My opinion is that phase and group velocity of photons should be mutually related as in other real matter waves situations (the same equation), but in certain narrow band interval, making an impression that light velocity is always constant, but this is not the case.  This is fundamental and very large field.  Difficult to answer in a few lines.  You could see more of my thinking about similar problematic here:  http://mastersonics.com/documents/revision_of_the_particle-wave_dualism.pdf  (see the second chapter, starting from the page 113, paragraph 2.3.3).

The Pound-Rebka experiment only tests and corroborates the equivalence principle according to which time slows down in an attractive  gravitational potential, and it does not test the space-time curvature predicted by Einstein's equations. While bending of light, gravitational waves from Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, Schwarzschild  solution, anomalous precession of the Mercury's perihelion, etc. do test general relativity. 

Actually, I have published a theory of a quantum interaction that can have the desired effects.  I'm not saying it is complete.  More of a speculation.  It is not based on QFT which deals only with time-energy fields.  You could, I think, take any conjugate pair and make a field out of it, and I used position-momentum. 

The interactions are not momentum exchanges, but quasi-measurements which change the uncertainty and therefore mass.  Time dilation can be inferred to be the consequence of these relative inertia changes, and you can read about this (it's very abstract and long, sorry) in the publication below.  You might have to also read the 2011 publication it references.

This is not complete, however.  As you can imagine, it has to be derived from scratch, or at least from equivalence, and at the time there was no way to derive curvature from equivalence.  There is now, and over the next year or two I will issue an update.  Meanwhile, once my curvature paper is listed somewhere, maybe arXiv, I'll try to remember to come back and post it here.

Article On Dynamics in a Quasi-Measurement Field

Dear Miodrag Prokic

Thank you for your respond and interesting link, it is very useful. My problem is how we can analyze gravitational blueshift by using standard model concepts of particles, and in this case relationship between graviton and photon?

As; "Present theory of Gravitation is still not very far from old Newton and classical mechanics foundation." page 113 (your link), in my opinion we need a new concept and definition for graviton and in generally quantum particles.

Dear Patrick

Yes, I agree with you. Please consider that there is many unanswered questions and complex concepts in modern physics. Also, last century discoveries is able help us to develop general relativity and quantum mechanics.

My book is something like collection of brainstorming and "free-thinking" or reminder about challenging items in physics.  The example (in my book) that is sufficiently similar to the problem you initiated is on the pages 138-139-140 (or in the book pages are numerated as 128-129-130).  We should be able to analyze such situations analogically, where photon moving between two masses could also be (analogically) treated as certain small mass, and this way we will be in a position to find Doppler frequency shifts in both directions (like red and blue shifts).  We need to find bottom-line, conceptually clear solution, before we move towards probabilities and uncertainties.  Quantum Theory is not the most suitable theory to address such situations.  

Dear Robert

I did read your article. Thank you for your new looking. As you know time dilation (in special relativity) is a result of relativistic Newton's second law. In my opinion we should reconsider the relativistic Newton's second law. Please see;

Reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law and its results

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5518

Hossein, you have written a book not a paper.  :D  I looked through about 17 pages.  It looks interesting, but the arguments need to be tightened up a lot, shortened and given focus.  I don't have time this week to look further as I have a big deadline.  In general my reaction to anything with a graviton is negative, as it will have renormalization problems.

Dear Miodrag

Your book is very useful and I am looking on it as a reference. I have saved and studying because it contains interesting concepts.

"We need to find bottom-line, conceptually clear solution, before we move towards probabilities and uncertainties. Quantum Theory is not the most suitable theory to address such situations." I agree with you and I am trying same. But I think first step should be reconsidering the relativistic Newton's second law, and I did.

Dear Robert

Thank you for your kindly respond. You are right about " renormalization problems". But please consider that old definition of graviton might be not really and we should change our looking on graviton.

