to hold the conservation laws in GRT we must add dynamical properties to physical space-time.

Okun, as many others, ignores such difficulties and, yet worst, hides the controversy. For me, Okun’s paper has several conceptual errors, it is not relevant and has not academic value, but this is another question.

II) if we, following Poincaré and Logunov, accept that physical space-time is flat (Minkowski space), gravity is a force field and the red shift may be explained by relativistic dynamics without difficulties, obtaining consistent results with experiments.

Stefano, in my opinion the real question is which theoretical model fits better with the physical space-time.

I prefer the second alternative.

Regards

There is  no “relativistic dynamics” in the static case…

Cheers

For a static field, it is clearly a collapse 4-space geometry. By static, there's no radiating, oscillating, or rippling within any single gradient line.

Dear Hugo,

I agree with Eric for half. GRT is a good theory of geometrical optics and is good to determine potentials and relation with clock rates in certain conditions.

I do not agree at all about the similar behavior of massless and massive entities.

Newtonian Physics cannot explain at all the behavior of massless particles and does not deal with speed of light at all, but with the gravitational potential energy can explain instead the local interaction and complies locally the energy conservation.

GRT cannot explain the behavior of  energy exchanges with electromagntetism because cannot be conservative by itself. 

The reason of the gravitational redshift cannot be the gravitational energy exchange of photons...the closest to give a satisfactory explanation is the gravitational time dilation.

I agree with  you that in Okun's paper there is at list a mistake, but I don't see so many others. The variable coordinate speed of light is a very interesting argument I agree with and it is at the base of the gravitational time dilation. Speed of  light is not constant at all. The fact that if I measure it locally always gives the same c value does not mean that it is always c.

I don't know the Logunov point of view about this can you show us?

Caro Stefano

The geometry of space-time is obtained from symmetries of space and time.

Logunov, following Poincarè ideas, assumes that physical space is homogeneous and isotropic, and time is uniform. Such symmetries and the Causality Principle allow obtaining the geometry of space-time, corresponding to Minkowski space.

The SR, the Electrodynamics and the Universal Principles of Conservation are obtained as consequences of space-time symmetries.

Obviously, GR and Newton’s law are not valid in this theoretical frame.

Logunov’s theory (2002) is available from:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0210/0210005v2.pdf

I agree with Logunov’s initial formulation but, in the middle part, there is a mistake with the graviton. Two years ago I discuss with him the subject and he recognized the error (causality conditions). Logunov died last year and the theory was never corrected.

Sergey

In this framework a photon, as any other physical system, interacts with gravity.

Gravity is described as a field of the same kind as electromagnetic or nuclear field.

The mechanical interaction between photon and gravity is given by the following relativistic law:

ma=F-v[(F.v)/c2]    (m is the inertial mass, also called relativistic mass).

The inertial mass of the photon is m=E/c2=hv/c2

It is easy to demonstrate that the tangential force over the photon is null, so it is impossible to modify its velocity modulus (c) in an inertial RF.

Dear Hugo Alberto Fernández,

So what is the difference between the Logunov and Poincarè ideas and my theory in my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

They are same idea, and thus my transformation is completely right and space is invariant, and the universe is Euclidean, and the escape velocity must be described as relativistic!!!! As you said "Two years ago I discuss with him the subject and he recognized the error (causality conditions). Logunov died last year and the theory was never corrected."

Yes you are right!!! But the problem in objectivity and continuity which is proposed according to Lorentz transformation implicitly. In nature there is no objectivity and continuity. And the real transformation must express about that as in my new transformation. Lorentz transformation does not express about reality in nature neither in gravity nor in quantum. So I was right when I said there is no graviton, it is only photon. Now Logunov's paper corrected.

http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

Caro Hugo,

maybe we can reformulate the Noether's theorem for 5 dimensions.... I don't find satisfactory explanations in any theory of gravitation so far formulated...

the discover of Maxwell equations should have been accompanied with increasing a dimension instead of having added an additional medium which was later have to be discarded. The space time did not play a role to add a dimension but to lower the degrees of freedom of the previous ones (X,Y,Z, t=f(x,y,z,...) ), tying the time to the other dimensions and making it relative.

Dear Azzam

Sorry, I can not comment about your theory because it is unknown to me.

Caro Stefano

You wrote:

I do not agree with such assertion because the phenomenon can be explained in the framework of SR.

The full demonstration is available in:

http://www.fisica-relatividad.com.ar/temas-especiales/corrimiento-al-rojo

This article (in Spanish) was a lecture in a post graduate seminar at National University of Technology.

Regards

Dear Hugo Alberto Fernández,

When we are talking about SRT, then we are talking about inertial frames. While gravity is related to non-inertial frames. SRT does not say anything about the classical acceleration or non-inertial frames. GRT is a theory related to non-inertial frames. So if the problem is not solved by GR, while it is solved within the framework of SRT, so, relativity does no say anything relative to acceleration, same as  quantum physics does not say anything about the classical acceleration. Why SRT and quantum do not say anything about classical acceleration, and at the same time, SRT and quantum are agreed with each other, while GRT and quantum do not agree????

So the problem here is related to how to explain the concept of classical acceleration in the framework of SRT and quantum at the same time, if both theories do not say anything about the classical acceleration.

Caro Hugo,

at least we can agree that the explanation is only one, no possibility for alternative explanations. Or rather: It is not the same thing to say "the energy loss/gain of photons" which is a property occurring in between the source and observer (integral of something) and the "time dilation" which is a punctual property of the source compared to the one of the observer.

The explanation relevant to time dilation does not have anything to do with the local strength of the gravitation. One example to clarify: the more you go deeper under earth the more  dilated time is, but the strength of the acceleration gets lower and becomes 0 at the center, so it in this case it is the opposite.

The only explanation is according to the influence of the local speed of light on the dynamics of the atoms. Faster  local relative speed of light provokes a faster tick of clocks, since it is the maximum speed of signals to determine the energy transitions time. The local speed of light is determined by the mass/energy distributions.

Dear Stefano and all,

When measuring the Redshift, you should add light retardation.

