# A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Q-reeus, Jul 6, 2016.

1. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,008
Some friendly advice. If you want to understand a point about physics DO NOT listen to Farsight. I do not enven know why they let him post his junk in the science section.

Messages:
21,647
The red highlighted path by me, shows that this thread, despite its rather provocative title, is apparently just the work of the usual type of anti GR people we have that often lurk on forums such as this, some with religious agendas, others with simply a failed complex, having never made it in cosmological circles. Obviously "logical proofs" and scientific theories are in most cases, not compatible to put it mildly.

But I reiterate, if anyone had anything of substance that would invalidate GR or anything associated with it such as GW's, they would logically be writing up the scientific paper of the century for proper professional scientific peer review, and possibly the Nobel prize for physics this November.

In essence while the great man did get some things wrong, he certainly got GR correct and was also humble enough to readily admit to any errors he did make.
That was and is the makings of a great man, not withstanding the conspiracy nonsense that is sprinkled throughout this and other anti GR threads.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2016

5. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
606
So you changed the wavelength, frequency, and measured it as blueshift and it is more energetic than redshift of higher gravitational potential.. So the extra energy came from where ?

Last edited: Jul 12, 2016

7. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
606
Yeah !
He also said the ascending photon doesn't slow down. It speeds up. That means c is not constant and he will go to E=m(c+v)^2 but not to

8. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
It is clearly false to say that Einstein believed that photons are energy. In this translation the sentence that begins, "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation," is using the English word, "radiation" to indicate a physical process; in this case, the physical process of emitting light. Note that the publication of this paper follows shortly after Einstein published a paper establishing the particle nature of photons.

The claim that photons are energy is something from Farsight's own theory, complied of half-reading science developed well after Einstein died.
This claim is directly contradicted by Farsight's source, where a system of photons "possesses the energy" of a given amount.
I suspect that Farsight uses Compton scattering because he does not believe that photons can be absorbed and thus wanted to use a method where they could be, in theory, disbursed in the limit through some effect. Farsight believes that everything is made of photons. Despite claiming that he has no theory, Einstein did not believe this claim, nor did any other physicist, it seems. Given that Farsight brings up this claim in every defense of his position, it seems to be the case that he is defending Farsight, not Einstein.
Note that Farsight is, as always, holding to a mythical system of coordinates that is the true set of coordinates. Something that Einstein abandoned.
The google search result that I get is all drawings of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even photographs of the electromagnetic spectrum would have some selection bias. What point could looking at these pictures establish that was not dependent on the aesthetics of physicists and science artists?

ajanta likes this.
9. ### rpennerFully WiredStaff Member

Messages:
4,833
Thank you, PhysBang.

Of course you are right to criticize the viewpoint that "energy" is a substance that photons are little dollops of.

The easiest way to demonstrate that photons are not "energy" but that energy is just a (frame-dependent) property of photons is to show that they have other properties. For example, they have momentum, velocity, wavelength and frequency. Also they couple to electrically charged particles, but are not electrically charged themselves which is a type of defining property. Similarly they carry angular momentum of fixed quantity. A final property of photons, and since this is common to all of them it is a defining property as well, is that they have zero rest mass.

Gluons also have zero rest mass, and the same quantity of angular momentum, but since they have chromodynamic charge and couple to particles with chromodynamic charge, they are readily distinguishable from photons.

ajanta,
Since kinetic energy is that portion of a free particle's total energy which is accounted for by momentum, if we apply $E^2 = \left( m_0 c^2 \right)^2 + (c \vec{p})^2$ which (ironically in light of post #180) is part of the logic behind Compton scattering formulas, we see that for a photon $m_0 = 0$ so the equation reduces to $E = c | \vec{p} |$ and that all of the photon's energy is kinetic energy. Since momentum is necessarily frame-dependent in special relativity, so is the kinetic energy of any particle.

