Gravitational Redshift really verification of GR?

thehangedman
Messages
68
Reaction score
2
If we assume:

E = mc^{2}

and for photons:

E = hv

Then we can derive an effective mass:

m = \frac{hv}{c^{2}}

And using simple classical gravity obtain:

hv - \frac{GMm}{r} = hv - \frac{GMhv}{c^{2}r} = Constant

You can derive the constant by evaluating the equation above at the limit as r goes to infinity. This then gives you the gravitational red shift, all without using anything from GR.

So, since this prediction is the same for classical AND GR, how can red shift be used as verification of GR? I'm not questioning GR, just wondering why this is still listed as verification when it's clearly not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thehangedman said:
If we assume:

E = mc^{2}

and for photons:

E = hv

Then we can derive an effective mass:

m = \frac{hv}{c^{2}}

And using simple classical gravity obtain:

hv - \frac{GMm}{r} = hv - \frac{GMhv}{c^{2}r} = Constant

You can derive the constant by evaluating the equation above at the limit as r goes to infinity. This then gives you the gravitational red shift, all without using anything from GR.

So, since this prediction is the same for classical AND GR, how can red shift be used as verification of GR? I'm not questioning GR, just wondering why this is still listed as verification when it's clearly not.

That's not correct. The gravitational redshift factor corresponds the to change in gravitational time dilation \frac{d\tau}{dt}-1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}-1.
 
If you are referring to the Pound and Rebka experiment, it proves gravitational redshift but it does not prove the validity of the Schwarzschild solution (even when we ignore rotation) as the experiment is not accurate enough to do that.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top