WHAT CAUSES THE GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AND THE ANOMALOUS PERIHELION SHIFT OF MERCURY ? by Mark J. Lofts Abstract E stablished tradition asserts that Einstein’s General Relativity explain s Mercury’s anomalous perihelion shift and the doubled Newtonian d eflection of light by gravity . The se claims are in turn used to justify the theoretical concept of spacetime , a mathematically - based ‘fusion’ of space and time and the key concept underpinni ng General Relativity Theory . However, both of these very real phenomena readily reveal alternative explanations, these either partly unknown or unappreciated before the 1920s. A third observation attributed to General Relativity, the gravitational redshift of light , does not alone provide justification for spacetime. The theoretical predictions of Joachim von Soldner and of Paul Gerber , while significantly incomplete or incorrect, help to reveal the alternative and correct explan ations for the gravitational d eflection of light and the anomalous perihelion shift respectively , without requiring General Relativity and therefore without spacetime - based explanat ions either . The doubled Newtonian d eflection of light is explained by qua ntum theory while the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury is explained primarily by the rotation of the Sun. ------------------- Keywords : Einstein, Gehrcke, Gerber, Goudsmit, Kragh, Lenard, Seeliger, Soldner, Sommerfeld, Uhlenbeck, Mercury, Vulcan, general relativity, fine - structure constant, quantum spin, prograde, spacetime, blueshift, wave - p article dualism, gravitational deflection, perihelion shift, equivalence principle -------- ----------- Contents 1. The Equivalence Principle and the Gravitational Redshift 2. ‘Forbidden’ Reasoning from the Gravitational Redshift 3. Sommerfeld’s Quantum Theory. 4. Quantum Spin and the ‘Factor of 2’ Confusion. 5. The Doubled Deflection of Light by Gravity 6. The Perihelion Shift of Mercury 7. Isaac Newton and the ‘Transmission’ of Gravitational Impulses 8. Professor Einstein and Senile Science 9. The Primary Cau se for Mercury’s Anomalous Perihelion Shift Conclusion For over a century the received dogma has been that Einstein’s General Relativity explains both Mercury’s anomalous perihelion shift and the doubled Newtonian deflection of light by gravity, in turn evoking the central teaching of General Relativity (GR): spacetime ! This in turn invok es the concept of curved space – a manifestation of curved spaceti me – a teaching that necessarily implies that the universe is spatially finite, if not temporally finite too. This is because a curved spacetime (or space) will ultimately curve back upon itself. While more criticism and disbelief has been levelled at GR than at Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR), mere criticism has not led to consistent alternative explanations for the two phenomena supposedly explained by GR. Closer investigation of the steps leading to GR however reveals the inconsistencies and gaps in knowledge which permitted GR to be accepted prematurely as part of a widely held but ideolog icall y - driven agenda, even when these gaps in knowledge were subsequently filled. Although it is easy enough to criticize Einstein’s claims for GR, the problem has been to make the criticism effective so as to show that what it lays claim to actually has very different explanations. We begin from Einstein’s side of the debate to establish GR, passing through quantum theory then onto a detailed description of the tw o contested phenomena, finishing with the explanation for Mercury’s perihelion shift. 1. The Equivalence Principle and the Gravitational Redshift Explained as a ‘generalization’ of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR) to wider natural phenomena, GR began from the analogy between inertial forces and gravitation, comparing the two using the principles of SR, Einstein predicting a phenomenon later proven by experiment. Th is phenomenon, the gravitational redshift , occur s when light is emitt ed from a body at a lower gravitational potential (i.e. in a stronger gravitational field) to a detector in a region of higher gravitational potential ( lower gravitatio nal force ) i.e. the light is projected upward from the gravitating body . Conversely, when light moves downward , i.e. into a region of higher gravitational force , a corresponding blueshift of the light occurs. The phenomenon is essentially a linear one, unrelated to the concept of spacetime – but this is not how Einstein presents the otherwise straightforward issue . His relevant article dates from 1911: “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagat ion of Light”. In §2 of this text, Einstein imagine d two systems . One, K, is at rest in a homo - genous gravitational field ; the other, L , 1 is instead to be uniformly accelerated. He now consider s two homologous and mutually stationary