- #1

stargene@sbcglobal.net

an enormous work to write it. LM]

I am posting an unusual version of the standard relation for

the gravitational red shift embodied in general relativity. This

new version uses the Klein-Gordon equation, sans psi notation,

and gives results which are exactly identical to those yielded

by the fully relativistic GRS equation in standard texts. The

proof of equivalence can be found in Part II below.

I emphasize here that my K-G approach is NOT an <alternative>

to Einstein's well confirmed general relativity or his gravitational

red shift result in particular. Indeed, his standard result can be

transformed algebraically (though tediously!) to obtain this new

K-G approach and vice versa without loss of information. My

equivalent rendering simply opens a window on an unexpected

and self-consistent reinterpretation of some of the basic physics

of objects in a gravitational field.

This new viewpoint both supports and flows from considerations

of a larger toy model where particle rest mass and h-bar increase

directly with gravitational potential, with important consequences

for the uncertainty principle. However, the energy content of a

particle _at rest_ DECREASES with increase in g-potential- - that

energy content going increasingly over into the gravitational field

itself, until at a black hole's event horizon the particle's own energy

is effectively zero. This is one more way of saying black holes

"have no hair". Also, for reasons given below, the gravitational

fine structure 'constant' should approach unity near the event

horizon of a black hole.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<< Part I >>

Below I will show a self consistent way of recasting the stan-

dard gravitational red shift (GRS) of general relativity which

gives identically the same results as GR:

[A]

Assume that a photon, characteristic of a specific atomic / nuclear

transition Q, is moving upward in the gravitational well of a mass

M. The photon will experience a GRS in its wavelength, as cor-

rectly predicted by general relativity. The fully relativistic

relation

giving the fractional change in the energy of that photon, having

been emitted at distance r1 from the center of the mass and

traveling to a receiver at a greater distance r2, is

(1)

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5 - (1 - Rs/r2)^.5

= -------------------------------------- =

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5

(1 - Rs/r2)^.5

1 - ---------------

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5

Below I will show that

E2

1 - ------ = delta E'/E' =

E1

(1 - Rs/r2)^.5

1 - ---------------

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5

where E1 is the photon's energy measured at r2, and E2 is the

expected energy of an identical transition Q photon if it were both

emitted and then measured at r2. Rs is the mass's Schwarzschild

radius, = 2GM / Co^2 . For E' , see

**below.**

Following is what I will show to be an exactly equivalent relation,

which gives predictions completely identical to those of (1). How-

ever, the nature of the second relation's variables seems to allow

an unusual interpretation of the physics involved, and suggests

that certain fundamental parameters may vary with gravitational

potential with no apparent contradiction implied for local physics.

This note will only touch on some of this.

The second relation (3 below) incorporates the Klein-Gordon eq.

for a particle's relativistic energy E where generally

(2)

E^2 = (mCo^2)^2 + (pCo)^2 ,

and p = relativistic momentum of a particle with rest mass m.

Co is velocity of light in field-free space.

Following is what I will show to be an exactly equivalent relation,

which gives predictions completely identical to those of (1). How-

ever, the nature of the second relation's variables seems to allow

an unusual interpretation of the physics involved, and suggests

that certain fundamental parameters may vary with gravitational

potential with no apparent contradiction implied for local physics.

This note will only touch on some of this.

The second relation (3 below) incorporates the Klein-Gordon eq.

for a particle's relativistic energy E where generally

(2)

E^2 = (mCo^2)^2 + (pCo)^2 ,

and p = relativistic momentum of a particle with rest mass m.

Co is velocity of light in field-free space.

Using (2) :

I consider the total K-G energy E' of each of two identical par-

ticles, eg: two hydrogen atoms, <at rest> at two different eleva-

tions in a gravitational field potential phi, E'1 associated with

particle 1 at lower elevation r1, and E'2 with particle 2 at higher

elevation r2. Each particle is in an inertial frame with respect

to the gravitational field.

(3)

E'1 - E'2 E'2

--------- = 1 - ------ = delta E'/E' =

E'1 E'1

[ (m2*C2^2)^2 + (M2v2C2)^2 ]^.5

1 - ----------------------------------------------

[ (m1*C1^2)^2 + (M1v1C1)^2 ]^.5

C1 and C2 are the local velocities of light, < Co, due to the

action of M's gravitational field at r1 and r2, where

(4)

C1,2 = Co[ 1 - 2GM/(Co^2*r1,2) , from general relativity,

and m1 and m2 are the 'rest'- or 'invariant'- masses of the two

particles, which will be seen to differ as a function of the

magnitude of the field at r1 and r2. Also

(5)

m1C1 = m2C2 ,

(6)

M1,2 = m1,2 / [1 - 2GM / (Co^2*r1,2) ]^.5 ,

and

(7)

v1,2 = [2GM / (Co^2*r1,2) ]^.5 * C1,2

and p = (M1,2) * (v1,2) , effectively a form of relativistic potential-

momentum, purely as a function of the local g-field.