Here below a paper about a new relativistic doppler effect which takes into account light aberration and retardation.

It means galilean relativity works and Einstein's theory could be falsified by the following:

Take a serie of pictures of the sky by night at 0m and 5000m of altitude with times.

Match the pictures of the sky and compare the times.

24 hours or 4.5 billion years later do it again.

Would you see now a difference of time? Following general relativity, you should. But is it true? No.

Because we are already 4.5 billion years later, then the difference should be minimum of 2 hours.

Actually, all our astronomical pictures of the sky are taken at same time, then there is no time dilation given by gravity (general relativity) or velocity (special relativity).

Another try :

Think about the film Interstellar :

The twin going downwards to a high gravity planet come back next to the other twin stayed in the (geostationary) station at low gravity. Imagine they have watched all the time the position of the "sun". Once back, how can a twin see another (older or younger) position simultaneously to the other twin ?

Following Einstein, it means there is a day/night phenomenon when going downwards or upwards to the high gravity planet in order that when the two twins are together they both see an aged position of the star.

This day/night phenomenon (which is cumulative since creation of earth) is not seen on earth when going from 0m to 5000m. If general theory of relativity was right this phenomenon should be of more than 2 hours.

In conclusion, there is no time dilation on earth and to exclude loss energy of photons might be a mistake.

Stefano,

“…The explanation relevant to time dilation does not have anything to do with the local strength of the gravitation..….”  - that is so;

but “…The only explanation is according to the influence of the local speed of light on the dynamics of the atoms.”-  that isn’t so, any speed of light (as well as of any other material object)  either in the vacuum, or in a medium cannot impact on the time principally;

“…One example to clarify: the more you go deeper under earth the more dilated time is…” – that is so; in certain sense, of course, - again,  there is no and cannot be any “time dilation”;

Again – the gravitational slowing down of clocks’ tick rates that [clocks] are impacted by a gravity field is the result of the gravitational mass defect in a system “clocks + a material body”; and so depends on the gravity potential in the point, where clocks are. Or, by other words, the difference between tick rates of a pair of clocks that are placed in a two points with different potentials is equivalent to half of the work that is necessary to move clocks together, The half appears because of the system’s mass defect is the sum of mass defects of a clock and of Earth, which are equal – the clock “Earth” also becomes be “dilated” if an external clock appears, say, from other galaxy. But this “dilation” is indeed non-observable, in contrast to clock, because of relative tick rates values for Earth and any “usual” clock relates as mclock/MEarth…   

Cheers

Dear Ni Ge,

The day/night phenomenon is studied carefully in my paper as a result of time dilation and the Copenhagen  school. Einstein was hardly refusing this concept for phenomena depending on the Copenhagen school, as Pais said his paper,  Pais, A., "Einstein and The Quantum theory", (1979),Rev. of Modern Physics, vol.

51, No. 4.  “ while I was walking with Einstein, he said, - look at the moon do you believe it exists because we are looking at it?

According to Heisenberg definition of the  wave function in Heisenberg, W., "Physics and Phylosophy", (1958), Allien and Unwin. “it is a mixture of two things, the first is the reality and the second is our knowledge of this reality." 

Review page 11 in my paper http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2311

This day/night phenomenon (which is cumulative since creation of earth) is not seen on earth when going from 0m to 5000m. If general theory of relativity was right this phenomenon should be of more than 2 hours.

But the problem here can be understood completely by the collapse of the wave-function. There is no meeting between the two observers at the same point in space and then compare their observations with respect to time now without the collapse of the wave-function, and by the collapse of the wave-function the problem solved completely. That illustrates how time emerges in the universe basis on quantum and relativity unification. Quantum mechanics be shown to be an effect of a relativistic system.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2311

Hi Sergey,

"The only explanation is according to the influence of the local speed of light on the dynamics of the atoms.”-  that isn’t so, any speed of light (as well as of any other material object)  either in the vacuum, or in a medium cannot impact on the time principally"

what regulates the dynamics in term of exchanges of energy is the speed of the signals. Such speed varies according also to the Shapiro delay experiment :  a direct signal  bouced on the planet mercury  and took longer than expected because the average light speed from here to Mercury is not c but it is lower.

C has impact on anything dealing with electromagnetism.

I agree with you though that there has to be in any case a mass defect due to gravitation, otherwise I could lift mass for free in a gravitational field, violating the energy conservation law.

The photon which is absorbed and is transformed into bound energy of atoms at a higher gravitational potential, is not confined in the same way within the same atoms at different gravitational potentials.

"the difference between tick rates of a pair of clocks that are placed in a two points with different potentials is equivalent to half of the work that is necessary to move clocks together,"

This i think you have to explain better.

If the speed of photons is measured along a geodesic path, then its speed is always equal to a fixed value. It is a property of the field in which the photon travels. That field is deformed. A geodesic follows these deformations. If no flat reference is used, than the deformation of the field cannot be defined. That is why fields must be represented by multidimensional functions that have plat parameter spaces. In fact that parameter space can be thought to be represented by a function whose target is equal to its parameter space. The reverse bra-ket method allows to interpret fields as continuum eigenspaces of operators and relate them and the corresponding eigenvectors to pairs of functions and parameter spaces. The flat parameter spaces belong to the standard furniture of the non-separable Hilbert space in which the operator resides.

http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0266

Stefano,

“…according also to the Shapiro delay experiment…etc.” – on that Hans practically answered – with a great probability the “Shapiro time dilation” is only the consequence of longer path of photons because of deviation from direct motion in the gravity field; when photons move with the standard speed of light. Though it is very probable that the term “geodesics” in his post, which is used usually as a characteristic of the GR “spacetime curvature” isn’t true – neither space nor time in the 4D Euclidian Matter’s spacetime can be impacted by any material force, including by the gravity. Though if we suggest that all particles, including photons, are some disturbances of a dense “Aether”, we cannot exclude  [seems with a very small probability] a some additional “refraction” of the light in the gravity field.

“…the difference between tick rates of a pair of clocks…This I think you have to explain better.”

