Gravitational redshift revisited: Inertia, geometry, and charge

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.09.001
Johannes Fankhauser , James Read
{"title":"Gravitational redshift revisited: Inertia, geometry, and charge","authors":"Johannes Fankhauser ,&nbsp;James Read","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Gravitational redshift effects undoubtedly exist; moreover, the experimental setups which confirm the existence of these effects—the most famous of which being the Pound–Rebka experiment—are extremely well-known. Nonetheless—and perhaps surprisingly—there remains a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding what these experiments really establish. Our goal in the present article is to clarify these issues, in three concrete ways. First, although (i) Brown and Read (2016) are correct to point out that, given their sensitivity, the outcomes of experimental setups such as the original Pound–Rebka configuration can be accounted for using solely the machinery of accelerating frames in special relativity (barring some subtleties due to the Rindler spacetime necessary to model the effects rigorously), nevertheless (ii) an explanation of the results of more sensitive gravitational redshift outcomes <em>does</em> in fact require more. Second, although typically this ‘more’ is understood as the invocation of spacetime curvature within the framework of general relativity, in light of the so-called ‘geometric trinity’ of gravitational theories, in fact curvature is not <em>necessary</em> to explain even these results. Thus (a) one can often explain the results of these experiments using only the resources of special relativity, and (b) even when one cannot, one need not invoke spacetime curvature. And third: while one might think that the absence of gravitational redshift effects would imply that spacetime is flat (indeed, Minkowskian), this can be called into question given the possibility of the cancelling of gravitational redshift effects by charge in the context of the Reissner–Nordström metric. This argument is shown to be valid and both attractive forces as well as redshift effects can be effectively shielded (and even be repulsive or blueshifted, respectively) in the charged setting. Thus, it is not the case that the absence of gravitational effects implies a Minkowskian spacetime setting.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"108 ","pages":"Pages 19-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400133X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gravitational redshift effects undoubtedly exist; moreover, the experimental setups which confirm the existence of these effects—the most famous of which being the Pound–Rebka experiment—are extremely well-known. Nonetheless—and perhaps surprisingly—there remains a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding what these experiments really establish. Our goal in the present article is to clarify these issues, in three concrete ways. First, although (i) Brown and Read (2016) are correct to point out that, given their sensitivity, the outcomes of experimental setups such as the original Pound–Rebka configuration can be accounted for using solely the machinery of accelerating frames in special relativity (barring some subtleties due to the Rindler spacetime necessary to model the effects rigorously), nevertheless (ii) an explanation of the results of more sensitive gravitational redshift outcomes does in fact require more. Second, although typically this ‘more’ is understood as the invocation of spacetime curvature within the framework of general relativity, in light of the so-called ‘geometric trinity’ of gravitational theories, in fact curvature is not necessary to explain even these results. Thus (a) one can often explain the results of these experiments using only the resources of special relativity, and (b) even when one cannot, one need not invoke spacetime curvature. And third: while one might think that the absence of gravitational redshift effects would imply that spacetime is flat (indeed, Minkowskian), this can be called into question given the possibility of the cancelling of gravitational redshift effects by charge in the context of the Reissner–Nordström metric. This argument is shown to be valid and both attractive forces as well as redshift effects can be effectively shielded (and even be repulsive or blueshifted, respectively) in the charged setting. Thus, it is not the case that the absence of gravitational effects implies a Minkowskian spacetime setting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重温引力红移:惯性、几何和电荷
引力红移效应无疑是存在的;此外,证实这些效应存在的实验装置--其中最著名的是庞德-雷布卡实验--也是众所周知的。尽管如此--也许令人吃惊的是--文献中对于这些实验的真正意义仍然存在着大量的混淆。我们在本文中的目标是通过三种具体方式澄清这些问题。首先,尽管(i) Brown 和 Read(2016)正确地指出,鉴于其灵敏度,诸如最初的庞德-雷布卡构型等实验装置的结果可以仅用狭义相对论中的加速框架机制来解释(除了一些因严格模拟这些效应所需的林德勒时空而产生的微妙之处),然而(ii) 要解释更灵敏的引力红移结果,事实上需要更多的东西。其次,尽管这种 "更多 "通常被理解为在广义相对论框架内对时空曲率的援引,但从所谓的引力理论 "几何三位一体 "的角度来看,事实上即使是解释这些结果也并不需要曲率。因此,(a) 人们往往只需利用狭义相对论的资源就能解释这些实验的结果,(b) 即使不能解释,也不必援引时空曲率。第三:尽管人们可能认为没有引力红移效应就意味着时空是平坦的(实际上是明科夫斯基的),但鉴于在赖斯纳-诺德斯特伦公设中电荷有可能抵消引力红移效应,这一点就会受到质疑。这一论点被证明是正确的,在带电的情况下,吸引力和红移效应都可以被有效屏蔽(甚至分别是排斥力或蓝移)。因此,不存在引力效应并不意味着存在闵科夫斯基时空环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
Soft control: Furthering the case for Modified Interventionist Theory Explanatory circles Modus Darwin redux The philosophical coming of age of science. Euler’s role in Cassirer’s early philosophy of space and time Freud, bullshit, and pseudoscience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1