Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 years after,

Den 14.09.2024 05:31, skrev rhertz:

This is an extract from the 1911 paper:
On the Inuence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light
 ***********************************************************************
2. On the Gravitation of Energy
......
 Then Eq.1 becomes
 f₁ = f₂ (1 + hγ/c²)
 OR
 Δf/f₂ = hγ/c²
  Which is the same equation used in the 1961 Pound-Rebka experiment, the
1971 Hafele-Keating experiment and MANY MORE,

See equation (7) in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/PoundRebka.pdf
If we ignore the rotation of the Earth, GR predicts that
the gravitational blue shift is: (From Schwarzschild metric)
 



Δf/f = (GM/c²)⋅(1/R - 1/(R+h))    (1)
Where:
  G = gravitational constant
  M = mass of Earth
  R = radius of Earth
  c = speed of light
  h = altitude, in this case height of the tower.
If h/R << 1 the equation can be simplifyed to:

  



Δf/f ≈ gh/c²       (2)
where g = GM/R², the gravitational acceleration
In this case h/R ≈ 3.5e-6, which is << 1.

like in the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS

You mean this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/RelativisticCorrectionsInGalileo.pdf
The equation given in this paper is:




Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r) + ((aΩ)² − v²)/2c²
Where:
a = the radius of the Earth
r = the distance from the centre of the Earth to the satellite
Ω = the angular velocity of the Earth
The gravitational term is:



Δf/f = (GM/c²)(1/a - 1/r)
Which is equal to (1), and, in this case, _very_ different from (2)
For Galileo r = 29600000 m.
a = 6378137 m
GM = 3.986004418e14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
So the equation above give: Δf/f = 5.45516e-10
For Galileo the altitude is h = r - a = 23221863 m
g = 9.800 m/s²
Equation (2) gives Δf/f = gh/c² = 2.5321e-9
which is 2.6 times too high.
So Einstein's equation which you claim is the equation
used in the calculation of the gravitational blue shift
of satellites doesn't work. It is wrong.

  Almost ALL relativists forget that the 1961 paper had the name: "Do
photons have weight?".

That may be because the name of the paper was:
       "APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS"
https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf
(The last paper)
One may say that photons appear to have weight because
they have momentum.
You probably know that you can weigh light?
Let the Sun shine of a sensitive weight, and it will register a force.
Photons have no mass, so it isn't  gravitation.
But the weight does register something which is called weight. :-J

 All relativists claim that the 1911 paper WAS WRONG, and that was valid
was the 1915 Schwarzschild solution, which is WIDELY USED TODAY, but
that contain the conjugate effects of SR and GR.
 But RELATIVISTS FORGET that Schwarzschild solution is theoretically
separated in two parts: GR and SR effects.

When gravitation is involved, GR must be used.
But when the orbit (or path) is circular with the Earth in
the centre, there will be one term that depend on altitude,
and one term that depends on the velocity.
The former is called the gravitational term, the latter
is called the kinematic term.
It is however quite common to see the gravitational term called
the "GR term", and the kinematic term called the "SR term".
But both follows from the Schwarzschild metric.

 Also (Paul and so many others), they FORGET that IT'S IMPOSSIBLE to
measure each effect separately.

The Pound-Rebka was a measure of the gravitational term.
And so was gravity probe A.
And several experiments have tested the kinematic term.
In the latter case we would call it test of SR, because
it must be performed at constant gravitational potential.

 So, the 1911 Einstein's equation is ALIVE TODAY, and widely used (with
minor aggregations like quadrupolar momentum J2, which is irrelevant and
can be dismissed here).

:-D
Equation (2) can only be used when h/R << 1, which will be
when the object is a tower or an  aeroplane.
It is impossible to use it for satellites.

 What PERSISTS is that Einstein, Pound-Rebka and many others before and
after, ACCEPTED THAT PHOTONS HAD MASS.

Nonsense.
Newton thought that light consisted of massive corpuscles,
But Einstein, Pound and Rebka thought that em-radiation was a wave
according to Maxwell, and that photons were small waves, limited
in time and space. According to Maxwell, em-radiation have
energy and momentum, but no mass.
Now we know that photons are particles with energy and momentum,
but no mass.

 If photons have mass (electromagnetic mass), then MANY THEORETICAL
EXPLANATIONS HAVE TO BE REFORMULATED.

Many of the theoretical explanations of the 19. century
ARE REFORMULATED.
Were have you been the last century, Richard?

 If photons have mass, such mass has to be incorporated in the
calculations of gravitational fields and electromagnetic energies, as
Einstein CLAIMED in 1911.
 Then, photons falling into Earth's surface GAIN KINETIC ENERGY WHILE
FALLING (blue-shifting), and photons abandoning Earth's surface LOSS
KINETIC ENERGY WHILE ESCAPING (red-shifting).

If photons had mass, their speed would have to increase to make
the kinetic energy increase.
But the speed of light is constant as it falls.
Can you explain this?

 And the equation that prevails all over of the above is hf = mc².

Do you really not better? :-D

It
also implies that INERTIAL electromagnetic mass IS DIFFERENT FROM
GRAVITATIONAL ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS, and that the first one is variable
with height, in this way:
 Δm/m₂ = -hGM/rc²  (h represents the height above surface, being h << r.
Low altitudes).

So you knew that gh/c² is an approximation which is only valid when
h << r?
Why did you then say that the equation gh/c² was usedin the 2017 Mudrak
theoretical paper for calculations of the GR effect on Galileo GNSS,
where h = 3.64r ?

 

--
Paul
https://paulba.no/