- the explanation is rather simple and exists already in the SS post above – “the work that is necessary to move clocks together” directly relates to the difference of gravity potentials in the points, where clocks are placed and it is equal to the change of the gravitational mass defect if clocks are moved  - up clock to the down one or the down to the up.

When, again, this defect, which just determines the clocks’ (and any other material object’s) tick rate, at the gravity interaction in the system, say, “Earth+clock” is divided equally  between Earth an the clock. Just therefore measured by Pound and Rebka “gravitational red/ blue shift of the energy level of the 57Fe”  [which corresponds to full mass defect] is, in the reality the sum of indeed the gravitational levels’ shift and redding/ bluening of photons, which didn’t change their speed, but changed their energy/ frequency.

Happy New Year, and

Cheers

The essential difference between gravitational red shift and the Hubble red shift is the first is a static stretch and the Hubble redshift is a dynamic stretch of space time over the life of the Universe.

Specifically gravitational redshift will be maintained at the same level around a gravitational object. The Hubble redshift is being stretched all the time with the expansion of the Universe.

Interestingly the gravitational red shift is not infinite around a black hole but is red shifted by a factor of 1.5 at the black hole event horizon (see paper).

This is also equal to conformal time at the cosmological event horizon

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

Dear Andrew,

If you look at my last message on this thread, time dilation is not a real observable fact. Every other measurements of time are due to another fact than dilation.

@Ni

Well, you have billions of examples a day with sat nav technology, which depends on adjusting for gravitational time dilation.

Wrong example. Why do we synchronize satellite to earth and NOT EARTH TO SATELLITES for high velocities? (relativity means relativity since we decided Poincaré is not the father of relativity.)

Time dilation due to a shift of cesium clock could be explained by radiation of particles or loosing mass.

Please, try to think by yourself about my previous post !

Andrew,

“The essential difference between gravitational red shift and the Hubble red shift is the first is a static stretch and the Hubble redshift is a dynamic stretch of space time…”

– to claim about some transformations of  space, time and spacetime, before is necessary to understand/ define – what are these notions; and, besides, to add some reasonable suggestions/ arguments – how those  transformations can proceed? In other case such claims are nothing more then bare declarations; including they are some bare declarations in the GR, which contains no any definitions – what the notions, etc. are.

At that the notions above are Meta-physical notions and so indeed cannot be properly defined in physics – as that is in the reality now.  But they can be (and are) defined in the “The Information as Absolute” conception – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

From where follows that the space, the time and the spacetime are fundamental “virtual” Rules/ possibilities that control – implicitly – processes in Matter; and so any material process, force, etc. cannot impact (and so, for example – “stretch”)  either space, or time,  or spacetime.

So in the reality  there is no “gravitational stretch” and the gravitational red shift (which is in a contradiction with the GR, where photons don’t change their energy, – see this thread’s attached paper) is a banal losses/ obtaining of energy by photons at motion between points with different gravitational potentials.

“the Hubble redshift” (if it indeed exists) cannot be a result of Matter’s spacetime “stretching”, again, that is impossible; though it can be a result of some changing of fundamental physical constants (known and/ or unknown); besides one cannot exclude some global transformation of 4D Aether, which fills the 4D spacetime empty container. Or, by another words, there is no some “fabrics of spacetime”, but we cannot exclude a “fabric of Aether”.

“…you have billions of examples a day with sat nav technology, which depends on adjusting for gravitational time dilation…” 

- that isn’t correct. There is no any measurement of the “gravitational time dilation” at the sat nav systems operations, corresponding corrections – “in accordance with GR” are fixed in the program codes that calculate the positions on Earth surface.

This correction is twice larger then the real value, but, because of that it is rather small when there exist a number of other factors, which cause deviations of nav results from the correct values at satellites motions on the orbits, the satellites’ operations modes a few times per day are forcibly corrected by the systems’ operators and so this problem is inessential at the sat nav system work. And if the set “gravitational time dilation” correction value would  be set twice smaller, it isn’t impossible, that in this case the operators’ corrections would be lesser…

Happy New Year, and

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Dear All,

Dear Ni Ge,

Your arguments about relativity can be solved completely according to quantum theory.

If time dilation does not exist, then there is no way to quantize gravity. In fact Quantum in physics is resulted from the relativistic effect. Relativity and quantum are one theory each one leads to the other. If there is no time dilation, then quantum theory must not exist in nature.

In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.

Special relativity has modified the notion of time. But from a fixed Lorentz observer's viewpoint time remains a distinguished, absolute, external, global parameter. The Newtonian notion of time essentially carries over to special relativistic systems, hidden in the spacetime structure.

Now if we accept Relativity and quantum are one theory each one leads to the other, in this case the problem of time in physics will be solved and in this  case it will be understood completely. According to that the beginning of the first day of the moon month is dependent on  each observer relative to himself same as in Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein was hardly refusing this concept for phenomena, as Pais said in (1979) “ while I was walking with Einstein, he said, - look at the moon do you believe it exists because we are looking at it?” And in fact this idea is right physically. Because of that most of religions are depending on determining the first day of the moon month according to observations not on the theoretical calculations. Jewish people according to their religion depend on determining the beginning of the first day of the moon month by observation only,  not by theoretical calculations, and also muslims depend on observations only to determine the beginning of the first day of Ramadan to fast. In Quran, it is said " Who has observed the month from you, he must fast it." This verse declaims one person, not a group of persons. That means the observation of the moon now depends on the person relative to himself. and each person observes the moon now and the begin of the moon month relative to himself, not relative to the others. That agrees completely with the Copenhagen interpretations, and thus with quantization of gravity. From that we can understand completely what is the relationship between the person himself  and the universe and gravity as the ancient cultures mentioned.  

Dear all,

so far we can say that  in the weak fields

a) there is no room from a work done by the gravitational force on photons along their path, since photons as radiation are massless and when they become mass they are not radiation anymore.

b) there is no possibility for the gravitational acceleration to create any effect on the energy levels of atoms at least in weak fields.

c) the gravitational redshift has been measured carefully also in the Vessot and Levine phenomenon directly by exchanging  microwaves and it actually depends on the time dilation predicted by the Schwartschild solution.

d)  the energy conservation in the reference frame of the emitter has to be complied.

the  different interpretations can be:

1) the mass which exits from a source, in form of a radiation departing from a certain gravitational potential, gets mass again  at an higher gravitational potential with a mass defect (1+gh/c2) .It prevents the perpetual motion of the first kind and is detected as a redshift from the receiver of radiation.

