Relativity and Cosmology


Does the Weak Equivalence Principle Hold?

Authors: Golden Gadzirayi Nyambuya

We take -- albeit, with an all-important and subtle difference; a closer and meticulous look at the motion of light in a Newtonian gravitational field in exactly the same manner as has been conducted by past researchers leading them to conclude that for light grazing the limb of the Sun, its path must suffer a deflection of 0.875 arcsec from its otherwise straight path. The difference between our approach and that of past researchers, is that, at the outset of the derivation of the resultant equations of motion, we do not assume the equity of gravitational (m_g) and inertial mass (m_i). The ratio of the gravitational to inertial mass (gamma=m_g/m_i)$ is persistent in the equations, it does not cancel out or disappear. Eventually, this ratio emerges in the final equations of motion. When these resultant equations of motion are inspected, it is seen that the factor two difference needed to bring Newtonian gravitation into harmony with observations can be attributed to a photon's gravitational to inertial mass ratio. This leads us directly to question the validity of the equivalence principle. This finding, we believe, demonstrates or hints to a much deeper reality that the gravitational and inertial mass, may -- after all; not be equal as we have come to strongly believe. This rather disturbing (perhaps exciting) conclusion, if correct; may direct us to closely re-examine the validity of Einstein's central tenant -- the Equivalence Principle, which stands as the strong foundational basis of his beautiful and celebrated General Theory of Relativity (GTR).

Comments: 17 Pages. Significant improvements made. Paper is in its final form before it is reviewed.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 23 Nov 2011
[v2] 2012-04-20 03:50:03
[v3] 2012-04-23 01:46:03

Unique-IP document downloads: 129 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus