Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading

**Sorcerer** · #11 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| wrote:
| PD wrote:
| wrote:
| Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
| ---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999
|
| ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL
FIELD
| L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
| ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
| e-mail: ,
| and
| V.L. TELEGDI
| EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
| e-mail:
|
| Excerpt:
|
| "ABSTRACT
|
| The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
| gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
| is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
| on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
| of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
| potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating
photon
| do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
| relative to the frequency of the clock.
|
| On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
| (even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
| a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
| body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
| "gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
| we assert that it is misleading.
|
| We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
| comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
| a pedagogical one."
|
|
| This proof falsifies Einstein's view:
|
| Excerpt:
|
| "The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
| General
| Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
| was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
| Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
| emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
| deeper in the gravitational potential.
|
|
| I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
| Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
| effect than as a change of energy effect.
| The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
| this effect is due to a change of energy.
|
| PD
|
| For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
| would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
| *beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
| of the massive body".
|
| Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
| frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
| don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.
|
|
| I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

I see you are still a one-liner troll with nothing useful to contribute.

Androcles.

| PD
|

**mluttgens@wanadoo.fr** · #12 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

Marcel learns nothing from anywhere.
We know that since more than 5 years :-)

Dirk Vdm

Stay in your village, idiot!

Marcel Luttgens

**mluttgens@wanadoo.fr** · #13 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks

don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

Marcel Luttgens

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

PD

PD

PD · #14 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks

don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

Marcel Luttgens

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

**Henri Wilson** · #15 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

On 13 Jul 2006 21:20:22 -0700, "PD" wrote:

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

Why?

It is perfectly well understood in terms of light accelerating as it falls,
like any other lump of matter.

Marcel is correct. GR is plain bull****.

PD

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

**mluttgens@wanadoo.fr** · #16 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

Tell us PD, what shift is observed by a freely falling receiver?
(That shift is 0 according to eveybody, perhaps not according to
you).

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The answer is simple: the Doppler blue shift gH/c^2 is exacty cancelled
by a redshift of -gh/c^2 due to the loss of energy of the photons as
they "overcome the gravitational attraction of the Earth?
Do you reject such answer? Why?

Marcel Luttgens

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that clocks

don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

Marcel Luttgens

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

**Sue...** · #17 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

**Harry** · #18 July 14th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2006 21:20:22 -0700, "PD" wrote:

wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
PD wrote:
wrote:
Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------

Excerpts from arXiv: physics/ 9907017 v2 27 Jul 1999

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL
FIELD
L.B. OKUN and K.G. SELIVANOV
ITEP, Moscow, 117218, Russia
e-mail: ,
and
V.L. TELEGDI
EP Division, CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23
e-mail:

Excerpt:

"ABSTRACT

The classical phenomenon of the redshift of light in a static
gravitational potential, usually called the gravitational
redshift,
is described in the literature essentially in two ways:
on the one hand the phenomenon is explained through the
behaviour
of clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in
the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating
photon
do not change with height. The light thus appears to be
redshifted
relative to the frequency of the clock.

On the other hand the phenomenon is alternatively discussed
(even in some authoritative texts) in terms of an energy loss
of
a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the
massive
body. This second approach operates with notions such as the
"gravitational mass" or the "potential energy" of a photon and
we assert that it is misleading.

We do not claim to present any original ideas or to give a
comprehensive review of the subject, our goal being essentially
a pedagogical one."

This proof falsifies Einstein's view:

Excerpt:

"The gravitational redshift is a classical effect of Einstein's
General
Relativity (GR), one predicted by him [1] well before that
theory
was created [2] (for the historical background, see e.g., [3]).
Phenomenologically one can simply affirm that the frequency of
light
emitted by two identical atoms is smaller for the atom which
sits
deeper in the gravitational potential.

I'm sorry, Marcel. I don't see any conflict.
Okun says that redshift is better understood that as a time
dilation
effect than as a change of energy effect.
The statement at bottom says the effect occurs. It does not say
that
this effect is due to a change of energy.

PD

For a freely falling absorber, the signal emitted from the ground
would appear *Doppler blue shifted* by gH/c^2 if it were not
*beforehand* red shifted by gH/c^2 by "the gravitational attraction
of the massive body".

Because of the Doppler effect, one has to accept that the energy
and
frequency of the propagating photon change with height, and that
clocks
don't run the faster the higher they are located in the potential.

I see you learned nothing from reading Lev Okun's article.

What do you don't understand in my demonstration:

It is not a demonstration. It is an exposition of precisely what Okun
warned about. The Doppler shift is *not* best understood as a loss or
increase of energy of the photon, precisely because of the problem that
Okun points out. It is better understood as a difference in clock rates
at different locations in the potential well.

Why?

It is perfectly well understood in terms of light accelerating as it
falls,
like any other lump of matter.

Marcel is correct. GR is plain bull****.

This was discussed before in a thread in which you participated:
http://tinyurl.com/pflq2

Harald

**mluttgens@wanadoo.fr** · #19 July 15th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

Sue... wrote:
wrote:

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

**Sue...** · #20 July 15th 06 posted to sci.physics.relativity

wrote:
Sue... wrote:
wrote:

As the receiver is moving relatively to the source, why doesn't he
observe a blue shift due to the Doppler effect, instead of no shift
at all?

The Mossbauer 'receiver' is extremely narrow due to the high
Q of the atomic oscillator. It only observes (absorbs) light
which is of the right frequency and phase to permit an
efficient transition to a permissible energy level.

A wide band receiver will intercept the transitions at a
higher rate due to the closing motion, just as you have
described.

Sue...

Thank you.

Only crackpots would stick to the explanation according to which
"clocks which run the faster the higher they are located in the
potential, whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon
do not change with height."

But, nevertheless, most GRists will probably not openly recognize that
such explanation is "misleading".

Marcel Luttgens

LOL
I am looking for a Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment down a
mine shaft. I think that would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding
but so far I haven't found one. Either my research skills are
getting rusty or graduate students have a softer life these days.

Sue...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Interpretation of the complex wavefunction (Bohr, Einstein or Feynman) ?	Peter Christensen	Physics - General Discussion	3	January 27th 06 04:17 PM
Gravitational redshift.	dwhig265@aol.com	The Theory of Relativity	14	October 16th 05 12:20 AM
Gravitational redshift...	dwhig265@aol.com	The Theory of Relativity	16	October 3rd 05 09:11 PM
Gravitational Redshift According to the Ballistic Theory.	Henri Wilson	The Theory of Relativity	0	December 13th 04 12:14 AM
Einstein bending of Light cause Redshift, Refraction is similar?	Peter K.	The Theory of Relativity	12	July 9th 04 07:44 AM