A New Definition of Graviton

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/951

Dear Hossein,  We have number of examples (experiments) where is verified how to make dualistic (wave-particle) energy-momentum equivalency and mutual replacements (Compton and Photoelectric effects etc.).  Based on such parallelism we are in a position to deduce what rest mass should be.  In my view, rest mass (also presentable as an equivalent wave group) should be certain specifically stabilized formation of self-closed standing matter waves.  This way we could exercise when an electromagnetic wave group (or photons) has a chance to be transformed in certain particle (like electron).  Since we know how to associate mass, momentum and energy to certain wave group (relativity theory relations), we can start thinking about analogical applying Newton laws on wave-groups, as well as about interactions between wave-groups and gravitation.  Here we should not forget that motional particles have only one meaning of associated velocity, but wave groups have group and phase velocity (and phase velocity is the product of certain matter-wave frequency and wavelength)... This way we are coming closer to motion and gravitational force dependent frequency and we could open discussions about blue and red Doppler frequency shifts... always analogically conceptualizing between particle and an equivalent wave group (just to stay on stable grounds).  And step by step, this way we will open very interesting process which should be experimentally verifiable (in relation to red and blue shifts of photons in gravitational field...). 

Dear Miodrag

Yes, There are very useful items in the your book that I should read it. I think we should change our understanding zero rest mass and like-point particles.

We have almost the same understanding and imagination of large objects (at the level of molecules and larger). But in the case of subatomic particles, there is no clearly defined and visualized concept, and there are many uncertainties, especially in the case of photon and graviton. Therefore, any theory offers certain understanding (such as loop and string theories) of these particles. In discussion with my dear friend Daniel, we enjoyed his imagination. He wrote; "...since I consider gravity to be a localized phenomenon with rapid attenuation and to be a space deformation like the rubber sheet of Einstein, I maintain that gravitons are not particles -- indeed, I believe all bosons are a wavelike field phenomena. Even Higgs never proposed a Higgs particle -- he proposed the Higgs Field that "clusters" many wavelets to a denser state. He was a Field Theorist as I am. To me all is field and condensed energy moving wavelets at different frequencies." (1) According to this view, in my opinion I am using the particles for quantum and sub quantum particles without any imagination of them.

As we know, some particles such as photons are never seen at rest in any reference frame. So, there are two kinds of particles in physics;

1- Some particles like the photon move only with the speed of light c, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles the NR particles or Never at Rest condition particles.

2- Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v

Yes, free photons and maybe gravitons are NR wave packets, until conditions are created to transform photons in moving particles as electrons, positrons etc.  Gravitons are still hypothetical creations ( inventions), or probably certain form of electromagnetic waves... (see chapter 10 in my book).

Dear Miodrag

"Gravitons are still hypothetical creations ( inventions), or probably certain form of electromagnetic waves..." Graviton is not an invention, but there is a hard relationship between graviton and electromagnetic energy. I have definited graviton by using the photon conception.

"... gravitons are nothing more then entangled photons where each photons couple makes a graviton. It means that gravitational field is just a result of two entangled electric fields." http://www.andrijar.com/gl/gl.pdf , it is used to your book;s references.

Seems I have developt Andrija work. See page 27 of following link;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263083376_Reviewing_Friedmann_Equation_and_Inflation_Theory_by_Sub_Quantum_Energy?ev=prf_pub

Article Reviewing Friedmann Equation and Inflation Theory by Sub Qua...

The question relating to the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism is explainable in classical physics terms and is covered in the paper that I co-authored with Thomas Kopinski: "The Origins of Classical Matter," which is available to download on ResearchGate.

Dear Frank

I saw your article. Electromagnetic wave and gravity is based on the limit of speed. And classical mechanics is based on the infinite speed.  

Hossein,

The classical view of gravity is based upon the false assumption that gravity emanates from mass. Once the proper assumptions are in place, the standard classical principles hold for gravity, as described in our paper.

Further the need for "gravitons" is not necessary to account for gravity. This also is an erroneous attribution of physical properties to a relationship. Relationships have consequences even though there is no separate particle that holds those relationships.

Frank there are several papers on your site and one on gravity is not obvious.  Please provide link.

Dear Frank

Mass produces gravity or gravity is producing mass really?

I don't know anything about Frank's theory yet, but more often than not relationships like "a produces b" are reversible from some point of view.  Gravity producing mass (or inertia) is basically Mach's viewpoint.  Objects, even light, falling into a deep field slow down in their coordinate velocity relative to observers.  They get stuck in angular position as well, which is coordinate independent.  This seems to be inertia-like, but it is relative (the total inertia of gravitating object plus infallen mass-energy does not increase).

Robert,

The paper I am referring to is "The Origins of Classical Matter," one of the papers uploaded on ResearchGate. It is also available at my physics website:  . The paper is not primarily about gravity, however, the gravitational effect is a natural result of the model proposed in the paper.

