- #1

- Thread starter SpaceGuy
- Start date

- #1

- #2

Chi Meson

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 1,789

- 10

"like I always said: that guy is on to something."

paraphrased from A. Michelson

paraphrased from A. Michelson

- #3

- 158

- 2

This experiment shows that the velocity of light is in fact reduced in a gravitational field. This was originally proven by Shapiro in the 1970ies.... confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements

Why does the reduction of the velocity of light in a gravitational field prove that the spacetime is curved?? This is just a formal way used by Einstein to describe this phenomenon.

When a light-like particle (like e.g. a photon) passes a massive body it is subject to a lot of interactions with the exchange particles of the fields within the body (e.g. the strong and the electric interaction). These interactions disturb the path of the particle, so that the particle will need more time to pass a specific distance.

To my knowledge this was not quantitatively evaluated yet as a theory. But as soon as it is done it will us tell what really goes on, in terms of physics.

What Einstein has done is, from the point of science theory, a so called "geometrized" theory. This method is nomally a mathematically elegant way, but causes us to forget the physics behind.

- #4

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

So if nobody has been able to quantitatively evaluate this theory in the affirmative, what justification do you have to claim it is what really occurs?To my knowledge this was not quantitatively evaluated yet as a theory. But as soon as it is done it will us tell what really goes on, in terms of physics.

Well I guess I forgot the physics behind it, because to the best of my knowledge, the only physics that adequately explains gravity is General Relativity.This method is nomally a mathematically elegant way, but causes us to forget the physics behind.

Last edited:

- #5

- 499

- 1

- #6

- 24

- 0

- #7

neutroncount

Because light is following a straight path in curved space. The "path of least resistance" so to speak. Remember, the shortest distance in curved space doesn't always look straight.Originally posted by Coughlan

- #8

- 24

- 0

- #9

neutroncount

The important thing here is light never slows down. It's always at c. In curved geometry, a curved path can be the shortest. Light takes the "shortest" path thinking it to be a straight shot to where ever it's traveling.Originally posted by Coughlan

- #10

- 158

- 2

General Relativity of Einstein does in fact not explain gravity.... the only physics that adequately explains gravity is General Relativity

Gravity is one of the big open problems in present physics. Gravity is in conflict with the standard model, it is in conflict with quantum mechanics.

But a solution is possible. If we take the fact that the velocity of light is reduced in a gravitational field and apply this to the internal oscillations of an elementary particle (as it is stated by the Dirac equation for the electron) then gravity is quantitatively explained and the conflicts to the rest of physics disappear.

So, the origin of gravity is the reduction of the velocity of light near a massive body. - Why is the velocity of light reduced? This is the open question and to explain gravity means to explain the reduction of the velocity of light.

Did Einstein explain, why it is? No, he did not! He just stated that the velocity of light is always constant, but the space is contracted/curved in the vicinity of a massive body. This is by his statement the reason why a photon needs more time to pass a specific distance. Why should the space contract?? I found no answer.

If you sit in your car and push the throttle control, the car will accelerate. That is a normal physical statement. Equivalently you can state that the speed of your car is always constant, but when you push the throttle control, the space in front of the car will contract. This is in fact a possible description of this process, and it can mathematically yield the correct results. But would you do it in this way? And will this explain why this contraction of space happens?

Einstein has not explained gravity, he only described the facts in a formal ("geometrized") mathematical way. The only quantitative parameter in gravity, the gravitational constant G, was not given by Einstein by a theoretical deduction, but was measured in experiments. And the measurements are, as we know, inconsistent to each other. Why are they? Most probably he theory is wrong!

If you are interested in the way how gravity follows from the reduction of the velocity of light, I have prepared a site in the web to explain this:

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

- #11

- 499

- 1

- #12

- 158

- 2

I think it is a different point.But this cannot come about until we better understand just exactly what spacetime itself is.

"Space" as well as "time" are human abstractions. We cannot measure them, we cannot notice them.

We can compare the sizes of objects, but we cannot measure "space".

We can compare the frequencies of periodic processes, but we cannot measure "time".

So we are very much free to define what "space" or "time" should mean. Our definition of space or time cannot be "right" or "wrong", it can only be practical or less practical.