Matches with the Einstein first guess but it is pretty quantum mechanical since being the light unaffected by the gravitational attraction, radiation has to become mass in a different way according to the gravitational potential.

2) (OKUN) radiating energy which departs from a certain gravitational potential is absorbed at an higher gravitational potential, at lower frequency, and it appears redshifted, since the potential energy gap  (in the gravitational field) gets mapped directly  into the difference of energy of the orbitals of the atoms. 

The explanation of Feynman is simple, based on energy conservations.

________________________________________________________--

"The prediction of this frequency shift does not really need the machinery

of our theory of gravitation, since it is implicit in the experimental

results of EOtvos, that gravity forces (or potentials) are proportional to

the energy content."

If you don't need time dilation for your explanation, I can agree with you Stefano. And it seems to be the case (I can't see a difference between the two interpretations because one deals with masses, the other with energies; masses can be interpreted as quanta)

ROTATING OSCILLATORS AROUND AN AXIS 

CENTRIFUGAL REDSHIFT/BLUESHIFT

One important experiment to point out is the one performed also recently with oscillators one rotating around an axis and another one  at rest with  the axis. They exchange radiation.

In such situation there isn't any field  which can make any photon to be frequency shifted during the path between the source and the absorber.

The photon is released from a position at rest with the axis and no field around. It is clear in this case what is the inertial and the non inertial system.  

The photons at the rotating absorber are seen blueshifted according to its centrifuge potential.

There is no Doppler shift due to motion in this case The Doppler shift in the centrifuge configuration is due to the transversal doppler effect.

This means that  any field at all   makes any difference in the redshift phenomenon , but it is  the  energy difference per unit mass which is in this case between the axis and the spinning absorber which is the responsible of the frequency shift.

THe difference of energy for unit mass is the only thing which can make any difference.

In this case it is the centrifuge potential referred to the axis of the system, in the gravitational case it is the gravitational potential. This is totally in line with the dilated life time of particles in accelerators.

Rather than dilated, I would say elongated life time (by energy difference for desintegration) of particles in accelerators. (Time remains absolute)

Stefano,

Regrettably you don’t refer on a concrete paper, where the experiment  “recently with oscillators one rotating around an axis and another one  at rest with  the axis. They exchange radiation” was made. .

So you didn’t write – what’s  the measured the value of the photons’ blueshift relating to rotating absorber. When this shift would be the result of Doppler effect because of indeed, in a moving body, independently on – moving inertially or not, including the absorber above, its internal processes run slower (your “This is totally in line with the dilated life time of particles in accelerators” is correct, but that is purely kinematical effect) and so photons that are radiated by analogous source at rest are seen by such absorber as “blueshifted”.

This effect can be rather easily estimated (is [relatively] equal to the Lorentz factor) and further – compared with the experiment outcome.

If measured blueshift isn’t equal to the calculated value, then indeed, (if the experiment is made [and possible errors are estimated] correctly. though) , some influence of the “centrifuge potential” takes place. If not – then not.

And, relating to “a) there is no room from a work done by the gravitational force on photons along their path, since photons as radiation are massless”

- that isn’t correct, gravity performs a work with photons as with any other material object and so changes photons’ energy if they move between different gravity potentials; changing so their color; and the notion “mass” here has no principal relations to this fact.

None theless, again – though this fact is rather evident, there are some people who don’t believe that it is true. Moreover – the claim that there is no work/ energy change for photons in the gravity field is a dogma in the GR.

 So it is necessary to measure possible impacts on photons when two possible effects – increasing/ decreasing of some atom’s [nuclei] energy levels and increasing/ decreasing of photons’ energy/ frequency can be separated. Again – the sum of these effects was measured more then 50 years ago, when how to measure net atom’s frequency/level shift – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment

- or the Malykin’s paper that is referred by you on 4-th page here. Again – such experiment would cost 1-2 $ millions, or thousands times cheaper then most other experiments that were made at testing the GR

And – don’t refer on some experiments, where the GR was confirmed, if these experiments weren’t repeated a number of times and, rather desirable, by a number of different groups – how that is practiced usually in serious physics.

Cheers  

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

Sergey,

Y. Friedman and I. Nowik. Phys. Scr. 85, 065702 (2012).

 this is the last of a series of  experiments starting from the 

the 1960 as "Mössbauer experiment in a rotating system" and  peformed many times

and ultimately in Istanbul in 2015.

The expected value is the centrifuge  energy per unit mass which is also the first order approximation of the transverse doppler effect 1/2v2/c2.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05853.pdf

Photons are supposed to be solutions of a second order partial differential equation. I know two candidates for such second order partial differential equation. One is based on the d'Alembert's operator ans has waves among its set of solutions. The other can be split into two first order partial differential equations, but offers no waves in its set of solutions. Both second order partial differential equations offer solutions that represent shape keeping fronts. They exist in three dimensional form and in one dimensional form. The three dimensional versions quickly use their amplitude with increasing distance from the source. The one dimensional version is a good candidate for representing the objects from which photons are constructed. If you accept that, then photons are strings of one dimensional shape keeping fronts. The fronts are evenly distributed over the string. The generation, the annihilation and the passage of the string takes some clock ticks. If this duration is fixed then the string shows a characteristic frequency that determines the number of energy bits that the string can carry. If the photon detector misses some of the fronts, then it receives less energy and in that way it perceives a lower frequency.

Hans,

"One is based on the d'Alembert's operator and has waves among its set of solutions."

right today I learned that the d'Alembert operator it is the base of the Harmonic coordinates, the one described by V.Fock . It has been used in the past years as the best set of coordinates to represent 3D graphics by Pixar.

Yet another interesting set of experiment described...  particle life time in a muon ring..

