Gravity and Photon Relationship: Understanding Red and Blue Shift

  • Thread starter Thread starter journeytospace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Photon
journeytospace
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
hi...I read from Hyperphysics site the relation between gravity and photon which says that

When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

f ′= f (1 - GM/r*c²)...so when photon escapes r increases and so the value in the bracket also increases and hence frequency would be increasing which means it would be blue shifted when photon escapes gravitational field then why we say that light from a gravitational field would be red shifted ..is this right? Please clarify...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
journeytospace said:
hi...I read from Hyperphysics site the relation between gravity and photon which says that

When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

f ′= f (1 - GM/r*c²)...so when photon escapes r increases and so the value in the bracket also increases and hence frequency would be increasing which means it would be blue shifted when photon escapes gravitational field then why we say that light from a gravitational field would be red shifted ..is this right? Please clarify...

There are two alternative ways to explain the red shift of photons in the gravitational field.

First explanation. One can imagine that the photon, like a massive particle, has both kinetic (K) and potential (V) energy, so that the total energy E = K + V remains constant while the photon is moving in the gravitational field. Then, when the photons moves away from Earth its potential energy V increases and kinetic energy K decreases, so that the frequency (assumed to be proportional to the kinetic energy) goes down as well. So, the red shift is the result of the photon's attraction to the massive body.

Second explanation. Photons are emitted in transitions between energy levels of atoms, nuclei, etc. For atoms deep in the gravitational field the separations between their energy levels decrease. Therefore, photons emitted by such atoms have lower energy. This energy doesn't change while the photon is traveling in the field. So, the red shift occurs because atoms emitting the photons are attracted to the massive body.

These two approaches were discussed in

L.B. Okun, K.G. Selivanov, V.L. Telegdi, "On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field" http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017

where it was concluded that the second explanation is actually correct.

I can also add the following argument against the first explanation. When the photon is registered by a detector it is absorbed completely. So, its total energy gets released in the detector. Therefore, its measured frequency should be proportional to the total energy E (which does not depend on the position of the photon in the gravitational field) rather than its kinetic energy K.

Eugene.
 
journeytospace said:
hi...I read from Hyperphysics site the relation between gravity and photon which says that

When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

f ′= f (1 - GM/r*c²)...so when photon escapes r increases and so the value in the bracket also increases and hence frequency would be increasing which means it would be blue shifted when photon escapes gravitational field then why we say that light from a gravitational field would be red shifted ..is this right? Please clarify...
You've made a mistake in intrpreting the forumula f ′= f (1 - GM/r*c²). As r increases then the quantity GM/r*c² starts to decrease and not increase. As GM/r*c² decreases there is less and less to subtract from 1. Therefore the term (1 - GM/r*c²) is increasing and thus so is f'

Pete
 
thank you...i mean value of the bracket as a whole increases and so frequency increases so there should be blue shift right...
 
journeytospace said:
When the photon escapes the gravity field, it will have a different frequency

f ′= f (1 - GM/r*c²)...so when photon escapes r increases and so the value in the bracket also increases and hence frequency would be increasing which means it would be blue shifted when photon escapes gravitational field then why we say that light from a
gravitational field would be red shifted ..is this right? Please clarify...

I think what the formula you quoted is referring to is a photon emitted at frequency f at Schwarzschild radial parameter r. It is observed by a distant observer (at r -> infinity, in free space) as frequency f ′, which is lower than f and hence redshifted. This equation does not track the observed frequency of a photon over changing observer distances.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top