I The light from Mercury, the Sun's corona and gravity

Wondermine
The question is:
The General Relativity Ideas were confirmed by the position of Mercury by Eddington. How could they be certain that the light deviation was due to gravity rather than the lens effect the Sun's corona may have had?
What process was used,if any,to remove the effect of the corona on the light from Mercury?
The corona is an high energy particle "fog" which would lens light like a crystal. How to remove this in order to be certain gravity bent the light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're conflating two different tests of General Relativity. What Eddington measured was the deviation of the position of stars due to the deflection of the starlight by the sun's gravity. He measured the positions of these stars during a total solar eclipse and again after the sun had moved away. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury was known since the 1800's to be more than Newton's theory predicted. Eddington was not part of this.

Your question still holds, however. I think the deflection due to the lensing effect of the corona is negligible, but I have no references to back this up. The density of the corona is known, so this deflection could be calculated.
 
This paper by Will reviews the history of measurements of light bending by the Sun:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7812.pdf

He notes on p. 10 that recent measurements have taken readings in multiple frequency bands, to correct for the effects of the Sun's corona (which is expected to deflect radiation of different frequencies by different amounts, whereas the GR effect is the same for all frequencies).
 
Wondermine said:
How could they be certain that the light deviation was due to gravity rather than the lens effect the Sun's corona may have had?

That 1919 eclipse observation is certainly of historical significance. But it may interest you to know that since that time we have observations that are a lot more definitive.
See, for example, this article by Clifford M. Will: http://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4#Sec4. Here is a relevant passage:

[...]the development of radio interferometery, and later of very-long-baseline radio interferometry (VLBI), produced greatly improved determinations of the deflection of light.
 
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
605
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top