Unfortunately it interprets the EP as treating accelerations in general. It mistakens effects of a longitudinal acceleration with the tangential.

https://www.researchgate.net/researcher/59295249_Francis_J_M_Farley

Stefano,

Again, you suggest to consider some rather questionable premises, what results, for example,  in that your last a couple of attached papers contain some questionable experiments and so – even contain controversial inferences.

When the problem of an existence/ non-existence of “centrifuge potential” has no relations to the thread’s problem; moreover – to study the “centrifuge problem” is  necessary before to know – photons change or not their energy in the gravity field.

 And when solving this problem just is necessary for experimenter to avoid any questionable effects that can result in some non-avoidable errors. Again – such experiments are analogues of the Pound, Rebka, Snider experiments, where a sum of two possible impacts on measured value is measured, and the experiment, where net change of clocks’ tick rate (see above in the SS posts) is measured, when – because of rather low Earth rotation frequency its corresponding effect is evidently small (even it exists), comparing with the two above.

So, again – 1-2 $millions (or lesser), and the thread’s (and, of course, a fundamental physical) problem  can be closed…

Cheers

Sergey,

the centrifuge potential exist and is just  phi=v2/2 ,where v=omega*r, and it is the same factor as the transversal doppler shift measured in the Vessot and Levine experiment. It is the only responsible of the time dilation between the axis and the rotating emitter. The rotating emitter oscillator is time dilated compared to the one at rest with the axis.

The main reason for the gravitational redshift is that the wavelength of light is changed across a gravitational field, the coordinate speed of light is variable in the same way, according to GRT.

The ratio lambda\c=f  and f is not changed relatively.

Since the absorption depends on the wavelength of the light which changes with the gravitational potential, the photon will be preceived redshifted.

A careful calculation of the situation (attached), based on standard formalism, reveals absolutely no anomalies or paradoxical behavior. In my opinion, Okun et.al. are just nitpicking, and may even be said to misinterpret the results of their calculations (which looks correct to me).

I cite from the conclusion of the uploaded note:

Due to (Schwarzschild) time translation invariance, there is a constant energy E attached to particle motion in the Schwarzschild geometry. This energy is not equal to the one found by observing the particles four-momentum in a local restframe at radius r, except at infinite distance, r → ∞.

The connection is given by a simple, universal relation [see equation (28) at the end of the note]. Equation (28) lend support to the proposition that all forms of energy gravitate in the same way (except gravitational energy itself). It is extremely difficult to see anything paradoxical in this situation!

Original question> Somebody still gives the interpretation of an energy loss of photons in a gravitational potential.

This is a perfectly valid (and useful) interpretation, consistent with explicit calculations. Provided one takes into account that the gravitational potential depends on the equivalent mass E/c2 (which is what I believe was already done in the original paper by Einstein), and not on the invariant mass m.

Note: This statement refers to the behavior of gravitational energy, not necessarily gravitational force. 

How is the frequency of a photon detected? Is it sure that a photon is a wave? Can a photon be represented by a string of shape keeping fronts, which are also solutions of the second order partial differential equation? What is the duration of the passage of a photon? What is the duration of the generation of a photon? What is the duration of the detection/absorption of a photon. Does red-shift mean that these three durations might differ? Why does a photon not lose its amplitude during very long range travels? If it does, then why are photons still detectable after travelling over billions of light years? What is the medium that transports photons over these enormous distances? In short, what is YOUR model of a photon?

A string of shape keeping fronts can also have a well defined frequency, while every front carries a fixed amount of energy. If E=hv holds and c is a constant then the passage of the string has a fixed duration. One dimensional shape keeping fronts follow geodesics. This means that they follow the deformation of space. The deformation of the field that represents our living space determines the gravitational field.

Hans> In short, what is YOUR model of a photon?

I don't need my own model: Classical electromagnetic waves in the geometric optics limit is sufficient. I think Fermat deserves credit for the basic idea.

Your other questions are irrelevant for gravitational redshift phenomena over macroscopic distances. Just like ResearchGate finds it irrelevant to inform you exactly how many femtoseconds it is since I posted this remark. 

Robert> Weinberg's derivation of geodesics from equivalence, which suggests that #1 and #2 above should approach each other in the specified limit operations.  If someone could explain simply how that works

It is simply a matter of solving the geodesic equations with a good parametrization (not eigentime) of paths x, starting with a correctly normalized initial 4-"velocity", p=x'.

Robert> A massive particle clearly loses energy as it rises.

Clearly not! It looses kinetic energy; that is a different matter.

Kare,

I thank you a lot for your detailed explanation about the phenomenon. It  is certainly explained in the framework of the GRT as being a consequence of the Schwarzschild metric and in this aspect demonstrated experimentally also in the Vessot and Levine experiment as being a consequence of the gravitational time dilation.

What has to be clarified is that gravitational time dilation in itself implies or not an energy defect or eccess referred to the source of the photons travelling between different gravitational potentials?

It seems that your answer is affirmative. It seems that talking about time dilation and talking about a net energy exchange is the same thing according to your opinion.

Okun (and Wheeler) clearly deny any loss or gain of energy referred to the emitter, instead you say that it is the same thing.

If the problem is analized with the coordinate speed of light which is one correct way of seeing it, then it is clear that the energy of the photon always  referred to the coordinate of the source is not altered.

The photon is guided by the background or by the metric which defines a 4D MESH and varies its wavelenght and speed in such a way that the background does not take or give energy to the photon. Different is the  situation with electrons for example which undergo to the gravitational acceleration being massive.

I don't think in a few words that radiation has the same behaviour of tied matter.

The relativistic Doppler effect cannot be acheived with an electron departing from a source and bouncing on a mirror. The relation of the Einstein moving mirror problem cannot be the same for electrons and for photons:

the photon is absorbed and then re emitted, it is  an inelastic scattering with the material of the mirror, you can deduce the formula of the RDE also as inelastic scattering of particles with other particles, then add the principle of relativity which allows you to find the Lorentz factor.

 the electron can return only if it is bounced back by the electrons at the surface of the mirror, FIELD-FIELD interaction, it is an elastic scattering. It cannot be the same thing.

PS.

Interesting the definition of Cosmic Laziness... the Least action principle is really the minimzation of the ACTION..... which make everything lazy....

Kåre Olaussen,

At first you had not interpreted and explained the H&K experiment in order to interpret the gravitational redshift. Review carefully your solution to H&K experiment, and try to interpret the difference in the measuring the distance in H&K according to GRT, and what happened to the 58 micrometers left by the theory fitting with the practice according to SWR Geometry?

If you consider this difference is not important according to macroscopic distances, it is also time dilation is not important in gravity comparing to time in macro world, it is same thing. So why do not you consider there is no time dilation also??? LOOOOOL!!!!

Now we understand well why you like approximations and all of your solutions are only approximations. Why you are always escape to explain your calculations according to relativity?????

I understand well you will escape again as usual!!!

Proponents of relativity interpret the H&K experiment according to SRT not GRT because they understand well this difference in space according to GR, and in order to hide this difference in GR, they interpreted the experiment according to SRT, and then they proposed the center of the earth as the reference frame for the relativistic calculations. and seriously if you are really honest;  if they considered the center of the earth as a reference frame for the relativistic calculations in H&K experiment, in this case they proved SRT or the Lorentz proposed theory of Aether??????

So, now we are talking in science and physics, not in Alchemy. If you like to interpret everything according to your Alchemy as usual, then that is your problem!!! For me I do not believe in alchemy. ;)

Erik> A travelling photon cannot “lose or gain energy to the gravitational field” because it is in free fall (its trajectory is a geodesic). Any object freely falling in a gravitational field does not feel the effect of the field.

It is a bit unclear what you mean by “lose or gain energy to the gravitational field”, but your argument is no different for massive objects in free fall. When I am out skiing it certainly feels like I am storing a lot of energy in the gravitation field on the uphill climb, much of which I gain back in the form of kinetic energy on the way down.

Where is the gravitational potential energy stored? Now, that is more difficult to answer, contrary to the question of where electromagnetic potential energy is stored.

Kåre Olaussen,

Now the game is very simple. If you keep on objectivity and continuity same as in classical physics. Then you can hide the uncertainty principle in gravity. By Geometry and alchemy you keep on the continuity same as in classical physics, and what helps you more that this effect is not appeared in weak gravitational field, and because of that you always consider approximations, and then you can hide the uncertainty principle.

Now it is very simple to understand why quantum and gravity do not merge. And why proponents of relativity always separate between quantum and relativity, and they refuse always to understand gravity according to quantum.

It is unclear what a photon really is, but part of its behavior is in conflict with the fact that it is a wave. Since the EM field relies on the nearby existence of electrical charges this field is not a good candidate for transporting photons over billions of light years. It is more likely that the field that carries the photon is the field that gets deformed by massive objects and that is always and everywhere present. It is also the reason that photons follow geodesics. A photon just follows its carrier. Spherical waves quickly lose their amplitude with increasing distance from its source. If a photon is a plane wave then how can a tiny atom absorb that plane wave? To my knowledge the best model for the photon is a string of one dimensional shape keeping fronts. Such shape keeping fronts are among the solutions of the second order partial differential equation that describes the behavior of the deformable field that we interpret as our living space.

In quaternionic differential calculus two second order partial differential equations exist:

∇≡{∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}

∇₀≡∂/∂τ

τ is progression or proper time.

In the quaternionic differential calculus differentiation is a multiplier operation: 

ϕ= ϕ₀+Φ=∇ψ≡(∇₀+∇)(ψ₀+Ψ)=∇₀ψ₀−〈∇,Ψ〉+∇ψ₀+∇₀Ψ±∇×Ψ

ϕ₀ = ∇₀ψ₀−〈∇,Ψ〉

Φ=∇ψ₀+∇₀Ψ±∇×Ψ

Double differentiation leads to the quaternionic second order partial differential equation:

∇*∇ψ=∇∇*ψ=(∇₀−∇) (∇₀+∇) (ψ₀+Ψ)= {∇₀∇₀+〈∇,∇〉} (ψ₀+Ψ)=ζ₀+ζ=ζ

This equation can be split into two first order partial differential equations

ϕ=∇ψ

∇*ϕ=ζ

Corresponding Maxwell-like equations are:

E=−∇ψ₀−∇₀Ψ

B=∇×Ψ

ρ₀=〈∇,E〉

J=∇×B−∇₀E

∇₀B=−∇×E

The quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation is:

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} Ψ=J

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} ψ₀= ρ₀

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} is the quaternionic d'Alembert operator.

{∇₀∇₀±〈∇,∇〉}ψ=0 are the corresponding homogeneous second order partial differential equations.

Photon-like objects are constructed from solutions of these homogeneous second order partial differential equations.

I used quaternionic differential equations because the equations are simpler and more compact than Maxwell based equations.

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0111

Stefano.

First: Happy New Year to you and everyone else here! I hope for many more engaged discussions on RG in the coming year. And my apologies in advance for sometimes forgetting to express myself in a polite way :-) 

I tried to separate the mathematics, formulated in an unambiguous (i.e., coordinate invariant) way as possible, from the physical interpretations. What I gave was a possible, and good, interpretation, attached to a certain choice of coordinates naturally related to realistic experiments.

The existence of a constant of motion (which can be interpreted as energy) for particle dynamics in the Schwarzschild geometry is independent of coordinates, hence a true property. How that constant manifests itself, and how it can be viewed as an accumulation of different contributions, it a different matter.

I don't think one unambiguously can say that gravitational time dilation in itself implies or not an energy defect, because that is a coordinate dependent phenomenon. For the redshift phenomena I analyzed, it is much better to say that the kinetic energy may change, but there is an opposite change in the gravitational energy, so that the total energy remains constant. Moreover, this occurs in a way which is no different for slow or relativistic moving massive particles, or massless particles. All with the same energy, when measured in a special (but natural) local coordinate frame.

Stefano> Okun (and Wheeler) clearly deny any loss or gain of energy referred to the emitter

I am not sure what they mean, and what precisely they refer to.  But I also say that there is a conserved energy, independent of coordinate choices.