[C]

Rel. (3) turns out to give identically the same prediction as

(1), and indeed both are shown below to be algebraically

identical (see Part II below), and seem to reflect different ways

of looking at the same phenomenon. The physical interpre-

tation of (3) is of course open, but I propose the following:

When mass particle 1 is at rest at r1 in the gravitational field of

M, its rest mass is greater than that of identical particle 2 at

rest at r2 (> r1), by a factor C2 / C1, or equivalently a factor of

(8)

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r2)

--------------------------- .

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r1)

On the other hand, the total rest mass energy E2 (=m2(C2)^2)

of particle 2 is -greater- than that of particle 1 by the same factor.

This means that when particle 1 emits photon 1 for a character-

istic emission line Q, photon 1 has proportionately LESS energy

than an equivalent transition Q photon 2, emitted and measured

entirely at r2 higher up in the gravitational well. This also means

that the photon itself can be seen as having -constant- energy

throughout its trajectory. This is of course quite different from the

usual interpretation whereby the photon loses an amount of

energy equal to E'2 - E'1 to the gravitational field along the way

from r1 to r2.

As an example, this would mean that a Lyman-alpha photon

emitted by a hydrogen atom at r1 could be seen as having in-

trinsically less energy than a Lyman-alpha photon emitted by

an identical hydrogen atom higher up at r2. This leads immed-

iately to a further result...Since we know already from experi-

ments (eg: Pound, Rebka, Snider) that photon 1's wavelength

lambda1 is larger than that of photon 2 by the same factor

given by (8), we can also say that since generally

lambda = h / mC^2 = h C / E , for the photon,

then Planck's constant h at r1 is actually

(9)

h1 = (E1 lambda1) / C1 =

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r2)

-------------------------- * h2 .

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r1)

That is, the value of Planck's constant would then vary directly

with the local g-field. It needs to be emphasized that, with one

exception, none of these dimensional parameter variations with

gravity can be observed locally in a lab, even in principle, since

all of the measuring apparatus at any level in a g-field is also

changed commensurately (local measuring rods, clocks, etc.),

along with the quantity being measured. Thus the simultan-

eously changed apparatus will be blind to the changes in val-

ues of fundamental parameters. The key exception is the pho-

ton since, from this new viewpoint, both its energy E and wave-

length lambda are truly constant and are preserved over its path

as long as it interacts only with the gravitational field. A point

needing further exploration: near the event horizon of a black

hole, the hugely increased value of Planck's 'constant' would

greatly enhance the local importance of the Heisenberg un-

certainty principle, where

(delta X) (delta momentum_x) = or > ihbar .

Also, with the plausible argument that G is truly constant, the

local value of the gravitational fine structure 'constant'

GFS = hbar*C / (GMp^2)

for a particle Mp should _decline_ to somewhere near unity at

the event horizon. What interesting effects might we expect

from these changes on all local classical and quantum physics?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<< Part II >>

Demonstration of the formal equivalence of (1) and (3) :

From

E1-E2 (1 - Rs/r2)^.5

------ = 1 - ------------------

E1 (1 - Rs/r1)^.5

and Rs = 2GM/Co^2 , we have

(10)

Rs/r1 = 2GM/r1Co^2 and let this equal A. Similarly, Let Rs/r2

= 2GM/r2Co^2 and let this equal B. Thus (1) is

(11)

(1 - Rs/r2)^.5 (1 - B)^.5

1 - --------------- = 1 - ---------- .

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5 (1 - A)^.5

Adding 1, then multiplying by -1 and squaring gives

(1 - B) (1 - A)^2 (1 - B)^3

------- = ------------ x ----------- =

(1 - A) (1 - B)^2 (1 - A)^3

(1 - A)^2 (1 -3B + 3B^2 - B^3)

---------------------------------------- .

(1 - B)^2 (1 -3A + 3A^2 - A^3)

And since "-3B" = - 4B + B, and "3B^2" = +6B^2 - 3B^2 ,

and "-B^3" = -4B^3 + 3B^3 (& similarly for A), by substituting

we get

(1 - A)^2 (1-4B+6B^2-4B^3+B^4+B-3B^2+3B^3-B^4)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Using (2) :

I consider the total K-G energy E' of each of two identical par-

ticles, eg: two hydrogen atoms, <at rest> at two different eleva-

tions in a gravitational field potential phi, E'1 associated with

particle 1 at lower elevation r1, and E'2 with particle 2 at higher

elevation r2. Each particle is in an inertial frame with respect

to the gravitational field.