Robert:

If the coupling between em and G were that simple, Einstein would have figured it out. First, it appears you're assuming that that coupling is always there, thus your suggestion that we study blueshift. If it were always there, it would have been discovered already at lower energy scales. That has not been the case except in my research which is unique. In any other case, it requires high energy experiments like those possible at the LHC. 

@Barnes, light propagates relative to gravitational fields (e.g. Shapiro delay).  What more evidence of coupling could you want?  I suppose you might find something at the LHC pertaining to gravity, but my money would bet against.  : )

Robert:

That is not the definition of coupling, or not the example that researchers in the field talk about. We're specifically referring to the ability of electromagnetism to mimic or produce gravitational effects and vice versa. If they are coupled they can be manipulated so that one acts like the other. That is what is commonly meant when talking about a coupling between EM and gravity. This research is in the advanced concept area and is not known to many outside of that community which would include the original researchers drawn to NASA's now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program and beyond. H. David Froning is one of the researchers who have been studying this in detail. So far, it would appear that I'm the one getting the best results which are being prepared for commercial exploitation. I've done presentations on this for 2013 100 Years Starship Symposium and 2013/2014 International Space Development Conference and others. However, as I mentioned before, my work was the result of pure experimentation and not doing any mathematical work prior. As a result, I can't give a mathematical description of what is happening, but then again, that's not my job. Making it work from a technological point of view, is, and that's what I'm doing.

Some references on prior research of others:

http://www.utahspace.org/special/froning.html (towards the bottom)

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2001-3658

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23420807_An_Alternative_to_Kaluza

http://www.cqfyl.com/pdf/emcc3.pdf

Article An Alternative to Kaluza

They are physically linked together in space.  You know, i even looked up the definition of coupling for this response.  Unfortunately I can't report anything useful.  It can refer to a thing which links machinery, or sex, etc. 

In any case, any discussion of linkage between gravity and EM which does not address the primary and universally felt linkage, coupling, whatever you wish to call it, is missing the point.  That was my point.

Don't think that physicists can't miss the point, en masse, for 100 years at a time.  If you have any interest in light bending (oh, that would the kind of coupling of EM with gravity that researchers in the field do not address, but anyway, just in case you are curious), check out this simple solution to the 100 year old light bending in equivalence problem.  I think I'll submit it as a candidate question for that TV show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader."  (I admit it did take me 7 years to find it, but at least I kept trying)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265161911_Light_Path_Constraint_in_Equivalence?ev=prf_pub

I should take Marshall's point more seriously.  There was an important case historically in which EM was thought to mimic INERTIA, actually, closely related to gravity.  Einstein 1912 and Sciama 1953 both published papers (using different approaches, Sciama hadn't seen Einstein's) linking inertia to a gravitational "analogy" of induction.  So I guess you could say they though induction or back reaction mimic'd inertia.  I spent a couple of years on this before finding a better approach to inertia.

As for more than just mimic'ing something, I can prove it is not reasonable to expect that.  It has to do with time dilation and the standard model and complementary particles.  None of the electro-weak-strong fields are unipolar, that I'm aware of.  So complementary particles (which could annihilate) can be lowered into a field without a net change in potential energy.  This prevents any possibility of time dilation, which is linked to clock rates which are linked to photon frequencies.

The always attractive gravitational field, though, gives up energy if any kind of mass is, for example, lowered on a tether, even if it's a bottle of matter and a 2nd bottle of antimatter.  When the annihilation photons reach the original altitude they are found to be weaker, implying time dilation (which is of course separately well verified.

Since gravity works by time dilation (I can show that time dilation is its primary effect, and that motion emerges from that), it seems to be something very different from an EM field.  Obviously EM fields create gravity and gravity attracts EM fields.  So there is some linkage (I'm trying to avoid the coupling word). 

Now maybe this thread is very serious.  By default I assume so.  Then why not address the coupling, oops, sorry, linkage that I brought up? 

On the other hand when I see papers saying they can produce or control gravity with EM fields, my eyes glaze over, because the EM fields cannot produce time dilation, or un-dilation, and so understanding lower level questions would be more productive than chasing after fairytales.

If anyone is interested in a more careful exposition of the unipolar field and time dilation thing, see the figures in the linked paper.  The coordinate systems need revising in this paper, but the difference between EM and gravity is clearly explained.

Robert:

I did a search for "coupling "over at arXive.org. Here are the results - http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/abs:+coupling/0/1/0/all/0/1 I'm sorry, but none of the results there had anything to do with sex...