points in each syste m : the first, S 1 where the attracting body K and/or accelerating observer L is found. The second, S 2 is separated from S 1 by distance H , and comprises the site where light beams are emitted towards both the gravitating body ( at point K a djacent to S 1 in the diag ram below ) and the accelerating body ( at point L , adjacent to S 1 but be neath K in the diagram below ). His diagram has the z - axis vertical, but the issue is treated horizontally below. The point K 0 is at position S 2 where the light is emitted towards K and L; point K 0 (at S 2 ) has a higher gravitational potential than S 1 since the latter is located at K’s gravitational source where instead the gravitational pull is greater. In other words, ‘upwards is to the right’! ))))) K (gravitatio nal attractor) ……… …. <<<<<< S 2 (K 0 ) ------ S 1 -------------------------------------------------------- S 2 --------- z - axis >>> L ( begins accelerating to the right) … <<<<<< S 2 Einstein writes that “we judge the process of the transference of energy by radiation from S 2 to S 1 from a system K 0 which is to be free from acceleration.” This means that S 2 is an inertial system and thus , ideally, is not subject to gravity (as is K) n or to acceleration (as is L). System K is at relative rest to S 2 (K 0 ). Equally importantly, system L too is initially at rest relative to S 2 and begins to move only when the light beam is emitted from S 2 . In this way, the measured change in energy (i.e. wavelength or frequency) of the light received by L is thus only from the effect of the acceleration of L, not from any initial motion of L relative to S 2 . Only in this way , as stipulated by Einstein too , can a separate Doppler Effect due to velocity – in this case a blueshift due to any initial motion of L toward S 2 – be exclud ed . (This is an important but seemingly trivial point, as we need to distinguish between any effects by SR and by GR, something not done by many investigators) . Thus the light received at both L and K will be blueshifted, i.e. there will be an increase in energy observed (and thus a decrease in wavelength), this blueshift being by an equal amount in both cases if the accelerational force at L is e qual to the force of gravity at K. Einstein however prefers the term frequency to that of its reciprocal term: wavelength! Einstein’s insight here is genuine since the blueshifting of light falling in a gravitational field is experimentally attested by e. g. the Mossbauer Effect. Conversely, a light beam escaping a gravitational field will be proportionately redshifted. However, in quantifying the energy changes by using the energy - mass relation (E = mc 2 ) Einstein is also trying to attach the situation to his SR theorizing, since it is wrongly believed that the energy - mass relation is either part of Einstein’s relativity or proves Einstein’s relativity to be correct . Rather, the energy - mass relation had not only been demonstrated already by Friedrich Hasenöhrl 2 a year before Einstein, but is also well - known to be implicit in and deriving from the concept and formula for kinetic energy, as shown even in popular literatu re by Einsteinians such as George Gamow. 3 The important insight of Einstein’s 1911 paper is the demonstration that g ravity and acceleration exert equivalent effects upon light beams traveling linearly away from and towards both gravitating and accelerating bodies. From this derives the Principle of Equivalence i.e. th e otherwise trivial observation that gravitational mass and inertial mass are always equal – Einstein noting correctly in passing that weight cannot be treated in the same way : i.e. gravitational weight is not equivalent to ‘inertial weight , ’ the latter concept hardly developed either by Einstein or anyone else! 4 However, these same insights are combined with tendentious reasoning about the accelerate d L system . Thus the Doppler blueshift c an be interpreted as merely from the mutual velocity of L and S 2 (the SR inference) rather than the acceleration of L from zero velocity, from relative rest (the inference leading to GR). Such a situation could eve n be interpreted to mean that the acceleration and the speed of L may independently contribute to the resultant blueshift. Einstein does not clarify the situation by arguing that further comments on the details are “impossible” and “forbidden”, writing: …we assume that systems K and L are physically exactly equivalent, i.e. if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of re lativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system. 5 This ambiguity particularly emerges above where the word ‘absolute’ is being used in two entirely different senses – in reference to acceleration and to velocity – serving to obscure and se cure the underlying issues as ‘forbidden’! Nor can s ystems K and L ever be exactly equivalent since gravity and acceleration are not one and the same.