Stefano> analyzed with the coordinate speed of light which is one correct way of seeing it

The speed in which coordinates do you mean? Eddington-Finkelstein ingoing? Eddington-Finkelstein outgoing? Gullstrand-Painleve? Isotropic? Kruskal-Szekeres? Lemaitre?

They cannot all be the correct way! Or, they all are -- provided you analyze a physical (i.e., coordinate invariant) situation. For each such situation, there are some coordinates which are more convenient than others. But, with correct analysis all coordinate choices must lead to the same result.

Stefano> Different is the situation with electrons

No!  As I have said before, (at this level of analysis) there is no essential difference between massless and massive particles. However, it is inconvenient to use particle velocities as primary variables: Particle momenta leads to a smoothly interpolating  description.

Stefano> The relativistic Doppler effect cannot be achieved with an electron

The Doppler effect, in the sense of observing moving particles (including photons) from a moving local frame, works in essentially the same way. As shown in equation (15) of the notes (expressed in variables which hide all dependence of particle mass). The question of reflection in (moving) mirrors is not the same as the Doppler effect, but it can be theoretically handled in a similar way, with uniform treatment of massive and massless particles. Of course, you theoretically can (and realistically should) give properties to the mirrors which treats different types of particles differently.

Stefano> the Least action principle is really the minimization of the ACTION

Actually, most classical solutions only make the action stationary, neither maximum nor minimum. I am not sure how it is for the solutions I have encountered. Nevertheless, I also like to think of these principles in terms of maximum, minimum and laziness. Much more poetic!

Hans,

the difference is that Fermions which follow the Fermi dirac statistics can be modeled with Quaternions, the photons I don't really think so...

Maxwell originally wrote his equations with the Hamiltonian Quaternions, so why do you refer as the  Maxwell based differential calculus? the transformation to the present from was performed by Heavyside....I'm sure there is something lost in translation....

Ni> this eclipse should be recorded 22 hours later on 5000m than on 0m following GRT.

This only proves that you don't understand even the most elementary elements of GRT. 

Dear Kåre,

I deleted my message, because I thought you were one step further by arguing to keep the equivalence principle (which Stefano wants to remove).

But again, if you take the Minkowski space-time (GRT), you will see that an eclipse occuring 4.5 billion years ago at a distance of 4.5 billion light years should  be recorded 22 hours later at 5000m than at 0m with GRT.

Stefano,

When compared to (Hamilton) quaternionic differential calculus, the Maxwell equations are incomplete. The Maxwell equations ignore the real part of the (quaternionic) differential. This part is replaced by a gauge equation that is not considered as part of the Maxwell equation set. With a special gauge that differs from the quaternionic differential the wave equation can be derived.

In quaternionic differential calculus two second order partial differential equations exist:

∇≡{∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z}

∇₀≡∂/∂τ

τ is progression or proper time.

In the quaternionic differential calculus differentiation is a multiplier operation: 

ϕ= ϕ₀+Φ=∇ψ≡(∇₀+∇)(ψ₀+Ψ)=∇₀ψ₀−〈∇,Ψ〉+∇ψ₀+∇₀Ψ±∇×Ψ

ϕ₀ = ∇₀ψ₀−〈∇,Ψ〉 (this equation is NOT part of Maxwell equations!)

Φ=∇ψ₀+∇₀Ψ±∇×Ψ

Double differentiation leads to the quaternionic second order partial differential equation:

∇*∇ψ=∇∇*ψ=(∇₀−∇) (∇₀+∇) (ψ₀+Ψ)= {∇₀∇₀+〈∇,∇〉} (ψ₀+Ψ)=ζ₀+ζ=ζ

This equation can be split into two first order partial differential equations

ϕ=∇ψ

∇*ϕ=ζ

Maxwell equations devote special symbols E and B to parts of the partial differential. Corresponding Maxwell-like equations are:

E=−∇ψ₀−∇₀ Ψ

B=∇×Ψ

ρ₀=〈∇,E〉

J=∇×B−∇₀E

∇₀B=−∇×E

The quaternionic equivalent of the wave equation is:

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} Ψ=J

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} ψ₀= ρ₀

{∇₀∇₀−〈∇,∇〉} is the quaternionic d'Alembert operator.

{∇₀∇₀±〈∇,∇〉}ψ=0 are the corresponding homogeneous second order partial differential equations.

Photon-like objects are constructed from solutions of these homogeneous second order partial differential equations.

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0111

Hans> I used quaternionic differential equations because the equations are simpler and more compact than Maxwell based equations

You mean simpler and more compact than *d*F = j, dF = 0? ROFL!

Kare,

a very happy new year to you... 

as you said The relativistic doppler effect emerges also from the four vector momentum via the Lorentz transformations, but I think there is something more to clarify. It is calculated for entities born at c speed, photons or neutrinos. v/c, and the same Doppler effect can emerge directly from the conservation of energy and momentum, but it emerges if and only if inelastic scattering is considered and this is the gist of the question.

If I consider not a photon but an electron  I cannot use V/c, since c is not the speed of the electron and the speed of the electron is not constant when it bounces on a wall.

So a bouncing electron will have a completely different behaviour than a photon because its speed/energy will be affected , and in a completely different way.

Sorry but I cannot see a comparison here, unless you refer to the Debroglie frequencies but this yet another thing...

Kåre,

You interested too much in my paper and my equivalence principle and you try always to falsify it according to continuity same as in classical physics and you try to hide the uncertainty principle in my paper which resulted from my transformation. All copyright are reserved since 1996. All the discussions in research gate are printed with my lawyer in Switzerland, and any falsifying to my theory without mentioning to my paper is forbidden.

Dear Stefano,

Kåre has stolen my paper and then he falsified it according to continuity in classical physics. He REMOVED SIMPLY the uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality which is resulted from my transformation. My lawyer has all the discussions, and all the copyrights are reserved since 1996, and any attempt from Kåre to publish his paper, then we are ready to go to court.

Kare,

regarding the coordinate speed of ligth, it is the relative speed of light which is embodied in the Schwarzschild solution.This is the coordinate speed of  light co = c(1+2phi) where phi is the gravitational potential.