In contrast, for ponderable body, in the limit of small momenta, we have
$E - E_0 = \sqrt{ \left( m_0 c^2 \right)^2 + (c \vec{p})^2 } - m_0 c^2 \approx \frac{\vec{p}^2}{2 m_0} \left[ 1 - \frac{1}{4} \left( \frac{ \vec{p} }{ m_0 c } \right)^2 + \frac{1}{8} \left( \frac{ \vec{p} }{ m_0 c } \right)^4 - \frac{5}{64} \left( \frac{ \vec{p} }{ m_0 c } \right)^6 + \dots \right]$
which means for everyday human cultural objects the Newtonian formula for kinetic energy $\frac{\vec{p}^2}{2 m_0}$ is precise within the limits of measurement.

Now that James R has washed his hands of him, I felt free to enforce our pseudoscience policy on his post #180. In addition, the automatic mechanism behind warnings issued him a 7-day ban.

ajanta, PhysBang and origin like this.
10. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,008
I found physbang's and your post very illuminating (no pun intended). I had thought of photons as energy as opposed to having and transferring energy, a fairly subtle but a major point.

11. ### sweetpeaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
Until recently I thought of energy as a property of something, in this case, a property of a photon. But, I read recently somewhere on this site, that is not the way to think of energy either.

Can't find that post now.

12. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,856
At the risk of being construed as brutally and honestly forthcoming, sweetpea, you should not take much, if anything, of what you read on these Forums as even remotely resembling Truly Established Academic Knowledge!
Too much of what is Posted on these Forums is predominately the individual Members Purely Subjective Opinion of the "Science" being discussed(argued!!).
These Forums, sweetpea, should only be seen as a "Stepping Off" or "Starting Off" point for further study/research utilizing Academic Level Texts and/or Reference Materials.

13. ### pluto2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
773
Personally I don't trust scientists in academia.

Scientists in academia think we already figured out everything there is to know but the fact is that we really know very very little.

The fact is that the origin of life is still a big mystery and scientists have no clue how life on Earth originated.

And Wikipedia is a horrible source of information because everyone can write there. Also in Wikipedia they have a neutral point of view agenda which further creates injustice for those who are seeking real and authoritative knowledge.

14. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
Great start to a post.

Something that scientists in academia are actually researching. Would you prefer that we just sit around and get high in order to figure that out?

Amen.
I'm not sure what that means, but wikipedia certainly has a problem with pretending to be objective and neutral.

Beer w/Straw likes this.
15. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
rpenner:

PhysBang:

Sirs, a request for clarification if I may.

@rpenner in particular:

I have long been led to understand, by expert physicists in SR and GR, that the photon has no frame of reference associated with it. Is this correct or not, in your opinion?

If correct, then photon energy is fixed at emission, according to the frequency at emission in the frame of reference of emitter; with any later frame dependent interaction with matter (reflection, absorption, whether partially or totally) involving the combined physical conditions applying in the 'event' frame, which either increases, decreases or absorbs whatever energy content the photon represented at emission frame.

In other words, after GR, we now realize that SR cannot reflect the whole situation. For example, we have a Laboratory frame (eg, in the LHC) which we use to attribute certain energy levels to both massive particles and non-massive photonic particles; based on the whole interaction/observational construct, and not just using SR calculations based on only one frame (ie, that of massive particle).

The Lab frame is used to encompass the energy inputs from all participating particles, whether massive or non-massive (essentially using only one frame common to both, ie, the LHC lab frame) which effectively does away with the purely SR limited view of frame-dependent energy for photon which has no frame of its own; but actually does has a composite frame, comprised of the overall combined frames of emitter and receiver (eg, as effectively involved and arises in the LHC Lab frame context).

Can you please then clarify for me why using only the one frame (matter particle for instance) for calculating energy of photon in the limited SR manner, while ignoring the effective energy level at emission of the photon particle itself, is anything other than selective and unphysical unless the other frame (ie the common lab frame) is taken into account?

I would be very grateful for any clarification you can give which addresses that particular concern of mine; which is prompted by my own understandings of both SR and GR, and of expert physicists' attributing no frame to the photon; and now reading of your insistence that its energy is considered frame dependent, but only in limited SR manner using the frame of one side of the interaction instead of the common Lab frame which effectively applies to both sides of that interaction at the moment the photon and matter particle interact. Thankyou.

Last edited: Jul 17, 2016

Messages:
21,647
I put far more trust in scientists in academia, then those that pretend to be scientists, and claiming to be able to invalidate current academic accepted theories, from the realms of forums such as this, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, and free from any professional peer review.
It ain't gonna be done!

17. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,605
expletives deleted - I gave you high praise recently in another thread. And it was well deserved. But you have to be careful. In this case the sentence you quoted in #192 is correct. There was no claiming a 'frame of photon' existed. Which you correctly stated is not possible, unlike a couple of mistaken posters some time back. One of whom continues to rampage shamelessly at SF.

It should be said that one poster out to get another poster over making a technically incorrect assertion (I'm not referring to expletives deleted here), in this case has left out a pervasive background situation.
Failing to acknowledge the extremely widespread association - not just in popular media outlets and pulp popularizers, but in mainstream science sites - between radiation aka photons and 'pure energy'. No need to give examples, but here's two anyway:
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=362
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_matter_really_energy_condensed
Just do a word search and see how often the scholarly responses associate heat and light in e.g. annihilation processes, with 'creation of pure energy'.

dumbest man on earth likes this.
18. ### PhysBangValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,422
expletives deleted, I don't think that I will answer any of your posts until you take the time to learn a little about relativity theory. You seem to be coasting on some half-read or half-heard things about relativity theory that can be cleared up by some reading. I end any responses to you because it seems that you are going to rely on your poor understanding of relativity theory in order to attack physics rather than learn it.

I will say this: there is no such thing as "the frame of reference of emitter". Sometimes, people use sloppy language and might say or write, "the frame of reference of emitter," when they mean to say something like, "a frame of reference in which the emitter is at rest." But the core of relativity theory is that we are free to use whatever frame of reference/system of coordinates we wish and we have an objective way to translate from one to another and the physics all works out.

So, yes, it makes sense to speak of photons in different frames of reference just like it makes sense to speak of any other identified physical object in different frames of reference.

19. ### rpennerFully WiredStaff Member

Messages:
4,833
In addition to PhysBang's fine response:

The whole point of Galilean Relativity, SR and then GR is if we have our physics right then the choice of admissible coordinates is irrelevant when describing physical law. While the description of any physical system will change depending on the choice of coordinates used to describe it, the choice of coordinates cannot change the physics of the universe so if the human understanding of laws of physics are correct then there should be no change in the outcomes of experiments where both experiment and observation apparatus are modeled. If the meter reads 8.2 eV in the lab frame where it is at rest, it will still have been read as that in any other frame where it is in motion because nothing physical has changed by describing the experiment and meter are in differently described states of motion.

Energy for a photon is not fixed by any human choice of frame to describe emission, because energy is a frame-dependent quantity in SR. Change the frame and you change the quantity of energy you are describing, but you don't change SR's laws of conservation of energy and momentum in every admissible frame.

Thus particles are identified (partially at least) by their rest mass as this is an intrinsic property which exists regardless of which coordinate frame is used to describe the particle.
$\sqrt{ \frac{E^2}{c^4} - \frac{\vec{p}^2}{c^2} } = m_0 = \sqrt{ \frac{E'^2}{c^4} - \frac{\vec{p}'^2}{c^2} }$

GR's treatment is more complex but we can cheat and describe the details of the emission and absorbing events in locally-valid free-fall coordinates where SR is locally applicable which gives the appearance of energy non-conservation because the SR rules don't apply over finite distances. But equally well, we could invent coordinate systems where both emitter and receiver are instantaneously at rest and do our calculations in a single GR system where everything would attributed to "gravitational" effects even where SR would attribute it to simple Doppler shift. Thus GR is not just SR with some bits glued on and often requires one to abandon the definitions of former physical theories and human language.

sweetpea likes this.
20. ### sweetpeaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
771
I have a general interest in science to the extent of having a few textbooks on relativity and physics.
I mostly follow those here who give information which tallies with those textbooks or textbooks elsewhere, and when such a person adds further to what I read in books, I also go a little further in 'seeking out ' if that further info is right. That suites me. Each to his /her own on forums.
I had to re-read Rpenner's #186 post to find that I can agree with him.
Rpenner post #186.

21. ### dumbest man on earthReal Eyes Realize Real LiesValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,856
You may have possibly misunderstood my Post, sweetpea.
I was in no way disparaging or disagreeing with either rpenner's, or PhysBang's Posts.

I was responding to your statement :