(3)

E'1 - E'2 E'2

--------- = 1 - ------ = delta E'/E' =

E'1 E'1

[ (m2*C2^2)^2 + (M2v2C2)^2 ]^.5

1 - ----------------------------------------------

[ (m1*C1^2)^2 + (M1v1C1)^2 ]^.5

C1 and C2 are the local velocities of light, < Co, due to the

action of M's gravitational field at r1 and r2, where

(4)

C1,2 = Co[ 1 - 2GM/(Co^2*r1,2) , from general relativity,

and m1 and m2 are the 'rest'- or 'invariant'- masses of the two

particles, which will be seen to differ as a function of the

magnitude of the field at r1 and r2. Also

(5)

m1C1 = m2C2 ,

(6)

M1,2 = m1,2 / [1 - 2GM / (Co^2*r1,2) ]^.5 ,

and

(7)

v1,2 = [2GM / (Co^2*r1,2) ]^.5 * C1,2

and p = (M1,2) * (v1,2) , effectively a form of relativistic potential-

momentum, purely as a function of the local g-field.

[C]

Rel. (3) turns out to give identically the same prediction as

(1), and indeed both are shown below to be algebraically

identical (see Part II below), and seem to reflect different ways

of looking at the same phenomenon. The physical interpre-

tation of (3) is of course open, but I propose the following:

When mass particle 1 is at rest at r1 in the gravitational field of

M, its rest mass is greater than that of identical particle 2 at

rest at r2 (> r1), by a factor C2 / C1, or equivalently a factor of

(8)

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r2)

--------------------------- .

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r1)

On the other hand, the total rest mass energy E2 (=m2(C2)^2)

of particle 2 is -greater- than that of particle 1 by the same factor.

This means that when particle 1 emits photon 1 for a character-

istic emission line Q, photon 1 has proportionately LESS energy

than an equivalent transition Q photon 2, emitted and measured

entirely at r2 higher up in the gravitational well. This also means

that the photon itself can be seen as having -constant- energy

throughout its trajectory. This is of course quite different from the

usual interpretation whereby the photon loses an amount of

energy equal to E'2 - E'1 to the gravitational field along the way

from r1 to r2.

As an example, this would mean that a Lyman-alpha photon

emitted by a hydrogen atom at r1 could be seen as having in-

trinsically less energy than a Lyman-alpha photon emitted by

an identical hydrogen atom higher up at r2. This leads immed-

iately to a further result...Since we know already from experi-

ments (eg: Pound, Rebka, Snider) that photon 1's wavelength

lambda1 is larger than that of photon 2 by the same factor

given by (8), we can also say that since generally

lambda = h / mC^2 = h C / E , for the photon,

then Planck's constant h at r1 is actually

(9)

h1 = (E1 lambda1) / C1 =

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r2)

-------------------------- * h2 .

1 - (2GM / Co^2*r1)

That is, the value of Planck's constant would then vary directly

with the local g-field. It needs to be emphasized that, with one

exception, none of these dimensional parameter variations with

gravity can be observed locally in a lab, even in principle, since

all of the measuring apparatus at any level in a g-field is also

changed commensurately (local measuring rods, clocks, etc.),

along with the quantity being measured. Thus the simultan-

eously changed apparatus will be blind to the changes in val-

ues of fundamental parameters. The key exception is the pho-

ton since, from this new viewpoint, both its energy E and wave-

length lambda are truly constant and are preserved over its path

as long as it interacts only with the gravitational field. A point

needing further exploration: near the event horizon of a black

hole, the hugely increased value of Planck's 'constant' would

greatly enhance the local importance of the Heisenberg un-

certainty principle, where

(delta X) (delta momentum_x) = or > ihbar .

Also, with the plausible argument that G is truly constant, the

local value of the gravitational fine structure 'constant'

GFS = hbar*C / (GMp^2)

for a particle Mp should _decline_ to somewhere near unity at

the event horizon. What interesting effects might we expect

from these changes on all local classical and quantum physics?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

<< Part II >>

Demonstration of the formal equivalence of (1) and (3) :

From

E1-E2 (1 - Rs/r2)^.5

------ = 1 - ------------------

E1 (1 - Rs/r1)^.5

and Rs = 2GM/Co^2 , we have

(10)

Rs/r1 = 2GM/r1Co^2 and let this equal A. Similarly, Let Rs/r2

= 2GM/r2Co^2 and let this equal B. Thus (1) is

(11)

(1 - Rs/r2)^.5 (1 - B)^.5

1 - --------------- = 1 - ---------- .

(1 - Rs/r1)^.5 (1 - A)^.5

Adding 1, then multiplying by -1 and squaring gives

(1 - B) (1 - A)^2 (1 - B)^3

------- = ------------ x ----------- =

(1 - A) (1 - B)^2 (1 - A)^3

(1 - A)^2 (1 -3B + 3B^2 - B^3)

---------------------------------------- .

(1 - B)^2 (1 -3A + 3A^2 - A^3)

And since "-3B" = - 4B + B, and "3B^2" = +6B^2 - 3B^2 ,

and "-B^3" = -4B^3 + 3B^3 (& similarly for A), by substituting

we get

(1 - A)^2 (1-4B+6B^2-4B^3+B^4+B-3B^2+3B^3-B^4)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------