I understand the examples you gave. However, the coupling I'm referring to (and I'll use that word since that's the way it was described decades before I was even born) has to be induced in order for it to be evident. The only other way that it can be detected is by high energy physics. So this is not a simple problem, if it were, Einstein would have figured it out. That is why Froning was trying to create the effect through "specially conditioned" electromagnetic fields.

My success was in synthesizing a signal that when it hits metal, produces a field with the right properties, i.e. a gravitic field. I must point out, however, that the field does nothing on its own  but if it is around a moving object, it will accelerate that object in the direction of motion. Gravity drops prove that the effect is acting on space-time itself. We've measured rates of increase in acceleration from about 5% to 15%. That's at low power, around 18 watts.. Eventually, we'll scale it up in the ranges of 1,000 - 20,000 watts.

I might add that your statement that gravity works "by" time dilation is incorrect. Gravity can produce time dilation but gravity is warped space-time created normally by mass. Also, when you say that EM fields can't produce time dilation, I would agree with you, under "normal"  circumstances, but there's nothing normal about this kind of research. My first lab was set-up solely for the purpose of exploring the potential of "exotic" EM fields created by means outside typical methodology. I've seen EM fields defeat broadband filtering of TVs and radios, pick-up over the air TV broadcasts from over a hundred miles away, intercept telephones, airport beacons and police band radio through TVs, and more. But they weren't "normal". Neither are black holes, which weren't even thought to exist before the early 90s. So, talking about EM fields under normal conditions to address any idea of coupling is like the drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp at 3 AM because the light is better there.

There is a tremendous amount of research yet to be done on the subject, outside of my own work, but I'm swamped right now dealing with the commercial applications of what I've been able to produce so far, which is how I get paid. So, having made my point, I'm bowing out because I just don't have the time for lengthy discussions the way I used to. I just don't. I've been working a split shift day for over a week now (11PM - 8AM, 3PM to 7PM) and it might not end 'til mid September. So carry on without me...

Marshall, by my statement about gravity emerging from time dilation, I was referring to the logical arguments in my Hamiltonian paper, see link above.  Not to the standard ideological explanation of "spacetime curves and causes objects to move."  That has never been proven and it probably isn't even a provable statement.  Which causes which among two things is sometimes ambiguous.  Read the paper and you're bound to agree that it could be that time dilation is sufficient.  I don't say you'll agree.

Regarding your experiments, this kind of thing has been done several times before.  It never seems to stick around past the life of its promoter.  Maybe you'll have better luck.  I have offered my insights on this thread, but I will not be able to discuss beyond this post due to a very difficult schedule.  See you.

Dear Robert

What I understood the both special and general relativity are explaining what observers can observe. For example, according to special relativity the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. There is not any reason why the speed of light is constant. See;

On the constancy of the speed of light: a nature law or a natural accident!?

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/5482

The gravity and electromagnetism can be express one depending the other.

You can find in attach an extract from my article communication Graviton Physics where I have proven this.

Dear Balseanu

Thank you for comment. I have explained by using the structure of fundamental particles.

The Mechanism of Graviton Exchange between Bodies, 2016

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310457967_The_Mechanism_of_Graviton_Exchange_between_Bodies_Part_II

Dear Hossein,

it seems like we think the same. In my first article (published in 2000) about graviton, referring to origin of matter and gravity, the gravitons exchange, particles and fields composition, I indicate that all particles and fields can be connected and express according to graviton characteristics. I also calculate and verify the graviton characteristics, which in fact were proved to be correct. In 2014 I recalculate these characteristics according to the newest CODATA values and results were more accurate.

In last preprint of my work published on this website I communicate latest accurate results: Preprint THE PHYSICS OF GRAVITON

Unfortunately, many of peoples from this website have no patience to read the article carefully, much less to comment. It is obvious that this is what everybody is looking for, but all of them prefer to sink more and more in theories trying to explain simple things.

Dear Balseanu

Your effort is appreciable.

But we have different approaches. I directly explored the interaction between gravity and photon and acquired the graviton properties. In any case, I wish you success. For detail read:

Photon-Graviton Interaction and CPH Theory

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308890409_Photon-Graviton_Interaction_and_CPH_Theory

Connection between quantum gravity and entanglement

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315572721_Connection_between_quantum_gravity_and_entanglement