The energy of the photon is stationary, the momentum of ligth p is not constant but is a function of the height.. E=p(h)co(h)

the momentum decreases while the speed of light increases with the height in the same way according to the gravitational potential,.

"Notice that (up to a sign) this is exactly the formula for the

blue shift of an atomic level, which is not surprising. An atom

and a photon are here considered in the same way: both of

them are treated nonrelativistically! This is certainly wrong

for the photon.If the explanation in terms of the gravitational

attraction of a photon to the Earth were correct, one should

expect red-shift doubling (summation of the effects of the

clock and photon) in an experiment of Pound ± Rebka type."

Stefano> If I consider not a photon but an electron I cannot use V/c

The general formula, eq (15) in notes, is

E'/E = [1-(Vv/c2) cos(ϕ)]/sqrt(1-V2/c2) 

where E is the energy of the particle (massive or massless), v its velocity, V the velocity of the detector, and ϕ the angle between the velocity vectors v and V. All these measured in some inertial system. E' is the energy of the particle, as seen from the restframe of the detector just before detection. How the detection is performed, and what happens afterwards are irrelevant for the Doppler formulas. But of course relevant of the experiment as a whole.

Stefano> the coordinate speed of light co = c(1+2phi) where phi is the gravitational potential.

Which from my point of view is a completely irrelevant quantity.

Stefano> summation of the effects

You cannot use words to argue about factors of two! They are hard enough when doing the math.

Here is my paper http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059 Review the quantization of gravity from page 11, Review my equivalence principle in my paper, and then compare it with Kåre Olaussen paper. The only difference Kåre Olaussen removed simply the wave-particle duality which is resulted from my transformation and the uncertainty principle. And then he considered the motion of the free falling object according to SWR geometry. According to that he considered the motion according to continuity same as in classical physics, and then he hides the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle.

Now you can understand from where he got equation 28 in his paper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0059

As Kare said;

All these measured in some inertial system. E' is the energy of the particle, as seen from the restframe of the detector just before detection. How the detection is performed, and what happens afterwards are irrelevant for the Doppler formulas. But of course relevant of the experiment as a whole.

Here how kare falsifying my paper in his  solution same as he falsified the interpretation of H&K from my paper. Since he removed the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle in my paper according to my transformation, he said "How the detection is performed, and what happens afterwards are irrelevant for the Doppler formulas. But of course relevant of the experiment as a whole."

Here we must distinguish between the motion of the free fall object under gravitational field where in this case the motion is controlled by the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle, and when we make the measurement at a certain point in space in the gravitational field, and in this case the wave-function collapse, and in this case it is translating from 4-D to 2-D. How the uncertainty principle working in this case by the collapse of the wave-function? and how the group velocity and phase velocity is related to each other during the motion of the free fall particle under the gravitational field which is equivalent in this case nonlinear dispersion, where in this case the gravitation potential changes when changing the radius during the free falling under the gravitational field. How Lorentz transformation is working in this case and describe the motion as he said?? Lorentz transformation can't describe the motion of the free fall object under gravitational field. This  is the reality, because the motion must be described according to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle. The group velocity equals to the phase velocity in case of linear dispersion when the particle is located at a certain point in space in the gravitational field depending on the gravitational potential same as in Pond-Rebka experiment, while in nonlinear dispersion the group velocity is not equal to the phase velocity, and the classical velocity is determined according to the group velocity, and this process is depended on the uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality. Because of that during the motion under the gravitational field the uncertainty principle is responsible for light bending by gravity, precession, Shiparo delay, and the Pioneer anomaly. Remember here space must be invariant, and space is Euclidean according to my transformation. 

As Kare said;

Stefano> the coordinate speed of light co = c(1+2phi) where phi is the gravitational potential.

Which from my point of view is a completely irrelevant quantity.

Stefano> summation of the effects

You cannot use words to argue about factors of two! They are hard enough when doing the math.

Simply he as usual escape from the answers...why?? Because he do not want any one to understand the reality. And I explained that too much why???? Everything is clear and very simple.

As Stefano said "Sorry but I cannot see a comparison here, unless you refer to the Debroglie frequencies but this yet another thing...

Now why Kare does not refer to  Debroglie wavelength in his solution as in my paper??????????? In order to refer to that, he needs to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle. How can he get the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty within the framework of Lorentz transformation???

I confirm at this point in the discussion if we are looking forward to understand why gravity and quantum do not merge.

Time dilation means wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Otherwise, if we do not want quantum physics in gravity and we want to keep on objectivity and continuity same as in classical physics, then we must refuse time dilation, and then we must back to Galilean transformation. There is no choice!!!!

Kare,

"The general formula, eq (15) in notes, is

E'/E = [1-(Vv/c2) cos(ϕ)]/sqrt(1-V2/c2) 

where E is the energy of the particle (massive or massless), v its velocity, V the velocity of the detector, and ϕ the angle between the velocity vectors v and V. All these measured in some inertial system."

Sorry but  I still don't understand:

Let's concentrate in [1-(Vv/c2) cos(ϕ)], for non relativistic speeds of the observer/scattering wall and considering a scattering angle of 0 degrees.

This is what I get  E'/E=[1-(Vv/c2)],  the simplest form.

now if the speeds of the detector and the electron are the same V=v in the unidimensional case:

I would get E'/E=[1-(V2/c2)] , which for a resonable  speed there would be a remarkable difference in the energy of the electron it seems.

But in such case  there is no effect at all since the detector and the electron move at the same speed and so no energy variation can occur on the electron.

So in such case the model does not seem to work so well.

In the case that the wall is faster than the electron the electron will never meet the wall, (V>v), and there cannot be any pheonomenon as well, the relation loses again its meaning.

Only if V=-v or they have opposite speed in the RF of the lab, then the energy ratio in the lab frame would vary. Then it is justified an increase of energy of the electron after the scattering. It has to be checked if (1+v2/c2 ) is the actual energy shift of the electron having initial speed v and bouncing on a approaching inertial wall (infinte mass) with speed V in the lab frame.