By my example of an accelerated car I wanted to show a definition of space, which is not wrong, but which is not very practical.

In this meaning it is not practical to use space and time in the way as Einstein did it. He is/was not wrong, but he was not very practical.

I guess that we will find out soon which physical effect delays the motion of e.g. a photon. (I.e. the interaction with the exchange particles of the other forces). After this is made sure, (and I am very confident about it), what will then happen to the model of Einstein of a curved space/time??

Regarding the measurement of G: The differences of the results are greatly outside the measurement uncertainties (many standard deviations). I guess for the reason: Gravity does not depend on the mass of the gravitational source but on something different, which is however quite strongly related to the mass (e.g. the number of charges of all kinds in the source object).

- #13

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

How do you figure? Einstein's use of space and time revolutionized physical thinking, correctly predicted many effects that were previously thought absurd, enabled the precise operation of the GPS system, and yields quantitative calculations that agree with reality better than any other known theory of gravitation.In this meaning it is not practical to use space and time in the way as Einstein did it. He is/was not wrong, but he was not very practical.

And one point lost on most people is that modelling space-time with differential geometry (aka "curved space") is

The very definition of a differentiable manifold is that it looks like

You do realize there are twenty-odd parameters in the Standard Model that are not given by theoretical deduction? (not to mention I can't imagine how one can presume that the existance of a ton of fields is any more of an explanation than curved space)Einstein has not explained gravity, he only described the facts in a formal ("geometrized") mathematical way. The only quantitative parameter in gravity, the gravitational constant G, was not given by Einstein by a theoretical deduction, but was measured in experiments.

- #14

- 158

- 2

Let's start from a simple point.How do you figure? Einstein's use of space and time revolutionized physical thinking, correctly predicted many effects that were previously thought absurd, enabled the precise operation of the GPS system, and yields quantitative calculations that agree with reality better than any other known theory of gravitation.

Some postings ago we had the following discussion which we can relate to the Shapiro experiment:

We find experimentally that a photon moving from Earth to Venus and back needs more time when the sun has to be passed closely, than at the other time when the sun is far.

Two explanations:

1. The velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field of the sun .... or

2. The velocity of light is always the same, but the space is curved in the gravitational field.

The second statement follows Einstein.

What is the advantage to use the second way (Einstein)? We give up our traditional understanding of space (and of time in the general application). What do we get as a return?

When we look to the bending of light at the sun, which was observed at the sun eclipse experiment of 1922 (which made Einstein famous), this can be quantitatively explained by a normal refraction process. We know that the velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field in the following way:

c(r) = c0*(1-(G*M)/(c0*r^2))

In every situation where c is dependent on r, we get - very classically - a refraction. This refraction explains

The same refraction happens within an elementary particle to the internal oscillation going on there. This causes the normal gravitational acceleration.

I have asked at several occasions whether there are effects of General Relativity which cannot be explained in an analog way. Nobody told me such cases. If you can, please do, I would be really thankful.

For the details of the cases above I again refer to the web site I made about it:

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

- #15

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

A more accurate understanding of space-time, gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift, black holes, gravitational waves, cosmic expansion (hubble redshift), GPS...What is the advantage to use the second way (Einstein)? We give up our traditional understanding of space (and of time in the general application). What do we get as a return?

Anyways, before I know how to respond, I must know if you accept special relativity.

- #16

- 841

- 1

Gravitational light bending cannot be explained by refraction. In refraction, the angle of deflection must be dependent strongly on the wavelength of light. But experiments have shown that gravitational light bending is independent of wavelength.Originally posted by Albrecht

When we look to the bending of light at the sun, which was observed at the sun eclipse experiment of 1922 (which made Einstein famous), this can be quantitatively explained by a normal refraction process.

Anyway, a "variable speed of light" theory of gravity such as you propose cannot account for the multitude of other experiments concerning gravity that do not involve the deflection of light (Hafele-Keating, Taylor-Hulse, Lense-Thirring, Friedmann cosmology, etc. etc.). Scalar theories of gravity generally do not work (e.g. chapter 7 of Misner et al).

You haven't even been able to support your claims of what your theory can predict; your web page claims that your theory can account for the perihelion precession of the planets, but you have no derivation of its value (e.g. ~43"/century for Mercury).

