Does light bending doubly violate the equivalence principle?

In summary, the equivalence principle states that an object's behavior in a uniform gravitational field is identical to that in a uniformly accelerating frame. When light travels vertically in a gravity field, it obeys the EP and is affected by the pull of gravity as if it had an inertial mass. However, when Einstein first calculated the bending of light near the sun, he only accounted for half of the total deflection due to the curvature of space. Later, he corrected this to 1.75 arcsec. In cases where a beam of light passes horizontally across a room, it will only fall by d (1/2 the total deflection) due to the effects of both the equivalence principle and the curvature of space.
  • #1
wisp
179
0
The equivalence principle (EP) - which is the basis of general relativity – states that you cannot distinguish between an object’s behaviour in a uniform gravitational field from that in a uniformly accelerating frame.
If light travels vertically in a gravity field it loses or gains energy, and experiments confirm that gravity pulls on light as if it possessed inertial mass m=E/c^2. So light traveling vertically obeys the EP.
When Einstein first calculated the bending of light near the sun he got a value of 0.8 arcsec, using the above reasoning. But later corrected this to 1.75 arcsec, because light refracts in a gravitational field. So the light bends doubly.
Consider the two cases:
1. An astronaut is in a room inside a rocket that is accelerating. A beam of light passes horizontally across the room and strikes the opposite wall lower down by distance d.
2. An astronaut is in a room inside a rocket that is stationary on the earth. A beam of light passes horizontally across the room and strikes the opposite wall lower down.
Does light fall by d (gravity pulling on light’s inertial mass only)?
Or does it fall by 2d (due to refraction and gravitational pull)?

If it’s 2d, doesn’t that violate the EP?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You haven't understood the 'bending of light' in GR properly, don't worry Einstein initially made the same mistake so you are in good company!

There are two components to the angle of deflection, the first is due to the equivalence principle, the falling of the inertial frame of reference, and the second is due to the curvature of space.

In GR each is equal to half the total deflection.

In your example the light 'falls' by d. As the experiment is local the curvature of space is not a factor, it only applies over an extended volume.

Garth
 
  • #3
wisp said:
The equivalence principle (EP) - which is the basis of general relativity – states that you cannot distinguish between an object’s behaviour in a uniform gravitational field from that in a uniformly accelerating frame.
If light travels vertically in a gravity field it loses or gains energy, and experiments confirm that gravity pulls on light as if it possessed inertial mass m=E/c^2. So light traveling vertically obeys the EP.
Yes.
When Einstein first calculated the bending of light near the sun he got a value of 0.8 arcsec, using the above reasoning. But later corrected this to 1.75 arcsec, because light refracts in a gravitational field. So the light bends doubly.
When Einstein first calculated the deflection of light it was around a spherically symmetric body (not a uniform g-field). At that time GR was an incomplete theory. Later on it became apparent that the altering of space itself takes part in the delfection. So have the deflection around a star is half E/c^2 and the other half is alterered space.
Consider the two cases:
1. An astronaut is in a room inside a rocket that is accelerating. A beam of light passes horizontally across the room and strikes the opposite wall lower down by distance d.
2. An astronaut is in a room inside a rocket that is stationary on the earth. A beam of light passes horizontally across the room and strikes the opposite wall lower down.
Does light fall by d (gravity pulling on light’s inertial mass only)?
Or does it fall by 2d (due to refraction and gravitational pull)?

It's 1-d.

Pete
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I’m not convinced that the photon doesn’t fall by 2d.
If a horizontally traveling photon meets a vertically traveling one in the stationary room, we know from the EP that the vertical one will feel the whole pull of gravity on its inertial mass E/c^2. So why should the horizontal one feel only half the pull of gravity?
And if there are a bunch of photons traveling horizontally shouldn’t they refract as their speed slows nearer the Earth, as well as feeling the whole pull of gravity?
 
  • #5
wisp said:
I’m not convinced that the photon doesn’t fall by 2d.
If a horizontally traveling photon meets a vertically traveling one in the stationary room, we know from the EP that the vertical one will feel the whole pull of gravity on its inertial mass E/c^2. So why should the horizontal one feel only half the pull of gravity?
And if there are a bunch of photons traveling horizontally shouldn’t they refract as their speed slows nearer the Earth, as well as feeling the whole pull of gravity?
Your negeclting the space curvature. Once Einstein realized that he modified his theory so as to take that into account. So now we know that half the deflection is from spatial curvature. If there is no spacetime curvature then there is no spatial deflection since a uniform field has curvature

Pete
 
  • #6
It's 1d

Following the logic in http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
the effects of gravity on light in a uniform field must pull it down by 1d. And if an equal effect is caused by light refracting in a uniform gravitational field, then it must also refract a further 1d, making 2d in total, and not 1d.

Gravity pull and refraction each account for 1d, which is 1/2 the total 2d.

Now if we take an infinitely small space, the rate of change is still 2 and not 1. So the equivalence principle is false for light bending in a uniform gravity field.
 

1. What is the equivalence principle?

The equivalence principle is a fundamental concept in physics that states that the effects of gravity are equivalent to the effects of acceleration. This means that an observer cannot distinguish between being in a gravitational field and accelerating at a constant rate.

2. How does light bending relate to the equivalence principle?

According to the theory of general relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. This curvature also affects the path of light, causing it to bend in the presence of massive objects. Therefore, the bending of light by gravity is considered to be a violation of the equivalence principle.

3. What is the significance of doubly violating the equivalence principle?

If light were to bend doubly, it would mean that the effects of gravity on light are different from the effects of gravity on massive objects. This would undermine the fundamental principle of equivalence and potentially lead to a new understanding of gravity and the laws of physics.

4. How has the equivalence principle been tested?

The equivalence principle has been extensively tested through various experiments, such as the Eötvös experiment, which compared the acceleration of different objects in a gravitational field, and the Pound-Rebka experiment, which measured the gravitational redshift of light. These experiments have consistently shown that the equivalence principle holds true.

5. Is there any evidence for doubly violating the equivalence principle?

So far, there is no evidence for doubly violating the equivalence principle. However, there are ongoing experiments, such as the MICROSCOPE mission, that are testing this principle with even greater precision. Any evidence for doubly violating the equivalence principle would have significant implications for our understanding of gravity and the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
90
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
707
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
896
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Back
Top