Einstein’s 1911 Approach to Gravitational Redshift: From Nothing to Too Much

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

In 1911, Einstein revisited his earlier application of the equivalence principle to gravitational phenomena, deriving simple expressions for gravitational redshift, time dilation, and light deflection. In this paper, I critically examine the logical structure of Einstein’s 1911 derivation of the gravitational redshift (and time dilation) and argue that it contains an internal inconsistency that gives rise to an infinite regress paradox. Specifically, the derivation implies that the presence of a finite gravitational redshift necessitates its doubling–and so on ad infinitum–when the result is reintroduced into the same reasoning. I reconstruct Einstein’s argument step by step, highlight the source of the paradox, and discuss its implications for the logical coherence of the heuristic method underlying his early gravitational reasoning. Although general relativity later provided a rigorous mathematical formulation for gravitational redshift and time dilation, I contend that this paradox should not be dismissed as historically irrelevant. Instead, it exposes conceptual tensions at the foundations of Einstein’s heuristic approach and offers insight into the philosophical underpinnings of general relativity.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0