I have asked at several occasions whether there are effects of General Relativity which cannot be explained in an analog way. Nobody told me such cases. If you can, please do, I would be really thankful.

It is up to you to prove that your theory accounts for all known effects, not for other people to check your theory against all known effects. Get Cliff Will's book and calculate what your theory predicts for all of the standard tests of GR. (Some of these tests are summarized in http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/).

Better yet, calculate the PPN parameters of your theory. If they come out in agreement with experiment, someone might bother paying attention to your theory.

Until then, it is absurd to believe or even suggest that there are no effects that your theory cannot account for -- you have considered only a tiny fraction of the effects that general relativity can explain, and have not even made truly quantitative predictions for most of them.

- #17

- 158

- 2

That works also with the approach I gave you. But much easier to understand.Originally posted by Hurkyl

A more accurate understanding of space-time, gravitational bending of light, gravitational redshift, black holes, gravitational

waves, cosmic expansion (hubble redshift), GPS...

Sure, I accept special relativity. That means I accept the phenomena of contraction (of objects), dilation (of periodic processes), and the increase of mass at motion.Anyways, before I know how to respond, I must know if you accept special relativity.

However, I do not use as a theory the (geometrized) version of Einstein, but the (physical) version of Lorentz / Poincare which delivers the same results. Special relativity is the consequence of the limited velocity of light by which all fields propagate, and of the inner structure of elementary particles.

I have described also this in a web site:

http://www.ag-physics.org/relat

That is definitely wrong.Originally posted by Ambitwistor

Gravitational light bending cannot be explained by refraction. In refraction, the angle of deflection must be dependent strongly on the wavelength of light. But experiments have shown that gravitational light bending is independent of wavelength.

If the velocity of light depends on the wavelength (like in a glass lens), then also the refraction angle depends on the wavelength. The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength. That is basic classical physics.

Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave.Anyway, a "variable speed of light" theory of gravity such as you propose cannot account for the multitude of other experiments concerning gravity that do not involve the deflection of light (Hafele-Keating, Taylor-Hulse, Lense-Thirring, Friedmann cosmology, etc. etc.).

Lense-Thirring can also be explained by the refraction process, similar to the perihelion shift.

I do not know Taylor-Hulse and Friedmann cosmology, I shall check those two.

For the perihelion drift you are right, I should give the result in detail. I am going to add it to my web site.

Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different, which gives us the possibility to understand it as physical phenomena. So the results will not be different.

You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.It is up to you to prove that your theory accounts for all known effects, not for other people to check your theory against all known effects. Get Cliff Will's book and calculate what your theory predicts for all of the standard tests of GR. (Some of these tests are summarized in http://www.livingreviews.org/Articl...me4/2001-4will/)

- #18

- 841

- 1

My apologies. I was paying attention to the part where you said you were describing light bending by ordinary refraction, not noticing that your theory does not, in fact, describe ordinary refraction.Originally posted by Albrecht

The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength.

All right, prove it: where is your calculation of the magnitude of these effects?Hafele-Keating is partially special relativity and is of course in agreement with the model I gave. Lense-Thirring can also be explained by the refraction process, similar to the perihelion shift.

No, you are not. You are writing down a scalar theory of gravity in a fixed background, which is mathematically inequivalent to general relativity: it doesn't even have the right number of degrees of freedom. (Your field theory has only one independent component of the gravitational field: the speed of light at an event. GR has 10 independent components. It is mathematically possible for the former to be equivalent to the latter.)

Formally what I am doing is just a mathematical transformation of the theory of Einstein into something different,

In particular, the gravitational field you obtain for the Sun is mathematically equivalent to the metric,

ds^2 = -c(r)^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

which certainly is not general relativity's prediction.

Of course you will never find conflicts if you don't confront your theory with experimental data. For that, you need to make concrete quantitative predictions. You certainly have not calculated even a fraction of the effects that serve as tests of general relativity, so it means nothing that you "have not found conflicts yet".

You are right that I have to prove my theory myself. But it helps me if you provide me material. So thank you for the reference given. I shall read it and then respond. I have already read something in livingreviews, but did not find conflicts yet.

- #19

russ_watters

Mentor

- 19,599

- 5,869

No. What you are proposing doesOriginally posted by Albrecht

That works also with the approach I gave you. But much easier to understand.

Thats basic classical physics except the part about gravity bending light. In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction (according to classical physics)? Hint: only one can make predictions that fit with observations.That is definitely wrong.

If the velocity of light depends on the wavelength (like in a glass lens), then also the refraction angle depends on the wavelength. The velocity of light in a gravitational field does not depend on the wavelength, so the angle is also independent from the wavelength. That is basic classical physics.

- #20

Integral

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,198

- 55

This is an execellent conversation for the Theory Development forum.

- #21

- 158

- 2

Hafele-Keating:Originally posted by Ambitwistor

All right, prove it: where is your calculation of the magnitude of these effects?

The time dilation due to the motion of the air planes was special relativity, that is easy enough.

The time advance at altitude in comparison to the ground level results with the same calculation like in standard physics. Normally in GR the dependency of time from the gravitational potential is taken as a fundamental fact. The change in c is deduced from it. Here it is the other way around: I take the change of c as the fundamental fact and the change of time progress is a consequence. The same calculation as normal but the other direction.

Lense-Thirring:

I did not do calculations, but from the refraction it is clear that an effect of this kind must happen. Maybe I do it later quantitatively. It is very much related to the perihelion shift.

This theory also has several components:Your field theory has only one independent component of the gravitational field: the speed of light at an event. GR has 10 independent components.

- the gravitational potential is 1

- the gradient of the grav. pot. are another 3

- the internal components of an elementary particle which is subject to refraction are ca. 5 more

The theory is easier to do because some of the particle parameters are constant (like the spin and the velocity of the internal oscillation which is essential for this theory).

This is Minkowski metric which I do not use. I use the classical (Euklidian) metric also for special relativity as Lorentz and Poincare did. It works!In particular, the gravitational field you obtain for the Sun is mathematically equivalent to the metric,

ds^2 = -c(r)^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

If the velocity of light depends on the position, then there is always a refraction by simple geometrical reasons (length of the light path dependent on the position; you can also use Fermat's principle). Independent on what the reason of this dependency is. This causes in this context the gravitational lensing. Of course, nothing by atmosphere.Originally posted by russ_watters

In any case, you said before that bending of light from the sun could be explained by the "normal refraction process." So which is it? Gravitational lensing (according to relativity) or atmosphereic refraction

And this calculation fits perfectly to the observation as you may read in my web site:

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

- #22

- 841

- 1

There isn't any change in c in GR.Originally posted by Albrecht

Normally in GR the dependency of time from the gravitational potential is taken as a fundamental fact. The change in c is deduced from it.

In any case, where is your calculation? You claim you have one, but where is it?

For that matter, where is your calculation of perihelion precession? You cannot claim that your theory accounts for perihelion precession unless you have the quantitatively correct result (e.g. 43"/century for Mercury).

What matters is whether you get the number right.Lense-Thirring:

I did not do calculations, but from the refraction it is clear that an effect of this kind must happen.

No, you don't get to count gradients as independent components; the gradient can be derived from the potential.

- the gravitational potential is 1

- the gradient of the grav. pot. are another 3

So the coupling to gravity depends on internal components of the particle? What internal components? How is this consistent with tests of the Einstein equivalence principle?

- the internal components of an elementary particle which is subject to refraction are ca. 5 more

The Lorentz aether theory is mathematically equivalent to Minkowski spacetime: that's the whole point. If you put in a variable speed of light into such a theory, it will be equivalent to Minkwoski spacetime with a variable speed of light, unless you intend to give up consistency with special relativity.

This is Minkowski metric which I do not use. I use the classical (Euklidian) metric also for special relativity as Lorentz and Poincare did. It works!

- #23

spacetravel101

I new, and not a physicist. I believe this is so, that gravity does not depend on mass but on interactions of charged particles within matter. I'm at concept stage, and have very little mathematical formulations, but what I have documented (including experiments) can be found at http://www.QuantumRisk.com/www/BookStore/iSETI_DownLoad.htm [Broken]Originally posted by Albrecht

Regarding the measurement of G: The differences of the results are greatly outside the measurement uncertainties (many standard deviations). I guess for the reason: Gravity does not depend on the mass of the gravitational source but on something different, which is however quite strongly related to the mass (e.g. the number of charges of all kinds in the source object).

I would appreciate feedabck.

Ben

Last edited by a moderator:

- #24

- 158

- 2

We had this discussion before. With reference to the Shapiro experiment. I you observe that a photon takes more time for the way from earth to Venus and back if the path is close to the sun than you have the choice to assume that either:Originally posted by Ambitwistor

There isn't any change in c in GR.

1. the velocity of light is reduced in the gravitational field (which is normal physical understanding) or

2. the velocity of light is always constant but the space is contracted close to the sun (Einstein)

Both assumptions yield the same results, it is just a formal transformation. But 1. can be related to physical causes, 2. cannot.

It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein) and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein). These are the fundamentals, all the rest are consequences. I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.In any case, where is your calculation? You claim you have one, but where is it?

However, I will add the perihelion shift as soon as time permits.

The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:So the coupling to gravity depends on internal components of the particle? What internal components? How is this consistent with tests of the Einstein equivalence principle?

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

There is no point about the equivalence principle. It is in fact not necessary. Gravity is from it's cause not a force but an acceleration. That is the secret. So it is unavoidable that all object have the same acceleration in free fall without a need of an equivalence principle. Please refer again to the web site given above.

I agree! But I did not expect this statement from you. But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand, and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.The Lorentz aether theory is mathematically equivalent to Minkowski spacetime: that's the whole point.

Originally posted by spacetravel101

... what I have documented (including experiments) can be found at www....[/URL]

I would appreciate feedabck[/QUOTE]

I shall respond to it. But please be patient for some days, I am presently on travel.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #25

- 841

- 1

No, you simply do not accept Einstein's explanation as a "physical cause". That you have some emotional objection to the theory says nothing about the theory itself.Originally posted by Albrecht

Both assumptions yield the same results, it is just a formal transformation. But 1. can be related to physical causes, 2. cannot.

As far as I can tell, you only have small deflections. What about large deflections? The GR prediction has been verified out to 90 degrees and more.

It is a problem of time. But look: the model I have given yields the deflection by the sun precisely (like the model of Einstein)

Einstein's theory predicts the acceleration of an object at rest.

and it yields the gravitational acceleration of an object at rest also precisely (which I do not find at Einstein).

Considering the fact that your theory is mathematically inequivalent to GR, it is quite presumptuous to conclude that it will pass all the tests GR has passed. It is not hard to construct a theory that will pass one or two tests.I do not see any reason why the rest should not work.

The internal oscillations within an elementary particle are the cause or the gravitational acceleration for a particle at rest. For details please refer to the site:

http://www.ag-physics.org/gravity

Your site doesn't have details. Where is your field equation? How can you even claim to have a theory without one? How can I predict the speed of light at a point for an arbitrary, moving, non-spherical mass density distribution?

There is no point about the equivalence principle. It is in fact not necessary.

The equivalence principle is an experimental fact, that the internal state of a particle does not influence its gravitational coupling, aside from its stress-energy.

Special relativity is much easier to understand, for it gives the same results with fewer entities. It also explains why all effects should propagate at light speed, not just electromagnetic effects; Lorentz's aether supports electromagnetic waves, but there is no intrinsic reason why it should support other waves in the same way; material media typically do not. But from the Einsteinian perspective of promoting Lorentz invariance to a fundamental spacetime symmetry, this is easily understood.

But it shall be mentioned that the Lorentz aether theory is much easier to understand

Special relativity and quantum mechanics conform. General relativity and quantum mechanics do not, but there is no Lorentz aether theory of quantum gravity, either. For that matter, there is no Lorentz aether quantum field theory, so it is silly to claim that it "conforms to quantum mechanics".

and it conforms to quantum mechanics in contrast to Einstein.

In any case, the fact that you keep referring me to the same inadequate web page indicates that you don't actually have a theory: no field equation, no even qualitative description of how gravity couples to other quantum or classical fields, no equations of motion, no significant set of predictions. Until you do seriously more development, there is very little to discuss, so I'm not particularly interested in carrying on this non-conversation further.